Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1993-08-03 Support Documentation Town Council Regular Session
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL ~~~~I~~ ~~~~I~~ T4~ES®AV, Al1GUS~' 3, 1993 7:30 ~.llfl. IN TGV C®UNCII_ CFIAnlISE13S f~EVISE® ADEN®A 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the July 6, 1993, and July 20, 1993, Vail Tawn Council Evening Meeting Minutes. 3. Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 16.04, and Sections 16.12.010, 16.20.010, 16.20.220, 16.22.010, 16.22.160, 16.26.010, 16.20.015, and 16.22.014 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to provide for the prohibition of neon signs and exterior gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and providing regulations regarding the review of all other gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and interior accent lighting; and providing details in regard thereto. 4. Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Paragraphs 16.32.030(F) and 16.32.040(A) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, to provide for the termination of any non-conforming sign five years after the effective date of any amendment to the Sign Code Ordinance, and setting forth details in regard thereto. 5. Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Section 15.02.020(A) and 15.02.020(G) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, to provide for the adoption of Chapter 31 of the 1993 Supplement of the Uniform Building Code and to provide for the adoption of the 1993 Edition of the National Electrical Code, and amending Section 15.02.030(C) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide for the adoption of an annual elevator inspection fee in the amount of $150.00 for each elevator, and an annual commercial dumbwaiter inspection fee in the amount of $75.00 for each dumbwaiter, and a will calf inspection fee in the amount of $3.00 per permit; and providing details in regard thereto. 6. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Title 12 - Streets and Sidewalks of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, by the addition of Chapter 12.16 -Revocable Right of VVay Permits, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail. 7. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1977, Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1978, and Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1986; an ordinance amending Special Development District No. 5 and providing for a development plan and its contents; permitted, conditional and accessory uses; development standards, recreation amenities tax, and other special provisions; and setting forth details in regard thereto. 8. Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance approving a Special Development District (known as SDD No. 28, The Valley, Phasell), and the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vai{ Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. 9. Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Title 17, Subdivisions, and providing for a requirement for proof of payment of property taxes; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail. 10. Adjournment. 'SINE NEXT VAII_ T®WN C®UNCII_ W®RK SESSIORN 1fl~i'I~~ SE ®N TOES®Alf, 0/10/93, fBEG1NNING AT 200 fP.fl~. IN T®!! C®UNCIL CiHAINBERS. J, o :n VAIL TOWN COUNCIL ~~ENI~~ SUES®AY, AIJGIJST 3, 1993 ~e30 PePfl. IIN T®V C®l1NCIIL CI~ANA~ERS ~EVBSE® EXPAN®E® AGEN®~ 7:30 P.M. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 7:35 P.M. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the July 6, 1993, and July 20, 1993, Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes. 7:40 P.M. 3. Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Shelly Mello Chapter 16.04, and Sections 16.12.010, 16.20.010, 16.20.220, 16.22.010, Tom Moorhead 16.22.160, 16.26.010, 16.20.015, and 16.22.014 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to provide for the prohibition of neon signs and exterior gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and providing regulations regarding the review of all other gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and interior accent lighting; and providing details in regard thereto. Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, on second reading. 8:10 P.M. 4. Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance Shelly Mello amending Paragraphs 16.32.030(F) and 16.32.040(A) of the Municipal Tom Moorhead Code of the Town of Vail, to provide for the termination of any non- conforming sign five years after the effective date of any amendment to the Sign Code Ordinance, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, on second reading. 8:30 P.M. 5. Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Gary Murrain Section 15.02.020(A} and 15.02.020(G) of the Municipal Code of the Town Tom Moorhead of Vail, to provide for the adoption of Chapter 31 of the 1993 Supplement of the Uniform Building Code and to provide for the adoption of the 1993 Edition of the National Electrical Code, and amending Section 15.02.030(C} of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide for the adoption of an anr9uat elevator inspection fee in the amount of $150.00 for each elevator, and an anneal commercial dumbwaiter inspection fee in the amount of $75.00 for each dumbwaiter, and a will call inspection fee in the amount of $3.00 per permit; and providing details in regard thereto. Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1993, on second reading. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1993, on second reading. 8:50 P.M. 6. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Tim Devlin Title 12 -Streets and Sidewalks of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, Tom Moorhead Vail by the addition of Chapter 12.16 -Revocable Right of UVay Permits, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail. Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1993, on second reading. Background Rationale: Council had directed staff to review the existing 1 ~ ~t ¦ Revocable Right of Way process and asked for an ordinance to be created that would serve both the private and public needs by providing funding on TOV land for improvements recommended by the TOV Streetscape Plan, the TOV Village Master Plan, and the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. Staff has addressed the Council's concerns about design/labor costs as sell as the question of who repairs improvements after unforeseen problems such as untility work, etc. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1993, on second reading. 9:00 P. M. 7. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance repealing Mike Mollica and reenacting Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1977, Ordinance No. 33, Series Tom Moorhead of 1978, and Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1986; an ordinance amending Special Development District No. 5 and providing for a development plan and its contents; permitted, conditional and accessory uses; development standards, recreation amenities tax, and other special provisions; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Simba Land Corporation/Walid Said. Action Reauested of Council: Approve/modify/deny Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, on first reading. Backaround Rationale: Please see the Community Development Department's memorandums to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) dated June 28, 1993 and July 26, 1993. On July 26, 1993, the PEC recommended approval (by a vote of 6-0) of the applicant's request for a major amendment to SDD #5. The PEC did allow for one (1) additional unit having a total GRFA of 1,602 square feet to be added to the project in the future. Staff Recommendation: Approval of Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, on first reading. 9:30 P.M. 8. Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance approving a Andy Knudtsen Special Development District (Known as SDD NO. 28, The Valley, Phase Tom Moorhead II) and the development plan in accordance with Chapter18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. Action Reauested of Council: Approve/modify/deny Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, on first reading. Backaround Rationale: This SDD includes two tracts of land in the Valley. On July 12, 1993, the PEC voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the SDD with conditions. Please see the attached minutes of the meeting which explain the vote in detail. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, on first reading. 9:45 P.M. 9. Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance Mike Mollica amending Title 17, Subdivisions, and providing for a requirement for proof Tom Moorhead of payment of property taxes; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail. Action Reauested of Council: Approve/modify/deny Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993, on first reading. Backaround Rationale: Please see the Community Development Department's memorandum to the PEC, dated July 26, 1993. The PEC, on Juty 26, 1993, recommended approval of the request by a vote of 4-0. Staff Recommendtion: Approve Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993, on first 2 a a reading. 10:00 P.M. 10. Adjournmen4. ~ 'PI;IE f~EXT MAIL '~®V'~N G®UNCIL @1V®RK SESSi®N ~lfILL ~E ®N TOES®A~l, I~/~0/93, BEGINNING AT 2:00 fP.M. IN T®?V C®UN~IL CFIAMBERS. THE ~®LL®iAIING VAIL ~®~APN C®UNCIL VV®RK SESSI®N WILL 13E ®N TOES®A~?, 1~/~7/93, BEGINNING AT 2°00 P.M. IN ~'®V C®UNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT V6~IL ~®UVN C®UNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING @~ILL BE ®N TOES®AV, ~/9~'/93, BEGINNING AT 7e30 P.M. IN T®V C®UNCIL CHAMBERS. C:IAGENDA.TCE 3 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL ~~~~I~~ TIES®A~, ~aUGUST 3, 1993 x:30 ~.RA. IN TOV COUNCIL CC~AII~SERS AGEN®A 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the July 6, 1993, and July 20, 1993, Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes. 3. Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 16.04, and Sections 16.12.010, 16.20.010, 16.20.220, 16.22.010, 16.22.160, 16.26.010, 16.20.015, and 16.22.014 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to provide for the prohibition of neon signs and exterior gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and providing regulations regarding the review of all other gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and interior accent lighting; and providing details in regard thereto. 4. Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Paragraphs 16.32.030(F) and 16.32.040(A) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, to provide for the termination of any non-conforming sign five years after the effective date of any amendment to the Sign Code Ordinance, and setting forth details in regard thereto. 5. Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Section 15.02.020 (A) and 15.02.020(G) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, to provide for the adoption of Chapter 31 of the 1993 Supplement of the Uniform Building Code and to provide for the adoption of the 1993 Edition of the National Electrical Code, and amending Section 15.02.030(C) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide for the adoption of an elevator inspection fee in the amount of $150.00 for each elevator, and a commercial dumbwaiter inspection fee in the amount of $75.00 for each dumbwaiter, and a will call inspection fee in the amount of $3.00 per permit; and providing details in regard thereto. 6. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Title 12 - Streets and Sidewalks of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, by the addition of Chapter 12.16 -Revocable Right of Way Permits, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail. 7. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1977, Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1978, and Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1986; an ordinance amending Special Development District No. 5 and providing for a development plan and its contents; permitted, conditional and accessory uses; development standards, recreation amenities tax, and other special provisions; and setting forth details in regard thereto. 8. Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance approving a Special Development District (known as SDD No. 28, The Valley, Phasell), and the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: 9. Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Title 17, Subdivisions, and providing for a requirement for proof of payment of property taxes; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail. 10. Adjournment. ~ TIE NEXT !/~aIL TOWN COUNCIL WO(~81C SESSION WILL SE ON TUES®e~V, 9/10/93, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.IV9. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAl1ABERS. THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 8h 7/93, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, 8/17/93, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. •••••s• C:VIGENDA.TC VAIL TOUVN COUNCIL ~~~~I~~ ~~~~I~ ~'iJ ~J®Pq ll`y' 6°'1i.Y ~y gY~IBJ/~~o ~7y p1,,~~p ®~p 1 .~0 ~.YB/tl. 8~ II ®tl ~®C/~71.s~N~ ~A-7p41tl1~~I~a7 ~A1f~AlV®~® P9G~tl•®Pq 7:30 P.M. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 7:35 P.M. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the July 6, 1993, and July 20, 1993, Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes. 7:40 P.M. 3. Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Shelly Mello Chapter 16.04, and Sections 16.12.010, 16.20.010, 16.20.220, 16.22.010, Tom Moorhead 16.22.160, 16.26.010, 16.20.015, and 16.22.014 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to provide for the prohibition of neon signs and exterior gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and providing regulations regarding the review of all other gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and interior accent lighting; and providing details in regard thereto. Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, on second reading. 8:10 P.M. 4. Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance Shelly Mello amending Paragraphs 16.32.030(F) and 16.32.040(A) of the Municipal Tom Moorhead Code of the Town of Vail, to provide for the termination of any non- conforming sign five years after the effective date of any amendment to the Sign Code Ordinance, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, on second reading. 8:30 P.M. 5. Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Gary Murrian Section i 5.02.020 (A) and 15.02.020(G) of the Municipal Code of the Town Tom Moorhead of Vail, to provide for the adoption of Chapter 31 of the 1993 Supplement of the Uniform Building Code and to provide for the adoption of the 1993 Edition of the National Electrical Code, and amending Section 15.02.030(C) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide for the adoption of an elevator inspection fee in the amount of $150.00 for each elevator, and a commercial dumbwaiter inspection fee in the amount of $75.00 for each dumbwaiter, and a will call inspection fee in the amount of $3.00 per permit; and providing details in regard thereto. Action Reauested of Council: Approveldeny/modify Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1993, on second reading. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1993, on second reading. 8:50 P.M. 6. Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Tim Devlin Title 12 -Streets and Sidewalks of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, Tom Moorhead Vail by the addition of Chapter 12.16 -Revocable Right of Way Permits, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail. Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1993, on second reading. Background Rationale: Council had directed staff to review the existing 1 , 0 Revocable Right of Way process and asked for an ordinance to be created that would serve both the private and public needs by providing funding on TOV land for improvements recommended by the TOV Streetscape Plan, the TOV Village Master Plan, and the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. Staff has addressed the Council's concerns about design/labor costs as sell as the question of who repairs improvements after unforeseen problems such as untility work, etc. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 6; Series of 1993, on second reading. 9:00 P.M. 7. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance repealing Mike Mollica and reenacting Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1977, Ordinance No. 33, Series Tom Moorhead of 1978, and Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1986; an ordinance amending Special Development District No. 5 and providing for a development plan and its contents; permitted, conditional and accessory uses; development standards, recreation amenities tax, and other special provisions; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Simba Land Corporation/Walid Said Action Reauested of Council: Approve/Modify/Deny Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, on first reading. Backaround Rationale:' Please see the Community Development Department's memorandums to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) dated June 28, 1993 and July 26, 1993. On July 26, 1993, the PEC recommended approval (by a vote of 6-0) of the applicant's request for a major amendment to SDD #5. The PEC did allow for one (1) additional unit having a total GRFA of 1,602 square feet to be added to the project in the future. Staff Recommendation: Approval of Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, on first reading. 9:30 P.M. 8. Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance approving a Andy Knudtsen Special Development District (Known as SDD NO. 28, The Valley, Phase Tom Moorhead II) and the development plan in accordance with Chapter18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. Action Requested of Council: Approve/Modify/Deny Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, on first reading. Backaround Rationale: This SDD includes two tracts of land in the Valley. On July 12, 1993, the PEC voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the SDD with conditions. Please see the attached minutes of the meeting which explain the vote in detail. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, on first reading. 9:45 P.M. 9. Item/Togic: Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance Mike Mollica amending Title 17, Subdivisions, and providing for a requirement for proof Tom Moorhead of payment of property taxes; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail. Action Reauested of Council: Approve/Modify/Deny Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993, on first reading. Backaround Rationale: Please see the Community Development Department's memorandum to the PEC, dated July 26, 1993. The PEC, on July 26, 1993, recommended approval of the request by a vote of 4-0. 2 0 ^ 1 , Staff Recommendtion: Approve of Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993, on first reading. 10:00 P.M. 10. Adjournment. THE (NEXT NAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUES®AN, 7/10/93, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TON COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE 6~OLLOWING NAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUES®AV, 8/17!93, BEGINNING AT 2:00 I.M. IN TON COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEXT NAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVEN{NG MEETING WILL BE ON TUES®~,N, 8/17/93, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. IN TON COUNCIL CHAMBERS. G:WGENDA.TCE 3 ' MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING JULY 6, 1993 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, July 6, 1993, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:50 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Gibson Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg Rob Levine Bob Buckley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant to the Town Manager Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Item No. 1 on the agenda was the presentation of the Chuck Anderson Youth Awards. Michael Johnston and Ernest Medina, Jr. were this year's recipients. Ernest Medina was unable to attend this presentation. Mayor Osterfoss stated she was honored to present these awards to Michael and to Ernest, in his absence. Bob Buckley commented briefly on his association with Michael and expressed his pride in Michael's accomplishments and positive influence on other Vail youth. Michael thanked Council and residents for their support. It was suggested the Chuck Anderson Youth Award presentations be held during school graduation time in the future when parents and grandparents would be more available to attend this important presentation. Item No. 2 was Citizen Participation of which there was none. Item No. 3 was a Consent Agenda consisting of one item: Approval of the minutes of the June 1, 1993, and June 15, 1993, evening meetings. Merv Lapin moved to approve the Consent Agenda, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 4 was an open community opinion forum regarding the proposed Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center (VVP&CC). Caroline Tremblay recapped the project, explaining Vail had been studying the feasibility of building a performance and conference center for the past three years. Based on the response to the project from many meetings and numerous presentations, she advised a plan had been developed to finance the construction and annual operating costs of the building through a combination of taxes on hotels, restaurants, and bars, as well as private contributions. Backers of the center planned to ask voters fora 0.9% sales tax on restaurants and bars and a 1.8% sales tax on lodging. If approved, that plan would bring taxes on Vail lodges to 9.8% and restaurants to 8.9%. She said the supporters were hoping that TOV was planning to commit up to $1,000,000.00 toward this project. She also expressed that she and wanted the community to come forward to voice their opinions about the Center to determine the level of community support before pledging such a significant amount of money. Vail residents and business owners generally said they liked the idea of a performance and conference center, but had a number of questions about the two proposed tax increases to pay for it. Those speaking primarily in favor of the Center included Harry Frampton, Kay Chester, Peter Vavra, Flo Steinberg, Sybil Navas, Colleen McCarthy, Diana Donovan, Pepi Gramshammer, Hermann Staufer, Jan Strauch, and Joe Macy. They felt there was a need for a Center for winter performances, that a Center would add great dimension to the community and would increase business during Vail's off-season, as well as be a long term economic value to the community. Merv Lapin asked Joe Macy, representing Vail Associates, Inc. (VA) if VA would consider adding taxes onto their facilities to contribute toward the Center. Mr. Macy said VA had not discussed that. Paul Rondeau stated he wanted more visual aids to differentiate the two different entities (performance and/or conference center), and to show plus and minus scales of experiences with performance and conference centers in other communities. He felt development of auser-friendly view of the proposed funding was necessary to simplify explanations of the funding proposal, and felt a specific point should be set to end spending if cost estimates began to overrun. His primary emphasis was about informing voters. Vail 1 resident Cynthia Steitz was opposed to the plan. Paul Johnston was opposed to a bed tax, ' but not to private funding. Caroline Tremblay briefly addressed funding alternatives, noting the importance of private donations. She indicated the performance side of the Center would not happen without private funding. She asked Council for a resolution substantiating Council's support. After individual Council member input about the Center, Mayor Osterfoss observed there was Council support for the project, and it appeared sensible for this Council to recommend support to future Councils. Rob Levine moved that Council prepare a resolution expressing Council's enthusiastic support for the VVP&CC as presented at this meeting and as it goes to the polls in November, 1993. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Bob Buckley expressed concern about voting on this without completion of the feasibility/marketing study. Rob Levine amended his motion to indicate the resolution would indicate Council's enthusiastic support for the VVP&CC based on encouraging results of the VVP&CC feasibility study. Tom Steinberg amended his second. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 5 was an overview final presentation on the 1993 Community Survey. Caroline Fisher noted the Community Survey process had been started in March, 1993. Chris Cares of Rosall, Remmen and Cares, said they had summarized much of the information graphically so the results could be seen as well as read about. He felt it was important to point out that this survey was extrapolated on community surveys conducted in the past. He advised, as a result of the focus groups, a number of questions had been changed from past survey questions, but he still felt the questions were well standardized and new issues had been . addressed as requested by Council. A summary of the results, dated July 1, 1993, of the Town of Vail Community Survey was distributed. The summary contained a brief synopsis of each major topic addressed on the survey along with appropriate qualitative input from respondents' comments on the survey and focus group input. Also included was a copy of the survey form that was used with question results summarized. An overview of the results of two focus groups conducted by Nolan Rosall in late June was also included. Nolan Rosall had conducted two groups prior to fielding the survey. In addition to the mailed survey distributed to residents of the Town, second home owners, merchants, and box holders, a telephone followup interview was conducted with a sampling of 100 households. The purpose of the followup was to elaborate on and verify the findings of the mailback survey. An evaluation of the results showed there was virtually no difference in the response patterns on the two surveys; therefore, the results had been merged and were st~m*rarized together on the survey form distributed at this meeting. Together, the sample consisted of 1,043 interviews, 943 obtained by mail and 100 conducted over the telephone. Mr. Cares reviewed charts via overhead projector which showed the summary of ratings and priority placement on the importance of issues including water quality protection, traffic congestion remedies, prohibition of smoking in public places, growth/density controls, acquisition of open space to preserve sensitive areas, air quality protection, acquisition of open space for recreational activities, provision of affordable housing opportunities, expansion of tourism opportunities/facilities in summer/fall, expansion of year around cultural programs, expanded "regional" governmental authority, economic development/job creation, and expansion of tourism opportunities in the winter; ratings of conditions including street disrepair, inadequate off-site parking, unsafe walking routes, speeding or reckless automobiles, inadequate street lighting, animals, inadequate enforcement of parking regulations, lack of recreational facilities, pollution from road dust and woodsmoke, signage, snow removal from walkways, trash litter and abandoned vehicles, snow removal from roads, neighborhood noise, and crimes/sense of security; ratings on quality of general services including snow removaUsanding of streets, maintenance of park areas, municipal court services, snow removaUsanding of sidewalks/stairways, finance cashier window, street lighting, sales tax and business license services, street sweeping, and street repair and maintenance; a rating of the quality of the bus system; a rating of the quality of the Community Development Department, Police Department, Library, Fire Department, Administrative/Management functions, and performance of commissions and elected/appointed officials. It was noted a series of questions were asked regarding respondents' understanding of and support for Amendment 1. Mr, Cares indicated one of the questions noted Amendment 1 limited total annual revenue growth to a formula which was dominated by the Boulder/Denver Consumer Price Index, and mountain communities such as Vail received much of their revenue from tourism, which was largely unrelated to that index. In order for Vail to utilize all the annual revenue increases it normally received, Amendment 1 would require voter approval on an annual basis. Respondents were asked if they would be inclined to vote for a measure which would allow the Town of Vail to keep all revenue received as long as the following aspects of Amendment 1 continued to be in force: All tax rate increases or new taxes must be 2 ,y}-: Q approved by voters; all new municipal debt must be approved by voters; any property tax mill levy rate increase must be approved by voters; and all election controls remained in place. Mr. Cares said there was a lot of support for this approach. In general, however, the survey indicated respondents wanted more information about Amendment 1. Merv Lapin asked why the Amendment 1 question was asked. Caroline said the intent of that question was to get feedback from voters on what they were t~~n~ng. Merv said he was specifically asking about the aspect concerning tailoring the amendment for local purposes. Caroline said she thought there was sentiment all around in the community that TOV might be able to pass something locally at some point which would allow for some provisions for communities like TOV. Tom Steinberg explained it would have to go to a state vote to give special rights on a local level. If it came within a couple of votes in the legislature of passing, there was a possibility it might get through next year, according to Sam Mamet of CML, to allow TOV the vote on changes in provisions. There was some specific discussion about some of the issues on the survey, such as road conditions and affordable housing. Mr. Cares felt, as TOV goes through its budgeting process, there was a need for specific kinds of analysis, and that was really how the full benefit of this program would be obtained. Jim Gibson stated it was possible for a community to vote itself out of Amendment 1, and asked Mr. Cares what he thought would happen if that were on the ballot. Mr. Cares, noting his comments would be pure speculation on his part, felt there was a need for more discussion and a falling out period before TOV should try that. Clearly, people calling for more information and addressing issues of confusion suggested we can't move too quickly on overly aggressive programs. Mr. Cares also felt there would be a lot of clutter with these kind of issues and issues resulting from Amendment 1 that had to be placed on the ballot, so it was hard to get specific understanding. Jim Gibson noted there were far more comments against Amendment 1 than there were in favor of it. He asked Mr. Cares if that was how he saw it - a preponderance opposed to it as to those for it. Mr. Cares said yes, both in the survey results and focus groups. He said there was a lot of feeling that this particular state law did not work well in this kind of community and Council should be looking at other alternatives pretty aggressively. Caroline added it was expressed in each of the focus groups that there was an openness to looking at other options. People wanted to know what other options might be and were hesitant to commit to anything. The majority of the people wanted to know what Council was thinking in this area. There was brief further discussion about particulars regarding opting out of Amendment 1. Item No. 6 was Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 16.04, and Sections 16.12.010,16.20.010, 16.20.220,16.22.010,16.22.160,16.26.010, 16.20.015, and 16.22.014 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to provide for the prohibition of neon signs and exterior gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and providing regulations regarding the review of all other gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and intenlor accent lighting; and providing details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Merv Lapin moved to table Ordinance No. 5, Sen-ies of 1993, second reading, until July 20, 1993, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 7 was Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Paragraphs 16.32.030(F} and 16.32.040(A) of the 1Vlunicipal Code of the Town of Vail, to provide for the termination of any non-conforming sign five years after the effective date of any amendment to the Sign Code Ordinance, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Merv Lapin moved to table Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, first reading, until July 20, 1993, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 8 was Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Title 12 -Streets and Sidewalks of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, by the addition of Chapter 12.16 -Revocable Right of V~Iay Permits, and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicant was the Town of Vail. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Menu Lapin moved to table Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, first reading, until July 20, 1993, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 9 was Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Section 15.42.020(A} and 15.02.020(G) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, to provide for the adoption of Chapter 31 of the 1993 Supplement of the Uniform Building Code and to provide for the adoption of the 1993 Edition of the National Electrical Code, and amending Section 15.02.030(C) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide for the adoption of an elevator inspection .fee in the amount of $150.00 for each elevator, and a commercial dumbwaiter inspection fee in the amount of $75.00 for each dumbwaiter, and a will call 3 inspection fee in the amount of $3.00 per permit; and providing details in regard thereto. ' Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1993, on first reading, with direction to staff to clarify that the elevator and dumbwaiter inspection fees were annual, not per inspection. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Item No. 10 was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1977, Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1978, and Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1986; an ordinance amending Special Development District (SDD) No. 5 and providing for a development plan and its contents; permitted, conditional and accessory uses; development standards, recreation amenities tax, and other special provisions; and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicant was Walid Said, Simba Land Corporation. Bob Buckley stepped down due to conflict of interest. Tim Devlin explained this ordinance was a request for a major amendment to SDD No. 5 and would supersede all previous ordinances and amendments that were presently in place for SDD No. 5. This ordinance would allow for the development of the remaining phase of the Simba Run SDD. The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) recommended approval of the applicant's request for a major amendment to SDD No. 5, and allowed for one (1) additional unit with total GRFA of 1602 square feet to be added to the project in the future. The project introduction, description of the request, zoning analysis, criteria to be used in evaluating this proposal, site plans and architectural drawings prepared by Morter Architects, correspondence from consulting geologist Nicholas Lampiris, and letters of opposition to the project from Frank N. Clark, James Stress, and Maria I. Bloniarz, owners of units at Simba Run, were part of the Community Development Department (CDD) memo to the PEC dated June 28, 1993. The CDD staff believed the proposed project, substantially complied with the nine (9) SDD review criteria and recommended approval of the project with five (5) conditions of approval as detailed in the above referenced CDD memo to the PEC. At the time the CDD's recommendation went to the PEC, the applicant had been in agreement with the recommendation and conditions of approval. However, Tim said the applicant now wanted to address Council about condition of approval number four which would require him to permanently restrict the four (4) employee housing units (EHUs) in this phase of the project as Type III EHUs, according to TOV's adopted housing ordinance. There were presently six (6) EHUs already in existence, and those original six (6) EHUs had twenty year limited terms as EHUs. The twenty year terms were due to expire in 2003. Jim Morter, architect for the proposed project, stated this ordinance was an amendment to an approved SDD. He briefly discussed points of the originally approved SDD and noted the proposed project now consisted of 19 units instead of the 44 that were approved and had building permits. Mr. Morter also stated that the present proposed GRFA was 34,800 square feet instead of a possible 43,600 square feet, more parking than required was planned, and the required ten (10) EHUs were being provided. Mr. Morter noted there were two ordinances and a letter of agreement which addressed the six (6) existing EHUs. Each of the ordinances limited the duration of the six (6) existing EHUs to twenty (20) years. Mr. Morter stated that the condition of approval requiring permanent restriction of the four (4) new EHUs had slipped by him the first time he saw the CDD staff memo to the PEC on the day of the PEC meeting. The applicant wanted all ten (10) EHUs limited to twenty (20) years. Merv Lapin stated he wanted all ten (10) units permanently restricted as Type III EHUs. Tom Steinberg agreed. Merv stated he thought Mr. Morter would find this Council fairly adamant about EHU requirements. There was some discussion about other projects which had EHU terms which had now expired, and many of those units were now going to non- employee use. Mayor Osterfoss stated there were very few options available for building of affordable housing, and felt Mr. Morter was aware of that from his own experience. As a result, the need to permanently deed restrict all available EHUs had become a very consistent theme. She asked Larry Eskwith for input on changing restrictions on EHUs that had already been given twenty year limitations. Larry Eskwith indicated that since the applicant had asked this SDD be amended, the applicant opened their situation up to the suggestion of restricting the older EHUs for perpetuity as well. Mr. Morter pointed out, on behalf of his owners, that most of the units currently being used as EHUs within the existing buildings were luxury condominiums, two of which were empty because there were not enough employees in Simba Run to fill them. He argued strongly against deeding those six (6} units as permanently restricted Type III EHUs. Mayor Osterfoss did not think TOV had ever said these could only be EHUs for one's own employees. There was a need for affordable housing throughout the community, and she asked the applicant if he could rent these units to other than their own employees. Tim 4 a e Devlin pointed out that Section 9(B) of Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993 stated, "A minimum of ten (10) employee dwelling units shall be provided to be leased to employees of Vail Run or to permanent residents employed in the Gore Valley." There was a difference of opinion as to whether or not what the applicant was charging for rental of his units was TOV's concern. Tim Devlin discussed the applicant's request to reserve the right to add one (1) additional free market unit at a future date. Tim said there was some dispute concerning what could be built on any area to the east of where the project was being proposed now, but Tim said staff was comfortable with the request, as was the PEC. He referred to a model available before Council. Mr. Morter said there was line going through the project that provided the boundary for new development, and said there was some question as to what could and could not be built on that line, but he said at some time in the future the applicant may want to come back for another amendment to the SDD to allow for one (1) more unit if development questions could be resolved. Mayor Osterfoss asked if there was any conflict in the site plan with the proposed Simba Run underpass. She recalled Mr. Morter said during the site visit there was not. Tim confirmed that. Tom Steinberg asked what the underlying zoning on this was. Kristan Pritz said the CDD staff did not know what the underlying zoning was. She said it was similar to Cascade Village. She referred to the zoning analysis on page 4 of CDD's June 28, 1993, memo to the PEC noting this parcel was annexed into the Town in December, 1975, and the original SDD was established in March, 1976, when zoning was created for it. She said as far as number of units and density, it would compare most closely to High Density Multi-Family (HDMF), but that was not an official underlying zone district. Tom asked, as presented, how this project exceeded HDMF. Kristan said they would have to go through the memo and figure that out, but she did not think it exceeded it in many ways. Merv Lapin referred to the Approved Development Standards listed in the CDD memo, and Kristan said those were the standards in the ordinance at that time. She said that was what had been used as a guideline, noting the project was in compliance with the land use plan designation, although there was no underlying zone district. There was some discussion about the project's site coverage, parking percentage for enclosed parking, landscaping, GRFA, number of units, and height. Jim Gibson said he agreed with Merv Lapin about permanently deed restricting EHUs, however, in this case felt only the four (4) EHUs proposed in Phase II should be permanently restricted. He felt the six (6) already in existence were part of an ordinance, and he felt it would be unfair to go back and change that. Jim Shearer agreed with that. He felt something already given should not be taken away. Rob Levine said that was his first thought, too, but then explained TOV was not looking to change this ordinance, the applicant was. Although it was new development, it was all one SDD, and when it was opened up by an amendment request, the whole SDD was open for examination. Rob was in favor of permanently deed restricting not only the four (4) EHUs being proposed now, but also the six (6) existing EHUs. Mayor Osterfoss asked if the number of units to be permanently restricted for a project of this size would be ten (10). It was asked if there was a formula for determining the number of EHUs required, but Kristan said it was difficult to calculate that without the underlying zone district, because that was what was used to gauge overage. The guidelines used did not work on this project. Mr. Morter said his client acquired this property with certain understanding, i.e. the ordinances already established restricting the existing EHUs for twenty (20) years. The whole makeup of the proposed development was based on certain rules that were in place. Jim Gibson told Mr. Morter that Council was not trying to minimize his concerns, and felt it would discourage other people from coming forward to make improvements if they felt uncertain about Council's interpretations of past agreements. Jim Gibson said a previous Council in 1975 saw fit to pass an ordinance which gave twenty (20) year limitations on the six (6) existing EHUs at Simba Run, and he did not feel the current Council ought to change that. Frank Clark, owner of a unit at Simba Run, said he was present representing a very few of the other condo owners at Simba Run. He claimed most of the other owners at Simba Run did not even know about this proposed project, having never been apprised. Larry Eskwith stated he had reviewed the condominium declaration, and the expandable declarations proposed allowed for the development of a portion of ground into additional units which would then be brought into the condominium association. Larry did not think this developer needed the permission of either the association or any of the condominium owners. 5 Mr. Clark said they were led to believe there might be a third building added to the two existing buildings when they purchased this property, but had been told nothing about an easement or plans for separate townhouse units. He said that no one, not Mr. Said, the Association President, or the Manager for the Association, made information available to the condo owners in the existing two buildings. Mr. Clark said he happened to be in Vail by chance and was told about the proposed project by a painter working there. Mr. Clark said he called the President of the Homeowners' Association and was told by him that he had just found out about it. Mr. Clark said that was in May, 1993. He felt the people who own these condos should be aware of the proposed changes. He said he had read through the materials available on this issue for the first time tonight, and only that afternoon in the manager's office had he seen the proposed new buildings for the first time. He said this was a big change from what he and other owners might have expected, especially the access easement proposed. He said he had seen nothing in writing about the planned development and felt there were too many unanswered questions. He felt the issue should be tabled until all the condo owners were notified and had proper time in which to respond. Mayor Osterfoss said, as Larry Eskwith had tried to explain earlier, TOV did not involve itself in internal condominium association regulations. Mr. Clark repeated his primary argument was that present unit owners had not been informed of the proposed project and had not had suitable time to respond. Mr. Clark said they planned to have attorneys look into this situation for them. Mayor Osterfoss indicated that might be an appropriate course of action, but that was not the issue at hand at this time. There was further discussion and explanation by Larry Eskwith about expandable condominium declarations. He also indicated there was a reservation by the declarant to the developer of an access easement across the condominium project. Larry said that easement was reserved virtually anywhere on the condominium project. Larry felt Mr. Clark may have a right to bring an action, but Larry did not feel TOV could be a judge here to make a determination whether or not in some way the developer misrepresented something to Mr. Clark. What Mr. Clark said they would like was time to make everyone involved aware of this so they could have a chance to go over this more carefully and give their input. Mr. Morter said he did not know why the building manager had not heard about this. Mr. Morter said he was required by TOV to notify the condominium association as well as neighbors when a projects was submitted for review. Mr. Morter suggested if Mr. Clark was not notified, the matter should be taken up with the building management, not Council, because Mr. Morter said they did make required notifications. Kristan Pritz said the letters of notification went out April 22, 1993. Mr. Morter advised that TOV also published notification information in the paper. Tom Steinberg questioned rockfall hazard at the proposed site. Mr. Morter advised there had been communication with Nicholas Lampiris, Consulting Geologist, and Mr. Morter said he had a letter from Mr. Lampiris stating he was totally satisfied with Morter Architect's solutions to rockfall hazard concerns. Tom Steinberg asked Larry Eskwith what TOV's liability was for physical damage to the garages, cars, and possessions because Mr. Lampiris' June 18, 1993, letter stated although he was not concerned that damage could occur to living quarters, some of the garages still remained unprotected. Tom wanted to know if TOV would be liable because all the property was not being protected. Larry Eskwith did not feel TOV had liability, but suggested Mr. Lampiris be asked for clarification. Larry felt because of governmental immunity statues TOV was probably protected. Tom Steinberg suggested Mr. Morter ask Mr. Lampiris what he would recommend to totally solve the berm breach problem. Mr. Morter felt the problem was solved, but Larry Eskwith agreed with Tom about the garages. Tom felt the people who did not know their garages might be hit by rocks should be notified. Tom felt this potentially dangerous situation should be publicized in some way to buyers. Mayor Osterfoss asked if the walkway issue had been addressed. Kristan said there was a walkway through the project, the question was whether it would be public or not. One of the conditions of approval stated that if the liability issues concerning the construction and maintenance of a public pedestrian path/easement through the property could be resolved with the Town Attorney, the applicant would construct a pedestrian path and grant a public access easement to the Town of Vail. Mr. Morter said the applicant was willing to discuss with the Town Attorney these liability issues as well as issues concerning the privacy of people who own the property and live there. Mayor Osterfoss said if an underpass was put in that area that was both pedestrian and vehicular, it would be designed to draw people to its use, so it would make sense that there be a walkway connected with it. Tom Steinberg 6 n said a walkway for public use was very reasonable, particularly when considering access immediately onto the interstate from the proposed project. Mr. Morter agreed that was reasonable, but it was equally reasonable for the owner not to assume that liability. He felt these were points yet to be negotiated. Mayor Osterfoss felt there should be additional discussion of this issue thinking it would be good to try to work it out now instead of setting it aside as a future negotiation. Merv Lapin felt that was primarily a legal matter that could be worked out between now and second reading. After further discussion, Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, on first reading with the five (5) conditions of approval as stated in the June 28, 1993, CDD memo to the PEC with the change to condition #4 that the applicant agreed to permanently restrict ten (10) Type III EHUs. He further instructed staff to come to an agreement by second reading as to the possible access across the property and that the rockfall hazard concerns be fully solved. Rob Levine seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Tom Steinberg asked if this had gone to the Design Review Board (DRB) yet. Tim Devlin advised it would be going to a DRB Work Session the next day. He added that Greg Hall wanted a drainage easement across the property. Tom Steinberg encouraged the DRB to "overdo" the landscaping. Merv Lapin added these to his motion. Rob Levine asked Larry Eskwith if he was comfortable with the notification process that took place. Larry said he would have to talk in more detail to staff about the notification process, and if there was a problem, there would have to be a renotification and another hearing. Rob Levine asked if that would cause a problem passing this ordinance on first reading. Larry Eskwith said if Council passed it on first reading and there was an invalidity in the notification, he thought it would have to go back to the PEC. He said this was a little different because the developer kept the right to develop additional units on a specific piece of property. That was incorporated into the condo declaration that was recognized by whoever brought that property that that was going to happen at some point in the future. Larry said that was fairly common procedure. Larry said he was concerned and needed to review the notification process, and if the notification was for some reason inadequate, then the applicant would have to go back to the very beginning, through the PEC and back up to Council. Jim Gibson said he was going to oppose the motion. He did not agree with requiring permanent Type III EHU designation for all ten (10) units. Jim Shearer agreed with Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 4-2-1, Jim Gibson and Jim Shearer opposed, Bob Buckley abstaining. Bob Buckley then rejoined Council. Item No. 11 was an appeal of a Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) decision to not allow the removal of a dwelling unit in the A & D Building/286 Bridge Street/IAts A- D/Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing. The appellant was Vail Associates, Inc. represented by Jack Hunn. Merv Lapin moved to table this appeal at the appellant's request to July 20, 1993, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-1, Bob Buckley abstaining due to conflict of interest. There being no further business, a motion was made to adjourn to Executive Session regarding personnel matters was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned to Executive Session at 11:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto G:Ur11NSJUL6.93 7 E MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETIIVG JULY 20, 1993 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, July 20, 1993, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Jim Shearer Tom Steinberg (arrived at 8:30 P.M.) Rob Levine (arrived at 8:30 P.M. Bob Buckley TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Larry Grafel, Acting Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Blondie Vucich expressed concern about the increase of pet waste in public places and the difficulty with enforcing TOV's ordinance requiring pet owners to clean up and dispose of their an~m-al's waste. She introduced and demonstrated a "user-friendly" product called "Pet Pick-Ups". She explained this product provided an easy, sanitary, affordable, and environmentally responsible way for pet owners ~to pick up their pet's waste. She suggested placing these devices in public places to provide pet owners with an easy opportunity to clean up. She felt fines paid by individuals ticketed for choosing not to clean up after their pets would be one way to create a revenue source for TOV to pay for the devices on a long-term basis. Ms. Vucich noted the success of this product in Boulder, and indicated Eagle County Animal Control had express willingness to endorse use of the product. Ms. Vucich advised she would supply further information to Larry Grafel for Todd Oppenheimer's review. Item No. 2 was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1977, Ordinance No. 33, Series of 1978, and Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1986; an ordinance amending Special Development District No. 5 and providing for a development plan and its contents; permitted, conditional and accessory uses; development standards, recreation amenities tax, and other special provisions; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. After brief discussion, Merv Lapin moved to rescind action taken on Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, on first reading. Bob Buckley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 4-0. Merv Lapin then moved to refer Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993 back to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) for reconsideration. Bob Buckley seconded the motion. A vote was taken and that motion also passed unanimously, 4-0. Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 16.04, and Sections 16.12.010,16.20.010,16.20.220,16.22.010,16.22.160, 16.26.010, 16.20.015, and 16.22.014 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to provide for the prohibition of neon signs and exterior gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and providing regulations regarding the review of all other gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs, and interior accent lighting; and providing details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Kristan Pritz requested Council table this ordinance to August 3, 1993. Merv Lapin moved to table Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1993, second reading, to August 3, 1993. Bob Buckley seconded the motion. After brief discussion, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 4-0. Item No. 4 was Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Paragraphs 16.32.030(F) and 16.32.040(A) of the Municipal Cade of the Town of Vail, to provide for the termination of any non-conforming sign five years after the effective date of any amendment to the Sign Code Ordinance, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Kristan Pritz requested Council table this ordinance until August 3, 1993. Merv Lapin moved to table Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1993, to August 3, 1993, with a second from Bob Buckley. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 4-0. 1 Item No. 5 was Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Title 12 -Streets and Sidewalks of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, by the addition of V Chapter 12.16 -Revocable Right of Way Permits, and setting forth details in regard thereto. The applicant was the Town of Vail. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Kristan Pritz noted Council had reviewed this item at a Work Session several weeks ago, and there were no major changes to the ordinance since then. She noted the right of way permit fee amounts referred to in the ordinance had been left blank. She said standard revocable right of way permits, were now part of almost every residential project involving landscaping that goes from the property line out to the edge of pavement. She said that this type of landscaping was encouraged. Kristan suggested there not be a fee for that type of revocable right of way permit, but Council might want to consider a fee for permits involving major streetscape improvements that would encroach on Town land. Kristan referred to Section D(1) of the ordinance, and advised that staff was working with the Mill Creek Court representatives on this ordinance, and, at the Work Session, they had indicated that they felt design and labor costs should also be included in the total project cost that would be amortized. Then on ordinance Section D(2), she noted the reference should be to paragraph D, not paragraph C. Jim Lamont stated he felt this ordinance was a major step forward in getting the private sector to participate with the public in making streetscape improvements that conform to the Streetscape Master Plan, and he urged Council to consider including design and, particularly, labor costs in the approval of this ordinance because if these costs were included on a case by case basis, this approach gave protection to the government because there was an understanding both from the government and private side as to what legitimate design and labor costs were. Merv Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1993, on first reading, with ordinance Section B(4) concerning right of way permit fees completed to read NONE. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Osterfoss asked Kristan what her response was to Mr. Lamont's suggestion. Kristan said the design and labor costs could add up. She said staff had not changed the ordinance to include design and labor costs as it was Council's desire to try to cap the total amortization cost, and she suggested alternate wording for Section D(1) that would supply some flexibility, "The amortization schedule shall be based on the hard costs of the improvement and, on a case by case basis, design and/or labor costs may be included in the total amortized project costs." She said there may be some projects where that cost would really be quite great. But Merv said it would always become an issue if we wanted to tear out the project. Kristan stated it was staff opinion that most of the improvements that would be allowed through this ordinance would not be torn out because TOV had a Town Engineer, a Community Development Department, a Planning and Environmental Commission, and a Council who all had an idea of what they wanted to see in the future. She stated the TOV has master plans which were used to make decisions, and Kristan felt it would be very unlikely, short of the unforeseeable, that these improvements would be removed. It was suggested that a clause covering TOV's liability should be included in the case of an emergency. Merv Lapin asked that "emergency" be specifically defined. Mr. Lamont said he could not speak for the particular costs, but said he felt that the ordinance was dealing with the reassurance to property owners making major investments. He felt there should be some degree of flexibility when and if emergency situations occur. He thought that when a property owner began to construct a project, the labor costs, depending on the sophistication of the project, were a major concern. Merv remained concerned as to whether TOV was responsible for repairing damage. Mayor Osterfoss asked if the utility companies had responsibility for repairing damaged improvements. Kristan said staff would look at this more closely for second reading, but noted Section D(2) of the ordinance stated in part, "Should the improvement be destroyed or eliminated for any reason other than the Town of Vail's revocation of the permit which (was) described below, the Town shall not be liable for any payment to the permittee. She felt the intent there was that if there was an Act of God or major emergency with the utilities the Town would not be liable for improvements. Mayor Osterfoss asked, if there was an emergency and landscaping or repairs had to be made, was it clear in the ordinance that that was not a homeowner's cost. Tom Moorhead advised that normally it would be at their cost. Mayor Osterfoss said she felt that needed to be addressed, and Tom was directed to consider situations involving emergencies with utilities and incorporate appropriate language into the ordinance for second reading. Again, Mr. Lamont said, on a case by case basis, if it was known there was a utility in a project area, that could be part of the contract agreement if it appeared to be a potential problem. 2 A ~ t 9 Before a vote was taken, there was discussion about a design cost limit. Jim Shearer felt a specific amount should be stated. He suggested up to $1,000. Kristan said $1,000 would be used up very quickly. Jim Shearer said he was looking at it in terms of either having no funds or having at least $1,000. Mayor Osterfoss noted, historically, once specific amounts have been incorporated into an ordinance, a review of those amounts was needed every few years. Mr. Lamont felt, in any event, preferred to see Council in the position of having to make the final determination on the amount they would award in a particular negotiating agreement. It was conceivable to Mr. Lamont that some of the projects outlined in the Streetscape Plan and other Plans that could happen in the future could be major public/ private partnerships. He felt this ordinance provided the foundation for that discussion to take place. Bob Buckley agreed with Jim Shearer, but he did not want to discourage people from participation, and thought putting a limitation on design costs was a major disincentive. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 4-0. Item No. 6 was Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993, a resolution establishing support of the Vail Town Council for Plan "C" of the Vail Valley Performance and Conference Center, submitting at the Regular Municipal Election a new tax on restaurants and bars and lodgings, and expressing the intention of the Town of Vail to commit funds toward the construction of the Center. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Moorhead felt the resolution was straightforward and noted the language therein was not the exact language that would be considered for placement on the November, 1993, ballot. Rob Levine and Tom Steinberg arrived at 8:30 P.M. during discussion of this issue. After lengthy discussion concerning the amount of the revenue bonds TOV would issue consistent with the 0.9% tax on restaurants and bars and 1.8% tax on lodging which revenue would be dedicated to the construction, marketing, and operations of a performance and conference center, when the bonds should be issued, and possible shortfalls and projections, Council was reminded the primary point of this resolution at this time was to show Council's support for the project. Mr. Lamont stated he was pleased to see the depth and examination being given to this issue, but he asked Council to reserve judgement until the voice of the community was heard. Bob Buckley noted this project had been under study for three (3) years and felt it needed strong endorsement from Council at this time. Caroline Tremblay added that the reason such strong endorsement was needed was so that potential major donors could more effectively be approached. After further discussion, Rob Levine moved to approve Resolution No. 8, Series of 1993, with a change to the amount of revenues bonds TOV would issue to the specific amount of twelve million six hundred thousand dollars ($12,600,00.00), and with a change to the language in contingency item C to read, "The receipt of pledges of charitable contributions from private sources in an amount that is the difference between the total project cost and the amount of money raised by the above referenced tax plus Town of Vail's contribution." Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Merv Lapin said he was voting for the motion because he did not want to be perceived as being against the project. Mayor Osterfoss also asked that federal regulations be checked and Council be provided with any additional pertinent information as it became available. After brief discussion, a vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Bob Buckley announced that he had resigned from Vail Associates, Inc. effective July 12, 1993, and would not have a conflict of interest with the following agenda item. Item No. 7 was an appeal of a Plann;,,g and Environmental Commission (PEC) decision to not allow the removal of a dwelling unit in the A & D Building/286 Bridge Street/I.ots A- DBlock 5A, Vail Village First Filing. The appellant was Vail Associates, Inc. Mike Mollica summarized the Community Development Department (CDD) memo to the Plann;,,g and Environmental Commission (PEC) dated May 24,1993, including a description of the request, a zoning analysis, criteria and findings, a review of similar requests, and staffs recommendation. The description of the request within the above referenced memo noted that Barry Florescue, owner of the ADD Building was requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the elimination of a dwelling unit within the Commercial Core I zone district. Vail Associates Real Estate currently operates a real estate office, of approximately 575 square feet, on the ground floor of the A&D Building and was now interested in expanding their existing real estate office through the .conversion of a second floor residential condominium, of approximately 1,820 square feet, located on the second floor immediately above the existing real estate office. Because the existing area proposed to be converted to a professional ofI•ice was currently a three bedroom condominium, a conditional use permit would be required. Staff recommended denial of the requested conditional use permit to 3 r f eliminate the dwelling unit within the Commercial Core I zone district. The PEC had voted 4-1-1 to not allow the request. Staff felt that although the request had no impacts on six (6) of the seven (7) review criteria, Criteria F, concerning continuance of the various commercial, residential and public uses in Commercial Core I district so as to maintain existing character of the area, would be impacted in a negative way. Further, staff felt the elimination of a dwelling unit in the Village Core did not further the Vail Village Master Plan goals and the purpose of the Commercial Core I zone district. Greg Stutz, attorney representing VA, noted the initial request for a conditional use permit was made by VA. He noted there would be only one dwelling unit lost, and he pointed out that another real estate business, Coldwell Banker Timberline, was situated directly across the wall from it. In return for removing the one (1) unit out of residential use to become commercial, he suggested the mitigation of placing either clock-off unit or Mr. Florescue's dwelling unit into the short-term rental pool. He cited increased transfer tax revenues as a benefit of the residential to commercial conversion, and added the proposed new commercial area would be compatible with other commercial units in the area. Merv Lapin felt this request seemed to be in conflict with Andy Daly's desire to increase Vail's bed base. Kristan Pritz stated this trade off proposition was not part of the original proposal the PEC had heard and felt it should go back to the PEC. Mayor Osterfoss asked if Mr. Florescue understood the full details of a deed restriction on his unit. Ken Wilson asked for direction from Council before he returned to the PEC, because of what appeared to be a change in the request. After discussion by Bob Buckley concerning the personality and character of the Village, Merv Lapin moved to uphold the PEC decision to deny the request for a conditional use permit based on Criteria F of CDD's May 24, 1993 memo concerning continuance of the various commercial, residential and public uses in Commercial Core I district so as to maintain the existing character of the area. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Tom Steinberg referenced another part of the staff recommendation in the CDD's memo. Staff therein stated in part, "Should the PEC decide to approve this request, the staff would recommend... that the applicant be required to pay into the parking fund the required amount. Tom stated he felt the $8,000.00 per parking space requirement was grossly inadequate. A vote was then taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0. There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor > ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Dorianne S. Deto C:Uv11NJUL20.93 4 r~ i ®RDINANCE NO. 5 SERIES OF 1993 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16.04, AND SECTIONS 16.12.01®, 16.2®.01®, 16.20.055, 16.20.220, 16.22.010, 16.22.035, 16.22.160, 16.26.010, 16.20.015 AND 16.22.014 OF THE TOWN OF VAIL i1flUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROIi1BITION OF NEON SIGNS AND EXTERIOR GAS FILLED, ILLUMINATED AND FIBER OPTIC SIGNS, AND PROVIDING REGULATIONS REGARDING THE REVIEW OF ALL OTI'IER GAS FILLED, ILLUMINATED AND FIBER OPTIC SIGNS, AND INTERIOR ACCENT LIGHTING AND PROVIDING DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that signage has a significant impact on the visual quality and character of the Town; and WHEREAS, it is important to maintain the quality of the signage in order to maintain a resort market preserving the unique character of the Town and fostering the quality of the Town; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the proliferation of signs in the city would result in visual blight and unattractiveness and would convey an image that is inconsistent with the high quality resort environment; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that effective sign control has preserved and enhanced the visual character of other resort communities in Colorado and other states. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: Section 1 Chapter 16.04 is hereby amended by the addition of the following sections: Section 16.04.165 Neon n Sign - a sign in which a colorless, odoPless, primarily inept gaseous element known as neon Is (found and produces illumination. Section 16.04.115 Gas Fllled ~ SIQn ° a ' sign in which illuminating gas is heated to produce light. Section 15.04.116 Gas Fllled Tubing ° a tube in which illuminating gas is heated to produce Ilght. Section 15.04.125 Illuminated Sion - a sign emitting oP Deflecting a steady suffused or glowing Bight. Section 16.04.075 FibeP Optic ~ieY~-e~ Sian ° a sign o4 thin, transparent, homogeneous gibeP glass oP plastic that is enclosed by matePial of a OoweP index Pei=Daction and transmits thPOUghout its length through intePnaO reflections. 1 Section 16.04.126 Licthtinct, accent - "accent lighting" means a light source located within the interior of a building ti~rhose use ~S m vrhofe or is fn ';pert commercial. that illuminates a a-s~#aee display window and or merchandise by the means of spotlights, gas filled tubing or other similar features. Section 2 Section 16.12.010 - Paragraph C of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: C. Review and approval of the Design Review Board for signs exceeding 5 square feet, subdivision entrance signs, all sign programs, permitted gas filled sign, illuminated sign, fiber optic sign and accent lighting. Section 3 Section 16.20.220 -Paragraph B(1) and Section 16.22.160 -Paragraph B(1) of the Vail Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows: Section 16.20.220 -Paragraph B(1) -Size and Section 16.22.160 Paragraph B(1) -Size Any sign or signs attached to or applied to the inside surface of any exterior window will be limited to a coverage of 15% (fifteen percent) of the total window space. Further, with the exception of gas filled, illuminated, and fiber optic window signs, no sign or signs shall cover more than ten (10) square feet of any window space. Gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic window signs shall not cover more than three (3) square feet of any window space. Section 4 Section 16.20.220 - Paragraph D -Number and Section 16.22.160 Paragraph D -Number of the Vail Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows: Section 16.20.220 D -Number and Section 16.22.160 D -Number D. Each window frontage may contain sign or signs within the prescribed sign limits . for each frontage on a street or major pedestrian way with a maximum of two (2) signs per frontage. Not more than one (1) sign for each frontage shall be permitted to be an gas filled, illuminated or fiber optic window sign. Section 5 Section 16.20.220 F -Design and 16.22.160 F -Design of the Vail Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows: 2 0 F. -Design, - ~aBB gas filBed, illuminated, or fiber optic window signs shall be subject 4o review by the ®esign B~eview hoard. Section 6 Section 16.20.220 Paragraph I -Special Provisions of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of sub paragraph (4) to read as follows: I(4) - ~,n gas filBed, illuminated, or fiber optic window sign may be used to identify a business which has no other exterioP business identification sign. ®ne (1) square foot of sign shall be allowed per each fide lineal feet of frontage of the 6ndividual business oP organisation having its own exterioP public entrance in a single business use Or a multi- 4enant building with a maximum of three (3) square feet of sign allowed for a business with insufficient fPOntage. ~ maximum of ~0 sq. ft. shaBB be allowed for one (1) sign. A maximum of one (9) sign peP fPOntage, not to exceed a total of two (2) signs for the business shall be allowed. Section 7 Section 16.22.160 Paragraph I -Special Provisions of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of sub paragraph (2) to read as follows: I(2) An gas filBed, illuminated, oP fiber optic window sign may be used to identify a business which has no other exterior business identification sign. 2.5 square feet of sign shall be allowed peP each five (5) lineal feet of frontage of the individuaB business oP oPganigation having its own exterioP entrance in a single business use or amulti-tenant building, with a maximum of five (5) square feet of sign allowed for businesses with insufficient frontage. ~ maximum of ten (10) square feet shall be allowed foP one (1) sign. ~ maximum of one sign per frontage, not to exceed a totaB of two (2) signs for $he business shall be allowed. Section 8 Chapter 16.20 is hereby amended by the addition of Section 16.20.055 to read as follows: section X6.20.055 - has filBed, illuminated and fibeP optic signs. has filled, illuminated and fbeP optic signs shall be Pegulated by the following unless otherwise addressed within this title: l~. f~uPpose: 5~o identify particular types of services, pPOducts oP events9 3 e B. Location: Any sign located further than thirty-six (36) inches from the window pane and visible from a public right-of-way shall be subject to the approval of the Design Review Board pursuant to Chapter 16.16 of the Vail Municipal Code. C. Design: Subject to the approval of the Design Review Board. D. Size: All gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs between five (5) square feet and ten (10) square feet in size and further than thirty-six (36) inches from the window pane which are visible from the public way shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board pursuant to this section. E. Special Provisions: Gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs within the interior of the business and not considered to be a window sign which have a total accumulative square footage greater than ten (10) square feet in size and which can be seen from any public way within the Town shall be prohibited. Section 9 Chapter 16.22 is hereby amended by the addition of Section 16.22.035 to read as follows: Section 16.22.035 -Gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs. Gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs shall be regulated by the following unless otherwise addressed within this title: A. Purpose: To identify particular types of services, products or events; B. Location: Any sign located further than thirty-six (36) inches from the window pane and visible from a public right-of-way shall be subject to the approval of the Design Review Board pursuant to Chapter 16.16 of the Vail Municipal Code. C. Design: Subject to the approval of the Design Review Board. D. Siae: All gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs between five (5) square feet and ten (10) square feet in size and further than thirty-six (36) inches from 4 0 4 ' the window pane which are visible from the public way shall be reviewed by 4he ®esign review ®oard pursuant t0 this SeC$IOn. C. SpeciaB f~rovisionso has filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs within the interior of the business and not considered to be a window sign which have a tota8 accumula$ive square footage greater than $en (10) square fee$ in size and which can be seen from any public way within $he gown shalB be prohibited. Section 10 Section 16.26.010 of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of f~aragraph M to read as followso Section 16.26.01®~ Sara®raoh flA 1. ill neon signs. 2. III gas filled, illuminated, and fiber op$ic signs and rr~C~t lighting located on the exterior of any building or struc$ure. 3. has filled, illumina$ed, and fiber op$ic sign or signs within $he in$erior of the business and not considered to be a window sign which have a total accumulative square footage greater than ten (10) square feet in size and which can be seen from any public way within the 'own. Section 11 Chapter 16.20 is hereby amended by the addition of Section 16.20.015 to read as follows: Section 16.20.015 accent ~.igh$ing. accent lighting shalB be regulated by the following: Purpose. ~To illuminate display windows and/or merchandise; l5ocation. Subject to $he approval of the ®esign review ®oard pursuan$ to Chapter 16.16 of the VaiB Municipal Code. the ligh$ing source of accent Bighting shall not be visible from any public way as viewed from the exterior of the business and shall be located within the interior of the building. C. ®esign. Subject $o the approval of $he ®esign Preview Soard pursuant to Chap$er 16.16 of the bail il~unicipal Code. Section 12 Chapter 16.22 is hereby amended by the addition of Section 16.22.014 to read as follows: Section 16.22.014 accent Lighting. 5 r t Accent lighting shall be regulated by the following: A. Purpose. To illuminate display windows and/or merchandise; B. Location. Subject to the approval of the Design Review Board pursuant to Chapter 16.16 of the Vail Municipal Code. The lighting source of accent lighting shall not be visible from any public way as viewed from the exterior of the business and shall be located within the interior of the building. C. Design. Subject to the approval of the Design Review Board pursuant to Chapter 16.16 of the Vail Municipal Code. Section 13 Section 16.20.010 - Paragraph B of the Vail Municipal Code by the addition of sub paragraphs 22 and 23 is hereby amended to read as follows: 22. Accent Lighting 23. Gas filled, illuminated, and fiber optic signs Section 14 Section 16.20.010 - Paragraph C of the Vail Municipal Code by the addition of sub paragraphs 1(g) and 1(h) and 2(f) and 2(g) are hereby amended to read as follows: 1(g) -Accent Lighting 1(h) -Gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs 2(f) - Accent Lighting 2(g) -Gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs Section 15 Section 16.22.010 - Paragraph B of the Vail Municipal Code by the addition of sub paragraphs 18 and 19 are hereby amended to read as follows: 18. Accent Lighting 19. Gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs. Section 16 Section 16.22.010 - Paragraph C of the Vail Municipal Code by the addition of sub paragraphs 1(g) and 1(h) and 2(f) and 2(g) are hereby amended to read as follows: 1(g) Accent Lighting 1(h) Gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs 2(f) Accent Lighting 2(g) Gas filled, illuminated and fiber optic signs 6 e a ti Section 17 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 declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 18 The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 19 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail 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 proceedings 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. Section 20 All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 4th day of May, 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 3rd day of August, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk 7 q p ORDINANCE N®. 13 SERIES OF 1993 AN ORDINANCE AMEN®ING PARAGRAPHS 16.32.0300 AND 11;.32.040(A) OF THE I~IIINICIPAL OODE OF `THE TOWN OF VAIL, TO PROMDE FOR THE TERMINATION OF ANY NON-CONFORAAINC~ SIGN FIVE YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE ®F ANY A~iIENDAAENT TO THE SIGN CODE ORDINANCE, AN® SETTING FORTH ®ETAILS IN REGARD THERE3'O. 1AIHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Vail has enacted an amendment to the Sign Code regulating neon and gas lit signs; and lNHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to amend the Sign Code to require that non- conforming neon and gas lit signs shall terminate five (5) years after the effective date of the amendment. NONU, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: 1. Paragraph 16.32.030(F) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended to read as follows: By amortization the right to continue to use oroperate anon-conforming sign shall terminate five (5) years after the effective date of the ordinance codified in the title or any amendment thereto or the annexation of the area in which the sign is located to the Town of Vail. 2. Paragraph 16.32.040(A) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended to read as follows: A) Within a reasonable time after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title, any amendment thereto, or the effective date of the annexation of any area to the Town, the Sign Code administrator shall compile a list of the existing non-conforming signs and present said list to the Design Review Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting. The Design Review Board may affirm, add to, or delete signs from the list as presented by the Sign Code administrator. After the review of the list of non-conforming l signs by the Design Review Board, the Sign Code administrator shall send written notice by regular mail, postage prepaid, to the owner of the non- conforming sign (if know to the Sign Code administrator) and to the owner of property, business interest or enterprise advertised or identified by the non-conforming sign. Within fifteen (15) days from the date of said notice, ~I 1 t the owner of the sign or the property, business interest or enterprise advertised or identified by the non-conforming sign may appeal the classification of the sign as non-conforming to the Design Review Board and the Town Council, or he may file an application for a variance. The date of the notice shall be deemed to be the date of its mailing. The Design Review Board may recommend to the Town Council that the application for a variance be granted, and the Town Counci( may approve the application if it is found that the sign substantially conforms to this title, that it does not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood, and the same would be in the public's interest. If the variance is granted, the sign may continue in existence subject to the provisions of this title, and subject to any conditions that may be made on the approval by the Town Council. If the application is denied, the right to continue anon-conforming sign shall terminate in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. 3. 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 declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 4. The Town Counci! hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 5. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail 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 proceedings 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. 6. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such iriconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore 2 e 'a repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this _ day of , 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the _ day of , 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk C:\ORD93.13 3 d ORDINANCE NO. 95 SERIES OF 9993 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15.02.020(A) AND 95.02.020(6) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, TO PROVI®E FOR THE ADOPTION OF CHAPTER 39 OF THE 9993 SUPPLEMENT OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, AN® TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE 9993 EDITION OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, AND AMENDING SECTION 95.02.030(C) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADOPTION OF AN ANNUAL ELEVATOR INSPECTION FEE ON TIDE AMOUNT OF $150.00 FOR EACH ELEVATOR, AND AN ANNUAL COMMERCIAL DUMBWAITER INSPECTION FEE IN THE AMOUNT OF $75.00 FOR EACH ®UMBWAITER, AND A WILL CALL INSPECTION FEE IN THE AMOUNT OF $3.00 PER PERMITS A~I® PROVIDING DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Vail believes it will be a benefit to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens and visitors to the Town of Vail to provide for an annual commercial inspection of elevators and commercial dumbwaiters, and in order to provide for the cost of such inspection wishes to assess an annual fee in the amount of $150.00 for elevator inspections and $75.00 for commercial dumbwaiter inspections; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail believes it necessary to provide for the assessment of a will call inspection fee in the amount of $3.00 per permit to pay for building inspector call services; and WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Vail wishes to update the National Electrical Code by providing for the adoption of the 1993 Edition of Code. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: 1. Section 15.02.020(6) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended to read as follows: The National Electric Code, 1993 Edition and all appendix chapters thereof is hereby adopted by reference. The National Electric Code, 1993 Edition, is published by the National Fire Protection Association, Batterymarch Park, Quincy, Massachusetts 02269. 2. Section 15.02.030(C) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended to provide for the addition on. the Construction Fee Schedule for an annual elevator, escalator, and moving walkway inspection fee in the amount of $150.00 for each elevator, escalator, or moving walkway; to provide for the addition of an annual commercial dumbwaiter inspection fee in the amount of $75.00 for each dumbwaiter. 1 t. 3. Section 15.02.030(C) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is further amended to provide for the addition on the Construction Fee Schedule for a will call inspection fee in the amount of $3.00 for each permit. 4. Section 15.02.020(A) is hereby amended to read as fo{lows: The 1991 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, excepting Chapter 31, and all appendix chapters thereto, excepting Appendix Chapter 12 is hereby adopted by reference. Chapter 31 of the 1993 Supplement of the Uniform Building Code is hereby adopted. The Uniform Building Code, 1991 Edition and 1993 Edition is published by the International Conference of Building Officials, 5360 S. Workman Mill Road, Whittier, California 90601. 5. Section 15.02.030 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of paragraph D to read as follows: Section 3501(a), first paragraph, is hereby amended to read as follows: In Group R occupancies, wall and floor -ceiling assemblies separating dwelling units or guest rooms from A-1, A-2, A-2.1, and A-3 from each other and from public space such as interior corridors and service areas shall provide airborne sound insulation for walls and both airborne and impact sound insulation for floor - ceiling assemblies. 6. 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 declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. 7. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. 8. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail 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 proceedings 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 2 k e herein. 9. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 6th day of July, 9993, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 3rd day of August, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this 3rd day of August, 1993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk C:\OFD93.15 3 ~t' PUBLIC NOTICE To be published in the VAIL TRAIL July 9 and July 16, 1993 PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to COLORADO REVISED STATUES 31-16- 203, apublic hearing for the consideration of Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Section 15.02.020(A) and 15.02.020(G) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, to provide for the adoption of Chapter 31 of the 1993 Supplement of the Uniform Building Code and to provide for the adoption of the 1993 Edition of the National Electrical Code, and amending Section 15.02.030(C) of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to provide for the adoption of an annual elevator inspection fee in the amount of $150.00 for each elevatar, and an annual commercial dumbwaiter inspection fee in the amount of $75.00 for each dumwaiter, and a will call inspection fee in the amount of $3.00 per permit; and providing details in regard thereto, will be held on Tuesday, August 3, 1993, at the regular meeting of the Vail Town Council at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. The purpose of the primary codes being adopted is to regulate construction practices and fees within the Town of Vail, and the subject matter of the primary codes are regulations relating to construction practices and fees within the Town of Vail. The Uniform Building Code is published by the International Conference of Building Officials, 5360 South Workman Mill Road, Whittier, California 90601. The National Electric Code, 1993 Edition , is published by the National Fire Protection Association, Batterymarch Park, Quincy, Massachusetts 02269. Ordinance No. 15, Series of 1993, was published in full in THE VAIL TRAIL on Friday, July 9, 1993. Copies of codes considered for adoption by this Ordinance are on file in the office of the Town Clerk and are open to inspection. TOWN OF VAIL Holly L. McCutcheon Town Clerk C:\ORD93.15 4 ®R®19~~PlCE N®. 6 SERIES ®1= 1993 ®R®Il~~af~QyE ~~Ei~®ING TITHE 92 ~ STREETS AN® SI®EW~~.I~S ®F T~fC l~lk?N8CI1'~I~ C®®E ®F THE T®VV~I ®F VAIN, [3X THE ~®®ITI®~I ®F CI~APTER 12.16 -REV®CAI3LE RIGFIT ®F WAY PERIIAITS, SETTOI~G F®RT~I ®ETAILS IN REC~AR® THERET®. !A/HEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Vail (the "Town") believes it will benefit the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Town of Vail to regulate the placement of structures such as buildings, landscaping, and fences on public property such as street right-of- ways and sidewalks to assure public access to and safe use of the Town's property. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: I. Title 12 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of Chapter 12.16 to read as follows: CHAPTER 12.16 -REVOCABLE RIGHT OF UVAY PERMIT Section 12.16.010 -Revocable Riaht of Wav Permit Required A. No person shall erect or maintain any building, structure, stand, cart, fence, barrier, post, hedge or other obstruction or encroachment under or upon any street, alley, sidewalk or other public property without first obtaining a permit from the Community Development Department under this Section. B. An applicant for aright-of-way permit shall: 1. File a written application on forms furnished by the Community Development Department that include the following: the date, the name of the applicant, the location of the proposed encroachment or obstruction, the type of encroachment or obstruction, and such other information as the Community Development Department may deem necessary. 2. File a site plan showing the location of the encroachment and how it relates to the public right-of-way and where relevant a survey may be required. 3. fF6le evidence ®f adequate public liabfllt~/ insu~artce naming the T®wn as an additi®nal insured. din®r landscaping 1 encroachments, such as landscaping between the property line and the edge of asphalt on the right of way may be excluded from this requirement. 4. Pay a fee in the amount of $ None If an applicant's encroachment is subject to the terms of Paragraph D hereof, an additional fee of $ None shall be required. C. Before issuing a right of way permit under this Section, the Community Development Department shall consult with relevant Town departments which may include the Fire, Police, Public Works Departments, and all public utilities to determine whether the permit meets all the requirements of this Code and other ordinances of the Town. The Community Development Department shall issue each permit upon a finding that in view of the location or area proposed to be used and the type of encroachment or obstruction proposed to be carried on, the proposed encroachment or obstruction does not constitute a traffic hazard or destroy or impair the use of the right of way or land by the public or serves a purpose that can not otherwise be accomplished and is a temporary obstruction of the right of way. D. For any encroachment, obstruction, or other structure which is (a) recommended by the Town of Vail Streetscape Plan, (b) the Town of Vail Village Master Plan, or (c) the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan, or other plans which are a part of the Town's comprehensive plan, the following process shall be utilized for the termination of any revocable right of way permit for such improvement. 1. Prior to installation, the improvement shall be presented to the Town Council at a work session or regular Town Council meeting. The Town Council shall establish an amortization schedule providing for specific payments to the permittee upon the termination by the Town of the permit. In determining the maximum length of time for the amortization scheduled, the Town Council shall use the public interest as a guideline. However, in no event shall the amortization schedule extend for a period greater than eight (8) years. The amortization schedule shall be based on the hard costs of the improvement. Permittee may make application to include the design and/or labor costs in the amortization schedule. The costs shall be set after a review of the Town 2 Council. 2. Should the Town terminate any revocable right of way permit for any improvement set forth in this Paragraph D, the Town shall pay the permittee the funds provided therefore in the amortization schedule for the year in which the improvement is terminated. 3. in the extent the impr®dement is destr®yed ®r eliminated f®r any rasa®n ®r any cause ®ther than the '~®wn ®f bail's red®catl®n ®f the permit, the T®wn shall n®t be liable f®r any damages ®r payment t® the permlttee. ~dditi®nally, the permittee agrees that the impr®dement will be returned t® the c®nditi®n that was in existence pursuant t® the permit pri®r t® its destructf®n ®r eliminati®n at the expense cf the permittee. 08. Secti®n 92.96.020 -Revocation of Permits A. A permit may be revoked whenever the Town Manager determines that the encroachment, obstruction, or other structure constitutes a nuisance, destroys and impairs the use of the right of way by the public, constitutes a traffic hazard, or the property on which the encroachment, obstruction, or structure exists is required for use by the public; or it may be revoked at any time for any reason deemed sufficient by the Town of Vail. The permittee will remove, at his expense, the encroachment, obstruction, or other structure within ten (10) days after receiving notice of revocation of the permit. B. If a person is notified under sub-section A of this Section and fails to comply with the order to remove the encroachment or obstruction, the Town Manager may cause the encroachment or obstruction to be removed and charge the cost thereof, plus up to fifteen percent (15°I°) of such cost for administration to the person so notified. If any person fails or refuses to pay when due any charge imposed under this Section, the Town Manager may, in addition to taking other collection remedies, certify due any unpaid charges, including interest, to the Eagle County Treasurer to be levied against the person's property for collection by the County in the same manner as delinquent general taxes upon such property are collected. III. 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 declares it would have passed this ordinance, and 3 each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. IV. The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. V. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail 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 proceedings 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. VI. All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this _ day of , 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the _ day of , 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1993. 4 t~ t Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk C:W RD93.6 cJ ~ YNI~IYI®RMNIDUIYI TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 26, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 to allow for the development of the remaining portion of the Simba Run SDD, Savoy Villas, located at 1100 North Frontage Road. Applicant: Simba Land CorporationNValid Said Planner: Mike Mollica On July 6, 1993, the Vail Town Council reviewed Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993 (first reading), an ordinance which provided for the development of the remaining portion of the Simba Run SDD. The Town Council approved this ordinance by a vote of 4-2 with the additional requirement that all ten of the employee dwelling units be permanently restricted. Currently, the six existing employee dwelling units are restricted for a period of only twenty years. Subsequent to the Council's approval of Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993 on first reading, the Town Attorney determined that although open communication with the Simba Run Condominium Association has been ongoing, formal notice was not given of the scheduled hearings. The Town Attorney has recommended that Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993 be rescinded and that the SDD be sent back to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) for reconsideration upon notification. On July 20, 1993, Town Council approved a motion to rescind Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993 on first reading. The Council also referred the issue back to the PEC for consideration. In addition to the five conditions of approval listed in the Community Development Department's memorandum to the PEC (dated June 28, 1993 and revised June 29, 1993), the staff would recommend the following additional conditions of approval: 6. The applicant shall grant the Town of Vail a drainage easement through the property, to provide for the existing drainage flow which currently enters the site between the proposed employee housing building and the eastern condominium building on the upper bench. The developer shall provide this easement to the Community Development Department for approval before the Town will release any building permits for the site. 7. The applicant shall provide a bike path easement for any portion of the relocated bike path which shall be located upon the applicant's property. The easement shall be submitted to the Community Development Department by the developer and executed prior to the Town's issuance of any building permits for the project. c:\pec\m em os\sim ba.726 1 MEMORANDUM - TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development DATE: June 28, 1993 (Revised June 29, 1993) -All revlslons In bold SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 to allow for the development of the remaining portion of the Simba Run SDD, Savoy Villas, located at 1100 North Frontage Road and described as follows: That part of the First Supplemental Map for Simba Run Condominium, according to the map thereof recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Cobrado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows: Beginning at the mast southwesterly corner of said map, thence the following three courses along the westerly lines of said map; 1) N03°33'01"E 160.79 feet; 2) N12°50'33"E 144.72 feet; 3) N17°56'03" 70.60 feet; thence, departing said westerly line, S13°16'03"W 157:26 feet, thence S76°43'57"E 91.50 feet; thence N13°16'03"E 35.00 feet; thence S76°43'57"E 72.31 feet to the easterly line of said map; thence the following two courses along the easterly and southeasterly lines of said map; 1) S24°44'57"E 52.38 feet; 2) S52°50'29"W 272.50 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.6134 acres, more or less; and That part of Simba Run, according to the map thereof, recorded in Book 312 at Page 763 in the Office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows: Beginning at the most southerly corner of said Simba Run, thence the following four courses along the southwesterly and northwesterly lines of said Simba Run; 1) N37°09'31"W 233.28 feet; 2) 334.57 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 1771.95 feet, a central angle of 10°49'06", and a chord that bears N42°13'20"E 334.07 feet; 3) N36°48'48" E 201.36 feet; 4) 15.96 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 428.02 feet, a central angle of 02°08'12", and a chord that bears N37°52'54" E 15.96 feet to a corner on the westerly boundary of the First Supplemental Map for Simba Run Condominium, according to the map thereof recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder; thence the following four courses along said westerly boundary; 1) S21°51'28"W 69.90 feet; 2) S17°56'03"W 181.17 feet; 3) S12°50'33"W 144.72 feet; 4) S03°33'01"W 160.79 feet to the southeasterly line of said Simba Run; thence, along said southeasterly line, S52°50'29"W 113.08 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 1.560 acres, more or less. Applicant: Simba Land Corporation/Walid Said Planner: Mike Mollica I. PROJECT INTRODUCTION The property owner and applicant, Simba Land Corporation, is requesting a major SDD amendment for the remaining phase of Special Development District #5 (Simba RunNail Run). The property is located at 1100 North Frontage Road and is bounded by the Timber Ridge Apartments to the west, the North Frontage Road and Interstate 70 to the south, Phase I of Simba Run to the east and Lionsridge Loop Road to the north. 1 y ` Ordinance #6, Series of 1976, originally established SDD #5 and set the parameters for the development of the Vail Run Building. Ordinance #29, Series of 1977, amended SDD #5. This amendment expanded the SDD with the addition of 6.3 acres immediately to the west of Vail Run and in addition, divided the SDD into what is now known as Development Area A (Vail Run) and Development Area B (Simba Run). The development standards for both areas were specifically stipulated in this ordinance. SDD #5 was further modified by the passage of Ordinance #33, Series of 1978, and Ordinance #24, Series of 1986. ~@o ~ESCRIPTO®N ®I'° T16~ FiE(aUEST The proposed development plan for the final phase of Development Area B, in SDD #5, consists of nineteen condominiums and four deed-restricted employee housing units. The development plan calls for one three-unit townhouse building to be located on the southern portion of the property, with vehicular access taken from the existing Simba Run curb-cut off of the North Frontage Road. The northern development of the property would take access from Lionsridge Loop and would consist of four, four-unit condominium buildings and one, four-unit employee housing building. Two curb cuts are proposed off of Lionsridge Loop. On the northern bench of this site, each condominium is proposed to have aone-car garage, and on the lower, or southern part of this site, each condominium would have atwo-car garage. This final phase of the SDD will be part of the existing Simba Run Condominium Association, and as such, will have access to all of the existing recreational amenities located in the existing Simba Run project. These recreational amenities include three outdoor tennis courts, two indoor racquetball courts and one indoor swimming pool. Vail Run has its own outdoor swimming pool and two indoor tennis courts. This project site is located within a high severity rockfall-geologic hazard zone. The applicant's consulting geologist, Nicholas Lampiris, has completed three geologic investigations for the property. The original study is dated April 18, 1993, with updates of the study completed on lay 18, 1993 and June 18, 1993, and all three are attached to this memorandum. The SDD departs from the approved development standards in the following areas: ~slte coverage ~er~c0®sed parkB~g ~Bandscaplr~g ~Ihelght Since the initial PEC work session on iVlay 10, 1993, the applicant has modified the proposal in the following areas: •Due to legal questions regarding the allowable uses on the "easement area", the J townhouses proposed for the lower bench of the project have been shifted to the west so that they are completely within the boundaries of the final phase property. In order to accomplish this, the applicant has eliminated one of the originally proposed four townhouses. Three units are now proposed in this area. •Vehicular access to the lower bench is now proposed from the existing Simba Run curb-cut. •For safety reasons, the existing Town bikepath would be relocated to the south, to the area where the property line crosses the Simba Run vehicular curb-cut. •Additional landscaping and berming has been added throughout the site. •A pedestrian path has been added between Phases I and II on the upper bench. This path will allow pedestrian access from the upper bench to the lower bench, and to the existing Simba Run recreational facilities and shuttle van parking to the east. 3 88~° ~®P71NG Afi~p?~~SiIS Listed below is the zoning analysis for Development Area 13, located in SDD ~5 (Phase I includes the two existing Simba Faun buildings). Please note that SDD S~5 has no underlying zoning, as it was annexed into the Town in December of 9975 and 4he original SDD was established during R~arch of 9 976. REAAAIIVIIVG DEV. APPROVED DEV. PHASE I POTEiVTIAL AFTER PHASE II TOTAL STAfdDARDS DEV. AREA B PHASE 1 COFIST. pEV. ARE61 B DEV. AREA B Site Area: 6.3 acres/274,428 sq. ft. 4.7 acres/204,732 sq. ft. 1.6 acres 9.6 acrea/89,698 oq. AB. 6.3 acres Setbacks: Za' -all ~rimeter 20' -all perimeter N/A 20' - ®11 ~rlrn®eea N/A property lines property lines properey Olneg Height: 45' 20- 60' N/A 25 - 49' Id/A GRFA: 129,000 sq. ft. - DU's 90,807 sq. ft. 38,193 sq. ft. 32,282 aq. f¢. 123,089 sq. ft. - DU's 10,000 sq. ft. - EHU's 4.601 sa. ft. 5,399 sq. ft. 2.536 a®, f¢. 7,137 sq. fL - EHU's 139,000 sq. ft. 95,408 sq. ft. 43,592 sq. ft. 34,898 sq. ft. 130,226 sq. ft. Units: 139 95 44 ~9 194 Employee Dwelling Units: 10 (min.) 6 4 4 10 °°Site Coverage: 54,886 sq. h. (20%) 65,089 sq. ft. (32%) <10,203 sq. ft.> °97,846 aq. f¢. (28%) °82,935 sq. (t. (30%) °°Landscaping: 164,657 sq. ft. (60%) °°°110,772 sq. ft. (54%) PI/A 32,924 req. f¢. (47°ko) °°°143,696 sq. ft. (52%) °°Parking: 85'yo endosed 128 enclosed (95%) N/A 22 ®ncloaed (50%) 150 er~losed (84%) (of required parking) 6 surface 26 aurface 28 surface 134 48 (44 spac®a ar® v®qulr~ 178 (182 spaces are proposed) Commerdal Area: -0- -0- fV/A -0- -0- ° Indudes 1,292 square feet of Timber Ridge's eastern-most building. The proposed project departs from these approved development standards. Indudes 5,530 square feet of landscaping which would be removed from the Phase I property to accommodate the driveway to ~e lower bench development of Phase II. IV. CRITERIA TO SE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of special development districts is to: encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of new development within the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with a property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements far guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district." The following are the nine special development district criteria to be utilized by the Planning and Environmental Commission when evaluating SDD proposals: A. 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. The original design plan for the final phase of the Simba Run development proposed one large building on this Phase II site. This building was designed to be similar to the existing Simba buildings located immediately to the east. These buildings are approximately 260 feet in length and approximately 50 feet in width. The project was designed to take access off of Lionsridge Loop (one curb cut) with a fairly large surface parking area, as well as one level of underground (structured) parking. The current proposal before the PEC suggests a series of six smaller buildings. Access is divided between the North Frontage Road and Lionsridge Loop, and the parking for the project is almost equally divided between enclosed parking and surface parking. Architecturally, the design is very similar to that of the existing Simba Run project, although smaller in scale. The four condominium buildings proposed on the northern or upper bench of this site, are in keeping with the multi-family character of the neighborhood, with each building consisting of four dwelling units. The employee building to the east also consists of four dwelling units. The lower bench of this site is designed to accommodate three attached townhomes, also meeting the multi-family definition. The staff believes that the applicant has done a reasonable job with the overall site planning of the project to insure the project meets this criterion. We feel that the mass of the proposed buildings creates a transition from the existing Simba Run buildings to the east, which are upwards of 60 feet in height, and the existing Timber Ridge buildings to the west, which are approximately 30 feet in height. The approved development standard for building height within SDD ~t5 is 45 feet. The staff does recognize that three of the units which are proposed to be located on the 5 - upper bench o4 the level®pment would exceed 4~ feet. Speclflcally9 the three easternmost units on the upper bench would_exceed the maximums height. The proposed heights would range from 46 feet to 49 feet. It should be noted that the maximum bulBdirag heights were measured fr®m existing grade, which happens to be the m®re restrictive than the final grades. The final grades for the project, would put the ridge heights at approximately 44 feet. It should also be rooted that the previously approved building for this site had a building height ®f approximately ~0 feet at some points. E. @~ses9 activity soli density which provide a compatlble9 efficient and workable relatlonshlp with surrounding uses and activity. It is the staff's position that the proposed residential use on the site is compatible with the existing uses on surrounding properties. The proposed density (numbers of units) is also compatible with adjacent properties and would be in conformance with the High Density Residential identification that the Town of Vail Land Use Plan has placed on this property. The proposal meets the technical definition of amulti-family project. 1l~e also believe it is positive that four employee housing units are incorporated into the development. The staff would also like to point out that with 4he approval and construction of this final phase of the Simba Run project, Development Area B would be under the approved density (number of units) and GRFA. The project would be under the approved density by twenty-five dwelling units, and under the maximum allowable GRFA (DU's and EHU's) by 8,774 square feet. The staff feels that it is not sound planning to leave this type of remaining density on the books without an approved development plan. For this reason, staff is recommending that should this final development proposal be approved, that the remaining number of dwelling units and GRFA be reduced to zero for the entire Development Area B. C. Compliance wBth the parking and i®ading requirements as outBlned in Chapter b 8.5~. The Town's parking requirements indicate that a total of 44 parking spaces are required for this Phase II site. The applicant has proposed a total of 48 parking spaces for the project. The ratio of enclosed versus surface parking spaces for this Phase is approximately afifty-fifty split, although the overall enclosed parking percentage for the entire Development Area 13 is 84%, which is less than the required 85%. Please see the Zoning Analysis on Page 3 of this memorandum for the specific numbers. Each individual phase of this project has been designed to meet the Town's parking PegUlrementS. s D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town pollctes and Urban Design Plans. 1. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan identifies this area as High Density Residential (HDR). High Density Residential is defined in the Land Use Plan as follows: "The housing in this category would typically consist of multi-floored structures with densities exceeding fifteen dwelling units per buildable acre. Other activities in this category would include private recreational facilities, and private parking facilities and institutional/public uses such as churches, fire stations and parks and open space facilities." The proposed plan for the final phase of Simba Run would set the overall density for Development Area B at 19.7 dwelling units/acre. This figure includes the employee housing units. 2. The following are the applicable Land Use Plan goals and policies which relate to this proposal: Goal 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and permanent resident. Goal 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). Goal 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. Goal 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. Goal 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. Goal 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. The staff believes the project is in compliance with the Town's Land Use Plan. 7 - E. 8dent6flcati®n and rnitlgatlon of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property ®n which the special development district Os proposedo This project site is located within a high severity rockfall hazard zone. The applicant's geologist, Nicholas Lampiris, has reviewed the proposed site plan and has agreed that the berming along Lionsridge Loop Road (south side), combined with internal mitigation for the two eastern-most buildings, is sufficient to mitigate the rockfall hazard. Please see the attached letters from Nicholas Lampiris at the end of this memorandum. F. Site plan9 building deslg~i and location and open space provisions designed t® produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to naturaB featuresy vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the cornmunitye The staff believes that the applicant has been responsive to the PEC's suggestions regarding minor modifications to the site plan. We believe that the changes made to the building locations have resulted in maintaining adequate distances between the Phase II project and the existing Simba Run building. The project would continue to exceed the 20% maximum site coverage for the entire Development Area B, however, the staff believes that the overall site planning for the project is acceptable and that the proposed 30% site coverage is reasonable given the approved density. All of the building locations have been sited to take advantage of views both to the east and to the west. The site plan has also been modified to accommodate the needs of the Vail Fire Department. Since the original PEC worksession, the applicant has modified the upper bench of the development and has eliminated all parking within the required 20-foot front setback area. One of the three proposed curb cuts off of Lionsridge Loop has also been eliminated. The staff believes that all of these changes are positive changes and result in a higher quality project which will further enhance its compatibility with the immediate neighborhood. G. ~ circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing ®n and off~slte traffic circulations Site Plan/Vehicular Access (CDOT access ®ermit). Access to the lower bench of this site, to the three "townhouse-type° units, is proposed via the existing Simba Run curb-cut off of the North Frontage Road. Access to the units on the northern or upper bench of this site is designed as a series of two curb cuts off of Lionsridge Loop Road. Due to the change in use, a Colorado Department of Transportation access permit will be required before a building permit can be released for the three units that take access off the North Frontage Road. Future Simba Underpass. As discussed in the recently adopted Vail Transportation Master Plan, the construction of an I-70 underpass in the vicinity of Simba Run, is proposed as a first priority 3 recommendation for both the West Vail interchange and the Main Vail interchange - improvements. The underpass would be constructed immediately opposite the lower bench development. To accommodate the underpass, it would be necessary to lower the North Frontage Road approximately 13 to 15 feet in this area. The applicant has submitted a regrading plan which indicates the regrading which would be necessary to accommodate the future I-70 underpass. It appears that the applicant's proposed design would not be in conflict with the future underpass, and the Town Engineer has approved the access and regrading plans. Pedestrian Access. The staff has requested that the applicant pursue the possibility of locating a public pedestrian path through the property so that pedestrian access can be maintained from the Lionsridge Loop area down to the North Frontage Road. We believe that this pedestrian access would become even more critical should the proposed Simba underpass be constructed. The applicant has agreed that such a public easement through the property would make good planning sense, however, the applicant is concerned about the potential liability and maintenance issues surrounding a public pedestrian path. The applicant has agreed to consider adding a pedestrian connection through the property should the Town Attorney be able to provide them with a level of comfort regarding the liability concerns. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space In order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. At the suggestion of the Planning and Environmental Commission, the applicant has modified the proposed landscaping plan to include larger evergreen trees (12 - 15 feet in height) at the base of the upper development area. Additional landscaping has been provided throughout the site, however, the project as a whole (for the entire Development Area B) does not meet the required 60% minimum landscaped area. The staff has thoroughly reviewed the applicant's proposed landscape plan for the project, and we feel comfortable with the proposed 52% total landscaped area for the entire Development Area B. The staff would point out that given the density of this site, the property could be compared with the standard HDMF zoning, which would require a minimum of 30% landscaped area. Overall, staff believes that the landscaping plan generally provides adequate screening and green space throughout the site. We would recommend, however, that the applicant consider additional screen plantings in the berm along Lion's Ridge Loop Road. For safety reasons, the existing recreation/bike path has been realigned so that it crosses the vehicular access to the lower development area at the driveway's intersection with the property line. 9 I. Phasing plan ®r subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functlona0 and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special developrr~ent district. Since the initial PEC work session, the applicant has modified the project's phasing plan. Phase I would now consist of the two condominium buildings located on the northwest corner of the site. This would consist of a total of eight dwelling units. Phase II would include the remaining two buildings in the upper development area and the employee building. The final phase of the project would consist of the three townhomes located on the lower bench of the property. The staff believes that the applicant's modifications to the phasing plan are now acceptable. N/o STAFF RIEC®N~AAfE=lV®ATl®B~ The staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request for a major modification to Special Development District ivo. 5. y!!e believe that the modifications which have been made to the project, since the initial PEC work session, have brought the project into compliance with the nine Special Development District review criteria listed in this memorandum. !With regard to the development standards as indicated in the Zoning Analysis section of this memorandum, the staff does acknowledge that the project is over on site coverage and bullding height and is under on the required enclosed parking percentage and minimum landscaping percentage. l~lith regard to site coverage, the Phase I development on this site (the existing Simba Run buildings) has already exceeded the 20% maximum site coverage by 92%, or 90,203 square feet. !!Ve think that the total site coverage proposed, 30%, is reasonable given the high density residential nature of this project. As a point of comparison, should this property have been zoned High Density Multi-Family, the maximum allowable site coverage, according to current Town of Vail zoning, would be 55%. The staff finds that the proposed 30% site coverage and the overall site plan design is reasonable. ~Ne also believe that the proposed bullding heights are reasonable given the existing grades on the alts and given the height ®f the Simba Run Phase 1 buildings. Although the applicant has not met the required 85% enclosed parking percentage for the entire Development Area B, the staff does find that the applicant has designed the project with all of the surface parking located on the north side of the buildings, and that the proposed 82% enclosed parking is reasonable. Again, we would point out that if the property had been zoned High Density Multi-Family, the required enclosed parking percentage would be 75%. As indicated in Section IV, H, of this staff memorandum, the applicant has not met the required 60% minimum landscape percentage for the entire Development Area B. After careful analysis of the proposed landscaping plan for the property, the staff believes that the overall site planning and landscaping plan for this site is reasonable. VVe would also point out that if the property had been zoned High Density Multi-Family, which would be consistent with the density on this site, the required landscaping percentage would be 30%. In summary, the staff is recommending approval with the understanding that the applicant agrees with the following conditions, and we believe the project substantially complies with the nine SDD review criteria as indicated in this memorandum. The conditions are as follows: 90 1. The Town shall not issue a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for any of the Phase II condominiums until such time as TCO's have been issued for all four units in the employee housing building. 2. The applicant agrees that if the liability issues concerning the construction and maintenance of a public pedestrian path/easement through the property can be resolved with the Town Attorney, the applicant shall construct a pedestrian path and grant a public access easement to the Town of Vail. 3. A Colorado Department of Transportation access permit shall be granted prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits for the lower bench of the development (three townhomes). 4. The applicant agrees to permanently restrict the four employee housing units as "Type III" EHU's, according to the Town's adopted housing ordinance. 5. That the applicant add additional screen plantings in the berm along Lion's Ridge Loop Road, and also between the North Frontage Road and the bike path, subject to the review and approval of the Design Review Board. In addition to the above, the staff recommendation for approval is contingent upon the applicant agreeing to reduce the remaining density (number of units and GRFA) for the entire Development Area B to zero. If this current development proposal is approved, the staff believes that it is not appropriate to allow excess development rights to exist for this property, without an approved development plan. c:\pec\memos\si mba.629 11 ~ I~ • ~ i~~ ~ o~P _ 1 ti v a \ -0 / +p ~ ~ r ~ , ~ ~ ~ _o. ~ , ~ .?7 ~ rR4. ~~efp n b D~~~~w~!'J, ~ o ~C~ peQt~O - ~ ~ ~ Oge~.,.~yPP'. _ Q... A ~ ~ Pyoert~ U ~ - IrA~oP 1 , ~ V~ i 4. ~ ~ ~ / ~ NEJ DtJ{ l _ Y 1 -b/O psi... ' H OFT ~ °'o NTA4~ Fos.7 ~ • • ~ .r+Q •fa- v ~ „ram 1+F ~ / 1 ti w .h ~ r e ~ / ~ l ~ r.-t- ~ ~ / r ~ ~ . ?..r, . n q f ~ rt w .~.r• ~•...r. ~ ~ f ~ ~ av T v ~ 1 •«.~.s. p ~ VR•K yR / ~ ~ O A ~ L' / . ~ ~ / ` • h O\ }Mt •N ~ O . $ s~~ 'nom p( i • pt Nd MM aM OI}6~ Ra • , ~ ~ Rf ' ~H 9 Wl1 1 r Y~ ro r' In t" / . n ~ _ ~ . / 1 r" i " j ~ \ y t _ • ~ •N. ,,~y~ .w .r.a . D.rr, epp. aea.. rp C V• P..h.C7 .eo fr'g~~C O .w+ H r 4rn trFc J, ~ l ~ ~ ~ tl i r ~ ~ f n \ .Y / ~ , ~ ~ ~ h ' O \o ~ Y ~o o ~ `ate r ~ _ p~,+. ~ ~ ~,s9s ^ f J _ l` N O F+-714 F P-O H YAto G Fo.+~ P e ' ~ s I II ~ L r eecarM eaor++r{' _ f - - - ~ pU~~ rod _ , ~ ^I ' mwH ~etwH II~ ' a ~p I s-r.we. M' ~w.a. b~ f~sl~) - ~he~) ~ V. _rywsrtF.,_ rl . ~ ~ - S ~ o ~i 3 ~ • ~ K' - N •<'-d 117 rwr~r A : I V ` 0 / Q yet w ~ ~ }1 a..nl(~ - ~ / / LJ.rlf. NoH - _ y _ ~I e.c.. ~ Itvr- r•~ UNIT 7YPE..'A' u•-d sti. s~._i fee - r,.o'c.. Q _ ~ o- om~ ~ -c - _ . ~ L rreryP 1 _ _ O~~ ~q{I YN O 1_ II' i . G ~ _ DUI ~ r-t off- ~ . a ~ ~ / ~ c+a,ea bl u~P.e o'°' fMatwl (neaw) • '~L!' I ? ~ weea O ~I 1 ~ . _ ~ 0 \ 1 \ ~ 1ff ~O' ~ / 1 CM6wll ~ C`~V~~ ~ \ ~ ~ V 11 II !xr° O 1/ ' wear ? 12I ~ ~ ~ ~ 'Q O b•.~~ ~ • I to AF•1.'l' 1\` i Il - _ y • ~ , ~ p6MON f Lwow PoM vw..~c ~ .e r. ~ F3 p~ _ p orA _ r,„. , a...w ~ lI. 199 wuw P«1 f-talc-4l_Fv~L oao iia- r-o~ r A ® Jj ° IVI A 0 I ' ~ r. ~ I i } 4 ~ rM ~ i O ~ ' ` • ~ i I I ~ ~ ! ~ r,..N~-.'~ ~ r o ~ _ ~ y r______ ~nLrJ, O _ ?+cN~YI. I. . N •Mr""q S C _ o ' o ~ I Ownlf. W INI. O~ V ffnONM'f I - cq "1 T ' 1 ~ .I y. - _ _ ~ + on.r. r IJf' •s'.~ tf ~ ~ n'. n'J f•7•} .'J ....i n•.,~. n-yL Q~ ti, lH Lo~r1~E-~.EVEL~V~T~-1 M+'-IN . LE.vEi.~ Pt~r1..... i / 4' 1 ' - e'-..r . 6 UNIT TYPE'C' _ ~ . i ~,a a- ' l~ ' ' ~ 3 - O u ® - ~ ~9 ` ~ N ..1. I ~ -9 c n i' - _ - - ~ _ r-- i II !II__ ~ I - N II ~ t - I.. ~ ( I~ p_ I 1-1oP-'~f ~~.-~v~."f.ioi-1 . I - ~ I o v ~ ~ A v ~ _ _ ~ . ~ _ - nlr~ ~ = _ _ - _ . ~ 4 ~.L~..s-~Tio~l . ~UNITTYP~ 'C' i 1 ~ ~ • _I - ~ - - _ - ~ ~ _ - - -I - I ~ - l.-:~1~'T ~L~ldcarlol-~ So~M~ ELE1~.Tto1-~ ~g $ 0 o A~ U d0= '~1 N - - I !!A ~ L-~-=- L - - ~ > - - - I F---------?~ - I I - - - ~ I ,993 ~1' ~~:.~w?TbN ~ VoP-71+ E L~tiWTIO~ Ju 1. cG ' 73 0 ~ 1? 0©©© .r,AFJrAX5151 Is a : e s Nirhofas Lampiris, Ph.D. CONuIII.TING GEO~OU151' ' 0185 INf,FRtinl.L LANE SIl7, COLON~DO 8162 !;103) OT6 fidW ;7d MUUHSI Jul y 1yy~ 8i111y 8waiherd Marter Architects 143 East Meadow Awiva Croscroad,a at Vai I V,a,11 , CQ 816!37 REe Savoy Villala near sal l 1 y ~ Y have rleviewed the suite plan dated Juiy ls. 1993. which you have recently aeht, fo1~ mitigation cif the rock fall haaard et thest Mite. Thi>$ plan leaver's very little chance of one of the buildingts, including garages, being hit by rolling rucks. With the berms in plate as ydu have defined them, very few rocks can reach three units, and the mitiga~tian wil: weduce the danger to the public health e?nd s>safl;rty pr tq propeerty to a reaaona~bie level, and that sueh mikipatign does not increase the h8zare~ to ether prpperty or >$twuctures, er to public buildingzt, roads!`, attr~+ets, righte~af~way, easements, utilities nr f®riiit.fas. Yf there ar`e ~sti11 rauestionc contact me. ~~,f~ c~rgil v.~ ~ Nichalarrai C??a~rnpiria Consulting Oaalogilat _ _ 1 a. ~ \ .a,... i ~ 1~ ~ 1 [.:ate ~ oerr.a 4 i., i In 1 rao:.oe ~ . f! i ` y r ~ ip i~ ~~.~/1 ~ ~ taN"'. e / 1193 ) ;r ...r, lir 0 ~ r~~..._..--'" ~~/i~~ J~j j~ +~-w, / ~ id ~a:J~l~ M~ie7s.riR-' _ _ _ ~ t' ~ i r~ oa~q Q~ tD - CJ 3 M Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST { 4 i i ~ ~ P.O. BOX 2 SILT, COLORADO 81652 (303) 876.5400 (24 HOURS) June 18, 1993 Sally Brainerd Morter Architects 143 East Meadow Drive Crossroads at Vail Vail, CO 81657 RE: Savoy Vi 1 1 ~s ip ~t~'l,~ ~ Dear Sally: I have reviewed the site plan which you have recently sent, as per our discussions, for mitigation of the rocE: fall hazard at the site. You have addressed my concerns very well and only some - of the garage areas remain somewhat unprotected. With the berms in place as you have defined them, very few rocE:s can reach the units, and, because the fronts of most of those units are in the form of garages, I am not concerned that damage can occur to living gt_tarters. If there are still questions contact me. . ~ Sincerely, ~ Nicholas LaMpiris Consulting Geologist / i:Ja j c;~ ~ J~ 7: t_~•1c9 ~":J-ri;~~? 51 .5 E!' i E c ii ! Nlchola~ Lampiris, Ph.D. GOtJ$;/t t l filV. ;.':CLGLl~ f c,as :Jr:sEl~~'vl.t. WNe • SILT, GCLUW.!,:J C1i,`? I~t~Y ~ ~ q 9~7 J ~.~cJ. ~ 1 1' sal 1 Il N M~r~~r flr r-t,i tt~c t~.r ~".c'tsL" ~~t3v,dgi•J ir?Y'1 Vsn' Cf-osrr'e?t~d~ at veti 1 11d 1 w y C~ 1 i7~7 , . . 'i .l ~1c~V'.? f Ct1fi?~Yi~~ ~:i}P~ :;li:~ }ll:.',1} V~~I~f:JI 'yrGLl ii~Vf:~ I"._'t:~l'!'t,Z'~ ii:n'Cq ~f1 hF:i' C)4~: SjJ,S'Cl:t:~:jlf.'{l: ~ iQ{' it?SL1C~~~.'Glt`.{1 .:~f tfli: t'U':I< •I'-,~1. I1•~Yt'.t't.! ti~'r_ L~if: ~1fL~, YG-±Lt IIL~tVf, c"t('~t'._S:iE~C] lit'r i:i.;nl="t'f'li,l Vif"'yr s_: i. i.lt:f: _,-,ic^c: .`.r: s'c'i:l a cv:tlp~~; orr"• t_harc~~ or :i,ci(ii~lan~3 WJiich ~t:fa%.:1fJ f7~ i ncr;rpnr~i:~a. " ~'1~ :..1 ~i~F? F1~f-11~:, In j ifJ.~'.=: i~ti `,'t~tl ~1::lVf~ =y'~'Lni?i.~ Y.il:'.til~ Vf:r''~ *=ti2:•1 t`Cr~i.ci C~.`.il I'a='~af:tl i:it~ {•cb:+{~(;C'i~j 'fQi.({•' 41(.t i;:j, R'•!}i:~q .t.f•,3Ci tr1F+ if'Clllj.:f3 pf Ci1G,.: L:.i}~i.S fifL'~ lh t~i~ fL'•t't?1 UT t:~~"r7~~{~q I t+.!'~ nC1i. r{~il(.:i:i't;~;l f:hc~;L LCS .~.Il OC,'Ci.it' "t:L7 I?~'.!-;f~ ;#(!~1"t: .~i'`i. ~i'l Ci ai ~i ~t"lii ~i7 i:2', l:t l:. IiL7i4~'Y`C(~q i;~l?fiJ~C3 Y'DCt; f?,!1i fict~uf~l)'~ ?f e:' o-3i i~\~r_:`{`S t~e' i1 S.l:il'g4C~ IJC,J'!A •~f}+j l:f7 y~f"r3 CJl~ ~C7 ~7S'Gi;.~,',~i: ~ i.b'21`~ C,U;.iJ'%:?i':j, itl.'.!1~f11'i:T'c , Y'f?t:Cliiifl~(}L~ t~ t~}f6:c S'rJQ ~}J.Ca'fl ^ri-.'.lil :-i!'.11 t:lil '~:Fii t10J"t:i' ;'-.'3.~Z l~'il~C'l FfIC:'t:lty ll:?V~y r 'r~Tf-!: r1 L7~.i} l:' ~t.t`t.l ~ia.'i:,:.°.i ~.l?:i .:ljl.l{., ::4 ~t',(aa~, "it1 'if?t.~ t.l:'_`f.St'.+ ,csi s1_r!?(":i) Cc:-i f [?::;i 171. ;.I} }:a ~ S•. ~ ~ . C.'.7y i:a'c?r"f;7 L:S ~P'Esilt: 1:1 '~i1f:? i.7i't ;:1 }1"1 Ti`1:~^1: (i'~ .l:t: t';:_.. !.!i`71 :J 'E.ilL? t•J~;n1: fGY. .Jr~.,Vir~'t~.`~ :n G:i::E:'ar~. lip.. :_':x;7:...,,.:1"~ I):7r'~:+~t::a i)'i' 4~.`i;:'S t - :a r} f is 4:i1~ (':f} ~ {R 1'X71: t]^t".inu ::~1()L1) it fJ+~ ' • - rtl:? ::;ft' ~~t"F.:fiti;:Il h'~y~.: i.~, 'Lhr~Ct i',:?ti7:, T•, i iit$;'ip f.:t'{? Sef.:: {'~U!$~sf i!.iiii; C(1il~:att:C h}',•~. ..IJ1C r~:Iyt idichola~ :_,ar;talr~:'. i:oc}~ul ti nr Gapl o;~i s?, Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST • 0185 INGERSOLL LANE SILT, COLORADO 81652 (303) 876.5400 (24 HOURS) • E~t~l-i i io, 19?; c,:-~17.y I3r-<aina''r'd • I~''c~rtt•~•r Fiw(-hi t~~cti~ - 1,:F:_: ~:~Ct M!~~tda:•J Drive ,•t-tJ!F1`r1.:;t:~LS ;:l't V311 - V:-~ i 1 . CCl t3 :I. F~.a7 1" I r:~ :l C=' 4•J C l.~ {'1 C? ::a C? G'~ Il C? C?.(: E r" f i C t~? ~J 1~ tJ, 7 E' r, ;3'_~ C Il (J t'J n C1 n i:.11 t C C: r)1(~ :3I'l'j/ 7. f l ~:a fil <::; I~ C~ I" U 1'" ~ U 5 E:' O,t' r~ ~7 L { 't 1 1 r ~?''J J. t:? l'J CI i" ~ h L ..lnl•Jr1 tJ~:~.i 1.. 'T'hr_' nortt')E~r-Il '~(JL.)r L:ni.t:-ti Gtr-(~ w:i.'th.n th(~' !-1 i.c.1:Y I'~:r(::~::•i' 1 a ~ ~)n~a date ~~:ca tht? al.t~:cY-oppinq a-F ~:-,n'~s:~i:.c~nt-. inn i:hta ,,a•l:.h~~r- :i, ci r. ~ (:)'F 'i:.1°: t_a L.:G c~ r) F~t i (a c~ L o r., . •1• h e - . E?'f-C:J(1C~ 1: :i.r.•.')-' c7•T ur:]. i <s nt_~~: I } 7. a. 1") ;`i 1 CJ C c 0. i G n l•d {l E:' t r) L i'" 1 CI i~ E3 . C: r". 'x:.7.1. : ; ' 'i:. i-) Ci 7 t. l I" C?'~ r-~ is i-~ 1 :°i .L 't' c`t 1 .I. 1 1.'t f;! t::'-i a _.-i <:A ~ .~i. f7:^1 1 !'r? G? 1 , ~S 'I: i } t'.' ~c`~ ° ~ I_ 7:.. i"; ~::'i ::•~a.. ~ - - , .I t. 1'- t..± • . r:' 1 'i" , E: n C'i C; t=.`l,. I"} ~ :1. i i t', E::'. C.:..: i `"i J i..'t . j' I .i 't C3 :f. 'i C: i:! !.l i r.~ 1._t .'I L..::; ~ Q ~t t'} c.>,'I: tl} 1 'i: i~ C; Y. t-.) n 1+1 l 1 'rJ ::.A :-i I:) 1. Lry 5::. ~ 1 :J~ Y...~ ~ ~ ' i'i<':::1'. t.r"~`:i'i:,":t t7~l. F.9 !`"(:a::i~'. 5.i C:)t=(=!.l;- .:::~7(7V,"~ ~:ill C F]1~(_:r:t~EoE'tj clr_'`.'(.•='1 t.-))'.^}f'fl~:.. t=,t..l'~ f. I-..(:: i'-r).'s~i. .,:1 1. a. r=r_;•l-c.il -sc~m~-~ c)•f ~L;li•?in. The h;~~~tr~: i nr_1'-e.a=ie_`_a t(:1 I ~ t.ht'.` t'J?:~. `._fL t••Jt 1"~':: 1..11 C1gr~ Ll ('lC(7ITI~"'~ hi nhr'r q' 'i: I..}('!'~~~{_)y ].m^~~r 1~l ncl rll(_'r I:: i.rtc~{:its t._~n':r-•rly pofi.Eanti<~1 'fcj].1in'~ P-ec.I::_~. .r fJ i.J I:J t~':i E:? C'? V E' I-' 1 'N e'r- n t 1 V Sa C] S Ll ~ ::a c} 1-1 't: i 1. ffl l n ^)1 :`r? 't t i t? !l :~t ~ ~ r ~:.I r c, rn -t~ a -.l i. r (7 = r=-f~ c. 4:: •f (.l 1_I r •f o )'t:. I-} i r~ Pi h t_: r. m -m-; - h . (..:t:.>ll::>'I:.;'t.tc~~t.(-,ta ;a :Lr~r:c7 'L•h:• E:oL:'th E?dc7e o~ •thr' )~t:~<-?.r.:! ~t.]~-,vr.-:' 'tilc~ r>i.t=r. 1 •.'s:::.. ill<ay I'lC)'C 1:,~? 7.1. 1 U1•JPd beC~3l.lSL ~ rrla`~/ 1 ntLi"~ C?rl=.'. i+l]. f_{l ~:ht? 1'"G:7C~ r:L(:~.lt lti'::')/., (:inO~I)eI'' rit['p Wh1Ch' C~~il F?E'? "~~tI::F'n 1'S 'td CjF?ci:lCln 'ri'IC? f:; 1"; 1: t:') r t h :ia l u F.?) Q'~ e ci L Fl C)'f t h 5L' ~ CI l_I LI n 1 ~ l: C:) ' c:i ~ ' t_' Il ~=1'F Il (.i c1 i. ~.(°<aC~'t:. •1•~)(? 1-)(71!.f`•Gi~i ~7F_'Y caG1U~~rG~ 't'0~01" c7'L ~.E`~'t'. ~'C)Ur •~'CF^'~: <~]t'~V^ .•flfli':ShE'Cj Qt.•izG~r^_„ ..~•h}=.'r(:' ShOl1~.Cj 17~. n0 L•Jlf?~C:):+Jta 7.f1~ ~".!13.S~a 1.(:~:y ].r1rC•;..V:?tl -t:~ thr_.t r(_,t~f•::,- c~-~r):~oi: crr:~sh throLtc~h them in'tu 'th(-~ L}n;.i.:, Yc:)L+.r c:i`..i:'. e-~:lu:i.)-,r,,'1" (;~:_~v. =tt_tc~c;:~~t -an .energy al~:~ar-k.~in~ •fic.irig ~a_I(-!l ~•a 1. ca(.~'-:, tip urc)~tEZ•c.i: tt1E~': hr:ittle corcretE?.... I•fi uas,ik)}.t=~'•. bc-?-1:.t') r~ tt)c~~c~ clr~~iall ~~F-tt~~.ll(a be u•ti.1i'~ed, e~paci;~lly ~~c]r i_hc~ we~:,t~:l'-n 'Lwo unit•~. rnl-,;-•I-n•tr~ t••Jrl~ ~ ~'r~n l:)E~ Cjf?51 CInE?t1 r1 O~"i(-? f.p the l_ln1 t!~ l'Ji)]. Cpl :l _ t? t?:!'r i'} 1 ~-1 h L•J 7, t. it Il tc? c'l r? ~ t r L n a t h Q 1 V e n i?. i} t7 V E' . I h 1 Ci i'J Z~. 1 G U 1 Cj ;_t' ::n bE? c, l~ }•Jt•J. 1 F:).l dCE?r.I l ~a'-gr ,~L~ot) ~lat..tl (~t~r k%~:c:a..:a cat •th~e? I') :3 i_. l_U'" C? C7 7 F'} C` h :Fs : i CI n d ~ I'1 G C« ~ t 1 q n Ya T (a I'_ Il') is i c.~ i_ i [:)17 r Y `-l t!. (a C~ C3'i t ?:.h::.•l: •f :i. r.<:I.l ~)J.r:~nt bF? rrvi.et•JC~c9 k)y. your' r-r,t~i.nt=r.•r- <•.;nd rnt^ (nr c:)i:.h~' TI-?:~:~ ~_r:~nsi:r~_tc:t:inn_ai~ thce~~e ~.~ni•ks or ~'~ny o~r the prapaserJ mitig~ati.r_,n ~~~i.ll. not incr-e~•~~e the h:zz.~rd to other pr-o~erty or ~triirt~.~res, or ~ra !-~i.~blxr_ r7.r~f.~~-of-w~-~y, b~~ildinc~s, rc<;da, strE~c-t~3, e~~sAm~,nt.~, i.i•t.i:litie~~ ar facil.it±c~L; nr- nth-~~^ ~onertiea~o~f any E;1nd. I-F j'.:fl("•.1"'4'a clM'(.? (a1.11'<~ti OnS F)~ f?ci~e COntLdCt tt~L-', C-'~:p(°Cic~11"~~ dur-].nf] Y(_,ll:'" pr-~~lirnin.:,rY c~~naept~..i,lizatirns. Sincc~-F~ly, ~ • ~ Nic: o1a~ La:npi.ri~ ' rnrf5~.(1tl.nC; (:,F:~hloc_iiat JamesStress TEL iJ0.708-381-9395 Jan 29~4~ 951 P.Ol ~..~nllrift' T=.~7~t•w..w.L"A'71'r~7VJT~}l 7~GY;~$ !(!!T•~w!,, .r!},' Y u•~, . ~ ~ ' ' ~ C Pro er~'es _ I p June 8, 1993 Mr. Tim Devlin ' City of Vail Planner of property 755 So. Frontage Rd. Vail Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Devlin; A s owners of unit 2203 at Simba Run, we strongly oppose th;e plans of Walid, and Simbaland Corp. to develop the land adjacent: to Simba Run on the edge of section 1 and 2. It will Beverly: impact the value of our property, by destroying the view which is the mayor part of the value of our units. This plan was put into effect in 1990, before the control of the homeowners association was turned over to the homeowners. ~~~e were not aware at the. time of purchase that this had occured. A ma~or selling point of all the units at Simba Run, is tYie view. That s what convinced us to purchase. V~;e therefore request that the plans of Walid and Simbaland Corp. be denied because of the financial impact on the value of fnany unit owners at Simba Run. Cordially; a , es Stress ~ws/cp 40TB Deertrail Hill Barrington, IlIirois 60010 ~-381-9395 TUN-(~8-1°.93 15 03 FP.OM (303) 421-3427 TO 14792452 P.01 FAX TD: Tit^ Devlin 303/4~9~~[~5~ Planner of Community Property for City of Vail 755 Se Frontar~P Read Vail, CO. 8157 i oppose the plans of walic Said and Simba Lard Corporation for development of land next to Simba Run. F o~an a unit an Sir~ba Run and feet the planned raw build- ings on the edge of the present two buildings will have a d'_st.anct adverse effect on sight lines and values of owners in the present building Plans for the neap developc~~ent9 use of land now a part og present Simba Run and a tie in with;the facilities of Simba Run were put intc effect an 1990 berore pruchased my ur.a* o I eras not ¢old of tl•~ese plans and at present many homeowners are still not aYaare of thr? new planso I feel there has been obfuscation and disregard foe the rights og others in l,liis ;~rcposed plan that 5heuSd not be allowed to continues ~ FRANK N e ,ARK FP.OM P• ~ June B, 1993 MR. TIM DEVLIN City of VATT., Planner of Property 755 Fr~n+.ac~R R~ . Vail Colorado 81657 Dear pir, nevlin; We are owners of #1425 at Simba Run Condominium and we strongly opgose the plans o~ Walitl and Simt?~ t anc~ c:or~:. to build a new project neighborinn with our buildings. 'T'his will have a very strong impact on the value of our pyoperti~a. It will not only destroy :hc vices but definitely Joker their prices. Because •,ae did not know about it at the time of purchase we raquest that Ycu deny Wa11d and Si1liLalailQ Cora. plans to build in this location. '1't11s project would havt? a negative inrluence nri t?~e value of ail unite in Simba Run. ~Y ~ ~ ~ ~ `Maria I. Bioniarz 8440 N. Clifton Ave. Niles, I11. 60714 tel. (70B) 696-0925 0 REG'C~ J ik ~ 1 9~ Eric Beringause 1487 Shoreline Dr. Wayzata, MN 55391 (H) 612-476-8672 (O) 414-696-3331 Mr. Michael Mollica Assistant Director of Planning Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mike: As per my conversation with you, as well as a previous conversation with Jim Morter, the architect for Simba Run, I wo»].~ strongJ_y urge the Town of Vail to try to work out the inclusion of a public pedestrian walkway through the new Simba Run development. As the owner of two separate properties in the Sandstone area I can attest to the current frequency of use of that land as a pedestrian walkway. When the I70 underpass is finally constructed a pedestrian walkway through Simba would save at least a quarter mile walk for people living directly above Simba (Casolar Dr., Vail View Dr, etc...) and encourage people to walk to the Cascade Village Chairlift, which is currently underutilized. I believe the new Simba construction will be quite attractive and is well thought out and commend the Planning Group on a job well done. I hope the Town of Vail can figure out how to include a public walkway in those plans. Sincerely, 'Z I.7r/ Eric Beringause ~~L~ P use only. He said that dormers could be added on the south and west end of the building. He added that he would like to see them address the parking issue somehow. Greg Amsden stated that he would like to see the upper (fifth) floor removed from the design. The west end may be able to increase in height but all other roof ridges must stay the same. Dormers must be pulled back. Diana Donovan suggested that the applicant use the "dead space" in the building to redevelop. The key is to use the interior space. She commented that redevelopment does not have to be bigger. Bill Anderson stated that if the applicant could address all of Jeff Bowen's concerns, he may be able to approve the proposal. Jim Lamont stated that he would like to see the existing building areas converted without breaking out of the existing building envelope. George Lamb commented that the building is simply moved out in respect to zoning. Kathy Langenwalter said that it was important that the north side eave line should be maintained for pedestrian scale. Michael Barclay said that he appreciated the boards' comments and that he would like to bring this item back to another wori<session with a revised proposal. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the PEC generally liked the buildings as it currently is and that she would not suggest that the applicant change the overall design. Diana Donovan stated that the dormers should be created to access the "dead space" of the building, not to create additional rooms. 7. A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 to allow for the development of the remaining portion of the Simba Run SDD, Savoy Villas, located at 1100 North Frontage Road, more specifically described as follows: That part of the First Supplemental Map for Simba Run Condominium, according to the map thereof recorded in uie office of tine Gayle Couniy, Colu~ado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows: Beginning at the most southwesterly corner of said map, thence the following three courses along the westerly lines of said map; 1) NO3°33'01"E 160.79 feet; 2) N12`50'33"E 144.72 feet; 3) N17`56'03" 70.60 feet; thence, departing said westerly line, S13°16'03"W 157.26 feet, thence S76`43'57"E 91.50 feet; thence N13`16'03"E 35.00 feet; thence S76°43'57"E 72.31 feet to the easterly line of said map; thence the following two courses along the easterly and southeasterly lines of said map; 1) S24°44'57"E 52.38 feet; 2) S52°50'29"W 272.50 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.6134 acres, more or less; and That part of Simba Run, according to the map thereof, recorded in Book 312 at Page 763 in the Office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as follows: Planning and Environmental Commission June 28, 1993 7 d Beginning at the most southerly comer of said Simba Run, thence the following four courses along the southwesterly and northwesterly lines of said Simba Run; 1.) N37`09'31 "W 233.28 feet; 2) 334.57 feet along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 1771.95 feet, a central angle of 10°49'06", and a chord that bears N42'13'20"E 334.07 feet; 3) N36`48'48" E 201.36 feet; 4) 15.96 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 428.02 feet, a central angle of 02°08'12", and a chord that bears N37`52'S4" E 15.96 feet to a comer on the westerly boundary of the First Supplemental Map for Simba Run Condominium, according to the maN ti~ereot recorded in the office of the Eagle County, Goiorado, Clerk and Recorder; thence the following lour courses along said westerly boundary; 1) S21`51'28"W 69.90 feet; 2) S17`56'03"W 181.17 feet; 3) S12`50'33"W 144.72 feet; 4) S03°33'01"W 160.79 feet to the southeasterly line of said Simba Run; thence, along said southeasterly line, S52°50'29"W 113.08 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 1.560 acres, more or less. Applicant: Simba Land Corporation/Walid Said Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica made a brief presentation per the staff memo and pointed out that there were two corrections to the Zoning Analysis section of the memo on Page 4. These corrections pertained to the enclosed parking percentages. Kathy Langenwalter inquired whether the height of the proposed buildings would be higher than the buildings already in existence. She said that there are currently buildings that exceed the allowable development standard of 45 feet. Jim Morter, the architect for the project, stated that none of the proposed buildings would be higher than what is already in existence. Diana Donovan stated that she would like to see the lower access road moved so that the existing trees can be replanted immediately when they are removed for construction. Mike Mollica showed the PEC where staff would like to see additional planting on the site. He suggested the final landscaping review be conducted by the Design Review Board. Jim Morter stated that he did not want the last paragraph on Page 11 of the staff memo, to preclude future development, to be a condition of approval. Kathy Langenwalter asked staff whether the PEC could modify their recommendation for approval such that the remaining density would be "no more than one additional Type C dwelling unit consisting of 1,602 square feet (with a garage credit) to be located at the east end of the lower bench townhomes in this development plan." Diana Donovan stated that she would like to see a bike and pedestrian path constructed on the site. Jeff Bowen made a motion per the staff memo to recommend approval of this request for a major amendment to SDD #5 to allow for the development of the remaining portion of the Simba Run SDD, Savoy Villas per the staff memo with the modification Planning and Environmental Commission June 28, 1993 8 that "no more than one additional Type C dwelling unit consisting of 1,602 square feet (with a garage credit) be located at the east end of the lower bench townhomes in this development plan." Greg Amsden seconded this motion and a 5-0-1 vote approved this request with Bill Anderson abstaining due to a potential conflict of interest. S. Discussion of restrictions pertaining to development in areas having 40% or greater slope. Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica gave a brief overview of the staff memo and stated that the staff feels that the variance process is the best way to address development in areas having 40% or greater slope. There was general discussion amongst the PEC and the final PEC consensus was agreement with the staff recommendation to not modify the Code at this time. 9. Discussion of wall height standards for slopes greater than 30%. Planner: Tim Devlin Tim Devlin reiterated what Mike Mollica had said in the previous item, that the staff feels that the variance process is the best way to address the wall height standards for slopes greater than 30%. Greg Amsden commented that it was his feeling that it was positive that staff and PEC had some control over the wa{I height standards in such areas. 10. A request to review the Management Plan and Master Plan for the Vail Cemetery to be located in the upper bench of Donovan Park generally located west of the Glen Lyon subdivision and southeast of the Matterhorn neighborhood. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO JULY 12, 1993 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this request until July 12, 1993 with Greg Amsden seconding this request. A 6-0 vote tabled this item until Juty 12, 1993. 11. A request for a height variance, a density variance, a landscape variance and a major exterior alteration of the L'Ostello Condominium Building located at 705 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 4th Filing. Applicant: L'Ostello Condominiums Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED TO JULY 12, 1993 Planning and Environmental Commission June 28, 1993 9 ' ORDINANCE NO. 16 Series of 1993 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING ORDINAP~ICE N0. 29, SERIES OF 1977, ORDINANCE N0. 33, SERIES OF 1978, AND ORDINANCE NO. 24, SERIES OF 1986; AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 5 AND PROVIDING FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ITS CONTENTS; PERP•~ITTED, CONDITIONAL AND ACCESSORY USES; DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, RECREATION AMENITIES TAX, AND OTHER SPECIAL PROVISIONS; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes special development districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility in the development of land; and WHEREAS, an application has been made for the amendment of Special Development District (SDD) No. 5 for a certain parcel of property within the Town, legally described in the attached Exhibit A, and commonly referred to as the Simba Run/Vail Run Special Development District; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental Commission, on July 26, 1993, held a public: hearing on the amended SDD, and has submitted its recommendation to the Town C;auncil; and WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.00 have been sent to the appropriate parties; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to amend SDD No. 5; and WHEREAS, application has been made to the Town o; Vail to modify and amend certain sections of Special Development District No. 5, which relate to Development Area B, and which make certain changes in the development plan for Special Development District No. 5 as they specifically relate to Development Area B; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOW~I COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: SECTION 1 The Town Council finds that all the procedures set forth for Special Development Districts in Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code of the Town o` `•?ail have been fully satisfied. Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1993 1 SECTION 2 -Purposes. , Special Development District No. 5 is established to ensure comprehensive development and use of an area in a manner that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town, provide adequate open space and recreational amenities, and promote the objectives of the Zoning ordinance. The development is regarded as complementary to the Town by the Town Council aid the Planning and Environmental Commission, and there are significant aspects of the speial development which canno` be satisfied through the imposition of standard zoning districts on the area. SECTION 3 -Special Development District No. 5 Estabiished. (A) Special Developm~;nt District No. 5 is establisheda for the development on a parcel of land comprising 8.84 acres in the Lionsridge area of t'~e Town; Special Development District No. 5 and said 8.84 acres may be referred to as "SDD No. 5". (B) The existing building (Vail Run) consisting of 55 dwelling units, approximately 18,000 square feet of commercial space, a swimming pool and three tennis courts, shall be known as Development Area A. The remainder of the property containing approximately 6.3 acres shall be described as Development Area B (Simba Run and Savoy Villas). SECTION 4 -Approval of the Development Plan Req~~ired Prior to Development. (A) Before the developer commences site preparation, building construction, or other improvement of open space within SDD No. 5, there shah be an Approved Development Plan for said district. (B) The proposed dev:~lopment plan for SDD No. 5, in accordance with Section 4 hereof, shall be submitted by the developer to the Zoning Administrator who shall refer it to the Planning and Environmental Commission, which shall consider the plan at a regularly scheduled meeting, and a report of the Planning and Environm ~ntal Commission stating its findings and recommendations shall be transmitted to the Towr Council in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 18.66 of the Municipal Cody. (C) The Approved Development Plan shall be used ~ls the principal guide for all development within SDD No. 5. (D) Amendments to the Approved Development Plan: which do not change its substance and which are fully recommended in a report of the °lanning and Environmental Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1993 2 ' Commission may be approved by the Town Council by Resolution. (E) Each phase of the development shall require the prior approval of the Design Review Board in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 18.54 of the Municipal Code. SECTION 5 -Content of Proposed Development Plan. The Proposed Development Plan shall include, but is net limited to the following data: (A) The Environmental Impact Report which shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator in accordance with Chapter 18.56 hereof. (B) An open space and recreational plan sufficient to meet the demands generated by the development without undue burden on available or proposed public facilities. (C) Existing and proposed contours after grading anti site development having contour intervals of not more than tu~ro (2) feet. (D) A proposed site plan, at a scale not smaller than 1 inch = 20 feet, showing the locations and dimensions of all buildings and structures, uses tFlerein, and all principal site development features, such as landscaped areas, recreational facilities, pedestrian plazas and walkways, service entries, driveways, and off-street parking and loading areas. (E) A preliminary landscape plan, at a scale not smaller than 1 inch = 20 feet, showing existing landscape features to be retained or removed, ~;nd showing proposed landscaping and landscaped site development features, such as outdoor recreational facilities, bicycle paths, trails, pedestrian plazas and walkways, water feat~~res, and other elements. (F) Preliminary building elevations, sections, and floor plans, at a scale not smaller than 1/8 inch = 1 foot, in sufficient detail to determine floor area, gross residential floor area, interior circulation, locations of uses within buildings, and the general scale and appearance of the proposed development. (G) A proposed plan of parking, loading, traffic circulation, and transit facilities; and a proposed program for satisfying traffic and transportation needs generated by the development. (H) A volumetric model of the site and the proposed development, portraying the scale and relationships of the proposed development to the site ilustrating the form and mass of the proposed buildings. (I) An architectural model of each proposed buildinc, at a scale not smaller than 1 Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1993 3 inch = 40 feet, portraying design details. (J) A proposed program indicating order and timing ~:~f construction phases and phasing of recreational amenities and additional amenities. SECTION 6 -Permitted Conditional and Accessory Uses. (A) In Development Area A -Vail Run (existing building and recreational facilities), the following uses shall be permuted: (1) Multiple family residential dwellings; ' (2) Accessory retail, restaurant and service establishments not occupying more than 18,000 square feet including the follov~ing: Apparel Stores Art supply stores and galleries Book stores Camera stores and photographic studios Candy stores Chinaware and gl~;ssware stores Specialty food stores Florists Gift stores Hobby stores Jewelry stores Leather goods stores Liquor stores Newsstands and tobacco stores Professional and business offices Sporting goods stores Stationery stores Toy stores Variety stores Barber shops Beauty shops Travel and ticket agencies Ordinance No. 26, &eries of 1993 ~ 4 Delicatessens with food service Cocktail lounges, taverns and bars Coffee shops Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants Additional businesses or services determined to be similar to permitted uses. (B) 1n Development Area B - Simba Run, the following uses shall be permitted: (1) Multiple family residential dwellings which may be condominiumized for safe as interval ownership fee interests and the employee housing units required per Section 18.48.110 which shall be rental units. (C) In Development Areas A and B the following conditional uses shall be permitted; subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 hereof: (1) Public utility and public service uses; (2) Public buildings, grounds, and facilities; (3) Public or private schools; (4) Public park and recreation facilities; (5) Meeting rooms. (D) In Development Areas A and B the following accessory uses shall be permitted: (1) Indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, including, but not limited to, swimming pools, tennis courts, handball and squash courts and similar recreational facilities. (2) Home occupations, subject to issuance of a Home Occupation Permit in accord with the provisions of Section 18.58.130 i~ereof. (3) Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. SECTION 7 -Development Standards. The following development standards have been submitted to the Planning and Environmental Commission for its consideration and recommendations and are hereby approved by the Town Council; these standards shall be incorporated in the Approved Development Plan pertinent to each Development Area to protect the integrity of the Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1993 5 development of SDD No. 5; the following are the minimum development standards and shall apply unless more restrictive standards are incorporated in the :approved Development Plan. The standards set forth in this Article shall apply only to Development Area B. Development Area A may be modified provided that no such modification shall increase the discrepancy between the structure or site improvements and the development standards set forth in this Article for Development Area B. (A) Lot Area -Development Area B shall consist of approximately 6.3 acres. (B) Setbacks -The required setbacks shall be as indicated on the Approved Development Plan, being a minimum of 20 feet from any perimeter property line of the total site. (C) Distance Between Buildings -The minimum distances between all buildings on the site shall be as indicated on the Approved Development Plan. (D) Height -The maximum height of all buildings sh~.ll be 45 feet, with the exception of the buildings located in Phase II of Development Area B, which shall have a maximum height as indicated on the Approved Development Plan. (E) Density Control - ~ he floor area of all buildings and the number of dwelling units shall not exceed the following provisions: Development Area 3 Total SDD No. 5 Maximum gross residential floor area (sq. ft.) Interval Ownership Units 124,691 197,691 Maximum gross residential floor area Employee Dwelling Units ~,sq. ft.) 7,137 Maximum number of dwe!(ing units, not including the employee dwelling units 115 189 (F) Building Bulk Control -Building bulk, maximum v~.~all lengths, maximum dimensions of building groups, arcd requirements for wall off-sets, shall be as indicated on the Approved Development Plan. (G) Site Coverage -Not more than 20 per cent of the Development Area B shall be covered by buildings, with the exception of Phase II of Development Area B, which shall be as designated on the Approved Development Plan. (H) Landscaping and PJatural Open Space - A minimum of 60 per cent of Development Area B shall be landscaped or natural open space: in accordance with the Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1993 6 Approved Development Plan, with the exception of Phase Il cif Development Area B, which shall be as designated on the Approved Development Plan. (I) Parking and Loading - (1) Offstreet parking shall be provided in accord with Chapter 18.52 of this ordinance; at least 85 per cent of the required parking s~~all be located within the main building or buildings, or beneath accessory decks, terrac:es, plazas, or tennis courts and shall be completely enclosed and screened from viE:vr, with the exception of Phase II of Development Area B, which shall be as designated on the Approved Development Plan. (2) No parking or loading area shall be 4ocatE~ in any required front setback area or on the south side of any building, and no parkin~.7 or loading shall be permitted at any time in areas designated for recreation or open s,~~~ce use on the Approved Development Plan. (3) Driveways, passenger loading areas, and parking areas not located within a building shall be permitted only as indicated on the Approved Development Plan. (4) On-site parking shall be provided for common carriers providing charter service to the development; said parking sites shall be ir~clicated on the Approved Development Plan. (J) The Approved Development Plan for Phase II of Development Area B shall consist of the following drawings provided by IVtorter Architects: Sheet No. 1, dated June 1, 1993, and revised June 14, 1993 (Landscape Plan) Sheet No. 2, dated April 12, 1993, and revised l~fay 13 1993 and June 14, 1993 (Vicinity Plan/Site Section) Sheet No. 3, dated June 1, 1993, and revised June 14, 1993, June 15, 1993 and Juty 15, 1993 (Site Plan) Sheet No.'s 4, 5 and 6, dated April 12, 1993 (Floor Plans for Uni4 Types A, B and C) Sheet No. 7, dated fUiay 13, 1993 (Floor Plans for Employee Housing Building) Sheet No. 8, dated April 12, 1993 (Elevations 'far Unit Types A and B) Ordinance No. 26, SorieS of 1993 7 • Sheet No. 9, dated April 12, 1993, and revised June 1, 1993 (Elevations for Unit Type C) • Sheet No. 10, dated June 1, 1993 (Project Phasing Plan) SECTION 8 -Recreational Amenities Tax. The recreational amenities tax due to the development ~~rithin SDD No. 5, shall be assessed at a rate not to exceed $0.75 per square foot of floor area and shall be paid in conjunction with construction phases and prior to the issuance of a building permit. SECTION 9 -Special Provisions. (A) Conservation and °ollution Controls. (1) If fireplaces are provided within the development, they must be heat efficient through the use c}f glass enclosures, and heat circulating devices as technology exists at the time of development. (2) Developer's drainage plan shall include provisions for prevention of pollution from surface run-off. (3) Developer shall include in the building construction in Development Area B energy and water consE:rvation controls as general technology exists at the time of construction. (B) A minimum of teri (10) employee dwelling units shall be provided to be leased to employees of Vail Run or to permanent residents employed in the Gore Valley. The employee dwelling units required herein shall 311 be two bedroom units of no less than 850 square feet and shall not have fireplaces. The ten (10) employee . dwelling units shall be maintained as rental units for employees for a period of not less than twenty (20) years. Appropriate covenants, shall be filed of record in the Clerk & Recorder's Office of Eagle County to insure that the provisions of this Section are complied with. The above shall not be applicable to Phase II of Development Area B which shall consist of four (4) employee dwelling units, and which shall satisfy the requirements of a "Type III EHU" according to the Town's adopted housing ordinance (Ordinance 27, Series of 1992). (C) Approval of Subdivision and Interval Ownersl~ip -Interval ownership of multiple-family dwelling units, ~rvith the exception of the required employee dwelling Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1993 8 units and the dwelling units in Phase II of Development Area B, is hereby approved. Subdivision of the multiple-family dwelling units (not designated for employee housing) permitted in Development Area B into interval ownership fee interests shall require no additional approvals from the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission or from the Town Council for the Town of Vail. (D) Recreational Amenities -The Approved Development Plan shall include the following recreational amenities: (1) A minimum of five additional tennis courts (Development Area A presently has three tennis courts with two of them covere.~ during the winter season). Said tennis courts shall be made available to the gener~~.l public on a fee basis, subject to reasonable regulation in favor of owners or guests of tf~e development. (2) Recreation amenities fund contribution of X10,000 to be used for general recreational improvements by the Town of Vail. (3) Bike and pedestrian path traversing properly from east property line of Development Area A to west site line of Development Area B shall be provided by developer with exact location to be mutually acceptable to developer and the Town. (4) Swimming pool (in addition to existing po,~l in Development Area A) of adequate size to reasonably serve the needs of the development and shall be open to the public on a fee basis subject to reasonable regulaticn in favor of owners or guests of the development. (E) Additional Amenities - (1) Developer shall provide adequate transpar'ation services to the owners and guests of the development so as to transport them `rom the development to the Village Core area and the Lionshead area. (2) Developer shall provide in its Approved Development Plan a bus shelter of a design and location mutually agreeable to the deve;oper and the Town Council. Said shelter to serve the Lionsridge area generally. (F) Additional Requirements - The developer agrees with the following requ;rements, which are a part of this amendment to Special Development District Rlo. 5: (1) The Town shall not issue a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for any of the Phase II condominiums until such time as Temporary Certificate of Ordinance No. 26, Serlos of 1993 9 Occupancy's have been issued for all four units in t"~e employee housing building. (2) The applicant agrees that if the liability issues concerning the construction and maintenance of a public pedestrian path/easement through the property can be resolved with the Town Attorney, the applicant shall construct a pedestrian path and grant a public access easement to the Town of Vail. (3) The applicant shall obtain a Colorado Department of Transportation access permit prior to the Town's issuance of any building or grading permits for the lower bench of the development (three towntiomes). (4) The applicant agrees to permanently restrict the four employee housing units as "Type fll" EHU's, according to the Town's adopted housing ordinance. (5) The applicant shall add additional screen plantings in the berm along Lion's Ridge Loop Road, and also between the North Frontage Road and the bike path, subject to the review and approval of the Design Review Board. (6) The applicant shall grant the Town of Vail a drainage easement through the property, to provide for the existing drainage flow which currently enters the site between the proposed employee housing building and the eastern condominium building on the upper bench. The de~~eloper shall provide this easement to the Community Development Department for approval before the Town will release any building permits for the site. (7) The applicant shall provide a bike pate, easement for any portion of the relocated bike path which shall be located upon the applicant's property. The easement shall be submitted to the Community Development Department by the developer and executed prior to the Town's issuance of any building permits for the project. SECTION 10 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 ;he validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1993 10 tl ' regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sectiosis, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 11 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and its inhabitants thereof. SECTION 12 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which hay 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 sl~;all not revive any provisions or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AF°ROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this day of .1993. A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the day of , 1993, in the Municipal Building of the Town. Mayor . Attest: Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED (IN FULL) (BY TITLE ONLY) THIS DAY OF , 1993. Mayor Attest: Town Clerk Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1993 11 ~Q ®RDINANCE N®. 17 Sepses of 1993 AN ®RDINANCE APPR®VING A SPECIAL DEVEL®PAAENT DISTRICT (ICN®1NN AS SDD RB®. 213, THE VALLEY, PHASE 11) AND THE DEVEL®PIIAENT PLAN IN ACC®RDANCE yi/ITH CHAPTER 18.40 ®f~ THE VAIL INUNICIPAL C®DE AND SETTING F®RTFi DETAILS IN REGARD THERET® WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes Special Development Districts within the Town; and WHEREAS, Parkwood Realty has submitted an application for a Special Development approval for a certain parcel of property within the Town known as The Valley, Phase II, a part of Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2 to be known as Special Development District No. 28; and WHEREAS, the establishment of the requested SDD 28 will insure unified and coordinated development within the Town of Vail in a manner suitable for the area in which it is situated; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has recommended approval of the proposed SDD; and WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to establish such Special Development District No. 28. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled. Planning Commission Report. The approval procedures prescribed in Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled, and the Town Council has received the report of the Planning and Environmental Commission recommending approval of the proposed development plan for SDD 28. Section 2. Soecial Develooment District No. 28 Special Development District No. 28 (SDD No. 28) and the development plan therefore, are hereby approved for the development of Phase II, The Valley, a part of parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2, within the Town of Vail consisting of two areas. Tract A (upper development area) consists of .860 acres and Tract B-2 (lower development area) consists of 2.418 acres. Section 3. Puruose Special Development District 28 is established to insure comprehensive develo ment and use of P 1 4 an area that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail. The development is regarded as complimentary to the Town by the Town Council and meets the design standards as set forth in Section 18.40 of the Municipal Code. As stated in the staff memoranda dated July 12, 1993 and April 26, 1993, there are significant aspects of Special Development District 28 which are difficult to satisfy through the imposition of the standards of the Residential Cluster zone district. SDD 28 allows for greater flexibility in the development of the land than would be possible under the current zoning of the property. In order to help preserve the natural and scenic features of this site, building envelopes and driveway alignments will be established which designate the areas upon the site in which development will occur. SDD 28 provides an appropriate development plan that maintains the unique character of this site given the difficult site constraints which must be addressed in the overall design of the project. Section 4. Development Plan A. The development plan for SDD 28 is approved and shall constitute the plan for development within the Special Development District. The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Parkwood Realty and consists of the following documents: 1. Fina? plat of The Valley, Phase II, a resubdivision of Tracts A and B, a part of parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2 completed by Intermountain Engineering, Limited dated July 8, 1993. 2. Structural engineering drawings by Ray T. Davis dated July 7, 1993. 3. Soils report for Tracts A-1 and A-2 by Koechlein Consulting Engineers dated June 21, 1993. 4. Site plan of the lower development area (Tract B-2) by Randy Hodges dated April 24, 1993, (Sheet number 1.) 5. Site plan for the upper development area (Tract A) by Randy Hodges dated November 6, 1991, (Sheet number 4.) 6. Detailed analysis of the retaining walls, driveway, prototypical building sections and regrading for the upper development area (Tract A) by Randy Hodges dated July 12, 1992, (Two sheets, unnumbered.) 7. Hazard analysis letters by Nicholas Lampiris, Phd dated September 18, 1992 (two 22 1993. nua letters and Ja , ry 8. A landscape plan by Randy Hodges dated April 23, 1993, (Sheet number 2.) 9. A drainage plan by Range West, Inc. dated January 28, 1993. 2 "r 10. Elevations of the seven single family homes to be constructed in the lower development area (Tract B-2), (Sheet numbers 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19.) 11. Other general submittal documents that define the development standards of the. Special Development District. B. The development plan shall adhere to the following: 1. Acreage: The site is made up of two parcels: Tract A and B-2, The Valley, Phase II. Site A is made up of .860 acres and site B-2 is made up of 2.418 acres. 2. Permitted Uses: a. Single family residential dwellings b. Open space c. Public and private roads 3. Conditional Uses: a. Public utility and public service uses b. Bed and Breakfasts as further regulated by Section 18.58.310. 4. Accessory Uses: a. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single-family residential uses. b. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190; c. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof; 5. Setbacks The setbacks shall be those shown on the site plans for Tract A and Tract B-2. 6. Density: Approval of this development plan shall permit nine (9) single family dwelling units, two units located on Tract A and seven units located on Tract B-2. 7. Building Height: Building height shall be 33 feet for a sloping roof. 8. Parking: Parking shall comply with the requirements of Section 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading). Each unit shall have a minimum of two enclosed parking spaces. 9. GRFA: GRFA for Tracts A and B-2 shall conform to paragraph 11(E) of this ordinance. 3 F 10. Landscaainp: The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as indicated on the ~ landscape plan. A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for their approval. The Design Review Board approved final landscape plan shall provide at least the minimum number of trees and shrubs shown on the plan prepared by Randy Hodges dated April 23, 1993 reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission on July 12, 1993. 11. Design Requirements: At time of DRB submittal, the applicant shall submit drawings that meet the following requirements: a. Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be "benched-in" into the hillside and stepped with the natural contours of the site. Site excavation should be no more than necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Extensive site grading to create a flat building site shall not be permitted. In order to ensure compliance with the above, finished grades on the north, east and west elevations of buildings shall not deviate more than 4 feet from existing grade at any point. b. Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be designed with the internal hazard mitigation recommended by Mr. Nick Lampiris in his hazard analysis dated September 18, 1992 (two letters) and January 22, 1993. c. Buildings on Tract A-2 shall be designed with a tum-around using the apron in front of the garage on envelope A-2. The garage and apron may be located at any point along the southern edge of the envelope. The Fire Department shall require that 35 feet be provided between the front of the garage door and the far edge of pavement of the driveway. There shall be a minimum height of 12.5 feet of clearance in the turnaround area to allow for fire truck maneuvering. d. The sod areas shall align with the existing sod areas of Grouse Glen located to the west of Tract B-2 and the sod type shall match Grouse Glen. e. The GRFA of the proposal shall comply with the following chart. The GRFA allocated for each residence in the lower development area (Tract B-2) and each envelope in the upper development area (Tract A) may be modified up to 50 square feet per unit as long as the total GRFA for each tract does not exceed the maximum of 13,314 for the lower development 4 0 4 area (Tract B-2) and 6,152 for the upper development area (Tract A). Lower develoament area (Tract B-2): Base Floor Credit GRFA current garage Area overage* credit A. 1816 225 2041 16 463 B. 1816 225 2041 16 493 C. 1845 225 2070 493 D. 2148 225 2373 24 .486 E. 1675 225 1900 0 492 F. 2157 225 2382 26 483 G. 1857 225 2082 21 476 total 13314 Uooer development area (Tract A): A-1. 3252 225 3477 600 A-2. 2900 225 3125 600 total 6152 * The drawings submitted at this time exceed the allowable by the amount shown in this column. At time of DRB review, the applicant shall reduce the plans so they do not exceed the allowable. Floor areas may change by up to 50 square feet from those shown in the "base floor area" column as long as the GRFA does not exceed the total shown for each tract. f. The architectural design of Building B located in Tract B-2 shall be redesigned so that it is distinctly different from Buildings A or C as determined by the DRB. The architect for Building B shall revise the drawings so that the roof lines, the entries, the materials and color are distinctly different from either Building A or C. g. Prior to excavation of either building site on Tract A, the applicant shall either document that all excavation will occur on-site or shall provide letters from adjacent property owners allowing the excavation to encroach. h. Prior to Town approval of the Single Family Subdivision for the lower development area, the applicant shall dedicate public access easements for the common driveway as well as the pedestrian access path. i. Immediately following the second reading of this SDD, applicant shall record at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office an instrument which shall notify future buyers of the reports, drawings and Town of Vail approved development plans for this parcel. The restriction shall state that: "Tracts A and B-2 of The Valley, Phase II, a resubdivision of Tracts A and B, a part of parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2 has been approved as an Special Development District by the Town of Vail, Ordinance fVo. 17, Series of 1993. This approval for Tract A mandates building envelope location and road/driveway alignments. These approved plans may be amended only by the Town of Vail, per Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code. Future 5 Y owners should review engineering drawings by Ray T. Davis dated July 7, 1993 and a soils study by Koechlein Consulting Engineers dated June 21, 1993 on file with the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Future owners should also be aware that all retaining walls should meet the maximum height limits set forth in the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Proposed plans dated by meeting such requirements are on file in the Town of Vail Community Development Department." 12. Recreation Amenities Tax: The recreation amenities tax is $.30 per square foot. Section 5. Amendments Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance may be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060 and 18.40.100. Amendments which do change the substance of the development plan shall be required to be approved by Town Council after the above procedure has been followed. The Community Development Department shall determine what constitutes a change in the substance of the development plan. Section 6. Expiration The applicant must begin construction of the Special Development District within 18 months from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward completion of the project. If the applicant does not begin and diligently work toward the completion of the Special Development District or any stage of the Special Development District. They shall recommend to the Town Council that either the approval of the Special Development District be extended, that the approval of the Special Development District be revoked, or that the Special Development District be amended. Section 7. 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 declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 8. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal 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 6 h and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any W ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS day of , 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the day of , 1993 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Ordered published in full this day of , 1987. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of , 1993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk 7 i~IENIORANDUfl/i TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 12, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a proposed SDD and a minor subdivision to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase 11/1490 Buffehr Creek Road. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner: Andy Knudtsen I. INTRODUCTION On April 26, 1993, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) discussed the proposal made by Steve Gensler and reached a general consensus to approve the plan. One outstanding issue, however, involved the site work in the upper development area. The PEC wanted a soils test provided for this area to verify that the proposed plans could in fact be constructed. In addition, the PEC wanted to see more detailed drawings regarding the retaining walls, driveway slope, site sections and spot elevations for the proposal. Staff has attached the memo from April 26, 1993 as well as the minutes from that hearing at the end of this packet. In that memo, staff has provided a full discussion of the SDD criteria and all of the issues related to these developments. II. DISCUSSION OF SOILS REPORT The engineers analyzing the soils for this site have determined that the rear retaining walls of structures can be built up to 26 feet high. (Please note that this wall would be incorporated into the building.) In their opinion, walls of this height can be built since there is bedrock on this site. Bedrock was encountered approximately 7 feet below the surface of the earth and continues down to the extent of the testing, which was 40 feet below the surface. In addition, they have said that boulder retaining walls would also be allowable on this site up to 8 feet in height. At this time, the applicant shows that 4 to 6 foot walls will be the maximum height for all retaining walls. Their concern is with the amount of excavation required in order to construct a 26 foot high rear retaining wall. In the executive summary, they cite that "the potential for encroachment_ on adjacent property during construction needs to be considered." Staff believes that given the extent of the cut, the excavation could be excessive. Staff recommends that written approval be secured from adjacent property owners for encroaching or that the excavation be done with a method of "pile driving". With the "pile driving", staff understands that the excavation will not extend off-site. 1 II. CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the proposed SDD and minor subdivision. We believe all of the issues related to the development have been discussed and documented in previous hearings. Regarding the last area of concern, staff believes that the soils tests have documented that the site can sustain the type of development designed by Steve Gensler and Randy Hodges. Given this additional information, staff believes that the proposed design is reasonable and should be approved. The conditions of approval from the end of the memo dated April 26, 1993 are provided below. Staff has added one condition (#7) and partially changed another (#B), which are shown underlined. The conditions shown in bold were modified at the last PEC hearing. A. Prior to the scheduling of the proposal for first reading at Town Council, the following changes must be incorporated into the drawings: 1) Drawings for the automobile access to the upper development area shall be provided and refined, noting all assumptions to be made regarding the building location, identifying top of wall and bottom of wall elevations, and providing sections through each building envelope showing the building, any retaining walls and driveway. B. At time of DRB submittal, the applicant shall submit drawings that meet the followin4 conditions for DRB review and approval:, 1) Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be "benched-in" into the hillside and stepped with the natural contours of the site. Site excavation should be no more than necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Extensive site grading to create a flat building site is not permitted. In order to ensure compliance with the above, finished grades on the north, east and west elevations of buildings should not deviate more than 4 feet from existing grade at any point. 2) Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be designed with the internal hazard mitigation recommended by Mr. Nick Lampiris in his hazard analysis dated September 18, 1992 (two letters) and January 22, 1993. 3) Buildings on Tract A-2 shall be designed with aturn-around using the apron in front of the garage on envelope A-2. The garage and apron may be located at any point along the southern edge of the envelope. The Fire Department is requiring that 35 feet be provided between the front of the garage door and the far edge of pavement of the driveway. There must be a minimum of 12.5 feet of clearance for this distance. 4) The sod areas align with the existing sod areas of Phase II and that the sod type matches Phase II. 5) The GRFA of the proposal must be modified to comply with the following chart. 2 'V The GRFA allocated for each residence in the lower development area and each envelope in the upper development area can'be modified by 50 square feet. Total GRFA for each area may not exceed the maximum of 13,314 for the lower development area (Tract B) and 6,152 for the upper development area (Tract A). Lower development area: Base Floor Credit GRFA current garage Area overage credit A. 1816 225 2041 16 463 B. 1816 225 2041 16 493 C. 1845 225 2070 493 D. 2148 225 2373 24 486 E. 1675 225 1900 0 492 F. 2157 225 2382 26 483 G. 1857 225 2082 21 476 total 13314 Upper development area: A-1. 3252 225 3477 600 A-2. 2900 225 3125 600 total 6152 The drawings submitted at this time exceed the allowable by the amount shown in this column. At time of DRB review, the applicant shall reduce the plans so they do not exceed the allowable. Floor areas may change by up to 50 square feet from those shown in the "base floor area" column. GRFA may not exceed the total shown for each area. 6) The architectural design of Building B must be redesigned so that it is distinctly different from Buildings A or C as determined by the DRB. The architect for Building B should revise the drawings so that the roof lines, the entries, the materials and color are distinctly different from either Building A or C. 7) Prior to excavation of either building site on Tract A, the applicant shall either document that all excavation will occur on-site or shall provide letters from adjacent property owners allowing the excavation to encroach. C. Prior to Town approval of the Single Family Subdivision for the lower development area. The applicant shall dedicate access easements for the common driveway as well as the pedestrian access path; 3 Neon ordinance -second reading Kristan Pritz stated that this item was tabled at the July 6, 1993 Town Council meeting. Par 3 discussion at Town Council on July 6, 1993 Kristan Pritz stated that Town Council was allowing the Vail Recreation District to continue to work the Army Corps of Engineers concerning the golf course design and possibly the wetlands. SPEC/Council discussion of SDD criteria -set date Diana Donovan suggested that it might be helpful for each PEC member to write down their thoughts conceming SDD criteria prior to the discussion with Council. Jeff Bowen stated that it might be helpful if the PEC members met concerning SDD criteria prior to a discussion with Council so that they can reach a consensus on what they feel are the most significant issues. Kristan Pritz suggested that this meeting take place in early 1994, after the new Town Council members have been elected. Follow-up on John Lincoln workshop Kristan Pritz stated that John Lincoln was currently working on the summary of the PEC's workshop with him and as soon as staff received the report, it would be given to the PEC. At this point, Allisson Lassoe arrived at the meeting. 10. Public Works Workshop on their Proposed Master Plan (Please see enclosed invitation). The PEC was invited to attend the workshop. 11. A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase 11/1480 Buffer Creek Rd. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen made a brief presentation per the staff memo and stated that a soils analysis had been completed for this site. He added that a structural engineer had also analyzed the site. From these studies it has been determined that the soil can support the proposed development although there will be significant site disturbance. He stated that the staff was recommending approval of this proposed SDD with Planning and Environmental Commission July 12, 1993 ~ conditions which are set forth in pages 2-3 of the staff memo. Andy said that the Town Engineer had not completed his review of this proposal yet but that this would happen before this item goes for first reading in front of Council. Bill Anderson asked how all of the previously discussed concerns with this site would be conveyed to potential future buyers of the homes. Jay Peterson stated that they can be put on the plat map. Andy Knudtsen stated that they can also put this information in the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office on the title for the property. Tom Braun stated that the hazards on the site will be noted as well as the soils report. Jay Peterson stated that this information could be referenced by property restrictions. Jeff Bowen stated that the citizens of Vail feel that situations such as this proposal on steep terrain should not be addressed by an SDD and he agrees with this position. He said that for this reason, he would be voting against this request for an SDD. Bill Anderson stated that the applicant has worked hard on this site to make it developable. Diana Donovan stated that she felt the PEC had taken as many steps as they could and that the project is better now than what was originally proposed. Allison Lassoe stated that she agrees with Bill's and Diana's comments. She said that the soils report and the structural engineer's report were helpful in making a determination for this site. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was uncomfortable with this project but that she respects the applicant's development rights for this site. Tom Braun, the applicant's architect, stated that he feels this proposal has adequately addressed the previous concems that the PEC had with this project. He added that the only development standard being deviated from with this current proposal on this Tract pertained to building in areas with 40% or greater slopes. Jeff Bowen stated that he has a philosophical problem with this type of development on steep slopes. Diana Donovan made a motion to approve this request per the staff memos of 1993 (April 12, 1993, April 26, 1993 and July 12, 1993) with the conditions that 1) a reference to the ICoechlin soils report and a reference to the requirements for wall designs will be indicated the on the plat and title report, and 2) that Greg Hall review the wall designs and soils report before the project goes to Council for first reading. Allison Lassoe seconded this motion and a 4-1 vote approved this Planning and Environmental Commission July 12, 1993 5 . _ request with Jeff Bowen opposing for the reasons stated previously. 12. A request for a minor subdivision for Lots 14 and 15, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision. Applicant: SBC Development Corporation Planner: Mike Mollica/Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte made a brief presentation per the staff memo and stated that staff was recommending approval of this request for a minor subdivision. Rodger Tilkemeyer, representatives from the Spraddle Creek Livery stated that they had concerns with the subdivision, especially with regard to living up to previous agreements with the livery. Jay Peterson, representing the owners and developers of Spraddle Creek, stated that he was unaware of any problems with the livery and encouraged people to talk to him directly rather than in a public forum. He pointed out that in any event, the problems with the livery have nothing to do with the application currently before the PEC. Jeff Bowen made a motion per the staff memo to approve this request for a minor subdivision with Diana Donovan seconding this motion. A 5-0 vote approved this request. 13. A request for a worksession to discuss a conditional use permit to allow an expansion of the Vail Associates vehicle maintenance shop located at the NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 7 and the SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 6, Township 5 South Range 80 W of the 60th P.M.Nail Associates. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the staff memo summarizing Vail Associates, Inc.'s request for a conditional use permit to expand the easternmost building on the property. He requested that the PEC focus on the discussion issues outlined in pages 3-6 of the staff memo (parking requirement, landscape improvements, possible access permit modifications, possible impacts to West Forest Road, long term joint maintenance agreement for West Forest Road and the proposed building design and materials). Bill Pierce, the architect for this project, stated that he feels that the parking requirement outlined by staff is too high because the vehicle maintenance shop only has between thirty-one and fifty-six employees and therefore the parking demand on the site is not high. Kristan Pritz explained that the staff used a worst case parking requirement to indicate that even given that requirement the project met the parking requirement. She noted Planning and Environmental Commission July 12, 1993 6 (rViE11AORANDUIIA TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 12, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase 11/1480 Buffer Creek Rd. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner: Andy Knudtsen I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to modify an Eagle County approved development plan located on either side of Buffer Creek Road in Phase II of "The Valley". The site is made up of an upper and lower area. The reason the applicant is applying for an SDD is to allow: 1. Development to be located on slopes greater than 40%; 2. A 10 foot setback for building A in the lower development area where 20 feet is required. 3. Walls, 4 feet in height, to be built in the front setback of the upper development area which exceed the height limit by 1 foot;. and 4. A lot to be created in the upper development area which does not meet the minimum buildable area for this zone district; fn conjunction with the Special Development District request, the applicant has submitted a minor subdivision proposal. The minor subdivision would create lots for the two single family homes on the upper development area only. It is the intention of the applicant to use the single family subdivision process in the lower development area and to sell off individual houses as they are constructed. Lower development area description The lower development area is proposed to have 7 single family homes. These will be located on either side of a private access road. The proposed access road descends from Buffer Creek Road at an 8% slope. The road is intended to be 22 feet wide and will provide automobile access to garages in each home. There will be a fire truck turn-around located at the bottom of the road. The seven homes in this area will have a GRFA which ranges from approximately 1,700 square feet to approximately 2,200 square feet. In addition to this square footage, each home will have atwo-car garage. The ridge heights for the proposed homes range from 27 feet to 30 feet. 1 L Upaer development area description The upper development area is designed at this time to include two single family homes, which each have their respective building envelopes. There would be a total of two single family homes in the upper development area. For the western site, there will be a building envelope of 3,000 square feet and a proposed GRFA of 3,252 square feet. The eastern building envelope will be 2,346 square feet in size and is intended to have 2,900 square feet of GRFA. Access to these parcels is proposed to be from a 16-foot wide shared driveway. II. BACKGROUND The proposed development plan is part of the second phase of The Valley. The six different phases of The Valley were approved in Eagle County in the late 1970's and the early 1980's. On June 3, 1980, the County approved 32,909 square feet of GRFA and 26 dwelling units for Phase II. Some of this development potential has already been used in the Grouse Glen and Buffer Creek Townhouse developments. Since the County approval, the area has been annexed into the Town of Vail. The ordinance annexing this area (Ordinance 13, Series of 1981) includes a provision recognizing the County approval. The Ordinance states that any significant changes to the previously approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the IUWfl UI Vall f lgllllilii~ allij Lily"liiiiilli~iilai ~.Uilliiii~~iull. The Eagle County approved plans dated June 3, 1980 provide a benchmark for evaluating the proposed development statistics. Since the original approval, there has been partial development of the site. Grouse Glen has been constructed, consisting of six dwelling units and 6,233.8 square feet of the GRFA. In 1991, Jack Snow completed construction on five existing foundations which are now called the Buffer Creek Townhomes. This development consisted of five dwelling units and 7,208.9 square feet of GRFA. The remaining development potential includes 15 dwelling units and 19,466.3 square feet of GRFA available for Steve Gensler to use on the rest of the site. The following table summarizes this information: Eagle Grouse Buffer Remaining County Glen Creek Development Approval Townhouses Potential 26 D U's 6 D U's 5 D U's 15 D U's 32,909 sq. ft. 6,233.8 sq. ft. 7,208.9 sq. ft. 19,466.3 sq. ft. The Eagle County approved plans for the lower development area consisted of a centralized parking area at the top of the site, with walking paths to the dwelling units. There was no automobile access to any of the units, and as a result, there were no garages. The units were two to three stories in height (24' to 30') and ranged from 924 to 1400 square feet of GRFA. The proposed development for the upper area consisted of five dwelling units, similar in design to The Valley Townhomes. There was no parking in this area, other than a "pull-out" area off the north side of Buffehr Creek Road. It is important to note that the County approved plans for the upper area located the units partially on slopes greater than 40%. 2 On January 11, 1993, June 24, 1991, December 9, 1991, and December 16, 1991, the PEC reviewed very similar plans to the current proposal. Steve Gensler was the applicant at that time, also. During the 1991 review of this project, it was determined that the proposal involved four departures from Town of Vail zoning standards. Because of these departures, the applicant has applied for an SDD. 3 IV. Zoninq Ar .is Zoning: Residential Cluster Lot Area: Upper 40,740 sq. ft. Buildable Lot Area: Upper: 8,386 sq. ft Lower 105.318 sq. ft. Lower: 64,623 sq. i~. Total 146,058 sq. ft. Total: 73,009 sq. f;." April 12, 1993 January 11, 1993 Residential June 3, 1980 Gensler Proposal Gensler Proposal Cluster County Approval Dwelling Units 9 9 10 15 'GRFA 19,466 sq. tt. 19,966 sq. it. 18,52 sq. tt. _15,777.2 sq. it. was proposed 19,466 sq. ft. is allowed Site Coverage 10.9% or 15,889 sq. tt. 11.3 % or 16,489 sq. ft. 25°/~ or 36,514 sq. ft. 6.9% or 10,209 sq. ft. Setbacks 10' front 20' on 20' 'rout 3' front 20' sides all sides 15' sides 22' side 5' rear Height 27' - 30' 33' 33' 30' Parking 35 spaces 36 spaces 10 > 2.5 = 25 spaces 22 spaces"" Landscaping 77.9% or 113,830 sq. ft. 77% or 113,135.3 sq. ft. 60°/; or 87,634.6 sq. ft. 86% or 125,673.3"' Retaining Walls 4' 6' 6' 4' - 6' 'Size of 0 sq. it." 0 sq. ft." 8,000 n/a Buildable Area in 8386 sq. tt. " 8386 sq. it." Proposed Lots Other comparisons (please note that these are not zoning standards) Asphalt coverage 9.5% or 13,892 sq.ft."' 9.2% or 13,500.6 sq. ft. n/a 7.3% or 10,742.3 sq. ft. Impervious surface 22.1% or 32,228 sq.ft."" 22.3% or 32,624.6 sq. ft. n/a 14% or 20,385.6 sq. ft. 'Deviates from Zoning Code standards "Measured by staff "'Assumes that only half of the full circle of parking is built 4 I d IV. I+~O®IFICATIONS IiAADE SINCE THE 3ANl1ARY 11. 1993 PEC WORK SESSION On January 11, 1993, the PEC reviewed the proposal at a work session: Minutes from that meeting are attached to this memo. A summary of the PEC comments for the lower development area were: 1) That mature evergreen trees should be saved, 2) That fill from the road should be reduced, 3) That the units should be clustered and some incorporated into duplexes, 4) That site impacts of the development should be minimized, 5) That the proposal's character should integrate with the existing portions of Phase II, 6) That the proposed amount of GRFA and the single family home use was acceptable, 7) That two Planning Commissioners said that garages and automobile access to the homes were acceptable. Concerning the upper development area, the Planning Commission's comments included: 1) That the building envelopes should be reduced in size, 2) That tine envelopes si~uuld be si~ifted down oft of tine uppermost part of the hillside, 3) That the envelopes should be shifted to the east and moved closer together, 4) That detailed designs of the driveway, the garage aprons and the turnaround areas should be provided so that there would be an accurate understanding of what future development would look like. a) Lower Development Area Since that meeting, the applicant has modified the proposal. For the lower development area, the site has been surveyed, and all aspen larger than an 8-inch caliper and all evergreens above 20 feet in height have been identified. There are eighty-eight trees identified in the survey, which can be broken down into three different clusters. The first is in the central part of the site, the second is at the lower part of the site and the third is at the upper part of the site along the road. With the changes made since the last review, the applicant has been able to save one of the clusters of trees. This cluster is made up of five evergreen trees with calipers ranging from 8 to 24 inches. In addition, the applicant has been able to reduce the length of the road by 20 feet. This in turn, has reduced the amount of fill that is required. Previously, the fill required ranged from 10 to 12 feet in depth. At this time, the maximum amount of fill ranges from 6 to 8 feet. For a majority of the road, the fill is 4 feet or less. The area of asphalt has been reduced by 128 square feet. Heights of the buildings have been reduced from 33 feet to a range of 27 feet to 30 feet. Landscaped area has increased by approximately 700 square feet. 5 b) Upper Development Area Since the January 11, 1993 work session, the applicant has changed the upper development area by reducing the size of the building envelopes, shifting these to the east and eliminating the upper 10 feet of each of the envelopes. Envelope A-1 has been shifted 25 feet to the east. Envelope A-2 has been shifted 15 feet to east. The applicant has also recognized the Town's ownership of right-of-way in the boundary line dispute. The applicant has widened the road to accommodate Fire Department requirements. The applicant has not identified garage locations, garage slab elevations, parking areas, automobile turnaround areas, or the retaining walls that are required to accommodate the access. Staff believes this information should be provided. A very important addition to the proposal for the upper development area is a limitation to the amount of site disturbance which will be allowed. In an effort to prohibit any scarring on the back or sides of the two buildings, the proposed language will be added to the plat: "Buildings on Travis A-1 and A-2 shouliJ be '~benci~ed-in" to inc hillside and stepped with the natural contours of the site. Site excavation should be no more than necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Extensive site grading to create a flat building site is not permitted. In order to ensure compliance with the above, finished grades on the north, east and west elevations of buildings should not deviate more than 4 feet from existing grade at any point." Staff believes that this proposed language will ensure that the development, which is to be designed at a future date, will be well integrated in the hillside. c) GRFA In the previous discussions with the PEC, the applicant has proposed an additional 500 square feet of GRFA to the amount approved by the County. At this time, the applicant has eliminated this portion of the request and is now complying with the amount set by the Eagle County approval. The proposed building floor plans will have to be modified slightly to meet this amount. At this time, the staff measured approximately 96 square feet of GRFA in excess of what the County approved. The homes in the lower development area will need to be adjusted so that the drawings match the amount stated on the plans. The applicant has agreed to do this at the time of DRB application. The following table identifies the maximum allowable GRFA for each envelope. GRFA may not be transferred from one envelope to another. 6 Lower development area: Base Floor Credit GRFA current overage which Area must be eliminated. A. 1816 225 2041 16 B. 1816 225 2041 16 C. 1845 225 2070 - D. 2148 225 2373 24 E. 1673 225 1898 3 F. 2157 225 2382 26 G. 1859 225 2084 21 Upper development area: A-1. 3252 225 3477 A-2. 2900 225 3125 d) l~a~uiCfS The applicant has provided additional analysis by Mr. Nick Lampiris regarding both the debris flow and rockfall hazards. The lower development area has been found not to be significantly affected by either of the hazards. Nick Lampiris specifically states that no mitigation is needed for the lower development area. Concerning the upper development area, the debris flow hazard will skirt the two building envelopes and does not need to be mitigated. However, rockfall does need to be mitigated. The geologist has recommended that on the north elevations of the two homes in the Upper Development Area, that 3 feet of exposed foundation wall, which can withstand 300 pounds per square foot of impact, be provided. This is not to be broken up by any windows or doorways. Based on the hazards reports and this recommendation, staff believes the hazards have been satisfactorily addressed. 7 V. SDD CRITERIA A. 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. Staff believes that the new design for the lower development area has improved its sensitivity to the immediate environment and neighborhood by shifting the building locations up out of the meadow. This has, in turn, reduced the length of the road by 20 feet, reduced the amount of fill required, and preserved the cluster of trees at the lower end of the development. As stated earlier, these trees range in caliper from 8 to 24 inches. There is 128 square feet less asphalt in the Lower Development Area since the road has been shortened and approximately 4 feet less fill required. Concerning the upper development area, staff believes that the building envelopes are reasonable locations for two single family homes. The applicant has stated a requirement on tine plat stipulating that the grade on the west, north and east elevations of both single family homes not change more than 4 feet from the existing grade. This will insure that there is no scarring of the hillside as a result of development and will insure that the homes are "benched- in" the hillside. The applicant has shifted the envelopes to the east to reduce the amount of road required and has brought the envelopes 10 feet down off the hillside. Staff is concerned about the retaining walls that will be necessary abutting the garages for these two envelopes, to allow access. We estimate that two or possibly three walls could be needed adjacent to the garages. Staff is primarily concerned about this retaining and believes that it could affect the visual integrity of the upper area. Staff believes that this SDD Criteria comes into play for issues such as retaining and we believe this information should be provided prior to Council review. Staff believes that the site plan of the lower and upper development areas generally meet this SDD Criteria; however, we believe that the architectural design of the lower development area could be modified to make it more compatible to the adjacent properties. We believe the use of shingles as a siding material is not compatible. We believe that the three types of materials that should be used on the exterior include stucco, stone and wood siding. This would help integrate it with the existing portions of Phase II. Staff is also concerned about the design of Building B. At this time, Units A, B, and C are virtually identical, with one being a mirror image of the other two. These three have been laid out so that they are lined up in a row. Staff believes that there needs to be more visual interest and variety with these three homes and is recommending that the center home be significantly modified from the two on either side of it. 8 Building A encroaches 10 feet into the front setback. Because there is 21 feet between the property line and the edge of pavement, there will be an apparent 31 foot setback. Staff believes that the benefits that have resulted from shifting all of the homes up out of the meadow will outweigh the few negative aspects associated with the setback encroachment. Given the 31 feet of distance between the home and the road, staff believes it will be acceptable. The deck on this corner of the house does not need to encroach into the setback as much as it does, and staff believes it should be pulled a minimum of 5 feet from the property line. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The proposed use for both development areas is single family homes. This use is listed in the zoning code as an allowed use for the Residential Cluster Zone District. We believe that the homes provide a workable relationship with the surrounding uses, even though many of them to the west are condominiums. We believe that the use is reasonable and that with some design modifications to the architecture and landscaping, that the development will be compatible. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 9 8.52. All of the home sites in both the upper development and lower development areas comply with the Town's parking requirements. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban ®esign Plans. The Land Use Plan designates this parcel as Medium Density Residential (MDR). As proposed, the development will be 5.4 units per buildable acre. MDR allows a range of 3-14 dwelling units per acre. As a result, staff finds that the proposal is consistent with The Vail Land Use Plan designation. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Please see the analysis done by Mr. Nick Lampiris discussed above and attached to this memo. Staff has listed the recommendations from his study as conditions of approval. P. 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. 9 Staff believes that the location of the buildings, since they have been shifted to the east, have resulted in better open space provisions and are more responsive to the existing vegetation. Though the road accessing the Lower Development Area will remove a stand of trees, staff believes that any development plan in the remaining portion of Phase II would require removing some trees. Staff believes that, in general, there is a reasonable balance between preserving the overall aesthetic quality of this portion of The Valley and building out the approved density. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic has been addressed in this design. Concerning the upper development area, there is vehicle access to both envelopes. Concerning the lower development area, there is vehicle access to each home site as well as a pedestrian path that ties into the rest of The Valley pathway system. At the time the lower area is developed, the applicant will complete a single family subdivision in order to sell off the homes. At that time, the common roadway and pedestrian pathway must be dedicated as access ease?r~ents. The Fire Department has approved the vehicular access plan for the lower development area as well as the upper development area with one condition. They are requiring the applicant to design aturn-around using the apron in front of the garage on envelope A-2. The garage and apron may be located at any point along the southern edge of the envelope. The Fire Department is requiring that 35 feet be provided between the front of the garage door and the far edge of pavement (of the driveway). There must be a minimum of 12.5 feet of clearance for this distance. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. Staff believes that the landscaping in the lower development area could be improved by adding more trees between it and the existing portions of Phase II. Specifically, we would like to see approximately 6 evergreen trees and 6 aspen trees added in this area. A minor point is to have the areas proposed for sod tie in to the existing lawn area of the Valley and modify the type of sod to match the existing sod. I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that wilt maintain a workable, functlonal and efficient relationship throughout the development of the Special Development District. The minor subdivision that is proposed ensures that there will be a functional and efficient relationship throughout this portion of the development and the rest of The Valley. Easements will be shown on the plat to accommodate both on- site and off-site drainage. At this time, the Town Engineer has not received 10 one component of a drainage study. As result, the staff is adding a condition of approval that prior to first reading at Town Council of the SDD, the applicant provide all information the Town Engineer needs in his review of the drainage plan for the development. Any structures or easements that are recommended. in the drainage study will need to be provided for in the design and on the subdivision plat prior to scheduling this development for first reading. Easements for pedestrian and vehicular traffic will also be provided on the plat. VI. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA The standards for creating lots in this zone district are as follows: Section 18.14.050 "The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand square feet, containing no less than eight thousand square feet of buildable area. Each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet. Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet on each site within its boundaries." Though both of the proposed lots exceed the minimum size, the west lot does not contain the minimum amount of buildable area. The requirement is for eight thousand square feet, and the proposal, as measured by staff, provides no buildable square footage for the western envelope. If the SDD is approved, this deviation from the standards may be allowed. The PEC is the approving authority for the Minor Subdivision request. However, Town Council is the approving authority for the SDD. As a result, staff recommends that once the plat is modified to address the Town staff concerns, that the PEC make their approval contingent upon the Town Council's approval of the SDD. VI1. CONCLUSION/STAFF RECOf1flIViENDATION Staff believes that this project meets all the SDD review criteria and is recommending approval of the proposed development plan with the following conditions. Assuming that the following changes can be incorporated into the drawings, staff recommends that the PEC recommend to Town Council that this SDD be approved. A. Prior to the scheduling of the proposal for first reading at Town Council, the following changes must be incorporated into the drawings: 1) The information provided in the completed drainage report must be incorporated into the drawings, including proposed improvements as well as easements; 2) The landscape plan must be amended so that the sod areas align with the existing sod areas of Phase II and that the sod type matches Phase II; 11 3) The landscaping plan must be amended to add 6 spruce trees and 6 aspen trees in the area between the proposed development and Phase II. ' 4) The deck on Building A must be redesigned so that it provides a 5 foot setback. B. Prior to scheduling a DRB hearing for any individual home, the applicant shall provide documentation that: 1) Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 should be "benched-in" into the hillside and stepped with the natural contours of the site. Site excavation should be no more than necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Extensive site grading to create a flat building site is not permitted. In order to ensure compliance with the above, finished grades on the north, east and west elevations of buildings should not deviate more than 4 feet from existing grade at any point. 2) Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be designed with the internal hazard mitigation recommended by Mr. Nick Lampiris in his hazard analysis dated September 18, 1992 and January 22, 1993. 3) Buildings on Tract A-2 shall be designed with aturn-around using the apron in front of the garage on envelope A-2. The garage and apron may be located at any point along the southern edge of the envelope. The Fire Department is requiring that 35 feet be provided between the front of the garage door and the far edge of pavement of the driveway. There must be a minimum of 12.5 feet of clearance for this distance. 4) The GRFA of the proposal must be modified to comply with the following chart; GRFA may not be transferred from one residence to another. Lower development area: Base Floor Credit GRFA Area A. 1816 225 2041 B. 1816 225 2041 C. 1845 225 2070 D. 2148 225 2373 E. 1673 225 1898 F. 2157 225 2382 G. 1859 225 2084 Upper development area: A-1. 3252 225 3477 A-2. 2900 225 3125 12 5) The architectural design of Building B, must be redesigned so that it is distinctly different from Buildings A or C, as determined by DRB; 6) The siding material, proposed as shingles, must be revised to siding similar to that used on other buildings used in The Valley. C. Prior to Town approval of the Single Family Subdivision for the tower development area. The applicant shall dedicate access easements for the common driveway as well as the pedestrian access path; D. The minor subdivision approval shall be conditioned upon the SDD receiving final approval from Town Council. 13 a.=I, of Tl[v.TIOM ~,~U1Jv~d ~ ~OrJ~11 ~ a srte tn3~e.o sc Ct.l• 7 - Wil-ah^k ca6vwcE q-tin. a.r. [4z~ VI'i r.r.e•°. o . u ~ Irv~rlG 9G 6. •64 CH. c.i Y.• - `:-:,~,•t,~ ~~L1 u Xn:GVAE.~orL+°i.cG dl?W. Ct6c1 16( IG~n ~ ~ wwc I s\ 11 q ~Lr~d=¢-=~_ ,1^~-~=-~~ - ~.~"lti_"n.,'~ ` / \ ~.~e l~p` ~ " :P+6 GIYTQ ICS. 2f+SrDG e:.:hTTtt~y ~ _EK4i hLLd.JtY)- 4.C A2 ~C~.rnY ItG"P' \ I ~ ••R' ~ 1~ a'1^<.~l ~G7J • 2 b011 X297 ero.~w -aoa ~P \ ~ ~ vsTk.T`( ~1-1~41Ea~- b JHITi ~.t rGiG ~II.s psi dllbn.cdor3do ~y1 T \ ~f. ~ JiPd'XO• l-.ir"1 .~rI~YZ PF.i~ rah -l J'%f!',;l (j ~ ate... ? I E10435 •°.4 ~ .1 ~„i raEa.~cr::s•>+n~+w- c.•.~ ~J~w-c ~wav2e l ~r' F''~~ t yo I w._.r•~1c.: • •f.~-1 303.468.5871 C Plae Iw.e+ I/.r1Crt.P~eK'•:'r4~ =r."+~- ©:G C~ 4Td .'l t2 ~ / - > \ - ~:r ~~~,~c-' ~ :•~w.la•. aroac.su• z NKC^S ~2A 'J-lT :~11v~ nr~rr<a- issued tdate \ n ~ J ' \ / I• ~--y,•w n.v. ~ \ 1 :fi.6 Ir1•.,IGo C,r.w-CE ~ - +~1 ,t" ` _ ~ m wdt~'_E.J. ZGS-s7.I•GL ~KC'+i 2 WIVrLL.-J fYGStS. e r r, - I~.r f \ ~ 1 ~ ON ~.,;a l ~ i~r --f~_c~ ~;,.rr ~ . 1 ~CF ~t=;_ tlt•~I 1 I I~f ~ \ ~7 j,,! 1'~ % ~ NG4.:t[ `a's'`;\~..`.~.- ~ IiJ.aV.I`!i h IS-IL i., - `i :9e ~ n~' \ ~ +~\y / - \ ii+~ ~ f FDA n IH164~f • ~ ~ a ~ : S-' ~ ~ HuGrrr . ~ \ °a \ ~ c IBas s.r. I e,,P ^ . \ r v 12146 S4 ' f I lio f ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ \:~d'rat aY:S... \ I r~J F 2~ti9'.4 " I fo ^N'0, \ i\~I' .:vr 1.r~' \ ~ \ 1 G_ C,r sr I! / fl ~ ~ ( . ~ IRAf NIB. ~ \ \ \ ~ r1 '•D77V- ~S 145.F, ~ { J I I _ ~ _.2' ~ - - ~ z^'~ ~~'Mr ~r\y~~\ \ 1 revised Nate f / I Iw It\.\ - \ c~~w~~+Y' _.r--` _ ...mds i{ J I rl .,lL ~ ,fir ~ _ ta.a.-.+[,`e-d\~~ - ~ -+a I 17 '1 1 s / ~..4,a ~ i ~ ~ \ , ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~/cJ~~~.7F'4~1 `11~-' l~ \ I w 0 \ ~ ~ / ~y I •r:Klrrwi~ Mme, " - ~ . _ ^ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ -1. ~lx na e.-.~eT-9.L ~ \ / Z ~~,o O u I ~ wnc.• ~ / ~ ~'Q , / ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 3. R•^; tom!. ~.ce.~v3!`Tn'~~ri.F~ \ ~ O a i ) I i-.. \ . ~ , 1 Par-~'.. A [acwT.~ds . \ ~ a wfan Ylrsa ~ I: mntr / .w wa • s , _ _ ~ ` ^ ~ ~ ^ _ ^ ~ s. IxaK. r f'LGIT'~ \ ~ \ a~ s~ p w ~ 1 .:.c..il ir, _ fasc -s.~+t ' 1. \ ~ ^ ^ ~ - ~ _ ~ ^ ` ~ x.~i,'..• c ~ riCrT \ \ \ \ ` i fit. a eI / ~ f " ~1v.+.[\orfu. ;IJ;' d~ _ _~~~~~\`~~.~~.Y~wl~.a~. C=F.+,.~tr~.71o1-? u d.O f % r: r. F ~ ~ _ ^~»+k.x_o-F=ucu. \ ~ it111~ ~ ' I i _ ~ I` ~ ^ _ ^ 1St sxK.'r• \ \ ..I I 1 1 If. / / /,I \<~9 i' _ L'. C4r..~F-nl.Lrrc.n \ ~ \ ~ 'r 8 I I I / ~ ~ / v / ~ Yl W'.4. P'=?=.~Yau \ ro Ii '~i. R c!eK twe.a . /7 r~-.li. i'tQr]- ~ ~ \ tl 6y; S I ` 1 1//111 ~ f ~ / /C\ ~ } ~ : . \ "°c io.o' 1 I ~ - ~ ~ _ _ ^ \ \ ^ . M. eut^i. G\ E~fE`'F~o \ \ ~ ~ \ ~ ` ~ ` 1 Ir., 1\ t., It '~tl` ( r::)vO \ r1sve i+ailL v~ ~ I^ e ~ ~ ~ ~ \ \ \ s~I ~R 1 ~ t - f( f m- f• 4; \t ~ wrxe~ ( I~ 1 - ( \ \ \ \ \ ~ \ \ \ I Q v,~ l 1 - { I ~'-.,i= .4.n.rss~iGi3r.~ I ( _ _ ~ ~ \ . \ . romr d.P.wr~ ' ~ i ~ I ~ ,.f:F.-:- ~ (r l[fr ~ ,1 i \ ~ \ \ \ I ~ .3 \ _~e L l~ I 1 U:T flrfii \I 'O~ •a/\\,~ / i~ ~ a„ \ \ \ ~ o I r ~ \ ~ 1. \ \ \ r's, o `-"r IC2 \t ( [o~^Nf~ if t\~\\ Vt.r. f. ~ \ 25'ab\sJO I•~: f~ a 141 \ /j.+l.11 1 r q' '=;,;v"!'„~ :i• ~o_ \ / ore ~ ~ a7 ~e.. o O - • :~4.M1~ \ n,n ,:fY_.. \ t ~ \ \ ~`-l1 / ~(1 ? ~J~V(~1P1~dz}7f \ ~\~`1 . ~C\ r \ } _ 'ti. e \ J / I I ...w ~lnleaf...."~Wn ~ =Y;,, lob r10.'VO2+ \ _ \ \1G ~ \ ,,.n ` w '~'1~°.[".°:; " ar.ez[. ar~..wr _ ~Ei.~inee•sntf.a F' i I .r.[..I ~ ro ~C , .`v •~N` Kil'1: .a fo~e.ge 1. r,[r n • rr.r I [ewr. 0 ~-I~ rTO.VGN:PMIC/l : ~l \ ~ .F~ ~ wn: . flue. a .r. \ I • a• • t rp;; I ~ uous Ifr~c[ sveo~v~i p ' •.5- PK^ f"rr O 111 f n I .INC w. r f 5111. L fr u.. .r u.rn wfir ,r+. r.va~. 1 I Ifi. . u, ~ ra.n ar ( e. [.m[ coa+.n rcaips[oo . ~a ~ -a - ~ ,may I box 1297 ly~~~ ll ~ ~~cYJlt-ilS d80495 obrad~ 7rni~.k GGUrVC,+lL4L 4Uifc]C :n•r~~L'. rr n.wrcv I 303.4685871 F1'G«l+m lYl', s1FlGLH p-s+I4Y rvorosm u.e•. s ~s w•oLy FI+oa3ee IMX 4¢R.•_ i/sZ SF. .+er~olee r-+.Y. Gr 1'..Z ~ SF, I `..w.- ,-np.1_ 2h25.!/ISf.(MSAC) •vrsa. 5rts~, Si5.tA <f (.194AC~ ISSUI!d (date euu,uJ4~~-inciat s~aa av. r xi.pik o-~~rcw..~uc.za n.i~,. ..j•..s o ~ I . o ^ c? ~i~ ~ R e!•rlVi• [ a!o! `J //7 _ _ _ _ / ~_iB ra uil.° pi _ ,•/~~:~~~~/',~'~i-~~ e~ e!~a revised date . •.0.60 O"- ~~/%@"'/ / ~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~[~'.~uT~'~~L".-l ~f >w.r.r 1\1v' 6 n il-~.L~` .-~.1~'''/nor ~i ~O ~ ~.,0~ / 0 B<Q~ o~ ]]V O ~ ! c~ ~<~8 ~ I ~ 1 Ier .Mo 'tdn ~ ~ np•~ . yu, r~'M ~En6inee insu. au N w reurruiw Mm IpPOGR.IigCIL lYRVC I ro.,, r . ~ L4M'rLrR L[ Jvep.nsp. ~ t'j rp.R O/ .L~ilr (owrr. COt D•,W , _ _t . _ . x.,.79' L p 16;7!71' `s/ 1 ~ .T.:Y-~ ~ 1 S.I.79' R i L d•W ? 1 136. a9' t 1 ~ _ / `j. ~ s. h-. }oeon'~o+r ~~3 ~ ~ ,'I~•~' :.'.'i ~ 1 ddbn.Gd0~3dr~ b 21 ' ! G I107t79' ,i~b~ .•xnrano"+.rass .1:'t I~ rid date lcdlrec+s _ - - TR3!'T A_1 ie''e' l - .^oJ~icr.n 7 ,J a -X, s, ~ i- `„i, ~ ~ ~,r_J;;?~c; ~ ~ ~`•~f'_ ~.:li C ~ GKAYIIk .l Alt 1Cl.~Ii~iW ~ ! ~?I ~'~%/,~T ~ ~ [_1L lr_~- rtnl- 0 \ ~ ~'.n 1.fiPd N/. ~ ~ ''i iZrr.~l~. ~ I1':~1 ~ 1_.. eo w is 1ii11,e ';I,rT~ =,1';l ~y ~ ,-7 , rl V ~'f' o I ~J p S'~?--~ revered date p~ ..yip;.ll.i•y`'{~, Toad ~ ~ ) Iz ud cvsr..-k :<c_~~s ~-r./ea / _r l rye ~ ~ _ ~ - r l ~ ~'IR6~ IZ• :4 •11''' / i ~ CaJIFS] yoaXfi 9 V'~IG . / -.ill. s/~. ~..,I~ ~.i ,i~G ~O t, era-l~c:~.:ce 1lOi~ll'tK ! ~~f Y'.'.' Vl..: - it IPiYS~GLE N.JE I6 2'"~ YYelC Y10. .+1 h Io~12' 'S.><' I1T il~ 7 DIY.VS 'fT:EC! 11 S, 6 ikr _ 'L~ 11 " ` 1'll ,`,~,l~ii.. !8 © a..' { ..eaz 1 / .vsr+ _ly l~ I s d ~ `a / ~ III flll ~ Y . ft~ I I ~u bl 1 ~ LRMS ~ ~iw v V p 1 , ' TI ' i/:;' M ~ i ~i: @J Vr l-.kah' Pau4 ~ `1 U E J Q ~ ~,r.: ...o f~JTE-fi~ 1:6C. Isv+l~I~y~y, $7~~~'~ pQ( 1,•~,yr• •r.J 1. _ / ~ 1k OX^.r6 bh.; 2brJ 9( CA'~K ~ Y L..11?a F"L tdWl 1 ,1. ~ ~ ti+ . /.7 / if • a . ~ 2. ~ n.~ ~iJC ~r~~r~ +~+-lul ~ ~ G w i vsz,ouo.rl ~ rr~ I „•`....'~~'~'6~ ~ - ~ '~.,Jr~-a ~~J//11 D IL Ikj n , _ * ~ 1 w..a 1L 4~0 ,I .F ~ ~ , ~ ~ J _ p . JO'.•b1' p . r971a' 5t7C. - iVicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST 0185 INGERSOLL LANE SILT, COLORADO 81652 (303) 876-54C>D (24 HOURS) c'~r?Vt3n ~E3n~~~tii^ F'~~rl::~•J~+Dd r:r~zi ty FfIL}~ EPJ!7EJd GQ x!:)111 f-;[_; l~r~~c_1: f-l, Li~n'a r;idgE= SubrJivision I h~:~':-e hr'c_~n ~~.sl<:(~::1 tc; cl a.ra. 1=y n':y I~DSi •I:i Dn Dn •the rr_+1-_k:f~~.1 J. r]' _ f"I I. n ITl V C? 1'' +c''r :t. C' l..l .o I. t. t.. ~ r Z la ^ .I. ~ I•• I -t 1 t~.. lit O!l r. G'i' 'L r•J L:+ IT:1 'I:.:I. L] t3.'L. 1 Iy+fl C_° C tl fl :l C~ 1_l ~ ~ 1 f1 r~ I" r i~ . (~(1~~ (.1i..t~'.::+:'. (7L J. 2 1?=i t: f.?1 t:.Ilf-'r =iCi_iJ. C? CII'- C;'Y-OLI'~ 1 C]C]?sE' I'"(7C~•:':~ n t(l:? 1 7-~ IN U t_L'I: C 1" ~ 7 CI 1 f ' c? 1~ 'f J. ' +:•t h G'J C'r i h !E' 't L i = ; h i. I" i c-, Ci C o n is r Lt. r_ t ~ ;l r? rE?:ii"' -~(7(_tn~ri_iL1On Wc3.L1 (.?'1' {:I-;t? b1.11).C.I1ne_',53 t+~ t=!I''17't:!"t_ICiE c1't 1i=~:~tS'~. ~_`'tI''E;'n . • t , 1:., I" c~. CI IJ r, d t: C? h i=. `•i C-• 1"1 G ICJ I. n (ar., ~ I. rl 't h I. t n 't i 'r '4'' c?. i f~ ; _ m t:I'` cn..l n (a i_ v c .l ~ •L h i~ h r.~ f h E~ 5 t•_+; n w : ~ 1 1 ? . 'T'his w 2 1 C:iIC+!_lZ.!~! hr.~'~~f?' td ~a~::l'!•'hIf]'~=f1 !1'I' u.i: ].rt?.S't _~1_:+(_? ~JG•Lt.!~(j~ ~1r•r L-.q1?.~a!'t '1'f.7C:'~. ~ h :I. '=i L^: <31 4+1 t, ...1 1 d cl C~ CJ ~ G t7 CJ't: l? '1_, i1 h O:?; E? .l n I'1:.~ :r? V t?'. n ? . i 1'i (^J Il I.:1 Ci .(1 I".~ 1_l I:1 i~`. I~ t~ 7. f"~I 'I_ •I• t i h l + ITS f~• . 1-, 'i I'iC?I'-t•? <3.1' .';.ll^'(:I'-:ti~i'- (:LIt?`:i'~:1+.iilS~ ~l].S~? ~i~ f":~;I~;i:at!=1: :~i_?. I :L x'1(::.1... -j t-- . ; I. 1'" I.. L.Di1+~.1_l.['i:'lnE:; tr_'1C:i1 C?G :l. , . Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST 0185 INGERSOLL LANE - SILT, COLORADO 81652 (303) 8765400 (24 HOURS) r~ I`.: 1 i'" ~1 C 1~ q t._ i C7 C 1 ~ i1 C' Ci C.' i_i I7 (.`'i i 't 7. r 1 O Z i'.J.Vt._' 1'",.V:..,_st•:Ic_::~ `i:llw 'C~JC] '~~J.'Cit.~ .::L~ r:ICJV:I"1 r1 iii_ ~CCuf::C}ci~7;':1.rCI trial] i•c~r- ;~u~';:)c7•.;e~ c,_. 1,: CV C. Ii I-r`.'l.~ caI'iC :.::hh"1•i ~ "li" ~ (-i;~ i..:)•f' t+J:::1 I i i= W IJ C_; 't: I i cl V z ;~l C~ ~1 n 1. i ; G S5 t ~ i i CJ ~ C C i_l C i cl " (r I"'t f_ _ , 1_. - .)_6 'v a ~ ~ i 4."- i t 'S' i'1 t:.'. i'..., 1:- ~ , • J'.; i,- t +~c., 1.1 - , r ('1 _ 1.. r- c~; C', t.. i=1"L~L..ii :il;'i' 'grin n ht.r~;G~v-'I_. c:: i~1 d i lr:Ci eTi :l2\ C-`1iYCe ~.I"t.11C i ltiC. ~.:':',:i 'C I"; • - .UJ(J 1, ~ t i .I cj :i n t~ i 'L. C_° ii ' I'i ::i 't:. i 1 L? .L t:) W l':? ~_l'L' C P' C' r] ~ .i+ Ia Cl V t fi i : !:i' S:1 i~: =i 1 t Si f : I:~ G: _c_l::i. ('!)"C~Lltrl'~i r_c^ r'} cam. , c v- i ' t:) 4. 1 4.1 i , (c' i t=: L.l'l= t a C.ai C? C ;=l U ' G t_ i : E• ` C? . C• 1 1 it c:•. Cl ~:»cCC:Qf1~lnLlt~Lar. iI'la :;it::ii"C-' !~<1:_~;!'"i.~t=)t_i:.i i:,~_1~;,._;' i..,_ 17~UCI'; 1.:i.ii7ic}~' ~!Cl 'i:I`;i? ii i a i < 7. d :-J i i i 1 °~'::i tT':1:~ t..'~ ' 1 h . I [ • .L'1 _1 t•, 1. ti7L!i~fi iTi:~ 7" _i )n ~~.'i: ti'1~' i}('•ir:ri'~>:i.'l".t__.. 1.'=i ~iJ°_:i:l. i~~..l.` a::.I'?i"L'(..IC3I": 44211. s l::i' IJ::_°t''i;):1. C1 C,: 'i. r:'i"':Jt:i::;tJ~t+ i")G~t: I•Jc"ii"i"',`.f'J'i:cc•C'~ c::iU.;_~ '~.C.~ '~r)t_~ 7.111~J +=1:L:i!-iCG:• ~J:' I'GC(~:1~' i'":_~:Cfl:.ll_1 'C:1:.' .~7. 4~1.i"C(=.i"(~ji :•,'i_i"~~: ~:)i°.,.(?1" :iJ C(:1I~:":'i:.i'Lli::'i::.i:1'i :•!:L'L.c L:;... I:1.'.0 Ci 7. I") f a. C:1C~ti:1 :\°nfst~"G. '(:iiii'. i`:: C_It_'.e17 ::CJiI'l.:'_:2 a]. i)!~ ~:ic_' ~iiC:i:!.r'C:C_ C %i I'17: ,...I. . :11 !-t I' t.:. C ; , i :1'!_ =i L.l i•: i 1 C .I. z''.:' C7 ~ i~• ; h' 'l O .1.. - - , t _ • t) l•JLT 1 I}..i~~+(:... •.+~_it j i. .J. _i_.J~..' i~:,~f"(:;',/. I llt,~l.::I~t t v~_.' 1 ,)l:~_'1 t~Jl'VC:? (u _ _ _ _ _ _ 1'11~~' C. C"i; l1 : LS C:':. 1 Cl l`i -i.:.r .i:: i-t e::i~ I`l;'l ~ :•1..( : i u't_ C': C::'" Cc' c=t _i ei~ i..} c~.:_ c; i' ~ i:. C~ I } i i'" J] ° '.11"` C_ i' ~1 i f ' l_l 'L i..i'i" P' L : I' ~ 1 r. 1. C).', ' u I::) U 1 ;.:1 a i 1 !7 i" C:):~ li c.- i~ _ ~ c' '_1'=:::_ Cf}:= 'I:. _ - '1 J. t:'' C•:" i:: C 1 .7i.... i L i : , " _ . J I_% lr i I L 1 t.J IJ t_ (:1'f ::a (i V , . U . 1._ 41 i Si i. i • _:::n'•_ : ~ t_ I-T ::.,Y. 1. i~ ::iii ~_C'i ~ ;'l t" C :,7!.: 1. l•_I 1l.I S. (I.~l_i r)l.: i1. 1_I t.~C.c.] .-'J"C., 4•~ ,'_.I 111;_ L. `_(V'r: F71-Ir_=,..~ . LL \"I 'i : °'I ' 't. t::"~ 1 " 'L i i 1'" Iv =t I" C:: L"c' c a: i C.::: ?J i, ~ ) .i, is t C u C'i % L11:. v Nita " Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST ~:m 0185 INGERSOLL LANE SILT, COLORADO 81652 (303) 876.5400 (24 HOURS) r: g i ~'t•: tom- C: D • F~ U :l :i ' -i r F3 L .1'_. i_ 1 r7 ; ? ~ :•ii ice: i (:i t-; is v U C] Ci 1 V a '=i u r) ~ _ • - ~ ---.,i' t er cr Ir-, r. J-!_.~. c.:1:i F)(~::':") ~n •l. Il it 'r~ .~n r r. ~7 :a kc , 4 ~ f.: lr, is C.I Fl C? _3 ` ri 1 t_ <_; C ry~ . ,'1 ; :1. i '1 Cj 'i'CJI' G!;I'".')(J;:~'c~,'_i C:i.i C:i.~t.=~: i"'13~. 1 <::I"1C1 _ :)(i.°~)i~15 ~ OW_ i"c"J (_'t11 'i C)I'• 'i:;'lli' 1 L)'.)C) t:]'!~ . _ ~ ~ E::(::. v'e._f) :31I f.:' C.:P't :...?F`.f .";F':.J:' _ r.;ri :::1x1;.:1 Cl' ::'.ril°:...:.~. ~ _ io~# '1 (-1 J. J. l ~ r e,' I" ~'l : i" r. IP C ti i:. S:i J. l: i:_' c'.^. (:a ::a i • i='1'~' j:. ~l :'c1 C":'.? ~f: L? c:, i•' i=' 4"! :E I" i 't. 1:. ~ . C...I L; : i? )`t C.l ; f' l '-I c: ~ ' 1::",C"' c'i~. C G C:. ::~1 r-~ 1 ('fl r f: [ : ~:.'J . ~]:i ~)•~t )t-? i"tJr!'~: :_~1 )'";::'a 171t.;"L~' _~i:~Vt'~1'"~. ;~Lli~•.": 1")t~r't`_f"i {~1'l :an ~.l i(I:. JJ ~-I ~:,L.t1(~7.ili:l ~ (Jf7 '~:i'1i•~ L:_;'1(~`I'_ Sii(::It) Ci`~ "E,"~-iC'E l:':!'}F'I'•!:':.` 1?_ ('"ic..: Li(~:•;_r: n~ L! I" ' i. ll .a ::)1.1 . ' i ' rl : ` i..l t.. (r2 '(::}r_' I"; :_1'1~ ~ r"_ Y 7 I't i;2 1. y I^ Li'i: (i' Cj C..i':: ~"i t_'r'_ t a iZ C' Li'L i" 1-._'. c:• Ci Li =i ~7 ec' ~ 'i ~l a t:~ lA _i l : n •I: a.. i t_t i7 l_l l5 I i i i? 171" L' {'i c::.. tl i'•• lJ C. !_t I'i 1' ? ? '•i' • _ l_I'~~.J'J liii..(t_I 1• ;i (•1 •._1 lJ. ..i~.. ~'1 1 L ~ ; : I .1'1 _ C.1 ,"I1:J J. ` ~ I' (~1 'l r)t_ ~ : e. a• ~ -1 ~ r I. ~ .r.. - ~ C~; r C l_i 1 fr17. T.:: l c:t'L :L c:i r1 L ~:~'1,._ {lC'.1....._~_. ~.__I .l :::I _."cl._ ~)Z... ~f...,"..(=!..(~~"1 tyc',.i..7i. ~ ~/i" Z7=?i'-Ci:~ C~;`7 ~ I i" J rlt_;f_ • _ t'J 1:1. L...l t_ t~ C« ~ ~ (7 L ~"i 1•;' :-i l . , ) ;::1 f"I C ~ :_1 1 C C. » - i a r .L L.~ i . ; _ f' t•.• Ltan'_ r-i_tc-1...(. ~]rl u')~ _a l..l ~ i'L' tvz 1 z nt_:i` i•_ i:..e~ c:.r(1 c, c lJ'(: it L . " C J ? 1=1 i ' ~ ' l_l Ll 1" E: ry C] 'I': t:.1 i? i_i r.J '1 :i. i_ I- C7 ~ i i:. !c: ; ]'i' ' ~ 9 I-,~i• I~r.`i~ I`l:]:clQ`:;i, `:31.1'C:Ct_'l:. ,1 (n?~"~!~F:`i~°C: i_I~~.i_.11:~. 1 t.Jt"• i'aL..:.l..~:1._ :=)i \ _ ...J-~...., ,.JI 1:. _].c~~_:, i.:,;• <_~.ny F;arii::(„ ~',';ir... (_,L.,.._I 1.,_.u _u _ r...,,_ r, i . t.,.. - I..,. _ I , i c_~ r rat i~• r :_1 Li . ~~l t~ r) ~ a ~ ; e~' c ~11~ •L- c t:_a . Cc)s-1 Dui is i. r?c^. .%'a: ;~)r~ i !~t S00°38'56"W 455.06 feet; thence along said centerline N00°38'56"E 122..81 feet to the southerly ROW line of I-70; thence departing said ROW line N66°53'25"E 39.15 feet; thence departing said ROW line S81°23'19"E 165.42 feet to a point of curve; thence 122.83 feet along the arc of a 143.20 foot radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 49°08'51" and a chord that bears S15°57'45"E 119.10 feet; thence S40°32'10"E 3.00 feet; thence 66.30 feet along the arc of a 77.21 foot radius curve to the right, having a central angle of 49°12'10" and a chord that bears S15°56'05"E 64.28 feet; thence S8°40'00"W 90.27 feet; thence N38°42'24"W 224.55 feet; thence S78°10'32"W 101.44 feet to the Point of Beginning. Applicant: MECM Enterprises, Inc. represented by Michael Lauterbach Planner: Jim Curnutte _ TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1993 C. yuck C. ist ~cticneu to table the request vrith Daltcn ',h'illiams seconding the mction and a unanimous vote of 6-0 tabled the request until January 25, 1993. 8. A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase 11/1480 Buffer Creek Rd. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner: Andy Knudtsen Chuck Crist abstained from this request due to a potential conflict of interest. Andy Knudtsen reviewed the request stating that there were three deviations from the code. Tom Braun, representing the applicant, gave a brief presentation. He emphasized that the applicant did not want to request additional GRFA and would be doing further research before the final hearing regarding that issue. Public Input Neighborhood input was then requested and the first speaker was Brian Doolan. He requested that the applicant look into the various Fire Department requirements and come up with an alternative design. Steve Lindstrom spoke second, discussing the differences between the County approval and the proposed plan. He specifically requested that the PEC require Mr. Gensler to reduce the amount of asphalt in his design. Planning and Environmental Commission January 11, 1993 e .a Sally Brainerd spoke next and described the sections that she had drawn in a prepared report done by RKD, lnc. The Planning Commission discussed with her some of the details of the drawings, specifically trying to understand the amount of fill that would be located at the lower end of the proposed road. Sherry Dorward was the last neighbor to speak and she requested that the PEC require the applicant to maintain the character of the area. She described aspects of The Valley and requested that some of these characteristics be included in the new design. Upper Development Area The PEC decided to discuss the upper development area first. Greg Amsden said that interesting architecture was the key to an attractive development. He said that 3,600 square feet of GRFA was quite a bit for that lot. He said that he was concerned about the terracing that would be required with a development in the upper area. He said that it should be kept at a minimum. He said he wanted to see specific aspects of the design at this time prior to any decision on the request. These would include garage entries, the automobile turnaround area for each home, the parking area outside the garage, and the access to and from each building envelope. Dalton Williams advised the applicant to be very careful given the steepness of the slope. He said that the square footage of the structures was an issue but the ma}or issues to him were nailing down grading, cut and fill, and design review issues for the two homes. He also said that the character of the local area should be preserved. Gena Whitten said that she was concerned about the engineering that would be required for building on a slope like this. She said she wanted to see the details of the driveway, the turnaround areas, the slope retention, as well as hazard mitigation. Jeff Bowen said that he concurred with the comments that had been stated. Diana Donovan said that design restrictions for these lots was a good idea. She also said that the two envelopes should be moved together as well as shifted to the east. Lower Development Area Concerning the lower development area, Jeff Bowen began the discussion by saying that putting garages in these homes was a good idea and that most homes in Vail need garages. He continued by saying that the mature evergreen trees should be saved. He also said that the amount of grading proposed was a problem, especially on the west end. Concerning the fact that all of the proposed homes are single family, he suggested that clustering a few as duplexes would help the site plan. Gena Whitten concurred with Jeff's comments and emphasized that the development planning and Environmental Commission .?anuary 99, 9993 should be clustered. She said that by clustering, some asphalt could be eliminated and the amount of grading needed could be reduced. She said that saving the trees was very important. Reducing the size of the units, combining driveways, and shortening the length of the access road by clustering would all benefit the plan. Dalton Williams emphasized that he wanted to see the trees saved. He said that too much of the vegetation would be destroyed. He also said that the design should be in character with the existing area. He also requested that the applicant set the buildings into the hillside to make them look smaller. Greg Amsden said that the asphalt coverage should be decreased and that this could be done by reducing the width of the road. In his own experience with the development review process, he negotiated with the Fire Department to sprinkle the structures and in turn, was able to reduce the width of the drive significantly. He said that this may also help to save trees, which was an important issue to him. He said the square footage of the homes was not a problem but that they should be worked into the hillside. Diana Donovan referred back to page four of the staff memo. She said that the units should be clustered, that they should share common drives and yards, and that they should be designed to save the vegetation around the development. She said that the asphalt should be reduced and that the mature vegetation should be saved. In general., she believed that the units should be clustered closer together at the top of the site to preserve the rest of the site. She concluded by saying that since this is one phase of a multi phase project, the existing neighborhood should definitely be considered in the review of this project. Greg Amsden added a last point and received general concurrence from the PEC that the single family style of development was not an issue. However, he emphasized that issues such as grading, tree preservation, clustering would all have to be resolved and the design improved before the PEC could support the plan. 9. Review of staff policy on vending carts (ie. espresso carts). Staff: Tim Devlin Tim Devlin reviewed the Town's policy on vending carts per the staff memo. Diana Donovan said that she supports the staff memo. Public Comments: Susan Fritz, the Vice President of the Restaurant Association and the owner of the Uptown Grill, inquired about the possibility of having an espresso cart at her restaurant. Planning and Environmental Commission January 11, 1993 i~EI~oRAIV®u~l TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 26, 1993 Staff comments made since April 12, 1993 are made in bold SUBJECT: A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase 11/1480 Buffer Creek Rd. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner: Andy Knudtsen I. PROJECT ®ESCFiIPTION The applicant is proposing to modify an Eagle County approved development plan located on either side of Buffer Creek Road in Phase II of "The Valley". The site is made up of an upper and lower area. The reason the applicant is applying for an SDD is to allow: 1. Development to be located on slopes greater than 40%; 2. A 10 foot setback for building A in the lower development area where 20 feet is required. 3. Walls, 4 feet in height, to be built in the front setback of the upper development area which exceed the height limit by 1 foot; and 4. A lot to be created in the upper development area which does not meet the minimum buildable area for this zone district; In conjunction with the Special Development District request, the applicant has submitted a minor subdivision proposal. The minor subdivision would create lots for the two single family homes on the upper development area and distinguish the lower development area from the other phases of development in The Valley. The applicant will use the single family subdivision process in the lower development area and to sell off individual houses as they are constructed. Lower development area descriotion The lower development area is proposed to have 7 single family homes. These will be located on either side of a private access road. The proposed access road descends from Buffer Creek Road at an 8% slope. The road is intended to be 22 feet wide and will provide automobile access to garages in each home. There will be a fire truck turn-around located at the bottom of the road. The seven homes in this area will have a GRFA which ranges from approximately 1,700 square feet to approximately 2,200 square feet. In addition to this square footage, each home will have atwo-car garage. The ridge heights for the proposed homes 1 range from 27 feet to 30 feet. Upper development area description The upper development area is designed at this time to include two single family homes, which each have their respective building envelopes. There would be a total of two single family homes in the upper development area. For the western site, there will be a building envelope of 3,000 square feet and a proposed GRFA of 3,252 square feet. The eastern building envelope will be 2,346 square feet in size and is intended to have 2,900 square feet of GRFA. Access to these parcels is proposed to be from a 16-foot wide shared driveway. II. BACKGROUND The proposed development plan is part of the second phase of The Valley. The six different phases of The Valley were approved in Eagle County in the late 1970's and the early 1980's. On June 3, 1980, the County approved 32,909 square feet of GRFA and 26 dwelling units for Phase II. Some of this development potential has already been used in the Grouse Glen and Buffer Creek Townhouse developments. Since the County approval, the area has been annexed into the Town of Vail. The ordinance annexing this area (Ordinance 13, Series of 1981) includes a provision r~;cogniz.ing the County approval. The Ordinance states that alit' significant changes to the previously approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. The Eagle County approved plans dated June 3, 1980 provide a benchmark for evaluating the proposed development statistics. Since the original approval, there has been partial development of the site. Grouse Glen has been constructed, consisting of six dwelling units and 6,233.8 square feet of the GRFA. In 1991, Jack Snow completed construction on five existing foundations which are now called the Buffer Creek Townhomes. This development consisted of five dwelling units and 7,208.9 square feet of GRFA. The remaining development potential includes 15 dwelling units and 19,466.3 square feet of GRFA available for Steve Gensler to use on the rest of the site. The following table summarizes this information: Eagle Grouse Buffer Remaining County Glen Creek Development Approval Townhouses Potential 2 6 D U's 6 D U's 5 D U's 15 D U's 32,909 sq. ft. 6,233.8 sq. ft. 7,208.9 sq. ft. 19,466.3 sq. ft. The Eagle County approved plans for the lower development area consisted of a centralized parking area at the top of the site, with walking paths to the dwelling units. There was no automobile access to any of the units, and as a result, there were no garages. The units were two to three stories in height (24' to 30') and ranged from 924 to 1400 square feet of GRFA. The proposed development for the upper area consisted of five dwelling units, similar in design to The Valley Townhomes. There was no parking in this area, other than a "pull-out" 2 area off the north side of Buffehr Creek Road. It is important to note that the County approved plans for the upper area located the units partially on slopes greater than 40%. On January 11, 1993, June 24, 1991, December 9, 1991, and December 16, 1991, the PEC reviewed very similar plans to the current proposal. Steve Gensler was the applicant at that time, also. During the 1991 review of this project, it was determined that the proposal involved four departures from Town of Vail zoning standards. Because of these departures, the applicant has applied for an SDD. 3 II?. Zoninq Analysis Zoning: Residential Cluster Lot Area: Upper 40,740 sq. ft. Buildable Lot Area: Upper: 8,386 sq. ft Lower 105.318 sq. ft. Lower: 64,623 sa. ft. Total 146,058 sq. ft. Total: 73,009 sq. ft." April 12, 1993 January 11, 1993 Residential June 3, 1980 Gensler Proposal Gensler Proposal Cluster County Approval Dwelling Units 9 9 10 15 'GRFA 19,466 sq. ft. 19,966 sq. ft. 18,252 sq. ft. 15,777.2 sq. ft. was proposed 19,466 sq. ft. is allowed Site Coverage 10.9% or 15,889 sq. ft. 11.3 % or 16,489 sq. ft. 25% or 36,514 sq. ft. 6.9% or 10,209 sq. ft. Setbacks 10' front 20' on 20' front 3' front 20' sides atl sides 15' sides 22' side 5' rear Height 27' - 30' 33' 33' 30' Parking 35 spaces 36 spaces 10 x 2.5 = 25 spaces 22 spaces"' Landscaping 77.9% or 113,830 sq. ft. 77% or 113,135.3 sq. it. 60% or 87,634.6 sq. ft. 86% or 125,673.3"° Retaining Walls 4' 6' 6' 4' - 6' 'Size of A-1 0 sq. ft." A-1 0 sq. fi."' 8,000 n/a Buildable Area in A-2 8386 sq. ft. " ~,-2 8386 sq. ft." Proposed Lots Other comparisons (please note that these are not zoning standards) Asphalt coverage 9.5% or 13,892 sq.ft."' 9.2% or 13,500.6 sq. ft. n/a 7.3% or 10,742.3 sq. ft. Impervious surface 22.1% or 32,228 sq.ft."' 22.3% or 32,624.6 sq. ft. n/a 14% or 20,385.6 sq. ft. "Deviates from Zoning Code standards "Measured by staff "'Assumes that only half of the full circle of parking is built 4 IV. iViODIFICATIONS ftNADE SINCE THE JANUARY 11, 1993 PEC WORK SESSION On January 11, 1993, the PEC reviewed the proposal at a work session. Minutes from that meeting are attached to this memo. A summary of the PEC comments for the lower development area were: 1) That mature evergreen trees should be saved, 2) That fill from the road should be reduced, 3) That the units should be clustered and some incorporated into duplexes, 4) That site impacts of the development should be minimized, 5) That the proposal's character should integrate with the existing portions of Phase II, 6) That the proposed amount of GRFA and the single family home use was acceptable, 7) That two Planning Commissioners said that garages and automobile access to the homes were acceptable. Concerning the upper development area, the Planning Commission's comments included: 1) That the building envelopes should be reduced in size, 2) That the envelopes should be shifted down ott of the uppermost part of the hillside, 3) That the envelopes should be shifted to the east and moved closer together, 4) That detailed designs of the driveway, the garage aprons and the turnaround areas should be provided so that there would be an accurate understanding of what future development would look like. a) Lower Development Area Since that meeting, the applicant has modified the proposal. For the lower development area, the site has been surveyed, and all aspen larger than an 8-inch caliper and all evergreens above 20 feet in height have been identified. There are eighty-eight trees identified in the survey, which can be broken down into three different clusters. The first is in the central part of the site, the second is at the tower part of the site and the third is at the upper part of the site along the road. With the changes made since the last review, the applicant has been able to save the lower cluster of trees in addition to others across the site. This cluster is made up of five evergreen trees with calipers ranging from 8 to 24 inches. In addition, the applicant has been able to reduce the length of the road by 20 feet. This in turn, has reduced the amount of fill that is required. Previously, the fill required ranged from 10 to 12 feet in depth. At this time, the maximum amount of fill ranges from 6 to 8 feet. For a majority of the road, the fill is 4 feet or less. The area of asphalt has been reduced by 128 square feet. Heights of the buildings have been reduced from 33 feet to a range of 27 feet to 30 feet. Landscaped area has increased by approximately 700 square feet. 5 b) Ugger Development Area Since the January 11, 1993 work session, the applicant has changed the upper development area by reducing the size of the building envelopes, shifting these to the east and elirriinating the upper 10 feet of each of the envelopes. Envelope A-1 has been shifted 25 feet to the east. Envelope A-2 has been shifted 15 feet to east. The applicant has also recognized the Town's ownership of right-of-way in the boundary line dispute. The applicant has widened the road to accommodate Fire Department requirements. The applicant has drawn detailed plans of the driveway in the upper development area. The drawings include garage locations, garage slab elevations, parking areas, automobile turnaround areas, or the retaining walls that are required to accommodate the access. Sections through each envelope have not been provided. These drawings show that access can be provided to the garages without involving variances. Prior to first reading at Town Council, staff requests that the sketches be refined, that all assumptions made in the drawings be identified, that top-of-wall and bottom-of-wall elevations be identified for all retaining, and that sections through each envelope be provided. A very important addition to the proposal for the upper development area is a limitation to the amount of site disturbance which will be allowed. In an effort to prohibit any scarring on the back or sides of the two buildings, the proposed language will be added to the plat: "Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 should be "benched-in" to the hillside and stepped with the natural contours of the site. Site excavation should be no more than necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Extensive site grading to create a flat building site is not permitted. In order to ensure compliance with the above, finished grades on the north, east and west elevations of buildings should not deviate more than 4 feet from existing grade at any point." Staff believes that this proposed (anguage wi(I ensure that the development, which is to be designed at a future date, will be well integrated in the hillside. c) GRFA In the previous discussions with the PEC, the applicant has proposed an additional 500 square feet of GRFA to the amount approved by the County. At this time, the applicant has eliminated this portion of the request and is now complying with the amount set by the Eagle County approval. The proposed building floor plans will have to be modified slightly to meet this amount. At this time, the staff measured approximately 96 square feet of GRFA in excess of what the County approved. The homes in the lower development area will need to be adjusted so that the proposal does not exceed the amount approved. The applicant has agreed to do this at the time of DRB application. The following table identifies the approximate GRFA for each envelope. Staff is recommending that the GRFA for each residence be allowed to vary by 50 square feet from what is shown below. Total GRFA for the lower and upper development areas may not exceed the totals for each area. 6 GRFA may not be transferred from the upper to the lower development area. Lower development area: Base Floor Credit GRFA current garage Area overage credit A. 1816 225 2041 16 463 B. 1816 225 2041 16 493 C. 1845 225 2070 493 D. 2148 225 2373 24 486 E. 1897 225 2122 3 492 F. 2157 225 2382 26 483 G. 1859 225 2084 21 476 total 13314 Upper development area: A-1. 3252 225 3477 600 A-2. 2900 225 2084 600 total 6152 d) Hazards The applicant has provided additional analysis by Mr. Nick Lampiris regarding both the debris flow and rockfall hazards. The lower development area has been found not to be significantly affected by either of the hazards. Nick Lampiris specifically states that no mitigation is needed for the lower development area. Concerning the upper development area, the debris flow hazard will skirt the two building envelopes and does not need to be mitigated. However, rockfall does need to be mitigated. The geologist has recommended that on the north elevations of the two homes in the Upper Development Area, that 3 feet of exposed foundation wall, which can withstand 300 pounds per square foot of impact, be provided. This is not to be broken up by any windows or doorways. Based on the hazards reports and this recommendation, staff believes the hazards have been satisfactorily addressed. 7 V. SDD CRITERIA A. 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. Staff believes that the new design for the lower development area has improved its sensitivity to the immediate environment and neighborhood by shifting the building locations up out of the meadow. This has, in turn, reduced the length of the road by 20 feet, reduced the amount of fill required, and preserved the cluster of trees at the lower end of the development. As stated earlier, these trees range in caliper from 8 to 24 inches. There is 128 square feet less asphalt in the Lower Development Area since the road has been shortened and approximately 4 feet less fill required. Concerning the upper development area, staff believes that the building envelopes are reasonable locations for two single family homes. The applicant has stated a requirement on the plat stipulating that the grade on the west, north and east elevations of both single family homes not change more than 4 feet from the existing grade. This wiii insure that there is no scarring of the hillside as a result of development and will insure that the homes are "benched-in" the hillside. The applicant has shifted the envelopes to the east to reduce the amount of road required and has brought the envelopes 10 feet down off the hillside. Another significant issue regarding sensitivity to the immediate environment involves the design for the automobile access to the two envelopes in the upper development area. Staff has reviewed the preliminary drawings submitted by the applicant and believes that access can be provided without requiring any variances. We would like to have these drawings refined prior to Council and all of the assumptions involved with the building and garage locations specified on the drawings. This is listed at the end of this memo as a condition of approval. Staff understands that other issues raised previously in the review process have already been resolved by the applicant. The shingles have been removed, the design of.Building B has been modified significantly so that it does not look like A or C and the deck on Building A has been cut back by 5 feet. Given these changes, the staff has removed all of these issues from the list of conditions at the end of this memo. Building A encroaches 10 feet into the front setback. Because there is 21 feet between the property line and the edge of pavement, there will be an apparent 31 foot setback. Staff believes that the benefits that have resulted from shifting all of the homes up out of the meadow will outweigh the few negative aspects associated with the setback encroachment. Given the 31 feet of distance between the home and the road, staff believes it will be acceptable. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. 8 The proposed use for both development areas is single family homes. This use is listed in the zoning code as an allowed use for the Residential Cluster Zone District. We believe that the homes provide a workable relationship with the surrounding uses, even though many of them to the west are condominiums. We believe that the use is reasonable and that with some design modifications to the architecture and landscaping, that the development will be compatible. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. Atl of the home sites in both the upper development and lower development areas comply with the Town's parking requirements. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans. The Land Use Plan designates this parcel as Medium Density Residential (MDR). As proposed, the development will be 5.4 units per buildable acre. MDR allows a range of 3-14 dwelling units per acre. As a result, staff finds that the proposal is consistent with The Vail Land Use Plan designation. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Please see the analysis done by Mr. Nick Lampiris discussed above and attached to this memo. Staff has listed the recommendations from his study as conditions of approval. 1=. 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. Staff believes that the location of the buildings, since they have been shifted to the east, have resulted in better open space provisions and are more responsive to the existing vegetation. Though the road accessing the Lower Development Area will remove a stand of trees, staff believes that any development plan in the remaining portion of Phase II would require removing some trees. Staff believes that, in general, there is a reasonable balance between preserving the overall aesthetic quality of this portion of The Valley and building out the approved density. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic has been addressed in this design. Concerning the upper development area, there is vehicle access to both envelopes. Concerning the lower development area, there is vehicle access to each home site as well as a pedestrian path that ties into the rest of The Valley pathway system. At the time the lower area is developed, the applicant will complete a single family subdivision in order to sell off the homes. At that time, the common roadway and pedestrian pathway must 9 be dedicated as access easements. The Fire Department has approved the vehicular access plan for the lower development area as well as the upper development area with one condition. They are requiring the applicant to design aturn-around using the apron in front of the garage on envelope A-2. The garage and apron may be located at any point along the southern edge of the envelope. The Fire Department is requiring that 35 feet be provided between the front of the garage door and the .far edge of pavement (of the driveway). There must be a minimum of 12.5 feet of clearance for this distance. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. Staff understands that the applicant has redesigned the landscaping, shifting much of it around to the areas between the proposed development and the existing development in Grouse Glen. A minor point concerning the landscaping is to have the areas proposed for sod tie in to the existing lawn area of the Valley and modify the type of sod to match the existing sod. i. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the Special Development District. The minor subdivision that is proposed ensures that there will be a functional and efficient relationship throughout this portion of the development and the rest of The Valley. Easements will be shown on the plat to accommodate both on-site and off-site drainage. At this time, the Town Engineer is requesting a final component of a drainage study. As result, the staff is adding a condition of approval that prior to first reading at Town Council of the SDD, the applicant provide all information the Town Engineer needs in his review of the drainage plan for the development. Any structures or easements that are recommended in the drainage study will need to be provided for in the design and on the subdivision plat prior to scheduling this development for first reading. Easements for pedestrian and vehicular traffic will also be provided on the plat. VI. MINOR SUBDIVISION RE®UEST AND RECOMMENDATION The standards for creating lots in this zone district are as follows: Section 18.14.050 "The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand square feet, containing no less than eight thousand square feet of buildable area. Each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet. Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet on each site within its boundaries." Though both of the proposed lots exceed the minimum size, the west lot does not contain the minimum amount of buildable area. The requirement is for eight thousand square feet, and the proposal, as measured by staff, provides no buildable square footage for the western envelope. If the SDD is approved, this deviation from the standards may be allowed. 10 Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision. !Ne believe the applicant has demonstrated that two single family units can be built on Tract A. The original development plan located 5 units in the hazard area. VVe believe the new plan provides for a much safer design. In respect to Tract B, we feel it is reasonable to plat unplatted parcels that are phases within a development. The PEC is the approving authority for the Minor Subdivision request. However, Town Council is the approving authority for the SDD. As a result, staff recommends that once the plat is modified to address the Town staff concerns, that the PEC make their approval contingent upon the Town Council's approval of the SDD. Prior to the scheduling of the proposal for first reading at Town Council, the following changes must be incorporated into the plat: iN 1) The information provided in the completed drainage report must be incorporated into the plat, including proposed improvements as well as easements; 2) All hazard areas, as designated on the Town of Vail hazard maps shall be graphically shown on the plat. 3) The minor subdivision approval shall be conditioned upon the SDD receiving final approval from Town Council. VII. STAFF RECOIVii~iEND,4TION ON THE SDD REQUEST Staff believes that this project meets all the SDD review criteria and is recommending approval of the proposed development plan with the following elements of an agreement with the developer. Assuming that the following changes can be incorporated into the drawings, staff recommends that the PEC recommend to Town Council that this SDD be approved. A. Prior to the scheduling of the proposal for first reading at Town Council, the following changes must be incorporated into the drawings: 1) Drawings for the automobile access to the upper development area shall be provided and refined, noting all assumptions to be made regarding the building location, identifying top of wall and bottom of wall elevations, and providing sections through each building envelope showing the building, any retaining walls and driveway. B. At time of DRB hearing, the DRB shall determine that: 1) Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be "benched-in" into the hillside and stepped with the natural contours of the site. Site excavation should be no more than necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Extensive site grading to create a flat building site is not permitted. In order to ensure compliance with the above, finished grades on the north, east and west elevations of buildings should not deviate more than 4 feet from existing grade at any point. 11 2) Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be designed with the internal hazard mitigation recommended by Mr. Nick Lampiris in his hazard analysis dated September 18, 1992 and January 22, 1993. 3) Buildings on Tract A-2 shall be designed with aturn-around using the apron in front of the garage on envelope A-2. The garage and apron may be located at any point along the southern edge of the envelope. The Fire Department is requiring that 35 feet be provided between the front of the garage door and the far edge of pavement of the driveway. There must be a minimum of 12.5 feet of clearance for this distance. 4) The sod areas align with the existing sod areas of Phase II and that the sod type matches Phase II. 5) The GRFA of the proposal must be modified to comply with the following chart. The GRFA allocated for each residence in the lower development area and each envelope in the upper development area can be modified by 50 square feet. Total GRFA for each area may not exceed the maximum of 13,314 for the lower development area (Tract B) and 6,152 for the upper dcveiopn~eni area (Tract A). Lower development area: Base Floor Credit GRFA current garage Area overage credit A. 1816 225 2041 16 463 B. 1816 225 2041 16 493 C. 1845 225 2070 493 D. 2148 225 2373 24 486 E. 1897 225 2122 3 492 F. 2157 225 2382 26 483 G. 1859 225 2084 21 476 total 13314 Upper development area: A-1. 3252 225 3477 600 A-2. 2900 225 2084 600 total 6152 C. Prior to Town approval of the Single Family Subdivision for the lower development area. The applicant shall dedicate access easements for the common driveway as well as the pedestrian access path; 12 EXHIBIT A -MINUTES FROM JANUARY 11, 1993 PE MEETING EXHIBIT B -NICK LAMPIRIS HAZARD STUDY 13 • ~h ~3~ ~°9 ~P~JG~ ~:'`L2 bo: tza7 d804~35 ~a-+.k vea+oa.+n..~ a~Iwm. ~o•+..a:~ ,~.+,oF a.wrs° I 303.468.5871 use•. s rt .wru kiiolraaune~6QfA'^ ~ Sf ..i.wsm r~.s. evy.:Sro~o suzs.r.9slr!•c~srs) -rvtxsrta• ~s~5.ipsrl9•ts.c) issued (date o. ~.i f1aa00 1R O.i~OM1G °>1HC.~oe.•- lea.lf s/. Iso ° Io 1'. eeoo v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n,r1Y - ~ ; J / r'~ ~ - _ _ _ ~ " %'~i / 9 •rs: • f ~ .ll~~,~.:~~~~ V e1Dh~ tensed date p19oi~_ i•/~ 11 ~l.r~ ' r ago! ~i ~j`~ - ~~i,~ ~i j i ~ ~i ~ ..a..r r tr ~o~ e ' 00 - - ~Ii~ i'i %~i f ~ /1 ~ _ .c•-- ~ ~ ~ $:`~~.r~i.1~~,......, L a: ' ' - - i . ~ / : is a ".i \'`l 6 Q~..~ % °d 5 4 m.a r.r.r oow I.u ow1 t a \ ~ , ~ ~~,(((((~~'(7yjyjyj777 , p~Y ~i PO~II M.N rllh ...N I./•~10O n ~e • o ~'<a~ • r , _ ihl....,oYhwa ,0n no.,osr _ aY M V, un~l^IU~i M. Y~ ~rm.~n I,u .b ' r.~ IOVOGNAPraCal SIiPV[I 1 0 IeKr aNG1 I~WYiOe G nw b . 511c. ~ ro.Y d +In.116./ Io..,..~,.oo p . OS Ja'IS ' 1. Ja.p' /O~? ~ p . ra~l•n• ~za3' r s f ~ ISa.O!• ~ ~ ' w~wa+' ~ ~ 14 d~b O I r+c.c.r.» CC f v'. 3' _ V Z~ ( L Drio JOl» ~ ~ _ Ili~~~ ~ Il zY~ i i~~ IS.~ ~ ~ 1' IILi,p l71•• ~ I'p. UG7!7i• (C. db1~101~ ,'I~ R. r3v• scf'7 os r,rarsmw .fncs: .I' . X11; 3~_ .I r~,'.t ~ I _ v:vc' 80435 :1 c3 asr.:w. `i, - f ~•ar~' 303-468.5871 ca.+rrees 1~ ~ ~~''~.`i r dat h^. roses .ori / ~ 1 _ _ ~f _ /may/{\.\ OIfO.kFC~'! ^~/~,M1 (cam HII~.•_„-. / ~.'l r'\t, a t ~•~j~c~"'"1, \ i, r 1Via LC~iI Ul~~ic7~C.oi~J;D~ :J~!,:~":I;r~ /~p.4rfcw \ ',Jlt~n_ L' - v ® I I cnarlne a~.~fx : ors ~ j o ~ % i:, _ / / l.rl •a / I ? Cr7ccn ip CE V.+o3 ~vsX' . / . ~ tl ~I. ~ .w.-~~( ' ~ Cw4c6aai~ T~ctes+ Ii 7•:i s i~ld i!11- ~ 1' ~ ~ ~ir~ l0 f.... c?a.Yi 9 v'~IG I~ .llrlMl GW~YaE d b'•1d 'sf ~~il~.. 1; f~~~ :J ~ e.A.,• r rraw~7Dn.,tt_- 'I : i;i! 1 ~;t::. ~ / ~ \l-- - ~.I..~a, r.P.,. w~ tot~4ic~lo n z~• l J . P.w ~ v _ ~ ~ mar r~ ]t - s l Ili bl~•' l~~ti' OLUL LQ/'A1 N YIVL I t - ~ ww v rfpllr6r/ / w/ ~ `.,•.w. ~ ~ ~ OM i ~~'tx¢e Iw.-1 -rn FacNH ~ 9 1 rL~W LM+OX^.~G EL4rr A••D Y.,tlp OiL 8 i Dee.ouoJS/ r .rn.: y.. r ~`2. Z. n.s6•`.~. Prt\7.1dPd ,X lLRLJfG>LL'TW~ U "4 l.I / - lO ¢~ENE 'L' TA?~rL A+yrf0 .1NNG IL IY' rr. ~ rLLL ~~DTQEL F~+e•r0R.~YG ,r I- - ~ z ~~e' _ x --Q f / /J .,,,,e I Ji 6~ ~1 1. / / • Pw.°-I ~ V ~ A„ C, ~ ~ ~ r i r ^ ~SJ _ R . rre /n' 1G• r - s. sr' f rm.s1' {/~f/' ~J 1 ' o ~ • ~ 01 t1t O/ {llrl llOM _ ~O~ - ~ • W • ~ ~ r..ar GAY, (M6fIKfi l"W. 9/. [1t1 %2 V! ..~..IM• q _ _ S Ir~rn rl ib. 4A A..A Y.[ y~~ M 1 4 ,ra• r6 ..w w... ..v , . 7P+6 WMPIOf. ¢OWpO+Yy Cy7frSy1. r~.N _a 6w+i. K.aa..lrn- ws•s• ae aev, omev ~ • \ •Mr\ ` •NLMYI.lS)• >i•G' DOR 129Y ~ • " • . • volurY' u.•alta- a an•In .x r. /cve Sw.q r ddbn.coloracfo _rl \ .•.o.aev. t.sM J.)116 0c:` /~8 1 .s+rv~ ts0435 \ , 1 CNQ' L'. /aL)N4%- L.. W'1"O^G (o./6.t/(,6 _ \t„y I wiwrow• ~.a•1 . 303468.5871 / ~ ~ ~ , \ . _ ~ \ :+.+r..~•. acoaca~- z tvcl:-+ oea :.+rt NrtH KID Issued Nate I rl • _ .".l , ~7":.~"1~i'~~1.~ ~ ~ f/p wo.vwa•ac.~.cs•. -r.,fzcsnva.Wsra•sas• .....~.1..~.. wcc.. .i' 1 L ec~.l.pr'q A Ib14 _ ' 1.• r. ~ ~ ~ ~ .7 \~Fniw~' ~.dr \ ppA b 1014 1 1 1 ~ G ItlA4 s/. /'I ! • \ ' \.\\`I r ~H~+`. Ibc•:.q\ti2 I .i b ier _ ~y I ~ 1/ 1 r~ ) . / . f`~~ .C~ pN`ra~ ~a~ ~ ~ ~ 4r revised date rrrar ~ t ``i~. / 1~ t \ / ~ ~ TJ' h `I - M .i~~~ ~ ~ - ~_'~+_.'-~=:~,.~_'.'A•'.S".4~~wrN~Pr•s~o•r-rr.:~Y'- ~ c 1 ~ 7 ` 1 / f r1. ! ~ ~ ~ it .""`i ~j ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~1q r~, lr 0•~-~;°f' 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1/ . +ry~ / I /~~/~'9; _ \1~ ~ ~`-~f1~1-+Irbl-u»+~ ~ ~ ' ( :y y. ~ ~ v / / "a Krw~ . ~ ~ 1` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` .t ui¢ w~,.1s alh.•f_D-t ~ ~ \oo • 1 - Pr• ~V / ~ f Y? \ 1 ~ ~ ti ~ ~ ~ ~ fl. NI{: 1.•N- i I'. ~ \ \ ~ ` O ( M n 1 4, .:Y ~ ~~i n4cw:.acl5~wro s\\ \ \ \ ~ 1 ~ g ~ nr~. r.y (',..oo5f. ywp:ar.t.A ~ _ ~ ~ 1 _ -a.lwa.r•f+m~ 'O~Op {..a.wl Mi _ t' / a•)s vr14 ~ ~ . ~ _ ~ 'M I'HK• s:.• ltcw w \ ~ K` GI I / iC "„'°~tw.~Q r %~j ~ ~ 1 wrr r..¢rM~~\\ \ 6 / 1 1 / / ~ _ _ ti_ rte. "ice",` \ ` \ r vV•~ 1 ~ f 1 I / ~ ~ •~c L \ 7 f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ I:. IxaK~F-?LSw.n \ ,o f ~I n ( 1 1 ~ f / / c./wa c'/j'il ` \ ~ rt t»IK. G\E`a'QH'!`o . 'y7~i1rp t 1 1 1~1 ~ i as ~ iY.r• I / I ~ ~ _ ` \ ; \ I •ry~~]~~~y~(Dp II 1 1 1 _ 1. l x_ a.e. ` ~ 1.'`$'~a.~~'~r,`'at i j - ` ~ \ \ \ \ ~ \ \ °do ~ 1 \ m i.. ....a w ~ 1 \ \ \ \ \ ~ \ \ ~ \ \ \ 1 I i i \ \ awi-. ~ ~ / \ e't. !'t 1' ~~vffjUJJ ` { I t \p'(a~ .'r !.,°9p: ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ 1 •4,\+PO ,if t+, e 4 4 ~ \ ra~.o~~at./ \ ' ~ , ,'•'40'x;, ' ` ~ ~ t.,a \ \ ~ / T~ ~y~~Q • `M`~\ , " ~ ~ ~w,'. ~ / yob rto.wt~ )F i.• 0 1~ 70rOG11I•MCII J I.rrra•1 O Pp YIi~ ~ ~KM.-+^w1y ~ I•~.r 1« r'M, mrq ~ rwrr Im,••r Y v. rw. \ 1 ro.cr O . a ICa! a /a9Ct• a _ 1 .q./ Ooct lrl~awt.ar • ° ; Iy{L Mj w. Y:r ..•r n I n.~ ro.. a rat ~ ~ ~te' Eht. 1 M w•Mwl,~ ,w r•~. rac•t cmrr, rounalo iVicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. 0 CONSULTING GEOLOGIST - 0185 INGERSOLL LANE SILT, COLORADO 81652 (303) 87fr5400 rZ4 HOURS) January 2~, 1~~~; Steven Gensl>?r F'ar!•:~~c~od Realty ~9 ~ DTC I-:+1 vd g ~f~~c_~c.i . . F_n h 1 ew;~od , CO 01~~ 11 1 RL"": Tr~~ct A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision C~c~~z~^ hlr. ren~~.i er I h~:~•:~e h~•~ ~n a51=:c~~i tc~ cl a.ri i=•y~ m}~ pa~i ti o~ on the rr_~ck:f ~-~1 mi -l: i ~ ~t i an T sc:^,d~~_,ted i n my previ r_us .l ett~ar . I L el i twe that one I:,~i~ I;:.i ~C:i c~~a.~4t i::tl t`~i~~lni yl.t;_•i~; i i;~~~ r_~~r-d~~r-. (7ci~= pos<..~i bi a. i i:y i to c~i thc~r- :~c<~1 e c~lr cIr-out 1 aose rac!•~:s i n tl~t= l c,o-~ r.,u.tcra,a r_li rer_•tl. ~A.ba`.~r thr` =_.z tc:_.; bcttr_I' i G. to con=_.tru.r_t thr~ re=;~.1~- oLlno'~:~ti or: w:~l. 1r_•f~ 1:1-;e C~.ci 1 cli nc>> to nrnt;~ude nt 1 cast three 'I' f? ^ cl tl p r •I~ i. n i h ;c' L'! L~ I" c?. ~-.I h' E1 r; ;1 t h i'. f-• n 1=~ 1 n 1~ C~'v~:.r-., rl t h ~ 1 rl 'I' 1? r '~%c?..I. if;~c:n ur~.n_Ind level t:.o th~~ ~f:c~p ui~ i:ht~ tE~:n w:~11). This wall =,hr_~:_Ilt~ h~t`,~r~ ,Z ~trr_n~~;_h Of ~~.t lE.a.s•t ._,I.i~ pnu.r.ds per rqL+.arc ti=nc~t. Thi_; Vdall. 4J~~i_Il1 a7.sa :::r_t t~~ pl-~c:~f:.~aci: the hale in th,~ ~~v~-_ni:; ~_~!'i:7t~l w~hc.,l.:l d s>a i do u'I r~.+_~c::i. rl~.i: tt~_ hc~lr:r~. i 1 c., ;i S'-~ .I I" 't: f": c~~ I'" i.. L t ~ 1 _ ~ ' C i:::1 C :T~ . C~ o n c. i is i n G r• ' r_.~ r:, i s is _ Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. . CONSULTING GEOLOGIST _ 0185 INGERSOLL LANE SILT, COLORADO 81652 (303} 8765400 (24 HOURS) t r J RE: ~racL- L_ic~n's ~;zGcsc aubraivi.~ior~ dear- I`li^. t_icn~~t:_., . ~ i:~ ri_\~:~. C:r•1L~ '(=llrx 'i:;•:U _.1'~it ~.Sr °_G'v:n urt ::i);? `?CCuCtDe:i1`j'!. nCl iT1L~!] i'Ur r7Lli'~YC?'o C'.` t;:iV~::I: i-cit. :~triC :.''~.rwri=, i' ~ GC•1 i~CVIt':'J fiir" ~~li:.° ~ iJl•1^i C:"i' t~131 a._' -i.l+)G f~l; L.'_`j i'i•1V~? 1=10::1'1 Ci:GS=.LiI i:G C C.'i_l~ C'''i ~l ~IJ '~I-if-_' 4`i.'•.•?''=i: C'}' '~.tii_ C:l.:f=~i'~I :~i %r'1 ..::ii'.: t=1~1._,.;Il:~'7.. J ~'tt~:' C~i": VC`l4.-`:.`i li,il:~'•_ C=~it1-C':'" =~;r:~ i 1 I . C I'~ 1 C:: A .L (Z r G~1 1 rl : r I'~ 1'_ : f~ \ l"~ J ~l l I ~ L I^ l'1 ~ .~.'i'~r L.:-i G~ : 1 1 i t. _.i : W I.J ~.Ll1ZCjlnt~ ~1t.i_'=~ I':+:i isflC? .~.UW t7i_l'I=CI'"C.:`17`_, ct13~aVi. ty(::•55C:.' 'z`ii'ri25~ Cyr: f]E? tit~1 ~ 'i' fJ1`O:.l~.t'_CI fji^ Ci'Cf::='i^l•11'~t= t i=iL.l'(:i"c:! 1 ~.'Ci ~)C'C~7U~Ei is i•=~r ~~:'"C--1 't.:`l1ll ~•.n~ C:_'~C:uf1~1nL1t7LiG. i)'7:' :iiil"C` dill"._~:;"Jt.1Li5~ Gi_l~=(_i'..tC^.c~ tirllC~; I'i:.Ciha~Y" iarl '~f:i'_' iii C J. d i~ ~ J 1 i i S ll i] fr1 C~ °.i,'t ~ t U 'i: it lc` t•.... . (~:1 is f"t rJ LA 131"1 it i l T _ !7 c.? = i C111 cl'i: 'i:.:' . i'1 i ia=''~ :i. 'C ~7? Ss 1 C C~ S~'~ 7. {.7 L` Il i'" C; t_l Ci i•J ~ i :i U i` IJ ? i'- r?1:L n C 'i. r."r-~F:i::a)1-\~ fY)C~1: lNcrt!'"I-~=;r')'~[i~ ":iLl5=• 'yCl 'i r1L ~ U4'J--CIICr.f1CC' Ci~i' 1'Gl_}~:~'` i'"C:P.CtIlT'l;_ i~7." UI~Ci=i~ilfJ tit _~i-'C?i" i. t:, CC_l •Ci'Lli._t_ G1 ;11~ L; GCcti:1 C.)r. :~'il!'ii^ 'Clii_' r f:.~~:i:r y C. C7F1'Cti,l a7. i1n .iC•_ 1"t::' i L I'i _ '1 a 1 1 rt i' I" _ S , t~ ~t L C: i 1 v : .i, f: ~ f ~ " t_ t. L O . _ . .t. l..,,.,, r.,-- ii...''-. r )C 1`: ~..L I...i:~.i •.r !~'.=clf'ii -.'`.l:_ ..~...'i:C:" ...;i1: ~.'i'~'. :`,1..Li•.~...,11t_i:'l' r j.i'a,J_•1`'' tii- i^"~1~::...~ ::1 C:i_:_.. _t i:7 l;`/:i:-? 'i: i l 7. 'k is I G I ~ 1 1 r) ~ t_•.:: ca'" a i:. L1 it i-_ C_ G i t 'r ` r Li C':: J. 'i^ : I=', c:_ Ll: i lu' C:. L mac.? C.'' ~,ilf_i^ ;7:'"UCC?r"'1:`/ C~ t~>>'(:'( t_lC'Li..ii'C_1°=. P' ~=0 I'i:ll:) i i= Y-1 C7il ri-!_J ~ "'i•:~1`% ~.1 Ll 1 '.t i i 1(:1 7'" C7:~~ i_ i'~ _ ~ ~ L` fll~'1 _ 4%. i.. 1 ~ 1 r~: i 1'~ c• C J... ~ J. l_ ..J is it t t-~ r is 3. , i r a n V f 1 ~ . i_ ri,. its i'" ::i L C.` ~ h cl ~ t-'_ `_i, i t. E: ~ :.l l" l"~ ~+iJl ;..:o l_'ili_]1 nJic`I'"1 r'li:', S{:l.lt:~ C° ~ .°31^Q? f":C`t=:_~~.ic:'( G! i•~ 't. C) {..lli': ~~-G`t?}7nBS,`.:a U.C 'i'_`t._ C... 1'~ 't:i 'r C• a1"E:' t;i:e`3J•Ci v-:C ni c'aSC. curli::';t'_~i. fi;L•""•. r s ~(1 ~ J ~ ~ ! L~ i,~an~~ui~in~~ Ceoic:ai~t:. i_ 0 iVicho{as Lampiris, Ph.D. ~ CONSULTING GEOLOG15T 0185 INGEASOLL LANE SILT, COLORADO 81652 (303) 8765400 (24 HOURS) 5t~vt::n Gtn~«cr c'cll'f•~:1N000j f'Gc~«'C~' Cr.~«c't C17 i?O1ii. f~~:' r~zct i Li or. ' f=:~ r~t_::i~ ~t_tbdi vi ~i. un 1 f"l V G? i C.''ti' C't'J l' C~ 'L fl Ei' .r~ V .'.-.'r' C ~ ` < c h r ~ r. n r 1 1 CCU c:.:i lt~.,.l cn 'i:ilc' c:CC~,';'!-,';'1';'i iit7 'i'GI^ C: I.:I''C:]DEii`'=i C.~i' i{CC~: i=ii~.1 :7lC~ L)i:'~){''I5 ~~iVW i'(-_:`:'li?tN 'i'GI^ ~:}lr_' •iCt•JTl Q•t' \'.~::a L'i E:i'J l=n s ~^i E' Cll_:'C i.: ~ '~i ~r' `'-c ,:,u.-_ •i~c~rr r.'l I'~:I C~'i <'.nf:C-~'1 . ( i .I.. , i_] : f i i_ :'1 C:!'" ir. hl C: i" I': t t:., t 1 t: _ n 1..~ `a :~i: ~ ~.i t:. ~l C} r : ^ . 'L U i'" i:' t•J 1 I : _ r' i i 'C1.:.' 1°i C:Ci].....~. ~.~if=f•: f'::ll~ .-li i::1-17 (°_'iE(= ~:iCL'G~': c11-tV ~ i'1 F? rt7r"f: c1i"~~•. ~ i ~ iiltrrL =r t.:ilt?!'"~ ~'L!i^'C::;(?r n'CY"i fl ~:f"lc`tn L{'ii'..I'= t] l.t : 1 C1 it is C.'"_? C] n w i 1 F3 CI'i::'1 i `1^ i L i« G : ct C't f~: W : t E? r 4T_` 1 1. ri c: ~ Ci 4~ ~ n i :::U C)P_t:.... ~ n~r~,'],,• ~ 1 - a• _ ~ 1-1 l c'~.~.n f": :r? 7. 1 i i~ 1. Il cit C ~i n I c. r't t Lf .5 i_ I_ i..:_ Y' i_ h ::l'.. ~ . 1' Ll'i: Ci? Cj Ci'L: ri E' i" 1•! 1 h E' Lt'l". i" . i L: Cf ~ C cai fl B ~ c, r C' 't r i i ; i.j C~~`_~."-.L:i_~f'1'~:i~lt_li:l.l`.~. Ii1C' li'tt71'i` iiat~•li^t~C:Llr] C.'.L'.~:Ci'"CafJ:~ (ilUl:fl f'li~fl'.?i' C~i1 ±:.i'i'3 i ~ r r. ~ , I c 1• Fi « 't it ti Li'; f7 rrl 1 L :i cl'C 1 C.i n cl'% I"i « « :31 G C « . I"i C'3 ~ ;1,.~ 't 1 D 'C i•. c ~ . I-1 {'1 C n ~`a t.~ t ~ ~ t 1 1 4.a ~ 't t? v:! 1" (:l r : ~ ~ i i:.• '_i n I:: i_ - _ . cL , i f G ~ a ~ t I°::~' t. t.l r_., h t'J c..t. C:, i^ ` <:l i" , n 't.. ' i., C:f G 'C f 't E' l t; l , 1::1 fi C ~ C) , G C: t': a I^ E c't a n Cl 'L • : r' r; : C i? C TI' r.t::n:-_ri_ici:it~n C7 -'r Ll~it=:, tvi.~ - ~ t:.y ~C ra t - ~ « ^'C 1 n C: i'" L ~ l•_' L h: C:` c::.. i' t1 ti. u C:i'i: {"1 C~:' C!] C? 7" 'l. ~j' Cl i^ ~ 1" l_l C Ll I" E: i3 C] 71_i)~ . i l:. r ] C.; . i is ! : - D'i' c=.';' , I'; !_l ('a I :fir-,.-~ ~ 1"Q:~tC!'_ ~ .::>t.l'"G'.L'i.".' ~ 15c~?i ~91':~_... 1.:~: i 1 7: _ pi^ ~ ::t l_ 1 t. J. rcr OI' I : I`~ : t; I" C:~ i:: _ 1 L"'• ry L"l y rl F~: 1 n C:i , , , t 6? iii:: ; is l'" f~'! i_ Li lr 1:: I'i :~'C f ; E:':. 'L _t:~ ~ t~l L,;'~ t'::a~ ~~~-d << ^0.i=_- I- 'i:iic_r~~ i•lY'E3 CiLt :~"i:aC'~n~ ~,«c' sr' c~.,^~_~.c't C'_ . v'~nCc: :r pa~.~ - CcIn~Lli 4ir1~ C:icDl Wc;i ~t s S00°38'56"W 455.06 feet; thence along said centerline N00°38'56"E 122.81 feet to the southerly ROW line of 1-70; thence departing said ROW line N66°53'25"E 39.15 feet; thence departing said ROW line S81°23'19"E 165.42 feet to a point of curve; thence 122.83 feet along the arc of a 143.20 foot radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 49°08'51" and a chord that bears S15°57'45"E 119.10 feet; thence S40°32'10"E 3.00 feet; thence 66.30 feet along the arc of a 77.21 foot radius curve to the right, having a central angle of 49°12'10°' and a chord that bears S15°56'05"E 64.28 feet; thence S8°40'00"W 90.27 feet; thence N38°42'24"W 224.55 feet; thence S78°10'32"W 101.44 feet to the Point of Beginning. Applicant: MECM Enterprises, Inc. represented by Michael Lautefiach Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1993 Chuck Crist motioned to table the request with Dalton Williams seconding the motion and a unanimous vote of 6-0 tabled the request until January 25, 1993. 8. A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase 11/1480 Buffer Creek Rd. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner: Andy Knudtsen Chuck Crist abstained from this request due to a potential conflict of interest. Andy Knudtsen reviewed the request stating that there were three deviations from the code. Tom Braun, representing the applicant, gave a brief presentation. He emphasized that the applicant did not want to request additional GRFA and would be doing further research before the final hearing regarding that issue. Public Input Neighborhood input was then requested and the first speaker was Brian Doolan. He requested that the applicant look into the various Fire Department requirements and come up with an alternative design. Steve Lindstrom spoke second, discussing the differences between the County approval and the proposed plan. He specifically requested that the PEC require Mr. Gensler to reduce the amount of asphalt in his design. Planning and Environmental Commission January 11, 1993 e Sally Brainerd spoke next and described the sections that she had drawn in a prepared report done by RKD, Inc. The Planning Commission discussed with her some of the details of the drawings, specifically trying to understand the amount of fill that would be located at the lower end of the proposed road. Sherry Donrvard was the last neighbor to speak and she requested that the PEC require the applicant to maintain the character of the area. She described aspects of The Valley and requested that some of these characteristics be included in the new design. Upper Development Area The PEC decided to discuss the upper development area~first. Greg Amsden said that interesting architecture was the key to an attractive development. He said that 3,600 square feet of GRFA was quite a bit for that lot. He said that he was concerned about the terracing that would be required with a development in the upper area. He said that it should be kept at a minimum. He said he wanted to see specific aspects of the design at this time prior to any decision on the request. These would include garage er.tr?es, the au±omobi!~ turna~~und area for each home, the parking area outside the garage, and the access to and from each building envelope. Dalton lnlilliams advised the applicant to be very careful given the steepness of the slope. He said that the square footage of the structures was an issue but the major issues to him were nailing down grading, cut and fill, and design review issues for the two homes. He also said that the character of the local area should be preserved. Gena Whitten said that she was concerned about the engineering that would be required for building on a slope like this. She said she wanted to see the details of the driveway, the turnaround areas, the slope retention, as well as hazard mitigation. Jeff Bowen said that he concurred with the comments that had been stated. Diana Donovan said that design restrictions for these lots was a good idea. She also said that the two envelopes should be moved together as well as shifted to the east. Lower Development Area Concerning the lower development area, Jeff Bowen began the discussion by saying that putting garages in these homes was a good idea and that most homes in Vail need garages. He continued by saying that the mature evergreen trees should be saved. He also said that the amount of grading proposed was a problem, especially on the west end. Concerning the fact that all of the proposed homes are single family, he suggested that clustering a few as duplexes would help the site plan. Gena 1lVhitten concurred with Jeff's comments and emphasized that the development Planning and Envfr®nmental Commission Jar<uacy g993 should be clustered. She said that by clustering, some asphalt could be eliminated and the amount of grading needed could be reduced. She said that saving the trees was very important. Reducing the size of the units, combining driveways, and shortening the length of the access road by clustering would all benefit the plan. Dalton Williams emphasized that he wanted to see the trees saved. He said that too much of the vegetation would be destroyed. He also said that the design should be in character with the existing area. He also requested that the applicant set the buildings into the hillside to make them look smaller. Greg Amsden said that the asphalt coverage should be decreased and that this could be done by reducing the width of the road. In his own experience with the development review process, he negotiated with the Fire Department to sprinkle the structures and in turn, was able to reduce the width of the drive significantly. He said that this may also help to save trees, which was an important issue to him. He said the square footage of the homes was not a problem but that they should be worked into the hillside. Diana Donovan referred back to page four of the staff memo. She said that the units should be clustered, that they should share common drives and yards, and that they should be designed to save the vegetation around the development. She said that the asphalt should be reduced and that the mature vegetation should be saved. In general, she believed that the units should be clustered closer together at the top of the site to preserve the rest of the site. She concluded by saying that since this is one phase of a multi phase project, the existing neighborhood should definitely be considered in the review of this project. Greg Amsden added a last point and received general concurrence from the PEC that the single family style of development was not an issue. However, he emphasized that issues such as grading, tree preservation, clustering would all have to be resolved and the design improved before the PEC could support the plan. 9. Review of staff policy on vending carts (ie. espresso carts). Staff: Tim Devlin Tim Devlin reviewed the Town's policy on vending carts per the staff memo. Diana Donovan said that she supports the staff memo. ,F Public Comments: Susan Fritz, the Vice President of the Restaurant Association and the owner of the Uptown Grill, inquired about the possibility of having an espresso cart at her restaurant. Planning and Environmental Commission January 11, 1993 ~i 4q iu~~lul®RAN®UAiI TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 26, 1993 SUBJECT: A request to amend Title 17 regarding the subdivision process by adding a requirement for proof of payment of property taxes. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Pike Monica k?: x :F:: r :v::: :v::: v:::w::::::::::. ~.;:'.ii: i;;:y :}:v::. :w::::::::,;y}v.:,: ?::n~ :v. ii.:::::. v:::...::::::::. ~.:::vi: iii}ii?:: iiYi,~ '~i': i::~: iv: "~<':~:;•iY: iiiiif . :::....::::v:::. ~ v::::.~ r:::::•i:v;i•:::.uv:::::;::.:;. ...........:::.:...?..v B. ®ESCRIPTION OF THE RE®UEST The Town of Vail's subdivision regulations do not currently require any individual wishing to subdivide property to provide proof to the Town that all ad valorem taxes, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid. Recently, the Eagle County Treasurer, Sherry Brandon, has requested that the Town of Vail adopt a procedure, which would be similar to the procedure that Eagle County currently utilizes regarding their final plat approval process, which provides proof of payment of taxes. The Town has historically been utilizing a process in which we require individuals requesting to subdivide their property to provide proof to the Town that all prior years taxes have been paid to date. There is a period of time between January 1st and April 30th of every year when taxes are technically not "due", however, the County does consider the taxes past due if they are not paid by the 1st of January. This has created some problems for individuals wishing to record a plat during this four month time period because, theoretically, the taxes are not due until the end of April, however, the County Treasurer will not sign the plat until the taxes aro paid. In discussing this issue with the Eagle County Treasurer, and with the Vail Town Council, in April of this year, the Council instructed the staff to add a requirement to the subdivision regulations stating that all taxes due shall be paid before the plat is recorded. In order to accomplish this, the staff would propose to change the Filing and Recording sections relating to all plats and to create a tax certificate in the Town of Vail's subdivision regulations. These sections have also been changed to state that the applicant shall pay all Eagle County recording fees. The applicable sections of the code are as follows: A. (~laior Subdivision Sec4ion 97.96.205 ~ Filing and Recording "The Department of Community Development will record the plat with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. The Community Development Department will 1 ff` (P 1 retain one mylar copy of the plat for their records and will record the remaining t mylar copy." The staff recommends the following modifications: Section 17.16.205 -Filing and Recording The Department of Community Development will record the plat and any related documents with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, however, no plat for subdivided land shall be recorded unless prior to the time of recording, the subdivider provides the Town of Vail with a certification from the Eagle County Treasurer's Office indicating that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid. Fees for recording shall be paid by the applicant. The Community Development Department will retain one mylar copy of the plat for their records. B. Minor Subdivision Section 17.20.050 -Filing and Recording "The Department of Community Development will record the plat with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. The Community Development Department will retain one mylar copy of the plat for their records and will record the remaining copy." The staff recommends the following modifications: Section 17.20.050 -Filing and Recording The Department of Community Development will record the plat and any related documents with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, however, no plat for subdivided land shall be recorded unless prior to the time of recording, the subdivider provides the Town of Vail with a certification from the Eagle County Treasurer's Office indicating that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid. Fees for recording shall be paid by the applicant. The Community Development Department will retain one mylar copy of the plat for their records. C. Condominium and Townhouse Plats, Section 17.22.090 -Filing and Recording "The zoning administrator shall be the final signature required on the plat so that the Department of Community Development will record the plat with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. The Department of Community Development will retain one mylar copy of the plat for their records and will record the remaining mylar copy." 2 The staff recommends the following modifications: Section 17.22.090 -Filing and Recording The Department of Community Development will record the plat and any related documents with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, however, no plat for subdivided land shall be recorded unless prior to the time of recording, the subdivider provides the Town of Vail with a certification from the Eagle County Treasurer's Office indicating that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid. Fees for recording shall be paid by the applicant. The Community Development Department will retain one mylar copy of the plat for their records. ®ut~lex Subdivision Section 17.24.110 -Filing and Recording "The Department of Community Development will record the plat with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. The Community Development Department will retain one mylar copy of the plat for their records and will record the remaining mylar copy." The staff recommends the following modifications: Section 17.24.110 -Filing and Recording The Department of Community Development will record the plat and any related documents with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, however, no plat for subdivided land shall be recorded unless prior to the time of recording, the subdivider provides the Town of Vail with a certification from the Eagle County Treasurer's Office indicating that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid. Fees for recording shall be paid by the applicant. The Community Development Department will retain one molar copy of the plat for their records. E. Single Family Subdivision Section 17.25.110 ~ Filing and Recording "The Department of Community Development will record the plat and any related covenants with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. Fees for recording shall be paid by the applicant. The Community Development Department will retain one mylar copy of the plat for their records and will record the remaining mylar copy." 3 ' 4 I~. The staff recommends the following modifications: Section 17.25.110 -Filing and Recording The Department of Community Development will record the plat and any related documents with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, however, no plat for subdivided land shall be recorded unless prior to the time of recording, the subdivider provides the Town of Vail with a certification from the Eagle County Treasurer's Office indicating that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid. Fees for recording shall be paid by the applicant. The Community Development Department will retain one mylar copy of the plat for their records. F. Condominiums and Condominium Conversions There is no existing language on filing and recording for the Condominium and Condominium Conversion section of the Subdivision Regulations. The staff recommends the following addition: Section 17.26.150 -Filing and Recording The Department of Community Development will record the plat and any related documents with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, however, no plat for subdivided land shall be recorded unless prior to the time of recording, the subdivider provides the Town of Vail with a certification from the Eagle County Treasurer's Office indicating that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid. Fees for recording shall be paid by the applicant. The Community Development Department will retain one mylar copy of the plat for their records. G. Certificate of Taxes Paid The staff recommends the following addition: Section 17.32.800 -Certificate of Taxes Paid CERTIFICATE OF TAXES PAID: I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the entire amount of taxes due and payable as of upon all parcels of real estate described on this plat are paid in full. Dated this day of , A.D. 19 Treasurer of Eagle County 4 ll. STAFF REC®RANifyPl®ATI®N The staff is recommending approval of the changes to the Town of Vail's subdivision regulations as indicated in the above paragraphs in Section I of this memorandum. We believe that these changes will resolve the concerns of the Eagle County Treasurer and will assist the County in the collection of taxes. c:lpeclm emos\title 17.726 5 ORDINANCE NO. 13 SERIES OF 1993 AN ORDINANCE AflflEN®ING PORTIONS OF TITLE 17, SUB®I!/ISIONS, AN® PROVI®ING FOR A RE®UIREMENT FOR PROOF OF PAl'AAENT OF PROPERTY TAXES; AN® SETTBNG FORTI.B ®ETAILS IN RECAR® TFIERETO. WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations do not currently require any individual wishing to subdivide property to provide proof to the Town that all ad valorem taxes, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid; and WHEREAS, the Eagle County Treasurer has requested that the Town modify its subdivision regulations to provide for a requirement for proof of payment of property taxes; and WHEREAS, the Town Council is of the belief that the provision for the requirement for proof of payment of property taxes is a reasonable requirement for individuals requesting to subdivide property; and WHEREAS, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission has unanimously recommended that the Town's Subdivision Regulations be modified to provide for such language. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: Section 1 li~ajor Subdivision -Section 17.16.205 -Filing and Recording is hereby repealed and reenacted as follows: Section 17.16.205 -Filing and Recording The Department of Community Development will record the plat and any related documents with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, however, no plat for subdivided land shall be recorded unless prior to the time of recording, the subdivider provides the Town of Vail with a certification from the Eagle County Treasurer's Office indicating that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid. Fees for recording shall be paid by the applicant. The Community Development Department will retain one mylar copy of the plat for their records. Section 2 Minor Subdivision -Section 17.20.050 -Filing and Recording is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: Section 17.20.050 -Filing and Recording The Department of Community Development will record the plat and any related documents with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, however, no plat for subdivided land shall be recorded unless prior to the time of recording, the subdivider provides the Town of Vail with a certification from the Eagle County Treasurer's Office indicating that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid. Fees for recording shall be paid by the applicant. The Community Development Department will retain one mylar copy of the plat for their records. Section 3 Condominium and Townhouse Plats -Section 17.22.090 -Filing and Recording is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: Section 17.22.090 -Filing and Recording The zoning administrator shall be the final signature required on the plat so that the Department of Community Development will record the plat and any related documents with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, however, no plat for subdivided land shall be recorded unless prior to the time of recording, the subdivider provides the Town of Vail with a certification from the Eagle County Treasurer's Office indicating that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid. Fees for recording shall be paid by the applicant. The Community Development Department will retain one mylar copy of the plat for their records. 2 a a a Section 4 ®uplex Subdivision =Section 17.24.110 -Filing and Recording is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: Section 17.24.110 - F61ing and Recording The Department of Community Development will record the plat and any related documents with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, however, no plat for subdivided land shall be recorded unless prior to the time of recording, the subdivider provides the Town of Vail with a certification from the Eagle County Treasurer's Office indicating that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid. Fees for recording shall be paid by the applicant. The Community Development Department will retain one mylar copy of the plat for their records. Section 5 Single Family Subdivision -Section 17.25.110 -Filing and Recording is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: Section 17.25.110 -Filing and Recording The Department of Community Development will record the plat and any related covenants with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, however, no plat for subdivided land shall be recorded unless prior to the time of recording, the subdivider provides the Town of Vail with a certification from the Eagle County Treasurer's Office indicating that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid. Fees for recording shall be paid by the applicant. The Community Development Department will retain one mylar copy of the plat for their records. 3 1 Section 6 A Condominiums and Condominium Conversions -Section 17.26 shall be amended by adding Section 17.26.150 -Filing and Recording which shall read as follows: Section 17.26.150 -Filing and Recording The Department of Community Development will record the plat and any related documents with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, however, no plat for subdivided land shall be recorded unless prior to the time of recording, the subdivider provides the Town of Vail with a certification from the Eagle County Treasurer's Office indicating that all ad valorem taxes applicable to such subdivided land, for years prior to that year in which approval is granted, have been paid. Fees for recording shall be paid by the applicant. The Community Development Department will retain one mylar copy of the plat for their records. Section 7 Section 17.32 Sample Certificates shall be amended by adding Section 17.32.800 - Certificate of Taxes Paid which shall read as follows: Section 17.32.800 -Certificate of Taxes Paid. Certificate of Taxes Paid I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the entire amount of taxes due and payable as of upon all parcels of real estate described on this plat are paid in full. Dated this _ day of , A.D. 19_. Treasurer of Eagle County Section 8 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 4 e ~ this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 9 The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 10 The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail 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 proceedings 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. Section 11 All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this day of , 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the day of , at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk 5 READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED v this day of , 1993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk CdORD~ORD1B.fl3 6