Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-1213 PECSite Visits 12:3 m Anderson - 1175 Sandstone Drive Peotto - 2650 Kinnickinnick Road Larson - 44 Willow Road Slifer Design Drivers: Andy and Shelly Public Hearinq 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for variances for setbacks, density and parking in the front setback for the development of a condominium project and an employee housing unit to be located at 44 Willow Place/Lot 9, lock , Vail Village 1st Filing, Applicants: Frederick R. Larson, Dorothy H. Larson, Lawrence K. Larson, Frederick A. Larson and Land V. Larson Planner: Shelly Mello 2. A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously approved exterior alteration proposal for the Slifer wilding, 230 ridge Street/Part of Lots and C, Block 5, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer Planner: Kristan Pritz 3. An appeal of a staff interpretation regarding a deed restriction limiting the use of a crawl space at the Todger Anderson residence, located at 1175 Sandstone Road/Lot 1, Block 1, Lionsrige 4th Filing. Applicant: Toder Anderson Planner: Andy Knu tsen 4. A request fora r sl to rezone a tract from Primary/ Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi-Family, located at 2650 Kinnickinnick Road/more specifically described as follows: A, parcel of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: 1 Beginning at a point whence a brass cap set for a witness corner for the West Quarter of said Section 14, bears (North 29 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds West, 1073.08 feet Deed) (North 43 Degrees 15 minutes 02 seconds West, 915.96 feet Measured); Thence North 74 degrees 05 minutes 19 seconds East, 10.76 feet; Thence 183.62 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which are subtends a chord bearing North 88 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds East, 181.76 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 40 minutes 21 seconds East, 62.77 feet; Thence 147.43 feet along the arc of a curve to the left which arc subtends a chord bearing North 86 degrees 36 minutes 17 seconds East, 145.60 feet; Thence North 70 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East, 406.55 feet; Thence 54.10 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which arc subtends a chord bearing South 47 degrees 20 minutes 37 seconds East, 44.20 feet; Thence South 14 degrees 25 minutes 50 seconds West, 110.51 feet; Thence South 68 degrees 18 minutes 91 seconds West, 320.00 feet; Thence North 19 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West, 50.00 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 48 minutes 41 seconds West, 160.18 feet; Thence South 10 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West, 36.48 feet; Thence North 87 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds West, 33732 feet; Thence (North 11 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds East, 130.00 feet Deed) North 11 degrees 55 minutes 31 seconds East, 129.75 feet Measured) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Bearing from G.L.O. record for South half of Section line between Sections 14-15. (G.L.O. record South 01 degrees 30.2 minutes East) (South 01 degrees 38 minutes 32 seconds East Measured) Applicant: Juanita 1. Pedotto Planner: Andy Knudtsen 5, A request for site coverage, density and landscaping variances to allow the construction of a new garage and the conversion of an existing garage to an employee housing unit located at 1045 Homestake Circle/Lot 3, lock 1, Vail Village 8th Filing. Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer Planner; Mike ollica TABLED INDEFINITELY 6, A request to relocate the helipad to the east end of the Ford Park parking lot located at 580 S. Frontage Road East/an unplatted parcel located between Vail Village 7th Filing and Vail Village 8th Filing and a portion of the 1-70 right-of-way. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED T j _ -.. Y 10, 1994 7. Discussion of atrium dining deck for fourteen seats for Palmcs Restaurant at the Vail Gateway Building located at 12 Vail Road/Lot lock 5, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: ®eidre Fenzel 8. Approve minutes from November 22, 1993 PEC Meeting. 9, Council Update: Payne subdivision/rezoning -Cemetery Master Plan 10. discussion of the C representative for ®R meetings for 1994. In 1993, the responsibility was divided u a follows; Jan. - arch 1993 Kathy Langonwaltor Kristan Fritz Mike Molfica Andy Knudtsen Shelly Mello Tern Moorhead Planning and Environmental Commission mutes December 13, 1993 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 13, 1993 Jeff Bowen complimented the applicant on the proposed design for this project. He said that he had a problem with the proposed Vail Road access and he did not know if there was any ay around this issue. He said that he was in favor of the employee housing. He said that he had a problem with the requested encroachments into the setbacks for parking. Greg Amsden stated that he felt the encroachments into the setbacks were okay and that he felt that a hardship did exist on this site. He said that he as for the employee housing, but against using common area for GFA. He said that he as in favor of the building design and that he was in favor of the at grade parking spaces, although three road cuts were a concern. Diana Donovan stated that when you consider the neighborhood this project is located in, that she could generally support the proposal. She said that she as filling to push the common area variance to achieve the employee housing. She said she would like to see the applicant tighten up the overhangs and encroachments to minimize variances as much as possible. Bill Anderson stated that he agreed wholeheartedly with Diana°s previous statements. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she as in favor of the employee housing but that she did not feel that a hardship existed and as concerned about the process. She said that she would be more inclined to see the common area used for GFA if an underground parking structure was part of this proposal. She said that she would feel more comfortable with this proposal if the parking issue was addressed Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 13, 1993 3 differently. She added that since this as a difficult site, that the crass and bulk of the building still needed to be reduced. She said that if the above grade parking spaces within the building were located below grade, the mass of the building could be reduced. Jay Peterson stated that they were attempting to do a townhouse project with the appearance of a duplex. He said that when they had proposed an underground parking structure, that the requirements for such a structure added tremendous bulk to the project. He said that the current proposal removed bulk. Jay asked the PEC for direction as to how they should proceed from here. Sill Anderson stated that he was prepared to vote for the project, but that he wanted the three employee housing units to remain as part of the proposal. Jeff Bowen said that he would vote for the project and that he as hopeful that there as a legal ay to locate the employee housing units on the site. He inquired whether there as an alternate way to access the site besides Mail Road. Allison Lassoe commended the applicants on their creative solutions to the problems presented at this site. She said that she would like to see the intersection of flail Road and Willow Road narrowed so that people did not use this location as a turnaround. Dalton Williams stated that he would vote no on the EHU's even though h liked the proposal. He felt that the PEC did not have the authority to approve the proposed employee housing units using common area as RFA. He requested that the Town Council call this project up and overturn the PEC's denial of the project. Jay Peterson stated that he would commit to convert the common area to employee housing units after Town Council has reviewed and approved this type of code amendment. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 13, 1993 Shelly Mello stated that there was no guarantee that Town Council would amend the code to allow common area to be used as FIFA so that employee housing units could be built. Kathy Langen alter rephrased the motion as follows: Diana Donovan added that the four evergreen trees on the northwest corner of the site are to be protected on-site during construction and should be replanted as soon as possible. A 7- vote approved this request. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 13, 1993 5 U .e 2. A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously approved exterior alteration proposal for the Slifer Building, 2307 Bridge Street/Part of Lots B and C, Took 5, Mail Village 1 st Filing, Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer Planner: Kristan Pritz No one representing the applicant attended the meeting. Kristan asked for the DEC's comments on the sculpture. Rill Anderson stated that he felt the piece needed to be more vertical. Kathy Langenwalter also felt that the piece was ill-proportioned for the space. Dalton Williams made a motion to table this item indefinitely and Jeff Bowen seconded the motion. 7- vote tabled this items indefinitely. An appeal of a staff interpretation regarding a deed restriction limiting the use of a crawl space at the Toger Anderson residence, located at 1 175 Sandstone Road/Lot 1 , dock 1 , Lionsridge 4th Filing. Applicant: Todger Anderson Planner: Andy Knudtsen Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 13, 1993 6 Greg Amsden asked whether the applicants had any remaining GFA available on the site. Tarn Braun responded that there as note Kristan ritz stated that the change in the definition to include these spaces has put some properties slightly over or render in G FA. Greg Amsden stated that he felt that the staff interpretation should be upheld because there was a signed document and that the applicants had previously agreed to this solution. Diana Donovan stated that she agreed with Greg's comments. Bill Anderson stated that he had worked on this project and wished to abstain from this item. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 13® 1993 7 Allison Lassoe and Dalton Williams stated that they agreed with the staff interpretation, Kathy Langenwalter stated that she agreed with the staff interpretation although she did understand that the space would today be counted as GRFA under the new definition as it as considered to be enclosed, Torn Braun stated that he felt that the staff had been somewhat onerous in the solution which they reached with the Anersons. Kristan Pritz stated that she felt that the solution the staff devised in 199 as more than reasonable and fair to the applicants. Jeff Bowen made a motion to uphold the staff interpretation with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 6-0 vote upheld the staff interpretation, with Bill Anderson abstaining from this item as he as employed by Beck and Associates who as the general contractor for the project when it as originally built. 4, A request fora orksessin to rezone a tract from Primary/Secondary Residential to Lo Density Multi-Family, located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Read/more specifically described as follows: A parcel of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point whence a brass cap set for a witness corner for the West Quarter of said Section 14, bears (North 29 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds West, 1073.08 feet Deed) (North 43 Degrees 15 minutes 02 seconds West, 915.96 feet Measured); Thence North 74 degrees 05 minutes 19 seconds East, 10.76 feet; Thence 183.62 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which are subtends a chord bearing North 88 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds East, 181.76 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 40 minutes 21 seconds East, 62.77 feet; Thence 147.43 feet along the arc of a curve to the left which arc subtends a chord bearing North 86 degrees 36 minutes 17 seconds East, 145.60 feet; Thence North 70 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East, 406.55 feet; Thence 54.10 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which arc subtends a chord bearing South 47 degrees 20 minutes 37 seconds East, 44.20 feet; Thence South 14 degrees 25 minutes 50 seconds West, 110.51 feet; Thence South 68 degrees 18 minutes 91 seconds West, 320.00 feet; Thence North 19 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West, 50.00 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 48 minutes 41 seconds West. 160.18 feet; Thence South 10 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West, 36.48 feet; Thence North 87 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds West, 337.72 feet; Thence (North 11 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds East, 130.00 feet Deed) North 11 degrees 55 minutes 31 seconds East, 129.75 feet Measured) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Bearing from G.L.O. record for South half of Section line between Sections 14-15. (G.L.0. record South 01 degrees 30.2 minutes East) (South 01 degrees 38 minutes 32 seconds East Measured) Applicant: Juanita I. Pedotto Planner: Andy Knudtsen Kathy Langenwalter noted that Greg Amsden would be representing the applicant for this request. Greg Amsden removed himself from the C and sat at the applicant°s table. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 13, 1993 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 13, 1993 Kay Chaney, an adjacent property owner, stated that she was concerned with the proposed Low Density Multi-Family zoning. She said it as important to her that most of the proposed units be single family. Kathy Langenwalter explained that the employee housing would be provided through a conditional use permit. Greg msden asked staff if a simultaneous plat could be done with the rezone so that the building layouts would be shown. Andy said that this was the case. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 13, 1993 1 Dalton Williams stated that he was in favor of Residential Cluster zoning as the Town of Vail already has more than enough duplexes and triplexes. He said that he would like to see small single family clusters of units without all of the frills so that local families could afford to purchase the units. Kathy Langenwalter summarized and said that if single family clustering as preferred by the applicant, then Residential Cluster would be the appropriate zone district. However, if the development was consolidated, the Lo Density Multi- Family could be considered. 5. request for site coverage, density and landscaping variances to allow the construction of a new garage and the conversion of an existing garage to an employee housing unit located at 1 045 Homestake Circle/Lot , lock 1, Vail Village 5th Filing. Applicants Rod and Beth Slifer Planners Mike ollica TABLED INDEFINITELY Diana Donovan made a motion to table this request indefinitely with Jeff Bowen seconding this motion. A 7- vote tabled this item. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 13, 1993 11 6. request to relocate the helipad to the east end of the Ford Park parking lot located at 550 B. Frontage Road East/an unplatted parcel located between Vail Village 7th Filing and Vail Village 8th Filing and a portion of the 1-70 right-of-way. Applicants Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED T JANUARY 10, 1994 Diana Donovan made a motion to table this request until January 10, 1994 with Jeff Bowen seconding the motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this item until January 10, 1994. 7. Discussion of atrium dining deck for fourteen seats for Palmos Restaurant at the Vail Gateway Building located at 12 Vail Road/Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing, Applicant: Deidre Menzel Kristan Pritz stated that the applicant's idea had merit but that it would not be possible to get through the conditional use permit process and the liquor board prior to the Christmas holiday. Diana Donovan inquired whether the tables and seats could be placed outside of the Palmos Restaurant as long as no liquor, food or beverage as served. This as acceptable as long as it was general seating. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 13, 1993 12 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 13, 1993 1 . Other Business: Guiana Donovan stated that she would like the PEC to make a recommendation to Council that if people prat their Christmas trees out on the bras route that the Town will pick rap the trees for recycling and that this be advertised so the community knows about this. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 13, 1993 14 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRS : Community Development Department DATE; December 13, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for variances for setbacks, density and parking in the front setback to construct three dwelling units and three employee housing units located at 44 Willow Flag/Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicants; Frederick H. Larson, Dorothy H. Larson, Lawrence K. Larson, Frederick A. Larson and Lance V. Larson Planner; Shelly Mello I® DESCRIPTION VARIANCES The applicant is requesting a series of variances to construct three-family dwelling units and three employee housing units on the property listed above. The proposed site plan includes three individual garages, with two garages accessing from Willow Road and one driveway from Vail Road. The variances are necessary for the following: Currently, a non-conforming residence is located on the site. The existing building encroaches 1 feet into the 2-foot front setback on the north and 6 feet-6 inches into the 2- foot side setback on the east. A total of 651 square feet of the existing building footprint encroaches into the setback. Approximately 1,036 square feet of the proposed building footprint would encroach into the setbacks. The existing building will be completely demolished and replaced by the proposed multi-family project, IL ZONING ? _ ERATIONS Lot size: 0.29 acres or 12,632.4 square feet Zoning: High Density Multi-Family Existing Allowe&Required Proposed Site Coverage: 3,029 sq. ft. 6,947 sq. ft. 4,678 sq. ft. or or 24% or 55% 37% Density: GRFA: unavailable 7,579 sq. ft. 7,531 s% ft. free market units + 1,574 sq. ft. EHU's = 9,105 sq, ft. Dwelling Units: 1 7 3 + 3 Type III EHU =6 Common Area: 0 35% of allowed GRFA 361 sq. ft. or 2,652 sq. ft. Building Setbacks: 8' north 20 feet on all sides 10' north 20' south 20' south 11'-6" east 10' east west"* Deck Setbacks: 4' north 15 feet for deck 5' north 5' above grade 10' east Parking: 2 surface 11 spaces; 9 garage spaces 75% enclosed or 9 spaces 6 at grade = 15 spaces Height: below 48' 48' 44 feet Landscaping: 8,889 sq. ft. 3,789 sq. ft. 4,725 sq. ft. minimum- or 70% or 30% or 37.5% Willow Circle Sub Area #2 "imost cases, the levels of development throughout this sub-area greatly exceed what is allowed under existing zoning (High Density Multi-Family). Gross residential floor area ratios (RFA) range from . to 1., with an average of 1.01. With the exception of one parcel, all properties within this sub-area are developed at, or over, their permitted levels of development. As such, there is little development potential left 2 in this sub-area." #2®3 ---- - , _. - tfill This concept refers to the applicant's site: Goal #1 Encourage the hi quality re ev lo rient while r E -_ ?in t unique architectural scale of t i order to - .-I it sense o unity n identity. Objective 1.2 Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. -- Goal T i-r lze as a top priority enhancement of t hi ex eriL. me throughout the vie-- - D. Objective .1 Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. Policy 3.1.1 Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements, (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting, and seat areas) along adjacent pedestrian ways. ®I increase improve capacity, efficiency aesthetics t transportation and circulation system throughout the town. Objective 5.1 Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. Objective .4 Improve the streetscape of circulation corridors throughout the Village. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 16.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested variance based on the following factors-, A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship the requested variance other existing or potential uses and structures i the vicinity. Setbacks The staff also believes that the deck encroachments on the north setback should be minimized. Section 18.68.060 of the Municipal Code allows the following: higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony or deck but in such case shall not be deemed a roof for the lower balcony or deck. (ord. (1973) 17.203.)°' We believe that very limited relief if any is warranted for the deck encroachments proposed on the Willow Road side of the project because the decks could be reconfigured minimizing the encroachment into the setbacks. The applicant is also proposing to plant four new trees at the corner of Vail Road and Willow Road which the staff feels is positive. Willow Road will be narrowed at the intersection and the landscaped area will be extended to the west which will minimize the opportunity for traffic to enter the Willow Circle area from the west. This will decrease the amount of asphalt in the area. Density The use of common area for GRFA for three employee housing units will not impact to any great degree the existing or potential uses of the surrounding ropertiese While the staff is unable to support a density variance for this request, we recognize that the employee housing units of this type are a priority for the community. Parking in the Front Setback ® Tl-- -- y ® which relief from the strict n literal interpretation n of --- ent of specified regulation i necessary to achieve c Li ilit uniformity of treatment among site in the vicinity or attain the objectives this title without grant of special privilege. Setbacks Density R A and common area in multi-family buildings are counted as follows; " Within buildings containing more than two allowable dwellings or accommodation units, the following additional areas shall be excluded from calculations as RFAD Any square footage which exceeds the thirty-five percent maximum will be included in the calculation of R Am . All or part of an airlock within an accommodation or dwelling unit not exceeding a maximum of twenty-five square feet, providing such unit has direct access to the outdoors. 7 4. Overlapping stairways within an accommodation gait or dwelling unit shalt only be counted at the lowest level." arkinq in the Front Setback I of the requested variance on light o air, -°:)n pop-0 transportation n traffic facilities, to I®z and uilii®, n public safety. Setbacks The shading of this building on adjacent properties and public roadways appears that it will be extensive because of the bulk of the building located adjacent to the street. The staff feels that the building should be terraced in order to both reduce the shade impact as well as bring the building down to a more pedestrian level. Density There will be no impact on any of the criteria as a result of this portion of the request. Farkina in the Front Setback The Town Engineer does not support the proposed parking scheme due to the safety implications. If driveways and parking in the front setback are approved for the north and south side of the project, then the landscaping which could be placed along Vail Road and Willow Road would be minimal due to the importance of allowing for visibility from the driveway. The staff finds that this 8 would be unacceptable as it would be our goal to landscape as much as possible the buffer along Vail Road. As stated earlier in this memo, we also have concerns about the amount of pavement and traffic circulation on the north side of the property. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: i . 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. . 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. . 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. V. STAFF T®--®°-O Should any portions of this request be approved, the Public Works Department has requested that the applicant grant easements for drainage, snow storage, and roadway encroachments for this property as condition of the approval for this project. pec\memos\Iarson 10-25 1 -7 N, Aar,, , ., v `.{ _ _ ? , •/j, x h- a. J I r 1 f \: ??l ?l / 64 ?/ Al 7C5 \ r I ( i S t p 1,1 3 i 5 * ?e^ : ---`:s,°?."s,,? s':'a;.•^C'2!'.^'?,m?>°"a';?%s°?i"i'c=.'a `'.#'-`°',':???'? °?°~?s?-?,,?'zn a?°'S'?_??..<=yr=k:ti-: -'__ "_ ri{?'?'.•' s'i?; i<. '',4..,`G`+x ?4`?' rz?',a'•:S'? ? ;.tom "Yr.^iy.?` y-`?'?4?'. ? 'l J4\-. -.?'''3n _j?::.„ ., ?', - iy5;x-= ?.^,re;'?t:?r'' ,,,s?•aN'.`;'•=*sz_'s"^!s,''' _ ;q,`'::' i c.?;.. -•;2; __ ,,. v'Ta?,»%,.:s i??:-_ -;> v,;:,%,'•.?? g?=}.:',uv.xg°3 ?'aw -, _ °,.a'; '=?,. u;.; n`?„ry?<`"' S S t Ifs. G34`"`i'.,"a'°fx TAM, o-?.. a. ? du :Z £'. F.4C dk' of ,t^ y,a k. J'nt zz x 4A i /'}`- a ?-°„^"'?": ;?Y„•?r-%, F` 'got rt`,'« , _ .+m' S 1' °-`._'" ° i §•' r4=•Mgi`m .-Y'u ,gyp, K? ` .,) u trx. ?y r.{? - -- ar `-.e.<'T"?'*'%ti'?'E-°'T"""` -£-_ -w?.-s.w_'NF?•y a`T _ - ?f+ :` ibr.n. ?,y_=:-.. .c.. -'^-?e, -- _ _ ? 'Y"i i.. v'?:J+' ? _ _ - ?.w,?, iijt?:.,S^?'a `.- ..,n.p?Vl-X'??`..._ =_-.._-=-__?-'.:•y<-`syt_-_r`--'. ?...,-?-,!,-,, a. 1:?a.. _ =?'; =°g?: T'fil. ;7-="t-'z ?i.- • r?-,r ,'?? _ r,, _E.<`_r :.- ?-.?.:;.< - r .,? - i C.<. ff••{{?n. \: '••w'?x ?k: .. yw... `'7 Fe:L'?'tY°';i?:•._ ..°;m ?re:.r, -.yam; °.le a?riq_r ._`;,.,; ?'"rv:-§"v- ..?.'?,e s.;Y?'>t.'t _ '- :k,. ?-."?-+'+.ve.S,•..-..'.°v+.r„°?i-c. -.. .T, - _=? r`5`",x..`{????a''`-e)?>`?,.'? ..ate ;??°_' r''f slt'°:..'.t'^` ?.C'„e +? •lt ift'V-=. '.'l' )`.x??? ( - t- _:.(n•Y. ,. {".,.la ':LY,r.., :a>':*. S 's^:o ??C tio-•r `.'% - ?• : /,, . ?H?° '` t':;;`y ra^•' _ 'c• ."tu { gip' 'fe"?.,:? r; '{ - .s_?''ir iYi+3. " - 3.'i. °.h)-' "_' «. .`l`,,. 'i h'^-aY° `:•?. . ?„ti,<.,?;+:' - ?e?:',?'::j°+'; i';,,a?i_9;c??- ?`?`'1:" '`??,, ?'?? ?\, / ', °`sa?g1._rb_•- --"°;:>??',ys ?:?''.,,t..... •;:r2+?--K,:tay'Kt:.. ,-?.?°r=rA.??.h,. .I?;1 _ r , ?\? \ ' \?`v?? a, i ; %/j;l i ,?-•>.?,;,?" :A. ,.'?7'x`3r :-? Mx,a,°ty .,,s .:-??; ?. ? z+'-" ° %%`-?_ ' ?.?`?°rT?.33-_7.h I. . ? i,:??...? ` _.-?? ~K, :• - `:°t xt-?, - .mot ? .,. ?'ir,. - _ . ,p r s,_ „6`n .-? . } s r ,..,- ....± _ -=" .: x- , •^ =.'v?''_::. .. ?x ..°.-,... ..- _ er " t ,; r, _ - .t^.?,:,-'-' a ,..' ?r t-rq9. t[ Y S? - Id a -?'l A •tti z. .. ... ..:.. ..'.? _„?, ?{:L, :._.-, .?• i ?` ?i+^:.'r` - _ _ _ - ss . Cf...,% e?i - "?..yl._„•w-,y ? . _ y`?.r?q-' G?i?gt. ?'.st= ?r??°"dv -e- ..m`t'W L. .._-._.. PS',s, ''?`?&.,. ::i-t.£R'?... '?Sw'•;:"-„».ti`? _"_ - } - ?,.b°c, t_'ar,-I% _ ?:?,? w?a. ^• _? __?._ .?°` ? ;,;"? I ? !, i ? d, ??;_____. - -_ - Via,:-?°' x 4 j .;?- K. .. ...._,_?',y ? F+•, ?^? '" j?_.??'r•k?- x I ?'?r;?l"C•.t?,°,? ?"r,?----r--_ .._ _ Sa`v:-j; ?+J,'?-`\ ? ° '? y _ sL?t?.y. -•`L. a - i ? .C.`•?-,.?-?Y?r°h_.°,°-::t. _._ ° ?'? - 4. - :s,au ;,? 31{'., ..ro `,$:?z,,. 7?? - _•°' all .?. `?.._?3",T,,?-.m.. t:`._ _ ..,?-a"- f,?.: t? ?Ar=? _ j -? I .N.,°?° -?`;•: ?--.?__ ?'.: `+. P'}r ^ 'tom 1 --E 7:E yiC;? sum - r.•< I' ; y- T.: ;I0.- - - t it is - „T??` - r 1 p ? loot, d :t :o ?t <d dal alts ll, F'? :: (•^."-'x:'R.. o?E! _ :=y; _ a°=YS-. n-fit' ? ?? ?.pav- .?_,?:am'.?,,...r -° _ r ? ? I T. -- ,..?.®__. - ?" ? _ ?t?"•i{ \v?'''' -t -¢ r ..r. f: ?.' .. 4L J , `•v-:..-'r= - ..,-,??'-_=.u. .. ?..? -ri%s ,-,. ra'.:-;...f: a? _ _ _ ,.e%x-? _. . - a gg.. ?.. ?- _ y y,t?y .,,ry _ a .- t 'I;"'.-S":-n';"n'??? -L East t_ I' evahon I? ?-? ??? i III ?I?.. ,,, .. tl:? ! i I i i?i?i d I'i LLL Ell ?18t1?a 47 ??? ,lilti;alt? _dta?I '-_? ILI 1114. -ice ?a s. wasmumalow= go West Elevation w? 1 £ pc-raew?a i i ' I? t? i Z -- I? i$ a i j 7 7 s5 s'- ?'rm. m ? MI I?P4,µl, i? i ill = _1 sl F, f f_ i?1911!1 1 " X111_ Up Ig IlIIIIIPIIII T? 11? ,; . , }; u? ;? 1 II!!Ill 11 6f61"R'lI,171I South Elevation i? -A 1311ILis1 a 1" _ "I ?Tl 1 1 Illilll`( r?l {j3 --- `I I To. 71 iiii ILU111i I' I , ?liinullinu rnlt?.ulumi;i - . Y North Elevation ... _ s ., ! 9 1? { ? t . ? 11 110, < ({ .iDe?e +e.*sna . a 6 711 ---ORANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 13, 1993 SUBJECT: An appeal of a staff interpretation regarding a deed restriction limiting the use of a crawl space at the Toger Andersen residence, located at 1175 Sandstone Road/Lot 1, Block 1, Lionsridge 4th Filing. Applicant: Toder Anderson Planner: Andy Knudtsen L a PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant believes that he should be able to finish this space as FIFA at this time since the definition of RFA has changed. Ordinance No. 37, Series of 1990 was passed on December 4, 1990, creating a new definition of GR A. The applicant believes the new definition "grandfathers" this space and allows it to be finished as FA. The specific section of the Code which the applicant is relying on is 18.04.130(a)(4). This paragraph states that: "Within buildings containing two or fewer dwelling units, the following areas shall be excluded from calculations as GRFA: Since the space is enclosed by more than 7% on the perimeter, the applicant's position is that it should be recognized as GRFA consistent with the current GRFA definition. This position is further outlined in the applicant's statements which are attached to the end of this memo. If the PFC chooses to interpret the code in this way, the space will be seen as GRFA and the applicant will be allowed to convert it from unfinished to finished space. Before the applicant can proceed, there are two points which the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) must review; 1. Uphold/Overturn/Modify the staff interpretation that the applicant is not eligible to use this space as GRFA under the current ordinance given the fact that the project was built under the old GRFA definition and i deed restricted; 2. Provide a recommendation to Town Council as to whether or not the deed restriction signed by Toger Anderson pertaining to this space should be lifted. In addition to the two specific requests outlined above, r. Anderson would be willing to deed restrict Lot 4 of Casolar II as permanent open space. Please see the attached vicinity map to locate this lot. 11. BACKGROUND April 4, 1990 Proposed residence approved by Design Review Board (DR B). Note on approval form indicates that "unit is coaxed -- no GRFA may be added." Summer, 1990 Construction underway. December 4, 1990 Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1990, was passed. A new definition of G FA was approved. June 13, 1991 Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1991, was passed. The GRFA definition was changed concerning multi-family buildings and common area,. June 13, 1991 Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1991, was passed. The FA definition was changed to include a residential credit for Multi-Family zone districts. ANALYSIS 1. PROCESS If the P overturns the staff interpretation and agrees with the applicant, then the issue will be taken to Council for the review of lifting the deed restriction. In this case, Council is the only entity which can release the restriction. If the PEC overturns the staff interpretation, staff will pass on a PEC recommendation to Council concerning the deed restriction. STAFF c:\pec\memos\todgrt 2.13 a •-- ? ? ???r ? ? ?? ??' . TITLE' RESTRICTIONS WHEREAS, : Todger A-nderson and Vary Ellen Anderson are--the-owners of the property described as: :..= Lots 1 & 2, Mock 1, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 4 herein referred to as the "subject property" and WHEREAS, the owner wishes to place certain restrictions on the use of the subject land for the benefit of the owner and the Town of Vail, Colorado ("the Town"). NOW, THEREFORE, the owner does hereby impose, establish, acknowledge, declare, for the benefit of all persons who may hereinafter purchase, or lease, or hold the subject land, the following restrictions, covenants, and conditions, all of which shall be deemed to run with the land and inure to the benefit and be binding upon the owner, its respective grantees, successors, and assigns. the outside; 2. The Office of Community Development will be allowed inspection of the area at any time; 3. The provisions hereof may be enforced by the owner and the Town; 4® The condltions,--restrictions, stipulations, and agreements contained herein shall not be waived, abandoned, terminated, or amended except by the written f'r"p'sent of bothve..la t t _ by written 4-v?d:?iaa. of .u..tae 1QwI1 Of Vall, and the owner of the subject property. PROPERTY OWNER: ACXNOWLEDGED The foregoing of ('`, QLk Q 'J ., t Witness my ha: My commission instrument was acknowledged before me thisQ( 4 day 19 0 3 by Todger Anderson and Mary Ellen Anderson. id and official seal. C' 7 empires on: ot? v Public _ V ? ANDERSON RESIDENCE PROPOSAL TLIFT" TITLE RESTRICTION INTRODUCTION ) Improvement of Crawl Space to Living Are The Anderson's request that the Vail Town Council lift this restriction in order to allow for this space to be improved as living area. This unfinished basement level space of approximately 1,220 square foot is located below the Anderson's garage. The improvement of this space would result in no increase to the exterior dimensions of the existing residence. BACKGROUND N T ANDERSON RESIDENCE The Anderson's began construction of their home in 1990. Due to the steep slope of the lot below the home (in excess of 3010), a considerable portion of the site was excavated in order to pour foundation walls and footers. While the excavated area below the garage was left as unimproved space, the Town Staff was concerned about the space for two reasons, 1) the area did not meet the 'T'own's definition of "crawl space" because the floor to ceiling height of the space exceeded 5 feet, and 2) Staff was concerned that the space could be converted to living area at some point in the future. No building inspections were scheduled by the Town's Building Department until an acceptable solution to these issues was reached. The Town Staff proposed the following two solutions to resolve this situations 1) Construct two permanent openings in the south wall of the excavated space. 2) Establish a title restriction prohibiting the conversion of this space to G A. The Anderson's agreed to both of these conditions. Defer to an attached copy of the title restriction that describes both of these two solutions. EXISTING EA T ANDERSON'S PROPERTY The title restriction requires that "the subject property shall have two openings in the south facing wall below the bay windows" and "this area will be permanently restricted and uninhabitable space, open to the outside". This restriction is a significant factor because it prevents the Anderson's from converting this space to living area. However, it is also very significant from the standpoint of how existing GRFA on this property is calculated. . penings in South Facing mall The 1390 GRFA definition was interpreted by the Town Staff to can that any space not totally enclosed did not count as GRFA. The two openings added to the south facing wall giant the space below the garage was not totally enclosed. As a result, this space was not a part of "the total area within the enclosing walls" and as such cannot be considered GRFA. ® 1 Jni mnroved Space The space below the garage was unimproved space; a floor was not installed, walls were not sheetroc ed and there was no ceiling. As unimproved space this area w not habitable, thereby not satisfying the "Including all habitable space" provision in the definition of GRFA. 2 the opening is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an allowance for a railing of up to three feet in height". The circumstances surrounding this space and the definition change to GRFA are significant in that the only obstacle preventing the improvement of this space to living area is the title restriction. If the title restriction is lifted by the Town Council, the Anderson's will have the ability to improve this space to living area subject to the issuance of a building permit and compliance with other applicable sections of the zoning code. REQUEST T LIFT TITLE RESTRICTION As described above, based on the current provisions of the Town of Vail Zoning Code the Anderson's crawl space is legal non-conforming space that can be converted to living area. However, the title restriction specifically states that this space "will be permanently restricted and uninhabitable space, open to the outside". In order to allow for this space to be improved, the title restriction will have to be lifted by the Town of Vail. The basis for the Anderson's request to lift the title restriction are as follows: 1} The title restriction was established in order to ensure compliance with G A regulations in place at the time the Anderson's residence was constructed. Due to changes in the definition of G A, the crawl space is now legal non-conforming space that could be improved to living area. 2) The Town Staff has allowed other similar crawl spaces to be improved as GRFA based on the determination that these spaces became legal non-conforming space as a result of the change to the definition of GFA. 3) The improvement of the crawl space to living area will result in no increase to the existing bulk and mass of the Anderson's residence. DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION T , CASOLA VA IL The Anderson's own t 4, Casolar Mail, a single family building envelope located adjacent to their residence. As a condition of the Town's approval of this request to lift the title restriction, the Anderson's will enter into an agreement with the Town of Vail that will prohibit the future development of Lot 4. Lot 4 has the following development potential: 3 SUMMARY OF VEST 4 r; 1445 Pearl Street, Suite 215 Boulder, Colorado 80302 December 3, 1933 Donald R. Gruidel 7352 Meadow Court Boulder, Colorado 30301 Dear Mrs Knudtse , AUDIO ADVENTURES, Inc. 303 / 443-6131 800 / 551-5592 Fax 303 / 443-3775 Icy Vail home is located at 1175 Casolar Drive Unit A m We are located right below the residence c Tcdger and. Mary Ellen Anderson and look up at their home from below. Their unimproved crawl space would be more appealing to our eyes if it were finished rather than as it stands today unfinished. I etitzsi.asti calf support their proposal is the Town c Vail to finish the crawl space and provide an open space i. the Lions-ridge neighborhood Sincerely, s Donald ruidel Sincerely, Zj/v/ €{[`?p`? 8 V f r"?,?g}5,? a tea'}?¢p.,Y ? 3 ? ff 9 - 1i y 4 4_oa!a y n Dece22is'`er 2, 1993 'gown of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Attn: Andy Knudtsen Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Sir, As a resident of Cc solar Drive, specifically the home across from the existing empty lot, T wholeheartedly support r. & Mrs. Anderson's home improvement proposal. z t'?oI.3ld think that as over-built as Vail already is, any proposal that would preclude iToY'e buildings going u would be welcomed. Sincerely, r RK. Baer t,?e BOX ID7 - 717 <:41aliz 01=0 - WA ITI_iio e 64493 - S16-7-6-5723 December 3, 1993 'T'own of Vail Planning & Environmental. Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 To whom it may concern y wife and Z both feel that the proposal submitted to the town of Vail for the Anderson residence at 217:5 Sandstone Drive is a positive improvement for the Lionsridge Neighborhood and the Town of Mail. We wholeheartedly support this proposal as long as this agreement will "Run With The Land" and be binding to all future owners of this parcel and the Anderson residence. Sincerely, D,e6inis W. Gartner canna M. Gartner MCA `Y?rt 5`s,- s ' my= -, nohow, - -0 vow { . r r S 3s' -? P _ - t nj, Am - P's w. NA MM"AR K'. - _ Y } v -Yyi.'. 'W { Fa 'S All him K. Evan VrKdlMll_'_i, "'0 Wt SM Son-, New e: raj Y?",' i kS, y New Ycrk WAS r?,9 fz.?..;? :"j 1 ?4 a J Pr3 1, ? P y ?e'•Ya F <e,?tr.,,. LL r LO LOW, p IS 70 ?b.p c€`3 (d a- `a all I ? z a-a,?:??»g ?.?'? rV a ? "x'"..00 ";a . mss,: f " aw K k : K a i °`§, ?'s..a. a +« co '' Aft 44, St C7 d > 6havywoAl N ^^ " t Of y to - 00 v SAMMUS, nq -now-, AY _ni ,AV "Nov ?Yln 4 i r U' + ''. t P' roll 5- OUT - P-a "now 2 2-11 QQ ?- VA" k l { W QQ pay no- To W" 0 £ ? Y i F - i'b §, 5 k p f mm- mom m >x tl ?Y 2 .? - d " »5 ;a s j 't'om} 0' y -p- _ 7 1 ?' i +'$ ` 'TM ) 25 '£ ` §..., ptN;: y = a 6 L.. yMn y ? 0 CA `` ty??•£,?? ? T•y -? p", on _ O N ?,?,? K > ' : ro ,N . 1 w ? y r w ? ? ? th G to +'a yl' p F`p? ?' %t.?TM ?.r d $`.i.-;:, ;e'' ?"p`» rs?L,° sr •: .*Y ?+m+ µ Z' m b-' '' E c< "Y`g i `* ^ L '4 ms. ^. ,£,, f f i.-Y7 asp 3m'?. Lf'' C 0 ? . ? f .r _ r f 'Y- x ?i- r d '1:,5 , q ' ^1-'e.- _,,• v o- q ` '? .. ` r x 3 ; t' dz hit S j 7 R o- ? `M1. ,. . , , Y .Ni , :; ° .„a " !) ?' „?.z° 1 dstz,'hm w+.:a^+=^? ? 't ? ?'b?u ?:? .,^ °`? 4m?h drlr,,e, ,,2+.4'4r:?: &p :? r ? "l ?A P"a p a ?3 ?5? .,_ r e a ° C w? ? ? z? 5 • ' T G -+ £ ?' & yy T LA s 3 ,- r }! f s ? $" Q, W- Q 4 ,ergy t ,,,<-?? Y u t {, $ t F pop 'A ?CT{yF t . my Y.a ' tit C ? g e T -51 MOM S Charles mDisi Forest Drive Bawds Point, N. Y. 11050 Decemuber , , 1993 Very JL-Iruiy_yo?ms, November 29, 1993 9allaj `evaj,-sJ',f,-2 JOi 1 t r. KE_L, jNC. 1R - 716 N. 102d At' November 30,1 993 Town of Vail Pica -.- Attn.: Andy Ka to Town of Vail on nviror Corr , `°) 7 South Frnr ° l o Vail, Color .."'657 Dear Mr. Knudfs n, V " .c `Deer inf rrne-I roz Y -s c- M(J h Ay n a<: r m.V across the a ° r ? i r . Rea r, gar, rc 4 eIr proposal to or,-. e c. -- t ,w - s pc. ? .3 parcel r C"- ange for added living spat-, i the'- i home. Sincerely, i 0. December 08, 1993 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Attn: Andy Knudtsen Town of Vail 75 South. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 51657 Dear Mr. Knudtsen, I am writing in support of Mr.Todger Anderson's proposal to transfer the G.R.F.A. from Lot 4, Casolar Drive, to his home at 1175 Sandstone Drive. Since the Town of Vail has approved the 'Stu Brown Project', which literally casts a shadow over solar Drive, the open space created from this proposal would benefit all the homeowners' in this neighborhood. Sincerely, a Greg Hampton 1175 B Casolar Drive Vail, CO 81657 K. AGEE k, O-NEY AT LAW 512 SOUTH 8TH STREET COLORADO SPRINGS. CO 80905 AREA CODE 799 473-9595 December , 1993 Town oX Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Attn.: Andy Knudtsen Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 8165°7 ® Vail Public Hearing December 13, 1993, 2:00 p.m. Item Dear r ® Knudts n SAX # 779 473 2880 If the town would grant such authority to the Andersons, I feel that the entire neighborhood would benefit from the agreement A the present time, I feel that the ripen space is unsightly and appears as holes in the foundation at the Anderson household. I feel that this is an eye sore and that this will be rectified with the improvement of the Anderson property. It is y further understanding that there is a new massive TU BROWN PROJEC'T' just above Casolar® this is going to create an appearance of over development of housing. It would seem °that an open space is needed and that the open space would be much more acceptable to all of the residents in the neighborhood by not developing Loot 4® Town of Vail December 3, 1993 Page 2 In closing, I would feel that it would be in the best interests of all parties, including the Town of Vail, to have the Andersons create an open space for Lot 4, and to make their present residence much more appealing to the eye. Thank you for your very kind consideration in this matter. Very truly ;yours, 6 Ja'bk K. Agee J f lal cod Thomas A. Braun, AICP GEORGE C. SCOTT P. O. Box 291101 Port Orange, Florida 32129 Phone (904) 761-4884 'Ibwn of Vail. Planning C fission Attn: Andy Knudtsen Tbwn of Vail 75 So. Frontage ad Vasa., Colorado 61657 Dear Mr. Knudtsen: Consulting Engineer December 6, 1993 I have recently been informed that . & s. Anderson, who have a home located 1175 Sandstone Drive in Vail, have s itt a proposal the Town of Vail concerning iLa1j.LQ\r ents their home. Icy wife and I have a home located at 1151 sol 1 Norte Drive which is south of, and adjacent to, the Anderson property. I understand that the Anderson's wish modify their home which would change iLap.Loved crawl space of approximately 1,200 square feet that is located d under their garage i«npLoved living area. In return, the Anderson's have offer to enter into an agreement with the To o Vail which would designate t 4, sol Vail as open space. This letter is express my opinion, and that of wife, that the request is extremely reasonable and we certainly do not have any objections. We only wish the d sons and the To of Vail well Ve- ly yor- ` George C. Scott December 9, 1993 RE: Andersen, let r Casolar Vail At the December , 1993 meeting of our neighborhood group, the embers in attendance considered the Anderson request to improve -their crawl space and in return, restrict a potential bay Id-Lr,g site as permanent open ace We agreed that creating the permanent open space is oonsista.nt with our neighborhood goals and recommend the P act favorably on the Andersen request. inoerellr;. -AM MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRS : Community Development Department DATE: December 1, 1993 SUBJECT: A request fora rks ion to rezone a tract from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi-Family, located at 2350 Kinnickinnick Road/more specifically described as follows: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant, Juanita Pedotto, and her representative, Greg Amsen, would like to rezone a parcel of land in Intermountain from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi- Family. If rezoned, the applicant is planning to construct twenty dwelling units. Ten of these would be single family residences. Three of there would be single family residences with a small caretaker unit located above the garage. Four of the dwelling units would be located in two duplexes. The total number of structures would be fifteen. Total RFA for these dwelling units is anticipated to be 27,550 square feet. site plan is attached at the end of this memo which shows how these structures would be sited. The site plan shows sixteen structures; however, the applicant has decided to delete one from the western portion of the site. The chart below shows the break down of the structures and units: Number of Units Number of Structures 10 single family 10 10 0 2 duplexes 4 2. TOTAL: 20 1 The neighboring properties to the parcel under consideration include: North: Columbine North Fast: Primary/Secondary development South: Camelot Townhouses and single family development West: Primary/Secondary development The property to the north and east i zoned Residential duster. The property to the south and west is zoned Primary/Secondary. The Land Use Tarr has designated the parcel under consideration as Medium Density Residential. This translates to three to fourteen dwelling units per acre. In the future, the applicant intends to use the single family subdivision process to sell off the individual dwelling units. Prior to this, however, the currently unplatted parcel must be platted as a lot. In conjunction with the rezoning request, the applicant is also proposing a minor subdivision to change the status of the property from an unlatted parcel to a platted lot. Any RFA restrictions or building envelope location can be documented on the plat. II. ZONING ANALYSIS I Total Site Area: 108,682 square feet or 2,49 acres Buildable Area: 102,766 square feet or 2,36 acres Allowed Dwelling Units Employee Housing Density Allowed Units Allowed CRFA Allowed Primary/Secondary: 15,000 sq. ft. of 12 dwelling units 6 EHU's 24,400 + 5,100 = buildable required 29,500 sq. ft. per lot Residential Cluster: 6 dwelling units per 14 dwelling units 25,697 + 3,150 = buildable acre 28,847 sq. ft. Low Density Multiple Family: 9 dwelling units per 21 dwelling units 30,836 + 4,725 = buildable acre 35,561 sq. ft. Land Use Plan Medium Density Residential: 3 to 14 dwelling units 71o33 -- -- per buildable acre dwelling units Proposed: 8.5 dwelling units 17 dwelling units 3 EHU's 23,050 + 4,500 = per buildable acre 27,550 sq. ft. III® REZONING CRITERIA Staff will analyze the criteria below fully at the final hearing. A. Suitability of the Pro osed zoning. Is the Amendment Providing Convenient. Workable Relationship wi th Land, Uses Consistent With uniCi al bieotives? C. Does the ezonin Provide for the Growth of an Orderly, Viable Community?. D. Does the rezoning oomoly with the Vail Land Use Plan? Staff has listed the relevant goals and objectives from the Land Use Plan below: 1,12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 501 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 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. IV. ISSUES CONSIDERATION Land Use Flan The Land Use Flan designates this site as Medium Density Residential. Under this designation, the dwelling units allowed on this site range from 7 to 33. Based on the ®R designation, staff believes some increase in units by rezoning is reasonable. The lots adjacent to this site across Kinnickinnick to the north are zoned Residential Cluster. There is currently no property zoned LD F in the Intermountain area. The goals and objectives in the Land Use Flan describe development generally like the one being proposed. Goals 1.12 and 5.1 calls for infill development that is not located in hazards. Both of these characteristics are true for this site. Also, the Land Use Flan calls for additional employee housing, which will be included in this proposal. Staff believes the three employee housing units proposed are positive. . Surrounding Densities Staff recognizes that many of the surrounding properties adjacent to this parcel are multi-family complexes. The applicant has evaluated these and has estimated their densities at a range from nine units per acre to forty-two units per acre. Staff is in the process of confirming this information. The developments appear to be nonconforming as these densities exceed the Residential duster zoning. . Density moose and its relationship to the site. Staff understands that the applicant desires to change the zoning from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi Family to allow additional units, not necessarily more GRFA. Staff does not have a problem with the number of units if 4 they can be sited in such a way to provide adequate open space, buffering and minimal site coverage. In order to achieve this, we believe a more clustered deign concept is necessary. There are many successful Single Family cluster developments that have been built in town. Some of the examples include Bighorn Village, The Victorians, The Ledges, and Lot 34 in Potato Patch. In each of these cases, the number of dwelling units ranged from five to eight. Expanding the Single Family cluster concept to a site that has approximately fifteen or sixteen structures may not be as successful. Under the requested LDMF zoning, staff believes that the fifteen structures will have a negative impact on the site. Staff believes that more options need to be pursued to show how the requested density could be laid out on the site. Some alternatives we would like to see in more detail include the following considerations; Create a combination of units including single family, duplexes and a triplex. This would consolidate the structures and increase useable open space. Both the east and the west portions of the development would benefit from combining the single family into duplexes. . Deleting one to two of the units from the eastern portion of the site may be necessary. This would result in total of seven to eight structures in the eastern portion and six structures on the western portion of the site. . Parking for all units, including the duplexes and employee housing units, must be identified on the site. 4. Environmental Issues . Former Requests Type of Unit Number of Units Square Footage GRFA Efficiency Units 6 435 sq. ft. 2,610 sq. ft. One Bedroom Units 6 482 sq. ft. 2,892 sq. ft. Two Bedroom Units 27 609 sq. ft. 16,443 sq. ft. TOTAL: 39 21,945 sq. ft. V. OTHER T The Fire Department provided comments after their review of this project and states that "the applicant may need to provide additional fire hydrants, otherwise, no objections to October 8, 1993 submittal." The Public Works Department has the following comments: 99? e Will need easements for drainage, utilities, road side ditches, streetlights, bus shelters, etc. 2. Parking layout should be designed so that there are two spaces in front of each garage that o not block any of the 2 foot wide drive aisles. 3. Template for roadway must take into account asphalt, gravel shoulders and drainage ditches before landscaping can be designed. Grades appear to work for driveways into garages. 4. Applicant must provide sidewalk along entire length of property adjacent to Kinnickinnick Road. In addition, applicant must provide curb and gutter as well as storm sewer improvements to Kinnickinnick." Vlw CONCLUSION As this is a worksession, staff has no formal recommendation. c:\pec\memos\pedoto 12.13 7 PLAT OF SURVEY s" OF A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 14>TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH,RANGE EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO °=,==f>•+ma e,e..fa.fd°am.°>ta.A m. t°ffm.° >,x ,.,..fq„ q.++b+aa. .... foi a Ome ti 1 cr ,? ' ' 81 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, m°..mae °fam. >°?im,.;>1;a..,a fm.r » ewpa f«¢Y ?78 7, 11 F // ' `?/?ne\\ ^ _d%®Ix as roves r \ xfxiorx .ew?8sf , LEGEND p 8o v I P ? , .".B ?.::J•1',SI:d;J •A° ? ?? >a mr rm. wff?n ccngew?¢s wmw.f n +xf 'Pe F..71 l:i?a?, ?.,?1hiUQti:N:uF.4 '^ \ 9o uavl ??e.i8 e<Cf55 FS8[.9wi \ °i 98a e[coq .a*s.rxn ,itft v,e _ ® ®?eM1mw®ofa oAq[tf twa.a?ns x.e?AC?sz ? cam fa [? egwb BBY. a ssa° o',?m aa>i' + ?as?°iT4o' asp sa.eo es.aq gazd a.z zo as t a oiims'Ya°°. am tine ?xr, xunene? ra:wn?8t >q: °o oA,eo «e.?xa b ma m+o- sm.q f Sei a .a>.. x .=a to aoe841 Q ewe nem ® aw Y>m. f2ibt5YLMX ..... RY9®.} An FIELD BOOK- d9 SCALE+, te'0@ :5- f i eWB frt1?i DRAM S S4KCY ... .. f p.liNYe Yt1u PAUOeRf, mP CT M. 80040 DATE, 10,40,E SUITS i aYN0S. Cii. ®0950 11 PM.? (3031 d96-9018