Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-08-17 Support Documentation Town Council Regular Session VA1L TOWN COUNCIL ~~~Nf~~ ~~~~I~~, TIDES®AY, AUGUST 17, 1993 7.30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993, second 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. 3. 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 (Simba Run/Nail Run) 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. 4. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance rezoning Tract C of the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision from Greenbelt and Natural Open Space zoning to Single Family Residential zoning, a tract located within Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision, an approximately 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange. Applicant: SBC Development Corporation, a Colorado Corporation. 5. Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance approving a Special Development District (known as SDD No. 28, The Valley, Phase II), and the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty. 6. Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 18.24 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by deleting Section 18.24.058, and amending Chapter 8.24 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Section 8.24.058, controlling undesirable plants within the Town, declaring such plants a nuisance, setting forth penalties for the violation of this ordinance; and setting forth details in regard thereto. 7. Adjournment. ®fl~®®®® THE NE?tT NAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TUES®AY, 8/2/93, BEGINNING AT 2.00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. THERE WILL NOT BE A !TAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION ON TIDES®Al', 8/31/93. THE IrOLL®WING NAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TOES®AY, 9/7/93, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN '~'®V C®UNCIL CHAMBERS. THE NEB' MAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BE ON TOES®A~, 9/7/93, BEGINNING AT 7.30 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS. C:WGENDA.TC VAIL TO~iVN COUNCIL ~~f~LAR ~iIENIN NIIEEI°IIVG 'SUES®AY, AUGUST 17, 1993 7:30 ~.il~d. 6~ TGV COUPIC~L C&iA1MBERS EXPAiV®E® AGEhI®A 7:30 P.M. 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION. 7:35 P.M. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Mike Mollica Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993, second 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. 7:40 P.M. 3. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, second reading, an ordinance repealing Mike Mollica 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 (Simba Run/Vail Run) 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. Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, on second reading. Backaround Rationale: Please see the CDD memos to the 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 No. 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: Approve Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993, on second reading. 8:10 P. M. 4. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance rezoning Tract Mike Mollica C of the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision from Greenbelt and Natural Open Space zoning to Single Family Residential zoning, a tract located within Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision, an approximately 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange. Applicant: SBC Development Corporation, a Colorado Corporation. Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1993, on first reading. Backaround Rationale: Please see enclosed CDD memo to the PEC dated August 9, 1993. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1993, on first reading. 1 r 8:30 P.M. 5. Ordinance No. 17, Series of i 993, first reading, an ordinance approving a Andy Knudtsen Special Development District (known as SDD No. 28, The Valley, Phase II), and the development plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty. Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance fVo. 17, Series of 1993, on first reading. Backaround Rationale: On July 12, 1993, the PEC voted 4-1 recommending approval of SDD fVo. 28. Please see the enclosed staff memos to PEC. On August 3, 1993, Council tabled Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, on first reading. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993, on first reading. 9:30 P.M. 6. Ordinance IVo. 19, Series of 1993, first reading, an ordinance amending Tom Moorhead Chapter 18.24 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by deleting Section 18.24.058, and amending Chapter 8.24 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by the addition of Section 8.24.058, controlling undesirable plants within the Town, declaring such plants a nuisance, setting forth penalties for the violation of this ordinance; and setting forth details in regard thereto. Action Reauested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Ordinance IVo. 19, Series of 1993, on first reading. Backaround Rationale: This Section was not under proper Title. There is no change to the ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance iVo. 19, Series of 1993, on first reading. 9:40 P.M. 7. Adjournment. TIDE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TOES®c~aV, 8/24/93, BEGINNING AT 2:00 fP.All. IN TOV COUNCIL CI~IAINBERS. TI~ERE WILL NOT BCI=AVAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION ON TUESIDAY, 8/3/93. TIDE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION WILL BE ON TOES®AV, 9/7/93, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CFIAl1ABERS. TIE NE3tT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING I'~EETING WILL BE ON TOES®AY, 9/7/93, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.IVI. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAl1ABERS. ~ C:V?GENDA.TC 2 ®R®iNANCE N®. 18 SERIES ®i= 1993 ®~®iNANCE AMEN®iNG ~®RTioNS TiTi_E 17, suB®ivisioNS, AN® i=~®vii~it~~ E®R ~ REC~uiREMENT i=®R PRO®1= ®i= PAYMENT ®F PROPERTY TAXES; AN® SETTiN~ i=c~RTi~ ®ETAii_s IN REGAR® THERET®. 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 Maj®r Subdivisi®n - Secti®n 17.16.205 - iriling and Rec®rding is hereby repealed and reenacted as follows: Seciti®n 17.16.205 - Piiing and Rec®rding The Department of Community Development will record the plat and any related documents with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, however, na 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 sha11 be paid by the 1 Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993 applicant. The Community Development Department will retain one mylar copy of the plat for their records. Section 2 i~Vin®r Subdivisi®n - Secti®n 17.20.050 -Fiiing and Rec®rding is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: Secti®n 17.20.050 -Filing and Rec®rding 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 C®nd®rniniurv9 and ~'®wnh®use Riats - Secti®n 17.22.090 - iriling and Rec®rding is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: Sec$i®n 17.22.090 -Fiiing and Rec®rding 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 Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993 Section 4 ®uplex Subdivision - Section ~ I.24.910 - i=icing and Recording is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: Section 17.24.E 10 - fFiiing 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 shalt 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. Section 6 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 3 Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993 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 Paidl which shall read as follows: Section 17.32.800 -Certificate ®f Taxes maid. 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 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 4 Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993 O' 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 3rd day of August, 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the 17th 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 READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this _ day of , 1993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk C:\ORD93.18 5 Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1993 ~ ORDINANCE NO. 16 - Series of 1993 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. 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 Council; and WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 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 of 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 TOWN 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 of Vail have- been fully satisfied. SECTION 2 -Purposes. Special Development District No. 5 is established to ensure comprehensive Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993 1 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 and the Planning and Environmental Commission, and there are significant aspects of the special development which cannot be satisfied through the imposition of standard zoning districts on the area. SECTION 3 -Special Development District No. 5 Established. (A) Special Development District No. 5 is established for the development on a parcel of land comprising 8.84 acres in the Lionsridge area of the 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 Required Prior to Development. (A) Before the developer commences site preparation, building construction, or other improvement of open space within SDD No. 5, there shall be an Approved Development Plan for said district. (B) The proposed development 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 Environmental Commission stating its findings and recommendations shall be transmitted to the Town Council in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 18.66 of the Municipal Code. (C) The Approved Development Plan shall be used as 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 Planning and Environmental Commission may be approved by the Town Council by Resolution. (E) Each phase of the development shall require the prior approval of the Design Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993 2 Review Board in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 18.54 of the AAunicipal Code. SECTION 5 -Content of Proposed Development Plan. The Proposed Development Plan shall include, but is not 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 and site development having contour intervals of not more than two (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 therein, 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, and showing proposed landscaping and landscaped site development features, such as outdoor recreational facilities, bicycle paths, trails, pedestrian plazas and walkways, water features, 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 illustrating the form and mass of the proposed buildings. (I) An architectural model of each proposed building, at a scale not smaller than 1 inch = 40 feet, portraying design details. (J) A proposed program indicating order and timing of construction phases and Ordinance No. 76, Series of 1993 3 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 permitted: (1) Multiple family residential dwellings; (2) Accessory retail, restaurant and service establishments not occupying more than 18,000 square feet including the following: Apparel Stores Art supply stores and galleries Book stores Camera stores and photographic studios Candy stores Chinaware and glassware 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 Delicatessens with food service Cocktail lounges, taverns and bars Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993 4 Coffee shops Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants Additional businesses or services determined to be similar to permitted uses. (B) In Development Area B - Simba Run, the following uses shall be permitted: (1) Multiple family residential dwellings which may be condominiumized for sale as interval ownership fee interests and the employee housing units required per Section 18.48.1 ~10 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 hereof. (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 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. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993 5 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 shall 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 -The floor area of all buildings and the number of dwelling units shall not exceed the following provisions: Develooment Area B 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 dwelling units, not including the employee dwelling units 115 189 (F) Building Bulk Control -Building bulk, maximum wall lengths, maximum dimensions of building groups, and 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 Natural Open Space - A minimum of 60 per cent of Development Area B shall be landscaped or natural open space in accordance with the Approved Development Plan, with the exception of Phase II of Development Area B, which shall be as designated on the Approved Development Plan. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993 6 . (I) Parking and Loading - (1) Off-street parking shall be provided in accord with Chapter 18.52 of this ordinance; at least 85 per cent of the reauired parking shall be located within the main building or buildings, or beneath accessory decks, terraces, plazas, or tennis courts and shall be completely enclosed and screened from view, 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 located in any required front setback area or on the south side of any building, and no parking or loading shall be permitted at any time in areas designated for recreation or open space use on the Approved Development Plan. (3) Driveways, passenger loading areas, and partcing 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 indicated 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 Morter Architects: Sheet No. 1, dated June 1, 1993, and revised July 30, 1993 (Landscape Plan) Sheet No. 2, dated April 12, 1993, and revised May 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 July 15, 1993 (Site Plan) Sheet No.'s 4, 5 and 6, dated April 12, 1993 (Floor Plans for Unit Types A, B and C) Sheet No. 7, dated May 13, 1993 (Floor Plans for Employee Housing Building) Sheet No. 8, dated April 12, 1993 (Elevations for Unit Types A and B) 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) Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993 7 SECTION 8 -Recreational Amenities Tax. The recreational amenities tax due to the development within 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 Pollution Controls. (1) All solid fuel burning devices shall conform with the Town of Vail Fireplace Ordinance (Ordinance IVo. 21, Series of 1991) and as amended in the future. The basic criteria as presently identified in the Ordinance are as follows: a) Construction of open hearth wood burning fireplaces is not permitted within the Town. b) Dwelling units may contain: i) One (1) EPA Phase II certified solid fuel burning device and no more than two (2) gas appliances (B vent); OR ii) Two (2) gas log fireplaces and no more than two (2) gas appliances (B vent).. (2) If solid fuel burning devices are provided within the development, they must be heat efficient through the use of glass enclosures, and heat circulating devices as technology exists at the time of development. (3) Developer's drainage plan shall include provisions for prevention of pollution from surface run-off. (4) Developer shall include in the building construction in Development Area B energy and water conservation controls as general technology exists at the time of construction. (B) Phase II of Development Area B shall include four (4) employee housing units, and said housing units shall satisfy the requirements of a "Type III EHU" according to the Town's adopted housing ordinance (Ordinance 27, Series of 1992). Additionally, three of the existing six employee housing units (numbers 2207, 2401, and 2402, as identified on the Simba Run Condominium Map) shall be permanently deed restricted according to the requirements of a "Type III EHU" as specified in the Town of Vail's housing Ordinance No. 76, Series of 1993 8 0 ' ordinance (®rdinance 27, Series of 1992). The remaining three restricted employee a housing units (numbers 1201, 1205, and 2202) shall become "free-market" dwelling units upon such time as the above seven (7) permanently restricted employee housing units meet the restrictions as indicated in the Town of Vail's housing ordinance and have been issued Temporary Certificates of ®ccupancy. (C) Approval of Subdivision and Interval Ownership -Interval ownership of multiple- . family dwelling units, with the exception of the required employee dwelling 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 covered during the winter season). Said tennis courts shall be made available to the general public on a fee basis, subject to reasonable regulation in favor of owners or guests of the development. (2) Recreation amenities fund contribution of $10,000 to be used for general recreational improvements by the Town of Vail. (3) Bike and pedestrian path traversing property 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 pool 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 regulation in favor of owners or guests of the development. (E) Additional Amenities = (1) Developer shall provide adequate transportation services to the owners and guests of the development so as to transport them from the development to the Village Core area and the Lionshead area. (2) Developer shall provide in its Approved Development Plan a bus shelter Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993 9 of a design and location mutually agreeable to the developer and the Town Council. Said shelter to serve the Lionsridge area generally. • (F) Additional Requirements - The developer agrees with the following requirements, which are a part of this amendment to Special Development District No. 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 Occupancy's have been issued for all four units in the employee housing building. (2) The applicant agrees to construct and maintain a public pedestrian path through the property (north to south) and shall grant a public access easement to the Town of Vail prior to the Town's issuance of any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for Phase II construction. (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 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) 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 developer shall provide this easement to the Community Development Department for approval before the Town will release any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 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. Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993 0 w 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 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 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 has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provisions or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, 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 Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1993 11 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. 76, Series of 7993 12 ORDINANCE NO. 11 SERIES 1993 AN ORDINANCE REZONING TRACT C OF THE SPRADDLE CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION FROM GREENBELT AND NATURAL OPEN SPACE ZONING TO SINGLE 1=AIViILV RESIDENTIAL ZONING, A TRACT LOCATED WITHIN SPRADDLE CREEK - ESTATES SUBDIVISION, AN APPROXIMATELY 40 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED NORTH AND EAST 01= THE MAIN VAIL I-70 INTERCHANGE. WHEREAS, an application has been submitted to rezone Tract C within the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, from the Greenbelt and Natural Open Space Zone District to the Single Family Residential zone district, in order to provide for the addition of a permanently restricted employee housing unit/gatehouse; and WHEREAS, the rezoning effort is consistent with Municipal objectives to provide permanently restricted employee housing within the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the proposed zoning amendment and has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the appropriate parties; 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 TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT: Section 1 The Town Council finds that the procedures for a zoning amendment as set forth in Section 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied, and all of the requirements of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail relating to zoning amendments have been fully satisfied. Section 2 The Town Council hereby rezones Tract A, of the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, ,from the Greenbelt and Natural Open Space Zone District to the Single Family Residential zone district. Section 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 1 one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 4 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 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. Section 6 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. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk C:\OR093.10 2 6VIEIIIIIORAP1DUIhA . TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 9, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance, a minor subdivision and a request to rezone Tract C from Greenbelt and Natural Open Space to Single Family Residential Zoning, within the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, an approximately 40 acre subdivision located north and east of the Main Vail/I-70 interchange. Applicant: SBC Development Corporation Planner: Mike Mollica I. DESCRIPTION OF THE RE®UESTS The applicant, owner of Tract C of the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, is requesting a setback variance, a minor subdivision and rezoning in order to locate a gatehouse, which would include the subdivision's caretaker dwelling unit, on the site. Tract C is located at the beginning of the private subdivision road, where the public access to the Spraddle Creek Livery and National Forest property begins. The Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision is currently zoned Hillside Residential, with the exception of the three open space Tracts (A, B and C) which are zoned Greenbelt and Natural Open Space. The final plat for the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission in 1991. This final plat approval carried with it approximately twenty-six conditions of approval. Since the initial approval of the final plat, ownership of the property has been transferred to SBC Development Corporation. At this time, all of the conditions of approval have been fulfilled and construction of the subdivision's infrastructure is underway. IL BACKGROUND AND HISTORY On February 11, 1991, the final plat for Spraddle Creek Estates was approved with conditions by the Planning and Environmental Commission. One of the conditions stated that: "After final plat recording and before any building permits are released for site improvements or individual residences, the following condition must be met: The rezoning of all open space tracts within the subdivision shall be approved by the Vail Town Council. The requested zone designation shall be Greenbelt and Natural Open Space." 1 The applicant agreed to this condition, subsequently filed a rezoning application with the Town, and the Town Council approved the rezoning request on May 4, 1993 (second reading of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1993). Initial discussions with the PEC and the Town Council, regarding the possibility of locating a gatehouse and a subdivision caretaker unit on Tract C, began during the early planning discussions back in 1990 and 1991. Due to time constraints, the applicant at that time decided not to pursue the approval of a gatehouse and subdivision caretaker unit for Tract C. Now that the construction of the subdivision's infrastructure is underway, the new owner of the project would like to pursue the gatehouse concept. In order to allow a gatehouse and a restricted subdivision caretaker dwelling unit on Tract C, it is necessary to rezone the property. Additionally, a building envelope must be platted to insure the proper location of this structure. As proposed, the gatehouse would be located approximately 8 feet from the northern property line of Tract C. The dwelling unit would have a maximum GRFA of 1,200 square feet (plus the 425 square foot credit) and a maximum site coverage of 2,000 square feet. The applicant has agreed that the subdivision's caretaker residence would not be included in the three caretaker dwelling units which are required for the subdivision. The applicant has agreed to waive the "250 allowance" for this property and has also agreed that the ownership of the property would remain with either the SBC Development Corporation or with the Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association. The unit shall also be permanently restricted as a caretaker unit. III. ZONING ANALYSIS FOR TRACT C Single Proposal Family Zoning 1. Lot Area (Gross): 47,279 sq. ft. 12,500 sq. ft. min. 2. Contiguous Buildable Area: 14,544 sq. ft. 12,500 sq. ft. min. 3. Building Envelope Size: 4,500 sq. ft. n/a 4. GRFA Proposed: 1,200 sq. ft. 6,603 sq. ft. + 425 sp. ft. credit + 850 sq. ft. credit 1,625 sq. ft. total* 7,453 sq. ft. total** 5. Site Coverage Proposed: 2,000 square feet 9,456 sq. ft. *A garage credit of 275 square feet is not included in the GRFA total. **Up to 1,200 square feet of garage credit would be allowable and is not included in the GRFA total. 2 BV, EVALUATION OF ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM GREENBELT AND NATURAL OPEN SPACE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT A. Suitability of Existing Zoning The staff has determined that it is appropriate to rezone this open space tract in the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision to Single Family Residential zoning. The purpose section of the Single Family Residential zone district states, in Section 18.10.010: "The single-family residential district is intended to provide sites for low-density single-family residential uses, together with such public facilities as may be appropriately located in the same district. The single-family residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards." Staff believes that by rezoning this parcel to Single Family Residential, and by further restricting Tract C to one permanently restricted caretaker unit for this subdivision, that the initial design intent of the subdivision, and the intent of the purpose section of the Single Family Residential zone district would be met. B. Is the Amendment Preventing a Convenient, Workable RelationshiQ with Land Uses Consistent With Municipal Objectives? The rezoning effort is consistent with municipal objectives to provide permanently restricted employee dwelling units within the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision. C. Does the Rezoning Provide for the Growth of an Orderly. Viable Community? The rezoning supports the effort to provide for orderly growth while also maintaining important open space areas within the new subdivision. D. Land Use Plan The Land Use Plan designates this area as Hillside Residential, which is defined as follows: °This category would allow for single family dwelling units at densities no more than two dwelling units per buildable acre. Also permitted would be typical single family accessory uses such as private recreational amenities, attached caretaker units, or employee units and garages. Institutional/public uses would also be permitted. These areas would require sensitive development due to slopes, access, visibility, tree coverage and geologic hazards. Minimum buildable area of 20,000 square feet would be required per dwelling unit." 3 S Due to the unique nature of the proposed use for Tract C (gatehouse/employee restricted dwelling unit), the staff believes that the proposed rezoning would be consistent with the Town's adopted plan. The staff believes that the zone change to Single Family Residential would further the comprehensive development plan for the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, by allowing a permanently restricted employee dwelling unit/gatehouse at the entrance into the subdivision. Further, the proposal would be consistent with the following goals and policies of the Land Use Plan: 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. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 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. V. MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA A. Lot Area Chapter 18.10.050 of the Vail Municipal Code requires that the minimum lot or site area for a property located within the Single Family Residential zone district be 12,500 square feet of buildable area. The Municipal Code defines "buildable area" as any site, lot, parcel or any portion thereof which does not contain designated floodplain, red hazard avalanche area, or areas in excess of 40% slope. As indicated in Section III of this staff memo, Zoning Analysis, Tract C would meet and exceed the required minimum lot size. B. Frontage Chapter 18.10.050 of the Vail Municipal Code requires that each lot have a minimum frontage of 30 feet. The applicant is not proposing to modify the existing frontage of Tract C, as originally approved on the Spraddle Creek Estates final plat, however, Tract C does meet the minimum frontage requirements. Tract C has a frontage of over 200 feet. C. Site Dimensions Chapter 18.10.050 of the Vail Municipal Code requires that each site be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries. Tract C is of a size and shape which meets and exceeds the 80 feet square area regulation. 4 ` 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. NII. STAFF RECONi1~iiEftl®ATIOI~ The staff recommendation for the applicant's proposed minor subdivision request is for approval. It is the staff's position that all of the required zoning/development standards for a minor subdivision request have been met. In addition, the staff has carefully analyzed the configuration of the proposed building envelope and we believe that the envelope has been well sited given the topography and the natural vegetation of the tract. The minor subdivision approval shall be contingent upon Town Council approval of the rezoning request. The staff recommendation for the applicant's proposed setback variance request is for approval. NVe believe that Finding B, 1, is met and that this approval will not constitute a grant of special privilege. Additionally, we believe that Finding B, 2, is met and that the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that this approval will actually improve the security for the subdivision and thereby improve the health, safety and welfare of the properties and improvements within the subdivision. Staff finds that B, 3, is met and that the topography on the site warrants the support of the setback variance. Finding 3, C is met due to the unique nature of the use of the property. The setback variance approval shall be contingent upon Town Council approval of the rezoning request. The staff also recommends approval of the rezoning as we believe the request meets the zone change criteria listed above in Section IV. ~Ve also believe that the rezoning request, coupled with the use restrictions as proposed by the applicant (for the final plat), furthers the goals of the Town's Land Use Plan through the provision of one permanently restricted employee dwelling unit. a:\rzspradd.809 6 VI. VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of the Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested setback variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures In the v(clnity. The staff is comfortable with the applicant's request to construct the caretaker dwelling unit within the 20-foot front setback. We believe the proximity of the gatehouse, to the main access road ihto the residential subdivision, needs to be as close to the gated entrance as possible in order to function properly. Additionally, the topography is very steep on the south side of Tract C. We believe that the site disturbance can be reduced by allowing the caretaker unit/gatehouse to be located as far north, or as close to Spraddle .Creek Road, as possible. 2. The degree to which relief from the str(ct and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites In the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privl(ege. Because the gatehouse needs to be highly visible from the main gated entrance into the subdivision, we feel that it would be inappropriate to require the 20-foot setback. We also believe that this property is unique in its proposed use and that it would not be a grant of special privilege to support this request. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The staff believes that the requested setback variance would have no negative effects upon any of the above factors. We do believe that the gatehouse will have a positive effect upon the subdivision security and the safety of the subdivision's residents. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 5 US.forest Service l 1 ~ 0 3 l ~ Lot 1t l.; ' I`LL ~ - 1 s Lot tz , ~ I ` \v Nom^~g~' ~ i tN ~ ~ t`,J.: t .r ~~s ~ • Scale: i ~ • ~ • r q..C , ` ~ - t ~ ?.-•,.J•, J ~ L , try t,.., ~ ~ / ~ ~ / SJ ` ~ L•. Lot t4 j ~_t.,~.~ ,~J~ 'r ~ `~{,{/~~~,'(y~ t fit.. / r t `1/-" ~ / ~ ~ T ..._f l' -~C... J '-'f.r ( • ty t ` ` -~;y t S A~ ~ J ! y.~-~ ~ ~ •t• 'r.•.-,. t ' t n t L + f ~)l Q(' ~ i L ~ l_ ~„1 ~'•`l`' ~ ~.~..L:•~/,1+/p1 _ . 1f.,' \t f'`~(~? 11 .J /tt {.t C~,"•/~ 1 j'Ll• t-'~- . 1 ~ - k~: ~ ~ ~ Gi ~(.sL,-~ ~ 1 .~r ti ~ •Lot 5 D ' ' `gyp 't"`'~••. ` wr' `••,~C _ ~fi--•--~ _ •~_:L~' ~ j~ ~ I 1 ~ • 'C ~ ^ `.•t~ti... . S., ~-~ix~`• Lot 1s 1~~'~'' ~ • "1 r~ . f' ~ J j ~ • lot ~ ~ ~ \ E R E ~ • ~ 5 y` t C ~,J'\,~~~• ~`ti.~A`,l~ Lot 7 ~ ~.:'~~~}2 •:.r` y Z LOCIALLlING 17 C L• •4 ` ~i- ANO AS oM 1./~` ( Kv / 1_'•\.? t~`~ S \ 4 r •f +...~.~~I.>~ ? V4~ , ~K„p....~• ~ ~ ` tot 4! : 1,1/~ `i \ S{f . `.~t..~ r` "^s i"~ ` / ~ p \~~1~ ~ LQt g ~ .•.Jy ~1~•.`4 r' .A. i 'IL • ~~+y {vtt..~; 1'' ~1L•~~~ f'^~• i ~ t•~• ` / r , a t ~ a Cap f ``~`''~`~v ~•-.L,•xi~` V„ L ~ L,ti,~,t Z Lot 1 ~l ''t.:~ ~ '~Y~.•~. ` - -r_',~,: c t4''. ' 't, ...;.r,fi-S ~.4 ` , Lot ~ ~t. ~~L. • • .•Lot t ' = F~, ~ L. 1,,, • ^f' C ` 1 ; ~ ` l\`.\ y. t'O~ ~ ~ "~"•.1- 1 a2 6 _'„LCko, Nusrdc~LC® ~ ~ = . - - - ' ! t . 1 w interstate ~p v ~~T 9 ~ ~Q m LOT 8 v TRAC' • ' \ ~ _ ~ ~ GLEN ~ ~ CREEK ~pA ~ - D {5 D ~ , ..ti J ` - . - ~ as.oo , E 122.32 ~ ~ j~ ~ w 7s oo . \ SEMEN] 1 S ~ ! C~ • 20' SLOPE MAINTENANCE EA pp _ 8 I ~ . ~A ip h i } ~ ~ t~OT ~ ~ ~ ' 257.20 H ~ euiwtrc f~,oae ` S N 88°16'29" E 2 ~ ~ T~C,T C s ~ro,.,~u. E ~ F w as.zr N 14'40'5? ~ ~ • 50.00 47,279 S.F. a ~ 51.OPE MAINTENANCE ~ ~ be ACCESS EASEMENT O, r 20' SLOPE 1AINTENANCE EASE~+fNT l N l ~ _ FACT F C2 ~ N 84.12'47 w 338.80 SPRADDLE CREEK READ X50') TRACT A ° N4~IC~: c-y `Q, ~otow scivsc° ~acecvc ~ N l ~ mot Z t,.,~a `Wray S~ ~ p f ~ ~yp,¢ccto~ q• s. seooo 9o++®~c at0.om°" ~ T - t~ ~ ~ 1 n o a„a W .n ~ ~ ~ tee pow ~Au ~ ~ Aah nSWCM4~` z M~'a ~jptOOa OL,' ~p,~~ 63 _ ~qAE OW gAKiAt d tldE1P ~.7 ~ Y ef.C~°'° ooe . ~ ~G _ my a - .r _ w t r ~ d9 ~ i _ ~ ~ J ~ ~m ~ • J ~ ~ ate' Y ~r ` ~ p9~~ ~ ' . axe' e..ar ffi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - G cs~ ..`a ~ i (nJl . 'J~. ~ n - ~ W ~ ~ l . - I,~ 4 ~ ELY C,,ces.`Gi~et~ ~ ~~,akce 6tes~~ f~ Ele+~~1O" V~ ~ j r r ~ 4 ~ ~ i~ • . r ~ ~ ~ ~ O .411nC~~IIL lYC ~ . ~n w W--; w s~ 4 f ~ 0 J' ~ -~ipr. CE~d F• 1' W ~,\N~ nqq. ~ ~ g9ev~t~on ~ ~(cst ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ - _ r ~ ~ ~ `o . e~~: , II sue j 's - ~ s .Q~y ' i re ao~ ~°'O :rt . ~ f South Etevat+an . ~ ORDINANCE N®. 17 SERIES OE 198 AN ®RDiNANCE APPROVING A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (IKNOWN AS SDD N®. 28, THE VALLE~°, PRASE 11) AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITd~ CFIAPTER ~ 8.40 O~ Tula VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTFI DETAILS ITS REGARD THERETO 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 Tovvn 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 Distric4 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. Special Development 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. Purpose Special Development District 28 is established to insure comprehensive development and use of an area that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town of Vail. The development 1 Ordinance No. 17, Series of 199:! 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 iCoechlein 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 letters) and January 22, 1993. 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. 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.) 2 Ordinance No. 17, Series o1 1993 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. 10. Landscaping: 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 3 oro~~ar,~ No. n, saw ~ ~sss v 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. Desian 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 L.ampiris in his hazard analysis dated September 18, 1992 (two letters) and January 22, 1993. c. 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 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 area (Tract B-2) and 6,152 for the upper development area (Tract A). Lower development area (Tract B-21: Base Floor Credit GRFA current garage Area overage' credit A. 1816 225 2041 16 463 B. 1816 225 2041 16 493 4 Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993 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 A1: 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 ,4 and B-2 of The Valley, Phase I I, 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 IVo. 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 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." 5 Ordinance No. 77, Series of 199;1 o v Q 12. Recreation Amenities Tax: The recreation amenities tax is x.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 and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS 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 , 1993. 6 ordinance Ho. 17, Series of 1993 a 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:\ORD93.17 7 Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993 i ' J s IriNENAORAIVDUAN 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. INTRO®UCTI®~ 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. IL ®ISCUSSI0~9 OF SOIt.S 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 - . l w ~e ~r `r 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 following 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 a turn-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 tt. 5) The GRFA of the proposal must be modified to comply with the following chart. 2 i , p The ~RF~ 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 93,914 for the lower development area (Tract B) and 6,152 for the upper development area (Tract 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 ~ 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 orooerty 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 P 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 concems 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 Deference to the I~oechlin soils report and a reference to the requirements for gall designs will be indicated the on the plat and title Deport, and 2) that Greg fall review the wall designs and soils Deportt 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 •Neon ordinance -second reading ~ ' ti 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 conceming the golf course design and possibly the wetlands. •PEC/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 ~ 2, ~ sss 4 ~ 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 fVW 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 Vait 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 ~ l ~IAEIVIORAN®U11~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April ~6, 9993 Staff c®tvtments arcade since April fag 1993 are made In b®Id SUBJECT: A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and 13, The Valley, Phase 11/1480 Buffer Creek Rd. Applicant: S4eve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner: Andy Knudtsen ........................,..,..........,...,.;i:i::............. I. PROJECT ®ESCRIPTIO~ 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. VNalts, 4 feet in height, to be built in the front setback of the upper development area which exceed 4he 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, 4he 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 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 4his square footage, each home will have atwo-car garage. The ridge heights for the proposed homes 1 ~ . . range from 27 feet to 30 feet. Uooer develooment 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 Nrovision recognizing the County approval. i he Ordinance states that a~.y 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 A~oroval 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" 2 _ area off 4he north side of Euffehr Creek Road. It is important to note 4ha4 the County approved plans for the upper area located the units partially on slopes greater 4han 40%. On January 11, 9 993, June 24, 1991, December 9, 9 991, and December 9 6, 1991, the PEC reviewed very similar plans to the current proposal. Steve Gensler was the applicant at 4ha4 time, also. During the 1991 review of this project, it was determined that the proposal involved four departures from Town of Vait zoning standards. Because of these departures, 4he applicant has applied for an SDD. 3 III - Rt:onlna Analysis Zoning: Residential Cluster Lot Area: Upper 40,740 sq. ft. Buildable Lot Area: Upper: 8,386 sq: it Lower 105,318 sq. it. Lower: 64,623 sa. tt. Total 146,058 sq. h. Total: 73,009 sq. tt.°' 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. fi. 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. tt. 6.9% or 10,209 sq. ft. Setbacks 10' front 20' on 20' lront ~ 3' front 20' sides all 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. ft. 60% or 87,634.6 sq. tt. 86% or 125,673.3"' Retaining Walls 4' 6' 6' 4' - 6' 'Size of A-1 0 sq. tt.'° A-1 0 sq. it." 8,000 n/a . Buildable Area in A-2 8386 sq. it. " A-2 8386 sq. ft." Proposed Lots Other comparisons (please note that these are not zoning standards) Asphalt coverage 9.5% or 13,892 sq.tt."' S.2% or 13,500.6 sq. it. n/a 7.3% or 10,742.3 sq. tt. Impervious surface 22.1% or 32,228 sq.ft.°" 22.3% or 32,624.6 sq. it. n/a 14% or 20,385.6 sq. ft. 'Deviates from Zoning Code standards "Measured by stall "'Assumes that only halt of the full circle of parking is bt,ilt 4 , IV. ~tOIJIFICATIONS RHADE SINCE THE JANUARY q1, 1993 PEC 1Rl®RK SESSION On January 9 9 , 1993, the PEC reviewed the proposal at a work session. RAinutes from that meeting are attached to 4his memo. A summary of the PEC comments for the tower development area were: 1) That mature evergreen trees should be saved, 2) Tha4 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 exis4ing 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) ~l hat the envelopes si~oulo ~e shifted down ott of the uppermost part of the liiilside, 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 took like. a) Lower Devefooment Area . Since that meeting, the applicant has modified the proposal. For the lower development area, the site has been surveyed, and al! 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. 1~/i.th 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 applican4 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 4his time, the maximum amoun4 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) Uooer Develoament Area ~ " Since the January 71, 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 drawn detailed plans of the driveway in the upper development area. The drawings include garage locations, garage stab 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 ail retaining, and chat 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 wilt 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 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 tower 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 res(dence be allowed to vary by 50 square feet from what is shown below. Total GRFA for the tower and upper development areas may not exceed the totals for each area. 6 r t 0 ~R~A ~,ay ~®t be transferred fronn the upper t® the f®wer Bevel®pment area. Lower development area: Base Floor Credit GRFA current garage Area overage credit A. 9816 225 2041 16 463 B. 9816 225 2041 96 493 C. 9845 225 2070 493 D. 2148 225 2373 24 486 E. 9697 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 4o be mitigated. The geologist has recommended that on the north elevations of the two homes in the Upper Development Area, tha4 3 fee4 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 4he 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 wilt insure that there is no scarring of tl~e 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 alt 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. NVe believe that the homes provide a workable relationship with the surrounding uses, even though many of them to the west are condominiums. !fie believe that the use is reasonable and that with some design modifications to the architecture and landscaping, that the development will be compatible. C. (~ompllance with parking and loadl~tg requirements as outlined In Chapter ta3.52. 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 l/all Comprehensive Plano 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. Odentification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which 4he 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. 0=. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designee 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 Developmen4 Area will remove a stand of trees, staff believes that any development plan in the remaining portion o9 Phase II would require removing some trees. Staff believes that, in general, there is a reasonable balance beMreen preserving the overall aesthetic quality of this portion of The Valley and building out the approved density. ~ 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 tower 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 4ime the lower area is developed, the applicant will complete a single family subdivision in order Yo 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 presence 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 Oevetopment 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 chat 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 REGIUEST 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. !f the SDD is approved, this deviation from the standards may be allowed. 10 - Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision. VUe believe the applicant has demonstrated tha4 4wo single family units can be built on Tract A. The original development plan located 5 units to the hazard area. YVe believe the new plan provides for a much safer design. in respect to Tract we feel it is reasonable to plat unplatted parcels that are phases within a development. The PEC is 4he 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 4he PEC ma0ce their approval contingent upon the Town Council's approval of the SDD. Prior to 4he scheduling of 4he proposal for first reading at Town Council, the following changes must be Incorp®rated into the plat: 1) The information provided in the completed drainage report must be incorporated into the plat, including proposed improvements as well as easements; All hazard areas, as designated on the Town of !/ail 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 RECORARAENDATIOIV ON `>~HE SDD RE®UEST 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: 9) ®rawings for 4he automobile access 40 4he 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. ~,t time of ®R~ hearing, the ®FiS 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. 91 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 deve~oNnteni area (Ttact 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 tower development area. The applicant shall dedicate access easements for the common driveway as well as the pedestrian access path; 12 N . ~~ct ~l°~ ~ ~ ~ssf°~0fi~ ~..+...0..•.1.. u.wrat ~.tr.r•. a~ 17.`t «~/c.o w.vr • . u.s°``i c,a .x.,~f .'10.7•a6B'sen ?1.:.:. , , w.~ ~ose.•_ eras sgaq . rw. ~w.-. imotao~ pD1' . °&s~'~s m~ ~e~`~ e,~mw~~~vn:~cer«~w:®9a~°~`~, ~fi1Md Idi_ .~m~o10~0 ~ .i i cr^ - ~a arre'm~r asoa . ~ i - o ~~-4.T.^- ~r~ a ii i ter. r ,1. ,~-b~-r..-o'~ i g a~.,.,~. ` J ~ ' I- Y ! ~..~~i• ~ {7x30 f0V18b 'l7 ~ XA ~~i~%~y-//ice Ci" P"'. ~ ` i 1145/2 Q! C[IWIBRM =:^-ice, J~ ~:;~y/~~~~~j~ ~p_.~/ pp~lnn 7_ Q.. ~ .......a.av.... - $ • ~ ~ <~t o arl~ tr~.•b rrr..a 1~ Pw 1 Irr~doorgldo ~ ft0.~~ ~rww~~~r~~M b. ~.~a. r w r..i r drtr.rr. • =L.. ~f plot rlepae _ _ b' w r .am e,• r. rs Gaa b b /Q/Of7Aaa°Ca d1f,9v(I ' m a o trerrree m Qe re.r1 L~(~~/~ -:,r~ /wad .t.°.r rmesrr,smca°po - o - orx~a ` N ~ . l..ar' - a2M' i •1'b OIV V V~~ a. yY71• Iu' ~ . a.ltr' .~i.'oti r. Hsr• • r 1; .law ~ ~ ~ ~ 'a'i-d r'e•K T; ~ t id t `o ~ it ~ C.... U s ~ ( ~ i1- ~ ~ 1 o~'ll• ~ ~ , ~ . ,ic-%~a' R boot 1297 .1~•~•. r.asx• 80A3 sllY~ rwor~~r...ano ~ 't;l; l - wIS' ~p,~46b'S871 ~j?ACT B-t .~lae•d l ~ '~~..T, . ~ 'v,~• Ifalrciq_ P 'iJ b Ft~` a~ ~~SN~v+~t'~I e.um caw+ ~ Iv 1 ~ - µa, L ~~ap..- MW Oti'RLiGiO 7/!s'~fiLY7q~ L.•~• rr.-- ~n._y.. r ..r Gi+nr~ Klt~~~..~C~ ~ M .~17i0,4N~ ~ 1W 4ld MIID' 1~L4 _ L w% r 1 - I . 1 ~ y~ ~ f..lrs.ti - ~ Q rr-. ` 1 - ~r IZrj,irr ~1 ~ I - ~ ~ i ~ ,N/ / / ~ P ~ r~ III ^ rr • r.r ~ Q rwr-, y r ~ / ? r ~ ?..o~ r / / ~ , / / ,.r wrVr"r r f r i r ~ ~ rw 0 Y+ ~ ~JI'3 ! N' I~IL / L ' o ~ ~ w:•m.o - - - _ a~.••-IC ~as~,.saL lr+o o.o o¢ a.lo ..c) y~ ` ~ ~ w ~ local l6S _ _ •O~ awalor mod. c..~yo, .:"'O...r r.'.~ ` . w~: e... " w r . u m°..v ~ ~?!df KaaNU~. 9i-s+ Mu oio•••K ormP \ ' \ m%• e~k•rY •w~•.1•a. 0 Ia.•.rs °aa • boa 1297 • \ 1 ••.•Pa'+LiO. rosy ~IK S1'4~' A1110n.COlOP8t10 . y `6 :v lo.. ~w.e 1 ~+eaKf: i.+~w-.w• c.+r. ar•.O~L 6svoii~6~ 11095 •.~.+o~m.•s,•dc:luc~w~-m>s sm o~ 903•~BB3B79 ~ ~ / ~ [.a ew. °O/~t ~ • 2 {.dCVe DCet :•4f ?27'110 AlI~Th? ~ • ~ ~ R' ~ 1 _ _I7«w_ r},~~1 \ ~ 1 ~/O _ r.~ ~w.'c.d~sa~•~ 4 8 6c~.ae,b~ C~W4, cal w~.w.y 1• m.. •r R 1. • \ / \~i-re. s~"°• \ 1 Gp ~D+k a 1te~-11~ vt 1 / l / ~ d I 1 • ~ f ~ ` \ \ 1 ~~R`L 13410 V.~$- / - ~ / w.n.r l' o` \ ~ ~ 4> rowed to 1 / ri r(Y .a• I ~ ~ ~K. ~i:r.~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~~ ~4 •w a wma.• ~ _ 1(` i~ caw[ ~ ~ ` ~ - . i_-.~- ' ~ el•ac~ ~ \ \ ~ ~ `1 -L M16Y Mlq.l)KF~pT.~oW'L~ ` \ \ 1\(~~ ' ..ei 'i yip F ~~1~y 1•. .•IG ~.••-t i.~ ``-~i •'r ` ' O ~ 1 .•wi.11 mi _ I •o..~ r.o ~ _ _ _ ~ ` ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ a. n..c w- I+m.. ~,..y\ ~ \ \ \ \ ~ . ~ 1 ~ J ~ 1 1 t / r ouLS wl~ • ~ \ ` ~ ` ~ . ~ . ` ~ . . ' . ` ` ~ ~ ? r«K. a. e~avw-~t.1s ~ ~ \ \ \ \ q oj, / / .t'. .~a I "r"r\t"'..g .f•~ 1 ~ ~ ` ~ ~ -m'n/~. `c•?~"'I /a/r ~(Dg,\~ \ \ 4' a 111 ~l ~ '~"~1`S ~~.~v•'~•"`~\; t 1 1 / / , ~ ~ / ~ ! r_-``~:~ ~ ~ 1:. IM.d•'.~f ••aa.•.r ~ \\I`V/ 1 I1f~1 ~ / / ~ / `~q~\ °!8:°0l ~~''.`n~wK'~ au -a~d 1 r• ~ ' 1 ~ p.i.'~a:• 1 1 e, ' ~ 'tic ` ~ ~ \ \ ? ~ \ ~ day) / ~ \ \ S ppp nmY aea.r- \ :.•d dj \ \ 1 I ,1. 1 1 i'~u t O Qy4 ~ •b ~ .o`, ena c ;S';~1.-:..\ l~l 1 1 1 p [~~y<{a$d8~ • ~ \ ~ •'i O~ 1 O ~~'.=^~s ©Inid/V1ia•>tnlo 1'~ RQ~1~Ykr /•.~do." =,o 4a •1 ,.y1t5,vD :°t'i.~ \ ~Q?Bla,•••mQe..• - - \b .\,O C4Vfa~ ~ ZO ~ _ w~~~_e•w~ r a~.e w..r ~ ca. o•..o w r.y Iww q e...«. ~ \ ' j~ r0•vso<•creea ~ . . f ? _ ~ 1i loon o . s we/ m .wKd/ o - - ...1 w d•a•••ww•e r.. w.~'~"~m a ~ IOW qwr• b• • 0•d•• dmeN. •q®eq 1 a 6Vicholas Lampiris, ~h. ' OOfdSULTING GEOLOGIST 0 ®185 INGERSOLL LANE KILT, OOLORADO 81652 ~18T65400 ~a HOURS) January ?~9 Y5'4ti, Steven Gensfler Far):wc~od Teal ty x:299 DTC ~1 vd 9 Q#5Uu • En g 1 er~ood o CO Eau 1 1 1 FCe Tract ~q Lion's O;idge Subdivision ~~ear Plr. Gensler s I ha••~e bE•~•n as!=:ed tc~ clarify my posf ti on on the IrocFfal 1 m t i o:~t i an I su^_,gested i n my previ cus 1 ett:~r . % believe that one r::i ~:;yaii~~rr t~clrniy~tr_s i~ ire c~rtJ~~r-. L7rit~ possi bi 1 i ty i , to ei thcr- scalp er grout 1 Dose rocb::s in th•e lr,;•~ uu.tcro;.i directl•;~ a.ba•.~r the siter.a bEtter i=_• to con=_•tru.r_t the t-e=,r lound~-~tien tdall c•7f the bt.lildinga to protrude at lc3ast three ff:-^:` B. t1O'.'t? ~i nl ~hF_•L'~ t~r~?.de cZnd tD he!.'.rf.] nCt t•J1 ndOL':S 1 n th]. S 1 ntFr'.fal l f i"C'_:Ti Qr Aland 1 evel tO tllL-'-' tip U'I' thN St Em tddl 1) . This trial 1 s`~o:.;ld have a str~:ngfih ~f r~.t le~a.st 3i:r:~ pr,u.r.ds per =qu.ar~ fctot. . Thi_, t•:all wa;_Ild also act to pre~l_eci: the ho~:e in th•~ event .r,~~w =hoi_:1 c. sa i de u~ ~.gt~i rlci: th hCtiT~E-•. 1-~ :~lrl-~ c'il'-f? ~.r:ll S-~r t= ~ :?"rr-~ -;rj ~ ~t~?C=P Cll.~t2 i:la pl t_ CL t~:::tCt tiA Il~'ii/ifA~E,1 •v Con =.r~.1 Linn GF•:t' ogist _ ~ Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.U. ~ CONSULTING GEOLOGIST 0183 INGERSOLL LANE SILT, COLORADO 81652 ~ 8165400 R4 HOUHS) : Sa?pte:~bc'r 12, 1rag~ StE+ven Gensler Pari:t•JOOd Fealty 5~ ~cJ DTC ql vd ; ;~SUCr Eng l Etl•:ood , CO Et~L i ! RE: Tract A, Lion's Pidge Subdivision Dear- Mr. Gens.li=-: ' ~ i:.\~Cr r~vi et•:ed the t''.~•JD .•1 'C~_ ~ i=.5 5LiDV:n uf't {.:hc ZCCOf.'tDFI: j~1 f1Cl :Tl~i~ i'Cr r'i.li-j:1Q~C"C• a'f lt7ci: f=~t1l ctfiGi !)~~-.~`t'1~ F~~~.::•J rEV1E?t'J :'i]i" tht~ 1•Dt•J^~ C'i' `J:::ll . :.'i=.:` tW0 itC:S he?\'.~: ::iC'i:n GiiG~CTt i'.G `ilc.Ci_lt Cti ~:'1•^_ 'tL~ '~'.I'11=' t^ir l: O'~ tJli:• G''E.'ri is .'an c:it'_''.' Ch: ":n~r'.l. The di V::'W.ZV f~USL C~ntE'r c.^.d The '-G'C i' rc~tll ^•~Z 1"EL1 15 R:D1't. 5C\~E•rE t'.lrtilLi- l~'E`5t t~": c~:.l-i 'C r:CSc~' t4J 13 bt_li 1 di ng ~i tc~s ~ I-:d i:hc~ 1 uw o;.ltcrcps ~.bove the>e sites c:.tr. be Lcl~i ~ ~ nrautt•cl Gi^ Gtfi1='i"l•Ji 5C nE'Utl°c:~ 1 CC: JCCe'iLISE' they r'3!"f' t.'il "1 ~?n~ _'Cuf1ClnUCI.:~. ih~' fiiGi"C ~i1 c:rGjt:)l.lS C:LItCi-CC.r'r fflllCh hiCahCr O'l the iiil~SidC t•Jlli ~~"tCt] mv'tly t0 '~i1E` t•: Wit. h:1Li-:U'U.:3fi fllitif7u~tlOn c`.t ~.c'`.c` i:Gi'C'=.i Ct S.i l a COc~~l b:, L ~_hi"GI.IG~"? vJal i S Qi- b::'rt?tl f'.C, 3 5 [::'GFiat7~ nGI: t•J~tl"i'c:.fl'LC3t~ Jt.ly '~O 'i:irL ~ G1N ChitriCC• D'f rDCE:C r Chi n^ 't:hCy ~i UL.:tCi Cf~ t•.'~:Ji°:' ?i'..Q{" i:iJ COl~'=ti'LICtiCh tvlll iJLr: '~'i' i C 1 ;:~1 . t 1 i a a.:: nc: 7 G C C+% 1 CJ n t\t ~'1 ~_i• i' ;c` 'l: i i i_: i'" ~ Li ~ L , C D:1 'C ~.1 '1 Ct C! t . i G'. C G !.I" C: rs C, ^'C t:L'fii:l..,l . ;il l illt_ r~:clcs • ':a ~tfi l_:C:il t? 1Ct•: lt-:V1•:1 t1t7.Lh ~C'E.p•~_i ~O i' i"; 'i i.' C :'J a i:7. i- { `J cl f' Li ~ h 'c S 'w C, r C: i 1 ~ 1 Y: C' CCI, •t•J1 i. ~r flciVl:' VE~t-j litti ^.~::-1°C`/. f-C'.;`: l.:C:r"•1::.:f"'l`r D!::..o ?Ci,:ISi" ~tL7C:V2 !hE• CDrtS'rl_lC'.i:?~i C•r t)lC'~i_ l.talt_i t•iill no+. 1TC:"L~.i:' L:~ iiCica'v ~.D nthi_i^ 7"'O(?C~-1: Ci StrUCti.ii L5 Gr t0 ~iL:FJilC r'1 C7~1't.~~C'~~ttiu`~ tilll~Jiilf'I~ r0~LiS, '?tr~.r:•'i~. C•'.r-.=':f1=~1t~. L'.y.1~l:I.E.'S Dr '~E~Cil.'.t1C Cyr ;;t;,"- r~;-opert;,es t~•f any k:inr,. `eL m~' r:_stute tha;:. the sites are r,o: i;t the :~e.~ri s ttia~a:- ~,r~=•~;s. S~?i 2 s ~~n~i nee'ri nr studi E's =re l:CC."~SSGr`~ Cjt[~ tQ thE' ~~:eepn~~~5 Or titer fr-2' C"~. Y ~1_"i CrC• ar'c' G,:.:C5tiv':~ Dl ear-..^. Cunta-tGt fGC. Sincerel,. ;Jicnola= Lanpi:-is Consul ti na Ce~i Di'i st ¦ et I~iehOlas Larr?piris, Ph.®. °~'~I COWSUITING GEOLOGIST 0985 IPdGERSOLL W1dE ° SILT, COLORAQO 89652 ( 11765400 RQ MOURS) Se~tcmb~:^ lE9 19t?d: Steven Gender ~ ~'dl"~:WOGd ~iEEil'C)~ ~2~19 DTC vl vd , ~5GC> ' ~r.gi eI~I GO E01 i 1 f,Ec' Tract r:, i_io;?'s I;:dce Subdivijion - D«.r h1:-. venom-l ere I h~.tvc~ rc•.~i. c•wed thr ~EVr^.n ci tce e,~ ~hr_'::r) cn -che lccor:Y nyi ng r:':~ o 'i'G!" ~:L:r7G50_~ Gj FCC; I'E111 L:."1C1 T.~@bl^.S FiOW r^VlL}W far th~_' TC':of: O':' ll.?11. rC'Vl=n ~at~~ ci-L' Ul_a fa' 'iiiE •df~~i:^1!'0 lrufi c~^1Ci C!-t;.?nr:r'1. AJ. O'r •Lf?i.' nC,r-ih _•i"nt^. C:c;t ~i L~^. unf. ~~rtCs u-; tFIO n(_~i:t t:•a7 r:.Y-t:.' aJ1C!:~n 'Ci?'~' !"i(:`Ci].i_::'i: ~:uCl ~i~ :-!i;;^.~,"'^.~ l}~I--' c;ccC':r:]anyinmG lr:;aFi: , 7"t?~ rock; a;.l a; i ~ more ~~r-~• ur;.:.cr nor~.h than tt?:_..~~ f] l.: ~ 1 C~ it _ 'i: C" = O n t l'1 i? C~'i: h t~ r 1 L i.: O ! C~ C t F~ bl!-I a r' e 1 1: h C i:i G? ~ i'. r 1 • : r•~DGt-~.'C:i- n ~l C•:]n Lf .^.::)•:]i c firiCU_; Z t~~:i::~f ~1~lt tr:C'}/ C~ n t."..: C~.^.•l I f~l'^wLl't:(3:.j O'~f?t'i I'!1 nE'll'Li"r°.11~CCi +J'CCuLI=' :hE'~ ur's=' 'tt"~1.^. i:.:'(j C!i:5:::~](1'~:i~il.li:Ll'.:;, li?G' )','.O!"~~' iiCtCcZi'"dvLlSg C:t.itCl'•C?j75 rlUCh hl.~r,f'iC'r a7^ tri';•: r,i i :51'LC' l i ':.~1'tt:d :I;o~ti ~ •~o i::^~'' l•:es'_. F;1 thCU;h rni t~']a'.:i rn alt {:I~`.~ h( nC.~.~i tE`v 1 O ~t7~'_;; fJI L? tf?:"GtlClh l1c~i i ~ Gi bC'rrli r.Q, ~ t 1 ~ nG:)_ 'I'F:n't~.C•u C! '~G '~fiE• 1 Csl =il~lnCc D~ GC. .o rEd'ai no t`E i ~o-j Tf?i:2 Ct_~;l~:t-l_iCi:.?.rn o•i '_f`E~~'c' l..rt tv ~ err- F':_ a,-t~ Lu t i t i 1 t i nc;^et, e t e hLt i G~':!'?~:' F:•"G',J°)"Y~/ Gr L:1^.UCtUI"E:S~ Or 't0 ~)l_ib~ 1C rlC?!-~i:G-'J'i :•lc?,'; s ~Lliit.~l:~riLi I'`i']ciC: ~ _t)~C'.L'ts~ L''l5t~s:•:^n*:i l:ti_.lt:^G ri^ 'ic1C:iIt1C"~: OI' I G'!:f1"',"' ~:1"C~i;~::"y1C''.~ G~' sc.fl)~ F:lrii~. i.`i:' GL`:ir i:~':~ t~l'C riJ~ i(; f:'.:: ~hi:::~ Off' ti:L? r::1~ ~i"Cj :ai".r..';\_5 •i:hCI-C ar'e GLl~S~iGnS ~le~:sc: cam.^.t~~.ct r•;i:, ' n i"~ b4 m i!,iy~c_ho: ~.s L~,noi ri c Consulting G~alagist • ' S00°38'S6"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 122.63 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 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 l5, 1993. 8. A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivlslon 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 emphasi2ed 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 Commtsslon January 11, 1993 :p 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 ®orward was the last neighbor to speak and she requested that 4he PEC require the applicant to maintain the character of the area. She described aspects of The !/alley and requested that some of these characteristics be included in the new design. tJooer Develor~ment Area The PEC decided 4o 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 4hat would be required with a development in the upper area. He said that it should be kept a4 a minimum. He said he wanted to see specific aspects of the design at this time prior 4o any decision on 4he request. These would include garage er,t.??es, the a~temob?!^ turn~~~und area for each home, the parking area outside the garage, and the access to and from each building envelope. ®alton lRliltiams advised the applicant to be very careful given the steepness of the slope. o-le 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 NVhitten said that she was concerned about the engineering 4hat 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 tha4 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 mos4 homes in Vail need garages. He continued by saying that 4he 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 !~/hitten concurred with Jeff's comments and emphasized that the development Planning and Endir®n~gmq eental C®mrnissi®n January 0 0 y tl 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 Vees 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 _Q ~ ~YC~ AND YC~tUSEN DESIGN AIt~~e~.C'I'ZJRE AND DEVEI,OPMEI~'T ~OJC 339, VAIE., ~OIARADO, 81651 ¢03) 496-922E ~-"L.~ ~s!!~1 REP °T PROPOS~IL A6VD EIV IRO EIV1°~?L I IVI PA1° REPO RT° L ~n t~ ~ R 1°I IV I IV1 i4 T S°T Dl( ~g ~~~~~0 ~o ~a®~~~~d e ~o~en ~ ~~08 C~®9®~~~® prepared for the Homeowner Associations of the Va!'ey and the Grouse Glen Condominiums ~lanuary 9, 9 993 - D . ' RICH AND IQtUSEN DESIGN AR(.titt~~iunE AND DEVELOPMENT ' r' EOX 3378, YAIL, COLORADO, 81658 Ci03)176-9228 Response to Proposal and Environmental Impact Report Tract B, Parcel A, Lionsridge Loop, Vail, Colorado January 7, 1993 Approach This document is a direct response to the proposal entitled Crossview at Vail. Special nPVel~nmPnt [)istrict and Environmental Impact Report, _ prepared by Peter Jamar Associates, December, 1992. We do not believe that the author and client of this document meant to intentionally mislead the Town of Vail Staff, but there are certain areas where we _ would like to add to, or rebut, their statements. Relationship to SDD Desion Criteria We have the following responses to the nine SDD Design 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. Response: While the overall GRFA of the proposed project is similar to the existing proposal. The identity and orientation are vastly different (due to the road). The design of the buildings proposed for Tract Bare clearly incompatible with the scale and bulk of the buildings found on the adjacent site. The remainder of the development is composed of a community of small Townhomes and - Condominiums. - B. No Response. I~ .1• C. ftlo Response. _I Conformity with applicable element of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, town policies, and urban design plans. Resoonse: .I The applicant states: °'The development plan fcr Crossview at Vail is based on the premise that market demand is for single-family homes and not the multi-family cluster development concept reflected in the County approved plans.w Of the two closest I developments: ~uffehr CreekTownhomes (a cc°ntiguous property) and Suffehr Creek Chalets (used as an example by the applicant); I the former had all five units under contract within one month of completion, while the latter has sold just one of three in close to two years. . I. E. iVo Response. ~ F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development resaonsive and sensitive to natural features. veoetation an~i overall aesthetic ~ duality of the community., Response: The question of the insensitive approach is best dealt with in the Construction impact study; however there are in several areas in the applicants response we must take excepticn to. The applicant justifies the hillside approach design by staring: This solution represents a far more sensitive site planning alternative than spreading development and roads througho~~t the site.°' True enough. This insensitive design is indeed better than an even less sensitive design. The. main point of the homeowners contention is that~fiiere are a number of other far more sensitive development alternatives. The existing plan is just one example. The argument that the county plan requires a large parkirg lot is.no longer applicable; The ~ space parking lot was to serve The Ridge at Vail and the Aspen Grove Homes units, this is no longer necessary. The required parking for the site will be determined by ~ the new development's density. The reduction of the parking load should be viewed as an opportunity to improve an existing successful development. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Rgsoanse: The applicant again uses in unneeded parkins tot as an example. In fact, if this were measured against the needed parking the paved surfaces increase from 9,993 square feet to 11,300 square feet. Furthermore, the impervious surface increases from 15,408 to 21,080 square feet. OTHER AREAS nF CQNCERN WITHIN THE REPOR'' Page three: "important Elements of the Proposal"; Paragraph Four. We take exception to the statement that "U~its on tract a have been sited to minimize impacts on mature vegetation and the steepest portions of the site." We feel the Construction Impact . Study and the cross-sections clearly show this to be false. Resoonse to Staff comments and concerns Lower Development Area (tract B) D. Identify on the site plan al( trees which will be saved. The plans do not appear to distinguish between existinc and proposed trees. Please make this distinction. Resoonse: The applicant respond that"...the vast majority of the heavily wooded hillside uphill from units A,B,and C will be undisturbed during construction." The site plan m~:y show this, but unfortunately the realties of construction will not permit this. The ~ section through building "C" allows fora 24" uphill leg of the footing and a 24" for the setting of form-work. Both of these assumptions are absolute minimums lot such a hillside. The disturbance is then drawn at a 7:1 slope. This clearly illustrates site destruction to, and most likely beyond, the property line. C. Please reconsider the aesthetic appearance of the shingles to be put on the sides of the proposed homes. 1A a believe it would be more positive if the homes reflect more of the "Valley" architecture in style and materials. I Resoonse: We concur completely with the comment and fee! chat in a broader sense the proposed project should be part of the "Valley" (as in the area incompasing The Valley Condominiums, The . Eastern Valley Condominums, and the Grouse Glen Condominiums) community as in architecture, planning, and character. t D ~c~ AND T{RjJSEN DESIGN d~~.~?l l ~d;"TIJ&tE AND DEVEI.OPiVIEP~ i ~07C 3378, VAd%., COI.oRADO, 81658 (3031496-9s:8 Construction Umpact Study ' j Tract 8, Parcel ~ionsridge hoop, Mail, Colorado . January ~ 993 f~otes and i~lethodoloo~ ~ A number of criteria were used to evaluate 2 dif`erent construction scenarios: The Original Proposal, circa. 1980, and tie 1992 Crossview ~ Properties Proposal. The intent is to objectively quantify the impact of ~ the two proposals on the site, with particular attention paid to the effect on, and damage to, the heavily treed hillside. Foy consistency, both analyses are based on proposed changes to the topography as it exists in 1992. The Scenarios: 1. Orioinal Proposal. Revised - The original project, which was prepared and approved around 1980, shows 6 buildings with 9 units,' in a pedestrian area. Parking for ~ cars was located on the uppe- bench, at the east end of the property. The parking was origir:ally proposed with two wings, north and south. The north wiry has been built as shown. The Revised Original Proposal takes into co:~sideration the fact that the south wing of the parking area is no longer required. The original concept for The Valley included the a-eas now known as the Ridge aP !lail and Aspen Grove Lane. TF:e parking for these units necessitated such a large parking area. Since the Ridge aP Vai/and Aspen Grove Lane are no longer gove-ned b.y this P.U.®., and their parking already exists entirely on their own sites, the . required parking for the Revised Original Prcposal would be 18 spaces. (There are 9 units of less than 2,000 sq. ft. GRFA each.) This assumed "revision" to the Original Proposal is thought to be valid, as it would not be logical to construct, nor would the Town of Vail permit, a parking lot for 22 spaces that is not required. For the sake of simplicity, we have assumed that tie south lot would simply be deleted, and that the remainder of the Original Proposal would stay intact. (Of course, the site disturbance of the Original Proposal could be further decreased by relocating some of the buildings up on the east bench, where the sough lot was to have been, but this analysis is to deal exclusively with the Original Proposal versus the Crossview Properties Proposal.) 2. The Crossview Prooerties Prooosal - This plan was submitted to the Town of Veil in December of 1991, and represents 7 buildings and 7 units, with automobile access to all units. I - Categories of Analysis: I 1. Number of Buildings - This category could be important, because of the fact that the Original Proposal was based on a designed P.U.D. Although the number of units is smaller in the Crossview Proposal, the number of buildings has increased. 2. Site Coveraoe - This category consists of four numbers: First, the building coverage, using only the outside of the fou.~dation lines, (i.e., excluding decks and overhangs.) Second, the area of new paving and impermeable surface. Third, the total of these two, and fourth, the total area of these which occurs :vithin the surveyed tree line. 3. Cut and Fill - This was analyzed on a 100 square-foot grid and calculated in absolute terms; i.e., 2 cubic yards of cut and 2 cubic yards of fill equals 4 cubic yards of site disturbance. Tha overall balance of cut and fill is not part of this study. Cut and fill amounts were tabulated overall, and within the surveyed tree line. Note: this number does not include areas of cut and fi!~ under the building footprint. 4. Maximum Cut and Fiil - This number indicates the greatest amount of cut and of fill located in each of the proposals. 5. Area in Excess ~f ~ Feet of Site Manieulatior - While 4 feet is an arbitrary number, is dvas felt that it represents pintense" site ~rork. One to three feet are often needed to satisfy drainage requirements, and it is reasonable to assume that at least some trees can be protected and maintained. Beyond 4 feet,'the maintenance of existing trees and vegetation is virtually impossible. This number was tabulated over the entire site, and within the surveyed tree line. Note: this number does i~ include the building footprint. 6. Total Area of Impact Within the Treeline - - This number indicates the sum of paved areas, areas of over 4 feet cut or fill, building footprint, and an 8-foot area around the foundation. It is felt that on a site of ;his steepness, the requirements of excavation and scaffolding justify the use of 8 feet as a conservative margin for construction. CATEGORY REVISE® ORIGI~IAfl. CROSSVIEW PROPOSAL. PROPOSAL Number of Buildings 6 7 Site Coverage (sq. ft.) -Building 5,415 9,780 Asphalt 9,993 11,300 _ Total 15,408 21,080 Total w/in treeline 2,850 9,000 _ Cut and Fill (cu. yds.) Total 859 2,559 Total w/in treeline 446 1,507 Maximum Cut ~ Fill (ft) Cut 1 6.5 Fill 6 11.5 Area in Excess of 4 ft. cut or fill (sq. ft.) Total 500 5,100 W/in Treeline 500 4,250 Total impact w/in Treeline (sq. ft.) 8,685 14,070 Cc. .WDIf~.-GS r.wrr?o=cur .+NO%rr. \\\\\~-'faor~rC~ PPOaa.G o~ Prow»~ eil~~.pHH , t ~~'1(-1 ~v~ ~ ~ . ,.~...,....,...a...~~,' ! l 1' ( , ~ t \ 1 ( " . ~ ~ may, ~ ` ~ ~~e lvr+W.v1 Y W~IA ~ IN v. ~ -4~q'~Vllr bi.~[rt AMfd i/ ~?Y.~~VL• . ~ THRU t 1i- ~ ~ _ ~ r/ 1. \ I Y ~ & ~ ~ _ ~ ~ wfM.r NaA.~~~ ~ y[MTMrGMOL ~ ~t./NM~.L i uyq./~u~nILMF~ I GrT~TOI DAII/M~ nH'i+.w.iw._ 1 ' ' UIJIr'~. WD~[~'ES trnG~+ oa Gtf~ r~NC/e~-P.. - ~\\\\\\\~'s`Qf~~9 PP~J3p~ ~P f3~Pb9:rO Bli1L.0i1'1[~l ~ r'r1''1 ~ ~''j e i` ~ i I i ~ ~ y y \\.\\\Y . ~ . ~,o P ~ •e ` u~ .es r rr,~w.a. I 1 J THOU uuR °G~ Q r-.., ~ .1 ~ ~ ~o R _ _ / e p ~ ~ ~ \~~\VA ~A 4~ ~ 0 ' ~ i L f 9e r~ `n. rors.r ouapr~r~ 3aPTO1e (~ar.QS ~.eor.W.~PPO?oa.+~ Je -ca +.ew.iw.~ ~-GT101~ "~-I'~.ll Uh11r ' • - ~ January 7, 1993 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Ladies and Gentlemen: As spokesmen for the condominium associations whose members are most affected by the proposal of Parkwood Realty of Englewood, Colorado for establishment of a Special Development District and adoption of a Development Plan for The Valley Phase II, Parcel B, we wish to submit for your consideration some general comments concerning the proposal. First, we note that our associations have retained consultants to assist us, as well as the Commission and Community Development Department staff, in addressing the questions raised by the proposal. We understand that at the Commission meeting at . 2:OO p.m. on Monday, January 11, 1993 Parkwood Realty will be making a general presentation on its proposal. Subject to hearing that general information, and to information we may obtain from a meeting between Parkwood representatives and our representatives scheduled for this afternoon, we have some written comments to submit at this time. Attached to this letter are: a construction impact study, a response to the December 1992 Special Development District and Environmental Impact Report prepared by Peter Jamar Associates, Inc. for Parkwood, and a letter from our counsel. As noted, all of these consultant comments are subject to further development of the details of the pending proposal, and we point out in particular that we obtained a copy of the Jamar Report only last Monday, so we have rot had the opportunity to study it fully. By way of general additional comment on the Parkwood proposal (which, as you know, goes back to early 1991), we enclose a copy of our February 22, 1992 letter commenting on the proposal as it was structured at that time. .n addition, we offer the following summary thoughts: Our Objectives: It is not our objective to prevent development in the area, but merely to have it conform with the basic plan that has. been in place for the area since 1980. Indeed, two projects consistent with that plan have commenced (one successfully completed) without any opposition from the residents. Those overall plans were of record as a part of the approval process by the Eagle County, and they were accepted by the Town of Vail in Ordinance 13, Series of 1981. Thus they were justifiably relied upon by purchasers and owners in the Valley. While we certainly recognize Mr. Gensler's rights as a property 1 owner to use his land, we also feel we have the right to rely on the development plan approved by governing bodies. Plecessity For Chancsincr The Plan> Although Mr. Gensler, who has been the proponent of the development proposal since its inception in 1991, has indicated that the profits from units that conform to the original plan would be insufficient, we understand that the economics were satisfactory on the recently completed units. The original plan also contemplates units that would be more affordable to local residents, and although luxury single family units might be more profitable to the Denver developer, that does not help provide affordable housing for locals. Further, we have doubts that higher priced single family units sell as well as the units contemplated by the original plan. For example, there are no units currently available in either the Valley or Grouse Glen and the new units have sold out. Unfortunately, the three speculatively built single fa~aily detached units have not shared the same fate. The Plan: 6dhat we object to is not so much the ultimate density, although we feel the addition of garages materially changes the massing, but rather the change in character of the plan from a project that would have interior pedestrian walkways with vehicular access from the streets to just another large single family project built on a cul de sac. The transformation would be less objectionable if it did not require the destruction of virtually all the trees in the area, substantial cuts and at least twelve feet of fill in places. In summary, we do not believe that ,the plan proposed is sensitive to the original plan and the restrictions that were placed on the land at the time of the original plan. Further, and perhaps more important, we feel that the proposed plan is simply too destructive of the site for consideration as good planning. While we are sympathetic to Mr. Gensler's desires to improve the economics, we do not believe that any significant hardship is imposed by the original plan and that the additional profits anticipated by this proposed plan justifies the negative impact on the current homeowners by changing the plan upon which they relied. As our previous letter stated, we have a 100 concurrence from the affected homeowners within our associations. Such concurrence has been reaffirmed. n Sinc rely, r i ~ ~ fir Grouse Glen`'Condo `nium Association for The Val,~'ey Condominium Association a~~ ~ Y vAISEY cor~o~Ilxiulvl AssoclATrox _ THE SUPER ASSOCIATION L7 111418 8-575 P-364 03/18/91 16:34 P6 1 OF 3 RfC DOC o 2 JOHRNETTf PHIIIIPS fA61E CDUNT?' CIfRX, COLORADO l5.00 0.00 ~ February 22, 1992 Planning and Environmental Co....,.ission V1A FAX #479-2157 Town of Vail Hard Copy to Follow 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Commissioners: First, we want to thank the Planning Staff for their time and effort in acquainting us with Mr. Gender's proposal. We have retained several professionals to assist us in our review of the proposed changes to the approved plan. We will, of course, be happy to share these in detail with the commission and staff at a convenient time. ' After reviewing those plans in some detail with our consultants, we believe they represent a radical departure from the intent of the plan adopted by the Eagle County Commissioners in 1980 and concurrently recorded as a Declaration of Protecting Covenants on the land. The purpose of both the Commissioners' action and vesting rights to the current owners through the recorded covenants was to insure that future development was consistent with current development and maintained the unique character of that development. We believe that Mr. Gender's proposed plan represents a material and detrimental change from the previous plan and would significantly alter the character, useability and the marketability of the present units. We have attempted to outline below in summary those aspects of the plan that are inconsistent with the current Planned Unit Development plan and restrictive covenaiifs. The conflicts between the two plans outlined herein are not meant to be exhaustive but merely represent some of the more obvious differences based upon our consultants preliminary review. Density. While Mr. Gensler has proposed that the number of units be decreased, it appears that the total square footage of area included within structures is actually increased by about 15%. This is due, in large Yneasure, to provide garages integral to the units which were not incorporated under the original plan. The number of separate buildings is also increased under the plan and total,site coverage of the building is increased by about 85%! - { 4114788°515 9-364 03/18/92 16:34 P8 1 OF 3 (character. The original plan contemplated a condominium project of relatively small, affordable units with vehicular access from existing roads and an interior system of J pedestrian walkways. The current proposal apparently suggests a small number .of large single family detached units with the vehicular access provided by a new road that would replace the prior plan's systerst of interior walkways. ~ ordablllty. The approved plan provided smaller units that would be at a flevel of affordability 0150,000 to $195,000 in 1992 prices) that could make Cheat available to full tigne residents. The proposed plan would provide units that would be priced at levels of two or three times those conterraplated in the original approved plan. While we would. d concur that the profit anargins would be significantly better under the proposed plait, we do not agree that this should be a determining factor. llrtavaro®tnental Ilssues. gt is our understanding that this plan would require the destruction of marry errors full grown trees than the currently approved plan. The planning office has indicated that Asir. Ciensier is currently studying this issue in detail. It is also apparent that the additional access road would require a substantial increase (20%) in the area of required paved area. The siting of the houses and the accoatrnodation of the new road will require sizable increase in volunne of the hillside cuts required, as well as fills of over 11 feet. ale believe that in addition to the changes in the character of the project you proposed, these environmental impacts on the site will materially and negatively impact the . aesthetf cs of both the proposed project as well as those of current residences protected under the restrictive covenant. ale recognize that the Town of Nail is successor to Eagle County in reviewing and administering the planning and coning process for the property, however, we believe if such changes as are proposed by Mr. (Hensler were to be adopted by the Town of Mail, that they would not be permissible under the recorded covenants. Yn fact, we believe that under the restrictive covenants, Eagle County or the 'T'own of Nail may retain an obligation to enforce the covenants and thus the plan as it currently exists. The property is also subject to covenants recorded in September, 1972 which prescribe the approval of an architectural committee prior to the commencement of any construction activity. To our knowledge, such approval has neither been sought nor received. It is our intent to continue to vigorously pursue our purpose of maintaining the continuation of the existing character and aesthetics of the project as contemplated by the existing plan We believe that the proposal submitted represents, not good planning, but merely better economics for the developer. In addition to our involvement in the political ° administrative process, we intend to fully exercise our rights under the various restrictive covenants both as to possible injunctive relief and to actual and punitive damages as provided by the covenants. «1e would certainly be appreciative of notice of any pending action contemplated by the 13uard on the matter. In order to expedite such notice, please contact 'T'homas bitch at 476-7202 and he will advise our 13oard as appropriate. . ` ~ ` _ , . While the Board of Directors bas approved this polity on the matter, it should he ~ noted that we have a 100% unanimous written concurrence from the individual home owners within our association. - - For your convenience, we have include a cagy of the restrictive covenant for your ' review. Oat behalf of the respective Boards of Directors, Sietcerely, Michael L McC~ne Enc. cc: 'Lomas Titch 417478 8-575 P-364 03/18/91 16:34 P6 3 Of 3 ~ i . 1V1®ap~8ry~gd~?7, ~ATV~^LL~//(~ApG~pY. y6.p®`~~~YSi~ ` ASb~RIaJG dJ !'~8 LlS YV Suite 630 Suite 210 ~ . Suite 302 9800 East Union Avenue Vail National Bank BIdB. Aspen Athletic Club Bldg. Post Office Bou 37090 108 South Froneage Road 720 E. l~iyman Avenue Denver, Colorado 80237 Vail, Colorado 81657 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 779-4664 (303) 476-8865 (303) 925-8774 FA% (303) 779-4854 FA% (303) 479-9773 FA% (303) 920-4801 ,7anuary 7 , 19 9 3 REPLY TO VAIL OFFICE Boards of Directors Grouse Glen Condominium Association and The Valley Condominium Association Re: Crossview at Vail: Parkwood Realty, Inc. Special Development District and Minor Subdivision Applicationse Valley Phase II Ladies and Gentlemene As you requested, I have reviewed Parkwood Realty's proposal to the Town of Vail for establishment of a Special Development District, and adoption of a Development Plan, for the Valley Phase II Parcels A and B, pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 18.40.1 This letter commenting on the proposal can be used in discussions with the TOV and the applicant as an aide to clarifying the issues. The current proposal evolved from a request made early in 1991 by Steve Gensler for modification of a development plan for Parcel A approved by Eagle County prior to annexation of the area by Vail in 1980. The plan approved by Eagle County was accepted by Vail in 1981 by Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1981. That ordinance specified that "major changes" to the plan, such as those proposed by Gensler, required review by the Vail PEC, and that the "procedure for changes shall be in accordance with 1 Parkwood also is proposing a Minor Subdivision for Parcel A, to allow construction of two single-family residences, but the focus of your request is Parcel B, so I have not considered the Minor Subdivision application. Boards of Directors January 7, 1993 Page 2 Chapter 18.662 of the Vail Municipal Code." It appears that following a series of meetings between Gensler and Vail Community Development Department ("CDD") representatives during the latter half of 1991 and in 1992, the CDD representatives recommended that the applicant propose a Special Development District for the property "in order to provide both review criteria and review procedures."3 The procedural segue, from (a) PEC review of a proposed major change in the Eagle County plan pursuant to Ordinance 13 to (b) establishment. of a Special Development District and adoption of a new Development Plan pursuant to Code Chapter 18.40, raises two procedural legal questions. First, it is arguable that Ordinance 13, Series of 1981 does not allow establishment of a Special Development District as to property that was annexed after approval by Eagle County of a "p-lanned unit development" (PUD) that was thereafter accepted by Vail following annexation. Ordinance 13, in Sec. 2.a., states that "the Valley, Phases 1 through 6," inter alia, "shall be developed in accordance with the prior agreement approvals and actions of the Eagle County Commissioners as the agreements, approvals and actions relate to each development or parcel of property." Although Ordinance 13 also provides, in Sec. 2.d., that "major changes" require PE'C review i:. accordance with the procedures of Chapter 18.66, and that further provision almost certainly overrides the earlier requirement nor development in accordance with County approved plans, that does not necessarily allow for overlay of Special Development District status. For example, arguably the decision on a major change such as proposed here rests exclusively with the PEC, rather than, as contemplated by the procedure for establishment of Special Development Districts,' with the Council. Second, there may be a procedural defect in the pending SDD proposal. The procedure for`establishment of a Special 2 Chapter 18.66 addresses "Administration" of the Zoning provisions of the Code, and includes provisions relating to notice of hearings, etc. 3 See second sentence of first paragraph on page 4 of the December 1992 "Special Development District and Environmental Impact Report" prepared by Peter Jamar Associates, Inc. The Samar report was submitted to the CDD on December 14, 1992; a copy was provided to the Associations an January 4, 1993. a Poards of Directors ° January 7, 1993 Page 3 Development District is prescribed by Chapter 18.40. Section 18.40.030 provides that application for establishment of a SDD "shall be made on a form provided by the Community Development Department and shall include° specified informations and "be accompanied by submittal requirements as outlined in Section 18.40.050 and a development plan as outlined in Section 18.40.050." I have not been able to obtain from the CDD an application for establishment of a SDD from either Gensler or Parkwood.6 Possibly the original major modification request directed to the County-approved development plan evolved into an SDD proposal without the required formal application for such status ever being filed. Further, it does not appear that the CDD has authority to waive the Code =egLirement for submission of an application on the required form and containing the required information. Of course, even if no application was filed, that 4 The Special Development District category of zoning district in Vail is not a classic PT1D such as exists at the County level and in many municipalities, but it is akin to a PUD in that it is itself a zoning district category that "overlays" another zoning district category and allows departure from the requirements of the underlying zoning district without necessarily going through the variance or re-zoning process. 5 That information includes "a legal description of the property, a list of the names and mailing addresses of all adjacent property owners and written consent of owners of all property to be included in the special development district, or their agents or authorized representatives." 6 Yesterday my legal assistant went to the CDD to obtain a copy of the application and was informed that none could be found. I have spoken with Peter Jamar about this issue, and he was not certain whether a specific SDD application has been filed. However, it is quite possible that the application itself is in the hands of a planner working on this matter. 7 The Code does authorize the CDD to waive or modify the "submittal requirements" in appropriate cases (see Sec. 18.40.050), but such submittal requirements are distinguished in the Code from the above-described information, as is the "development plan" that the Code also specifies shall accompany the application. In any even, it appears that the Jamar report is meant to satisfy the submittal requirements and development plan requirements. As you know, because of time limitations I have not undertaken to determine whether or not it does meet the legal requirements, or. to assess its substantive merits. ~ t Boards of Directors January 7, 1993 Page 4 defect can be cured prospectively, and there may not be anything in the substance of the application that is pertinent to your concerns. In any event, assuming that it would be lawful for Vail to establish a Special Development District overlay on the property in question, all the procedural requirements for such establishment must be followed. I have not had the opportunity to verify such procedural steps as required notices of the PEC hearing on the application at the proper time to all the proper parties, but that question will have to be resolved. Further, even if notice by mail was given as required by Chapter 18.66, and publication was made as required by Chapter 18.66, the possible absence of the application on the required form could be a defect in the proceedings, since an interested party cannot by reviewing the file at the CDD obtain the information that should be included in the application. Turning from process to substance, if Vail does by ordinance establish a Special Development District for the property and adopt a Development Plan, that action will be subject to review by the Eagle County District Court in a Rule 106 proceeding. In a Rule 106 appeal, the issue would~be whether Vail's action was an abuse of its discretion or in excess of its authority. In addition, even if the action by Vail withstood review under Rule 106, it still would be subject to challenge under state and federal constitutional provisions. Without attempting to analyze the options for and merits of constitutional causes of action at this time, I will note that the Colorado Constitution contains a rather unusual provision (the scope of which has not been well-defined by the courts) allowing recovery for "damage" to property of one person resulting from governmental action directed at property of another person. This cause of action is markedly easier to establish than the usual "taking" claim, which requires deprivation by government action of all economically viable use of the property. The Colorado Constitutional action allows for recovery of damages for mere diminution in value, without a showing of deprivation of all viable economic use. Thus if the value of the property of the owners in your Associations were diminished by changes in the original, County-approved development plan on Parcel B, damages could be recovered by those owners. , Finally, I note that all property. in Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2, of which Parcel B is a part, is subject to a detailed set of recorded protective covenants that would ~ t . ~ a ~OardS Of DireCtorS d January 7, 1993 Page 5 have to be met in the development of Parcel Ea In particular, Section 4 prohibits construction without review and approval of detailed plans by an Architectural Committee. Further, Section 19 provides that trees may not be cut, trimmed or removed except for construction and then only after approval in writing by the Architectural Committee. Finally, Section 26 provides that failure to enforce any provision of the covenants is not a waiver of the right to enforce them in the future. Any owner of property in Filing Noo 2 would have standing to bring an action to enforce the covenants. I will stay in touch with you as this matter proceeds through the PEC review process. In the meantime, please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, ~ " Robert L. Mortis for MORRIS, RUDY & LOWER RLM:jle ®RI~IPIANCE N®. 18+ SERIES OF 1993 AN OR®INA~9CE AIBAEN®ING CHAPTER 18.24 OF THE I~IUI~IICIPAL CO®E OF THE TOlAiN OF VAIL SV ®ELETING SECTION 18.24.058, AN® AMEN®ING CHAPTER 8.24 OF THE nlIl1NICIPAL CO®E OF THE T01NN OF VAIL RV THE ~®®ITION OF SECTION 8.24.058, CONTROLLING tDIV®ESIRASLE PLANTS WITHIN THE TOVi/N, ®ECLARING SI.9CH PLANTS A ~?111SAPICE, SETTING FORTH PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF THIS OR®INANCE; AI~I® SETTING IFORTH ®ETAILS IN REGAR® THERETO. WHEREAS, the Town Council wishes to institute the provisions of C.R.S. Section 35-5.5- 109 dealing with the control of undesirable plants within the State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1992, incorrectly designated Section 18.24.058; and WHEREAS, the control of undesirable plants is a matter concerning a public nuisance and should be included within Chapter 8.24 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Tawn Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado: 1. Chapter 8.24 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of Section 8.24.058 to read as follows: A. Undesirable Plants Russian, Spotted and Diffuse Knapweed and Leafy Spurge are declared to be undesirable plants to be controlled in accordance with this ordinance. B. Declaration of Nuisance Leafy Spurge, Russian Knapweed, Spotted Knapweed, and Diffuse Knapweed, and all other plants designated "undesirable plants" by the Town are declared to be a public nuisance. Such action may be taken as is available for nuisance abatement under the laws of this state and the Town of Vail, and as Town Council, in their sole discretion, deem necessary. C. Removal of Undesirable Plants Reauired by Property Owner Property owners within the Town of Vail shall be responsible for the elimination of undesirable plants from their property within ninety (90) days of the effective date of this ordinance. Such removal shall be accomplished in an ecologically feasible and environmentally safe manner in accordance with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. D. Enforcement The Town shall have the right to enter upon any premises, lands, or places, whether public or private, during reasonable business hours or upon proper notice for the purpose of inspecting for the existence of undesirable plants, and shall have the right to propose, implement 1 Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1993 or enforce the management of undesirable plants upon such lands in accordance with the provisions of C.R.S. Section 35-5.5-109. E. Penalty Violation of this chapter/article shall be subject to a penalty of a fine up to nine hundred ninety nine dollars ($999.00), in addition to any other remedies provided herein or allowed by ordinance, law, rule, or regulation. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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 sha11 not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. 5. 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: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Cierk 2 Ordinance Na. 19, Series of 1993 e READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this ~ day of , 1993. Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor ATTEST: Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk C:\ORD93.19 3 Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1993