Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-10-12 PEC0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOW?J OF ffl October 12, 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 4L_TjmMESC2fgOdXPDgUfg 1.2. Attendance Present: Ludwig Kurz, Karen Perez, Rollie Kjesbo, Brian Gillette, Henry Pratt, Pete Seibert, John -Ryan Lockman Absent: None Joint Worksession with Vail Local Housing Authority 2.1. Joint worksession to discuss housing goals and policies including possible 60 min. revision to the Commercial Linkage and I nclusionary Zoning programs. 3. Main Agenda 3.1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed 2 min. Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-23-6: Methods of Mitigation and Section 12-24- 6: Methods of Mitigation, Vail Town Code, to update the Payment of Fees in Lieu provisions of Commercial Linkage and I nclusionary Zoning, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0027) Staff and the applicant have requested this item be tabled to November 9, 2020. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by George Ruther Planner: Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 23, 2020. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.2. A request for review of Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H- 30 min. 7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the conversion of eleven (11) fractional units to fee simple whole ownership units, located at 701 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0022) Applicant: Lion Vail LLC Planner: Jonathan Spence Planner Spence gives a brief presentation on the application and the history of previous applications that have taken place affecting the site. Rocky Cortina representing the applicant gives some insight into the rental situation taking place on the property and which units are selling or being rented the most. Fractional ownerships are not as popular as they were when the building was being built. No public comment or questions from the Commission. Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed 30 min. Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-16-7: Use Specific Criteria and Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the use specific criteria for funiculars and other similar conveyances, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20- 0023) Applicant: LSC 27 LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. The word "vehicular" be removed from the proposed changes to Section 12-16-7A (11)A and the words "pedestrian or" be removed from the proposed changes to Section 12-16-7A (11)B by the applicant prior to the Town Council meeting. Planner Spence introduces the applicant and references the recommendation given by staff in the memorandum. Pratt asks for background on the approval process for a funicular. Spence lays out the process to go through to get approval for a funicular. Kurz asks if the Tramway Board of Colorado is a reviewing agency for funiculars. Spence does not believe so but defers to the applicant to answer in full Mauriello begins his presentation and gives some background. Goes into some of the criteria needed for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to install a funicular. The applicant compares funiculars to ski lifts in terms of impact and how a ski lift does not have additional criteria for a CUP and could be installed on a single-family lot. Some examples of existing funiculars and a private gondola are listed and explained. Goes over how one of the funiculars on Forest road created a controversy which led Town Council to change a funicular to a conditional use. Town Council added specific criteria at the meeting and did not remand the application back to the Planning and Environmental Commission. The application is looking to amend certain parts of the section to make it more flexible. He then goes over the specific changes proposed in the language. Gillette expresses concern that it may be too restricting still and could be broader to include patio or deck. Mauriello explains that's possible and that they were trying to propose as little change as possible. Goes into explanation of minimal activity or noise produced by funiculars Spence adds that the change could be simply done with a few words added to the proposed change. Gillette wants to know what is needed to do small additions to lots like patios. There is nothing prohibiting you from using your lot if steep, so why not let people do this? Perez is concerned with the "vehicular" portion as people may start using ATVs or snowmobiles to access and how that could be a big impact. Gillette gives a possible explanation of how a vehicle funicular would affect. Spence adds that funiculars could not be the sole access for a home per fire code. Michael Suman adds a small description of what a funicular is. Perez says while they can be small they could be large as well. Does there need to be language added to limit it to residential use or could it be limited to a conditional use? Spence adds that those concerns could be addressed as this is a conditional use and needs another round of review. Mauriello adds that they could strike out the "vehicular" part and still move forward. Suman adds again that a house would not be built up a hill without the garage at the bottom. Spence clarifies why the language was included, coming from another section. It could also be appropriate to strike the "pedestrian of" out of section B. Perez and applicant agree with this Kurz asks what the grade is between house and recreation facility for the example shown. Suman estimates between 35-40 degrees. There is no public comment. Rollie Kjesbo moved to recommend approval with conditions. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.4. A request for review of an exemption plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter 12, 45 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 Planner Spence goes over the reason why the application is back for another round of discussion before asking for a recommendation. He lists the requests made by the PEC at the previous meeting for more information needed. Spence adds how the application has been changed and the additional information that was reported. Pratt asks about changing the HR language and if that would satisfy the request. Spence adds that it could be done that way, but a plat would still have to be amended. Pratt clarifies that this is the only property in the HR district. Gillette doesn't get how we can amend if they are voluntarily capping some of the lots. Spence adds that this could have been an SDD from the start since this is the only property in this town with this zoning. Pratt asks if this was the result of a negotiation. Spence clarifies how there was a designated use for Hillside, but no zoning and the zoning came at a later date. Gillette asks exactly what the application is now. Spence clarifies and says changing the HR district would be another, longer process. There is a general discussion among commissioners and staff on how this application could be sufficed without a plat and if amending the zoning district would be more appropriate. The discussion turns to the allotted amount of GRFA and if it is warranted. What has changed since the original approval and does that support the request? Gillette explains how he sees this as correcting a mistake that was done in the plat. Seibert says that the reason for restricting GRFA is to limit visibility and that has not changed. They still have a prominent location and adding to that could undo the reason for putting the restriction in place. There is concern about where the square footage would be added. More discussion takes place on how building envelopes or GRFA would affect the visibility takes place amongst those present. Kurz asks if the cap listed would hold over to buyers of those properties in the future. Spence clarifies with explaining the chart. Pratt doesn't like the disconnect but understands how the caps could be a problem in the future. He doesn't see how language could be written that wouldn't be arbitrary. David Kaselak, representative of the applicant, answers some questions on visibility, and how a plat note would negate any future legal issues. Spence asks for additional feedback on materials needed and if there are any more comments. Gillette still has questions on clarity of comparable areas of town. How would this affect the area and what would additional GRFA look like. Discussion on design and restrictions in the area takes place. Gillette asks for a photo rendering on what the difference would look like. Lockman adds that he's agreed with some comments earlier on the arbitrary numbers being proposed. It would be appropriate to give them a commensurate increase with GRFA that other areas enjoyed. Kjesbo voices his support of the comments by Gillette. Kurz adds a question on whether there is a public benefit associated with the application? Spence adds that there is none proposed There is no public comment. Brian Gillette moved to table to October 26, 2020. Pete Seibert seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 4. Approval of Minutes 4.1. September 28, 2020 PEC Results Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Abstain: (1) Seibert 5. Adjournment Rollie Kjesbo moved to adjourn. Karen Perez 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/webi nar/register/WN_4L_Tim MESC2fgOdXPDgUfg 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: October 12, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: Joint worksession to discuss housing goals and policies including possible revision to the Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning programs. ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Inclusionary Zoning Commercial Linkage Fee in Lieu Rate Update Policy Amendment 10122020.pdf Staff Memo 193175- Program Overview and Case Studies - PEC Meeting - 10-12-20.0 Presentation TOWN OF VAIL� Memorandum To: Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission From: George Ruther, Housing Director Date: October 12, 2020 Subject: A request to inform and discuss inclusionary zoning/commercial linkage fee in lieu rate update and housing mitigation policy amendments. 1. SUMMARY The purpose of this memorandum is to present the following: • A summary background on inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage • An evaluation contrasting and comparing inclusionary zoning to residential linkage • An overview of best practices being implemented in peer resort communities • A list of questions intended to direct a housing mitigation policy discussion Acting in an advisory role, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission will eventually be tasked with forwarding a final recommendation on any zoning code amendments resulting from any fee in lieu rate updates and housing mitigation policy amendments. This fee update and policy amendment discussion supports the Vail Town Council's goals, initiatives, and priorities outlined in the Vail Town Council Action Plan 2018 — 2020. Specifically, accommodating the need for housing within the community as the Town Council has determined housing is necessary infrastructure. 2. BACKGROUND The Vail Town Council has instructed the Town staff to pursue updates to the fee in lieu amounts for both inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage. The fee amounts established have remained largely unchanged since January of 2008. The Vail Town Council adopted inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage as two means of mitigating the increased need for workforce housing resulting from new residential and commercial development in Vail. In doing so, three accepted methods of mitigation were adopted and include: 1) constructing deed restricting dwellings units, both on-site and off-site 2) remitting a fee in lieu payment, and 3) conveyance of vacant property into a land bank. The fee in lieu payment amounts are based upon the gap in affordability between 80% of area median income in Eagle County and the median price of residential dwelling units in the Town of Vail. Currently, the fee in lieu rate for inclusionary zoning is $320.90 per square foot and $177,733.00 per employee for commercial linkage. Each of these amounts includes an administrative fee of $4.90 per square foot and $4,033 per employee, respectively. The Vail Town Council is the policymaking body of the Town of Vail. The Town Council has expressed an interest in updating the fee in lieu payment rate and amending certain housing mitigation policies. For instance, changing the policy for determining the payment rate from the gap in affordability to the actual cost of constructing deed -restricted homes, which could include adopting residential linkage requirements. As such, proposed changes in policy would first be considered by the Vail Town Council. If the Town Council determines a possible change in policy warrants further consideration, policy making direction can be provided and the town staff will prepare options for policy implementation to be presented to the Town's Planning and Environmental Commission for consideration. The Planning and Environmental Commission will then be tasked with forwarding a policy implementation recommendation to the Vail Town Council for consideration and possible adoption. The current inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage housing mitigation tools were originally adopted by the Vail Town Council in 2008. Since that time, each has remained largely unchanged. Each of the housing tools was adopted to ensure that new residential and commercial development and redevelopment provided for a reasonable amount of deed - restricted housing to mitigate the impact on the need for additional housing resulting from said development and redevelopment. In each instance, mitigation rates are established to mitigate the resulting impact. In the instance of commercial linkage, the mitigation rate in 20% of the net new employee jobs generated, and with inclusionary zoning, the mitigation rate is 10% of the net new floor area created. That said, for every 10 new employee jobs created as a result of commercial development, 2 employees are to be provided deed -restricted housing and 1 square foot of deed -restricted housing is provided resulting from every 10 square feet of GRFA constructed in certain residential zone districts. As a result, the greater Vail community at large is left to provide the necessary housing for the 8 or 9 remaining employees, respectively. Further, each of the tools also establishes methods by which mitigation can be achieved, at the discretion of the applicant, and each allows for any surplus in mitigation provided to be banked as a future credit. In contrast, commercial linkage applies equally to all development and redevelopment in all commercial -zone districts, while inclusionary zoning only applies to development and redevelopment in a select few residential zone districts. Said another way, not all residential development and redevelopment is obligated to mitigate for the increase in housing need. Residential development in the Hillside Residential, Single-family Residential, Two-family Residential, Two-family primary/secondary Residential, Residential Cluster, Low Density Multiple Family Residential, and Medium Density Multiple Family are exempt from the application of inclusionary zoning requirements. This exemption is an intended policy outcome determined at the time of inclusionary zoning adoption. An additional obligation of both commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning is where the mitigation is intended to occur, meaning on-site and/or off-site. In each instance, it is intended that at least 50% of the resulting obligation is provided on-site. When provided off-site, the off- site location must be located within the Town of Vail. Again, this is an intended policy outcome which was discussed and determined at the time of adoption of both inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage. Lastly, commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning are considered reactive responses to accommodating the need for additional housing as a result of new development. Neither is a proactive approach to addressing existing housing needs since if there is no new development Town of Vail Page 2 occurring, no new deed -restricted home opportunities are created as a result of either of these housing tools. That said, any existing deficit in housing is not address through commercial linkage or inclusionary zoning. These tools are used to "keep up" with existing needs and do not address any need that may exist to "catch up" to ongoing deficits in housing. By contrast, a program like Vail InDEED is a proactive response and better suited to address existing deficits in housing needs in the community. The following links provide additional background references to inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage as land use policies and practices: https://inclusionaryhousing.org/inclusionary-housing-explained/ https://www. sightline.org/2016/11 /29/inclusionary-zoning-the-most-promising-or-cou nter- productive-of-all-housing-policies/ https://www. bloom berg.com/news/articles/2018-07-17/inclusionary-zoning-everything-you-need- to-know https://inclusionaryhousing.org/designing-a-policy/program-structure/linkage-fee- programs/commercial-linkage-fees https://www.localhousingsolutions.org/act/housing-policy-library/linkage-fees-affordable- housing-impact-fees-overview/linkage-fees-affordable-housing-impact-fees/ On September 1, 2020, the Vail Town Council instructed the town staff to collaborate with EPS, stakeholders, and potentially affected parties to develop policy implementation options and land use regulation amendments. The Town of Vail Housing Department reached out to Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) for technical assistance in updating the fee in lieu mitigation rates. EPS is widely recognized as leaders and industry experts in the development of land use policy and regulations based upon economic considerations and impacts. Town staff and EPS have collaborated and developed a scope of work, schedule, and budget for completing the inclusionary zoning/commercial linkage fee in lieu rate update and policy amendment. Since receiving instruction and authorization to move forward with this policy amendment, Town staff has executed a professional services agreement with EPS to complete a specified scope of work. 3. RECOMMENDATION The Town staff recommends the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission engage in discussion, which in the end, helps to inform the Vail Town Council's decision-making on policy direction. In doing so, Town staff recommends the PEC provide answers to the following questions: 1. What questions, if any, are there regarding the technical elements of residential linkage programs and how they function? What additional considerations should the Vail Town Council factor into their decision making? 2. Of the five levers discussed for implementing inclusionary zoning, residential linkage, and commercial linkage b(i.e. generation rates, mitigation percentage, application of regulations, cost of construction, and method of mitigation) what is the recommended priority of consideration of each? Does the PEC believe some are more effective or appropriate than others? Town of Vail Page 3 a)Mitigation rate — are the present mitigation rates of 10% and 20% achieving the desired outcomes? b)Geography —all residential zone districts or just those that are for higher density uses? c)Fee basis — payment in lieu fee based upon cost of construction or resale values rather than gap in affordability? d)Floor of applicability —should homes below a certain size (sq.ft.) be exempt? e)Mitigation method —should policy be set to that demonstrated preference to provide deed restrictions as opposed to allow payment of fees? 4. NEXT STEPS The Town staff intends to inform the Vail Town Council on October 20th of the results and feedback from the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission on October 12th. At this time, it is further intended that Town staff would return to the PEC for a second presentation on Monday, October 26th for a final recommendation of implementation options to the Vail Town Council. Prior to requesting a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, Town staff will present a proposal which includes the results of the cost of construction data collection for purposes of determining fee in lieu mitigation amounts. In the end, the town staff will return to the Vail Town Council for final decision making and adoption on this policy matter. It is estimated this process will require approximately 120 days to complete and be ready for implementation in early 2021. Town of Vail Page 4 C) m r4 V,m o v m v J� CL 0 Z W V Z O Z LU un LU w CL N w E O U a -J O c O .N N N N N 19 a -J E v E a oa E O c O w v O ,N E O CE N '4--J N '4 > O U N (')J O .i O C: O V C: N E E E O U f N C: O ._ N Or Ln E v E a oa E O c O w W 2 O U ZD O z O c/1 LU (/i n z LU (/i L) w O u ►� LA LU N a� N v O ss a••+ L O O N N N � o N ateJ > O O 4' O i +- O r`• � }' Ln O O UJ s � V U C: O as -J E o 4-J C V rd ° o 4-J O }' rd U O v= � s � — O 0- O 4-J� O •�.., u E }' N , 4-1 a••+ V E>v.-. a� u U 4 `� s O - u 0 }, s � s �4-1 - 4-1 s O a� O D. > - s4-1 o Ln a33E +, w Z C: v O ss a••+ L O O N 4 V � o N ateJ > O O i 0 O as -J r`• � }' Ln O O 4-J s U C: O _ s E o 4-J O O ° o 4-J V E O v= u vii — O 0- — v N s O •�.., u E }' as000 s 4-1 a••+ V LU �: u U w E v T E a oa 0 r_ 0 w E o v Q s as -J r`• u M Ln 0 +� s N U a- J E O O i 4-J O N =3 — v N s O •�.., O s }' s 4-1 a••+ V O N N 4 `� s M u 0 }, s � s �4-1 w E v T E a oa 0 r_ 0 w V5/ L LL V O ^e C L ('V / N V +J Vf `^ O 4-1 +J M O' s75 E v i iJ ,� V - EO Q i� s V O— 42 Q •Vf v v41 v 0: O O ao O v�� m V ins O 0 v v o -0 N �,vV) •V �.N-O 'O O O Q +J v v O 4J Vi v v 0 +NJ 6�1 0 E O 4-1v '� s of E 4-1 Qp 0 Q.N Qv +J Vf Os E V 42 Q c� O •— s E `) v o o4.1 Ov v O O N c - O v 0 Vii s v i31 I v 4' > j i31 +s-� a) i -O - i ul O VI > 4 C: v Jy o c� O O v I E d' E- o° of M N N v V) N N (� E v(1 v O Q O N O s •— V� Q s `^ v O N 4-1 — Oi vy 4'' O4-1 V v i 4.1 S v v (� O ON I 4-1 m v v m v V v a) a)v 0 4-1v 4-1Vf � .- Vf v -Q 4-1> v ...fes .nf 4-(� i N V 4-1 4.1 ) �O s " v � O J;a +J a + O 4., +J c� > } 'O +J v 4-1 V) — c� +' c� o °' > E v C o 0 �■■rO O i c� i 4-1 c� s? s - +J 0-> E c v v s N J Q I -0 � i31 OV - _0 •0 W iJ / N V +J Vf `^ O 4-1 +J M O' s75 E v i iJ ,� V - EO Q i� s V O— 42 Q •Vf v v41 v 0: O O ao O v�� m V ins O 0 v v o -0 N �,vV) •V �.N-O 'O O O Q +J v v O 4J Vi v v 0 +NJ 6�1 0 E O 4-1v '� s of E 4-1 Qp 0 Q.N Qv +J Vf Os E V 42 Q c� O •— s E `) v o o4.1 Ov v O O N c - O v 0 Vii s v i31 I v 4' > j i31 +s-� a) i -O - i ul O VI > 4 C: v Jy o c� O O v I E d' E- o° of M Q LU Q V O ce CL M J i .N a) ce E v a oa E 0 c 0 w N 4J N i 0- E L— 0 4-J s em }' � 4- o }, > v O (3)— cd Z O > E a� 4-J N u N O i 4-J Ln N N *� i O N i 4-J 0 O (V }, c� s • O +� 0 Q � �O 4-- u O v tn v rd N O ::D LA i � Ln s v s o a� > v }, u 0 a_, — �^ c� o in i s u i s ateJ c a••+ o N O O � Q — O E U aJ c:_ i O r� ate•+ cn p0 cn N Qj O O E v a oa E 0 c 0 w N 0- E o o }' � 4- — v O cd Z O > u N O i 4-J Ln N *� i O N i 4-J 0 O (V }, c� s • O +� 0 Q � �O 4-- u O v tn v rd N O ::D LL — Ln E v a oa E 0 c 0 w E v .E r_ rz CL oa 0 c 0 w s 4-J p — 0 Ln N oN L as--+ te 4-- vs � - v � o 4-J .}' � s E > v N O p Q r� 0O NN E -0F `~ O .�_ +J M p c: " >� O +J c s c� EE Q� E Q 4J J ON O N O - N 4J GC ■ O N N sO +� UJ J > LA v N O v E O (n 0) 4-J 0 Ln O p = M M s - s O s p 4 v O +J 0 0 4- + � � v •-M Q)4- rd > Q cn m •N O O � v O p—s W '� s 0_ •_ n a) +J JIO os O 0) i �- _ 0 Z q j 0 u .(3) 0 OCV Ln �p .E C o , p >=3-0 v 0 NsN 0 0 s Q 2 ,Q V E v .E r_ rz CL oa 0 c 0 w AW 4 _ 4 v)4- £ 7 4- / V) 5 ° D � $•j \ � 2 0 � _ ] £ 2 m m = R � = / / e o / E C) j E o s 0— J 7 > o= E _ 2 ft' 4- g ¢ U > ° [ 4 4 -0/ 7 2 - E D R± e s o E s 2 2 E S e � f ° 2 k_ �.q ¢ _ � � Ln o ® §'� 2 o E -0 � _ �.§ � e •� § E j -0 / D / E s/ n U / 0-0-0 � — \' U Q 2 k E U-_0% tm _ � . . . V)_ o4,1 2 � 0 ° 3 a .g 2 z /( 0_ ft• ® g� }/ \0 D V 0ƒ E o = _ = o f& x -/ 3 0 s s 4-1 / % \ _ &� m o LU j V) • # & o o & Q N� 2// a)r o/ /2f oG W \ 4 > p o \ E 0/ \ / o/ ƒ / ƒ < N / B o & & C: . \ / /� 2/// 't .S .;Ak 2 k LLI � —j . . V) Z O F— CL O Z O Q J ZD u J a u LU LU LL O Q u J Q u W LU LL C O L u 4- 0 4-1 LA O a ■ J 0 v Q V) Q uj E v oa E 0 r_ 0 w U � CZ CL Ln uO V) L V) C: 0 O O s u L- Q O •}, a� 4- V) u � O L � 4-J V) o (3) v V) O O .� Q E Q V s Z c� ■ ■ J 0 v Q V) Q uj E v oa E 0 r_ 0 w Ln u -0 0 tm Z L � s E _E o o ° �— 44to U = Ln J d .� O I I I I E ■ J 0 v Q V) Q uj E v oa E 0 r_ 0 w N_ \ JZ / t od 76 W L VtA O N= 1+ O v ro V —0 � cC (13 _ C: M -0 J= eG ed O V Q � O O W =t O O V 0 y U prLn N = U + O W -Wa °v A oa V) 4 V Ol•U O Z O v W LnW o s s N L 7 = .� — 4J i 'N 4J W O un _ W L v � O o 4-1 ` v a E *' c Q% Q �. V L Ln 7 O Es V r6l V Z O O$ V) S � J S FA i o �+ = S 4J L to O }+ v o 40 eG = 41 V vv J s Q O Q o 3 0 s c� o U =wW �J W O V Qj u J d � 03 N 4� _03 E N W U uQs + O W LU LL W E Q) V c c a E O C: O w L I W —/j I..SV L X W Z 0 1 ZD U U W LULL L1J ZD m 0 LU LU U C� G I CL Q V J_ m DC 0 LL LL Q O 00 O N Mf iP, O , q 00 m N O ON N O Or" (3 O O O N dl i O I M M jd)- U N U i U) N O O O O r"O O O 00 O O O {�} i N O O U') O N N O Lf1 C)N p 4 o O o m U U tp o M +--� N jd)- jd)- N N M QLC 00 � O It _ jd)- U O N M 00 O O N Mf iP, O , q 00 m N O ON N O Or" (3 O O O N dl i O I M M jd)- U N U i U) J C: D CL U) O U O mN U N U i U) O D1 O U J N B O O m a p 4 o o m U U tp o QLC � O _ U Q 0 (L) a FA D U L U') O 0_ 4� C: Q v_ awC O N N U1 E C O N C N O L +' LL (0 �' o � X ro a m CD 0_ D 6 NC O O N C U Qa a Q Q(7 J C: D CL U) O U aJ c� aJ a) E W I 0 N 4 N Ul) 'IT O m l0 C: i M O (.0 O (.0 — M _ a) M o1 o1 4 o0 -o co M co W — M a) M V•1 V•1 lD N rz i N l0 00 CO N O 00 � O M l0 IT Q �1 M M M N a1 b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 b4 Ln u N M Lf1 l0 I" r E i i i i i i i NO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 01 �1 �1 01 01 � lJ N N N N N N N •— a- a- a- a- a- a- a- >. U U U U U U U LU T~ I I I I I I I U- d ■ ■ LU J z a� W CL Q > O \/LL to L) 75 '� v i ra O N N /\ O W s a1 c 4- O v1 O ~ � Z v (1) Ln 0 Ln� U O � O �- a) Q 4- �_ E w_v1 Q s to X14- E 2 N i Q O a"' >` toLA a+ U a, '�'a) a�4 `� 0 J z a, +1•�' �+ r� +� � •U (J a1 vii > v 01 Z) O N N O aJ V 2 .� N 2 +�+ aJ L) .� U — lJ a--+ } O 01 i fC aJ � to JaJo >`4Ln I U }' >, 2 N N lJ > i s n c� } O N iJ c� Q a u Ln a� O � � W I I p c� Z li QQ LLI LL 0 ■ ■ ■ W G 0 U ZD 0 U LU LL LL Q 2 /VII ce LU LU r -- LU 2 0 0 W U W LL LL Q V QC CL U W Z 2 Z W 0 CL 2 0 Q A n A I a� V 4- 4- N O 05 v Q i os w o m E o�>_}' O O '^ =5 O V aJ lJ Q N - aJ aJ V Q s 4� M O L a, a, o > •}, M •0 aJ N a + V N lJ N O O O u a, +1 u r� E 4- 0 a1 c }' i "' LA O c� N N U; s s � � o>'s� +� O E aJ +� N 4- O O4-1 O a-1 C: -0 =5 > 0 W O a1 E 4-1 E4-0 aJ aJ aJ aJ Ln a) �1 I � >, i 4-1 �4'� O _ E ; N s= - O }' o LJ 4-1 ') '— O +� v n � •O s O O _ O +0 O a) cd 0 Li 0 +5-1 -0 -0 Q _ O O cd s `� L ate-+ •i � � � to , 4-1 aJ 00�,�-� O O � I g U; s s � � o>'s� +� O E aJ +� N 4- O O4-1 O a-1 C: -0 =5 > 0 W O a1 E 4-1 E4-0 aJ aJ aJ aJ Ln a) �1 M E v cn c c ro a oa E 0 c 0 w s 4-1 0 O s i ; N O }' o LJ 4-1 ') '— O +� v � U a1 a1 a1 X N O O _ O +0 O a) cd 0 Li 0 +5-1 -0 -0 V M E v cn c c ro a oa E 0 c 0 w u LU —i Cl- � � x LU � z Z) 75; 75; 0 u ce LU LU CL 4 � 0 / \00 / 7 C \ C t . L. w g z o o e c e c e c ƒ , Ln f / / C �\ \2 k [2 o e = o = N US ._ { \ e 0 / - 7 \ x / m E \ \ / 00 00z [a n/ / /\ C5 % \ » z \ / / - \ 2 >(3) » 6 / \ \ { 2°°�- ao=mo N7 -n > / \ / / / \ c /\ \ - / - \E \2 /2 o e = o = a N C2 US \ i / \ c L. L. m m g o e % \ $ \ E [ 2 ¥ ® o o = a N U \ � / \ / / \ t / \} m � .7 1 [ e = o = C 5 U 5 \\ ¥ / / / � e \ t w I x + e /\ e E / \ / / \ o V) \/ §) U ® \\ \ u Ln 00 c \ [ \ [ a mx w \ \ ® c o= N U� / _ ck K_ kE k m E ° o CL o N = 2 \ CL 0 vk Ek t: IL =D U)0 Lu as 0 un LU J ^ Cl - G Q X LU Z CD G 0 U ce LU LU CL m u ►0 4-J s +.J O i c� V i aJ a 4-J N Ln aJ O i Q N r� 75 N Ln N L r� 75 N U N N L O NN N 4-J N � O O U 2 � 4- 0 N M N O i N 4-J V O 4-J 4-1 o E D)O O N Q � aJ � a� 0--a r� O aJ — 2 � 0 U L O Q O i aJ a-+ L a > M i 4- cd O N O a� +•J E U Q rz o }, aJ � > ca � V O � E v aJ E E o s m � s +.J a� N_ M O � N aJ i Q O }, > rz (3) +•J C O 0- ►0 aJ N N 4- i aJ u rti a1 V) a) E O s O O 4- 0- E - QE aV X a1 ca a1 a1 i a1 s O s M u 0- M M 4- 0 O O U- M E v E .E a oa E 0 r_ 0 w z 0 c/7 ZD U 0 0 z Q Vi z 0 W 0 Lr) i O V 4— r- :�- m N > s }' O 3 O s U 0N a� E O +� .N cd U cd u � u � rd s s v O O cd cd J � � O O • N Ul .N 0 Cz N 0 .4-J V) v cr 0 Q v s +J 0 CL Q rz +J s +J V) 4-J v E _w W N E v T O1 E r_ rz CL oa E O c O w O ate-+ U 4-J E 0 0 V Ui L M V 4J E v T O1 E r_ rz CL oa E O c O w City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 12, 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 12-23-6: Methods of Mitigation and Section 12-24-6: Methods of Mitigation, Vail Town Code, to update the Payment of Fees in Lieu provisions of Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0027) Staff and the applicant have requested this item be tabled to November 9, 2020. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 12, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-71-1-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the conversion of eleven (11) fractional units to fee simple whole ownership units, located at 701 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0022) OTTOCHMFNTS- File Name Staff Memorandum. Attachment A. Applicant Narrative.pdf Attachment B. Units proposed for conversion.pdf Description Staff memorandum Attachment A. Applicant Narrative Attachment B. Units proposed for conversion TOWN OF VAlt�7 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 12, 2020 Memorandum SUBJECT: A request for review of Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the conversion of eleven (11) fractional units to fee simple whole ownership units, located at 701 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0022) Applicant: Lion Vail LLC, represented by Rodrigo Cortina Planner: Jonathan Spence I. SUMMARY The applicant, Lion Vail LLC, represented by Rodrigo Cortina, is requesting final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the conversion of eleven (11) fractional units to fee simple whole ownership units at the Lion project located at 701 West Lionshead Circle. The proposed major exterior alteration results in an increase in the number of dwelling units and the elimination of timeshare units. Upon review of the applicable elements of the Town's planning documents and adopted criteria for review, the Community Development Department is recommending the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the applicant's request for major exterior alteration to amend the residential unit mix. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Lion Vail LLC, represented by Rodrigo Cortina, is requesting final review of a major exterior alteration to change the mix of residential unit types within the project. The key elements of the current proposal include: • An increase in the number of dwelling units from 53 to 64; • A decrease in the number of timeshare units from 11 to 0; • The bulk, mass, height, setbacks, site coverage, and landscape areas are not proposed to change; and • No effect on parking requirements or requirements under the Inclusionary Zoning regulations. Prior to Ordinance No. 4, Series of 2019, there was a maximum permitted density of 35 dwelling units per acre. The limited the Lion Development to 54 Dwelling units (DUs) or DU equivalents based on the development lot size. The existing approval is for 53.75 DU equivalents consisting of 53 DUs and 3 Lodge Dwelling Units (LDUs) that count towards density at a rate of .25 DU for each LDU. Fractional Units do not count towards density in the Lion's Head Mixed Use 1 Zone District. The approval of Ordinance No. 4 allows the Lion Development to increase the number of dwelling units in the project. The applicant has provided a summary narrative (Attachment A), and a plan set showing which units are to be converted (Attachment B) for review. III. BACKGROUND • The subject property was annexed into the Town of Vail by Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1969, which became effective on August 23, 1969. • The Lionshead Inn and Lionshead Annex (Fabulous Vail Glo), and Enzian were initially developed as a single project in the late 1960's and early 1970's. They were later subdivided onto separate parcels resulting in the existing Enzian structure being located on a parcel which is enclosed by the lot the Lionshead Inn is located upon. • Since the initial construction there has been little activity on the existing structures. There were several redevelopment proposal and approvals granted in the late 1980's and in the 1990's; however, none were followed through. • In April of 2006, the Town Council passed a moratorium on all new development within Lionshead until a policy for retaining a live bed base could be determined. In July of 2006, the Town Council passed Resolution No. 4, Series of 2006, which amended portions of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to include the provision for the inclusion of "Live Beds" in all projects that included hotel roomsand other lodge style units in Lionshead. • In February of 2007, the Town Council passed Ordinances No. 7 and No. 8, Series of 2007, which enacted regulations for the provision of employee housing units through several possible mitigation methods for all projects in the Lionshead Mixed- Use 1 district. • On August 13, 2007, the Planning and Environmental Commission held a work session to discuss the Fogata project. At that hearing the Commission generally expressed support for the bulk, mass, and height of the proposed structure. Several members of the Commission identified a goal of locating a portion of the required employee housing mitigation within the project. There was discussion regarding several specific architectural elements and their lack of compliance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. • On October 22, 2007, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a major exterior alteration, conditional use permit for multi -family residential units on the first floor, and a conditional use permit for a private parking lot, to facilitate the redevelopment of the Lionshead Inn and Lionshead Inn Annex. • On April 14, 2008, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved an amendment to the approved Strata employee housing mitigation plan. The approved Town of Vail Page 2 amendment included the applicant deed restricting one 870 square foot manager's unit on-site, seven dwelling units off-site totaling 11,686 square feet, and paying a fee -in -lieu for the remaining 75.1 square feet required to be mitigated in the amount of $17,772.40. • On June 3, 2008, the Town Council denied a request to proceed forward through the development review process with a vehicle pull -off on West Lionshead Circle to serve as a guest loading and unloading zone. • On June 9, 2008, the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved major exterior alteration and conditional use permit amendments to Strata. • On June 9, 2008, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved an exemption plat for Strata. The final plat was not recorded however, and the approval of which subsequently expired as a result on June 9, 2009. • On January 27, 2014, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved an exemption plat for Strata which was subsequently recorded establishing Lot 1 Strata Vail. • On September 8, 2014, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved an amendment to reduce the number of timeshare and lodge dwelling units while increasing the number of dwelling units and attached accommodation units. IV. APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS Staff has provided portions of the Vail Town Code and Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan which are relevant to the topics for the review included in the proposal. Zoning Regulations Lionshead Mixed Use —1 Zone District (in part) 12-7H-1: PURPOSE.- The URPOSE: The Lionshead Mixed Use -1 zone district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple -family dwellings, lodges, hotels, fractional fee clubs, time shares, lodge dwelling units, restaurants, offices, skier services, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. This District is meant to encourage and provide incentives for redevelopment in accordance with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. This Zone District was specifically developed to provide incentives for properties to redevelop. The ultimate goal of these incentives is to create an economically vibrant lodging, housing, and commercial core area. The incentives in this Zone District include increases in allowable gross residential floor area, building height, and density over the previously established zoning in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan study area. The primary goal of the incentives is to create economic conditions favorable to inducing private redevelopment consistent with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Additionally, the incentives are created to help finance public off-site improvements adjacent to redevelopment projects. With any development/redevelopment proposal taking advantage of the incentives created herein, the following amenities will be Town of Vail Page 3 evaluated: streetscape improvements, pedestrian/bicycle access, public plaza redevelopment, public art, roadway improvements, and similar improvements. 12-7H-8: COMPLIANCE BURDEN.- It URDEN:It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board that the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. 12-7H-18: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS.- Property MPACTS:Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmental commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Mitigation of impacts may include, but is not limited to, the following: roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank improvements, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off site impacts. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan (in part) Chapter 4, Master Plan Recommendations — Overall Study Area This section of the master plan addresses issues that affect Lionshead as a whole. These issues, and recommendations to address them, should be considered in all planning and policy decisions as Lionshead develops. 4.13 Live Beds The maintenance, preservation, and enhancement of the live bed base are critical to the future success of Lionshead and as such, special emphasis should be placed on increasing the number of live beds in Lionshead as the area undergoes redevelopment. The Lionshead area currently contains a large percentage of the Town's overall lodging bed base. The bed base in Lionshead's consists of a variety of residential and lodging products including hotels, condominiums, timeshares and hybrids of all three. The vast majority of live beds in Lionshead are not accommodation units in hotels, but instead, in dwelling units in residential condominiums such as the Vail 21, Treetops, Antlers Lodge, Lion Square Lodge, Lifthouse Lodge, Landmark Tower and Townhomes, Lionshead Arcade, and Montaneros, all of which have some form of rental/property management program that encourages short term rental of dwelling units when the owners are not in residence. It has been the experience in Lionshead that condominium projects Town of Vail Page 4 which include a voluntary rental management program have occupancy rates which exceed the occupancy rate of hotel products, and therefore tend to provide more live beds and produce more lodging tax revenues to the Town. Applications for new development or redevelopment which maintain, preserve, and enhance the live bed base in Lionshead have a significantly greater chance of approval in the development review process than those which do not. 4.13.1 Live Bed Definition Pursuant to Policy Objective 2.3.3, live beds (and warm beds) are defined as residential or lodging rooms or units that are designed for occupancy by visitors, guests, individuals, or families, on a short term rental basis. A live bed may include the following residential products: accommodation units, fractional fee club units, lodge dwelling units, timeshare units, attached accommodation units (i.e., lock -off units), and dwelling units which are included in a voluntary rental management program and available for short term rental. 4.13.2 Location of Live Beds Live beds should be located in Lionshead pursuant to the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and 2 zone districts. All properties within Lionshead, when developing or redeveloping and providing new residential or lodging products, should provide live beds as defined herein. 4.13.3 Hotel -types of Services and Amenities To aid in the furtherance of Policy Objective 2.3.3 of the Plan, the creation of additional live beds should include hotel -types of services and amenities. Such services and amenities may include, but not be limited to, the operation of a front desk, registration/reservation capabilities, recreational amenities, guest drop-off, on-site management, etc. These types of services and amenities in multiple family residential dwellings will increase the likelihood that the dwelling units will be made available for short term occupancy and help to promote improved occupancy rates. 4.13.4 Review of New Development and Redevelopment Projects The Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the policies and direction given by this Plan with respect to live beds when reviewing new development and redevelopment projects in Lionshead. Applications for new development or redevelopment maintain the live bed base in Lionshead. Applications for new development and redevelopment which enhance the live bed base have a significantly greater chance of approval in the development review process than those which do not. A proposal's adherence to the policies contained in the adopted master plan will be one of the factors analyzed by staff, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), the Design Review Board (DRB), and the Town Council (as applicable) in determining whether to approve or disapprove the specific proposal. V. ZONING ANALYSIS Town of Vail Page 5 Address/Legal Description Zoning: Land Use Designation 701 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1 Strata Vail Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Development Required by Town Code As Approved Proposed Standard Lot Size Min. 10,000 sq. ft. 68,336.9 sq. ft. No Change Minimum Setbacks Front — 10' North- 30' No Change Side — 10' East -10' Rear — 10' West -10' South -10' Maximum Height 71 ft. avg. 69.5 ft. avg. No Change 82.5 ft. max 82.5 ft. max Density* 53 DUs and 3 64 DUs and LDU=53.75 DUs 3 LDUs or 34.2 DU/acre GRFA 170,840 sq. ft 125,657 sq. ft. No Change Site coverage Max. 70% of site area or 47,836 sq. ft. 42,397 sq. ft. No Change maximum (62%) Minimum Min. 20% of site area or 13,667 sq. ft. 17,401 sq. ft No Change Landscaping (25.5%) Required Parking 156 spaces per Chapter 10 169 spaces No Change *The Town of Vail removed limitation on dwelling units per acre via Ordinance no. 4, Series of 2019 VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use North: 1-70 South: Hotel/Residential East: Residential/Commercial West: Residential VII. REVIEW CRITERIA Major Exterior Alteration Zoning None Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District Lionshead Mixed Use 1 District Section 12-7H-8, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, outlines the review criteria for major exterior alteration applications proposed within the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 (LMU- 1) zone district. According to Section 12-7H-8, Vail Town Code, a major exterior alteration shall be reviewed for compliance with the following criteria: 1. That the proposed major exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district; Town of Vail Page 6 Staff Response: The purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district are stated in Section 12- 7H-1, Purpose, Vail Town Code. As stated, the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 zone district is intended to provide sites within the area of Lionshead for a mixture of multiple -family dwellings, hotels, fractional fee clubs, restaurants, skier services and commercial/retail establishments. The development standards prescribed for the district were established to provide incentives for development in accordance with the goals and objectives of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. In reviewing the proposed amendments to the approved development plan for compliance with the expressed purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use -1 zone district, staff finds that the amended major exterior alteration application complies with the intent of the zone district. "Live Bed" Reauirements In April of 2006, the Town Council passed a moratorium on all new development within Lionshead until a policy for retaining a live bed base could be determined. In July of 2006, the Town Council passed Resolution No. 4, Series of 2006, which amended portions of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to include the provision for the inclusion of "Live Beds" in all projects that included hotel rooms and other lodge style units in Lionshead. Resolution No. 4, Series of 2006, adopted several amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan regarding the maintenance, preservation, and enhancement of the live bed base in order to maintain the economic viability of Lionshead. Within Resolution No. 4, Series of 2006, a definition for "Live Beds" was established as well as an explanation of "Hotel -types of Services and Amenities" as follows: 4.13.1 Live Bed Definition Pursuant to Policy Objective 2.3.3, live beds (and warm beds) are defined as residential or lodging rooms or units that are designed for occupancy by visitors, guests, individuals, or families, on a short term rental basis. A live bed may include the following residential products: accommodation units, fractional fee club units, lodge dwelling units, timeshare units, attached accommodation units (i.e., lock -off units), and dwelling units which are included in a voluntary rental management program and available for short term rental. 4.13.3 Hotel -types of Services and Amenities To aid in the furtherance of Policy Objective 2.3.3 of the Plan, the creation of additional live beds should include hotel -types of services and amenities. Such services and amenities may include, but not be limited to, the operation of a front desk, registration/reservation capabilities, recreational amenities, guest drop-off, on-site management, etc. These types of services and amenities in multiple family residential dwellings will increase the likelihood that the dwelling units will be made available for short term Town of Vail Page 7 occupancy and help to promote improved occupancy rates. Resolution No. 4, Series of 2006, established Section 4.13.4, Review of New Development and Redevelopment Projects, to guide the Commission in reviewing projects for compliance with the "live bed" requirements of the Master Plan. Section 4.13.4 is as follows: 4.13.4 Review of New Development and Redevelopment Projects The Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the policies and direction given by this Plan with respect to live beds when reviewing new development and redevelopment projects in Lionshead. Applications for new development or redevelopment maintain the live bed base in Lionshead. Applications for new development and redevelopment which enhance the live bed base have a significantly greater chance of approval in the development review process than those which do not. A proposal's adherence to the policies contained in the adopted master plan will be one of the factors analyzed by staff, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), the Design Review Board (DRB), and the Town Council (as applicable) in determining whether to approve or disapprove the specific proposal. Fractional Units were once thought of as having a higher occupancy rate than whole ownership units. The prevailing wisdom at that time was that whole ownership units were reluctant to enter the rental program. Recent history has largely dispelled this as an increase in the inclusion of whole ownership units in the rental pool has been experienced across Vail. Fractional Units are no longer considered a desirable form of ownership as was demonstrated previously in the reconfiguration of unit types at the Four Seasons project. The Lion includes the ability of owners to place their units into a voluntary rental management program. To encourage owners within The Lion project to enter the rental program, there are provisions for a front desk with registration/reservation capabilities, lobby, lounge area, pool and hot tubs, business center, on site laundry services, and meeting/conference space. Furthermore, there are provisions for two commercial/retail spaces measuring approximately 5,803 square feet within the project. Staff has reviewed The Lion proposal and found it to be in compliance with the requirements of Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan with regard to "Live Beds". Staff finds the proposed amendment complies with this criterion. 2. That the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 Zone District; Staff response: Staff has performed a review of the proposed amendment to the approved major exterior alteration for compliance with the development requirements of the Town of Vail Page 8 Lionshead Mixed Use -1 district. In Section V of this memorandum staff performed a zoning analysis of the project with regards to the development parameters of the Lionshead Mixed Use -1 district. Within this analysis staff reaffirmed that the project is in compliance with the development parameters for setbacks, height, density, GRFA, site coverage, and landscape area. At the time the Lion was developed, the zone district limited maximum density to 35 DU/Acre or 54 total DU equivalents. Fraction fee units did not accrue towards density to incentivize their development. Ordinance No 4, Series of 2019, removed the limitation on dwelling units within a given development. Staff finds the proposed amendments comply with this criterion. 3. That the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and, Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the proposed amended major exterior alteration and found that the proposed changes do not affect the bulk, mass, height, and setbacks of the structure as approved, therefore Staff believes that for the same reasons presented at the initial approval, the project is in compliance with this criterion. 4. That the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Staff Response: Overall, staff finds that the applicant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed amended major exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the Lionshead Mixed Use -1 zone district, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds the proposed amendment complies with this criterion. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the request of Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the conversion of eleven (11) fractional units to fee simple whole ownership units, located at 701 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Staff's recommendation is based upon the review of the major exterior alteration review criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony Town of Vail Page 9 presented at the public hearing. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this exterior alteration or modification request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the request of Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the conversion of eleven (11) fractional units to fee simple whole ownership units, located at 701 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the exterior alteration request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: 'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll of the Staff memorandums to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated October 12, 2020, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. That the proposed Major Exterior Alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the LMU-1 district as specified in section 12-7H-1 of the Zoning Regulations, and 2. That the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, and 3. That the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Applicant's Narrative B. Plan Set Town of Vail Page 10 LION The Lion has 65 units, of which 11 are currently designated as fractional units. The intent is to change the 11 units to whole ownership. The Lion has a full operating front desk, concierge service, reservations system, housekeeping, rental shop, ski valet and amenities that support a hot bed program. In addition, the Lion has enough parking to allow owners to keep vehicles on property, while renting their units with excess parking for the rental guests' vehicles. In relation to value, the smaller studio & 1 bedroom units outperform any other unit type in the rental program. The 11 fractional units are comprised of three studios and eight 1 bedroom units. All 11 units have been active year around in the rental program since the Lion was completed in 2017, providing a track record. Of the 35 units sold to date, almost all of the lower priced units are currently in the rental pool, supporting the case that the typical buyer for the studio and 1 bedroom units will have the same intent. 7l"1511'f nv:lwSN('Ill I Cam r. r� �©mn O O 'Oi an Iv uj bigow mO m N Cl) 7l"1511'f nv:lwSN('Ill I Cam r. r� C'4 y o 3� f � � O O O cti nc I � I � � o LU Lu w m m m CJ 'IT Lr) C'4 y o 3� T N 0 CY3 -j r� LU > LEJ E O LU O N O LnLU N Q r • • • • nj J • • • • Z+ i ■ i i 1 J � N O N O N City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 12, 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 12-16-7: Use Specific Criteria and Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the use specific criteria for funiculars and other similar conveyances, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0023) OTTOCHMFNTS- File Name Description PEC20-0023 Staff Memo.pdf Staff memorandum Attachment A. Applicant s Narrative dated August 17 2020.pdf Attachment A. Applicant's Narrative dated August 17, 2020 0) rowN of vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 12, 2020 SUBJECT: 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 12-16-7: Use Specific Criteria and Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the use specific criteria for funiculars and other similar conveyances, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0023) Applicant: Mauriello Planning Group representing LSC 27 LLC Planner: Jonathan Spence SUMMARY The applicant, Mauriello Planning Group representing LSC 27 LLC, is requesting 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 12-16-7: Use Specific Criteria and Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the use specific criteria for funiculars and other similar conveyances. Based upon staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VI of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed Prescribed Regulations Amendment. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST This is a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend the use specific criteria for funiculars and other similar conveyances. The proposed amendment will revise the criterion to allow for the use of a funicular to gain pedestrian access to accessory structures and recreation facilities/structures. Currently the use criterion restricts the use of funiculars to the access of residential dwellings only. Please see Section IV of the report for the proposed modifications to the use criterion. III. BACKGROUND Prior to 2003, the use of funiculars and other similar conveyances was an accessory use in residential zone districts. As an accessory use (customary and incidental to permitted uses) review was limited to the Design Review Board (DRB) with no specific criteria. In 2003 staff proposed reclassifying the use as a Conditional Use in response to community concerns that as an accessory use the review process and community engagement were inadequate. On November 10, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) voted to recommend approval of the request without any use specific criteria. Subsequently, the Town Council, upon review of the use reclassification, added use specific criteria. Use specific criteria are additional criterion for specific Conditional Uses. Examples of other uses with use specific criterion are Brewpubs and Bakeries. This new language was not remanded to the PEC for further analysis and consideration. The criterion added by the Town Council had unintended consequences of effectively banning new funiculars, specifically by limiting their use to situations where vehicular access to a dwelling unit was not possible due to identified site constraints. IV. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT New language is shown in bold. 12-16-7 Use Specific Criteria and Standards The following criteria and standards shall be applicable to the uses listed below in consideration of a conditional use permit. These criteria and standards shall be in addition to the criteria and findings required by section 12-16-6 of this chapter. 11. Funiculars and other similar conveyances: a. Funiculars and other similar conveyances shall only be allowed when designed for the purpose of providing pedestrian or vehicular access to a residential dwelling, an accessory structure, or recreation facility/structure, as determined by the planning and environmental commission. b. Funiculars and other similar conveyances shall only be allowed when significant site constraints prevent conventional means of pedestrian or vehicular access to the residential dwelling, an accessory structure, or recreation facility/structure, as determined by the planning and environmental commission. "Significant site constraints" shall be defined as natural features such as mature trees, natural drainages, stream courses, and other natural water features, rock outcroppings, wetlands, excessive slopes, other natural features, and existing structures that may create practical difficulties in the site planning and development of the lot. c. Funiculars and other similar conveyances shall only be allowed when designed to be compatible with both the site upon which they are located and the residential Town of Vail Page 2 dwelling to which they provide access, as determined by the planning and environmental commission. d. Funiculars and other similar conveyances shall only be allowed when designed to be appropriately screened. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code Section 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. nitiation: 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 all 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. VI. REVIEW CRITERIA Section 12-3-7(C)(2) of the Zoning Regulations identifies the criteria that the Planning and Environmental Commission must consider before making a recommendation for a change to the text of the code. These criteria include the following: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and Town of Vail Page 3 The proposed text amendment expands, in a limited manner, the use of funiculars on unique properties in the Town of Vail and furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations as follows (emphasis added): `IPAW d General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. FROMMA 5. To conserve and maintain established communitv dualities and economic values. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 The proposed text amendment is compatible with the development objectives of the town and speaks to the origins of Vail and its Tyrolean roots. The following are relevant goals of the Town's Comprehensive Plan: Vail Land Use Plan: • Goal 1.1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. • Goal 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. • Goal 1.6. Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. • Goal 2.1. The community should emphasize its role as a destination resort while accommodating day visitors. Town of Vail Page 4 Vail 20/20 Sense of Place and Character: Vail values the strong history of the town and its unique character and legacy while acknowledging the importance of reinvention. This is reflected in the high quality of the built environment with design and features that endure over time. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 The criterion that was added by the Town Council in 2003 was not evaluated by the PEC and had the unintended consequence of effectively banning new funiculars, as demonstrated by no new development application or approvals in the last 17 years. The minor amendment is consistent with the underlying intent of the original language and maintains the additional review and community notification requirements of a Conditional Use. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and The proposed text amendment clarifies the use of funiculars while maintaining the extra review process and criterion afforded Conditional Uses. The amendment preserves a harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives. As a result, staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Such other factors and criteria the planning and environmental commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the analysis of the review criteria contained in Section VI of this memorandum and on the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission make a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to approve a Prescribed Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-16-7: Use Specific Criteria and Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the use specific criteria for funiculars and other similar conveyances, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Town of Vail Page 5 If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12- 16-7: Use Specific Criteria and Standards, Vail Town Code, to amend the use specific criteria for funiculars and other similar conveyances, and setting forth details in regard thereto." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed Prescribed Regulation Amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VI of the Community Development Department memorandum dated October 12, 2020 and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. That the amendment is consistent with 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. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations, and 3. That the amendment 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. VII. ATTACHMENTS A. Applicant's Narrative dated August 17, 2020 Town of Vail Page 6 696 FOREST ROAD C s' - Funicular Conditional Use Permit & Zoning Regulations Amendment Location: 696 Forest Road / 2101-072-11-038 LOT 8, BLOCK 1, VAIL VILLAGE FILING 6 Date Submitted: August 17, 2020 ��M SUMA r u Mauriello Planning Group INTRODUCTION The owners of 696 Forest Road / Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6, LSC 27 LLC, are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a funicular. The property is zoned Two -Family Primary/ Secondary Residential, and "funiculars" are allowed as a conditional use by Section 12-6D-3: Conditional Uses. In addition, the owners are requesting an amendment to Chapter 12-16: Conditional Use Permits, to amend the "Use Specific Criteria" for funiculars. Current construction at 696 Forest Rd. The applicants have been approved to construct a recreation facility, which includes ski lockers and indoor recreational uses in a structure with a 745 sq. ft. footprint and exterior swimming pool. The recreation facility was originally approved on March 4, 2020, and construction began in July of 2020. The facility is proposed to be accessed via a funicular and a set of stairs. The Town Code defines a funicular (and similar conveyances) as: Exterior, tramlike vehicles, designed to move up and down steep slopes by use of rails or tracks. The Town Code distinguishes funiculars from ski lifts and tows as two separate uses within the Code. A ski lift and tow are not subject to use specific criteria that are applicable to a funicular. The proposed funicular is a 6 -seater cab that is customized to match the architecture and materials of the home. The intent is that the cab will match the architecture of the home and will generally blend into the environment. The track is also proposed to be bronze, and varies in height between 4 ft. to 7 ft. off the ground to allow for snow clearance. The total length of track is 260 ft., and it will climb 105 ft. of elevation. The cab is driven by an electric variable speed motor at the top, which uses a cable and drum system, so noise is minimal, and well below the Town's noise standards. Page 2 of 21 Proposed funicular cab. The cab will be customized to match the materials of the home. The materials used on the home will be used on the funicular, including timber siding, bronze frame, and copper metal shingles. i2 `X, $ l� NEW COPPER METAL SHNCAE FINISH ON HIP ROOF TO MATCH STRUCTURES - NATURAL PATI NA OVERHANG AROUND PtIRW:TER j d„ OF CAB DARK BRONZE PAINTED METAL / IRAMI, TTP. ENCLOSED CA6 WITH j SEE-THROUGH POLYCARBONAI E j PANELS I MONTANA TIMBER SIDING TO MATCH STRUCTU RES BENCH SEATING FI NISHED TERRACEIPLA1FOKM LINE UPHILL $IDE DOMHILL $IDE CUSTOM A FUNICULAR CAS FUNICULAR CAB SIDE ELEVATION A$,11 SCALE- 112" = V -W Proposed funicular cab. The cab will be customized to match the materials of the home. The materials used on the home will be used on the funicular, including timber siding, bronze frame, and copper metal shingles. f�3 / / 0.01 Page 3 of 21 `X, 'c Y+ ® f�3 / / 0.01 Page 3 of 21 BACKGROUND Funiculars have been used as a popular solution to moving people and freight up and down steep terrain since the 1860s. While many funicular systems are public methods of transportation, in mountain and resort communities, funicular systems have been privately developed as a method to overcome issues of connectivity where terrain prohibits the ability for pedestrians or vehicles to achieve access. For example, there are a couple of private funiculars in Telluride. Private funiculars are also popular in some lakeside resort communities to provide access down to the waterfront. In the Town of Vail prior to 2003, funiculars were approved as an accessory use to residential dwelling units. This means that there was no review required beyond Design Review. There have been a few funiculars constructed in the Town of Vail. There are two private funiculars currently in the Town of Vail. Both of these were constructed prior to 2003, and no new Six -person funicular at Element 52 in Telluride, CO Small funicular providing access from a private residence down to the waterfront. funiculars have been constructed since. There was previously a funicular in East Vail at 4842 Meadow Lane, however, this one was demolished as part of a demo/rebuild in 2015 so there is little available information on it. In addition, there is a private gondola that was constructed in the late 1980s, but a gondola is Page 4 of 21 considered a ski lift and listed separately from funiculars. The existing funiculars and the private gondola are described in additional detail below: 2701 Davos Trail: The Town's files on this property are corrupted and inaccessible so little is known about the background on this property. The residence at 2701 Davos Trail was constructed in 1981 and sits high on the lot, with significant vertical separation from Davos Trail. In 1985, a separated garage was constructed at the street level, and in 1998 a funicular was constructed connecting the garage to the residence. Based on the information available, the funicular was treated as an accessory use to the residence and the Town's data management system does not indicate that a conditional use permit was issued on this property. 1, til .... Funicular located at 2701 Davos Trail. Q 97 Rockledge Road: The property at 97 Rockledge Road was redeveloped in the early 2000s. The funicular provides pedestrian access from Forest Road up to the residence on Rockledge Road. The funicular was part of a major redevelopment of two homes, 86 Forest Road and 97 Rockledge Road. The funicular was reviewed as an accessory use to the residence. Page 5 of 21 Funicular located at 97 Rockledge Road. Following a neighbor controversy when this funicular was constructed, the Vail Town Council directed staff to amend the Zoning Code to require the issuance of a conditional use permit for funiculars. In 2003, the Town of Vail amended the Zoning Regulations to add regulations and requirements for "funiculars." A definition was added into Chapter 12-2, which states: FUNICULARS AND OTHER SIMILAR CONVEYANCES: Exterior, tramlike vehicles, designed to move up and down steep slopes by use of rails or tracks. In addition, "funicular and other similar conveyances" was added as conditional use in the residential zone districts, including Hillside Residential, Single -Family Residential, Two -Family Residential, Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential, Low Density Multiple -Family, Medium Density Multiple -Family, and High Density Multiple -Family, and Housing Districts. On November 10, 2003, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted to recommend approval of the request, which was then reviewed by the Town Council. What the PEC recommended was to simply require a conditional use permit without any use specific criteria. The Town Council decided that in addition to making funiculars a conditional use in the residential zone districts, additional use specific criteria should be added to Chapter 12-16: Conditional Use Permits. Ordinance No. 33, Series of 2003, was adopted by the Town Council Page 6 of 21 on second reading January 6, 2004. The use specific criteria for funiculars and other similar conveyances are as follows: 11. Funiculars and other similar conveyances: a. Funiculars and other similar conveyances shall only be allowed when designed for the purpose of providing access to a residential dwelling, as determined by the planning and environmental commission. b. Funiculars and other similar conveyances shall only be allowed when significant site constraints prevent conventional means of vehicular access to the residential dwelling, as determined by the planning and environmental commission. "Significant site constraints" shall be defined as natural features such as mature trees, natural drainages, stream courses, and other natural water features, rock outcroppings, wetlands, excessive slopes, other natural features, and existing structures that may create practical difficulties in the site planning and development of the lot. c. Funiculars and other similar conveyances shall only be allowed when designed to be compatible with both the site upon which they are located and the residential dwelling to which they provide access, as determined by the planning and environmental commission. d. Funiculars and other similar conveyances shall only be allowed when designed to be appropriately screened from view, as determined by the planning and environmental commission. Page 7 of 21 APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant's request has two components: (1) a text amendment to allow more flexibility in the approval of a funicular; and (2) a request for a conditional use permit based on this revised use specific criteria. The applicant is proposing slight changes to the use specific criteria, as proposed below (language to be added indicated in bold and underline): a. Funiculars and other similar conveyances shall only be allowed when designed for the purpose of providing pedestrian or vehicular access to a residential dwelling, an accessory structure, or recreation facility/structure, as determined by the planning and environmental commission. b. Funiculars and other similar conveyances shall only be allowed when significant site constraints prevent conventional means of pedestrian or vehicular access to the residential dwelling, an accessory structure, or recreation facimdstructure, as determined by the planning and environmental commission. "Significant site constraints" shall be defined as natural features such as mature trees, natural drainages, stream courses, and other natural water features, rock outcroppings, wetlands, excessive slopes, other natural features, and existing structures that may create practical difficulties in the site planning and development of the lot. c. Funiculars and other similar conveyances shall only be allowed when designed to be compatible with both the site upon which they are located and the residential dwelling to which they provide access, as determined by the planning and environmental commission. d. Funiculars and other similar conveyances shall only be allowed when designed to be appropriately screened from view, as determined by the planning and environmental commission. The changes allow for the use of a funicular to gain pedestrian access to accessory structures and recreation facilities/structures. The applicant believes allowing a funicular is more beneficial than allowing for a ski lift, which is allowed without these additional criteria, as the impacts are less by not having towers and aerial trams located well above the ground. This change allows funiculars in a residential setting, in the same circumstances as ski lifts. The criteria for review of the zoning text amendment and conditional use permit are provided in the following sections. Page 8 of 21 CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: ZONING REGULATIONS AMENDMENT Section 12-3-7: AMENDMENT, of the Vail Town Code provides the criteria for review of a prescribed regulations amendment. These criteria, along with an analysis, are provided below: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and Applicant Response: The general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations are provided in Section 12-1-2 of the Vail Town Code. The regulations state: A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes: 1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. B. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town. Page 9 of 21 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. The proposed text amendments are consistent with the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations as noted above. Specifically related to Chapter 12-16, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, a funicular is an uncommon residential use that exhibits special characteristics that warrant additional consideration and review by the Town of Vail. The amendment is relatively minor, providing only some clarification to the regulations as adopted in 2003. The proposed amendment provides the flexibility to allow such a use while ensuring the adequate review of such a "special" use. 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 Applicant Response: Funiculars, while relatively rare in the United States, have been transporting both people and cargo for generations in Europe. The use of a funicular to access a home, or other accessory structures on a property, harkens back to Vail's Tyrolean roots, which is supported by various goals and objectives of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, as evidenced with the following: .............. Vail 20/20 Sense of Place and Character: Vail values the strong history of the town and its unique character and legacy while acknowledging the importance of reinvention. This is reflected in the high quality of the built environment with design and features that endure over time. - 20/20 Vision: The pedestrian ambiance and scale of Vail Village and LionsHead continues into 2020, where the European alpine charm of Vail is replicated in its new development. The unique character of Vail is evident from the Tyrolean building style that speaks of Vail's history, to the mountain contemporary style that heralds technological advancement. Page 10 of 21 The proposed text amendments better implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the development objectives of the Town. 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 Applicant Response: The applicant is not proposing major changes to the text of the regulations regarding funiculars. In fact, the amendment is minor, providing only additional clarification to the idea that a funicular may be permitted by a conditional use permit to access a portion of a residential unit or accessory and recreational structures/facilities that may be difficult to access via conventional means, such as by vehicular access. When the regulation was adopted in 2003, it was in response to a neighbor concern about the funicular at 97 Rockledge Road. As an accessory use, no notification to adjacent properties was required. As a result, the neighbors felt that they had no input on the impacts to adjacent property owners. With the requirement now for a conditional use permit, neighbors are notified of a proposed funicular and their comments and concerns can be addressed by both the applicant and the Planning and Environmental Commission. The applicant believes that the regulation, when adopted in 2003, did not appropriately take into consideration those circumstances where the use would be appropriate. The PEC never reviewed the use specific criteria in 2003, and thus never had the opportunity to evaluate the impacts of the regulations. Due to the significant changes made to the regulations by the Town Council, the changes should have been remanded back to the PEC for review and recommendation. Now 17 years later, the applicant believes that the conditions that have changed are related to not recognizing reasonable circumstances who the use might be appropriate. The minor clarification to the use specific criteria for funiculars addresses this criterion. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and Applicant Response: A residential funicular is an uncommon and unique use. The Planning and Environmental Commission is afforded the ability to review the special characteristics of a funicular on an individual case-by-case basis. The Planning and Environmental Commission has Page 11 of 21 the ability to evaluate a funicular in terms of operation (i.e. hours of use, noise, lighting, etc.) and compatibility with the site and the neighboring properties. Additionally, the Planning and Environmental Commission may impose conditions and limitations on the use of a funicular to ensure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with development objectives of the town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Generally, the track for a funicular has a footprint of 1 to 8 sq. ft. for each 20 ft. section of track. The track also lets lots of light through, so vegetation can continue growing underneath the track. This is particularly important on hillsides as the vegetation adds stability to the slope. The proposed text amendments will better clarify the use of funiculars to provide a harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives. 5. Such other factors and criteria the planning and environmental commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. Applicant Response: Any additional questions by the Planning and Environmental Commission can be addressed as necessary. Page 12 of 21 CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Section 12-16-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS, of the Vail Town Code provides the criteria for review for a conditional use approval. These criteria, along with an analysis, are provided below: 1. The relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town. Applicant Response: When the Vail Land Use Plan was adopted in 1986, and again when it was updated in 2009, there has been an emphasis on creating a destination resort community ambiance similar to what one would find in Europe. The Vail 20/20 plan recognizes the Tyrolean character of the town, while at the same time acknowledges the "importance of reinvention." The use of a funicular similar to those used in similarly steep environments in Europe to help residents access their homes and portions of their property is a unique and appropriate way of giving the residents of this property access to the ski slopes. In reviewing the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail 20/20 plan, this is an advancement that pays homage to the Tyrolean style destination ski resort that Vail has become. ............................ Vail Land Use Plan 1.6. Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. : Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 4.3. The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural settings, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality). - 2. Land Use Pattern. The pattern of existing land uses in Vail has been shaped by the natural characteristics of the Valley in concert with the man-made features that have been constructed over the years. The predominant features of the Valley which have played a major role in Vail's design include the proximity of steep slopes, the location of Gore Creek and its floodplain, the location of the ski mountain and attendant ski facilities and the presence of a major transportation corridor - Interstate 70 and its interchanges. 3. Development proposals on the hillsides may be appropriate, in a limited number of cases, for low density residential uses. These proposals would need to be evaluated on a case -by - Page 13 of 21 ................................................................................................................................... case basis, with development being carefully controlled as to sensitivity to the environment and visibility from the Valley floor. Vail 20/20 Sense of Place and Character: Vail values the strong history of the town and its unique character and legacy while acknowledging the importance of reinvention. This is reflected in the high quality of the built environment with design and features that endure over time. 20/20 Vision: The pedestrian ambiance and scale of Vail Village and LionsHead continues into 2020, where the European alpine charm of Vail is replicated in its new development. The unique character of Vail is evident from the Tyrolean building style that speaks of Vail's history, to the mountain contemporary style that heralds technological advancement. The proposed funicular has little impact on the development objectives of the Town but acts to reflect the development objectives by allowing less impactful way of gaining access to accessory structures or recreation structures/facilities versus that of a driveway or paved trail. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. Applicant Response: The proposed funicular is for private use only for a home in a two-family residential district and will be used to transport residents of the home to their recreation facility. Therefore, it will have no impact on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. Page 14 of 21 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. Applicant Response: The proposed funicular is for private use only for a home in a two-family residential district. Therefore, it will have no impact on traffic. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Applicant Response: There are two other homes in the vicinity that utilize solutions to move people on the sleep terrain. One home also has a private funicular, while the other home has a private gondola. The funicular offers the opportunity to move people from one place on the steep property to another in a minimally intrusive yet safe way. Gondola located at 330 Rockledge Road. Funicular located at 97 Rockledge Road. The exterior of the funicular will blend with the natural environment and has been designed to be compatible with the site and the surrounding area. The proposed funicular is a 6 -person cab that is customized to match the architecture and materials of the home. The total length of track is 260 ft., and it will climb 105 ft. of elevation. The site is heavily treed, and the applicant has made every effort to preserve the natural vegetation on the site, working closely with staff and the Design Review Board. The track is proposed to be bronze, and varies in height between 4 ft. to 7 ft. off the ground to allow for snow clearance. The cab is driven by an Page 15 of 21 electric variable speed motor at the top, which uses a cable and drum system, so noise is minimal. The drum system is located within an enclosure, as shown in the photo. The system meets the setback requirement of 15 ft., and as indicated on the specifications, without any mitigating factors, the decibel level is 41 db at 15 ft., well within noise limitations of the Town of Vail. The specification for the noise levels is provided below: Cable and drum motor system which powers the funicular. —M HILL HIKER" HILL HIKER@ INCLINED ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT NOISE SPECIFICATION Hill HikerW Inclined Elevator systems are designed to eperate at an ambient noise level that is unobtrusive to the surrounding environment. That being said the noise level of the system varies based on many factors such as the size and type of drive system and the distance from the system. Distance From Drive S steam Noise Level 2 in 80 db 2 ft 59 db 5 ft 51 db loft 45 db 15 ft 41 db 20 ft 39 db 25 ft 36.5 db NOTE - Testing was completed using an Extech Instruments Sound Level Meter model 407730 on a variety of different Hill Hiker drive system configurations including differing foundation types and motor sizes. Testing occurred throughout the entire travel length of each elevator with sound levels ranging from 47 to 80 decibels at a 2 inch testing distance from drive system. NOTE - Max decibel readings witnessed occurred during the short startup period when the elevator begins to move. NOTE - Formula used to calculate noise level change related to distance: Decibels of Cha nge=20xIog(distance 1/distance 2). Reference- http: //www. mcsquared.com/dbframe. htm Factors not measured that could further lessen the decibel level include but are not limited to: • Landscape plantings, vegetation or other environmental factors • Motor Drive coverlhousing • Insulation of motor cover/housing • Power -pack mounted in a waIIffloor motor area The proposed funicular is designed to be screened from view both from above on the ski slope as well as from below the residential dwelling. There is significant existing vegetation which screens the funicular track and the DRB and staff will review the landscape plan to ensure proper screening of the track. The applicant proposes to make the track disappear from view of any neighbors. Because the funicular is located behind the existing home, and due to dense vegetation, it cannot be viewed from the public street. The cab will be parked at the bottom or top of the track, directly adjacent to structure and generally disappear from view. Page 16 of 21 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use. Applicant Response: Any additional questions by the Planning and Environmental Commission can be addressed as necessary. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by chapter 12 of this title. Applicant Response: No Environmental Impact Report is required for this application. Page 17 of 21 CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: USE SPECIFIC CRITERIA AND STANDARDS Section 12-16-7(11): USE SPECIFIC CRITERIA AND STANDARDS, Funiculars and other similar conveyances, of the Vail Town Code provides the criteria for review for a conditional use approval. The criteria are proposed to be amended concurrently with this application and the language below reflects the proposed change, with the text to be added underlined for reference. These criteria, along with an analysis, are provided below: a. Funiculars and other similar conveyances shall only be allowed when designed for the purpose of providing pedestrian or vehicular access to a residential dwelling, an accessory structure, or recreation facility/structure, as determined by the planning and environmental commission. Applicant Response: The funicular requested here is to provide access between the recreational facility (a portion of a residential dwelling) near the ski slope and the residential dwelling at the bottom, and therefore complies with this criterion. The applicant explored other options to access the facility, including vehicular access (use by right), paved trail for use by an all terrain vehicle (use by right) or the use of a ski lift or tow (conditional use permit). It was determined that a funicular would minimize site disturbance as it can follow the natural slope and allows for a route that reduces the need for removal of trees. Low noise and limited visibility were also important considerations. A private gondola, similar to the existing gondola at 330 Rockledge Road, remains an option for the property depending on the outcome of this application. This would Drone shot of the construction occurring for the recreation facility of 696 Forest Road. The applicant has worked closely with Town staff and DRB to project the existing vegetation. Page 18 of 21 still require a conditional use permit, but the review of a gondola is not subject to these additional review criteria that a funicular is subject to. b. Funiculars and other similar conveyances shall only be allowed when significant site constraints prevent conventional means of pedestrian or vehicular access to the residential dwelling, an accessory structure, or recreation facility/structure, as determined by the planning and environmental commission. "Significant site constraints" shall be defined as natural features such as mature trees, natural drainages, stream courses, and other natural water features, rock outcroppings, wetlands, excessive slopes, other natural features, and existing structures that may create practical difficulties in the site planning and development of the lot. Applicant Response: The property at 696 Forest Road is heavily forested with large aspen trees, with slopes in excess of 40% in some locations. The elevation gain from the bottom of the lot to the top is more than 300 feet and the proposed funicular climbs 105 feet in elevation. These constitute significant site constraints that prevent accessing the recreation facility by conventional means, and thus the proposed funicular complies with this criterion. A vehicular access would need to traverse the site to allow for appropriate grade, which would then require the elimination of a large number of trees and the need for extensive grading. The proposed funicular is a more sensitive solution Existing vegetation and steep slopes at 696 Forest Road. that reduces permanent scarring of the landscape. In this instance, the funicular is being requested for the purpose of safely providing a means of moving residents between the recreational facility near the ski slopes and the existing home. It will be surrounded by trees and will have minimal visual impact to surrounding properties. Page 19 of 21 c. Funiculars and other similar conveyances shall only be allowed when designed to be compatible with both the site upon which they are located and the residential dwelling to which they provide access, as determined by the planning and environmental commission. Applicant Response: The proposed funicular is designed to be compatible with the site and the surrounding area as well as to be compatible with the home. The proposed funicular is a 6 - person cab that is custom bronze metal and wood siding. The intent is that that cab will match the architecture of the home and will generally blend into the environment. The track is also proposed to be bronze, and varies in height between 4 ft. to 7 ft. off the Example of the funicular track proposed and how it can blend with the site. ground to allow for snow clearance. The total length of track is 240 ft., and it will climb 105 ft. of elevation. The cab is driven by an electric variable speed motor at the top, which uses a cable and drum system, so noise is minimal. d. Funiculars and other similar conveyances shall only be allowed when designed to be appropriately screened from view, as determined by the planning and environmental commission. Applicant Response: The proposed funicular is designed to be screened from view both from above on the ski slope as well as from below the residential dwelling. There is significant existing vegetation which screens the funicular track. Additional landscaping may also be required by the DRB. As a result, the funicular will be screened from view and complies with this criterion. Page 20 of 21 ADJACENT PROPERTIES MAURIELLO PLANNING GROUP PO BOX 4777 EAGLE, CO 81631 LSC 27 LLC 4514 COLE AVE STE 1175 DALLAS, TX 75205-4183 670 FOREST RD LLC 6464 S QUEBEC ST STE 400 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111-6730 OSTLING, PAUL J. & DANITA K. 1196 SMITH RIDGE RD. NEW CANAAN, CT 06840-2332 RUMFORD, THEA J. 675 FOREST RD. VAIL, CO 81657-5518 COLMAR LLC MAHER 3465 N PINES WAY STE104 #71 WILSON, WY 83014-9129 MILLERS LIONSHEAD LLC, JEFF FENTRISS 12770 MERIT DR., STE 300 DALLAS, TX 75251-1402 TREE LINE LLC, BECKETT, TACKETT & JETEL, PLLC 7800 N. MOPAC EXPY, STE. 210 AUSTIN, TX 78759-8959 EPGT LLC, CORPORATION -7 TRUST CENTER 1209 N. ORANGE ST. WILMINGTON, DE 19801-1120 KAUFFMAN, JULIA IRENE 5955 MISSION DR PRAIRIE VILLAGE, KS 66208-1206 VAIL HOLDINGS LLC 800 S DOUGLAS RD FL 12 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134-3125 THOMAS S. IRWIN AND CECELIA J. IRWIN REVOCABLE TRUST 2018 16 VITTORIA RDG BOERNE, TX 78006-4702 HATHORN, MARY M. - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 706 FOREST ROAD B LLC ENGLEMAN, JOHN W 6TH AVE & KIPLING ST PO BOX 2181 655 FOREST RD LAKEWOOD, CO 80225-0546 EDWARDS, CO 81632-2181 VAIL, CO 81657-5517 Page 21 of 21 City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 12, 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 SDraddle Creek Staff Memo 10-12-2020. Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf Attachment B. Introductory Memorandum from Applicant.pdf Description Staff memorandum 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: October 12, 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 I. 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. This request has been modified to reduce the proposed increases in GRFA and Site Coverage as compared to the original request reviewed. Please see the applicants revised request included with other new information in Section IV. At the previous meeting on August 24, 2020 the Planning and Environmental Commission requested the following additional information: 1. An analysis of the effect of the 2005 GRFA revisions on Forest Road lots. 2. An analysis of existing GRFA/Site Coverage for the homes in Spraddle Creek. 3. The quantity of buildable land, per the code definition, on each lot in Spraddle Creek. 4. Information from the Spraddle Creek HOA concerning the application and possible public benefits to the community associated with it. Due to the unusual nature of the request, the applicant and staff request that this item be continued, with direction, to a future meeting and the conclusion of the discussion on this item. II. 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 revised the requested increases in GRFA to mirror the percent increases seen on West Forest Road (south). 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 Town of Vail Page 2 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: 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. Town of Vail Page 3 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 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. Previous 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. NEW INFORMATION At the previous meeting on August 24, 2020 the Planning and Environmental Commission requested the following additional information: An analysis of the effect of the 2005 GRFA revisions on Forest Road lots. Please see the following sheet labeled West Forest Road (south) GRFA Study. An analysis yields consistent findings that the GRFA rewrite of 2004 provided a 27% increase in allowable GRFA, per development lot, within the study area. 2. An analysis of existing GRFA/Site Coverage for the homes in Spraddle Creek. 3. The quantity of buildable land, per the code definition, on each lot in Spraddle Creek. 4. Information from the Spraddle Creek HOA concerning the application and possible public benefits to the community associated with it. Please see the following sheets provided by the applicant labeled Spraddle Creek Estates Additional GRFA/ Site Coverage Proposal and Spraddle Creek: Additional Lot Information. The first sheet illustrates the revised proposal including percent increases. The second sheet addresses requests #2 and #3. This sheet includes information pertaining to GRFA and Site Coverage of existing built homes and the quantity of buildable area and building envelope size for each lot. As the requested increase in GRFA and Site Coverage have been reduced, the HOA has chosen not to amend the application further at this time. 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 v000000000000 0000 m Ln N 7 7 to 7 Ln 7 N M M m O N Ln to N to m N I, O to Ln O I, 7 7 Ln m O m m Ln m N N O M Il N l0 U N N N N N N N N N N N N Ln N N N C Qr, Ln m c m Ln m m m ti r, 0 m b a r, Ll 7 m Ln n O N 7 c O to m to M N m I, N m M M Ln M m to n m M N m czN N O 3 0 W O m m M � m m r, a M m m Ln m m m Lo U 4'Z L N * m Mc LO �--� I n M Ln m N v m I, n Ln H 'p O �--� �--� M N N l0o O n M M Ln dF I, n n n n to n m I, n n n um M I, N 7 Ln I, m 41 Ln p 4-j0 N O N 6 nN O O — W CL0 \ Q a L^o o n m ti m 3 m y Leo omi NN '% N ? Ln N N m Il m to to O m m N Ln m m Ln + (n N O CN + O chi v, Q v O D C O N N � O N LQL O 7 0 m C7 N p CO > C 7 l0N lD m O M N 0 I" M m n N . Ln Ln M m m I" Ln m I" O ` I O O O O m co LO N O Q N M m N Ln l N I, Ln m Il Ln N N m N m 0 0 Ln O m N M N N Ln Ln Ln Ln 't 't 't N N m +O+ � � O E f0 f0 f0 f0 O O O �p � Q N O O N O O O N O O O O N *O p c -i N m m m m m m m m m O O O y y LL y y y LL y y y y LL JO N � p N N N N O N N N Lp N N N N oo of U U LL LL 'co LL LL LL LL LL LL LLol Q Q Q Q U O O (3 Ln l0 LO O l0 LO Ln N O oo m m Ln m m ti M � m O ti M Ln m m c Q Ln Ln Ln Lo Lo Lo Lo r, r, r, F, r, < 3 m O CL 0 CL CU N CU it 00 ++ i W Y O N a,u0 i CU N U in cu mLL CL H C O '6 Q C C p d U E O u a a a U `a c v y o `u C �j 0 0 - C uj Ol 0 0 C C uj uj 0 0 .--I l r� uj 0'.R O m O uj o'.R O N O uj 0 o 0 l0 O l0 O 0 O O a bD W T C T �(1 C M Ol m .--I OJ O .ti l0 .-I N M c -I O w O I� C C l0 C I� C' C' C O .--I O l0 O Ol M C' O O. N n O l0 of n l0 w l0 C I� T I� of m O \ u a` Q v W \ .-I a N m a lC l0 o �n l0 n w w a m C Ol a O .0 O M m 6 OJ CL N I� Ol C c l0 of l0 L(1 n n N L(1 w l0 r- r- I� n C OJ Ol :T l0 O of O OJ m O 00 a` o d d N � O u N ml0 n w N Ol 0 l(1 O n M Lr l0 w I� OJ n C C Ol T M C .--i OJ Il C O N M M O C Ol N� M m OJ M .M -I a = .M -I .N -I .:T on ^ m C w N a a W a m n m lcl �o l0 n rn O m n l(1 M a .� rn w .--I rl� a T m T M m m m O n O O O m M m E C 0 C 0 C C 0 0 CL CL E u a R CL 0 0 0 a Q a 0 0 0 a s Q Q a a 0 0 0 0 0 0 v y " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C a O O O a M O, N M l(1 OO N O O O .-I I� Ol l0 OO N .--I O O M N l(1 M O C OJ l0 OO O O M C l(1 00 C a o C6 0 C6 C6 0 C6 n C n C 00 6 O LL d O O O M O O O O O O w O N .ti O m O .--i O N O O O O M N �(1 LL' O l7 p, 0 O O .--� O m O O O O O O � O of Ol O n O O O of O O M O :T � n \ V ul y d w V O M M l0 -I w l0 N M T w O N .--I M m n -I .-I m N l(1 l(1 N m w N l(1 of O U .--� c Ol m Il O O � of c -I of Ci c n O O Il of O C Il N n a = bD ^ M C M M N a M W C w N T l(1 l(1 l0 n .--I N O cl O m N O N M .--� m n N N w M w n lc w O N M Ol M n m M d J z Z v v > M �(1 C M m O .--I w O C l0 C O m i I� l(1 N .--I w l0 m D7 O M M .--I O M '0 O C �(1 C .--I OJ N M n C OJ OJ l0 00 OJ v � E Q 4) N 0 Q M �(1 O O O O N M N O� 0 0 T Q LL .--I00 O .-I I� O c -I �(1 M 00 l0 O m o M N o) 0 O N N N OO m 00 L Ol of o. of of o. of n b n 0) 0 d 0D 2 O1 C C u1 Ol N O C p) I� M N c -I l^O O m n l0 M n C: U l0 M U in Ln CA n Q Ol Ol C Ol M oo N l0 of of o M U LL N C n O OJ O oo OJ Ol OJ m M ooN W � N a)m �p Ol D7 .--I M l(1 N l0 l0 l(1 M D7 cu 0D i > w � � `-! N N � c -I OM � � C OJ n C Ol m U cM-I ^ cM-I �N-I Ol l0 C Ol C Oo :T M _ +O 4� Q H 0 L 0 OU Q of O M N M O of. --I I� m mof N of --I Ol n O � . m c -I NO n C I - c -IN N N O O � _ � c -I � O rl c -I c -I rl � � c -I rl N 0 J o C N O oN as N m o w M C of l0 n O m c -I m C of of O m Q O p C l^O l�0 .�-I al m C C of O O of U C l0 C l0 of M cli � {n cli U , N 12 Q M C ofl0 n O Ol rl Ol N of of mo M LL M N D .--I N N O N l0 M oo N m N L M l(1 l(1 O cl N M n N n l0 Ol D7 � d Q O1 O O 9 C �(1 O O M O C O m^ C N oo of C rl N O O N D7 Ol n M l(1 l0 D7 c W M L(1 M L(1 c -I N O 0D N oo N N N N .--I M m m Q p M n Ol Ol c -I l0 I� N N C of n J l0 I l O �--I C c -I M rl n w �--I T m O O Ol I� M c -I Ol A N N O N m m w O of l0 N n O T �(1 .-I M m m N Ol l0 Ol O N O M M- l0 Ol M N of n 06 06 l(1 c -I N M .--I M N J D7 C D7 D7 l0 D7 C M l0 M I� Ol � M O1 E N N M V IA W P% 00 Ol O N N V IA O O O O O O O O O N N N N N 7 y Z O- - - O J J w % N ro 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. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING VII. 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 Town of Vail Page 14 Existing Land Use: Zoning District: North: Open Space USFS South: 1-70 N/A East: Open Space Natural Area Preservation (NAP) West: Open Space USFS VII. 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 Town of Vail Page 14 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. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff and the applicant request the following motion: The Planning and Environmental Commission continues the public hearing for PEC20-0015 to the October 26, 2020 public hearing. IX. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A. Vicinity Map Attachment B. Introductory Memorandum from Applicant, July 13, 2020 Attachment C. Previous 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 15 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 -v O E O U *EEO W) W ^ l O O E N 4-d V C oZ w E .� Q � x W i W � -i-+ CIO ton �A CIO n -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: ITEM/TOPIC: September 28, 2020 PEC Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Pec results 092820.pdf September 28, 2020 PEC Results 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOW?J OF ffl) September 28, 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 t2-dEk2DTOuCR2XVyxa2Xg 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, John -Ryan Lockman Absent: Pete Seibert Main Agenda 2.1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed 30 min. Regulations Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to add Section 13-14, Administrative Lot Line Adjustment and Elimination Procedures, Vail Town Code, to add an administrative procedure for the adjustment or elimination of lot lines between existing platted lots, and setting forth details in regard thereto.. (PEC20-0019) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jonathan Spence Planner Spence: Introduced the project by discussing the frequency of these lot line adjustment requests. When these are brought to the PEC, there is generally not a lot more for the PEC to review. The proposed amendment would not change the actual review process with these requests still going through Public Works and ERWSD. Chairman Kurz: Remembers this topic being discussed with the PEC before. Did the PEC express interest in making these administrative? Spence: Yes. Commissioner Perez: Asked if applicants could still bring the request to the PEC if they wanted. Has encountered individuals who may have wanted to appeal a staff decision to the PEC, but the appeal process adds extra time that an applicant may want to avoid by directly going to the PEC. Spence: These applications are generally the least controversial items we bring to the PEC. Commissioner Gillette: Asked about a possible example of these applications. Spence: Clarified that these applications are generally for small adjustments to the way lot lines are drawn. Typically, the owner is the same for both properties on the line. Gillette: Asked if the appeal process is the same for these as it is for other administrative procedures. Spence: Yes. Rollie Kjesbo moved to recommend approval. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Seibert 2.2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed 60 min. Regulations Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to replace Section 12-61-8 Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, with a new section, Section 12-61-8 Mobility, to address mobility needs of residents in the Housing (H) Zone District, and setting forth details in regard thereto.. (PEC20-0021) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. The proposed language shall be modified to remove a reference to bikes in the criteria section. 2. The proposed language shall be modified to include a reference to the parking requirements of Chapter 10 as a baseline. Planner Spence: Explained that the Town Council had directed staff to look into alternative methods to the parking requirement in the Housing district. The resulting revised language shifts focus away from vehicle parking but involves a more in-depth analysis into the mobility options for housing projects. Spence then addressed some existing housing district projects as examples. Stated that the management plans of parking and mobility is the greatest indicator of success for these projects. Comment was received from the Vail Local Housing Authority. Kurz: We also had some comment from the Fire Department. Have his comments been addressed in this proposal? Spence: FD had concerns about existing developments and a concern related to Chamonix development. The Chamonix development met all of the existing requirements of the Code meaning that the issues there are more of an enforcement issue. Kurz: Had a question about local data showing that the Town of Vail is ready to move away from focusing on vehicle parking. Spence: No statistical analysis. In the Housing district the applicants have always been able to ask for variations from the parking requirement based on other mobility methods. This proposal isn't meant to replace requirements for vehicle parking if that need still exists, it is meant to provide more flexibility in meeting transportation needs. This proposal does not require reduced parking. This also provides a better framework for mobility management plan requirements, criteria, and enforcement. Gillette: There are different types of employee housing in Vail. Gave the example of permanent employees vs seasonal ski season employees. The code requirements aren't currently able to address this. Management plan needs to be able to address utility trucks, services vehicles, etc. Spence: Clarified that the Chamonix development met and exceeded the parking requirement and still has issues. Argued that this development is an has similar issues to development in other zone districts related to on street parking. Doesn't agree that the existing parking requirements aren't necessarily adequate. Gillette: Remained unconvinced. Felt that other locations also likely want more parking in their neighborhood. Kurz: Asked if Pratt had any data on how the parking situation was at the Sonnenalp? Commissioner Pratt: Says that it is often visitors parking where they aren't supposed to that is the biggest issue there. Seems that the Fire access issue is related to enforcement. Kurz: Asked about any additional public input related to this proposal Spence: No Kurz: Asked about the process for approving this language. Asked Spence to walk the PEC through the different sections. Spence: First section addresses background info surrounding the proposed mobility plan. Pratt: Asked about the weighting of bikes and bike storage for a town that is covered in snow for a significant portion of the year. Finds it odd that they are put on equal footing with car shares and public transit. Spence: There is no intent to weight any of these options. Staff and PEC could review these proposals and make a determination about the appropriateness of proposed bike facilities. The next section provides general review criteria. This give reviewers more of a framework to access a mobility plan. The criteria was meant to be fairly open, no specific standards. Gillette: A bike share should not be considered a replacement of a parking space in this town. Bike parking/share is important but shouldn't replace other vehicle requirements. Spence asked if other commissioners were supportive of removing bike considerations from the criteria, and the commissioners were supportive of this. Spence: Discussed the next section related to enforcement. Pratt: Asked who would be responsible for enforcement. Spence: Staff would be responsible. Perez: Asked if there was anyone on staff who was specifically tasked to enforcement. Otherwise these regulations and others like conditional use permits are just for show Spence: Responded with "no", but that staff often worked with Code Enforcement to assist with enforcement. Stated that concerns with specific projects should be brought up with staff so that staff can be made aware and react. Pratt: Understands that the police will not go on private property to enforce parking standards. Will this change that? Spence: Explained what can be enforced on private property and that this proposal will have no effect on this. Pratt: Concerned that if a development is not meeting parking needs that they will not be able to correct the issue because the development is already constructed by that point. Spence: Agreed with this sentiment but did not see a clear way around that issue. Gillette: Suggested a survey to be distributed to current Vail districts to get an understanding of existing parking and mobility needs. Spence: Expressed that most people are likely to say that they want more parking, but the town needs to consider the tradeoff of additional parking for less housing. Gillette: Thinks that the survey could be designed to better find that balance. The survey would be more in depth than simply asking if more parking is needed. Spence: Stated that staff could do this. Staff has already talked to the management of several housing district projects. Kurz: Feels that this plan is moving in the right direction, but more discussion is needed to iron out details. Asked to elaborate on the reporting requirements. Spence: The reporting data give staff, PEC, management information on the type of residents in these developments and what their mobility needs are. Spence: Continued by discussing the enforcement procedures. Compared this to conditional use permits where if issues arise, the applicant will have to return to the PEC with an updated proposal. Gillette: Noticed that the electric bikes around town were near some housing development and asked if that was by design. Spence: Stated that Beth Markham with the town's Environmental department would be the best person to ask. Commissioner Lockman: Can the town help drive strategies to address underutilized parking? Spence: Stated that generally the housing district does not have this issue Pratt: Thinks that the added flexibility is good and likes that the additional framework gives the PEC something more to work with rather than just evaluating a request made by the applicant. Gillette: One concern is that there is no baseline requirement. Spence: Staff did previously write a version of this with a minimum parking requirement of one space per unit. The VLHA opposed this. Gillette: Thinks that a baseline does need to be in this language. Applicants have to start somewhere. There then followed a short discussion on the idea of including a baseline and the existing housing developments in town. The PEC was generally supportive of a baseline. Gillette: Also still feels that a survey of the public in the housing district is needed to move forward with this proposal. Suggested some example questions like "How much would you pay for a parking space?", "Are you interested in a vehicle share program", etc. Spence and Kjesbo stated that they still felt that the town already knows how these questions will be answered. These regulations are aimed at developers more than tenants. Perez: Sees both points and thinks that the survey is helpful to understand the market desire in town. Public Comment opened Steve Lindstrom (VLHA): This proposal was discussed at the most recent VLHA meeting and is a topic they have been interested in for a while. They have seen a wide variety of parking and mobility proposals over time. Discussed examples of First Chair and Chamonix that both have very different needs and outcomes. This would allow the developer to propose their parking solution to the PEC. It would allow the PEC to review these proposals from the resident and developer needs rather than starting with the car and working backwards. Stated that a parking space is close to the cost of an apartment unit. Thinks it is better to start with a mobility proposal and move towards more parking if needed, rather than working in the reverse direction. Rollie Kjesbo moved to recommend approval with conditions. Henry Pratt seconded the motion and it passed (5-1). Ayes: (5) Kjesbo, Kurz, Lockman, Perez, Pratt Nays: (1) Gillette Absent: (1) Seibert 2.3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed 30 min. Regulation Amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-9A-10 Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to change the notification requirements for a Minor Amendment to an SDD, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0018) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Greg Roy Planner Roy: Introduced the proposal by discussing the review and notification requirements currently for minor SDD amendments. The current language has notification sent out to all neighbors saying that the review is occurring. The proposal would make it so that this notice would let neighbors know what the staff decision was. This is in line with how we handle other staff -level PEC items. Gillette: Asked about Mr. Mauriello' s comments. Roy: Talked about how these comments were considered Spence: Stated that minor amendments have fairly specific standards and parameters for review. Roy: Elaborated by mentioning that minor SDD amendments include things like changes to landscaping and <5% changes in building footprints. Kjesbo: Agrees that major amendments cannot be noticed in this way, they are potentially too significant of a change. Pratt: Stated that noticing for major amendments to notice all residents in an SDD is difficult. Appropriate for a major amendment but likely not for a minor one. No public comment. Rollie Kjesbo moved to recommend approval. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Seibert 2.4. 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 12-23-6: Methods of Mitigation and Section 12-24- 6: Methods of Mitigation, Vail Town Code, to update the Payment of Fees in Lieu provisions of Commercial Linkage and I nclusionary Zoning, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0027) The applicant has requested this item be tabled to October 12, 2020. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by George Ruther Planner: Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to October 12, 2020. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Seibert 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. September 14, 2020 PEC Meeting Results Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Seibert 4. Adjournment Brian Gillette moved to adjourn. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Seibert 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 Ad #: 0000626754-01 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 10/9/2020 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 10/9/2020 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 10/20/2020. Mark Wurzer. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 10/20/2020. Jeri Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 19, 2024 lFJU YFJa1NA NOTARY NDl1C A OF COLORADO MYusf t& AL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 12, 2020,1:00 PM Virtual Zoom Meeting T5 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Caomdo, 8165/ Call to Order 1.1. Register in advanceto, ihiswebinar: haps://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/registerNJN_4L-T1mMESC2fgOdXPDgUfg 1.2. Attendance Jdnt Worksession with Vail Local Housing Authority 2.1. A discussion rep rding a Pmachbed R g Iadon Amendment pursu... Section 12 -3 -]Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-23-6: MetM1otls of Mitigation antl Secdon 12-24-6: Methotls of Mitigation, Vail Town Cotle, to uptlate Me Payment of Fees In Lieu prowl s of Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zcmm antl seting forth details u regardthereto. (PEC20-002]) 60 min. stah and tore applicant nave requested Mis Item De tabled to October 26, 2020. Town o1 Vail, represented by George Ruther 3. Main Agenda 31 Amqust to—le, P.Ismol AlteraonsoorfMn d,r EWdo"thrau.m, VanTwvnnCode, tonai ow for me127H] fel—(11) fracdonal units to fee simplewhole m-rship units, located at 701 West Lwnshead Circle/Lt 3, Block 2, Vail Lionsheed Filing 3, and seting forth details In regard thereto. (PEC20-0022) 30 min. Applicant: Uon Vag LLC Planner. Jonathan Spence 3.2. Arequestfor a moommentlation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Reg Iation Amendment pursuant to Seoton 12-3-7 Amendment. Veil Vail Code to amend Section 12-16a: Use Spechic Criteria and Standards, Town Code, to amend tllgge use spedfc critedetails in reggriaa� for funiculare and other similar Pppllccaand JSCa2r,ces, and 71LLC, rrthan epresented by V, bill Planning Grou20- p 3) 30 min. 3.3. El—imotfor rwim of an n Plat Vail Town Code, to alibn low for increases to the a,u,nt W This 13 llllowebleer lSite Coverage and Gross Residengal Floor Area (GRFA) allotment for IntlMdual lots witltin the Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision, and seeing forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0015) 45 min. Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners, represented by Zehren and Assodates Planner: Jonathan Sp - 4. Approval of Minutes 4.1. September 26, 2020 PEC Results 5. Adjournment Thespplicafions and information aboutthe proposals are avalladefor public inspection duringgulerot- tice on at Me Town of Vall Community Development Deparlmant 75 South Frontage Road. The public is led to attend the project orientation and the site vishs that precede the public heanng in the Town of Vail Communhy Development Departi M. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at hat 'me the Planning and Envlronmenial Commission will nsic" an hem. Please call (070) 479-2136 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation a6 hour pdor to meaning, eaning time. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily October 9, 2020. 0000626754 Ad #: 0000621811 -01 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN Nat the Planning and Your account number is: 1023233 Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold 1.2,3 al public heann9 In danoawtih— tlon 2-3-6, Vail Town C. o� October 12, 2020 PROOF OF PUBLICATION a 1:oo pm. Register in advance br this webinar: TmMESC2fgWXPDgU(g/webinar/register/WN_4L_ VAIL DAILY A request for law o1 Malor Exterior Alteration, STATE O F COLORADO pursuant to senion 12-7H.7, 6derlor Abe ationa or Modifications, Vail Town Cade, b allow for the con - COUNTY OF EAGLE eoie of elevnipp(11�lirs; "liocetea et�roi ewesi Lionshead C rcle/Loi 3, Block 2, Vail Limshead Fit - I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of 3, and setting fort details in regard thereto. (PEC20.0022) AppllcanL represented by Rodrigo the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in ConinalLLC, Planner: Jonathan Spence whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, Council or°a Pres ribed RegulatimhAm nld mi State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Coda. amend S_ion,2-16-7: Use Specific Crite that said newspaper has been published continuously and He and Standards, Val Town Code, W amend the especk cdtedetry tunicularsand oti,ers-lar nvan and s ring forth details in regard fieyereto.(PEC2OOD23) uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the Applicant: LSC 27 LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Gro p first publication of the annexed legal notice or Planner: Janethan Spence advertisement and that said newspaper has published the The applications and Informabon aboutthepropos- Is orr, n loot re requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. 9 g 4 Vail) Compecti at the Toe Developmem Department, 76 scum Frontage Road. ma public s rvi ed W stand site sits. Please call 970-475- 2138 or visite—vailgov com/planning for addltion- al irdormatio. Sign language interpretation available upon re The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium, questwiti —hour notification, dial 711. only forjurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Publish 000062181Sep ember 25, 2020n ue Vail Daily. 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 9/25/2020 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 9/25/2020 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 10/20/2020. /Ik..L&-d, Mark Wurzer. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 10/20/2020. Jeri Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 19, 2024 .IEN YFD1fU NOTARYaa— NDl1C A OF COLORADO ax ,a—