HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-08-10 PEC0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
TOW?J OF ffl August 10, 2020, 1:00 PM
Virtual
75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657
1. Call to Order
1. 1. Register in advance for this webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN z53dowe2SIgXcwA3DIK78A
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing
information about joining the webinar.
1.2. Attendance
Present: Brian Gifllette, Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, John -Ryan Lockman,
Karen Perez, Henry Pratt, Pete Seibert
Absent: None
Main Agenda
2.1. A request for review of an exemption plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter 12, 60 min.
Exemption Plat, Vail Town Code, to allow for increases to the allowable Site
Coverage and Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) allotment for individual
lots within the Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision, and setting forth details
in regard thereto. (PEC20-0015)
Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners, represented by Zehren
and Associates
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Spence gives a presentation on the item, the history for the site and
previous applications of a similar nature.
Kurz: What are the municipal services that are provided to this area? Is it
similar to other areas?
Spence: Same, except this is a private road.
Perez clarifies the Staff memo description of location of the site.
Gillette asks if we ever give more GRFA to zone districts.
Spence says that the GRFA was based on the Hillside Zoning when
originally platted. It doesn't take in any alterations to GRFA calcs afterwards.
Spraddle Creek is restricted by GRFA calculations memorialized on the plat.
Gillette: They get more GRFA than anyone else, right?
Spence says that they have much more than the average of other single
family or two-family districts. This is due to the size of the lots being much
larger. They have GRFA and site coverage based on lot area when most of
the lot is not buildable which does not necessarily make sense
Pratt asks if we know how much of the lots are buildable.
Spence, we have an estimate, but the applicant may have more in their
presentation.
Pratt, does the town acknowledge building envelopes as a zoning device?
Spence details how envelopes are used for lots where setbacks are not
enough to protect hazards or environmentally sensitive areas.
Gillette asks that since he lives in a PUD, if he wanted more GRFA would
his neighborhood go through a similar process, and does this occur often?
Spence: Yes, it would be much the same. This is a very unique
circumstance where zone district isn't in line with land use. The commission
will need to decide if lot size makes sense for this GRFA calculation when
most of it is not buildable.
Josh from Zehren goes over the preparation for the request and meeting.
Previous concerns with the development of the area was environmental
sensitivities. GRFA does not match the maximum allowed in the Hillside Zone
district. Back in 2007 there was a similar application except before we
requested a text amendment to increase site coverage from 15 to 20%,
which is not included in today's request. The original request was approved
by PEC, but not by Council. Josh gives an overview of the site, location,
and history of Spraddle Creek. The primary reason the residents want
additional GRFA and site coverage is because the homes are mature up
there. They have seen the bumps given to other areas and have
improvements that they want to do but can't because of the cap in the plat.
Josh goes over the table in the submission that shows the allotted amount of
coverage and GRFA in the plat and how that compares to the amount
allowed under the zoning and other districts in Vail. Gives examples of other
areas of town that have higher density. Josh lists out the numbers they are
requesting and how they came to those numbers to request. I n conclusion
he goes over the concerns from the original platting process that were
respected and how this application meets those concerns.
Perez asks if an environmental impact report or assessment has been done
with this application.
Spence says there has not been a report done, but points to a section in the
memo that is worth noting.
Perez wants to know if we've looked at the GRFA increase and how it will
affect environmental aspects.
Spence details how they were previously reviewed.
Perez says the commission must look at the criteria and what they have
before them.
Gillette asks if we've looked at the actual GRFA in the homes that are built.
Are they completely built out?
Spence doesn't know which homes have maxed out GRFA. They do get the
basement deductions since that was changed about how GRFA is measured
which is consistent over Vail. He asks the applicant which ones are maxed
out.
Josh states he doesn't know them all, but the case studies shown are typical
of what is in the neighborhood and that most are within a couple hundred
square feet of maximum. They have not done a lot by lot analysis though.
Gillette asks where the largest homes are in town.
Spence says they are probably on Forest Road since they have the largest
lots. Around 10,000SF for duplexes. The average is closer to 7,000SF.
Kurz says it would help to know what each lot has in GRFA. This would be a
blanket upzoning without all the information on the table.
Spence agrees that it would help with some of the lots knowing how large the
increase would actually transfer to increase in size of the home.
Lockman says the blanket 10,000 seems arbitrary and if each lot
should/could ask for a variance to increase GRFA.
Spence answers that the variance criteria is not appropriate for this type of
request. GRFA caps are difficult to show hardship. Maybe another way
would be to allow an increase in percentage of existing instead of an
arbitrary cap.
Lockman says previous minutes were not very clear or detailed at the
Council level. Can you provide any more detail?
Spence says they do not have as much detail due to record keeping at the
time.
Josh says there was a lot of conversation at that time about the text
amendment that was proposed. This time they tried to simplify the
application by keeping it within the bounds of the underlying zoning.
Pratt asks if there is a general number that was given in 2005 with the
amendments as to how much each house received additional GRFA or a
percentage increase.
Spence says it isn't that clear as they were hard numbers and not a
percentage. The percentage amount varies greatly depending on the lot
size.
Pratt says he got about a 12-14% bump without the basement deduction.
Spence pulls up a graph with more information.
Gillette says it is important to know what the area will look like from the valley
floor if they get bigger.
Spences directs attention to the chart on page 14 which shows what is
asked for compared to existing.
Kurz says he's less concerned from what it looks like from the village since
they've done a good job hiding houses. More concerned with blanket
upzoning without the existing numbers. We need to clearly assess the
impacts.
Josh said they can do that. If PEC is comfortable with some lesser degree
of what is allowed, we can look into that.
Spence adds basing increases on a percentage could be easier
Gillette says fairness and precedence of the decision. How many more
people will ask for additional GRFA if we grant this?
Spence says this is very unique. Similar to where Gillette lives and would be
a similar application, but it is not typical to see this around town.
Gillette asks if the hillside zoning was set up for this site.
Spence clarifies that they land use plan made a Hillside Land Use without a
zone district. This zone district was then created but done poorly as it didn't
include any design guidelines or special regulations pertaining to steep
slopes.
Gillette asked what has changed. They looked at this in the first round of
review of the plat and must've had a reason for the GRFA given.
Pratt says what's changed is that people want to make an addition, but they
don't have GRFA.
Josh says that other areas have gotten bumps in GRFA when Spraddle
Creek didn't because their GRFA was locked in
Spence says the allowable number today take some of that bumps into
account as part of the 2005 amendments was also based on the basement
calculations and deductions.
Gillette says another thing we need to be concerned with is other underlying
design guidelines. If we add GRFA they may do away with those guidelines
that keep them hidden so they can add that additional GRFA, and then we
lose the concealment the current guidelines provide today.
Kurz goes over the history of the site as he was on the PEC at the time.
They were worried about large homes covering the hillside in the Town and
that may have been part of Council's thinking.
Gillette says to that note we are looking at making it 30% bigger with no large
public input as was done at the initiation of the subdivision.
Kurz reiterates that we need more information
Spence asks PEC to list what they would like to see next time. Chart shown,
and existing GRFA he has written down.
Gillette says another helpful piece of information would be comparisons
between these lots and some other large lots in town. He wants to get a
better idea of the size of lots compared to areas in town. An average of a
subdivision with large homes and see what that looks like for the size of the
house.
Seibert says you also have to consider location. Some large home
subdivisions are hidden. This area is prominent on the hillside in Vail.
Spence asks for winter photos to have a better idea of year-round view.
Seibert asks for history on inclusionary zoning in the previous application.
Can we ask for something like that?
Spence says we can ask for mitigation measures for example EH Us or
environmental impact considerations.
Gillette wants to know what they would offer to mitigate the addition. There is
some wildlife mitigation that is needed in the area.
Spence says absent a proposal from HOA the environmental/wildlife impact
would be difficult to quantify, where housing has a set mitigation rate that
could be applied.
Gillette asks for a proposal from HOA on mitigation measures.
Pratt asks for a review or map of the buildable area for each lot. Wants to
have something that shows the slopes so they can back up numbers as to
where the math comes from. W hat we are talking about seems so arbitrary.
The 10k cap by the applicant and the percentage increase both are arbitrary
and need something to be defendable in court.
Gillette asks if we should be looking at another zone district as a
comparison.
Pratt says if anything we should base it on the existing zone district there.
Kjesbo says 40 percent increase is huge but agrees everything is arbitrary.
He likes the idea of a percentage better. We're stuck with the zoning we
have now, which makes it difficult. We need to look at comparison large lots
and what it was before and after the 2005 increase. Agrees that there should
be inclusionary zoning with this.
Several members discuss the amount of benefit that the 2005 change was
granted. The goal is to make sure the changes and addition is equitable.
Perez says the issue and premise of the whole conversation is that these
lots are entitled to the increase that others received. Not sure it is a foregone
conclusion.
Kjesbo says the original goal was not to have "trophy homes" in the valley,
which has since become a fact and are found in the valley.
Discussion on the impact of additional GRFA on design is had between
members, staff and applicant.
Brian Gillette moved to table to September 14, 2020. Rollie Kjesbo seconded
the motion and it passed (7-0).
2.2. A report to the PEC regarding an administrative approval of a Conditional 10 min.
Use Permit amendment, pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 16, Amendment
Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a 610 square foot expansion to
Donovan Pavilion for additional storage, a kitchen prep space, and an
office/bride room located at 1600 S. Frontage Road W. / Unplatted —
Donovan Park, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0014)
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by TAB Associates
Planner: Erik Gates
Gates gives a presentation on the addition that was proposed and approved
administratively. The scale is why the application was administratively
approved and PEC must be notified of the changes to the CUP.
2.3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed 5 min.
regulation amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town
Code to amend Section 12-10 Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town
Code, to refine the appropriate sections to allow for a comprehensive
approach to meeting the minimum parking requirements, including clarifying
the review process and other considerations, and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (PEC20-0007)
The applicant has requested this item be tabled to a date uncertain.
Applicant: Braun Associates, Inc.
Planner: Greg Roy
Karen Perez moved to table indefinitely. Brian Gillette seconded the motion
and it passed (7-0).
3. Approval of Minutes
3.1. July 27, 2020 PEC Results
Karen Perez moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it
passed (7-0).
4. Informational Update
4.1. A worksession to discuss proposed process and a zoning code amendment, 45 min.
pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for various
amendments to Title 11 - Sign Regulations to updatedefinitions and reduce
content -based regulations in order to conform with the Supreme Court ruling
in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant:
Planner: Erik Gates
Gates goes over the proposed amendments to the sign code in response to
Reed vs Town of Gilbert.
Perez asks for more information on the Reed vs Gilbert case for ne)d time.
Gates notes that and will have it for ne)d time as well as the online Engage
Vail page when it launches.
John Ryan has questions about how much rewriting we are doing and the
effect on sign content. Gates points out that it will affect content and we're
trying to change only parts that are required through the case.
Gillette asks how we are changing sizes and Gates responds we are trying
to avoid changing sizes and many are the same.
Gillette states that the 45 days is too long for temporary signs. No more than
two weeks would be appropriate.
Spence says that timing is typical and 45 is what is reasonable based on the
case. We will check with the Town attorney on the minimum we can provide.
Gillette says that we should weigh risk on this one.
Kurz has a question on 170 ROW, and if that includes on and off ramps.
Gates says it includes that and most likely frontage roads. Kurz makes sure
staff will have town attorney sign off by the time it comes back to them.
Gates assures he will.
4.2. PEC Appointment to the Open Lands Board of Trustees
Applicant:
Planner: Matt Gennett
Brian Gillette moved to appoint Ludwig Kurz to the Open Lands Board of
Trustees. Henry Pratt seconded the motion and it passed (7-0).
5. Adjournment
Brian Gillette moved to Motion. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it
passed (7-0).
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the
Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project
orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department.
Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the
Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please
call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time.
Community Development Department
City of Vail, Colorado Logo
VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE:
ITEM/TOPIC:
Register in advance for this webinar:
https:Hus02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN z53dowe2SlgXcwA3DIK78A
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information aboutjoining the webinar.
City of Vail, Colorado Logo
VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE:
ITEM/TOPIC: Attendance
City of Vail, Colorado Logo
VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 10, 2020
ITEM/TOPIC:
A request for review of an exemption plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter 12, Exemption Plat, Vail Town Code, to allow for increases to
the allowable Site Coverage and Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) allotment for individual lots within the Spraddle Creek Estates
subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0015)
OTTOCHMFNTS-
File Name
PEC20-0015 Spraddle Creek Staff Memo.pdf
Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf
Attachment B. Introductory Memorandum from Applicant.pdf
Description
Staff Memoradum
Attachment A. Vicinity Map
Attachment B. Introductory Memorandum from Applicant
Attachment C. Exemption Request.pdf Attachment C. Exemption Request
Attachment D. PEC07-0013 PEC Staff Memorandum with Attachments Attachment D. PEC07-0013 PEC Staff Memorandum
(Text Amendment to increase Site Coverage in Hillside Residential District).pdf with Attachments (Text Amendment to increase Site
Coverage in Hillside Residential District)
Attachment E. PEC07-0014 PEC Staff Memorandum with Attachments Attachment E. PEC07-0014 PEC Staff Memorandum
(Plat Amendment to increase GRFA and Site Coverage for Spraddle Creek Estates).pdf with Attachments (Plat Amendment to increase GRFA
and Site Coverage for Spraddle Creek Estates)
Attachment F. PEC Minutes and Results June 11 2007. Pd Attachment F. PEC Minutes and Results, June 11, 2007
TOWN OF
VAIL �
Memorandum
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 10, 2020
SUBJECT: A request for review of an exemption plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter 12,
Exemption Plat, Vail Town Code, to allow for increases to the allowable Site
Coverage and Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) allotment for individual lots
within the Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC20-0015)
Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates
Associates
Planner: Jonathan Spence
SUMMARY
Homeowners, represented by Zehren and
The applicant, Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners, represented by Zehren and
Associates, are requesting the review of an exemption plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter
12, Exemption Plat, Vail Town Code, to allow for increases to the allowable Site
Coverage and Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) allotment for individual lots within
the Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision.
Due to the unusual nature of the request, the applicant and staff have chosen to take
the initial meeting as an introduction and an opportunity to request additional
information and/or clarification of existing information prior to requesting a decision on
the application. As this is an introduction, staff has not provided a criteria -based
analysis at this time. A full analysis of the criteria will be available at the next meeting.
As a result, staff and the applicant request that the item be continued to the August 24,
2020 meeting at the close of the discussion.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The applicant, Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners, represented by Zehren and
Associates, are requesting the review of an exemption plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter
12, Exemption Plat, Vail Town Code, to allow for increases to the allowable Site
Coverage and Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) allotment for individual lots within
the Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision. The purpose of the request is to adjust the
GRFA and Site Coverage allotments that were prescribed upon the initial approval of
the subdivision in the early 1990s. These original allotments were based on the
allowable GRFA of the underlying zone district, Hillside Residential (HR) in effect at that
time prior to GRFA amendments of 2004.
When Spraddle Creek Estates was platted, the Lot Summary Chart was included upon
the plat depicting the configurations of the lots and building envelopes, as it was a goal
of the developer and the Town to maintain greater control over the sizes of the homes
which could be constructed upon the lots. This greater need for control over the sizes of
the structures which could be constructed resulted from several of the lots being platted
quite large and with allowable GRFA being directly proportional to lot size, the sizes of
the structures would have been of a size, bulk, and mass, which was deemed
undesirable in the Town. Another reason for the restriction to both maximum GRFA and
site coverage was that the Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision is located on grades
predominately in excess of 40%. The combination of restricting maximum GRFA, site
coverage, and platting building envelopes, resulted in a situation where steep grades
could be protected, and development would be more predictable in terms of location,
bulk and mass.
The applicant believes the proposed amendments to the Lot Summary Chart are
warranted as there were changes made to GRFA within the Hillside Residential district
with the adoption of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004, that they have been unable to
utilize. Although Spraddle Creek Estates has not been able to see an increase in
absolute GRFA allotment, another major element of the 2004 amendments to GRFA,
the basement deduction, is applicable. The applicant has included an introductory
memorandum and presentation, with exhibits, explaining how each lot is proposed to be
adjusted in terms of maximum allowable GRFA and maximum allowable site coverage.
In all cases the applicant is proposing to restrict the maximum allowable GRFA at or
below what would be permitted on each lot based under the Hillside Residential Zoning.
The maximum allowable GRFA is proposed to be capped at 10,000 square feet, with
the exception of Lot 14, which would have no change in GRFA and is currently capped
at 13,904 square feet. All proposed increases in Site Coverage are also below the zone
district maximum of 15% as this application is not accompanied by a proposed text
amendment as a similar request in the past did. Please see the background section for
additional information of this previous request.
The Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision is located north of 1-70 to the west of the 1-76
Interchange, as shown below:
Town of Vail Page 2
NA
;;;Z�Mb
III. BACKGROUND
On January 15, 1985, the property comprising Spraddle Creek Estates, approximately
39.55 acres was annexed into the Town of Vail.
On November 18, 1986, the Town of Vail adopted the Land Use Plan which identified
Spraddle Creek Estates as being within the Hillside Residential land use designation.
The plan identified Spraddle Creek Estates as the single property within this land use
designation.
On October 26, 1987, through the adoption of Ordinance 38, Series of 1987, the Town
of Vail created and imposed the Hillside Residential District on Spraddle Creek Estates.
Town Staff developed the Hillside Residential District in response to the adoption of the
Land Use Plan.
On April 17, 1991, the Design Review Board granted final approval to the development
of Spraddle Creek Estates. This approval was for roadway design, retaining walls
design, landscaping of entry and common parcels, and a design standards handbook
for the subdivision.
Town of Vail Page 3
On February 24, 1992, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved several
variances for retaining wall height and roadway grades in excess of those permitted.
On July 12, 1993, a minor subdivision was approved by the Planning and Environmental
Commission to adjust the shared lot line between Lots 14 and 15 to increase the size of
Lot 15 to allow for a primary unit and a caretaker unit on the lot.
On September 7, 1993, the Town of Vail adopted Ordinance 11, Series 1993, which
rezoned Tract C of Spraddle Creek Estates from Greenbelt and Natural Open Space
District to Single Family District in order to permanently restrict the lot as an employee
housing unit (gate keeper house).
On April 5, 1995, the Design Review Board approved a change to the Residential
Design regulations for Spraddle Creek to allow for glass expanses in excess of 36 feet.
On June 22, 1998, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved an
amendment to the Spraddle Creek Estates plat to allow for interior conversions to
residences which complied with the regulations.
On August 1, 2006, the Town Council, through the adoption of Ordinance No. 17, series
of 2006, approved changes to the Section 12-21-14E, Restrictions in Specific Zones on
Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code. These amendments do apply to properties zoned
Hillside Residential.
On June 11, 2007 The Planning and Environmental Commission approved a similar
request to increase allowable GRFA and Site Coverage in the Spraddle Creek Estates
Subdivision. This request was accompanied by a text amendment to the Hillside
Residential (HS) Zone District increasing the allowable Site Coverage from 15% to 20%
that the Commission recommended approval to the Town Council. As some of the
requests related to site coverage were contingent on the text amendment, the PEC
approvals for additional GRFA and Site Coverage were conditioned on the approval of
the text amendment by the Town Council.
On July 17, 2007 the Town Council tabled the proposed text amendment to the Hillside
Residential District after providing feedback to the applicant. An excerpt from the
meeting minutes is provided below:
Town of Vail Page 4
The fifth item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2007, an
ordinance amending the prescribed zoning regulations, pursuant to Section 12-3-7,
Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to Section 12-6A-9, Site
Coverage, Vail Town Code (Hillside Residential District), to increase allowable site
coverage from 15% to 20.
Chief Planner Warren Campbell reported that on June 11, 2007, the PEC held a public
hearing on the request to amend the prescribed zoning regulations for the Hillside
Residential District to increase allowable site coverage from 15% to 20%. Upon
consideration of the request, the Commission approved a motion recommending
approval of the text amendment to the Vail Town Council by a vote of 5-1-1(Cleveland
opposed, Gunion recused). Campbell assured Council that building envelopes would not
increase. Community Development Director George Ruther clarified, "We are only
talking about changing the method in the way Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) is
calculated." Moffet moved to table the item to August 21 with Newbury seconding. The
motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The applicant was directed to explore options for
adhering to the town's recently adopted inclusionary zoning requirements into their
proposal.
On August 21, 2007 the Town Council denied the proposed text amendment, resulting
also in a denial of the proposed increases to GRFA and Site coverage previously
approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. An excerpt from the meeting
minutes is provided below:
On June 11, 2007, the PEC held a public hearing on the request to amend the
prescribed zoning regulations for the Hillside Residential District to increase allowable
site coverage from 15% to 20%. Upon consideration of the request, the Commission
approved a motion recommending approval of the text amendment to the Vail Town
Council by a vote of 5-1-1(Cleveland opposed, Gunion recused). On July 17, 2007, the
Town Council unanimously tabled this item after providing feedback. Dave Kasak with
Zehren and Associates asked for a modest increase of Gross Residential Floor Area and
site coverage. Logan moved to approve the ordinance with Hitt seconding. The motion
failed 4-2, with Logan and Slifer voting for the ordinance.
The following items have been attached for review:
Attachment A. Vicinity Map
Attachment B. Introductory Memorandum from Applicant, July 13, 2020
Attachment C. Exemption Request, July 13, 2020
Attachment D. PEC07-0013 PEC Staff Memorandum with Attachments
(Text Amendment to increase Site Coverage in Hillside
Residential District)
Attachment E. PEC07-0014 PEC Staff Memorandum with Attachments
(Plat Amendment to increase GRFA and Site Coverage for
Spraddle Creek Estates) *
Attachment F. PEC Minutes and Results, June 11, 2007
Town of Vail Page 5
*Attachments to the staff memorandum include the staff report and minutes from
the original approval of Spraddle Creek Estates in 1991.
IV. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS
Spraddle Creek Estates is unique within the Town of Vail for a number of reasons. The
subdivision is the only gated community, the only area zoned Hillside Residential and
contains lots significantly larger than others within the town limits. The Vail Town Code
allots GRFA in proportion to either lot size or buildable area within each lot, depending
on zone district. In general, the single-family residential and two-family zonings (S, P/S,
R and HS) are based on lot size where the multi -family zonings (RC, LDMF, MDMF and
HDMF) area are based on buildable lot area. Buildable Lot Area removes lot areas with
slopes in excess of 40%, located within designated floodplains or within red hazard
avalanche areas for the purposes of calculating GRFA.
Within Spraddle Creek Estates, each lot has designated building envelopes, restricting
development to areas generally outside of slopes in excess of 40%. There is no
relationship between the size of the building envelopes and the overall size of each lot.
As significant portions of each lot are in excess of 40% and outside of established
building envelopes, having GRFA allotted solely based on lot size may not be
appropriate.
The table below shows a comparison between the average lot size and corresponding
GRFA/Site Coverage in Town of Vail's single family and two-family zone districts to
existing and proposed Spraddle Creek standards.
Zone District
Average Lot
Corresponding
Corresponding Site
Size
GRFA
Coverage
SFR, S, and P/S
20,813 SF
7,256 SF
4,163 SF
Spraddle Creek
78,782 SF
7,559 SF
6,402 SF
Existing
Spraddle Creek
78,782 SF
9,704 SF (28%T)
7,224 SF (13%T)
Proposed
*Spraddle Creek Estates includes one lot over 6 acres. Removing this lot lowers the average lot size to
65,944 square feet but has no effect on GRFA and site coverage allotments.
Homes with greater GRFA result in greater energy consumption and greater needs for
attainable housing due to their employee generation. Development within the Hillside
Residential District, similar to other single family and two-family zone districts, is not
subject to Inclusionary Zoning, the Town of Vail's employee housing program for
residential development.
Town of Vail Page 6
V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Staff finds the following provisions of the Vail Town Code relevant to the review of this
proposal:
Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code
Chapter 6, Article A. Hillside Residential (HR) District
12-6A-1: PURPOSE.-
The
URPOSE:
The hillside 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 zone district. The hillside 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 low-
density high-quality residential development of such sites by establishing
appropriate site development standards.
12-6A-2: PERMITTED USES.-
The
SES:
The following uses shall be permitted in the HR district.-
Employee
istrict:
Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title.
Single-family residential dwellings.
12-6A-3: CONDITIONAL USES.-
The
SES:
The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a
conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title.-
Bed
itle:
Bed and breakfasts, as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this title.
Communications antennas and appurtenant equipment.
Equestrian facilities located on five (5) acre minimum lot size area on property
bordering public land.
Funiculars and other similar conveyances.
Home child daycare facilities, as further regulated by section 12-14-12 of this
title.
Public buildings, grounds and facilities.
Town of Vail Page 7
Public park and recreation facilities.
Public utility and public service uses. (Ord. 12(2008) § 2)
12-6A-4: ACCESSORY USES.-
The
SES:
The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the HR district.-
Home
istrict:
Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in
accordance with the provisions of section 12-14-12 of this title.
Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming
pools, patios, or recreational facilities customarily incidental to single-family uses.
Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses,
and necessary for the operation thereof.
12-6A-5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS.-
The
IMENSIONS:
The minimum lot or site area shall be twenty-one thousand seven hundred eighty
(21,780) square feet of contiguous buildable area. Each site shall have a
minimum frontage of fifty feet (50). Each site shall be of a size and shape
capable of enclosing a square eighty feet (80) on each side within its boundaries.
12-6A-6: SETBACKS.-
In
ETBACKS:
In the HR district, minimum front setbacks shall be twenty feet (20), minimum
side setbacks shall be fifteen feet (15), and minimum rear setbacks shall be
fifteen feet (15). (Ord. 23(1987) § 1)
12-6A-7: HEIGHT:
For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty feet
(30). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty-three feet
(33)_
12-6A-8: DENSITY CONTROL:
A. Dwelling Units: Not more than a total of two (2) dwelling units shall be
permitted on each site.
B. Gross Residential Floor Area.-
1.
rea:
1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted
on each site.-
Town
ite:
Town of Vail Page 8
a. Not more than forty-three (43) square feet of gross residential
floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of the
first ten thousand (10, 000) square feet of site area, plus
b. Twenty-five (25) square feet of gross residential floor area
(GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over
ten thousand (10, 000) square feet, not exceeding twenty-two
thousand (22, 000) square feet of site area, plus
c. Seven (7) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for
each one hundred (100) square feet of site area in excess of
twenty-two thousand (22, 000) square feet.
2. On any site containing two (2) dwelling units, one of the units shall
not exceed one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of gross
residential floor area (GRFA). This unit shall not be subdivided or sold
separately from the main dwelling unit. This unit may be integrated into
the main dwelling unit or may be integrated within a garage structure
serving the main unit but shall not be a separate freestanding
structure.
12-6A-9: SITE COVERAGE:
Site coverage shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the total site area.
12-6A-10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT:
At least seventy percent (70%) of each site shall be landscaped. The minimum
width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be ten feet (10) with
a minimum area of not less than three hundred (300) square feet.
12-6A-11: PARKING.-
Off
ARKING:
Off street parking shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title.
Title 13 — Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code
Chapter 1, General Provisions (in part)
13-1-2: PURPOSE:
A. Statutory Authority: The subdivision regulations contained in this title have
been prepared and enacted in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes
title 31, article 23, for the purpose of promoting the health, safety and welfare
of the present and future inhabitants of the town.
Town of Vail Page 9
B. Goals: To these ends, these regulations are intended to protect the
environment, to ensure efficient circulation, adequate improvements,
sufficient open space and in general, to assist the orderly, efficient and
integrated development of the town. These regulations also provide for the
proper arrangement of streets and ensure proper distribution of population.
The regulations also coordinate the need for public services with
governmental improvement programs. Standards for design and construction
of improvements are hereby set forth to ensure adequate and convenient
traffic circulation, utilities, emergency access, drainage, recreation and light
and air. Also intended is the improvement of land records and surveys, plans
and plats and to safeguard the interests of the public and subdivider and
provide consumer protection for the purchaser; and to regulate other matters
as the town planning and environmental commission and town council may
deem necessary in order to protect the best interests of the public.
C. Specific Purposes: These regulations are further intended to serve the
following specific purposes.-
1.
urposes:
1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which
development proposals will be evaluated, and to provide information as
to the type and extent of improvements required.
2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict
with development on adjacent land.
3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality
and the value of buildings and improvements on the land.
4. To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the town's
zoning ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable
relationship among land uses, consistent with town development
objectives.
5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide
adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks,
playgrounds, recreation, and other public requirements and facilities
and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient
capacity to serve the proposed subdivision.
6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and
to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards
and procedures.
7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams and ponds, to assure adequacy
of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage
the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the
Town of Vail Page 10
town in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the
community and the value of the land.
Chapter 3, Section 4, Commission Review of Application, Criteria and Necessary
Findings.-
13-3-4.-
indings:
13-3-4: COMMISSION REVIEW OF APPLICATION; CRITERIA AND
NECESSARY FINDINGS
The planning and environmental commission shall conduct a public hearing on an
application for a preliminary plan for subdivision. The planning and environmental
commission shall consider the application, relevant additional materials, staff report
and recommendations as well as any other comments or public information given at
the hearing. The planning and environmental commission may discuss advisable
changes to the proposed subdivision with the applicant. The burden of proof shall
rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent
and purposes of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and other pertinent regulations
that the planning and environmental commission deems applicable. Due
consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility
companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13-3-C of this chapter.
A. Before recommending approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of
the preliminary plan, the planning and environmental commission shall
consider the following criteria with respect to the proposed subdivision.-
1.
ubdivision:
1. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is consistent with all the
applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies
outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the
development objectives of the town, and
2. The extent to which the proposed subdivision complies with all of the
standards of this title, as well as, but not limited to, title 12, "Zoning
Regulations", of this code, and other pertinent regulations that the
planning and environmental commission deems applicable, and
3. The extent to which the proposed subdivision presents a harmonious,
convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with
municipal development objectives, and
4. The extent of the effects on the future development of the surrounding
area, and
5. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is located and designed
to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the
delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature
Town of Vail Page 11
extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of
development; and
6. The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve the planned
ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to
upgrade undersized lines, and
7. The extent to which the proposed subdivision provides for the growth
of an orderly viable community and serves the best interests of the
community as a whole, and
8. The extent to which the proposed subdivision results in adverse or
beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited
to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors,
hillsides and other desirable natural features, and
9. Such other factors and criteria as the commission and/or council deem
applicable to the proposed subdivision.
B. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an
application for a major subdivision, the planning and environmental
commission shall make the following findings with respect to the proposed
major subdivision.-
1.
ubdivision:
1. That the subdivision is in compliance with the criteria listed in
subsection A of this section.
2. That the subdivision is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives
and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible
with the development objectives of the town.
3. That the subdivision is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses
and appropriate for the surrounding areas.
4. That the subdivision promotes the health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious
development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its
natural environment and its established character as a resort and
residential community of the highest quality.
Chapter 12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures
13-12-1: PURPOSE AND INTENT:
The purpose of this chapter is to establish criteria and an appropriate review process
whereby the planning and environmental commission may grant exemptions from the
Town of Vail Page 12
definition of the term "subdivision" for properties that are determined to fall outside the
purpose, purview and intent of chapters 3 and 4 of this title. This process is intended to
allow for the platting of property where no additional parcels are created and
conformance with applicable provisions of this code has been demonstrated.
13-12-2: EXEMPTIONS IN PROCEDURE AND SUBMITTALS.-
"Exemption
UBMITTALS:
"Exemption plats"; as defined in section 13-2-2 of this title, shall be exempt from
requirements related to preliminary plan procedures and submittals. Exemption plat
applicants may be required to submit an environmental impact report if required by title
12, chapter 12 of this code.
13-12-3: PLAT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA FOR REVIEW. -
The procedure for an exemption plat review shall be as follows.-
A.
ollows:
A. Submission Of Proposal; Waiver Of Requirements: The applicant shall submit two
(2) copies of the proposal following the requirements for a final plat in subsection
13-3-6B of this title, with the provision that certain of these requirements may be
waived by the administrator and/or the planning and environmental commission if
determined not applicable to the project.
B. Public Hearing: The administrator will schedule a public hearing before the
planning and environmental commission and follow notification requirements for
adjacent property owners and public notice for the hearing as found in subsection
13-3-6B 1 of this title.
C. Review And Action On Plat: The planning and environmental commission shall
review the plat and associated materials and shall approve, approve with
modifications or disapprove the plat within twenty one (21) days of the first public
hearing on the exemption plat application or the exemption plat application will be
deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision may be granted
subject to mutual agreement between the planning and environmental
commission and the applicant. The criteria for reviewing the plat shall be as
contained in section 13-3-4 of this title.
D. Appeal: An appeal of the planning and environmental commission's decision by
the town council, the applicant, or an "aggrieved or adversely affected person"
shall follow the procedures outlined in subsection 13-3-5C of this title.
13-12-4: FILING AND RECORDING.-
The
ECORDING:
The department of community development will record the plat and any related
documents with the Eagle County clerk and recorder; however, no plat shall be
recorded unless prior to the time of recording, the applicant provides the town with a
certification from the Eagle County treasurer's office indicating that all ad valorem taxes
Town of Vail Page 13
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
department of community development will retain one Mylar copy of the plat for their
records. An exemption plat may not be recorded until applicable appeals periods have
expired in accordance with the provisions of subsection 13-3-5C of this title.
VI. LOT SUMMARY
Lot
GRFA
Site Coverage
Number
Existing
Allowed
Proposed
%
Increase**
Existing
Allowed
Proposed
%
Increase***
(Plat)
(Hillside
Residential)
(Plat)
(Hillside
Residential)
1
7,333
11,885
10,000*
36%
6,483
13,125
7,817
21%
2
6,524
9,130
9,130
40%
5,674
7,222
6,977
23%
3
8,548
11,963
10,000*
17%
7,698
13,293
8,424
9%
4
7,016
11,728
10,000*
43%
6,166
12,788
7,658
24%
5
6,827
10,036
10,000*
46%
5,977
9,162
7,564
27%
6
8,220
11,504
10,000*
22%
7,370
12,308
8,260
12%
7
6,309
8,828
8,828
40%
5,459
6,575
6,575
20%
8
5,711
7,991
7,991
40%
4,781
4,781
4,781
N/A
9
7,269
10,173
10,000*
38%
6,419
9,457
7,785
21%
10
5,732
8,021
8,021
40%
4,844
4,844
4,844
N/A
11
7,688
10,759
10,000*
30%
6,838
10,713
7,994
17%
12
8,928
12,495
10,000*
12%
8,078
14,432
8,614
7%
14
14,330
25,782
14,330*
N/A
10,000
42,903
10,000*
N/A
15
1 5,397
7,552
7,552
40%
3,839
3,839
3,839
N/A
*Voluntary Cap by Applicant
** Average increase for those lots increasing GRFA is 34%
***Average increase for those lots increasing Site Coverage is 18%
VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
Zoning District:
USFS
N/A
Natural Area Preservation (NAP)
USFS
Town of Vail Page 14
Existing Land Use:
North:
Open Space
South:
1-70
East:
Open Space
West:
Open Space
Zoning District:
USFS
N/A
Natural Area Preservation (NAP)
USFS
Town of Vail Page 14
VIII. REVIEW CRITERIA
The following are review criteria for a minor subdivision, as outlined in Section 13-3-4,
Commission Review of Application; Criteria and Necessary Findings, Vail Town Code:
1. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is consistent with all the
applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in
the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development
objectives of the town; and
2. The extent to which the proposed subdivision complies with all of the
standards of this title, as well as, but not limited to, title 12, "Zoning
Regulations," of this code, and other pertinent regulations that the planning
and environmental commission deems applicable; and
3. The extent to which the proposed subdivision presents a harmonious,
convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal
development objectives; and
4. The extent of the effects on the future development of the surrounding area;
and
5. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is located and designed to
avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of
public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public
facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development; and
6. The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate
population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade
undersized lines; and
7. The extent to which the proposed subdivision provides for the growth of an
orderly viable community and serves the best interests of the community as a
whole; and
8. The extent to which the proposed subdivision results in adverse or beneficial
impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water
quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other
desirable natural features; and
9. Such other factors and criteria as the commission and/or council deem
applicable to the proposed subdivision.
Town of Vail Page 15
IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the applicant request the following motion:
The Planning and Environmental Commission continues the public hearing for
PEC20-0015 to the August 24, 2020 public hearing.
X. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A. Vicinity Map
Attachment B. Introductory Memorandum from Applicant, July 13, 2020
Attachment C. Exemption Request, July 13, 2020
Attachment D. PEC07-0013 PEC Staff Memorandum with Attachments
(Text Amendment to increase Site Coverage in Hillside
Residential District)
Attachment E. PEC07-0014 PEC Staff Memorandum with Attachments
(Plat Amendment to increase GRFA and Site Coverage for
Spraddle Creek Estates) *
Attachment F. PEC Minutes and Results, June 11, 2007
*Attachments to the staff memorandum include the staff report and minutes from
the original approval of Spraddle Creek Estates in 1991.
Town of Vail Page 16
II
Z E H R E N
AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
August 04, 2020
Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
Vail, CO 81657
CC: Bill Esrey
1314 Spraddle Creek Rd
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Spraddle Creek Estates (SCE) — GRFA / Site Coverage Amendments
Dear Commissioners:
This package is presented by Zehren and Associates on behalf of the residents of
Spraddle Creek Estates, as a request to modify the existing plat for Spraddle Creek and
capture additional Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) as permitted by the Town of
Vail (TOV) Code within the Hillside Residential (HR) District, and also modify Site
Coverage.
We are applying for an Exemption Plat, to provide the vehicle for modifying the current
Spraddle Creek Estates Plat, which outlines the allowable GRFA, Site Coverage, and
other restrictions, and supersedes the Town Code. Our position is outlined below:
■ Spraddle Creek Estates is the only neighborhood within the TOV that sits within
the HR Zoning District.
■ The current TOV Code defines how GRFA is to be measured within the HR
Zoning District.
■ However, since the existing Plat calls for GRFA amounts less than what is
permitted by the Town Code, the residents of Spraddle Creek would like to
update the Plat to allow them to use some of the additional GRFA allowed by
Code for small remodels and additions.
■ Any future use of additional GRFA or Site Coverage would still need to comply
with the mass, bulk, and height restrictions as outlined in the Spraddle Creek
Estates Design Guidelines and the TOV Design Guidelines.
■ The TOV, at the conception of the plat, was concerned with environmental
sensitivity, public access, and visibility from the valley floor. Now, after 25
years, we can see that the development has been successful in limiting its
ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS
Z E H R E N
AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
impact. We believe it will continue to do so under GRFA and Site Coverage
regulations that relate more closely to the HR Code.
All sites within Spraddle Creek Estates would be limited to a maximum of
10,000 SF GRFA regardless of the HR Code, with the exception of Lot 14 which
already is allowed 14,330 SF of GRFA on the current plat. This will ensure the
concerns of the TOV continue to be met.
The following Exhibits are provided within the "Spraddle Creek Estates Plat
Exemption Request" presentation for discussion:
P. 4-7 History and Background: Provides a summary of how and why the
Hillside Residential Zone District and the Spraddle Creek Plat were created. The
outcome was a residential district with more restrictive massing, building
envelopes, strict environmental sensitivity regulations, and lower densities than
other residential districts; all of which will continue to regulate SCE even with
increased GRFA and Site Coverage.
■ P. 8-9 GRFA Study — Existing Plat: Provides a summary of the GRFA for all
the lots within Spraddle Creek, including existing GRFA (per Plat), GRFA
according to the HR District guidelines, and GRFA as if the lots were zoned
Single Family Residential. Note that the Hillside Residential Zone District is
more restrictive than the current plat allows.
■ P. 10-11 Site Coverage Study — Existing Plat: This study shows the differences
between the allowed Site Coverage (per Plat), the allowed Site Coverage per HR
zoning, and the allowed site coverage as if the lots were zoned Singe Family
Residential. Per town staff request, the relationship between lot size and and the
more restrictive building envelopes are also shown.
■ P. 12-13 Neighborhood Visibility: These images illustrate the how successful
Spraddle Creek Estates has been at limiting the visibility from the valley floor
compared to a typical hillside development in Vail.
■ P. 14-15 Sensitivity to Natural Landscape: This section describes several of the
ways in which the Design Guidelines further limit visual and environmental
impact at SCE.
■ P. 16 Request for Additional GRFA Explained: This spreadsheet shows the
requested amount of additional GRFA compared to the allowed Plat GRFA and
the GRFA allowed by HR zoning. Please note that the residents of Spraddle
Creek are proposing to "Cap" GRFA at 10, 000 SF, even though the Code would
ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS
Z E H R E N
AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
allow more area in many cases. The exception is Lot 14, which stays with its
current allowable GRFA per the Plat, since it is already very significant in size.
P.17 Request for Additional Site Coverage Explained: Provides a summary of
Site Coverage for all the lots within Spraddle Creek, including existing Site
Coverage (per Plat), Site Coverage according to HR District guidelines, and
Proposed Site Coverage (shown as outlined). Generally, the additional site
coverage proposed was equal to 50% of the additional GRFA Requested. We feel
this will limit the massing and sprawl of any new GRFA to 1.5 story additions in
most cases. Please note that the building envelope also restricts massing in
addition to site coverage.
P. 18-21 Case Studies: Per a TOV Staff request to study the effects of the
potential GRFA increase, we chose 4 typical lots within Spraddle Creek Estates
and illustrated the existing building footprint in relation to: the additional
proposed GRFA at 1.5 stories, proposed Site Coverage, and existing remaining
unused Site Coverage. This indicates that, in most cases, any additional GRFA
added would likely need to be more than 1 story to accommodate the massing and
site regulations.
As illustrated in this package, we feel that restricting Building Height, Massing,
Site Coverage, GRFA, Landscape, and Design Guidelines will continue to limit
the environmental and visual impacts of Spraddle Creek Estates in a responsible
way. This will ensure that the initial intent of the Plat and HR zone districts will
continue to be carried out, while also satisfying the desire for SCE residents to
have a GRFA relating more closely to the HR Code.
We appreciate the opportunity to present this material to you. If there are any questions,
please contact us.
Sincerely,
a
Dave Kaselak, A.I.A.
Principal
Zehren and Associates, Inc.
P. 970.949.0257
DaveKkZehren. com
Atch:
ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS
Z E H R E N
AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
1. 200713 SCE Joint Property Owner Signoff
2. 200713 SCE Owners List
3. 200713 SCE Adjacent Property Owners List
4. 200713 Spraddle Creek — PEC Presentation
5. Spraddle Creek Development Plat — Current
ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS
Lu
rhi
-v
O
E
O
U
*EEO
W)
W
^ l
O
O
E
N
4-d
V
C
oZ
w
E
.�
Q
�
x
LU
i
W
�
-i-+
CIO
ton
�A
CIO
n
Lu
rhi
-v
R
u
4<
V
tv
• O
^� N
4'.
ii #
r `
a�
-v
r.
M
CL
I
i
•
J
i
C�j
C�j
n
C�j . bJJ P� Cj
c/)
cnU
Q
CA
i�--I—I
O
.CIJ
re
i�
E
V ./,rJ
i
�
�
�
f
\ §
�
� /
\ 2 m
\
�
\ \ •- ® �
R �
�
Cj
&
Cj
E #
\
\. § 2
/
s?% 2
\ §
�
\\
\
2 \u =
E
u % m q •\
= a
Cj
u @ $ $ 2
/
f
C
oU
cd
N o
zs
>;
N
�
°
>
a�
C
CA
•�
N-�
�A
C�j
ap
a�
N
R
�
��Cj
°�
—
CA
j
C�jO
� �
>
•�
O
CJ
�
o
C�j
CA
CA
Cj
C�j
O
U
•�
Cj ,v
C
C�j
U
o
C�j
O
O
��
�•
CJ
it
N
U SCCsU.
N
C,J
N
• �
�
cd �
�
�
cd
•—
y
N
CA
.
I
ap
O
sD.oo
C6
CA
C�j
li
N
Z$
un
V
C
O
J
O
C
�JC�o CA
�~
.°
Un
C
un
o�CA�a
.�
C �.
�
C�jCj
un
0CA
0
���'C
,�
• �o
��
�
�
U�C�j
>
O
U
N
O
U
.�
0
O
U
uncd
O
un
^�
N
�
�
�
{
� ]
C
\ &•5
�
/ /
\
j
2
)
�
O
q \
� � w
k §
_ 2
§
� o
=
\
j
�
/
§
_n
®
-0 2 '\
k C
o
/ � » _
_
■
$ — @
�
q
§
/ 2
�*
c
\
'�
w
wo
, § j j
—
{
i ETM
�+
U
O
•�
4-a
�
�
O
O
�
_CG
N
Cd
N
CA
v
O
�
G�
v
...
cd
a
�
�
�
�
A
•�
O
O
N
c�
�
i ETM
0
ti
ti
.�0
O
MEMNON O
CL0 MEMO
o
U U
0 0
• MEMO
LU
No
O �
'MINIM'
to
`Iv
O
LL. U
Yv
N
U
LD
a
LD
rn a
w
LD
a
V
m
d
d
a
N v
x
a
C)
4 -1J
K
I
.ti
2
N
F
A
N
F
2
N
F
2
V1
F
T
V1
F
A
N
F
v
LL
a
X
LL
X
LL
m
N
LL
.moi
.0
o
N
x
.mr
�[
'�•
CC
�
5
ti
s
ai
• ti
1'
.i
D
L9
cl
�
CC
ry
m
0
C
5
ry
N
w
x
G
d' rn
v
v
o
tv
0
v
v
.ti
J
J
0
J
J
J
a
N
a
V1
a
N
2
N
a
VI
a
VI
L7
o
.�
cn
o
.�
H
o
._
N
❑
.n
a
.n
o
cc
M
^-
ac
M
c°
x
a
'
LL
o
LL
o
LL
o
a
s
a
o
LL
o
LC
L7
L7
L7
C7
[7
l7
ti
00
-IS
00
a
r
a
m
a
a
a
re
w
w
[�
0
cw
w
0
m
w
c�
C
0
w
c.�
r[
w
[�
r[tv
�
w
ro
v
v
v
v
v
•g
O
'a
O
'a
'�
O
s
Z
•p
n
12
O
j
O
ry
T
2
2
2
2
2
wi
L9
C7
l9
K
I
2
N
F
A
N
F
2
N
F
2
V1
F
T
V1
F
A
N
F
v
LL
a
X
LL
X
LL
m
N
LL
n
.0
o
N
LL
�[
'�•
LL
N
�y
M
w
�
1'
.i
D
w
w
cl
�
CC
ry
m
�
C
5
ry
N
w
x
G
d' rn
v
v
o
0
v
v
J
J
0
J
J
J
a
N
a
V1
a
N
2
N
a
VI
a
VI
K
I
N
F
N
F
N
F
V1
F
V1
F
N
F
N
M
Ln
v
v
o
0
v
v
J
J
0
J
J
J
K
I1
07 J
rY1 LL m LL^ LL 'o' LL^ LL a LL^ a u;
cc l7 Gc C7 Oz 0 s 0 M s 0 oc 0 n w C7
m m a
:s m a a
U V 19 u U U S
C C C C C C C
°i❑ m T T m 'S
v o n va o n s a v o r= n o TZ,
4
rV = N = V = N_ _ N_ _ N_ _ N = N_
a - 1� laL d' LL d' lai ca -
cc '* y cc r6Z x rri rri y r oc rri
x oc cc rr s
z 0 U W W
a m a a a a a a n a n a a ry¢ Q. a n
W Y T LL rr1 Y N iy Y rl �y Y
Me -nPy a m K n a fC N d ry d. eqd
b mcu 4 l7 m n c3 ^ L7 n c� cl cn °° nCO ch N v
a a ° v
va H n H 'A n n
v
ry
a
ry
v
a
j
a
j
a
d
VI
F
V1
F
fA
F
VI
F
N
F
N
F
N
F
p
o
o
a
a
a
a
00
0)
O
ri
SM
CT
LA
0
a
z
�
z
z
LL
LL
a
oc
re
ce
ce
oe
rr
n
o
0
0
0
0
0
'E
7E
'S
8
's
B
4
4
V
4
4
V
V
O
❑
IA
O
N
'mN
O
u]
O
u'1
❑
L^
a
a
ac
ao
ao
a
a o
v
a
0:
L7
[°C7
m
rY1 LL m LL^ LL 'o' LL^ LL a LL^ a u;
cc l7 Gc C7 Oz 0 s 0 M s 0 oc 0 n w C7
m m a
:s m a a
U V 19 u U U S
C C C C C C C
°i❑ m T T m 'S
v o n va o n s a v o r= n o TZ,
4
rV = N = V = N_ _ N_ _ N_ _ N = N_
a - 1� laL d' LL d' lai ca -
cc '* y cc r6Z x rri rri y r oc rri
x oc cc rr s
z 0 U W W
a m a a a a a a n a n a a ry¢ Q. a n
W Y T LL rr1 Y N iy Y rl �y Y
Me -nPy a m K n a fC N d ry d. eqd
b mcu 4 l7 m n c3 ^ L7 n c� cl cn °° nCO ch N v
a a ° v
va H n H 'A n n
A
r
v
ry
a
ry
v
a
j
a
j
a
d
VI
F
V1
F
fA
F
VI
F
N
F
N
F
N
F
p
o
o
a
a
a
a
00
0)
O
ri
SM
CT
LA
C)
n
f-4
n
o
0
0
0
0
0
A
r
v
iA
v
iA
0
ro
v
iA
v
0
v
iA
0
m
v
0
v
iA
v
0
d
iA
ti
a
U
y
d
O
m
a
V
H
ti
d
O
l
U
R
=
aj
-0i
di
U
ti ti
a
a
� �
W
O ti
00
m
N
r ^
VJ
a
aj
O
a
.ti
ti a4
aj
V
N
m
� �
.ti
�
a
in
�
O
r
v
iA
v
iA
0
ro
v
iA
v
0
v
iA
0
m
v
0
v
iA
v
0
d
iA
EW
M
E:
Mi
—
W
CT
az
Z
i ETM
-v
Cu
M
V
i
M
II05
!4
U
�
N
N
U s•"
�
ti
N N
� �
�
It
�
O
O
bJJ
U
U N
O
� �
O
pi
0
U
N
W
°2j
do
z
CA
w
C �.
�C�j
ti
�
O
V
-v
N
U s•"
�
ti
N N
� �
�
It
�
O
� �
U
U N
O
� �
O
pi
V
-v
Ask,.
Or
mommommommo I
O O
-1 O
CP O
r -i
O M
cMI Cl
Ol c -I
c -I
N 00
Ln Ln
. ..
O O
O O
O O
O O
ri ri
00 �o
N M
Ill O
r -i O
ri ri
�o r-
ri N
O 00
r- �o
O 00
O N
O 00
O 00
00
O r14
Ln 00
ri 00
ri
O 0)
N O
N M
U
V
U
U
a
a
a
a
W
a
a
a
a
'a
O
a
a
V
U
U
U
U
tA
U
O
O
(7
CL
o
s=.
O
a
0
a
a
a
�
�
0
0
O O
-1 O
CP O
r -i
O M
cMI Cl
Ol c -I
c -I
N 00
Ln Ln
. ..
O O
O O
O O
O O
ri ri
00 �o
N M
Ill O
r -i O
ri ri
�o r-
ri N
O 00
r- �o
O 00
O N
O 00
O 00
00
O r14
Ln 00
ri 00
ri
O 0)
N O
N M
U
V
U
U
a
a
a
a
'a
O
a
a
N
O
U
p[
tA
U
O
O
(7
CL
o
s=.
O
a
a
a
a
a
�
�
0
0
0
0
a
00
C
CAM
L
oo
R
M
ar
M
�}
O
W
V /
3
Z
A,
W
O O
-1 O
CP O
r -i
O M
cMI Cl
Ol c -I
c -I
N 00
Ln Ln
. ..
O O
O O
O O
O O
ri ri
00 �o
N M
Ill O
r -i O
ri ri
�o r-
ri N
O 00
r- �o
O 00
O N
O 00
O 00
00
O r14
Ln 00
ri 00
ri
O 0)
N O
N M
Ln r-
ri O
N O
O O
00 O
ri rn
N Ln
OIll
00 O
N 00
M 00
r- �o
Ln r -
O O
O M
O M
O -:F
ri ri
Ln N
� �
N Ln
ri N
00 O
N M
0) M
00 �t
ri
N MI.* LnIw NIM MIO O -'IN-I Rrq
*
FIN
I
-v
U
U
U
U
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
U
U
U
U
a
a
a
a
0
0
0
0
Ln r-
ri O
N O
O O
00 O
ri rn
N Ln
OIll
00 O
N 00
M 00
r- �o
Ln r -
O O
O M
O M
O -:F
ri ri
Ln N
� �
N Ln
ri N
00 O
N M
0) M
00 �t
ri
N MI.* LnIw NIM MIO O -'IN-I Rrq
*
FIN
I
-v
I- �t w Rt O Ln -i Ln Rt Rt Rt c
I, N Ln l0 l0 I, 00 00 J- m r -I c
m Rt l0 Ln N Ln I- r- 00 m l0 c
l0 00 I� � 00 l0 -:F � -:F � 00 c
r-
N M 00 N 00 Ln r -I I, -:i- M N K
N Ol 00 l0 O I, 00 Ln J- r -I M c
N N Il ci M Lr I� R:J 00 I� R:J a
I" M N 0) N l0 :1- 0) Tt O Tt t,
r -I r -I r -I r -I -i d
Rt 00 l0 r" O 0) -1 0) Rt 00 00 c
I- Ol l0 I- r- Ln 00 r -I Rt M r- c
l0 l0 r -I 0) M Rt r- Rt 00 00 O c
Ln I- i to Ln i I- Ln i �t to i Rt to i 00 c
N MI-* LnIw NI00 G1Io rlIN r.
�
I
-v
W
a
E
C
W
4�
o
L
�
0
0
V
tv
OQ
O
Ln
O
00
•�
U
a
N
LnN
�
ry)
Q
•�
a
x
O
O
ar
00
W
V /
J
E
3
Z
A,
W
I- �t w Rt O Ln -i Ln Rt Rt Rt c
I, N Ln l0 l0 I, 00 00 J- m r -I c
m Rt l0 Ln N Ln I- r- 00 m l0 c
l0 00 I� � 00 l0 -:F � -:F � 00 c
r-
N M 00 N 00 Ln r -I I, -:i- M N K
N Ol 00 l0 O I, 00 Ln J- r -I M c
N N Il ci M Lr I� R:J 00 I� R:J a
I" M N 0) N l0 :1- 0) Tt O Tt t,
r -I r -I r -I r -I -i d
Rt 00 l0 r" O 0) -1 0) Rt 00 00 c
I- Ol l0 I- r- Ln 00 r -I Rt M r- c
l0 l0 r -I 0) M Rt r- Rt 00 00 O c
Ln I- i to Ln i I- Ln i �t to i Rt to i 00 c
N MI-* LnIw NI00 G1Io rlIN r.
�
I
-v
a�
E
a)
R
�o
V
Q
Q
W
E
E
(D
z
O
z
O
H
,�' cd cd
C�jC�j}
O„
O
O
0�'
C
p
a)
E
�
p�
Q U)
QW 0LU
��
Q
CO
z
cF
Q
I rts
0�
<
pW
�W
N O O
C�ja� cd r
N
�
W
W z
W>Ur
0OOto
U
z�
U
C,J`�U'
m
(O l0
OHO
ioLL0
rl
ri
> U'
O
W
��o
C) UJ
xt
()>
XO
H D U
U
J
0- (D Q
dCn
W U
mc
m c
m c
� r
U-
or Cu
I
N
o E
Q c
rts c
LL d Z
C
C
LL N f
� C
V' w o
0
ao
C
.3
❑0
CL
txo
ai
c
0
n rn ti
cp N Il
(O N O n
N I, d N
Q
Of
(7 Q
W
N a) 0 .O
h
Q
W Q
C
b (7 E
co: by Y D
O c
N
Q w U
0
a) ao
ho m
N L
a) v
h0 7 O
fu O U
O U
O a) +2
U
a) U) 3
rts v
in z
Y
N 6 Y
p O
C Q H
D C
QoD
O E
h Q .
— O m
LU d
fu
h0
c
O
a)
c
a)
CL
a)
rn
N
O0
ci
t'
E
a)
�o
V
Q
U-
E
E
(D
O
O
C
p
a)
E
�
v
Q
I rts
ti
Q
a1
m v
co Ln
v
m
m
cn
v v
rn
m
m
(O l0
N
rl
ri
0
a) ao
ho m
N L
a) v
h0 7 O
fu O U
O U
O a) +2
U
a) U) 3
rts v
in z
Y
N 6 Y
p O
C Q H
D C
QoD
O E
h Q .
— O m
LU d
fu
h0
c
O
a)
c
a)
CL
a)
rn
N
O0
ci
t'
07 n
a�
Q
w
Cj
^
iT^�I
P:
Q N
L.IO0
LU
N
Q
U)
Q LLI
Q
Q
COQ
v=/
O `J
0 Ln
<
cl
� L LI
N O C7
Cj cd
N
� 01)
M
W
LL I z
LLO
LLLLI
>U
0O
Ur
Z<
`J
O
O
v a� Zs>
> O
O
U
W
p LLLL 0
E x o
p LLQ
x tz
co>
X0
H D U
U
J
a- (D Q
a- (/)
LLC)
N
M
rti
�J u
L
Id
U
w
min' ol'3� " m olm
LL LL
� LL
(D CC
3 E
O E
aY
n
fo c
LL Z
C u
C
LL N C
�. C
(7 LL Q
LL
or
LL
or
v (D l
O a
Q
O LL 7 e
Of C
fu !
C UO a+
x
¢ Lu u e
LL
or
(D
fu
C
O
N
c -I
C
'o UD ul
� cp tfi V ti ti
y 34 Arc.+ `.
� J
v
CLO
m
v
7
O
U
0
in a
0)
O a
L Q J
0 � T
a
� d u
[l0 -
� C C
� � a
I
rnA
1 LL L
a)
L10
fu
a)
110
O
O V
0 -
O
V in
a)
in c
O
a)
C a
D
LLO N
C
N Q
X O
LU a
v
CLO
m
v
7
O
U
+)
in
v
z
�o
0
F
E
7
E
X
a�
R
QQ
W
z
O
z
O
H
-�4 cd cd
C�jC�j}
C0
LU
-O N
0 �
Q U)
Cl w
0 C�
Q<
CO
z
o 4 `J
0Lq
cl LLI
�W
N O O
C�ja� cd r
N
�
M
W
W z
W>Ur
0OOto
U
z�
U
C,J`�CD
OHO
pLLo pw
ca>
H D U
U
J
0- (D Q
a- (/)
W U
\ \ \\ I \\- " �' �- , I �'\� �,' �' <
n c
rq c
r
L.LL G
u
a
3 Q CL�
ac
0 C
LL a- 7
.�,. qp 4
C
C
LL N f
� C
(7 LL a
n a
rn a
Ln �
N
txoC
.3
ED
K
txo
X
c
O
m Ln Ln
n o 0)ci W N c I
m LO N m
Q
or
0 Q
V� (' O
N
rL
Wa- ft 7 Q
C
6 o 7 E
C qp Y 7
O c E
ZI
cN
Q LL U C
N
h0
N
tLo N
O
D O U
O
U
fu
Ln C
O
N
c Q
7 6
QO h
c O
LLO
LU
L
� d
07 n
a�
O _
C � i
Cj
a�
Q
w
._O O
z
O
z
O
cn
,�' cd r cd
^�
� 0
P }
0 �'
�
0
-O - N
�"
< �
Q U)
Q LLJ
p (D
Q
CO
z
rr ��
O -0
L
<
� w
� W
N V O
a� cd
N
�
M
W
w— z
w>
0OO
!n CD
z<
`J
OHO
LL
v Zs>
> O
O
U
W
p o
E x o
p w
x tz
U)>
X0
H T U
U
J
d U' Q
d In
W U
k,5
fu _ Yw -i .
fu _] _
m OI -1 (❑ VI-, 1.
l❑ O m "I V c -I
N n N m n �
rl c -I N f` -1 N 1-1
U-
� LL
(D L
o E
Q n
+� c
rs e
LL � Z
ao a
Qc
LL N C
0 C
V' w ❑
Q
W
K
0 <
v cD ,O
O
Q +
v a
LL 7 Q
or
C
(7 D E
C qo ZI
v
6 N L X
fo
Q w U
E
a)
ao
hOo N
fu O
a) U
U+2
U)
°' fu
fn C
O
C Q
CL
Q� N
O
X L
W d
t
O _
C � i
a�
a�
m OI -1 (❑ VI-, 1.
l❑ O m "I V c -I
N n N m n �
rl c -I N f` -1 N 1-1
U-
� LL
(D L
o E
Q n
+� c
rs e
LL � Z
ao a
Qc
LL N C
0 C
V' w ❑
Q
W
K
0 <
v cD ,O
O
Q +
v a
LL 7 Q
or
C
(7 D E
C qo ZI
v
6 N L X
fo
Q w U
E
a)
ao
hOo N
fu O
a) U
U+2
U)
°' fu
fn C
O
C Q
CL
Q� N
O
X L
W d
t
CG
N O
'2 u
C
'i,
u
0
r
.........
------------
......-.... I ... ---. .1— —
----------------------
................ ..............
- ------------
....... ---
----------- ...... -
------------- ... ... -----------
(s .— '. s—) '\, .0. 3NII HZ)iVlq
3 Zl.11 M S
— — — — — - — — — —
VI/
IS
IL I
m
-b
in Is
m
8
M
\
\''
�nnmimnnn.'_M.'.mm`mR£"J.S��dal%de Y.'Cn�nnPo nmr'=e�mm
W
,'�
I I/e/G
H
/f/// \1 \ 1 o
I 1 I
------------
s'J:ue.am:u�e'v�wwwwwwwmmi..i..:.'e'e va.me. �n in_in�mwwwwwwww
� ��.ry�..'a...ui_6S%;aa=__nvnvevvnnn n,un�.,em^J �'WSr4%
a$
�3
1
I 5 / m
zsm Pip-
------ ---Pm�mPa��s^.:ePa�a^ca
/ d,
� j kl
n- on:emmm�mm^.gp���GGGov0000GGorvrv�Y�:e::'k:
,I�1
�/
.+t=L 3 yL.11[10 S
zsc
Ia
z�oa z hb .eo oeL
g m�wNmem
.8. 3NI-1 HO1VW
J _ Po_�^^�c�sw^°^
I
�
[Ty
#
V. 3Nn HO1VW
e
�•�
W�
I I
ye � � , a, , /
I
i
r
�W O W
A
I
l; ,
r
r
a
I
/ 8
�
'
-
Wssoo
Ey—
r\
/
x
� s
r_
.OB'lYll M jGILQO
V. 3Nn
N6Y�
HO1VW
�
E-
$
a
Bm
m
�Re�
agR
VEEV
Vail
August 3° 2020
Josh Bowens -Rubin
ZEHREN and Associates
48 E Beaver Creek Blvd.
Avon, CO 81620
Dear Josh,
Spraddle Creek Estates Maintenance Association
914 Spraddle Creek Road
Vail, Colorado 81 6S7
970 • 479 • 2900
This letter serves as written approval from the HOA of Spraddle Creek acknowledging the revision to
the Platt Exemption Request for the changes as follows:
Revision of site coverage for Lots 7, 8, 10, and 15 to be as allowed by the Hillside Residential Code.
The proposed site coverage will be as follows
Lot 7 6,575
(1,116 SF additional from Plat)
Lot 8 4,781
(Same as Plat)
Lot 10 4,844
(Same as Plat)
Lot 15 3,839
(Same as Plat)
Sincerely,
William T. Esrey
President, Spraddle Creek Estates Maintenance Association
MEMORANDUM
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: June 11, 2007
SUBJECT: A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council regarding
changes to the prescribed zoning regulations, pursuant to Section 12-3-7,
Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to Section 12-6A-9, Site
Coverage, Vail Town Code (Hillside Residential District), to increase allowable
site coverage from 15% to 20%, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC07-0013)
Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by
Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates
Planner: Warren Campbell
I. SUMMARY
The applicant, Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave
Kaselak of Zehren and Associates, is requesting a final recommendation to the Vail
Town Council regarding the prescribed zoning regulations, pursuant to Section 12-3-7,
Amendment, Vail Town Code (Hillside Residential District), to allow for modifications to
Section 12-6A-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to increase allowable site coverage
• from 15% to 20%. The rationale behind the applicant's request is to allow for greater
flexibility in the design and construction of new residences and additions within the
subdivision and to bring the zone district into greater alignment with the changes made
to Section 12-21-14.E.1, Restrictions In Specific Zones On Excessive Slopes, Vail Town
Code, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2006, which eliminated the site
coverage reduction on steep slopes from 20% to 15%, but limited the disturbed area of
the site to 60%.
Staff is recommending that the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a
recommendation of approval of this application subject to the findings and criteria
outlined in Section VI of this memorandum.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave
Kaselak of Zehren and Associates, is requesting a final recommendation to the Town
Council regarding the prescribed zoning regulations, pursuant to Section 12-3-7,
Amendment, Vail Town Code (Hillside Residential District), to allow for modifications to
Section 12-6A-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to increase allowable site coverage
from 15% to 20%.
The proposed text amendment is as follows:
(deletions are shown in strike thFeuglVadditions are shown bold)
Section 12-6A-9, Site Coverage:
Site Coverage shall not exceed fifteen twenty percent (45 20%) of the
total site area.
III. BACKGROUND
On January 15, 1985, the property comprising Spraddle Creek Estates, approximately •
39.55 acres was annexed into the Town of Vail.
On November 18, 1986, the Town of Vail adopted the Land Use Plan which identified
Spraddle Creek Estates as being, within the Hillside Residential land use designation.
The plan identified Spraddle Creek Estates as the single property within this land use
designation within Town boundaries.
On October 26, 1987, through the adoption of Ordinance 38, Series of 1987, the Town of
Vail created and imposed the Hillside Residential District on Spraddle Creek Estates.
Town Staff developed the Hillside Residential District in response to the the adoption of
the Land Use Plan.
On April 17, 1991, the Design Review Board granted final approval to the development
of Spraddle Creek Estates. This approval was for roadway design, retaining walls
design, landscaping of entry and common parcels, and a design standards handbook for
the subdivision.
On February 24, 1992, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved several
variances for retaining wall height and roadway grades in excess of those permitted.
On July 12, 1993, a minor subdivision was approved by the Planning and Environmental
Commission to adjust the shared lot line between Lots 14 and 15 to increase the size of
Lot 15 to allow for a primary unit and a care taker unit on the lot.
On September 7, 1993, the Town of Vail adopted Ordinance 11, Series 1993, which •
rezoned Tract C of Spraddle Creek Estates from Greenbelt and Natural Open Space
District to Single Family District in order to permanently restrict the lot as an employee
housing unit (gate keeper house).
On April 5, 1995, the Design Review Board approved a change to the Residential
Design regulations for Spraddle Creek to allow for glass expanses in excess of 36 feet.
On June 22, 1998, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved an
amendment to the Spraddle Creek Estates plat to allow for interior conversions to
residences which complied with the regulations.
On August 1, 2006, the Town Council, through the adoption of Ordinance No. 17, series
of 2006, approved the following changes to the Section 12-21-14E, Restrictions In
Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code. These amendments do apply to
properties zoned Hillside Residential District.
The proposed text amendments were as follows:
(Deletions are shown in stFikethFeegh/additions are shown bold)
Section 12-21-14E. RESTRICTIONS /N SPECIFIC ZONES ON EXCESSIVE
SLOPES:
0
4 of the site aFea may b
Housing Unit in aGGerdanGe w4h Ghapter- 13 of this T49, in whiGh rw-ese
bu#dings and
2
2-:-1. Not more than ten percent (1091o) of the total site area may be covered by
driveways and surface parking.
• 2. In order to protect the natural land form and vegetation on steep
slopes, not more than sixty percent (60%) of the total site area may
be disturbed from present conditions by construction activities. The
Design Review Board (DRB) may approve site disturbance in excess
of the sixty percent (60%) maximum if specific design criteria
warrant the extent of the requested deviation.
On April 9, 2007, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed this request in
a work session and generally expressed support for the change as it would treat
properties zoned Hillside Residential District in a manor consistent with other residential
districts. The Commission did express that within the Spraddle Creek Estates
subdivision, because of lot sizes, there was a concern about the regulations found in
Section 12-21-14E, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town
Code, and there applicability within the subdivision (60% maximum site disturbance).
The Commission suggested that a restriction limiting the amount of site disturbance be
put in place on the plat to limit the amount of site area that could be disturbed during
development of the lots.
IV. APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS
Vail Town Code
12-3-7: Amendment: (in part)
• A. Prescription: The regulations prescribed in this title and the boundaries of the zone
districts shown on the official zoning map may be amended, or repealed by the town
council in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this chapter.
•
B. Initiation:
1. An amendment of the regulations of this title or a change in zone district
boundaries may be initiated by the town council on its own motion, by the
planning and environmental commission on its own motion, by petition of any
resident or property owner in the town, or by the administrator.
2. A petition for amendment of the regulations or a change in zone district
boundaries shall be filed on a form to be prescribed by the administrator. The
petition shall include a summary of the proposed revision of the regulations, or a
complete description of proposed changes in zone district boundaries and a map
indicating the existing and proposed zone district boundaries. If the petition is for a
change in zone district boundaries, the petition shall include a list of the owners of
al/ properties within the boundaries of the area to be rezoned or changed, and the
property adjacent thereto. The owners' list shall include the names of all owners,
their mailing and street addresses, and the legal description of the property owned
by each. Accompanying the list shall be stamped, addressed envelopes to each
owner to be used for the mailing of the notice of hearing. The petition also shall
include such additional information as prescribed by the administrator.
3
Vail Land use Plan (in part)
HR - Hillside Residential •
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.
Spraddle Creek Residential Design Regulations Dated July 30, 1993 (in part)
BUILDING ENVELOPE
The building envelope is the portion of each lot within which all improvements must be
built including buildings, accessory buildings, site walls, fences, screens, recreational
improvements, etc. Landscaping may occur outside the building envelope.
A building envelope has been established for each lot based on the natural topography
and features on the lot, views, and relationship to adjacent building envelopes. The
purpose of the envelope is to reduce uncertainty of neighbors as to which view corridors
might be impacted by future construction, and to help insure that structures blend in with
the surrounding landscape, rather than dominate it. Owners should refer to Spraddle
Creek Estates final plat in order to clarify lot property boundaries, building envelope,
allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA), etc.
With the prior written approval of the Town of Vail Design Review Board (TOVDRB), •
encroachments outside the building envelope may be permitted for driveways, drainage
structures, utility installations, sidewalks, and garages that meet the requirements of the
Town of Vail Municipal Code.
V. SITE ANALYSIS
This analysis is provided for the Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision, as it is currently the
only subdivision containing properties zoned Hillside Residential District.
Lot Summary Chart, as found on the Spraddle Creek Estates plat, in part:
Parcel Area Max. Max. Proposed Max. Proposed Max.
GRFA Site Coverage GRFA Site Coverage
Lot 1
87,499 s.f.
7,333 s.f
6,483 s.f.
9,050 s.f.
8,001 s.f.
Lot 2
48,146 s.f.
6,524 s.f.
5,674 s.f.
8,079 s.f.
7,026 s.f.
Lot 3
88,619 s.f.
8,548 s.f.
7,698 s.f.
10,000 s.f.
9,006 s.f.
Lot 4
85,250 s.f.
7,016 s.f.
6,166 s.f.
8,669 s.f.
7,619 s.f.
Lot 5
61,082 s.f.
6,827 s.f.
5,977 s.f.
8,442 s.f.
7,391 s.f.
Lot 6
82,050 s.f.
8,220 s.f.
7,370 s.f.
10,000 s.f.
8,966 s.f.
Lot 7
43,833 s.f.
6,309 s.f.
5,459 s.f.
7,821 s.f.
6,767 s.f.
Lot 8
31,873 s.f.
5,711 s.f.
4,781 s.f.
7,103 s.f.
6,375 s.f.
Lot 9
63,044 s.f.
7,269 s.f.
6,419 s.f.
8,973 s.f.
7,924 s.f.
Lot 10
32,296 s.f.
5,732 s.f.
4,844 s.f.
7,128 s.f.
6,459 s.f.
Lot 11
71,419 s.f.
7,688 s.f.
6,838 s.f.
9.476 s.f.
8,428 s.f. •
Lot 12
96,213 s.f.
8,928 s.f.
8,078 s.f.
10,000 s.f.
9,048 s.f.
Lot 14
277,500 s.f.
13,904 s.f.
13,054 s.f.
No Change
No Change
4
Lot 15
34,118 s.f.
6,726 s.f.
3,839 s.f.
6,726 s.f.
5,119 s.f.
Tract A
337,222 s.f.
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tract B
5,151 s.f.
NA
NA
NA
NA
• Tract C
47,279 s.f..
1,900 s.f.
2,200 s.f.
No Change
No Change
Tract D
152,918 s.f.
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tract E
6,231 s.f.
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tract F
68,762 s.f.
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tract G
2,394 s.f.
NA
NA
NA
NA
* There is no Lot 13
VI. CRITERIA
The review criteria and factors for consideration for a request of a text amendment are
established in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-3, Vail Town Code. As this
is a work session staff has not addressed the following criteria. The following criteria will
be fully addressed at the hearing in which the Planning and Environmental Commission
will be asked to forward a recommendation on to the Town Council.
1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific
purposes of the Zoning Regulations; and,
On August 1, 2006, the Vail Town Council, through the adoption of Ordinance
No. 17, series of 2006, approved the following changes to the Section 12-21-
14E, Restrictions In Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code.
• The proposed text amendments were as follows:
(Deletions are shown in s#fike-through/additions are shown bold)
Section 12-21-14E: RESTRICTIONS /N SPECIFIC ZONES ON EXCESSIVE
SLOPES:
i. Not more than Meen per -Gent 0
O of the site area may bHousing Unit in aGGGr4aRGe w4h Chapter- 43 of this P#e, in K44� Gase
.not MOre than twenty peFGept 0
) of the site aFea may be Ge�eeFed by
kgs, -and
2-1. Not more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area may be covered by
driveways and surface parking.
2. In order to protect the natural land form and vegetation on steep
slopes, not more than sixty percent (60%) of the total site area may
be disturbed from present conditions by construction activities. The
Design Review Board (DRB) may approve site disturbance in excess
of the sixty percent (60%) maximum if specific design criteria
warrant the extent of the requested deviation.
This amendment to the Chapter 21, Hazard Regulations, Vail Town Code, was
adopted as it was felt that the previous regulation was not accomplishing the
intent of protecting the natural features of a site. The text amendment above was
identified to apply to properties zoned Hillside Residential District.
is The Hillside Residential District was adopted subsequent to the adoption of the
Vail Land Use Plan and the properties within the Spraddle Creek Estates
5
subdivision played a large roll in the development of the zone district even
though the regulations could be applied to other properties within town as long as
they would meet the prescriptions of the District. Staff believes the 15% •
maximum site coverage prescription found within the Hillside Residential District
reflected what Section 12-21-14E, Restrictions In Specific Zones on Excessive
Slopes, Vail Town Code, stated prior to its recent change.
Furthermore, when the Spraddle Creek Estates was platted, the reviewing
authorities identified that 15% maximum site coverage would result in much more
allowable site coverage on the large lots within the Spraddle Creek Subdivision
than would be preferred. To alleviate this concern building envelopes were
platted to control the location of structures on the lots and site coverage
maximums were reduced be below the 15% maximum allowed under Hillside
Residential District zoning.
To alleviate the concerns of the Planning and Environmental Commission at its
April 9, 2007, hearing regarding allowing a maximum of 20% site coverage, the
applicant has revised the Lot Summary Chart on the proposed amended final plat
to restrict site coverage maximums and has added Note Number 2 to the plat
addressing "site disturbance concerns". Note 2 reads as follows:
"The maximum site disturbance shall not exceed the total area maximums
of the building envelope. Furthermore, site disturbance shall not extend
more than 157' outside the building envelope, as defined by this plat and
as limited by the size of the building envelope. Additional limited site
disturbance may be allowed for site landscaping and site retainage with
the approval of the authorities having jurisdiction. Driveway and utility •
access will be permitted in addition to the maximum site disturbance if the
impact to the site is kept to a minimum. "
Staff believes that the proposed text amendment furthers the general and
specific purposes of Chapter 21, Hazard Regulations, Vail Town Code, and how
it relates to the implementation of the Hillside Residential District.
2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better
achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and
policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the
development objectives of the Town; and,
As stated above, the proposed text amendment to the Hillside Residential District
would better implement the changes made to Section 12-21-14E, Restrictions In
Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, in April of 2006, as the
goal and objective of protecting sites from excessive disturbance is better
achieved with the revisions made to the text.
Staff believes this proposed text amendment meets this criterion.
3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions
have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation
and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable;
and,
Staff believes the change made to Section 12-21-14E, Restrictions In Specific •
Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, in April of 2006, demonstrates how
2
conditions have substantially changed, as the 15% site coverage limitation was
tied to the previous requirement of Section 12-21-14E, Restrictions In Specific
• Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code.
Staff believes this proposed text amendment complies with this criterion.
.7
4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious,
convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent
with municipal development objectives; and,
Staff believes this proposed text amendment will better implement the
requirements of the Hazard Regulations chapter as the treatment of residential
zoned properties will be more uniform.
Staff believes this proposed text amendment complies with this criterion.
5. Such other factors and criteria the Commission and/or Council deems
applicable to the proposed text amendment.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and
Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval, of the request for
a recommendation to the Town Council regarding changes to the prescribed zoning
regulations, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for
modifications to Section 12-6A-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code (Hillside Residential
District), to increase allowable site coverage from 15% to 20%, and setting forth details
in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in
Section VI of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this exemption
plat, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the
following motion:
"The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of
approval, pursuant to Chapter 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for
modifications to Section 12-6A-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code (Hillside
Residential District), to increase allowable site coverage from 15% to 20%, and
setting forth details in regard thereto. "
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this final plat
amendment request, the Community Development Department recommends the
Commission makes the following findings:
1. That the proposed text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of
the Zoning Regulations.
2. That the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the
applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the
Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of
the Town.
7
3. That the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially
changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing
regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable. .
4. That the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable
relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development
objectives.
VIII. ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity Map
B. Reduced copy of recorded plat
C. Public Notice
•
•
L*1
4
9
a
4
u
I
m
A'Ar
Il
1�
7VWNV OF VAIL
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the
Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town
Code, on, April 9, 2007, at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in
consideration of:
A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12,
Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of an entry
feature, located at 292 East Meadow Drive (Mountain Haus), part of Tract B, Vail Village
Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0012)
Applicant: Vail Estates, represented by Paul Smith
Planner: Bill Gibson
A request for final review of the prescribed zoning regulations, pursuant to Section 12-3-
7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to Section 12-6A-9, Site
Coverage, Vail Town Code, to increase allowable site coverage from 15% to 20%,
Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, located at 914 through 1326 Spraddle Creek Road,
Lots 1-15, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0013) •
Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave
Kaselak of Zehren and Associates
Planner: Warren Campbell
A request for final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12,
Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to platted
gross residential floor area and site coverage limitations, located at 914 Spraddle Creek
Road, Lots 1-15, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC07-0014)
Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave
Kaselak of Zehren and Associates
Planner: Warren Campbell
A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12,
Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the platted building
envelope (Lot 1), within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1677 Buffehr Creek
Road/Lots 1, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC07-0015)
Applicant: Doug Weltner
Planner: Warren Campbell
is
Attachment C Page 1
• A recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to a Special
Development District (SDD), pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures,
Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Special Development District No. 4,
Cascade Village, to allow for a new development area located at Tract K, Glen Lyon
Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0017)
Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson
Planners: Bill Gibson
•
•
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection
during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South
Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that
precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department.
Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information.
Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour notification. Please
call 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
Published March 23, 2007, in the Vail Daily.
Page 2
Wtlg(E9 �Y
frPUa^Y�SY el. ! �I 9E
fi
Z - frn€S[ 4+'� sk " 5 YSc81x
- 38¢C
E
O
H
Cl) O
Wow
W tk 3 &$
1!NIS
E CC m 8 { S
RxdY b Y pxSEY'�$
►-� x g€ aYx a€x fr Pz a p
��" x8� fr2C5°6ab G g
.1f7 z
5J1 z
O F.,
E�
O
W
U2
O_ :7'�.-M
0.t s
`bYg$#YS$��66«Y t
NpSR$..
S R$k Yx bRaS Ik8°
wholapKI
$ESgg� CSR -qpgy �6
akp xE�$b YF'..
` �1fr� �yySY�R fr3� R
aim
m
Q
str
:a3 kP
Yxs E §es 3's s s
LC
YY 4
a
�amf4h�g
=
{S.
FR 3[E5k SE ekR E�tm3
«BSlb
� 58° fil
5 9�x
505'
� 888888fr isi
p E 5 Sp 8 8§ S& t 6
„
aj k�
aim
m
Q
str
:a3 kP
Yxs E §es 3's s s
a
�amf4h�g
=
{S.
FR 3[E5k SE ekR E�tm3
«BSlb
i'
m
p E 5 Sp 8 8§ S& t 6
„
_ Oji
"e� �`y$ ,. ^.R.€�.
5 § Bm£-
§YhYLY
gg
�' b t
e1 1C8ffi8C%� : g`RnNai`�{Y��d
:�ffi
LASS Efi �9.5$;fr 58 ��
gg
'E � YE % Rhghgtp v«g bS��N§� ^§
gget.
8
ss ssssnn._UM,
Q = d
€ x3aY..:R3xs�3sc:G9iRR»x3H^:aecRFd::q�a¢$asSmcRacaccaLxaY� c: a.Ltxx¢q �
G:.SLS`=AYRSNSNYSxRY:L$R.RRSGGSYY�LR_R_HRSRRRS::xdRS«RRR3RRLYe"^OLd F
5 HxCI:3d3RA»$R�YN=$xX3i63XLA3Y"xR^_�$dxY$Y¢_:'_RR6xx.R:+LR$AkG^_x1«RnR!3 $
5 S�3S"1A&SSSRe'$-a69�gSF6^_::a:S:GywSm2Y-¢�RSaSm1YR3::^3=Rp9CHHSaa^=Y3:
__ .".,.C='YYY'_•'.3.". CiRdnRaGRARde=:1_....ifl........G^7C.="SS^.�-.^.:�M'"9M'�AB�S4�_^W R
` SRdRRY&.....3Y.......Ea&xxx&ASS..SRM6XR..................... - -
8 ."... w.6.C.'...:.3.:.^+.._».w.X.�`Ade93RL�a.R&YCBFi ::K%YF
� "«,.::.«...,"...": www w"»"w.:::..""":
e RRRR$».AF6.1¢FFR:Wxw'»:SRxxLxR:na¢R^_Sd�:»oRm9»»:w:R.3R»x1t6.9R8`__:Rr 8 .
� § �a:rez3axr�esurxs>asitila:Baas:®aeas_�xpazRsa:s�P:ea��aa�as�am_ :sus
g H33$»3$$$33o»oa»o.»o3»33$33333$33$3e3333333$$3$3$3$$333$$$$$$L3R3 -
2 ��i�s_dri°$E'c=`c$5-$�"EEgrF»cc-u�ec3�_2_s.»3.g�s3aa3ss33.3:FF$a._.eee -
B:=Y3sxa$'sKt:=„
...........
................................
3 :-•3.^.^�«^»9»L.^.^^.SLS°'"-'3RGS»_... «FC_.-3$3x11°.31--^^YRF3:FY._�»$-'SAR
W�
(M 8 ao srrel A, 3Nn Hom
bl'Oi£l 3 LlL dR 5
;�—� $ •sem'` w$ �"
/i'
M.N.
�
15.
�� i / - , �� o� � ' i �yr,/" '�'a;�� •��'X *T �/ / �. " Ire-
g I IS I
a I
x p
s I I
AR'1911 M yLLT�R N
.
V. 3Nf1 HO1VW
a
N s'e
O
I
I
,y
/
1264
1TT►``1
y
F-�
/ mas
sr .ttm
r
rL .�t srpi
K'
R9
I
�
/
I
E-4
w
O
d6LRLl MAZ lUOR��
C
'g V. 3Nn HOLM
x^
H
� 31„sm I
I
I i
O
'
O
I
i
,
s
W o
I
1
i
LCOo
o
w
/
E+
/
o
W a
b ,
,
A
/
w /
^
�P�-4
..
O
s ���:xpP�g�a�„eaxsPF��Esaaq:c>;gRcexa:=sx>"gs
tt RRRXRFR_RRP R eRnCR #R p # $#..P RaP EA
d P ria Rsca:PRn ppaSRR�R R$sag _��: sxs:n
xp Rpp! a s�Ass sRR3 T 6sgP Asyykaita�az.
AG SP SEp#F ARRTR@ YTTSSR##R6 SRR p
s a R&Pck se aPs E� 6 as xw
gg s �paxa sXxsR szePa$F� Ta>wa sARxs #.c_�
8€'x- naTgms� An#a P'ffiRp'gA ssa R-s:sTaA6s:#
� �evae� sesRSRaaaaasapaReRReeasaoe$aPRSR$E$
naffiR PR PP Tq:P�g�ggpg_P$WxR_ffi�_R$�PR®gnti
S �A R P T^_aa nn #AW&RIX aEBp nLk:RY$CTIX9
- w RPA RRRR m:^1EffiR6$RT ��S�N£:S^^=
.. � cop a FCs`cccc.,,,.,,.�...,oes08&06B&6¢cgS3II$6e�sEe .
& Fz
11
N
,y
/
1
E-4
w
O
d6LRLl MAZ lUOR��
C
'g V. 3Nn HOLM
x^
F
a
s
s ���:xpP�g�a�„eaxsPF��Esaaq:c>;gRcexa:=sx>"gs
tt RRRXRFR_RRP R eRnCR #R p # $#..P RaP EA
d P ria Rsca:PRn ppaSRR�R R$sag _��: sxs:n
xp Rpp! a s�Ass sRR3 T 6sgP Asyykaita�az.
AG SP SEp#F ARRTR@ YTTSSR##R6 SRR p
s a R&Pck se aPs E� 6 as xw
gg s �paxa sXxsR szePa$F� Ta>wa sARxs #.c_�
8€'x- naTgms� An#a P'ffiRp'gA ssa R-s:sTaA6s:#
� �evae� sesRSRaaaaasapaReRReeasaoe$aPRSR$E$
naffiR PR PP Tq:P�g�ggpg_P$WxR_ffi�_R$�PR®gnti
S �A R P T^_aa nn #AW&RIX aEBp nLk:RY$CTIX9
- w RPA RRRR m:^1EffiR6$RT ��S�N£:S^^=
.. � cop a FCs`cccc.,,,.,,.�...,oes08&06B&6¢cgS3II$6e�sEe .
& Fz
11
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 11, 2007
SUBJECT: A request for final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-
12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for
modifications to platted gross residential floor area and site coverage
limitations, located at 914 through 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1-15,
Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC07-0014)
Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association,
represented by Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates
Planner: Warren Campbell
SUMMARY
The applicant, Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by
Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates, is requesting final review of amended final
plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town
Code, to allow for modifications to platted gross residential floor area and site
coverage limitations, located at 914 through 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1-15,
Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision. The purpose of the proposed plat is to amend
the Lot Summary Chart included on the plat which identifies the maximum gross
residential floor area (GRFA) and maximum site coverage on each lot within the
subdivision. The applicant is proposing to amend the Lot Summary Chart to increase
the maximum GRFA and site coverage allowed on each lot.
Staff is recommending that the Planning and Environmental Commission approves,
with a condiiton this amended final plat subject to the findings and criteria outlined
in Section VIII of this memorandum.
II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The applicant, Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by
Dave Kaselak of Zehren and Associates, is requesting final review of amended final
plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town
Code, to allow for modifications to platted gross residential floor area and site
coverage limitations. The proposed amendments would allow for a greater
maximum GRFA and site coverage being allowed upon each lot within the
subdivision. A vicinity map is attached depicting the subject properties (Attachment
A).
10 When Spraddle Creek Estates was platted the Lot Summary Chart was included
upon the plat depicting the configurations of the lots and building envelopes, as it
was a goal of the developer and the Town to maintain greater control over the sizes
of the homes which could be constructed upon the lots. This greater need for control
over the sizes of the structures which could be constructed resulted from the fact that
several of the lots were platted quite large and with allowable GRFA being directly
proportional to lot size the sizes of the structures would have been of a size, bulk,
and mass, which was deemed undesirable in the Town. Another reason for the
restriction to both maximum GRFA and site coverage was the fact the Spraddle
Creek Estates subdivision is located on some very steep grades. The combination
of restricting maximum GRFA, site coverage, and platting building envelopes,
resulted in a situation where steep grades could be protect and development would
be more predictable in terms of location on the lots and bulk and mass. Staff has
attached for the reference the memorandum to the Commission dated February, 11,
1991, and the Minutes from that hearing where the Commission approved the final
plat for Spraddle Creek Estates (Attachment D).
The applicant believes the proposed amendments to the Lot Summary Chart are
warranted as there were changes made to GRFA within the Hillside Residential
district with the adoption of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2004, that they are unable to
utilize and there were changes made to the Hazard Regulations chapter of the Code
through the adoption of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2006, which eliminated the
restriction on site coverage from 20% to 15% on steep slopes within the residential
zone districts. It should be noted that the maximum allowable site coverage within
the Hillside Residential district has been a maximum of '15% since the adoption of
the district; however, the maximum allowable site coverage on each lot was
restricted to square footages below what the size of the lots would allow for the
reasons stated above.
The applicant has included a letter and several exhibits fully explaining how each lot
is proposed to be adjusted in terms of maximum allowable GRFA and maximum
allowable site coverage. This documentation is attached (Attachment B). In all
cases the applicant is proposing to restrict the maximum allowable GRFA at or below
what would be permitted on each lot based on the size of each lot. The maximum
allowable GRFA is proposed to be capped at 10,000 square feet, with the exception
of Lot 14 which would have no change in GRFA, but would be capped at 13,904
square feet. Please reference Exhibit A of the applicant's submitted documents.
The applicant has proposed site coverage maximums which in most case below
what the 15% allowable would provide for each lot; however, the accompanying
application to this proposal is to increase the allowable site coverage to increase
from 15% to 20% within the Hillside Residential district. If the request to increase
allowable site coverage from 15% to 20% were to occur that proposed maximum
allowable site coverage as depicted in the Lot Summary Chart would at or well below
what 20% of each lots size would permit, with the exception of two lots. The
proposed site coverage maximums can be found on Exhibit B of Attachment B.
III. BACKGROUND
On January 15, 1985, the property comprising Spraddle Creek Estates,
approximately 39.55 acres was annexed into the Town of Vail.
2
On November 18, 1986, the Town of Vail adopted the Land Use Plan which identified
Spraddle Creek Estates as being within the Hillside Residential land use designation.
The plan identified Spraddle Creek Estates as the single property within this land use
designation within Town boundaries.
On October 26, 1987, through the adoption of Ordinance 38, Series of 1987, the
Town of Vail created and imposed the Hillside Residential District on Spraddle Creek
Estates. Town Staff developed the Hillside Residential District in response to the the
adoption of the Land Use Plan.
On April 17, 1991, the Design Review Board granted final approval to the
development of Spraddle Creek Estates. This approval was for roadway design,
retaining walls design, landscaping of entry and common parcels, and a design
standards handbook for the subdivision.
On February 24, 1992, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved
several variances for retaining wall height and roadway grades in excess of those
permitted.
On July 12, 1993, a minor subdivision was approved by the Planning and
Environmental Commission to adjust the shared lot line between Lots 14 and 15 to
increase the size of Lot 15 to allow for a primary unit and a care taker unit on the lot.
On September 7, 1993, the Town of Vail adopted Ordinance 11, Series 1993, which
rezoned Tract C of Spraddle Creek Estates from Greenbelt and Natural Open Space
40 District to Single Family District in order to permanently restrict the lot as an
employee housing unit (gate keeper house).
On April 5; 1995, the Design Review Board approved a change to the Residential
Design regulations for Spraddle Creek to allow for glass expanses in excess of 36
feet.
On June 22, 1998, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved an
amendment to the Spraddle Creek Estates plat to allow for interior conversions to
residences which complied with the regulations.
On April 9, 2007, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed this request
in a work session and generally expressed support for the changes to GRFA and site
coverage maximums as it would treat properties zoned Hillside Residential District in
a manor consistent with other residential districts affected by the GRFA changes and
Hazard Regulation's revisions. , The Commission did express that within the
Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision, because of lot sizes, there was a concern about
the regulations found in Section 12-21-14E, Restrictions in Specific Zones on
Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, and there applicability within the subdivision.
The Commission suggested that a restriction limiting the amount of site disturbance
be put in place on the plat to limit the amount of site area that could be disturbed
during development of the lots. The Commission also expressed concern that the
current platted GRFA maximums should be adjusted only to the extent that the other
zone districts were adjusted.
•
IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS
Planning and Environmental Commission:
Action: Pursuant to Section 13-12-3C, Review and Action on Plat, Vail Town Cod,
the Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval,
approval with modifications, or denial of the final plat.
Design Review Board:
Action: The Design Review Board has no review authority on an exemption plat, but
must review any accompanying Design Review Board application.
Town Council:
The Town Council is the appeals authority for an exemption plat review procedure in
accordance with Sub -section 13-3-5C, Council May Appeal, Vail Town Code.
Staff:
The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and
plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff
also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines.
Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a
staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a
recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also
facilitates the review process.
V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
TITLE 13, VAIL TOWN CODE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (partial)
13-2-2 DEFINITIONS
EXEMPTION PLAT. • The platting of a portion of land or property that does not fall
within the definition of a "subdivision", as contained in this section.
13-12 EXEMPTION PLAT REVIEW PROCEDURES
13-12-1: PURPOSE AND INTENT:
The purpose of this chapter is to establish criteria and an appropriate review process
whereby the planning and environmental commission may grant exemptions from the
definition of the term "subdivision" for properties that are determined to fall outside
the purpose, purview and intent of chapters 3 and 4 of this title. This process is
intended to allow for the platting of property where no additional parcels are created
and conformance with applicable provisions of this code has been demonstrated.
13-12-2: EXEMPTIONS IN PROCEDURE AND SUBMITTALS:
"Exemption Plats", as defined in section 13-2-2 of this title, shall be exempt from
requirements related to preliminary plan procedures and submittals. Exemption plat
applicants may be required to submit an environmental impact report if required by
title 12, chapter 12 of this code.
13-12-3: PLAT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA FOR REVIEW:
C. Review And Action On Plat The planning and environmental commission shall
review the plat and associated materials and shall approve, approve with
modifications or disapprove the plat within twenty one (21) days of the first public
hearing on the exemption plat application or the exemption plat application will be
deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision may be granted
subject to mutual agreement between the planning and environmental commission
and the applicant. The criteria for reviewing the plat shall be as contained in section
13-3-4 of this title.
Vail Land use Plan (in part)
HR — Hillside Residential
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.
40 Spraddle Creek Residential Design Regulations Dated July 30, 1993 (in part)
BUILDING ENVELOPE
The building envelope is the portion of each lot within which all improvements must
be built including buildings, accessory buildings, site walls, fences, screens,
recreational improvements, etc. Landscaping may occur outside the building
envelope.
A building envelope has been established for each lot based on the natural
topography and features on the lot, views, and relationship to adjacent building
envelopes. The purpose of the envelope is to reduce uncertainty of neighbors as to
which view corridors might be impacted by future construction, and to help insure
that structures blend in with the surrounding landscape, rather than. dominate it.
Owners should refer to Spraddle Creek Estates final plat in order to clarify lot
property boundaries, building envelope, allowable gross residential floor area
(GRFA), etc.
With the prior written approval of the Town of Vail Design Review Board (TOVDRB),
encroachments outside the building envelope may be permitted for driveways,
drainage structures, utility installations, sidewalks, and garages that meet the
requirements of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
C
VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
VII. SITE ANALYSIS
Lot Summary Chart, As found on the Spraddle Creek Estates plat, in part:
Land Use
Zoning
North:
Open Space
Forest Service Property
East:
Open Space
Forest Service Property
West:
Open Space
Natural Area Preservation District
South:
Open Space
Natural Area Preservation District
VII. SITE ANALYSIS
Lot Summary Chart, As found on the Spraddle Creek Estates plat, in part:
Parcel
Area
Max.
Max.
Proposed Max.
Proposed Max.
GRFA
Site Coverage
GRFA
Site Coverage
Lot 1
87,499 s.f.
7,333 s.f
6,483 s.f.
9,050 s.f.
8,001 s.f.
Lot 2
48,146 s.f.
6,524 s.f.
5,674 s.f.
8,079 s.f.
7,026 s.f.
Lot 3
88,619 s.f.
8,548 s.f.
7,698 s.f.
10,000 s.f.
9,006 s.f.
Lot 4
85,250 s.f.
7,016 s.f.
6,166 s.f.
8,669 s.f.
7,619 s.f.
Lot 5
61,082 s.f.
6,827 s.f.
5,977 s.f.
8,442 s.f.
7,391 s.f.
Lot 6
82,050 s.f.
8,220 s.f.
7,370 s.f.
10,000 s.f.
8,966 s.f.
Lot 7
43,833 s.f.
6,309 s.f.
5,459 s.f.
7,821 s.f.
6,767 s.f.
Lot 8
31,873 s.f.
5,711 s.f.
4,781 s.f.
7,103 s.f.
6,375 s.f.
Lot 9
63,044 s.f.
7,269 s.f.
6,419 s.f.
8,973 s.f.
7,924 s.f.
Lot 10
32,296 s.f.
5,732 s.f.
4,844 s.f.
7,128 s.f.
6,459 s.f.
Lot 11
71,419 s.f.
7,688 s.f.
6,838 s.f.
9.476 s.f.
8,428 s.f.
Lot 12
96,213 s.f.
8,928 s.f.
8,078 s.f.
10,000 s.f.
9,048 s.f.
Lot 14
277,500 s.f.
13,904 s.f.
13,054 s.f.
No Change
No Change
Lot 15
34,118 s.f.
6,726 s.f.
3,839 s.f.
6,726 s.f.
5,119 s.f.
Tract A
337,222 s.f.
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tract B
5,151 s.f.
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tract C
47,279 s.f..
1,900 s.f.
2,200 s.f.
No Change
No Change
Tract D
152,918 s.f.
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tract E
6,231 s.f.
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tract F
68,762 s.f.
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tract G .
2,394 s.f.
NA
NA
NA
NA
There is
no Lot 13
VIII. APPLICATION CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
The purpose section of Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, is intended to ensure that
the proposed subdivision is promoting the health, safety and welfare of the
community. As this is a work session staff has not addressed the following
criteria. The criteria for reviewing an exemption plat shall be as contained in section
13-3-4 of this title which are as follows:
(1) The extent to which the proposed subdivision is consistent with all
the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies
outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the
development objectives of the town; and
6
•
•
• Staff believes that the proposed amended final plat meets all the above
elements, as the proposed amendment does not affect access, area, building
envelopes, on any of the lots. Furthermore there is no increase in the
number of lots within the subdivision. The proposed amendment only affects
the Lot Summary Chart listed maximum GRFA and site coverage areas for
the 14 lots within the subdivision. The changes to these maximums would be
in conformance with the Vail Town Code, if the proposed changes to the
maximum allowable site coverage in the Hillside Residential District are
adopted by Council.
To alleviate the concerns of the Planning and Environmental Commission at
its April 9, 2007, hearing regarding allowing a maximum of 20% site
coverage, the applicant has revised the Lot Summary Chart on the proposed
amended final plat to restrict site coverage maximums and has added Note
Number 2 to the plat addressing "site disturbance concerns". Exhibit C in
Attachment B identifies the building envelope sizes. Note 2 reads as follows:
"The maximum site disturbance shall not exceed the total area
maximums of the building envelope. Furthermore, site disturbance
shall not extend more than 15'0" outside the building envelope, as
defined by this plat and as limited by the size of the building envelope.
Additional limited site disturbance may be allowed for site landscaping
and site retainage with the approval of the authorities having
jurisdiction. Driveway and utility access will be permitted in addition to
the maximum site disturbance if the impact to the site is kept to a
minimum. "
To address the Commissions concern over the adjustments proposed to the
maximum allowable GRFA for each lot, staff went back into the files for the
GRFA Chapter amendments and informed the applicant that the GRFA
calculations were adjusted as follows for the residential districts:
• A 10% increase for the inclusion of wall area in the calculation.
• A 15% increase for the inclusion of vaulted areas in the calculation.
• A 250 s.f. increase to compensate for the loss of the 250 addition.
• A 225 s.f. increase per allowable dwelling unit for the loss of the
credit.
The applicant took this method of adjustment and applied it to the maximum
allowable GRFA found in the Lot Summary Chart to create the proposed
maximum GRFA for each lot.
An additional item staff identified since the April 9, public hearing was that
there is currently a plat note stating that each lot is granted an additional
1,200 square feet allowed for garages on top of the Lot Summary Chart
allowance for GRFA. In discussions with the applicant it was agreed that with
the proposed increase in maximum allowable GRFA the credit given to
garages should be reduced to 600 square feet per the maximum allowed in
the Hillside Residential District. Homes will still be allowed garages over 600
•
square feet, but some of the allowable GRFA will need to be used to do so.
Staff believes the amended final plat complies with this criterion. •
(2) The extent to which the proposed subdivision complies with all of
the standards of this Title, as well as, but not limited to, Title 12, Zoning
Regulations and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and
Environmental Commission deems applicable; and
Staff believes the proposed amended final plat which proposes to amend the
Lot Summary Chart on the plat is in compliance with the Vail Zoning Code. If
the proposed amendment to the maximum allowable site coverage in the
Hillside Residential District is adopted by Town Council, the changes made to
the Chart will be consistent with or more restrictive than zoning prescriptions
for GRFA and site coverage within the subdivision.
Staff believes the amended final plat complies with this criterion.
(3) The extent to which the proposed subdivision presents a
harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses
consistent with municipal development objectives; and
As stated above under previous criterion, this proposed amended final plat
does not increase the number of lots or configuration of the existing lots
within the subdivision. Staff.believes that the proposed changes to the Lot
Summary Chart do not have a negative affect on the elements listed in this .
criterion.
Staff believes the amended final plat complies with this criterion.
(4) The extent of the effects on the future development of the
surrounding area; and
Staff believes this proposal will have no negative effects on the future
development of surrounding areas for reasons stated previously.
Staff believes the amended final plat complies with this criterion.
(5) The extent to which the proposed subdivision is located and
designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in
the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature
extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of
development; and
Staff believes this proposal will have no negative effects on the elements
identified in this criterion for reasons stated previously.
Staff believes the amended final plat complies with this criterion.
(6) The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve the planned
ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to •
upgrade under -sized lines; and
8
• Staff believes this proposal will have no negative effects on the elements
identified in this criterion for reasons stated previously.
Staff believes the amended final plat complies with this criterion.
(7) The extent to which the proposed subdivision provides for the
growth of an orderly viable community and serves the best interests of
the community as a whole; and
Staff believes this proposal will have no negative effects on the elements
identified in this criterion for reasons stated previously.
Staff believes the amended final plat complies with this criterion.
(8) The extent to which the proposed subdivision results in adverse or
beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited
to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors,
hillsides and other desirable natural features; and
Staff believes this proposal will have no negative effects on the elements
identified in this criterion for reasons stated previously.
Staff believes the amended final plat complies with this criterion.
• (9) Such other factors and criteria as the Commission and/or Council
deem applicable to the proposed subdivision.
B. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an
application for a major subdivision, the Planning and Environmental Commission
shall make the following findings with respect to the proposed major subdivision:
(1) That the subdivision is in compliance with the criteria listed in Subsection
13-3-4A, Vail Town Code; and
(2) That the subdivision is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and
policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the
development objectives of the Town, and
(3) That the subdivision is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and
appropriate for the surrounding areas; and
(4) That the subdivision promotes the health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious
development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its
natural environment and its established character as a resort and
residential community of the highest quality.
9
IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and •
Environmental Commission approves with a condition, the request for final review
of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review
Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to platted gross residential
floor area and site coverage limitations, located at 914 through 1326 Spraddle Creek
Road, Lots 1-15, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, and setting forth details in
regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in
Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this
exemption plat, the Community Development Department recommends the
Commission pass the following motion:
The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the Amended Final Plat
Fourth Amendment To Spraddle Creek Estates Part of the SE '/, SW 1/4
Section 5. Township 5 South, Range 80 West Of the Sicth Principal Meridian,
Town Of Vail County Of Eagle State Of Colorado pursuant to Chapter 13-12,
Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to
platted gross residential floor area and site coverage limitations, located at 914
through 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1-15, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision,
and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this final
plat amendment request, the Community Development Department recommends the .
Commission applies the following condition:
1. Approval of the Amended Final Plat Fourth Amendment To Spraddle
Creek Estates Part of the SE '/. SW 1/4 Section 5 Township 5 South
Range 80 West Of the Sicth Principal Meridian Town Of Vail County Of
Eagle, State Of Colorado, shall become effective upon the adoption of the
ordinance amending the text to increase the maximum allowable site
coverage from 15% to 20% within the Hillside Residential District.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this final
plat amendment request, the Community Development Department recommends the
Commission makes the following findings:
1. That the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the
Subdivision Regulations, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent
regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems
applicable.
2. That the application is appropriate in regard to Town policies relating to
subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and
resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and
compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents,
and effects on the aesthetics of the Town.
•
10
• 3. That the application to amend the Lot Summary Chart on the Spraddle Creek
Estates plat has been determined to meet the intent and goals of the
approved development plan.
•
•
X. ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity Map
B. Copy of the proposed amendments to the Lot Summary Chart
C. Reduced copy of recorded plat for Spraddle Creek Estates
D. Copy of February 11, 1991 Memorandum to the PEC and Minutes
E. Copy of the proposed Amended Final Plat for Spraddle Creek Estates.
F. Public Notice
11
I
LA
ffil
r -O
I
I
I
4
A
LU
0
• Z E u RE NND ASSOCIATES. EINC.
0
May 14, 2007
Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Spraddle Creek Estates — GRFA / Site Coverage Amendments
Dear Commissioners:
This package is presented by Zehren and Associates on behalf of the residents of
Spraddle Creek Estates, in an attempt to modify the existing plat for Spraddle Creek and
capture addition Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) as permitted by the Town of Vail
(TOV) Code within the Hillside Residential (HR) District, and modify Site Coverage.
The strategy to do this was discussed in a Work Session with Town Staff on April 9,
2007. The strategy is described below and remains essentially the same, but we've
added information per the Town's request. For ease of comparison all new
information contained within this Summary is identified in bold italics.
We are applying for an Exemption Plat, to provide the vehicle for modifying the current
Spraddle Creek Estates Plat, which outlines the allowable GRFA, Site Coverage, and
other restrictions, and supersedes the Town Code:
■ The current TOV Code defines how GRFA is to be measured within the HR
Zoning District.
■ However, since the existing Plat calls for GRFA amounts less than what is
permitted by the Town Code, the residents of Spraddle Creek would like to
update the Plat to allow them to use the additional GRFA allowed by Code if
they chose.
■ At the Work Session the PEC asked us to compare what we are requesting
with what has been allotted to the rest of the Town (10% + 15% + 250 SF +
225 SFper Dwelling Unit) within the new GRFA Code, which we have done in
the attached matrices.
■ Any future use of additional GRFA would still need to comply with the mass,
bulk, and height restrictions as outlined in the Spraddle Creek Estates Design
Guidelines and the TOV Design Guidelines.
ARCHITECT • INTERIORS
Attachment B
0
ZoEs ociREINC.E
We are also applying for a Code Amendment, to provide the vehicle for modifying the
Site Coverage permitted within the HR District, since the additional GRFA will be of
limited value unless additional Site Coverage is added as well:
■ The link from GRFA to Site Coverage –as a proportional ratio – was
recommended by Town Staff during numerous on-going discussions regarding
the modifications to the Spraddle Creek Plat.
■ The current TOV Code restricts the HR District to 15% Site Coverage.
Furthermore, the existing Plat calls for Site Coverage amounts less than what is
permitted by the Town Code. However, since Spraddle Creek already falls
within a very restrictive development with very defined lot sizes, building
envelopes, and other site restrictions, we feel additional Site Coverage is
warranted.
We feel the Site Coverage numbers identified on the current Plat were created
due to the Hazard Regulations for Excessive Slopes (12-21-14) at the time.
However, since recent Code amendments now attempt to mitigate hazards on
excessive slopes using a 60% maximum site disturbance number rather than a
site coverage number, we feel the increase in Site Coverage for Spraddle Creek
is appropriate. Per the PEC's request, we have now added Maximum Site
Disturbance to the matrices, as a function of the Building Envelope size.
Rather than increase all the Site Coverage numbers to 15% or 20% of the lot
size, we propose to "cap" the proposed Site Coverage (similar to how GRFA
was "capped") and increase them as a ratio of the additional GRFA we are
requesting, using a calculation similar to how Site Coverage was originally
derived for Spraddle Creek. Originally Site Coverage was calculated by taking
the GRFA and subtracting 850 SF from that number. For Proposed Site
Coverage we are taking the Proposed GRFA, and then subtracting 850 SF times
the ratio of proposed -to -existing GRFA:
10,000 (proposed GRFA) divided by 7,333 SF (current GRFA) _
1.363698; therefore proposed site coverage = 10,000 SF – (850 SF X
1.363698) = 8,841 SF
For most lots the Proposed Site Coverage falls well below the 15% of lot
size permitted by the TOV Code. 5 lots, however, exceed this amount but
fall below 20% lot size.
■ Any future use of additional Site Coverage would still need to comply with
mass, bulk, and height restrictions—along with adjacent homeowner approval—
as outlined in the Spraddle Creek Estates Design Guidelines and the TOV •
Design Guidelines.
ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS
is
Z E H R E N
AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
The following Exhibits are provided for discussion:
Exhibit "A" provides a summary of the GRFA for all the lots within Spraddle
Creek, including existing GRFA (per Plat), GRFA according to the HR District
guidelines, GRFA allotted to the rest of the Town within the new Code, and
Proposed GRFA (shown as outlined). Please note that the residents of Spraddle
Creek are proposing to "cap" GRFA at 10,000 SF, even though the Code would
allow more area in many cases. The exception is Lot 14, which stays with its
current allowable GRFA per the Plat, since it is already very significant in size.
Exhibit "B" provides a summary of Site Coverage for all the lots within
Spraddle Creek, including existing Site Coverage (per Plat), Site Coverage
according to HR District guidelines, and Proposed Site Coverage (shown as
outlined). Proposed Site Coverage is based upon the 20% Allowable within the
Single -Family Residential District, and most other residential districts within
TOV. Methodology for determining Proposed Site Coverage is described below.
■ Exhibit "C" provides a summary of Maximum Site Disturbance proposed for
each lot, per the PEC's request. Maximum Site Disturbance is limited to the
size of each Building Envelope, and is also listed within Exhibit "C" as a
percentage of the lot size, so that the Disturbance proposed for these lots can be
compared to the 60% Site Disturbance granted for typical lots within the Town.
■ Exhibit "D" provides an Overall Summary of GRFA, Site Coverage, and
Maximum Site Disturbance, to illustrate the link between the three.
■ Exhibit "E" provides a Summary of Differences between the Hillside
Residential Zone District and the Single -Family Residential Zone District. At one
time Staff felt it might be better to simply delete the HR Zone District from the
TOV Code, since it only applies to Spraddle Creek—this comparison is provided
in the event this is still a viable strategy for moving forward. The salient
differences between the two zone districts are shaded in gray.
■ Exhibit "F" provides background information to show how values were derived
for all the matrices.
■ The large sheet drawings illustrating the proposed Amended Plat for Spraddle
Creek are included for review and approval by PEC.
ARCHITECTURE • PLANNING • INTERIORS
Z E H R E N •
AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
We appreciate the opportunity to present this material to you. If there are any questions,
please don't hesitate to contact Patrick Fortner or me.
Sincerely,
�A-06
Dave Kaselak, A.I.A.
Principal
Zehren and Associates, Inc.
Atch:
Exhibit "A" — l lx 17 Spraddle Creek Estates GRFA Analysis
Exhibit "B" — 1 lx 17 Spraddle Creek Estates Site Coverage Analysis
Exhibit "C" —11x 17 Spraddle Creek Estates Site Disturbance Analysis
Exhibit "D" — llx 17 Spraddle Creek Estates Overall Summary •
Exhibit "E" —11x 17 Spraddle Creek Estates HR /SF Zone District Comparison
Exhibit "F" — llx 17 Spraddle Creek Estates Background Information
(S) Sheet Drawings illustrating the proposed Amended Plat
•
ARCHITECTURE -PLAN N ING • INTERIORS
M1
0
0
N
_
Ig
so,
y3 ip ,IN'1
UI Z{-1,1
1
m
•
0
0
N
s
w
g
0
m
m
3 � �
9 m a
a
0
vyi
m � Y
° y
m �
m
v
�
$
a°
V�
0
m
Nb
0
iOO
0
A
� � °
7
d
f
°
d
�a
a
i
N
C
•
H
m
o
N SOC M 00? t "? Vl O; O O D
U
~
pp
U
h
ti
O
9 r
V
In
Q
W 6 ^
e
O'
� a
O
ab
4
o
GG
U X
ti
O
p
p
F
E
a
jm
o
L
w
x
.e
>
-c
a
O ..
c�
�
w
SX a
aO.,:rn C' GC�00 0' o0
U
~
W
z
N N N N N N
O
m
c �
r.
U �
o •C
�
N
� O M 00 �O d' 00 M � V1 W W �➢
�`..
a
s
a0 � O r <Y 00
Ci O 2" OR O
W
W
o
�s
do
x
a
o
•
•
m
o
U
pp
U
h
ti
O
9 r
Q
W 6 ^
e
O'
� a
O
ab
o
o
O
p
p
jm
o
L
.e
>
-c
a
O ..
o o
U .3 I
�
•
SPRADDLE CREEK ESTATES EXHIBIT -"E"
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
JUNE 11, 2007
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
07.016- Res District Analysis - Final-Updated.xls • 512007
12-6A
12-6B
HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
(Current District for Spraddle Creek)
TYPE IV PERMITTED
EMPLOYEE
TYPE IV PERMITTED
HOUSING
TYPE V PERMITTED
BED & BREAKFASTS
BED & BREAKFASTS
EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES
DOG KENNELS
FUNICULARS
HOME CHILD DAYCARE
HOME CHILD DAYCARE
FUNICULARS
CONDITIONAL
PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GROUNDS & FACILITIES
PUBLIC & PRIVATE SCHOOLS
USES
PUBLIC PARK & RECREATION FACILITIES
PUBLIC BUILDINGS; GROUNDS & FACILITIES --
PUBLIC PARK & RECREATION FACILITIES
PUBLIC UTILITY & PUBLIC SERVICE USES
SKI LIFTS & TOWS
HOME OCCUPATIONS
PRIVATE GREENHOUSES, TOOLSHEDS,
PLAYHOUSES, GARAGES OR CARPORTS,
ACCESSORY
SWIMMING POOLS, PATIOS, OR RECREATIONAL
SAME
USES
FACILITIES
OTHER USES CUSTOMARILY INCIDENTAL AND
ACCESSORY TO PERMITTED OR CONDITIONAL
USES
LOT AREA = 21,780 SQUARE FEET OF CONTIGUOUS
LOT AREA = 12,500 SQUARE FEET OF CONTIGUOUS
BUILDABLE AREA
BUILDABLE AREA
LOT AREA &
SITE
MINIMUM FRONTAGE OF 50 FEET
MINIMUM FRONTAGE OF 30 FEET
DIMENSIONS
SITE SHALL BE OF A SIZE AND SHAPE CAPABLE OF
ENCLOSING A SQUARE AREA 80 FEET ON EACH
SAME
SIDE WITHIN ITS BOUNDARIES
MINIMUM FRONT SETBACKS = 20 FEET
SETBACKS
MINIMUM SIDE SETBACKS = 15 FEET
SAME
MINIMUM REAR SETBACKS = 15 FEET
FLAT ROOF/MANSARD ROOF THE HEIGHT OF THE
BUILDING SHALL NOT EXCEED 30 FEET
SAME
HEIGHT
SLOPING ROOF THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING
SHALL NOT EXCEED 33 FEET.
SAME
1. DWELLING UNITS: NOT MORE THAN 2 PER SITE
1. DWELLING UNITS: NOT MORE THAN 1 PER SITE
A. GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA(GRFA): NOT
A. GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA): NOT
MORE THAN 43 SF OF GRFA FOR EACH 100 SF OF
MORE THAN 40 SF OF GRFA FOR EACH 100 SF OF
THE FIRST 10,000 SF OF SITE AREA
THE FIRST 10,000 SF OF SITE AREA
B. 25 SF OF GRFA FOR EACH 100 SF OF SITE AREA
B 13 SF OF GRFA FOR EACH 100 SF OF SITE AREA
OVER 10,000 SF, NOT EXCEEDING 22,000 SF OF
SITE AREA.
IN EXCESS OF 10,000 SF.
C. 7 SF OF GRFA FOR EACH 100 SF OF STIE AREA
IN EXCESS OF 22,000 SF.
DENSITY
2. NO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT EXCEPT
CONTROL
2. ANY SITE CONTAINING 2 DWELLING UNITS, ONE
THOSE LOCATED ENTIRELY IN THE RED HAZARD
OF THE UNITS SHALL NOT EXCEED 1,200 SF OF
AVALANCHE ZONE OR THE FLOODPLAIN SHALL BE
GRFA.
SO RESTRICTED THAT IS CANNOT BE OCCUPIED BY
ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING.
UNIT SHALL NOT BE SUBDIVIDED OR SOLD
SEPARATELY FROM THE MAIN DWELLING UNIT
UNIT MAY BE INTEGRATED INTO THE MAIN
DWELLING UNIT OR MAY BE INTEGRATED WITHIN A
GARAGE SERVING THE MAIN UNIT, BUT SHALL NOT
BE A SEPARATE FREESTANDING STRUCTURE.
SITE COVERAGE
SITE COVERAGE SHALL NOT EXCEED 15% OF
SITE COVERAGE SHALL NOT EXCEED 20% OF THE
TOTAL SITE AREA.
TOTAL SITE AREA.
AT LEAST 70% OF EACH SITE SHALL BE
AT LEAST 60% OF EACH SITE SHALL BE
LANDSCAPE &
LANDSCAPED
LANDSCAPED
SITE
MINIMUM WIDTH AND LENGTH OF ANY AREA
DEVELOPMENT
QUALIFYING AS LANDSCAPING SHALL BE 10 FEET
SAME
WITH A MINIMUM AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 300 SF.
PARKING
OFF STREET PARKING SHALL BE PROVIDED IN
SAME
ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 10 OF THIS TITLE
07.016- Res District Analysis - Final-Updated.xls • 512007
0
O
r
�J
O
O N
d
10
O
VI
Vj
L W
V` 1!i f 50 Ha 01 .0 Gl 70 [� N
H
O
O I
>
O [c N N M
iD ll '7
O� O
N N M N N N 1 N y c^ V N
-
O O
U
-
0
�
N
V
.
�
A
1 N N
y ii
�I
� N �
N V1 00 N -• O� v'. 1 - � .-
O
r
�J
O
O N
d
O
VI
a\ O
O
O N
�O Q
O
O I
O lam
- -
F
-
O O
N
-
0
�
N
.
�
q
d �
G W «
o
�
o
•S
C
re
U O
C
C7 G
• o'
kk,,
v '3
o II
oo
a b
U'l
O
r
�J
O
d
O
U
ti
N
O
q
d �
G W «
o
�
o
•S
C
re
U O
C
C7 G
• o'
kk,,
v '3
o II
oo
a b
m
O
..
A
C� [�
O
•Nd
N 00
LS
O
N.
N
$
7 M
N
v
pp
G a'
-I
O M
«� O
O
v,
r0 �
!/JJ � Kl
O •y
���!!
�
o
•
•
•
k
V
rr '3^ss a � a a! its, � ••.
"� p:F�•E'�Y d ; s6 e'3�_sE ���3 �� i=�v b a E
%, g6sFFi�? �"^•`.' �'� a �6i,ila -�iz's jip"i "�'s Q
a s��t�a�� r � s � � des Sl�•te �6�5 i �'aaEF €"'I� � o i;� ��
e S ':si 2- - yy 3 aa'�l32-sLfe'.€- a atz a 9 it a
►�. s riss iY � 8 ��'. 6,. a6�3�34i32s �{r � �4$ ? 2 $e
Ep$i�i � _�. S, iii � iii__ 5•_.. �8�. S- � S
» ftg;rsa8 p 8 �L, �_ �--5d'3.Sw_ '� ik r �2 � � �•I•
E3 rS, �' � :�;�,.. �':•` -a !"e)r"txl Fri s s!ro ! fa•
i!F g � .: =F: 5-= a ,byz€-:- =sg• � i ` 3:"_ t » .F.:I
W os�";c ti ecx SS S,s:Af3i�6lsCix a _si a e Sere
x
E -a
w
0
H
�o
A
E-4 '=:D
O
E.t U
W :f _1i '• S ;. !S' e-sat:-rad^°�a6s�w &l:i � f"si'"t: .a Fj 1! i i -
a' E•+ yg, ea�-s
£a:-�!?l g ^s sa:t .�tz i.:"-_p?p = iet,33slpn$S � E_ �• �l .� �s � i � � � 1 .I 3
z BYs tS� 9- �s: •�:€a-t a_i+yFc.._ =a�i �-' ZS:_sai
t._ _ $'3Yi �i�-t 7 C .t_`-•. .p'it .. -'EF3 ft!1 I t1
Eallg L f :e 3- �•-ii•a E:e':••4 (' I
sj'i- $ji'S='=Si- ies "f:a.stdi 3:lF-a�atisi l t� � sc
►� � 8.S ffd $Fi9; s �. t�Fe-a e- to at-_ .s, s"_ Y _�5I tl:f i �;Y 3i iz� '1 (I_ i i i � � �#i
O W : Esi §=zs .s: risi:a_Fia d',:st.Pi3jEL nom' S st N i I eE�
bi5l9Y]'.�:k'�
3 !t e ii G9a .a x3F :['CC= fi-.Lt- G• = EYtlbtit ttis
rzq
y a ii! :S? s:a s 'F.'� asEx"� s E' �•i 3 3 �q li t! s 3 � �' i~I
E O
�Z — lit
U fill
�d
II�66�6se t{�f{{
1••• '1 V.U! ,. r: ', �. tl89 RC2 i It'll
if,
� ; ii`at
� l,•", 1' ! ifii�Ff�iiii� - .t. • g`ss ist6s �i53 - a ��!
U1 7 \\� i / J� t. aafiiff€i83a:b's'si•`77 '� =dxa.t= j=4S
•'ci as a rL`-
y.�, �s-dl ' pE
{.djpE �— o t ssasa�:ss a3Ss.!!2 ifs kl S.z'3F Spit.g_=E d4i;
an .-DIIhIl
U1 = � a" e�Pl�l,iid:l�pl• afis-=•at �;�i;-P
{.��a-st�=fts t.Ss
" gttiyee a.liFi$f-sa-Eil�s.icj�
ant -A219 �a:.5IEFd
Y., �lrj 1 5 �8 •`,M- �
- - .----- a=»n•._ .._" '4 f;(t =5
E a_.:..(::: -s-:--:- idds::aE::v=e3$a.s ifsisnl4.5c»!
z Ad
a
3
��af
z
Q1.
1�1
A_!!
Y•�1
W
QI
a
U
z
a
a
F
cn
W
x
E-
E -
U) C) FU)o
Pq
WC� a
C O
� W O
Ch
W a rz�
woo
U � W
a
azo
C) F'
H
U
W
cn
w
cn
W
x
H
w
0
H
d
a
E }L:Y=_:WtxLRR: L:C:RCL%Sf='RCC^CRC:tCaD::CRCXxRCRCcYLR::xLt:iRRLRCR
t ecs:zaaW::Res;Ys%sazi:RxgxWs-RRs::ax:c:a:es:L:xRIIRc:exFX:azXGssR:z
..Ck=kEikk...k'Akyk yR}kai.: :_y}1-:Liter`-^yF1E
" k.%fxt�k.t.a:GELLiAYA�tD:Ciii}x}FIILa::rW}¢}=XXCX.xC t .. ,5,-„_ ,_
..._.... ...�......................
i E FxRRR%�RWCRZRF:XCRA:R:%RtRC RR:!iiR'-xlLCL:M:R�LLR:RLLC:}I�X:CRb__.R:
± zss:i::izxzsszz:zszxsa:s:zzzsesz::zzsz::s::s:zzz::z::::x:s=Rz:zz:x
2 iS:i �_c^ii8'LEazeE3ieiiivas�c:aiii�3i id9dnS2�dsi:;d:dWG_±ii:zR
L'ek5s:.?paaiei-Iii-u�?=Ejlakiippaspptit�k�.x.e�p.ccsiipi:;i.LAazsp
l..CR::ka..tLL.C.iRSLFC::::GGCCCx%:ki:i:::L^^ICCOLI�'t :.0 �:i1C
8c85855563's:8s8i88856885305583333333333e588E88888553"a555585i5�5YQc
r
F:
F
t
R
na
i\\ -AN
6
L
r
� I
1
I
1
� I
W
r
F:
F
t
R
6
L
(ssliiri= so Rs.!) A. 3Nn KaLYA
kil-
stT���.Ja�uxt ryY /�J`a' 'J r /
/
Y
El
i� \X ..,
1 "I
r
•
•
•
n
G
N,
y = � ��� ( Rt:iRRQFR.;3.:p:RCQt:CR:Q3iQ1a3:CS:iRi=YYCFO ray
\ F xp:RSkit't•.p3:ti1t1.::.RFCC:R'R�'yRQR"LCFyRtf_x- 2
RQaRipt:3iQRQyRyQyVyRyRyyOyyRiwCyVyRyyyyy .
\ � ,' � � \ � RSZSF:CCVxi➢tQYxRSQSRti_R:xRItR[RQ=x7Q7:3tE:R
I `
#pLF:z........PM1.... FF�FP'r..... Pr..,r
Rt:::CYQt[3F#F7�R#RROQ-�-iifiZFRRFx=�i11CC#
SfFtltS`....................aaa0Y7 SF.C.e. Nr
�` y i /� ; / ; I= f-RRSY:Cfi.;RNC:.iCx3R3LP,xi:7aRiiRRRR,C.:NRGxQ
,E In\ I � 1J � . � � R_[_Nit6_;G�CQCi.Q'JSR7t3PG:gx�:if _iiiiil't�:tl
y (IFJIE•A I I 1 -
rr 1 zziizzs:s:ziexzsiisixziiziziszsiisix:eizii
a 6 1 I p I xRYCQ3LR:YF.00SFp0sFppp�sgidxdigedzcdgipcy'
�' •' , � � I ttq, 1+ � 3 i6Eeu_ ir?Flitlii�3FGF:k:c�p6ifi6;sejt
' �� � / I • ly /y [ #F'-#C'#-::.-i37#R. .QRRQYYiiiQFL�6R:67xtxNi
H ! � / I �' t :CRRR::RxiCEE_:� _-:"Ltt�%�ES:•Si:RLCL^``-r-'
Z--1' A. 3Nn Haivw t.� t� � i � cnosczcax'ccscc''a's'ap&eppnp&6Ep¢cP193p56@L'BEfi
I
A
x.
W.
L I
.V. 3Nn HJlvw
H i
MOI I
cn
F67 R f/
; ;• N
r ,
yLII
10
I k ^
W
I ' l rr�k w
►-a � a r ;' � r'
y r
q � ► "� I
I , r
tj
E
O E -t
It
I If
I sit
y r + r
If
COO
I r
1 / m
r AftHl N Rlxm N t�t pg � R_
OA� Y. 3Nn Ho1VH Ei ,
QA;
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission •
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 11, 1991
RE: A request to approve the final plat for a major
subdivision on a parcel commonly referred to as
Spraddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located
north and east of the Main Vail/I-70 interchange and
east of the Spraddle Creek Livery.
Applicant: George Gillett, Jr.
I. PROJECT S
A. Preliminary Plan Approval Summary
Spraddle Creek is a forty acre parcel located northeast
of the Main Vail interchange. Mr. George Gillett, Jr.
is the owner of the property. The property is
surrounded by White River National Forest land on the
north, east, west and south. I-70 right-of-way is
located adjacent to Spraddle Creek's southwestern
boundary. The applicant is requesting final approval
for a major subdivision plat. The property was annexed
into the Town of Vail in January of 1985 and Hillside
Residential Zoning was applied in November of 1987 by •
Ordinance No. 38, Series of 1987.
On September 24, 1990, the Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC) unanimously approved the subdivision
preliminary plan, retaining wall height variance, and
road grade variance by a vote of 5-0. The preliminary
plan was approved with twenty-four conditions.
The Planning and Environmental Commission recommended
that the applicant work on reducing the road grade to
the new livery site and also refine the architectural
guidelines. The PEC also recommended that the
applicant be responsible for maintenance of the
landscaping along the public road for a two to three
year period after the landscaping has been established,
rather than two to three years after planting.
On October 2, 1990, the Town Council reviewed the
project. A vote was taken and the motion to approve
passed unanimously.
1 � •
Attachment D
II. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FROM PRELIMINARY PLAN
Below is a summary of the final conditions of approval for
the project. The original conditions are highlighted in
bold print.
A. The proposed road grades and retaining wall heights are
maximums for the subdivision. If it is determined by
staff through the final plat review and/or building
permit, or construction phase that road grades and
retaining wall heights may be further reduced, the
applicant will agree to do so. The final plat
submittal will provide a thorough analysis of the soil
nailing and tie rod system for cut walls in order to
minimize site disturbance.
Staff Summary: Since preliminary plan approval, there
have been several changes to the retaining wall design.
At this time, a "keystone" wall is proposed, and this
wall has been reviewed conceptually by the Design
Review Board. The color of the walls will be tan,
unless otherwise agreed to by the Design Review Board.
Cut walls will continue to have a ten foot planting
terrace between each retaining wall. Fill wall
planting terraces have been reduced to six feet between
each retaining wall. This creates a four foot
• reduction from the planting terrace for fill walls from
preliminary plan approval. The reason for this
reduction is to further minimize disturbance of the
site. The same quantity of plant materials will still
be able to be located within the six foot terrace of
the fill walls.
The height of retaining walls does not exceed the eight
feet eight inches approved at preliminary plan. The
maximum number of wall terraces proposed is three.
These three terraced wall areas have a maximum combined
height of 32 feet. (3 x 8'-8" + 2 x 3' [for planting
terrace].) This height results in the height of the
tiered wall being two feet higher than what was
approved at preliminary plan. Below is a comparison of
walls between preliminary plan and final plat.
Preliminary Plan Final Plat
0-6 ft.
3,225
l.f.
2,978 l.f.
6-8 ft.
2,663
l.f.
2,085 l.f.
8'1"-8'8"
291
l.f.
2,254 l.f._
Total
Length
6,179
l.f.
7,317•l.f.
•
2
Difference
(247 1-f-
+ 571
+1.96:
1,131
The applicant has provided additional information on �.
the rationale for using the "keystone" wall system.
Soil nailing or a tie rod system is not proposed. The
Town Engineer has reviewed the studies submitted by
Retention Engineering consultants and agrees that the
"keystone" wall is appropriate given the soils. Below
is the Town Engineer's analysis of the appropriateness
of the keystone wall.
Town Engineer's Comments:
Although a thorough analysis of soil nailing and a tie
rod system was not completed, it appears that the wall
system is adequate for the site. Tie rod systems are
only appropriate once wall heights exceed 10 feet in
height. The use of terraces to mitigate the impact of
the walls makes the tie rod system less effective in
reducing disturbed areas above the top wall. The
amount of disturbance was. reduced with use of a 1.5:1
slope above the wall. The "keystone" wall system also
has great flexibility in reducing the amount of wall
used based on varying site conditions in the field.
Blocks come in square foot pieces and can be removed to
accommodate minor changes in site topography. Tie rod
systems are normally available in 81x 8' panels and are
more rigid in dealing with varying site conditions.
All triple cut walls, except M walls, could be reduced •
by more extensive grading. If this occurs, a tie rod
is not appropriate. A tie rod system would only be
appropriate for the M wall. The use of a tie rod
system on the double tiered M wall does not seem
appropriate because,of the amount of disturbance taking
place on Lot 14 and the possible disturbance resulting
from the elimination of a portion of the lower M wall
the O wall located to the east of this area.
The applicant has also agreed to provide planting
notches in walls that are greater than 400 feet in
length. The concept is that in areas where the length
of the wall is extreme, planting notches would be built
into the walls to break up the linear appearance of the
wall.
It is staff's opinion that the applicant has met the
first condition of approval concerning road grades and
retaining wall heights. The grades and retaining wall
heights (8'-811) do not exceed those approved by the PEC
at the Preliminary Plan review. There is a net
increase in wall length of 1,138 l.f. Some of this
increase is because of concerns for creek protection
and the walls that provide for the livery stable •
3
roadway. Staff is concerned about this increase in
wall length. The staff has identified to the applicant
walls that may be removed with additional grading and
landscaping. These walls include portions of the I
walls and K walls, and C1, C2, 01, M1, Y1, Z1, and
walls below the gatehouse. The applicant does not want
to remove these walls from the plans as unforeseen site
specific conditions may make it necessary to keep the
walls. The staff felt this was an acceptable approach
to avoid another review by the PEC and DRB during
construction. This approach allows the PEC to review
the worst case scenario. Before final review by
Council, worksheets showing grading and proposed
landscaping to mitigate grading shall be submitted to
the Town engineer, landscape architect and Community
Development Director for review and approval.
2. Construction guidelines will be used during the actual
building phase for the wall and road improvements. See
Section on EIR Wall Analysis of this memo.
Staff Summary: The applicant will submit construction
guidelines, along with landscape, architectural and
irrigation guidelines for DRB and PEC approval if the
PEC desires to review the documents.
• 3. A grading easement on the southwest corner of the
property will allow the Town of Vail the right to grade
onto this portion of the property if and when the North
Frontage Road is extended to the east below the
subdivision to create a new underpass connecting to
Vail Valley Drive/Blue Cow chute.
Staff Summary: The applicant has provided an adequate
grading easement for the Town of Vail. The easement is
indicated on the final plat.
4. An agreement finalizing the livery stable relocation
and reclamation of the existing livery site will be
submitted with the final plat information.
Staff Summary: The applicant has agreed to relocate
the livery to Forest Service land to the east of the
Spraddle Creek site'and also to revegetate the existing
livery site.
•
4
5. The conditions for lots having slopes over 30% will be •
applied to the subdivision. This section of the code
is 18.69.050 A -D, F -I, R and L.
Staff Summary: The applicant has agreed to this
condition, and will indicate this stipulation on the
final plat and covenants.
6. site coverage shall be limited to 80 to 100% of the
allowable GRFA for each lot. This condition will be
finalized at final plat.
Staff Summary: The staff and applicant have agreed to
limit site coverage to 1000 of the allowable GRFA minus
850 sq. ft. for each lot, excluding Lot 14. The site
coverage for Lot 14 shall be 10,000 sq. ft. Lot 8, Lot
10 and Lot 15 shall be limited per the standard
Hillside Residential zoning which is applicable on
smaller lots.* Please see the chart comparing the
proposed site coverage, to site coverage allowed under
the standard Hillside Residential Zoning.
Proposed Site HR Site
Lot Coverage Coverage (.15)
1 6,483 13,125
2 5,674 7,222 •
3 7,698 13,293
4 6,166 8,698
5 5,977 8,130
6 7,370 12,308
7 5,459 6,575
8* 4,781 4,781
9 6,419 9,457
10* 4,844 4,844
11 6,838 10,713
12 8,078 14,432
13 N/A N/A
14 10,000 32,329
15* 3,839 3,839
Staff tried to achieve a balance among the following
factors when determining an appropriate site coverage
percentage:
* The need for flexibility in site planning because
of the sensitivity of the lots.
* The fact that the existing Hillside Residential
zoning would provide no control on site coverage,
because of the large lot size. Essentially, all
square footage (GRFA + Garage 1200 sq. ft.) could
be built on one level. •
5
* The probability that most lot owners will want to
•
construct 3 or 4 car garages which are not
incorporated into GRFA.
* The applicant's willingness to provide building
envelopes and architectural guidelines.
* The fact that the new site coverage ordinance has
become more restrictive.
* In Primary/Secondary zoning, site coverage does
not exceed GRFA until lots exceed 30,000 sq. ft.
It appears that with large lots, the site coverage
would exceed GRFA.
Using Primary/Secondary Zoning Standards
(With New GRFA Definition)
Lot Size GRFA* Site Coverage
(.20 of total site)
15,000 4,600 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft.
20,000 5,100 sq. ft. 4,000 sq. ft.
30,000 6,100 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft.
40,000 6,600 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft.
* Figure does not include 1,200 sq. ft. for a garage
When this condition of approval was originally
discussed at preliminary plan, the GRFA and site
coverage ordinances had not been amended. The new GRFA
ordinance takes into account all GRFA, excluding
garages, which are equivalent to a maximum of 1,200 sq.
ft. By allowing for 100% of the allowable GRFA minus
850 sq. ft. for site coverage, we believe that good
site planning will result. The limit on site coverage,
in combination with the building envelopes and
architectural guidelines, should insure that houses are
sited in a reasonable manner on the sensitive sites,
while still allowing flexibility for individual site
planning.
7. If a fireplace is desired by the owner for the
caretaker unit, gas appliances or gas logs shall be
used in all caretaker units. only one wood burning
fireplace will be allowed in the main unit.
Staff Summary: The Town Council recently adopted
Ordinance No. 42 of 1990 which restricts all new
construction to gas logs and gas appliances. This
subdivision will be governed by this ordinance. The
only lot that will potentially be able to have one wood
burning unit is Lot 14. At this time, the owner of the
entire Spraddle Creek site may submit design plans for
one Hillside Residential development. If the final
•
6
submittal occurs before February 15, 1991, this .
development will be allowed to have one wood burning
fireplace for the main unit. The caretaker unit for
Lot 14 shall be required to meet Ordinance No. 42, as
at preliminary plan approval, the caretaker was already
restricted to gas. This solution is acceptable to
staff.
8. The chain link fence around the culvert at the
subdivision entry will be removed and a more aesthetic
barrier provided with appropriate landscaping if
allowed by the Colorado Division of Highways.
Staff Summary: The applicant has agreed to remove the
chain link fence and replace it with a wooden fence and
landscaping. This meets the staff concern.
9. The six spruce trees by the subdivision entrance on the
south side of Gillett Road shall be relocated and must
survive for two years after they have been relocated.
If they die within the two year period, the trees will
be replaced by similar type and sized trees, at the
ownerls expense.
Staff Summary: The condition is met.
10. All Fire Department standards and requirements per the
letter from Mike McGee dated August 21 1990 shall be
complied with by the owner or as otherwise modified.
Staff Summary: All fire department concerns have been
addressed by the applicant, to the Town's satisfaction.
11. Before any building permits are released for the
subdivision and once the subdivision receives final
plat approval, the appropriate easements allowing for
public access shall be recorded per the Forest Service
requirements.
Staff Summary: The applicant agrees to this condition.
12. six foot paved shoulders on either side of the Frontage
Road for a distance of approximately 520 feet (from the
Spraddle Creek intersection west) for a public bike
path shall be provided by the developer.
Staff Summary: The applicant has agreed to construct
the 6 ft. bike lanes.
7
•
13. All construction on each lot shall occur within the
platted building envelopes. The building envelopes
shall be adjusted per the revised staff plan dated
September 71 1990 before final plat. Staff and the
applicant will determine what improvements, if any,
will be allowed outside the envelope at final plat.
Staff Summary: The applicant has revised the building
envelopes per planning staff recommendations drawn on
the September 7, 1990 preliminary plan. The staff also
reviewed the building envelopes on site. The final
plat reflects the recommendations made at preliminary
plan and the site specific analysis. All improvements
shall occur within building envelopes except driveways,
sidewalks, retaining walls, grading, surface parking,
and garages that meet Section 18.69.050 A -D, F -J, K & L
of the Town of Vail zoning code. These site
improvements, may be proposed outside of the building
envelopes as long as Design Review Board approval is
received and any impacts on topography and vegetation
are minimal and the end result is a building that is
well integrated into the site. Retaining walls are
discouraged, but if necessary, shall be integrated into
the site as much as possible. Garages will be allowed
to be located out of the building envelope if they meet
the slope standards for lots that have the main
building and garage in areas of the site that exceed
30% slope.
In respect to Lot 14, the building envelope shall be
tied to the site plan dated October 4, 1990, with
signatures dated February 7, 1991, prepared by Pierce,
Segerburg, Spaeh Architects. The envelope is tied to a
specific site plan because of the size of the house,
the staff's concern that all major improvements be
located within the building envelope, and that the
house not move closer to the south if the envelope is
expanded to include two south facing patios. Because
the preliminary design for Lot 14 is completed, staff
had the opportunity to analyze this particular envelope
in relation to the proposed residence.
Overall, the building envelopes have been located in a
manner that is sensitive to areas of slope over 40o and
existing tree lines. Staff has also tried to consider
building envelope configurations that allow for a
reasonable area to locate a house within. We believe
the applicant has responded to our concerns and we_
support the building envelopes as proposed on t.
plat.
14. All construction for the subdivision shall comply with
the requirements found within the Environmental Impact
Report for the project.
Staff Summary: The applicant agrees with this
condition.
15. The owner shall use the least polluting sanding
material for sanding the private road within the
subdivision per the approval of the Town of Vail
Environmental Health Department.
Staff Summary_: The applicant agrees with this
condition.
16. The open space tracts within the subdivision shall be
rezoned to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space at the same
time the final plat is reviewed. Additional greenbelt,
open space areas will be added adjacent to the Forest
Service switchback, the Lot 5/6 switchback, and the
secondary road per the staff amendments to the
September 7, 1990 preliminary plan.
Staff Summary: The applicant has submitted an
application to rezone the open space tracts within the
subdivision to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space zoning.
Once the plat is recorded, the staff will schedule the
rezoning application for the three greenbelt and
natural open space tracts. No building permits for
site work or individual residences will be released
until the rezoning has been approved. This
understanding will also be in the subdivision
improvement agreement. The reason for approaching the
rezoning in this manner is to insure that the legal
descriptions absolutely match the tract legal
descriptions on the final plat. Below is a summary of
the square footage allocated to each of the greenbelt
open space tracts.
Tract A - 337,222 sq. ft.
Tract B - 5,151 sq. ft.
Tract C - 47,279 sq. ft.
This solution is acceptable to staff.
17. The owner of the subdivision shall maintain the road
through the subdivision from the entry gate up to the
top of the subdivision. This maintenance also includes
all tract areas, retaining walls, and landscaping. The
owner also agrees to be responsible for establishing
the landscaping along the public road extending from
the North Frontage Road up to the subdivision entry •
9
gate for a period of two years once the landscape
materials have been established. once the landscaping
is established and two years has transpired, and the
Town of Vail Landscape Architect has approved the
landscaping, the Town will take over the responsibility
of the retaining walls and landscaping maintenance.
Staff Summary: The applicant does not agree with this
condition relating to landscaping, and would propose to
transfer maintenance responsibilities to the Town 1 to
1 1/2 years after the landscaping is planted. Council
asked that instead of 112 to 3" years after landscaping
is established, a specific time period should be
referenced in the condition. Staff used 2 years.
Staff supports the original Council condition.
18. Pedestrian and public access shall be allowed on the
lower portion of Gillett Road extending from the
Frontage Road up to the subdivision gate.
Staff Summarv: The applicant has agreed to this
condition of approval and will dedicate an easement
along Spraddle Creek for public access as well as a
public access easement from the North Frontage Road up
Gillett Road to the Spraddle Creek entry gate. Staff
would ask that the public access easement along the
creek be expanded from 20 feet to 60 feet.
19. Three caretaker units each having a maximum square
footage of 1200 sq. ft. and a minimum square footage of
700 sq. ft. shall be provided within the subdivision.
The three caretaker units must be provided within three
of the first seven lots that are developed. The units
will be permanently restricted per section 18.13.080
(10) (A -D) of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. At this
time, the gatehouse caretaker unit is not approved.
Staff Summary: The applicant agrees to provide the
three caretaker units however, they would prefer to not
have to guarantee that the three caretaker units will
be provided within three of the first seven lots that
are developed. Staff believes that it is important
that the three units occur within three of the first
seven lots that are developed and would make this part
of the condition of approval. A minimum square footage
of 700 sq. ft. is acceptable for the caretaker unit.
20. The architectural guidelines shall be amended as
follows:
a. Retaining walls shall be minimized as well as
extremely steep slopes.
10
21.
22.
b. Sod shall be allowed around the perimeter of •
residences but large lawn areas are not
encouraged.
C. Driveways shall have a maximum grade of 8% unless
approved by the Town of Vail Engineer.
d. Irrigation by retaining walls for the subdivision
shall be prohibited.
e. No chain link fencing is allowed within the
subdivision, even for dog runs. If dog runs are
proposed, another type of open fencing should be
used.
Staff Response: The applicant intends to amend the
architectural guidelines to reflect staff, PEC, and DRB
recommendations. Slopes shall not exceed 2:1 on
individual lots. In respect to D, the applicant has
submitted information allowing irrigation by the
retaining walls. The recommendations found in the
condition of approval have been included in the
architectural guidelines. Staff will require that the
guidelines be reviewed one more time by the DRB and PEC
before final Council approval. The guidelines must be
given final approval by the PEC before the final plat
is allowed to proceed to Council.
All construction within the subdivision shall comply
with the Town of Vail hazard ordinances found in
Section 18.69.
Staff Summary: The applicant has indicated on the plat
the hazard areas within the subdivision. These hazard
areas have not contributed to any site area for the
purposes of calculating GRFA or site coverage. In
addition, a letter dated January 18, 1991 has been
submitted by Ed Church, hazard consultant, which states
that site specific hazard studies for individual lots
will not be necessary because of the building envelope
requirements for each lot. This solution is acceptable
to staff.
No on-site livery shall be allowed within the
subdivision.
Staff Summary: The applicant has agreed to not allow
any on site liveries within the Spraddle Creek
subdivision.
11 0
23. Aspens, vines, and large shrubs shall be used on all
retaining walls.
Staff Summary: The applicant has agreed to meet this
condition.
24. All hazard areas shall be excluded from contributing
site area to Lots 14, 5, and 4 for GRFA or site
coverage.
Staff Summary: The applicant has met this condition of
approval. Please see the discussion on GRFA in the
following section of the memo.
III. ELEMENTS OF -THE -PROJECT THAT ARE NOT ADDRESSED IN THE
COUNCIL/PEC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. Lot Size:
All lots meet the buildable area requirements per the
Hillside Residential Zone District. The buildable
areas have been certified by Mr. Dan Corcoran of Eagle
Valley Engineering and Surveying in his letter dated
February 6, 1991.
0 B. GRFA:
Attached to the memo is a chart comparing lot size,
building area, GRFA, and site coverage. The GRFA for
each lot (except Lot 14) has been determined by using
the standard Hillside Residential Zoning. All hazard
areas and floodplain areas have been excluded from site
area which is used to calculate GRFA and site coverage.
The GRFA numbers on the chart are arrived at by using
the following formula:
18 09 080 Density Control
"Not more than a total of two dwelling units shall be
permitted on each site. Not more than twenty square
feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be
permitted for each one hundred square feet for the
first twenty-one thousand seven hundred eighty (21,780)
square feet of site area, plus not more than five
square feet of gross residential floor area shall be
permitted for each one hundred square feet of site area
over twenty-one thousand seven hundred eighty (21,780)
square feet. On any site containing two dwelling
units, one of the units shall not exceed twelve hundred
(1,200) square feet of gross residential floor area
(GRFA). This unit shall not be subdivided or sold
• 12
separately from the main dwelling. This unit may be
integrated into the main dwelling or may be integrated
within a garage structure serving the main unit, but
shall not be a separate freestanding structure."
Please note that the new GRFA definition and method of
calculating GRFA found in Ordinance No. 37, Series of 1990
will be used for this subdivision. Per this new definition,
the following areas shall be excluded from calculation as
GRFA:
1. "Garage spaces of up to three hundred (300) square
feet per garage space not exceeding a maximum of
two spaces for each allowable dwelling unit
permitted by the zoning code.
2. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet or
less, as measured from the top side of the
structural members of the floor to the underside
of the structural members of the roof directly
above. Attic area created by construction of a
roof with truss -type members will be excluded from
calculation as GRFA provided the trusses are
spaced no greater than thirty inches apart.
3. Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not
greater than twelve square feet in area, with five
feet or less of ceiling height, as measured from
the surface of the earth to the underside of
structural floor members of the floor/ceiling
assembly above.
4. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios
or similar feature/space with no more than three
exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less
than 25% of the lineal perimeter of the area of
said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar
feature/space provided the opening is contiguous
and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an
allowance for a railing of up to three feet in
height."
GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square
footage of a building as set forth in Section 18.04.130
above. Excluded areas as set forth in paragraph A shall
then be deducted from total square footage.
As an example, Lot 1 has a GRFA listed of 7,333 sq. ft.
Assuming that the owner of Lot 1 builds the primary unit
plus the caretaker unit, the owner has the option of
13 •
• building up to 1,200 sq. ft. of additional space for a four
car garage. The garage space is not included in the total
GRFA figure.
The only lot that is not allocated GRFA based on the
Hillside Residential Zone District is Lot 14. Because of
the large size of this lot, staff believes that a reduction
in the allowable GRFA per Hillside Residential Zoning was
appropriate. Under standard Hillside Residential Zoning,
the lot would be allowed to have 14,843 sq. ft. of GRFA.
(Please remember a 1,200 sq. ft., four -car garage could be
added if two units are built on the site.) At preliminary
plan, the applicant agreed to a GRFA restriction of 14,330
sq. ft. This GRFA amount was based on the old formula for
calculating GRFA. In addition to the 14,330 sq. ft., the
owner would have been allowed to have 550 sq. ft. of credits
excluding any type of garage credit. This would result in a
total floor area of 14,880 sq. ft.
Under the new ordinance, if the total lot size (286,022 sq.
ft.), is reduced by 70,496 sq. ft. for hazard areas on the
lot, the GRFA that is allowed is equivalent to 14, 843 sq.
ft. per Hillside Residential Zoning. In order to balance
the concerns of the staff about the size of the development
on this lot, we have arrived at an agreed upon GRFA of
• 14,330 sq. ft.
Lots 4 and 5 use total site area minus hazard areas to
arrive at their GRFA figure. Lot 1 GRFA does not exceed the
GRFA originally allowed when the project incorporated the
entire subdivision road on private land. The staff's intent
is to ensure that additional GRFA was not allowed for Lot 1
now that the road extends onto Forest Service land. The
total lot areas and GRFAs for the entire resubdivision are
actually below those figures proposed when the road was
entirely on Gillett property as indicated below. These
restrictions on GRFA is acceptable to the applicant and to
the staff. Please see Dannie Corcoran's letter dated
February 6, 1991 for GRFA statistics.
C. Road Grades
The road grades have not changed substantially since
preliminary plan. The road grade does not exceed 8.890
as approved. The average road grade is 7.8%. At
preliminary plan both the Council and Planning and
Environmental Commission mentioned their concern about
the grade of the gravel livery road to the east of the
subdivision. At this time, the grade for the road is
15.4% at its steepest point.
• 14
The turnaround has also been relocated to a location •
directly in front of the subdivision gate. It is no
longer approximately 180 lineal feet east of the gate.
Staff believes this is an improvement over the previous
location. It does result in two additional retaining
walls below the turnaround area. The height of these
walls ranges from 1 to 8'-811. The length is 135 l.f.
for the upper wall and 66 l.f. for the lower wall. No
caretaker unit is proposed. A gatehouse will be
constructed at the entry.
Staff is still comfortable with the road grades. It is
unfortunate that the road grade for the livery cannot
be reduced substantially. Staff would recommend that
grading be completed to reduce road grade to the best
extent possible without significant disturbance to the
surrounding vegetation. It would appear that livery
operators would widen the road to their operation, so
the overall road grade may be able to be improved
slightly. Forest Service road grades have different
standards from Town roads and assuming the Forest
Service approves the road, staff can support the 15.40
grade.
D. Landscape and Irrigation
At preliminary plan, it was felt that it would be a
problem to provide irrigation above the retaining walls
along the road. The applicant has submitted a letter
from Retention Engineers, John Tryba, dated January 30,
1991, stating that it is acceptable to allow irrigation
above the walls.
Specific plans for the subdivision entry by the gate
and entrance by the North Frontage Road have been
submitted. These plans will be reviewed by the Design
Review Board and, at this time, have the general
approval of the Town of Vail landscape architect.
The applicant has submitted a project landscape plan
which has incorporated the Planning Commission's
suggestion of providing "grove -type" planting
arrangements around the disturbed areas and open space
tracts. The following changes shall be made to the
landscape plan as a condition of final plat approval
before Council review:
* 2" caliper aspen shall be the minimum size allowed
instead of 1 1/2" caliper.
* The existing and proposed tree line shall be
indicated on the landscape plan.
15 0
It
• * The irrigation point of connection shall be
changed to a water tap instead of the fire hydrant
connection.
* A letter from RBD engineers describing how grading
and landscaping will occur if walls K, I, C1, C2,
01, M1, Y1 and Z1 are removed after a site
inspection is made by the owners' consultant team,
Town engineer, landscape architect, and community
development director.
* Additional aspens and shrubs may be required by
the landscape architect for walls E-1, G-1 and N-
1. This issue shall be resolved after an on-site
inspection is made by the Town of Vail landscape
architect. Additional landscaping may include up
to 30 aspens and 20 shrubs.
* The landscape plan shall be revised to show the
driveway and wall break adjacent to Lot 8.
Additional planting may be required by the Town of
Vail landscape architect in this area.
E. Frontage Road Design
The applicant has received Colorado Department of
Highways' approval for the frontage road lane design.
All retaining walls have been removed along the North
Frontage Road and entry into the subdivision. Forest
Service approval will be necessary, as grading may
occur on their property at the frontage road entrance.
F. Drainage
A large sedimentation basin on Lot 4 has been removed
from the proposal. This is acceptable to the Town of
Vail Engineer. Numerous erosion control methods will
be utilized during the construction period for the
subdivision. An erosion control plan has been
submitted and conceptually approved by the Town of Vail
landscape architect and engineer.
G. Livery Design and Trail Access
Adjacent to the relocated livery, the applicant
proposes to provide 17 parking spaces. Twelve spaces
will be provided for users of the livery. Five spaces
will be available to hikers.
H. Construction Phasing
The applicant would like to submit a construction
phasing plan at a later date to the Community
Development and Public Works departments for approval.
• The applicant is attempting to relocate the livery to
16
the new east livery site on Forest Service property
before Memorial Day. In order to accomplish this,
their phasing plan is being revised. Construction
staging areas at this time are proposed to be located
at the old livery site and at the top of the
subdivision at the two cul de sacs. Possible spring
debris flow mitigation on the lower portion of Gillett
Road shall be addressed in the phasing plan.
I. Forest service Considerations
The applicant will be required to receive approval from
the United States Forest Service to locate the east
switchback on Forest Service property. This will be a
condition of final plat approval. The plat will not be
recorded until final approval is received from the
Forest Service for the switchback. The applicant will
also be required to dedicate and realign easements per
the Forest Service requirements for their approval.
J. Driveway Locations for Individual Lots
The applicant has submitted a plan showing the general
location for access to each of the lots. Each owner
will be required to submit a design for a house that
minimizes retaining walls and disturbance to the site.
It was felt that it was appropriate to indicate the
general location for access, but that specific driveway
cuts and grades would not be defined at final plat.
The Town Engineer has reviewed the general driveway
locations, and believes that they can provide safe
access to the sites. One comment is that the portion
of Lot 3 that extends in front of Lot 2 on the plat may
need to be revised in order to provide better access to
Lot 2.
IV. CONCLUSION
Staff recommends approval of the major subdivision final
plat for Spraddle Creek Subdivision. All of the conditions
of approval which were stipulated in the preliminary plan
approval have been agreed to by the applicant, except.for
the condition relating to the timing of the provision for
the 3 caretaker units and maintenance condition. Staff
approval is contingent upon these two conditions being met
per our recommendations. it is felt that the project meets
the review criteria for a major subdivision which is listed
below in Section 17.16.110 of the Town -of Vail Subdivision
Regulations:
•
17
. "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to
show that the application is in compliance with the
intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning
ordinance, and other pertinent regulations that the PEC
deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to
the recommendations made by public agencies, utility
companies, and other agencies consulted under Section
17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and
consider its appropriateness in regard to town policies
relating to subdivision control, densities proposed,
regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other
applicable documents, environmental integrity, and
compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other
applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics'of the
town, environmental integrity, and compatibility with
the surrounding land uses."
Staff believes that the applicant has made a very strong
effort to address all of the public boards' concerns as well
as staff concerns. The result is a project which meets the
above criteria, and will result in a new subdivision for the
Town of Vail that is sensitive to the community's goals for
development, aesthetics, natural environment, and
surrounding land uses, given the steep topography of the
site. We recommend final approval of the plat with the
following conditions. Staff has listed the points, during
the review process, at which conditions must be finalized.
A. Before the Project is Reviewed by the Town Council for
Dedication
1. The architectural, construction and landscape
guidelines shall be reviewed by the Design Review
Board and finalized by the Planning and
Environmental Commission. The guidelines must be
given final approval by the Planning and
Environmental Commission before the final plat is
allowed to proceed to Council. A color board
shall also be submitted with the final
architectural guidelines
2. The following changes shall be made by the
applicant to the landscape plan as a condition of
final plat approval before the project is reviewed
by the Town Council:
* 2 inch caliper aspen shall be the minimum
size allowed instead of 1 1/2 inch aspen
* The existing and proposed tree line shall be
indicated on the landscape plan
18
* The irrigation point of connection shall be
changed to a water tap instead of the fire
hydrant connection.
* A letter from RBD Engineers describing how
grading and landscaping will occur if walls
I, K, C1, C2, 01, Ml, Y1 and Z1 are removed.
* Additional aspens and shrubs may be required
by.the landscape architect for walls E-1, G-1
and N-1. This issue shall be resolved after
an on site inspection is made by the Town of
Vail landscape architect. Up to 30 aspens
and 20 shrubs may be required by the
landscape architect.
* The irrigation guidelines shall be reviewed
and approved by the Town of Vail landscape
architect.
* The landscape plan shall be revised to show
the driveway and wall break adjacent to Lot
8. Additional planting may be required by
the Town of Vail landscape architect in this
area.
* The Al wall shall be indicated on the
landscape plan.
3. The Town Attorney shall review and approve the
wording on the subdivision plat concerning 30%
slope, building envelopes and certificates.
4. A construction phasing plan shall be submitted to
the Community Development and Public Works
departments for final approval before the project
proceeds to Council. The debris flow mitigation
during construction shall be addressed in the
phasing plan.
5. The conditions for lots having slopes over 300
shall be indicated on the subdivision plat. This
section of the code is 18.69.050 A -D, F -I, K and
L. This wording shall also be included in the
covenants for the subdivision.
6. The conditions of the building envelope shall be
added to the plat, and also incorporated in the
subdivision covenants.
7. The owner of the subdivision shall maintain the
road through the subdivision from the entry gate
up to the top of the subdivision. This
maintenance also includes all tract areas,
retaining walls, and landscaping. The owner also
agrees to be responsible for establishing the
landscaping along the public road extending from 40
19
the North Frontage Road up to the subdivision
entry gate for two years once the landscape
materials have been established. Once the
landscaping is established and two years has
transpired, and the Town of Vail Landscape
Architect has approved the landscaping, the Town
will take over the responsibility of the retaining
walls and landscaping maintenance.
8. The applicant shall submit worksheets showing
grading and proposed landscaping to mitigate
grading for portions of the I walls, K walls, C
walls, 01, M1, Y1, Z1, and walls below the
gatehouse to the Town engineer, landscape
architect, and Community Development Director.
These walls shall also be listed on the final
street construction plans as having potential for
removal.
9. The Town engineer's comments to Kristan Pritz,
dated January 24, 1991, shall be met or resolved.
10. Based on the second set of plans dated January 31,
1991, the following issues in the memo dated
February 11, 1991 shall be met or resolved.
11. Town engineer's approval is required for the final
street construction plans, construction
specifications and final Drainage Report.
B. Council Review
1. Easements will be dedicated to the Town at this
time.
C. Before the Final Plat is Recorded the Following
Conditions Shall Be Met
1. The applicant shall submit to the Community
Development Department for approval the final
agreement relocating the existing livery to the
Forest Service land east of Spraddle Creek
Subdivision. This agreement shall also include
revegetation of the existing livery site.
2. Before the final plat is recorded, the appropriate
easements allowing for public access shall be
recorded per the Forest Service requirements.
Forest Service approval for the switchback on
their property to the east of Spraddle Creek
Subdivision shall also be received before final
plat recording.
20
M
E.
3. The subdivision improvement agreement and
covenants shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department and approved before the
final plat is recorded.
4. The applicant shall agree to provide the three
caretaker units within three of the first seven
lots that are developed within the subdivision.
This agreement shall be incorporated into the
covenants and/or subdivision improvement
agreement.
5. The applicant shall incorporate into the covenants
the condition that no on-site livery shall be
allowed within the subdivision
After final plat recording and before any building
1. The rezoning of all open space tracts within the
subdivision shall be approved by the Vail Town
Council. The requested zone designations shall be
greenbelt open space. This condition shall also
be listed in the subdivision agreement before the
final plat is recorded.
2. All final plat conditions of approval shall be met
by the applicant.
During construction of the proiect:
1. The Community Development Director, Town Engineer
and Town landscape architect shall periodically do
on-site inspections of the construction. On any
walls that are greater than 400 feet in length,
planting notches shall be required unless it is
determined that it is impossible to locate the
notches in a sensitive manner in the walls.
C:\pec\spraddle\final.211
•
•
21 •
February 6, 1991
Mr. Joe Macy
Vail Associates, Inc.
Box 7
Vail, CO 81658
Re: Spraddle Creek Subdivision lot areas and GRFA
Dear Joe,
Per your request I have prepared the following two tables for the
above project. Table #1 is a summary of the square footages in lot
areas, hazard areas, GRFA, site coverage, building envelope areas
and contiguous buildable square footage for the lot configuration
shown on the final plat.
TABLE #1
Site
Building
Contiguous
Lot
Area
Hazard
GRFA
Coverage
Envelope
Buildable
1
87499
7333
6483
15295
24848
2
48146
6524
5674
12509
39600
63648
3
88619
8548
7698
14824
4
85250
27264
7016
6166
15202
45184
5
61082
6880
6827
5977
18178
29760
6
82050
8220
7370
22398
26480
7
43833
6309
5459
12935
29552
8
31873
5711
4861
12570
25776
9
63044
7269
6419
12137
39216
10
32296
5732
4882
12263
32080
11
71419
7688
6838
11247
34880
12
96213
8928
8078
13150
48448
14
286022
70496
14330.
10000
22948
47920
15
25596
5397
4547
7279
23120
A 337222
B 5151
C 47279
D 152918
E 6231
F 68762
G 2394
•
41199 Highway 6 & 24, Eagle -Vail
Post Office Box 1230
Edwards, CO 81632
303-949-1406
•
February 6, 1991
Spraddle Creek
Page 2
Table #2 is a comparison of the residential lot areas and GRFA
square footages for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision without the
roadway extended to the east onto Forest Property and with the
roadway extended onto Forest Service property. I have used the
following assumptions in this comparison:
1) Lot areas of last configuration of plat without roadway extended
to the east on Forest Service property. (May 25, 199.0)
2) Lot areas per final plat with roadway extended to the east on
Forest Service property. (February 6, 1991)
3) I have calculated the GRFA square footages for both lists using
the current Town of Vail GRFA calculations for the Hillside
Residential zone,district. (Including the 425 square foot credit
for each of the allowable units on each lot - 850 square feet
total)
4) The portions of Lots 4,5, and 14 designated as hazard areas have
been subtracted from the total lot area prior to the GRFA
calculations.
5) The GRFA shown for Lot 14 in both lists is the 14330 square feet
agreed to per preliminary plat submittal. (Calculations per
current regulations would allow an additional 563 square feet)
6) The GRFA shown for Lot 1 in both lists is the 7333 square feet
calculated per the lot size prior to the revision'to the
roadway. (Calculations per current lot. size and regulations
would allow an additional 1159 square feet)
TABLE #2
May 25,
1990
February
6, 1991
Road not
on USFS
Road on USFS
Lot
----------------------------------
Lot Area
GRFA
Lot Area
GRFA
1
64310
7333
87499
7333
2
59610
7098
48146
6524
3
85038
8369
88619
8548
4
94804
7494
85250
7016
5
66082
7077
61082
6827
6
51019
6668
82050
8220
7
48961
6565
43833
6309
8
58141
7024
31873
5711
9
75170
7876
63044
7269
10
29150
5575
32296
5732
11
71402
7687
71419
7688
12
96213
8928
96213
8928
14
285337
14330
286022
14330
15
24510
5343
25596
5397
1109747
107367
1102942
105832
0
0
0
February 6, 1991
Spraddle Creek
Page 3,
From the numbers in Table #2 above you can see there was not anv
increase in the total lot area or GRFA with the road shifted east
onto Forest Service property. The total lot area was reduced 6806
square feet and the GRFA was reduced by 1535 square feet. The
purpose of shifting the road to the east was to improve overall
road grades and actually results in higher overall construction
costs for the project without any monetary gain from additional
density or developable GRFA.
Please call if you have questions on any of the figures.
Sincerely,
,`��t���►► Cro �i
Facll e.��4���_eY eying,
Inc.
i(ju es �rofYN
fib. II, 1 9 9 1
nie Knight asked Irene what impact, if any, there would.b f •
the ish were placed on the ground. Irene responded that the
dish a enclosed, it would be acceptable. She stated n
conclusi that the Talisman Condo Association found a roof
proposal un tisfactory.
Diana Donovan as the applicant if, since a general consensus
of the Commission s med opposed to a roo lacement, he would
like to withdraw his p osal, or tabl t for further research.
Kristan Pritz clarified t the Co ssion could ask that the
proposal be withdrawn, tabl it, take a vote on it as it
stood. Applicant asked what w d be the procedure for approval
if the application were tab elly Mello informed him that
if no variances were bei requeste DRB approval would be all
he would need for a gr nd placement. f the DRB denied his
request, he could b . g the application b k to the Commission
for further revi Jim Hariot then formal requested that his
application be abled for further review of al rnative
placements r the dish.
Jim S rer moved that the proposal be tabled, and Con 'e Knight
secpnded the motion. The vote was 5-0 in favor of tablin the
plication.
3. A recruest to approve the final plat for a major subdivision
on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an
aapproximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the
Main Vail/I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek
Livery.
Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr.
The Commission took this request out of order from the formal
agenda in order to accommodate the individuals wishing to speak
on this proposal. Kristan Pritz explained the application as
follows:
1. The conditions given in the previous approval by staff, PEC
and Town Council were reviewed. There were variances given
for road grades and retaining wall height. Along with this,
there were 24 conditions of approval for the final plat
approval. The Planning Commission also requested at
preliminary plat approval that the applicant work on
reducing the road grade and refining the architectural
guidelines. Below are the comments associated with each
condition of approval.
Regarding the reduction of proposed road grades and
retaining wall height, the original conditions for final
approval requested that the applicant further reduce the
road grades and retaining wall height. Applicant has
changed the design of the retaining walls to a "keystone"
wall, similar to those used in Potato Patch. The color of
these walls will be tan, which has been conceptually agreed
3 •
to by the DRB. To reduce the amount of fill required and
wall height, the fill walls will be reduced from 10 feet of
planting area to 6 feet. The retaining walls will not
exceed the V-811 originally approved, and there will be no
more than three terraces of these walls. There would still
be sufficient planting area to accommodate landscaping
requirements.
The rationale behind the changes was explained by stating
that there have been alterations to the road design at the
livery road switchback. Some other walls have been
lengthened, resulting in some change from two tiers to one.
The Town Engineer reviewed the "keystone" wall proposal and
had several comments. The first was that although the
analysis of soil nailing and tie rod system was not
complete, the use of a "keystone" wall is appropriate in
this case. A tie rod system would create more wall area,
where the "keystone" wall is more flexible and can be
adjusted more easily to circumstances. Furthermore, the
terracing is more appropriate than single, tall walls.
Staff requested that applicant break up the longest walls,
those of more than 400 l.f., with planting notches, as well
as attempt to remove some of the walls by performing
extensive grading on the land behind the wall. There would
be more initial disturbance, but would result in long term
benefits.
Staff believes -that some of the walls may be reduced. There
was a net increase in wall length of 1,138 l.f. from
preliminary plan approval. Staff wanted to see the
following walls reduced or eliminated: some of the K and I
walls, C1 and C2 at the existing livery site, the O wall
below Lots 15 and 10, M1 and M2, and Y1 and Z1 could be
removed for better access to driveways for Lots 1 and 2. In
addition, the wall around the gatehouse may be able to be
reduced.
Kathy Langenwalter asked what would be the maximum grading
for the slopes, and Kristan responded by saying that it
could be a maximum of 2:1 or 1.5:1 if vegetation and
topography impacts could be minimized by using 1.5:1 slopes
around the walls.
2. Applicant will submit construction guidelines. Staff is
looking for direction from the Commission on whether the
members would like to see those plans one more time, or
would a final DRB approval be sufficient?
3.
The grading easement requestE"}"re cvi-cnc;nn of the
North Frontage Road has been
4
4. The agreement for moving the livery from its present
location has been completed. The applicant will relocate
the livery to Forest Service Land and revegetate the
existing site.
5. conditions for lots having slopes over 30% will be applied
to this subdivision. Applicant has agreed to this and will
indicate the stipulation on the final plat and in the
covenants. .
6. Limitation of site coverage has been agreed to by applicant
and staff. There was concern that the zoning for Hillside
Residential would allow for too much site coverage. The
Hillside Residential zoning would have allowed for the
entire GRFA to be on one floor, including, perhaps, a 3 or 4
car garage. There is a need for flexibility because of
sensitive lots, and this has been taken into consideration
when determining the site coverage for each lot. The
builders have approved the use of building envelopes. In
addition, the new site coverage ordinance has become more
restrictive since the preliminary approval was given. Staff
and applicant have agreed to limit site coverage to GRFA
minus 850 sq. ft., except for Lots 8, 10, and 15 which will
use site coverage per the Hillside Residential zone
district. Lot 14 will be limited to 10,000 sq. ft.
7. Since the preliminary approval, the fireplace ordinance has is
changed. There appears to be one complete DRB application
submitted, so one house will be receiving a wood burning
fireplace. The caretaker unit for this lot, Lot 14, will be
restricted to a gas appliance. With the exception of Lot
14, the subdivision will be required to comply with the
revised Ordinance 42, indicating that there will only be gas
:logs or gas appliances.
8. The chain link fence around the culvert at the subdivision
entry will be replaced with a wooden fence and landscaping.
Staff believes this is an acceptable solution.
9. The six large spruce trees at the subdivision entry will be
moved and maintained for at least 2 years. If, for any
reason, any of these trees dies, applicant agrees to replace
them with similar type and sized trees.
10. The Fire Department standards and concerns have been
addressed by the applicant to the Town's satisfaction.
11. Applicant has agreed to the provision of recording the
appropriate easements per Forest Service requirements.
5
•
12. A six foot paved shoulder on either side of the Frontage
Road to be used as a public bike path shall be provided by
the developer. The exact length of the path will be
determined by the plan approved by the Colorado Division of
Highways.
13. The construction for each lot will occur within the platted
building envelopes. The staff has recommended some cut
backs in these envelopes, and the applicant made the
requested changes to the boundaries of the envelopes. Lot
14's building envelope is site specific to the house design.
The Lot 14 envelope was also adjusted to ensure that the
house did not move down the hillside. Driveways, sidewalks,
garages that meet Section 18.69.050 A -D, F -J, K&L, retaining
walls, surface parking and grading may be outside the
building envelopes, as long as DRB approval is received and
impacts on topography and vegetation are minimal.
Connie Knight questioned if, because garages could be built
outside the envelopes, that would also mean that caretaker
units constructed above garages would also be able to be
outside the envelope. Caretaker units would not be allowed
to be built on top of garages outside of the envelope.
Caretaker units may be built above garages within the
envelope. Connie further inquired if the Design Review
Board had examined the plans for Lot 14. Kristan Pritz
indicated that they had conceptually reviewed that plan at
this time.
14. Applicant agrees that all construction will comply with the
Environmental Impact Report requirements.
15. The least polluting sanding material will be used to sand
the private road. The Town Environmental Health Department
will determine the definition of "least polluting sanding
material." The applicant agrees to this condition.
16. The open space tracts within the subdivision will be rezoned
to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space after the final plat is
approved. The final plat will include the exact legal
description of each of the three tracts. After recording
the final plat, applicant will present the plat to the
Commission for rezoning. There will be no building permits
issued until the rezoning is accomplished.
17. The road through the subdivision from the entry gate to the
top of the subdivision will be maintained by the owner. Two
years after the landscaping is established, the maintenance
of the landscaping along the public road from the Frontage
Road to the gate will be turned over to the Town for
maintenance. The two year provision was a request by the
Town Council. The applicant requests that this be changed
• 6
to 1 to 1 1/2 years after the landscaping is established. •
Staff supports the Council recommendation.
18. Pedestrian and public access easements will be dedicated
along Spraddle Creek and along road from North Frontage Road
up Gillett Road to the entry gate. Preliminary plat
indicated that the easement along the creek.would be 20 ft.
Staff requests that this be increased to 60 ft.
19. There will be three caretaker units having a minimum square
footage of 700 sq. ft. and a maximum of 1,200 sq. ft.
provided in the subdivision. The three caretaker units are
to be provided within the first seven lots developed,. and
will be permanently restricted to employee housing units.
Staff feels that the timing of the building of these three
units is critical, and should be provided during the
development of the first seven lots. Applicant requests the
flexibility to simply require that there be three units out
of the 14 developed.
20. There were amendments requested to the architectural
guidelines. These were as follows:
a. Retaining walls shall be minimized as well as extremely
steep slopes.
b. Sod shall be allowed around the perimeter of the
residences, but large lawn areas are not encouraged. •
C. Driveways shall have a maximum grade of 8% unless
approved by the Town Engineer.
d. Irrigation by retaining walls for the subdivision shall
be prohibited.
e. No chain link fencing is allowed within the
subdivision, even for dog runs. Dog runs should have
another type of open fencing.
Staff and applicant request that these guidelines be amended
to reflect PEC and DRB recommendations. These amendments
include the stipulation that slopes shall not exceed 2:1 on
individual lots. In addition, applicant requests that drip
irrigation be allowed by the retaining walls. Staff finds
these alterations acceptable.
21. All construction within the subdivision will comply with
Town of Vail hazard ordinances. Applicant has indicated on
the plat the hazard areas within the subdivision. The
hazard areas on specific lots have been subtracted from GRFA
calculations. Ed Church, a hazard consultant, has concluded
that individual lot hazard studies will not be necessary due
to the implementation of building envelopes. Staff supports
this finding.
7 0
22. No on-site livery will be allowed within the subdivision.
Applicant agrees with this provision.
23. Aspens, vines and large shrubs shall be used on all
retaining walls. Applicant agrees to meet this condition.
24. All hazard areas will be excluded from contributing to site
area on Lots 4, 5 and 14 for GRFA or site coverage. The
applicant has met this condition.
III. Elements of the project which are not addressed in the
Council/PEC conditions of approval:
A. All lots meet minimum lot size requirements.
B. The GRFA for each lot (excluding Lot 14) has been
determined by using standard Hillside Residential
Zoning, excluding those areas designated as hazard and
floodplain areas. Lot 14's GRFA is the same as agreed
to at preliminary plan, 14,330 sq. ft.
A request by staff is that Lot 1 not receive additional
GRFA with the change of location of the subdivision
road. The staff's intent is to ensure that additional
GRFA was not allowed for Lot 1 now that the road
extends onto Forest Service land. The applicant has
• complied with this condition.
C. Road grades have not changed substantially from
preliminary plan The approved maximum was 8.89%, and
no portion of the road exceeds this grade. The overall
average grade is 7.8%. The livery road grade has been
reduced from 16.9% to 15.4% at its steepest point. The
staff will agree to this grade as long as Forest
Service approval is obtained, but requests that, if
possible, the grade be reduced further.
The livery road turnaround has been relocated to the
area in front of the subdivision gate. Staff believes
this is a significant improvement over the previous
location. The relocation does result in an additional
two retaining walls.
D. Landscape and irrigation. Applicant has incorporated
the Commission's recommendation of planting in "grove -
type" arrangements around the disturbed areas and open
space tracts. There will be significant planting in
front of the fill walls to offset visual impacts.
Since preliminary plan, applicant has provided an
acceptable plan for drip irrigation along the retaining
walls. Applicant has submitted a landscaping plan
which will require changes before Council review.
• 8
These changes are using a minimum size of 2" caliper .
- aspen, indicating the existing and proposed tree line
on the landscape plan, install a water tap instead of a
hydrant, and the plan needs to be revised to show the
driveway and wall break adjacent to Lot 8. The Town of
Vail landscape architect may require additional
planting in this area as well. Grading and landscape
plans for K, I, C1, C2, ol, M1, Y1 and Z1 are also
necessary.
E. Frontage Road design is acceptable at this time, with
the retaining walls along the road removed. However,
additional grading may be necessary on the Forest
Service land.
F. Drainage. The sedimentation basin on Lot 4 has been
removed.
G. Livery Design and Trail Access. There are 17 proposed
parking spaces, 12 of which are dedicated for users of
the livery, and 5 which will be available to hikers.
H. Construction Phasing. Applicant would like to submit
this at a later date to the Community Development and
Public Works departments for approval. Applicant is
trying to move the livery to the new location by
Memorial Day, necessitating a change in their phasing •
plan. At this time, staging areas are proposed to be
located at the old livery site and in the two cul de
sacs of the proposed subdivision.
I. Forest Service Considerations. At this point,
applicant has not received final approval to locate the
east switchback on Forest Service property from the
Forest Service. This approval will be required before
final plat.
J. Driveway locations for individual lots have been
generally indicated on a plan submitted by applicant.
Applicant wishes to allow the architects to design the
specific locations within the general parameters
indicated. The Town Engineer has reviewed these
general locations, and believes they can provide safe
access to the sites. He did comment, however, that
perhaps Lots 2 and 3 need to have their access revised.
IV. Conclusion
Staff recommends approval of the Spraddle Creek major
subdivision final plat, though there are reservations
regarding two provisions. The first provision where staff
and applicant disagree concerns the timing of the
construction of the caretaker units. The second area of .
9
• disagreement concerns the length of time maintenance will be
provided on landscaped areas and retaining walls to be
turned over to the Town.
At this juncture, applicant presented their concerns and issues.
Kent Rose, the engineer of this project, indicated that he did
not realize until just before the meeting that the retaining
walls had increased by 1,138 l.f. He explained that the
increases were due to more protection of Spraddle Creek, the
realignment of the Forest Service switchback, the turnaround
alteration, and other plan refinements. Mr. Rose postulated that
45 l.f. (Z wall) of the retaining wall along Rose Lane may be
eliminated by additional grading.
Mr. Rose also commented on the planting notches, especially along
the K wall. He explained that if there were no grading
alterations above these planting notches, the actual height of
the wall behind the notches would be approximately ten feet,
rather than 8'-811. The reason for this increase is that if they
pushed back four feet for the notch, the wall would be increased
as a function of that notch.
Kent expressed concern regarding the requirement for grading and
landscaping. He would prefer wording of "do whatever possible to
reduce height and length of walls," but further indicated that
this was a minor difference. Mr. Rose requested that the
developers be given leeway to alter the grading and walls based
upon what conditions were actually found on site.
The applicant related that they were working with the
requirements placed by staff concerning breaking up the walls,
but could not, at this time, give categorical approval to all the
conditions. Again, he reiterated that they would like
flexibility for site determinations.
Applicant is working with the 2:1 slope requirements, but said
that there are two areas which exceed that slope at this time.
However, they will make every effort to reduce the walls through
grading.
There was a discussion concerning the length of the bike path
which applicant would be required to construct. The original 525
feet is no longer applicable with the new length of the road.
Mr. Rose believed that 350 feet is more accurate. Kristan Pritz
expressed her agreement that as long as the path was constructed
as per the plan for the Frontage Road, it would be acceptable.
Kent further explained that applicant is in the process of
examining a change of lot line between Lots 2 and 3 for improved
access. Kathy Langenwalter queried if this change would be
needed since there was no longer designated specific access for
• each lot. Jay Peterson stated that the specific access
10
designation was eliminated to allow for more flexibility, but .
that every lot does have an area for access. Kent stated that
there had been changes in the access on several lots. Lot 12's
access area had been moved, Lot 9 was changed to better
accommodate the building envelope, Lot 8 may be moved to
eliminate a hole in the retaining wall, and there has been a
change in the lot line on Lot 3. Kathy asked if Greg Hall, Town
Engineer, had approved the new plans. Greg related that the only
issue remaining in his mind was Lots 2 and 3.
Kent illustrated further the reduction in retaining walls which
had occurred due to some replanning. The gatehouse will be
situated in a cut area, but no retaining walls were expected to
be needed in this location. Instead, the foundation of the
gatehouse would be extended down to grade.
Jay Peterson indicated that he was concerned with the staff
request of a 60' easement along the creek. He believed that the
original easement of 20' would be more than adequate for access.
He expressed reluctance to increase that easement to 60' due to
the way it would look to a purchaser on the plans, and because he
felt that there would be full access without a 60' easement.
Jay further stated that there was no argument on the part of the
applicant regarding the requirement of 3 caretaker units in the
subdivision. They would be designating lots for these units, but
would like the Commission to allow flexibility to change the .
designation if a purchaser did not want that unit on his
property. He explained that, while they may designate three lots
out of the first seven sold be caretaker lots, there was no
control over when construction on those lots might take place.
If there were a restriction placed on the development of the
subdivision that the three units must be built as a part of the
first seven lots developed,. it could potentially mean that they
would have to tell every purchaser that they may be required to
build a caretaker unit, based on their development timing. Jay
said they could not guarantee when the three units would be
built, simply that they would be before completion of the
subdivision.
Kathy Langenwalter asked Mr. Peterson if they were presently
designating Lots 2, 4 and 6. Jay said yes, but they would like
the flexibility to move those designations to better suit the
purchasers. However, the first lot being built upon, George
Gillett's, is also going to have a caretaker unit on it. Jay
clarified that the Dauphanais development was different from
Spraddle Creek in the fact that Mr. Dauphanais was actually
building the units. Spraddle Creek was not set up to be handled
in that manner.
Kristan Pritz voiced her concern that if there were no firm
designation when the caretaker units must be built, they would
11 •
•most likely be on the last lots developed. Jay answered that
they would actively market these caretaker units as a positive
amenity, and he believed that most of the purchasers would
probably want them. However, he did not want to be in the
position to mandate which owners would be required to construct a
caretaker unit.
Mr. Peterson also requested clarification of what the minimum
size of the caretaker units would be. He wanted a minimum of 500
sq. ft. instead of 700, as he felt a 700 sq. ft. minimum might
discourage additional units. Kristan indicated that either
requirement was acceptable, but there needed to be a
determination from the Commission what they wanted as a minimum.
Connie Knight questioned Mr. Peterson if these would be like
Beaver Creek. Jay responded that the units could be built up to
a maximum of 1,200 sq. ft., but that a 500 sq. ft. unit was
easily placed above a garage. He further clarified that these
units will not be "just a bedroom with a hot plate," but a
liveable unit.
Jay Peterson then proceeded to request that a 1 1/2 year
landscaping and retaining wall maintenance period be established,
rather than the 2 year requirement placed by the Town Council.
Joe Macy indicated a preference of the standard landscaping
establishment period of one year. He explained that a standard
contract with a landscaping contractor includes a one year
• establishment period. If there were losses during that first
year, the contractor would be required to replace the plants and
give an additional year warranty on the plants being replaced.
Joe expressed his belief that the Town of Vail landscaping
contracts include the one year warranty period, and he requested
the same conditions for the Spraddle Creek development. Kristan
Pritz asked if the Town of Vail landscape architect would approve
of the one year requirement. Todd Oppenheimer affirmed that the
one year warranty is standard, but the Town could extend that
period with contractors in special circumstances. Kristan
requested the Commission decide what standard they would like to
see.
Kathy Langenwalter queried Todd if the plants proposed to be
placed would be likely to die within the one year period if they
were not going to establish. Todd indicated that most plants
actually die in the transportation process, i.e., the root ball
of a tree could become cracked. Sometimes it does take more than
a year for a tree to become established, or die, and they are
more susceptible to disease in that period, but most plants die
within a year of transplant. Todd also stated that the worst
planting time in Vail is August. Even if there were an 18 month
warranty, it would be February when it expired and there was no
way to determine if the plants had survived the winter.
Alternatively, you could tell in April, May or June if the plant
had survived and was thriving.
• 12
Kathy Langenwalter proposed a requirement of 2 growing seasons .
for the warranty period. Richard Matthews stipulated that he had
never seen more than a one year guarantee. Even if the planting
were done in August, you would be able to tell the next August if
the plants had been established. Kathy was concerned that this
was a different situation than most, with the retaining walls
being a reflective surface. Joe Macy stated that with the drip
irrigation system, the plants would be automatically watered
every day and thus the effect of the retaining walls would be
negated. Kathy asked if this system was going to be pulled out
when the area was turned, over to the Town. Joe answered that it
would be, unless the Town wanted it to remain. Jay Peterson
interjected that the planting materials being used were chosen so
no irrigation would be needed after the original establishment
period. Joe Macy stated that the Hillside area was good for
growing without water. The quality of the landscaping would be
carefully supervised.
Diana Donovan asked what happens when the irrigation system was
turned off. Richard Matthews answered that the Town could hook
up to the tubing if it desired. He also stated that he felt
comfortable with planting any time except December through April.
Jim Shearer suggested that a year plus whatever number of months
necessary to bring the inspection to August might be appropriate.
Jay Peterson stated that he believed you would be able to •
determine if the tree had been established by the following
spring. Todd Oppenheimer indicated that the warranty could be
written that the plant be not only alive at the end of the
warranty period, but that it must meet the same specifications as
when it was planted. This would require that the entire plant be
thriving, not just one branch with leaves on it. If it would not
have met the specifications at planting, then it would be
determined to be unacceptable at the conclusion of the warranty
period. Todd further stated that with the irrigation system and
inspections at the time of planting, a one year warranty period
should be adequate.
Diana Donovan asked Todd if a plant was replaced, was a new
warranty issued for that plant? Todd answered that yes, the
warranty is one year from planting. Diana requested that
language be placed in the contract and Kristan said it would.
Joe Macy indicated that the specific language would be worked on.
Kristan asked the Commission what standard they wanted. Diana
Donovan indicated she would defer to Todd's opinion, but that she
had concerns the plant material would die without irrigation.
Jay Peterson related that the developers were also concerned
about the appearance of the drive. This is the road coming into
the subdivision, and if the plants die, they want it replaced,
too, in order to protect the image they want to project. Kristan
13 •
•again asked for specific direction from the Commission. Jim
Shearer requested clarification from Todd if he wanted one year
plus an additional summer. Todd believed he would be able to
evaluate the landscaping without a second summer. Applicant
stated they wanted the industry standard of one year to be the
warranty period.
Todd clarified that the date of planting is not when a specific
plant goes into the ground, but the date of final acceptance of
the entire project by the Town. In practice, there are
additional months on the warranty because the planting takes
place over a period of time. Usually the trees are planted
first, then shrubs and vines. He was comfortable with one year,
but requested that the irrigation be maintained for a period of
three years. Diana Donovan asked if the Commission could
stipulate a one year warranty on the plant materials, but have
the developers maintain the irrigation for three years. Jay
Peterson said that they would find a two year irrigation period
satisfactory, and then the Town could take over the system if it
desired. The developers would ensure that there was a simple
method of turning over just that portion of the irrigation to the
Town, perhaps by the use of two valves. Diana stated she felt
comfortable with a one year guarantee on the plant materials, a
two year watering period by Vail Associates, with the water for
just the lower portion turned over to the Town at that point.
This appeared to be the consensus of the Commission.
• Joe Macy then turned the Commission's attention to the question
of architectural guidelines. He stated he did not feel they
would need to come back to the Commission an additional time for
approval. Instead, applicant would work with staff on any
changes. If there developed a conflict, then the issue could be
presented to the Commission for their review. Kristan Pritz
relayed that if the Commission felt comfortable with that
requirement, it would be acceptable. However, she did want
Commission comments on this issue to ensure that there were no
discrepancies in opinion. DRB approval would also still be
needed on any changes.
Joe Macy stated that they would re -write the architectural
guidelines to conform with the staff recommendations. Connie
Knight expressed concern that the landscape plan was simply a
list of building materials, and not a true plan. Joe explained
that a complete landscape plan had been submitted and approved.
Kristan indicated that this was correct and she felt comfortable
with no further Commission review if they found the landscape
conditions acceptable as outlined in the staff memo, pages 15 and
16. However, if further review was requested, there would be no
need -to go through the public notice process as the changes were
very minor.
0 14
Connie Knight stated that she wanted to see the architectural •
guidelines again, with a more specific landscape plan. Jim
Shearer said he was comfortable with them not coming back again.
Kathy Langenwalter mentioned that she had some comments, but was
okay with no further review by the Commission.
At this point, Ludwig Kurz indicated he had to disqualify himself
from the discussion of Spraddle Creek. When this process began,
he was independently employed, but now works solely with Vail
Associates.
Diana Donovan felt that no further review of the landscape and
architectural guidelines would be necessary. Joe Macy stated
that most of the guidelines were for the buyers of the lots, and
that DRB approval would still be necessary before construction.
Since the consensus of the Commission was to proceed with
approval today, Kathy Langenwalter related her questions and
(' comments regarding the project. Her first comment was that there
1 needed to be more specific delineation between review by the
-- Spraddle Creek Design Review Board and Town of Vail Design Review
Board, and when each board would need to be consulted during
construction. She also wanted the definition of building
envelope expanded upon, especially what could not go outside that
envelope. There was a prior written approval by Design Review
Board clause in the envelope language, but it was not clear which
DRB would apply. Joe Macy clarified that it was the Town of Vail
DRB which would need to give approval.
Kathy also questioned who would check the drainage requirements
on the property. Joe indicated that language would be made
clearer to reflect that the lot owner will have to meet the
drainage requirements. Kristan expanded on the fact that there
would be two levels of review, first by the Spraddle Creek DRB,
and then by the Town of Vail DRB. Joe stipulated that buildings
would be designed to meet both requirements.
Kathy mentioned that she would like to see the grading and slopes
change to a maximum of 2:1 grading within the building envelope
and outside improvements. Joe Macy indicated that there would
have to be grading for the sidewalks, which could be outside the
envelope. Kathy suggested that perhaps the language be changed
to "other allowed improvements" rather than outside the building
envelope.
Kathy requested that there be changes in wording from "should" to
shall, and illustrated that point on page 4. Another change in
wording was in the retaining wall materials verbiage, where she
would request a change from stone to stone -faced concrete and add
boulder retaining walls. She also requested a clarification on
what exactly fencing for privacy walls means. Jay Peterson said
he would change that wording to fencing or privacy walls.
15 •
.Kathy expressed her concern that, on page 5, the language reflect
the Town of Vail sign ordinance on the structures. Kristan Pritz
clarified that residential nameplates are allowed.
On the issue of landscape lighting, Kathy asked that the language
stating that extensive landscape lighting was strongly
discouraged be changed to prohibited. In the alternative, she
requested that the sentence be stricken. Further on the topic of
landscaping, Kathy asked that the swimming pools be submitted to
Town of Vail DRB approval. She also wanted clarification of the
provision of pre -application conference with the Spraddle Creek
Design Review Board and the lot owner.
171
An addition Kathy suggested was a change on page 2 from plaster
or stucco to read "or other synthetic stucco." Another issue she
wanted clarified was the fact that "window casings shall be wood,
but clad is acceptable." She felt this statement was
contradictory. Regarding flashings, she would like an addition
to the current language reflecting they must be copper or painted
to "match adjacent materials."
Kathy asked for a definition of what individual lot or site walls
are. Joe Macy said they were, for example, gardens or walkways
outside the envelope. When Kathy requested further
clarification, Kristan Pritz stated that retaining walls could be
outside the envelope, but they were discouraged in order to
minimize site disturbance.
Kathy wanted to know why, in the landscape plan, only blue spruce
were specified. Joe Macy replied that there was no reason,
except other trees, such as pinon, do not grow well. However,
lodgepole and fir would also be acceptable. Kathy expressed her
opinion that she would like to see variety in the subdivision.
Diana Donovan turned the topic of conversation to the easements
along the creek. A compromise of 40' was suggested by Kathy.
Joe Macy responded by stating he felt that even 20' was
ridiculous to begin with, due to the fact that no one really
walks up there.
Connie Knight expressed her opinion that 20' would be acceptable,
as long as there were no barricades preventing pedestrian access
beyond the 20' easement.
Diana asked why staff was.requesting a 60' easement. Kristan
Pritz said that due to the terrain, sometimes a pedestrian would
need to go around fallen logs or other obstructions. Staff was
only requesting this change, it was not a major requirement. Joe
Macy stated that 20' works, and that there would be no policing
of the easement.
16
Kristan queried if a 30' compromise would be acceptable. Joe •
related that from a marketing standpoint, 20' was optimum.
Diana stated she didn't feel it made much of a difference, but
asked if the area would be marked. Jay Peterson responded that
there would be no barricade to mark the easement. Dannie
Corcoran made the point that for the most part, 20' is adequate.
In the areas where it was not, a pedestrian would have.to either
walk in the river or through the subdivision anyway. At this
point, the Commission indicated that a 20' easement would be
adequate.
Diana Donovan requested information on how the retaining walls
fit into the landscaping guarantee. Kristan Pritz stated they
were on the same agreement as the landscaping plantings. Joe
Macy explained that they would be turned over to the Town for
maintenance one year after acceptance. Town Engineer Greg Hall
accepted this provision.
ter directed a question to Kent Rose regarding how
Kathy Langenwal
drainage paths would be revegetated and how disturbed they would
be. Kristan Pritz indicated that the landscaping map showed what
effect there would be. Kathy clarified that she wanted to ensure
that the "scars" would be the same color as the surrounding area.
Todd Oppenheimer stated this would be a difficult project, due to
the terrain of the subdivision. Joe Macy granted that it would
be possible to re -plant the sagebrush to the disturbed areas, but
that he was not sure how well it would work. Todd Oppenheimer
asked if the applicant was considering using a seed mix or
container sagebrush to revegetate. Joe responded that, at this
point, seed mix was the alternative being explored. Connie
Knight asked how long it would take for the seed mix to grow.
Todd answered that it could take up to three years, at which
point Connie expressed her opinion that the area should be re -
vegetated. Kathy agreed, but also stipulated that she did not
want to see "stripes." Diana requested that the applicant give a
better guarantee on the sagebrush than one year, and that they
would keep trying until "they get it right." She felt this would
help minimize citizen concern over the project.
Staff explained that research indicated the Town of Aspen had put
a mixture of the dead sage they had removed and a seed mix back
over a construction site to better conceal the area while the
seed mix was growing. Diana asked if applicant would find
acceptable an agreement that if the sagebrush was not re-
established in a period of three years, another alternative would
be explored and implemented at that time. Joe Macy said that
would be fine. Todd Oppenheimer added that he felt the dead
sagebrush and seed mix approach was worth a try.
17 0
Diana stated that the Commission consensus was that a mixture of
.dead sage and seed mix would be attempted on the disturbed areas
for a period of two to three years (depending on the plant
material), then the Town landscape architect would re-examine the
success and alternative options. In addition, Diana asked if
trees would be placed in the cut. Joe stated that there could be
no trees on the utility easement, but they would scallop the tree
line.
Turning the attention of the Commission to another topic for
discussion, Diana polled the members on what they felt was an
adequate minimum size for the caretaker units. Connie, Jim,
Kathy and Diana each indicated that 500 sq. ft. should be the
minimum, with Diana clarifying the range would be 500-1,200 sq.
ft., and that this space would come out of the GRFA for the lot.
Diana Donovan then asked applicant if there were any question
that the Forest Service would approve the plan on their land.
Joe Macy stated that the environmental impact and a finding of no
significant impact had been submitted. The district office is
discussing the issue presently, then it will go to the regional
office in Denver for final approval. The Forest Service had not
indicated any problems to date. However, if a problem surfaces,
the entire plan is dependant upon Forest Service approval of the
changes.
•Kathy Langenwalter and Connie Knight both requested to see the
construction guidelines. Joe Macy said there was no secret of
what these were, as they were a part of the bid document. As
such, he agreed to provide them.
Kathy further pondered if perhaps reducing height and length of
the walls was not the answer if reducing the impacts on the site
is a desired result. Kent Rose clarified that the construction
specifications will minimize height and length when possible.
There will be a project manager and survey crew on site during
the construction to ensure that this occurs. Kristan added that
the staff would have a site design team, consisting of Greg Hall,
Todd Oppenheimer and herself, to review the progress to check
that this was, indeed, happening. Kathy reiterated that she just
wanted to make sure it was all being taken care of. Joe Macy
elaborated that since the retaining walls are very expensive,
they would be happy to eliminate them where ever possible. They
want to eliminate every wall they can.
Kathy Langenwalter then turned her attention to the planting
pockets, wondering how much actual planting area there would be,
and if it were actually significant. Kent stated there would be
approximately 5 feet of plantable area per pocket. Joe Macy
continued that this amount was significant, especially when the
trees grow above the wall. Kathy then queried applicants about
what impact snow and snow removal would have on these pockets.
. 18
Kent stated that these pockets were somewhat protected by the
curbing along the road. 0
Kristan Pritz reminded applicants that they needed to make sure
they did not go above the 81- 8" maximum height for the walls in
the area of the planting pockets. She elaborated that she wanted
to clarify.the variance previously given so there would not be
problems later during construction. Jay indicated that they may
attempt to place the pockets in areas where they could grade back
above the pocket to minimize the wall.
Jim Shearer asked applicants if, in the keystone wall, it would
be possible to place these pockets every 400 feet. Joe stated
that it would be at least every 400 ft. Kristan indicated that,
from a distance, the effect of these pockets would be greater
than while driving along the road itself.' In addition, the 400
feet was merely a guideline for contractors when bidding on the
construction. Jim requested clarification of whether this 400
foot minimum is to be applied to the entire wall length or
consecutive linear feet. Kristan answered that it would apply to
walls that exceed 400 feet. She further explained that the
clearer the expectations of everyone at the outset, the better.
Then, if there were turnover in any aspect of the development,
there would be no confusion as to what was agreed upon.
Jim questioned the importance of a small planting notch in a
large wall, and also stated his agreement with Kathy over her •
concern of the impact of the snowplows. Joe Macy said that there
will be vines to disguise the walls. Jim asked about the effect
of straightening some of the roads, and if that was increasing
the amount of walls, as compared to the previous undulation.
Kent answered that the roads now move better with the contours of
the site, and that the effect on the length of walls was
negligible.
Jim requested clarification on each lot's GRFA, and whether the
figure presented would be increased by 850 sq. ft. to compensate
for the loss of the credit system, and also if the garage space
needed to be added to the GRFA figure. This was confirmed by
staff per the specifics in the memo. Garages are not in the GRFA
numbers.
Connie Knight asked if applicant had brought a sample of the
keystone wall to view. The Commission examined it and Connie
asked if the color could be changed. Joe Macy affirmed that the
color could be changed. Connie stated that she felt planting
notches are a positive addition to the plan.
Regarding the stipulation that Spraddle Creek use the "least
polluting sand" for winter sanding, Connie asked if that could be
more specific. Joe Macy stated that he wanted to research that
issue_ further, with Jay Peterson indicating that he wanted
19 •
•flexibility for new technology in the future. Connie asked if an
appropriate standard would be whatever the Town and Highway
Department agreed upon? It was determined that applicant would
be given flexibility through the "least polluting" language.
Connie also asked about the sufficiency of the livery parking
provisions, and whether 5 parking spaces would be enough for
hikers. Kristan said she believed it would be sufficient, as
there was other parking available to hikers above the subdivision
in a flat area on USFS land.
In reviewing the slope requirements, Connie questioned if there
were enough controls to ensure adequate protection. Kent Rose
explained that applicants wanted to see what conditions they
found in the field, and act accordingly within the guidelines
provided.
Connie also questioned how large the garages could be. Kristan
explained that there would be a maximum of 1,200 sq. ft. for a
garage if 4 spaces were provided, unless the owner used GRFA for
garage space.
A question was then asked by Diana Donovan of when George Gillett
would be building his home, and how that time table related to
the construction of the roads. Joe Macy stated that a phasing
plan will be submitted. The roads, walls and deep utilities will
• be started in April. By August or September, an owner could
begin foundation work. The second spring, the asphalting of the
roads and shallow utilities will be completed.
Diana questioned if anyone would be able to move in before the
landscaping was completed. Kristan answered that the plat would
be recorded with the subdivision improvements indicated. There
would then be a bond issued to ensure the completion of the
improvements. At that point, the developers would be free to
sell lots and the Town could issue building permits. For a
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy to be issued, the water, sewer
and electricity would have to be completed. When Diana further
questioned what guarantee the Town had that the landscaping and
other improvements would be completed, Kristan replied that the
completion bond was the guarantee, with the Town retaining 10o
until all was completed and accepted. Joe Macy further
elaborated that the conditions of the performance bond would
apply to all portions of the development. Jay Peterson indicated.
that if the plan was not completed on time, the Town would be
able to draw on the completion bond. Connie raised the question
of who determines the dollar amount of that completion bond. Jay
answered that it is determined by the applicant, but reviewed by
the Town for accuracy.
0 20
Once again, the issue of GRFA and square footage was raised, and
Diana Donovan wanted further clarification that the GRFA includes
the 850 sq. ft. allowance. Jay pledged that the GRFA for each
lot would be placed on the plat and yes, the GRFA numbers
included the 850 sq. ft.
Discussion then moved to concerns over the greenbelts provided.
Diana asked for a clarification of Tract A, B and C and it was
provided by Kristan Pritz. After the clarification, Diana
expressed concern about the visual impact of this subdivision
from the bottom of the International ski run, and not just from
within the subdivision.
Kathy Langenwalter asked if the gatehouse would be a caretaker
unit. -The answer from Jay was that there would be no utilities
into the unit, and it was not visualized that the gatehouse would
become living accommodations due to the impacts.
With the discussion moving once again to emp19yee housing, Diana
requested definite confirmation that Mr. Gillett is building a
caretaker unit with his home. Joe Macy replied that he was.
Diana postulated that she could not see how the Town could
require when or on what lots the caretaker units would be built,
due to practical and legal -difficulties. It would be impractical
to have the requirement at the time the building permit is
issued, which would be the only way to control when the units
would be built. Joe reiterated that applicants did not want plat •
restrictions regarding the caretakers. Connie issued her opinion
that she didn't believe it would be good for the developers to
keep shifting the. units from lot to lot. Jay interjected that if
restrictions were placed, that in marketing, the developers would
have to indicate that any buyer might be required to build a
caretaker unit. Kristan stated that the issue of timing was one
of concern to the Town Council, and asked if applicant could pin
down two lots in addition to Mr. Gillett's which they would put
the caretaker condition upon. Jay again stated that he wanted
flexibility. The developers would select three lots for
caretaker units, but did not want to have to go through another
.major subdivision revision in order to change those lots around.
He also asked if there were another mechanism, rather than using
a major subdivision review, whereby the designation could be
changed by the PEC. After much discussion, no conclusion was
reached. Diana attempted to summarize the Commission's feelings
by stating that the requirement that 3 of the lots, when
developed, have caretaker units, but with no stipulation as to
.the timing. She did state, however, that the Town Council may
not approve the final plat without some type of timing agreement.
At this point, the specific conditions of approval were reviewed
in order to formulate a proper motion for the Commission. The
resulting conditions were: (Please note changes from PEC are in
bold type).
21 0
A. Before the Project is Reviewed by the Town Council for
Dedication, the'FollowinQ Must Occur:
1. The architectural, construction, landscape guidelines
in the covenants shall be reviewed by the Design Review
Board and Staff before the final plat is allowed to
proceed to Council. Further PEC approval shall no
longer be required for the documents listed above. The
covenants will be submitted to staff before Town
Council review. A color board shall also be submitted
with the final architectural guidelines.
2. The following changes shall be made by the applicant to
the landscape plan as a condition of final plat
approval before the project is reviewed by the Town
Council:
* 2 inch caliper aspen shall be the minimum
size allowed instead of 1 1/2 inch aspen
The existing and proposed tree line shall be
indicated on the landscape plan
* The irrigation point of connection shall be
changed to a water tap instead of the fire
hydrant connection.
* The irrigation guidelines shall be reviewed
and approved by the Town of Vail landscape
architect.
* The landscape plan shall be revised to show
the driveway and wall break adjacent to Lot
8. Additional planting may be required by
the Town of Vail landscape architect in this
area.
* The Al wall shall be indicated on the
landscape plan.
(The Fourth and Fifth conditions moved to
section E, during construction numbers two
and three).
3. The Town Attorney shall review and approve the
wording on the subdivision plat concerning 30%
slope, building envelopes and certificates.
4. A construction phasing plan shall be submitted to
the Community Development and Public Works
departments for final approval before the project
proceeds to Council. The debris flow mitigation
during construction shall be addressed in the
phasing plan.
5. The conditions for lots having slopes over 30%
shall be indicated on the subdivision plat. This
section of the code is 18.69.050 A -D, F -I, K and
22
L. This wording shall also be included in the
covenants for the subdivision. •
6. The conditions of the building envelope shall be
added to the plat, and also incorporated in the
subdivision covenants.
7. The owner of the subdivision, or homeowners,
association, shall maintain the road through the
subdivision from the entry gate up to the top of
the subdivision. This maintenance also includes
all tract areas, retaining walls, and landscaping.
The owner, or homeowners, association, also agrees
to be responsible for establishing the landscaping
along the public road extending from the North
Frontage Road up to the subdivision entry gate for
one year, from the date of Town of Vail landscape
and wall acceptance. Once the landscaping is
accepted and one year from the date of acceptance
by the Town of Vail has transpired, the Town will
take over the responsibility of the retaining
walls and landscaping maintenance. Any plant
material not meeting the original planting
specifications at the end of the one year warranty
period shall be replaced by the owner or
homeowners, association. Replacement plants shall
be covered by an additional one year warranty.
The owner or homeowners, association will continue
to water the landscaping for an additional year
after expiration of the original one year
warranty. The drip irrigation will. be zoned to
separate public and private use and will remain in
place and be turned over to the Town of Vail at
the completion of the watering provision.
8. Owner agrees to re -plant using a mixture of the
removed sagebrush and seed mix for a period of 2
growing seasons per Colorado state University
recommendations on all cuts for utilities. If
this attempt is not successful in revegetating
impacted areas of sage, owner will investigate and
instigate other methods of revegetation to the
Town of Vail landscape architects requirements
after the second growing season. Cuts must be
revegetated in such a manner that no noticeable
scar exists.
9. The Town engineer's comments to Kristan Pritz,
dated January 24, 1991, shall be met or resolved.
23 40
10. Based on the second set of plans dated January 31,
• 1991, the following issues in the memo dated
February 11, 1991 from Greg Hall shall be met or
resolved.
11. Town engineer's approval is required for the final
street construction plans, construction
specifications and final drainage report.
12. The applicant shall incorporate into the covenants
the condition that no on-site livery shall be
allowed within the subdivision
13. Applicant agrees to construct six foot paved
shoulders on either side of the Frontage Road
according to the plan submitted and approved by
the Colorado Division of Highways for a public
bike path.
14. Three caretaker units, each having a maximum
square footage of 1200 sq. ft. and a minimum
square footage of 500 sq. ft., shall be provided
within the subdivision. The units will be
permanently restricted per section 18.13.080 (10)
(A -D) of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. The
applicant shall agree that three lots will be
designated in the covenants or plat on which
caretaker units will be built. If lots other than
those lots originally designated provide caretaker
units, the covenant restriction will be lifted.
Developer may change designated lots as long as
there are three lots designated at all times.
Further Town of Vail review of the designations
will -not be required if caretaker requirement is
moved to another lot.
15. The owner shall use the least polluting sanding
material for sanding the private road within the
subdivision per the.approval of the Town of Vail
Environmental Health Department.
16. On any walls that are greater than 400 feet in
length, planting notches shall be required unless
it is determined that At is impossible to locate
the notches in a sensitive manner in the walls.
Staff and applicant will determine a number of
notches to be built prior to Town Council review.
During construction, notches may be increased,
changed or removed with the approval of the Town
of Vail design team, consisting of the Town
Engineer, Landscape Artist and Community
Development Director.
. 24
B. During Town Council Review, the Following Must Occur:
1. Easements will be dedicated to the Town at this
time.
C. Before the Final Plat is Recorded, the Following
Conditions Shall Be Met:
1. The applicant shall submit to the Community
Development Department for approval the final
agreement relocating the existing livery to the
Forest Service land east of Spraddle Creek
Subdivision. This agreement shall also include
revegetation of the existing livery site.
2. Before the final plat is recorded, the appropriate
easements allowing for public access shall be
recorded per the Forest Service requirements.
Forest Service approval for the switchback on
their property to the east of Spraddle Creek
Subdivision shall also be received before final
plat recording.
3. The subdivision improvement agreement and
covenants shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department and approved before the
final plat is recorded.
D. After Final Plat Recording and Before any Building
Permits are Released for Site Improvements or
Individual Residences, the Following Conditions Must be
Met:
1. The rezoning of all open space tracts within the
subdivision shall be approved by the Vail Town
Council. The requested zone designations shall be
greenbelt open space. This condition shall also
be listed in the subdivision agreement before the
final plat is recorded.
2. All final plat conditions of approval shall be met
by the applicant.
E. During Construction of the Project, the Following
Conditions Will be Met:
1. The Community Development Director, Town Engineer
and Town landscape architect shall periodically do
on-site inspections of the construction.
25 0
2. A letter from RBD Engineers describing how grading
• and landscaping will occur if walls I, K, C1, C2,
Ol, Ml, Y1 are removed, and when wall Z1 is
removed.
3. Additional aspens and shrubs may be required by
the landscape architect for walls E-1, G-1 and N-
1. This issue shall be resolved after an on site
inspection is made by the Town of Vail landscape
architect. Up to 30 aspens and 20 shrubs may be
required by the landscape architect.
4. The applicant shall submit worksheets showing
grading and proposed landscaping to mitigate
grading for portions of the I walls, K walls, C
walls, O1, M1, Y1, Rose Lane, and walls below the
gatehouse to the Town engineer, landscape
architect, and Community Development Director.
These walls shall also be listed on the final
street construction plans as having potential for
removal.
Kathy Langenwalter moved that the above requirements be accepted
by the Commission. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The vote
was 4-0 in favor of the motion. A review of the requirements
will take place at the next Commission meeting.
• The meeting was recessed at 7:05, and reconvened by Diana
Donovan, chairperson, at 7:12PM.
was noted by Diana Donovan that Ludwig Kurz had left
mee 'ng for a personal emergency.
4.
Andy Knudtsen gave the s ff presen ion. He opened by
addressing what the Commiss' n ha asked staff to review at the
previous work session.
The first area of concerns the 1 ue of parking spaces. By
widening the access roa o the park, rking has been increased
to 18 spaces. Other tions were examin including frontage
road parking, but ening the driveway app red to make more
sense.
Diana asked out Vail Recreation Department schedu 'ng of
practices nd games. Todd Oppenheimer replied that at' -.this time,
Steohe Park was not included in the agreement between tiiQ VRD
0 26
TOWN OF PAIL
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the
Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town
Code, on, April 9, 2007, at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in
consideration of:
A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12,
Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of an entry
feature, located at 292 East Meadow Drive (Mountain Haus), part of Tract B, Vail Village
Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0012)
Applicant: Vail Estates, represented by Paul Smith
Planner: Bill Gibson
A request for final review of the prescribed zoning regulations, pursuant to Section 12-3-
7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to Section 12-6A-9, Site
Coverage, Vail Town Code, to increase allowable site coverage from 15% to 20%,
Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, located at 914 through 1326 Spraddle Creek Road,
Lots 1-15, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0013)
Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave •
Kaselak of Zehren and Associates
Planner: Warren Campbell
A request for final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12,
Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to platted
gross residential floor area and site coverage limitations, located at 914 Spraddle Creek
Road, Lots 1-15, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, and. setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC07-0014)
Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave
Kaselak of Zehren and Associates
Planner: Warren Campbell
A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12,
Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the platted building
envelope (Lot 1), within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1677 Buffehr Creek
Road/Lots 1, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC07-0015)
Applicant: Doug Weltner
Planner: Warren Campbell
s
Attachment: F Page 1
• A recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a major amendment to a Special
Development District (SDD), pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures,
Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to Special Development District No. 4,
Cascade Village, to allow for a new development area located at Tract K, Glen Lyon
Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0017)
Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson
Planners: Bill Gibson
0
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection
during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South
Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that
precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department.
Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information.
Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour notification. Please
call 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
Published March 23, 2007, in the Vail Daily.
Page 2
z
W Er_
O
W E"
cO
C—)
A
s
ESE
W E O
-11
a'L
88 s•S^ B6 $'affi §Gug `s�$,8' �ma
-
w U) O W
Cl)
n"!-
?'sa affi
Ba g�cxs igs Eat s g SYy eg s4 3Ey gaiyg� i$ x
�SFY:6�� Eef
A
V
64UA
E EE
L is Afia5Z553E Yeo Sg 63n
�. a •n_„ 6 gg� h�;g 6ffi a�'<�g 5
REEm HF��$`f�E $ Ex
h"6sEoae a�>xaes-`e.i i#$g@55.558
$58friE$ 5� ��
•$x L $•$ 9EEoG� g i Q f
$Feb g$fr hofgP B�
E..p
Eg S g
E�Egb 64ffi.a$x$ ig4F5
y 5p s�°ice 6s
ag,Es 3 d 6
�p
y� �a�i �.frn � � �i.�
OL
��
-
E•
E
Sa
p
P.
'Z'x�Ns!affi
a g$ Y F$$ g$. 3
s.I
fr
�• _
'mss
-
G4
•� 5 g8�gy3_aE
girt
hip $!�l
W
W F..
baa g a _¢
ss g gg @$ Es• ffig ge3
s E&$
F
a$�d�.�,�§
I$G3 i-
r
tr"/•� MW
V1 W
W Er_
O
W E"
cO
C—)
C)
ESE
W E O
-11
a'L
88 s•S^ B6 $'affi §Gug `s�$,8' �ma
-
w U) O W
Cl)
n"!-
?'sa affi
Ba g�cxs igs Eat s g SYy eg s4 3Ey gaiyg� i$ x
�SFY:6�� Eef
A
V
64UA
E EE
L is Afia5Z553E Yeo Sg 63n
�. a •n_„ 6 gg� h�;g 6ffi a�'<�g 5
REEm HF��$`f�E $ Ex
h"6sEoae a�>xaes-`e.i i#$g@55.558
$58friE$ 5� ��
•$x L $•$ 9EEoG� g i Q f
$Feb g$fr hofgP B�
E..p
Eg S g
E�Egb 64ffi.a$x$ ig4F5
y 5p s�°ice 6s
ag,Es 3 d 6
�p
E�gCx 3u E5i g b
s ; ss€ EEE 0$ B sassa$ax
OL
6§„a8a HIM aEe< e°&W a .'se_'e°s#era s°
E
Q; E
w
x �
O �
es�4ag x ..x$� �s ein e_ffi«
� Nie
wi i%'F^ � 5$•i8s Val"$ G� T2 �� x3 s� � •
�i4. b86 ��� ������gs as3a Syp 86gs
F
a.
4 S gg a sis �
G�Yun
�`a � 's
2
W
Q
d $
s= � I Es � ° �➢a' � W € �=` � I � �' a �" �
Nil
$ $ � 8 g �• dF �$� 6•g <` �fi 3fi � fi
gE I § a Alm �; m
RNAF� �aiY �ES:'s.
I i I
s� � � . x �s� � l� �8 E l� � � Iti � �� 1 I; f. fij l �•$ E
f m
�B b• � k6! uE �b� k -@s k k� EE.
k ' 8� k ggg k t5e 8 k t5 5E k L§,p €a k�
x €dx FFSi> `G' €
8€
e:£ J GE•<a
w
I� I
8
fi
�g IN
r ° k�$$aEtE[ � b i k b• ��i - kk'� PE k kb xeg[
e i R $�y $ Es3' k S Egg p 3sd= K UVI
C $€"ass <f €ate � `s $e3aFa'i' 3 G ��s'�� � �@8.
e a .� g • s fi s
5� j�
e� F�E�S5s mt5 $E mk c31k6 €4 ����E
r W aa�bas
•�! 1,-'0
§�gg'3p$��kyos§6g
lit'
r
@ * �e q L
�.�E :$ �gFd E i�
a € f•sa §sass- - e{
€g s e €a gHk;,1s
I
DA.—Ns°s§;s`1`*2s.19 3:,U n c d£sN-8 - §
I
anrq-.S-- an2tin ;SR'a?9�$^•^A nganSpai6� NR^a$$8^8^9R
C No
. g bS�e$xRF$ n SSSS xBR - °{al $ .``S SRR `aS^S $ $S ^_$$S.$
E -musa9Raa acxAe -s € saSa$a ^ x mxx aR@Ya$eax Rcxa2.^:R:e
sb�%�P8^B§^koSA28�8'�A� a' y,S^'SSx...........
-
k� .z. ............ . .................:...... R� .... s .......
Rgggg^`R$$
ya^9.S..a..a�am8^^$S,.bSBaiISaB_xaS$ 45 aBSS^ =29 I.,
8888R888Sx^$$8 888888885$8S$$888$888888$$8$$88$8§ 8$ 8898$888$$$$$8$8
xaRo�Ra�x`n'§Rx94sm��Rax„'�xSaR'SxxRRRR� RRxxxxR.�SBs�cezzeR
�
bmaB A$n RNX- ^m�� S8$AAAAY.4x86%R.=Xr �S CoA nk§8$�e� R3S,BRr a"-tir:-
c
�
x
8'-8838
�c�d"a3"a39ss"a3a"s3"s$'s$aaz�x �e�3sczaas�s3'ssec'"cc.,E"c�ce�5"s�3�a§�aa&.,��ca
s
(sluwna ao srsvH) .8. 3Nn i4myV
i /'1 �i 6LVa£L 3 L � atxa
R
lit
'L;l.
47
DO
q1 c r
ILL
PT
in
FM�1 i
O. ,'sy,.�s\ i -mss = I 'K✓/ 9111. fll Ci
:3 11 H31VK
n
•
Dick Cleveland asked about the current lease expirations.
Dick Cleveland opposed changing the definition of temporary office. He was conflicted between
trying to keep Mountain Operations in Town and returning the space to retail.
Rollie Kjesbo believed that as a part of the original approval, the office was suppose to go into
the Arrabelle.
Anne Gunion reviewed the definition of a Temporary Business Office, and believed it was difficult
to approve an extension.
Brian McCartney explained that the office space is now proposed to go into the Ever Vail project.
Michael Kurz asked how many employees were housed in theses offices.
Brian McCartney stated that 50 to 60 people were working in these offices.
Bill Jewitt expressed that there was a need for retail and retail would come back to places like
Treetops and Concert Hall Plaza if it were available. He does not believe the definition allows for
the extension of the past three years.
10 minutes
4. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-71-1-3, Permitted
and Conditional Uses; First Floor or Street Level, Vail Town Code, to allow for a temporary
business office, located at 450 East Lionshead Circle (Treetops Building), Lot 6, Vail Lionshead
Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0031)
. Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Jay Peterson
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION: Approved with condition(s)
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 4-1-1 (Jewitt opposed
and Pierce recused))
1. This conditional use permit for a temporary business office, located at 450 East
Lionshead Circle (Treetops commercial building), shall be valid until January 24, 2009.
2. This conditional use permit approval is contingent upon the Town Council's adoption
of an ordinance amending the definition of a "temporary business office" in Section
12-2-2, Vail Town Code.
Items 3 and 4 were read into the record and reviewed concurrently.
10 minutes
5. A request for a final recommendation to the Town Council for a prescribed regulations
amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications
to Section 12-6A-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code (Hillside Residential District), to increase
allowable site coverage from 15% to 20%, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-
0013)
Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of
Zehren and Associates
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Approved
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 5-1-1 (Cleveland
opposed and Gunion recused)
Items 5 and 6 were read into the record and reviewed concurrently.
Page 3
Warren Campbell presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum.
Dave Kaselak, the applicant's representative, gave a powerpoint presentation summarizing the
proposal and the changes that have been made since the Commission's last review.
There was no public comment.
The Commissioners generally supported the applicant's proposal for the reasons found in the
staff memorandum. Commissioner Cleveland opposed a site coverage increase from 15% to
20%, but he supported the proposed changes to the GRFA maximums found in the Lot
Summary Chart on the plat.
15 minutes
6. A request for final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat
Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to platted gross residential floor
area and site coverage limitations, located at 914 through 1326 Spraddle Creek Road, Lots 1-15,
Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-0014)
Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners Association, represented by Dave Kaselak of
Zehren and Associates
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Approved with condition(s)
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 6-0-1 (Gunion recused)
CONDITION(S):
1. Approval of the Amended Final Plat, Fourth Amendment To Spraddle Creek Estates,
Part of the SE '/< SW 1/4 , Section 5, Township 5 South, Range 80 West Of the Sixth
Principal Meridian, Town Of Vail, County Of Eagle, State Of Colorado, shall become
effective upon the adoption of the ordinance amending the text to increase the
maximum allowable site coverage from 15% to 20% within the Hillside Residential
District.
Items 3 and 4 were read into the record and reviewed concurrently.
20 minutes
7. A request for a work session for review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-
7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of
the Lionshead Inn and Lionshead Inn Annex (Fogata), located at 701 and 705 West Lionshead
Circle/Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC07-
0027)
Applicant: Lionshead Inn LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group LLC
Planner: Warren Campbell
ACTION: Tabled to June 25, 2007
MOTION: Viele SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 7-0-0
Warren Campbell presented an overview of the proposal and the staff memorandum.
Rocky Cortina, applicant's representative, introduced the design team.
Edwardo Illanes, OZ Architects, presented an overview of the architectural concepts.
Allison Ochs, Mauriello Planning Group LLC, and Will Henschel, OZ Architects, presented an
overview of the proposed development statistics and a description of how the proposal
addresses the Town's zoning and master planning standards.
Page 4
City of Vail, Colorado Logo
VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 10, 2020
ITEM/TOPIC:
A report to the PEC regarding an administrative approval of a Conditional Use Permit amendment, pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 16,
Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a 610 square foot expansion to Donovan Pavilion for additional storage, a
kitchen prep space, and an office/bride room located at 1600 S. Frontage Road W. / Unplatted — Donovan Park, and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0014)
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name
PEC20-0014 Staff Memorandum V2.pdf
[Attachment Al Applicant Narrative.pdf
[Attachment Bl Project Plan Set.pdf
Description
Staff Memorandum
[Attachment A] Applicant Narrative
[Attachment B] Project Plan Set
TOWN OF
0) VAIL 1
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado 81657
vailgov.corn
August 10, 2020
Community Development Department
970.479.2138
Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and Adjacent Property
Owners
A report to the PEC regarding an administrative approval of a Conditional Use Permit
amendment, pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 16, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town
Code, to allow for a 610 square foot expansion to Donovan Pavilion for additional
storage, a kitchen prep space, and an office/bride room located at 1600 S. Frontage
Road W. / Unplatted — Donovan Park, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC20-0014)
Applicant: Town of Vail, Represented by TAB Associates
Planner: Erik Gates
Dear PEC members and adjacent property owners:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Town of Vail administrator has
approved an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Pavilion at Donovan
Park located at 1600 S. Frontage Road West. The previous Conditional Use Permit
was approved on May 13, 2001 and amended on June 20, 2016.
The proposed addition to Donovan Pavilion would add 610 square feet of enclose space
for a new prep kitchen, additional storage, and an office/ bride room. These uses are
supplementary to the pavilion and will aid events held within the main assembly room of
the pavilion. This addition is proposed on the east end of the Pavilion, and as such will
have minimal impact on other uses within Donovan Park due to these other uses being
located west of the pavilion. An electrical transformer and air handling unit are also
proposed to be relocated as part of this work. See the following proposed floorplan:
O $
I
Staff's approval includes the following conditions-
<=
1. Applicant shall at all times abide by the Conditional Use Permits regulations, Title
12, Chapter 16, of the Vail Town Code.
2. Approval of a conditional use permit, or an amendment to an existing conditional
use permit, shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and
construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion or the use
for which the approval has been granted has not commenced within two (2) years
from when the approval becomes final. Approval of a conditional use permit shall
also lapse and become void if the use for which the approval has been granted is
discontinued for a period of two (2) years, regardless of any intent to resume
operation of the use.
3. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit amendment is contingent upon the
Town of Vail Page 2
--i
°°
El El
°°
I
o"I
I II I I
I o
I:
I
R®
i
ELI
I I I
I I
I
I
— -- - -----
--------�-----
--�
- — - — -
— - ----
I
I I I
-
I I
--------L--------L--------L-------
I
I
---
_
I I� ❑I❑ I
I ®
I
I
❑I❑
__-�_
Staff's approval includes the following conditions-
<=
1. Applicant shall at all times abide by the Conditional Use Permits regulations, Title
12, Chapter 16, of the Vail Town Code.
2. Approval of a conditional use permit, or an amendment to an existing conditional
use permit, shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and
construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion or the use
for which the approval has been granted has not commenced within two (2) years
from when the approval becomes final. Approval of a conditional use permit shall
also lapse and become void if the use for which the approval has been granted is
discontinued for a period of two (2) years, regardless of any intent to resume
operation of the use.
3. Approval of this Conditional Use Permit amendment is contingent upon the
Town of Vail Page 2
applicant receiving Design Review Board approval prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
The Town of Vail staff has determined that this amendment to the approved Conditional
Use Permit meets the review criteria prescribed by Section 12-16-10, Amendment
Procedures, Vail Town Code. This approval of a Conditional Use Permit amendment
will be reported to the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission at its
Monday, August 10, 2020 public hearing at 1:00 p.m. in the Vail Town Council
Chambers, located at 75 South Frontage Road West. The Planning and Environmental
Commission reserves the right to "call up" this administrative action for additional
review at this hearing. This administrative action may also be appealed by an adjacent
property owner, any aggrieved or adversely affected person, or the Vail Town Council
as outlined in Section 12-3-3, Appeals, Vail Town Code.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at 970-479-2440, or
egates(a)vai Igov.com .
Sincerely,
Erik Gates
Planner
Town of Vail Page 3
TAB Associates, Inc.
The Architectural Balance
0056 Edwards Village Boulevard
Suite 210, Edwards, Colorado 81632
(970) 766-1470 (970) 766-1471 fax
www.tabassociates.com tab@vail.net
Narrative
Project: Donovan Pavilion
Date: July 7, 2020
FROM:
TO:
Luis Vazquez, Project Manager
Planning & Environmental Commission,
Overview:
Project No: 202012
VIA: Electronic
The project is a proposed 610 Sq Ft addition to the existing Donovan Pavilion. The addition will expand the
existing storage space as well as provide an extended Kitchen Prep and Office/Bride room. The addition will be
placed on the Northeast side of the building. All new exterior siding and the roofing will match the existing siding
and roof material to keep in line with the aesthetic of the building. The existing transformer and air handling unit
will be relocated. Snowmelt boiler and condensing unit will be replaced and relocated as needed.
Relationship to Development Objectives:
TAB believes that the proposed addition adheres to or does not impede the Objectives as stated in the Vail Land
Use Plan.
• General Growth: The addition will increase the Pavilion's ability to better serve its clients and contribute
economically year-round for the Town. This is an upgrade to the existing building that maintains the
original theme of the building. Surrounding recreational space is beyond the scope of the project and will
remain unaffected.
• Community Services: The proposed project will improve the Donovan Pavilion's capacity for its operation
as a wedding venue for the community and visitors to the Town of Vail.
Effect on use of light and air, parks, and facility needs:
The proposed project will provide much needed additional space for the building's primary functions. The new
spaces include a new Kitchen Prep space, new Office/Bride's Room and expands the existing Storage which will
increase the building's capacity to host events. The existing gas fired air handling unit will be replaced with a new
hydronic air handler unit to better serve the new addition and existing back of house spaces. The addition will
have no effect on the existing public park space. There is no additional exterior lighting being proposed.
Effect on traffic, pedestrians, parking, etc.:
The scope of the addition is not increasing the capacity of the existing building and will not affect any automotive
or pedestrian traffic. The existing parking lot and pathways are not in the scope of the proposed project.
Effect on character of area:
The addition will match the existing exterior siding to keep in line with the established character of the building.
The new roof will also match the materials of the existing roof. The slope of the new roof matches the slope of the
roof over the existing clerestory windows.
Necessary Findings
1. The proposed project is an addition to the existing building which is in accordance with the
purposes of the title and zone district for the site.
2. The proposed project is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. It does not
negatively impact any existing improvements found on site.
3. The addition complies or does not hinder any of the applicable provisions found in the title.
file: S:\202012 Donovan Pavillion Addition\02 Proj Info\07 Approval Agencys\01 Design Review Board
Memo Date:7/7/20
Page - 2
Q ;soM peob 96e;uoad y;noS 009L o v Q
Q�� uoi;ippd uoi�ined uenouod"
H
W
Z
OW
FM a
�o
G�
Q LL
Cl)
O N
O N N
N O O
L (D Lo
LL
u)
w O Ll
Z Cn
F
Z � O
LL
0 p] n p
Z
w z O Q
Q ~ ~ Q
u H
Ci xo O
(n W Q H
F
O0
Q
Q
N
Q
U
2
S)
N
S
Q
Q
N
Q
N
00
O
O
mN
U
U)
J
U�
m
O
J
Q
>
LU
Z
Zw
Q
O
O
�
o6
>>
0
LU
Z
Q
LU
J
LU
J
in
in
(n
Z
Q
W
W
LU
Z
Z
J
(7
Q
J
(7
(7
>
O
O
J
J
d
Z
Z
L
H
H
a
>w
z
w
w
O
O
w
O
o
w
w
�
w
w
I'll-
J
Q
LO
T
N
00
O
O
mN
U
�N
J
U�
m
O
>
a mg L99L8OO'lleA
Q 4 ea° ;soM peob 96e;uoad 4;noS 009L a s v
uol;!ppd uo!!!ned uenouod
s ;soM peob a6e;uoad 4jnoS 009 n D
~Q uoi;ippd uoiIined uenouod W J a
Q
a > \ \
q.
o
>w a
—\)
w= wa �
� z �
VV
e
� • , � Al �� sig; /,�� �1 � �j,l� � __ _ _ -
f
"Al
Ot 44
• a R� O, (� `\� l/ }� f,.'r-l� I _ � ,� I �\\
If
iy
I�
i
e = z
•,\ J��: if _ _ \ � m w a � z
% co
0.
o
LU
co
o
p xo _ z
wm wa wo wa w5 W
Ti
LU
(7
F ly
J �
mp_ \Y
/
x°n°_
Z d
44
. , L9M OO 'Ileo ? w
Q ;soM peob 96e;uoad 4jnoS 009L
Q�� uoi;ippd uoi�ined uenouod
T T TT
——— —
W-——— —I
¢o,II —I I
.o, E 1 A„� a o III
o Igo
-- wpb
- - - i - - �- -�-------------- I- '���
- � �Im �I
�
o�
I I w DI I I
g m o1
=0,
!
o
a� � I I
��
�c- - - - - - - - - - - _ - - -
.vs �, w w
------- ------ w W
_o a�I0
I
W J
W
J p
- - - �n - - W
- - o J.
P
fi
El El - -fi- - - - - - - - -�- El
❑❑ PEI
❑ - - ❑❑o - -i-
�9M OO'lleA
IsoM peoM 96eluoj=l LlInoS 009L
UOII!PPV UOII!ABd UBA
< Ouoa I -
0--�
C) --
E--
0
S—'
0 /
tt
S—
IT
A
-1
0--�
C) --
E--
0
S—'
0 /
tt
S—
IT
�9M OO'lleA
IsoM peoM 96eluoj=l LlInoS 009L 0
UOII!PPV UOII!ALd ULIAOuoa
\\ \ \ /\ /} /}\ \ )\ \}} ))} }� \(
\\ \ \ /� /� /� \ / }\ {}\}}} �) \,
0U)
Z
I
Z
0
E
J
2
01
. , lgne OJ 'Ile/ a R r
F o c a = }saM peo2{ aBe}uoj� 4;noS 0091. _ = r
uo1}1ppV uo111ned uenouoa " U
Q
Q
Q
3z
z
z3 -
w��a
za�
N�w3
0z
. , L9M OO 'Ileo ? m
Q ;soM peob 96e;uoad y;noS 009L o o
Q�uoi;ippd uoiIined uenouod " o
NO
- El ❑ - - - - - - - - - - - o'I❑
-- - - - - -------
-- - - -
- -wg-- - - --- --- IIS
DI
I I I
- - - - - -I - -I - - - - owo
a
-LL'� - - - -
I
- - - - - - -� o- r
❑I❑ ❑ ❑
- El l ET I- -I - - - - -I - - - -- - - ol❑
oP
❑I❑ El El
- - - - - - oIo ❑I❑ - ------------
-- - - - -- --- - a
6—
�M OO'lleA
IsoM peoM 96eluoj=l LlInoS 009L
UOII!PPV UOII!ABd UBAOuoa
< I -
\ /\} 0 o
/ \ /}\ \ / /}//} , \} \ /, /} // �� (}}\ \}\}(}
oo�-
\ /\} } / /�\ /� / \ / /�/ } / \ w
W`�} �\�� /}\}}}H
9-
9
E --
L991,8OO'IleA
IsoM peoM 96eluoj=l LjjnoS 009L
Ouoa
UOII!PPV UOII!ABd UBA
< I -
(-D--- - — - — - — -
T�
-1 1-
IL
E�l co
City of Vail, Colorado Logo
VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 10, 2020
ITEM/TOPIC:
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7
Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-10 Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to refine the appropriate
sections to allow for a comprehensive approach to meeting the minimum parking requirements, including clarifying the review
process and other considerations, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0007)
The applicant has requested this item be tabled to a date uncertain.
City of Vail, Colorado Logo
VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE:
ITEM/TOPIC: July 27, 2020 PEC Results
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
Pec results 072720.pdf July 27, 2020 PEC Results
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
TOWN Of VAI0 July 27, 2020, 1:00 PM
Virtual
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
Call to Order
1. 1. Register in advance for this webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_yF_l6X_WS3gCtHLN9Rr Uw
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing
information about joining the webinar.
1.2. Attendance
Present: Ludwig Kurz, Karen Perez, Rollie Kjesbo, Brian Gillette, Henry
Pratt, Pete Seibert, John -Ryan Lockman
Absent: None
Main Agenda
2.1. A request for review of a final plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter 4, Minor 10 min.
Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for a subdivision to reconfigure the
property line between two (2) parcels located at 2698 Cortina Lane / Lot 11
Block B, Vail Ridge, and at 2702 Cortina Lane / Lot 12 Block B, Vail Ridge,
and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0013)
Applicant: Benno Scheidegger, represented by Gore Range Surveying
LLC
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Planner Spence introduced the project and explained how the adjustment to
the lot line created a more workable solution for the two properties and
removed an existing setback nonconformity reaming from development
within Eagle County. The two lots retain their existing lot sizes as the swap is
equal.
No questions from Commissioners. No public comments.
Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Pete Seibert seconded the motion and it
passed (7-0).
2.2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed 5 min.
regulation amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town
Code to amend Section 12-10 Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town
Code, to refine the appropriate sections to allow for a comprehensive
approach to meeting the minimum parking requirements, including clarifying
the review process and other considerations, and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (PEC20-0007)
The Applicant requests that this item be tabled to the next regularly
scheduled meeting on August 10th, 2020.
Applicant: Braun Associates, Inc.
Planner: Greg Roy
Karen Perez moved to table to August 10, 2020. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the
motion and it passed (7-0).
3. Approval of Minutes
3.1. July 13, 2020 PEC Results
Karen Perez moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it
passed (4-0).
Abstain: (3) Lockman, Pratt, Seibert
4. Adjournment
Karen Perez moved to adjourn. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it
passed (7-0).
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the
Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project
orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department.
Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the
Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information.
Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time.
Community Development Department
City of Vail, Colorado Logo
VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 10, 2020
ITEM/TOPIC: A worksession to discuss proposed process and a zoning code amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment,
Vail Town Code, for various amendments to Title 11 - Sign Regulations to updatedefinitions and reduce content -based regulations in
order to conform with the Supreme Court ruling in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
City of Vail, Colorado Logo
VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 10, 2020
ITEM/TOPIC: PEC Appointment to the Open Lands Board of Trustees
Ad #: 0000607375-01
Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM
Your account number is: 1023233
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
VAIL DAILY
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of
the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in
whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle,
State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein;
that said newspaper has been published continuously and
uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of
more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the
first publication of the annexed legal notice or
advertisement and that said newspaper has published the
requested legal notice and advertisement as requested.
The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium,
only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home
Rule provision.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
August 10, 2020, 1:00 PM
Virtual
75S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
1. Cell to Order
,.1. [Register nad-n. for this webinar:
hftpsllus02web.zoom.usMad, nor/register) W N_z53dowe251gXcwA3DIK]BA
After
2. resisteeri , yo bwin re
ewa ofirmafion mil contaning nformatio
m,g twnor,
2. Main Agenda
2.1. A request for review of an exemption plat, ppu uaM b Title 13 Chapter 12,
Exemption Plat, Vail Town Code. fo allow for'i r es to the allowable Site
Goverage and Gross Resid,rtial Floor Area (GRFA)allotment for wdi d—1 lots
within the Spraddle Greek Estates subdivision, and setting forth details In
regard
thereto. (PEC20-0015) 60 in
Applicant Spraddle Creek Estate, Homeowners, represented by 2ehren and
Associates
Planner: Jonathan Sp n
2.2. A report W the PECreg Mingo dministrativeappr at of a Conditional Use
Permit amendment, pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 16. Amendment Procedures,
Vail Town Gotle, to allpw for a 610 square foot expansion to Donovan Pavilion
for additional storage, a kitchen d W. I UnFlatted - Donovan Paspara, and an rk, and sentingo tont,details
afted at
r of Frontage R
Apeg d,hersi
Town of VaOil,�e 4� 0 t �tl b TAB Associates
Pl,n ear Erik Gefes Presene y
2.3. A request for a recommentlation In the Vail Town Gouncil for a prescribed
reg„tion amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-1 Amendment, Vail Town Code
to amentl Section 12-10 Oh Street Parking and Leading, Vail Town Code, to
refine the appropriate sections io ellaw for a comprehensive approach to
ting the minimum parking requir ncluding clarifying the review
peas, and other considerations, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC20-0007 5 in.
The applicant has requested this item be tabled.
A Iloant: Braun Associates, Inc.
Planner. Greg Roy
3. Approval of Minutes
3.1. duly 21, 2020 PEC Resits
4. Informational Update
4.1. Aworksassion to discuss proposed process and a zoning code amentlmen6
pursuant to Section 12-3-], Amendment, Veil Town Code, for various
m rd—ts W Title 11 - Sign Regulations io updatedd initions and red—
. Ment -based reg Iations in order to conform with the Sup me Gourt ruling in
Reed v. Town of Gilbert, and setting torah details In regard thereto. 45 min.
Applicant
Planner. Erik Gates
4.2. PEC Appoinn—to the Open Land, Board of Trustees
Applicant
Planner Maft Gannet
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was 5. Ad;,,mm,nt
published in the regular and entire issue of every number The applications andinh—atw about the proposals areavailableforpublicinspectiondudngregularof-
fice hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Depaninni 75 South Frontage R -d. The public Is
of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and mwt dto aend the pro;cctori,ntatpn and the ^.it, visits that pri the p,bllo hearing in the Town of
Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subjeq W change,
that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of and oannet be relledupnnln determine at whI ti me the Planning and Environmental Commission will
as
an item. Please call (0]OJ 9]9.2136 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language
into
ryrstation 48 hour prior to meeting time.
said newspaper dated 8/7/2020 and that the last Community Dovelopment Department Published in the Vail Daily Aug,st], 2020.. 0000601375
publication of said notice was dated 8/7/2020 in the issue
of said newspaper.
In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day,
8/25/2020.
Mark Wurzer. Publisher
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and
for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day
8/25/2020.
Holly Hunter, Notary Public
My Commission Expires: August 19, 2021
HOLLY -1111
Npury P I: Ic-5—dc.1 ado
Narn,,1U2a ca1733
My c--i,FrpiresAug us, ffiI
Ad #: 0000602481-01
Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM
Your account number is: 1023233
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
VAIL DAILY
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of
the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in
whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle,
State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein;
that said newspaper has been published continuously and
uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of
more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the
first publication of the annexed legal notice or
advertisement and that said newspaper has published the
requested legal notice and advertisement as requested.
The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium,
only forjurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home
Rule provision.
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was
published in the regular and entire issue of every number
of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and
that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of
said newspaper dated 7/24/2020 and that the last
publication of said notice was dated 7/24/2020 in the issue
of said newspaper.
In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day,
8/11/2020.
Mark Wurzer. Publisher
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and
for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day
8/11/2020.
Holly Hunter, Notary Public
My Commission Expires: August 19, 2021
Ra r HudTl;q
Notary P J
pg,
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and
Environmental Commisalon of the Town of Vail will
hold a public hearing in a Mance with section 12-
3-6, Vail Town Code, on August 10, 2020 at 100
pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
Register in advance for this webinar:
htes:llusD2web.zoom.uslwebinar/registerlW N�53
dowe251gXcwA3DIK]8A
Atter registering,y wlll recelveaconfirmatlon
mail conginin9 mformetion abou1j,i,ing the
webinar.
A reportto the PEC re ding an edminlsirativ. ap-
proval of a Conditional Use Permit amendment, pur-
uant to Till. 12, Chapter 16, Amendment P—
duras, Vail Town Code, to allow for a 610 square
toot expansion to DonWan Pavilion for additional
storage, a kitchen prep sp and an off. -tide
Unl-.'- at 1600 �.�Fromage Roatl W. !
pl."V - Donovan Park, and sada, forth details
In regard thereto. (PEC20-OD14)
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by TAB
Aaaociatas
Planner•. Erik Gates
Arequest for review of an ...mptionurs
plat, puant
to Title 13 Chapter 12, Exemption
Plat, Vail Town
Code, to alb- for increases to the allowable Site
Coverage and Gross Residential Floor Area
(GRFA1 IlolmeM for individual lots Rhin the
prad le Creek Estates subdivision, and seeing
fodh details in regaru thereto. (PEC2D-0016)
A5plicanb Spraddle Creek Estates Homeo-n-
represented by Zehren and Associates (Josh
Bowens -Rubin)
Planner: Jonathan Spence
The applications and ud,nmafion aboutthe Propos-
als are available for public inspection during office
hours at the Town of Vail Community Development
Depa"nnin, ]5 South Fronia - Roed. The public
-d`d ro attend site visits. Please call 9]D-4]9-
2138 or visit www.vailgov.com/planning fa addition-
.Iind_sdion.
Sign langhouage Interpretation available upon re
est with
qu24-ur—ficaunn, dial ]11.
Published July 24, 2020 in the Vail Daily.
0000602481