Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-10-26 PECPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN Of VAIO October 26, 2020, 1:00 PM Virtual 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web. zoom. us/webi nar/register/W N_Y9jQ4H5gQnGF C W w- TbcG_g After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. 1.2. Attendance Present: Ludwig Kurz, Karen Perez, Rollie Kjesbo, Brian Gillette, Henry Pratt, Pete Seibert, John -Ryan Lockman Absent: None Main Agenda 2.1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish a new 60 min. Special Development District, (Alura Vail), pursuant to Section 12-9-A Special Development (SDD) District, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of 24 multifamily residential units in eight (8) buildings with associated site improvements, located at 1472 Matterhorn Circle/Vail Park Meadows Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20- 0028) Applicant: Alura Vail LLC, represented by The Brown Studio Planner: Jonathan Spence Commissioner Pratt: Recused himself due to working on a project neighboring this property. Planner Spence: Introduced this project as a preliminary review for the former Park Meadows site. Today's item will mostly be for the applicant to introduce this project and idea. Staff, including Fire and Public Works, has conducted a preliminary review and shared comments with the applicant. Spence then began to describe the scope of the project. There are three deviations from the Town Code to be requested. These deviations are for setbacks, parking count, and parking location. Lina Shahhal with the Brown Studio: Introduced the other members of the project at the meeting. She then began to describe the project scope. There will be 8 buildings. Total required parking spaces are 40, but they are asking for 36 for better landscaping and storage on site. Commissioner Gillette: Asked where the setback variations are being requested. Spence: Specified that relief is being requested on the north, east, and west side of the property. He also mentioned that this project had gone in front of the DRB for a conceptual review in the previous week. Commissioner Perez: Asked about the landscaping proposed. The applicant and planner Spence showed and discussed the landscaping using a presented map. Franklin Boyer(applicant): went on to discuss the setback deviation request as well. Surrounding neighbors have a large space between their development and the applicant's lot lines. Spence: Brought up a concern that Fire had about potential illegal parking blocking the fire lane. Gillette: Asked a question about possible neighbor concerns. Franklin: Have not heard anything from any of their neighbors and didn't expect to hear concern from them due to the distance from this development to neighboring development. Chairman Kurz: Asked how easy it would be to find the property lines should PEC members want to visit the property in person. Spence: Recommended that the PEC bring a map shown on screen as there is not clear marking on site. Commissioner Lockman: Asked about the parking count deviation. Asked if the applicant will be managing the parking. Also asked about snow storage Franklin: Yes. Parking will be managed. Also pointed out the proposed snow storage area on a map. Lena: Further explained that the parking provided will be for one space per unit and some additional guest parking spaces. Also stated that this location has close proximity to the bus system and bike path. The applicants continued to explain the proposed design of the site using shared materials and drawings. Kurz: Asked if any additional red flags came to light as a result of staff review. Spence: Again mentioned the fire lane concerns. Gillette: Asked if there were similar projects that this could be compared to. Spence: Responded by saying generally, no. Each SDD is different in their needs and deviations. Seibert: Asked about the employee housing units. Franklin: The project overall is aimed at employees in Vail, but in order to make sure it work financially, not all units could be EHUs. Seibert: Stated concern that seasonal rentals are more likely to create parking issues. Perez: Asked if they would prohibit short term rentals Franklin: Said no, but said it was possible that they would limit how many times individual units could be rented for this purpose. Commissioner Kjesbo: Had a number of concerns. Concerned about the reduction in parking for the long term. Concerned that the intended use may change after some number of years. Most buildings around this property has covered parking. Likely would not be in favor of an SDD currently. Kurz: Asked a question about storage for outdoor gear. Franklin: Indicated that there is storage for each unit. There is additional storage space inside the units themselves as well. Public Comment Greg Baldwin: Owns a second home near the southeast side of the lot. Concerned about looking down on the development and is interested in seeing more tree screening. Would like to see a mountain feel maintained and doesn't want the area to feel like a suburban subdivision. Connie Kincaid-Strahan: Owns Vail Property Brokerage and represents an owner to the south of this development. Wants to know the height of the retaining wall on the property. Robbie (applicant): The top of the wall shouldn't protrude much higher than the grading itself. The wall will mostly be on the southeast end of the property, this wall shouldn't protrude more than a few inches above the grade on the south end. Connie: Had a question about access to the rec path. Robbie: This path is the city's land and the applicant has no intention of messing with it. No path is proposed specifically to access this rec path. Between the rec path and the project, trees are proposed for screening. Connie: Asked about the total project height. Lena: Project is currently at 29ft. The maximum allowed is 45 ft. Robbie: Didn't want the project to have the feel of a condominium complex by maximizing height. Connie: Asked about when the applicant anticipates approval and the construction timeline. Franklin: Would like to be under construction by April if possible. Mitch Karlin: Asked about an elevation drawing for the southeast corner. Robbie: Currently does not have an elevation for the retaining wall on that side. Russ Craney: A representative for Coldstream. Had a question about the previous Park Meadows height. Franklin: That was around 26 ft. but would need to double check. This project should be similar in scope. Stated that he would stay in contact with Russ/Coldstream. Rollie Kjesbo moved to table to November 23, 2020. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Abstain: (1) Pratt 2.2. A request for review of an Exemption Plat, pursuant to Section 13-12, 10 min. Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to establish utility and driveway easements at Red Sandstone Elementary School, located at 545, 551, & 559 North Frontage Road/Block 2, a portion of Lot 8, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0029) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Erik Gates Planner Gates introduced the project and the purpose of the application. Erik provided a brief history of the site and referenced ERWSD as having reviewed the plat. Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.3. A request for review of an exemption plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter 12, 30 min. Exemption Plat, Vail Town Code, to allow for increases to the allowable Site Coverage and Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) allotment for individual lots within the Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0015) Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners, represented by Zehren and Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence Spence: This is largely the same proposal as the one seen by the PEC two weeks ago. Spence then went on to describe the history of this proposal at the PEC. Additional photos were included as part of this review session. Zehren: As mentioned in other meetings, they would like to increase site coverage to avoid maxing out building height all over. Seibert: The idea of expanding building envelopes to keep building height down makes sense. Zehren: To clarify, they are not proposing to increase building envelops, just to be able to use more coverage within them. Spence: Doesn't feel that the relatively modest request will have a significant impact on the visibility of these homes. Gillette: We have not done a comparison to Forest Road site coverage here have we? Spence: Due to the shape of developments on Forest Road, this would not be applicable or useful. Gillette: Concerned that because of the way the code is written that additional GRFA at Spraddle would all be above ground and create a larger apparent bulk and mass. Whereas, at Forest Road additional floor area often has to be placed underground. Spence: Generally doesn't see this as an issue as Forest Road homes are allowed a similar proportion of bulk and mass. Kurz: Any additional changes still go to DRB? Zehren: That is correct. Gillette: Still concerned about additions making use of additional site coverage and creating very long building frontages. Zehren: Willing to look into making increases in site coverage proportionally smaller. Gillette: Asked for either a mock-up of the worst-case scenario of build out or an analysis of Forest Road site coverage and GRFA in comparison to this request. Pratt: It appears that Spraddle is proposing a smaller proportion of site coverage to GRFA than Forest Road. Spence: That is correct but feels that comparing Forest Road to Spraddle Creek in this way is not comparing apples to apples. Gillette: The way Spraddle was platted originally was to avoid huge, highly visible houses. Concerned that this proposal may lose that intent. Zehren: Showed some example lots and building envelopes to show that many lots are limited in how much longer they can grow. Most lots have homes that reach from end to end of their building envelopes currently. Gillette: Felt much better about the proposal after seeing these examples. Lockman: Generally ok with it based off of staff's analysis. Pratt: Feels that modeling out potential buildouts isn't helpful as different architects will have different designs and solutions to lot restrictions. Feels that seeing existing buildings and their envelopes is more helpful here. No public comment. Perez: Stated that her comments from the last meeting had not been addressed in this application. Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-1). Ayes: (6) Gillette, Kjesbo, Kurz, Lockman, Pratt, Seibert Nays: (1) Perez 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. October 12, 2020 PEC Results Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 4. Adjournment Rollie Kjesbo moved to adjourn. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: Register in advance for this webinar: https:Hus02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN Y91Q4H5gQnGFCWw-TbcGg After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information aboutjoining the webinar. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: Attendance City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 26, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish a new Special Development District, (Alura Vail), pursuant to Section 12-9-A Special Development (SDD) District, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of 24 multifamily residential units in eight (8) buildings with associated site improvements, located at 1472 Matterhorn Circle/Vail Park Meadows Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0028) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC20-0028 SDD No. 44 Aulra Staff Memo.pdf Staff Memoradum Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf Attachment A. Vicinity Map Alura Narrative.pdf Attachment B. Project Narrative Attachment C. Park Meadows Plan Set.pdf Attachment C. Park Meadows Plan Set 0) rowN of vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 26, 2020 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish a new Special Development District, (Alura Vail), pursuant to Section 12-9-A Special Development (SDD) District, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of 24 multifamily residential units in eight (8) buildings with associated site improvements, located at 1472 Matterhorn Circle/Vail Park Meadows Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0028) Applicant: Alura Vail LLC, represented by The Brown Studio Planner: Jonathan Spence SUMMARY The applicant, Alura Vail LLC, represented by The Brown Studio, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish Special Development District No. 44, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a residential project consisting of 23 dwelling units and one (1) employee housing units (EHUs), located at 1472 Matterhorn Circle/Vail Park Meadows Subdivision. This is an introductory meeting with no analysis of the required criteria or a request for a recommendation at this time. Pmcess The process to establish a new special development district (SDD) begins with a pre - application meeting with staff to discuss the goals of the proposed SDD and the relationship of the proposal to the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Next, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) conducts an initial review of the proposed development in which they can recommend approval of the proposal as requested, recommend approval with modifications, or may recommend denial of the proposal. Finally, the Town Council (TC) reviews the PEC's findings and recommendation. The Town Council shall consider the PEC's recommendation but is not bound by the recommendation in reaching their decision to approve, approve with modification, or deny the proposal. Based upon the preliminary nature of this meeting, the Community Development Department recommends the PEC continues PEC20-0028 to the November 9, 2020 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting in order to address concerns raised by staff and for the applicant to provide detailed responses to anticipated questions from Commissioners and the general public. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Alura Vail LLC, represented by The Brown Studio, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish Special Development District No. 44, pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a residential project consisting of 23 dwelling units (DUs) and one (1) employee housing units (EHUs), located at 1472 Matterhorn Circle. This development is proposed to be in eight (8) three (3) unit buildings. Each building consists of two one -bedroom units on the first floor and one two-bedroom unit on the second floor. The project includes 36 surface parking spaces and associated landscaping and other site improvements. Proposed Deviations Through the Special Development District process, the applicant is requesting deviations from the following required dimensional standards of the underlying High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District: • Setbacks: The project proposes a five-foot (5') setback where twenty feet (20') is required. Proposed setbacks for the main structures range from eight feet (8') to nineteen feet (19') while setbacks for the ground level and second floor decks range from five feet (5') to fifteen feet (15'). Please see the site plan for details on the proposed setbacks. Parking: The project is proposing 36 surface parking spaces where 40 is required. The Vail Town Code requires two (2) spaces for each of the two- bedroom units and 1.5 spaces for each of the one -bedroom unit (based on size). The project proposes one (1) space for each of the smaller units with four (4) spaces set aside of visitor parking. Initial review by town staff has indicated possible concerns with the location of two of these spaces. At this time, the requested deviation from the parking requirement is 4 spaces. Parking Location: The HDMF Zone District requires at least seventy five percent (75%) of the required parking be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view or shall be completely hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscaped berm and no parking shall be located in any required front setback area. All the proposed parking is surface parking and although landscaped, the parking is not completely hidden from adjacent properties. Town of Vail Page 2 Public Benefit To address the requirement that the deviations proposed provide benefits to the town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviations, the applicant is proposing to restrict three of the one -bedroom DU's to qualified residents of Eagle County for the life of the project. This differs slightly from a designation as EHU's as replacement in a future development would not be required. A vicinity map (Attachment A), a project narrative (Attachment B) and plan set (Attachment C) are attached for review. Conceptual Review before the Design Review Board A conceptual meeting with the DRB was held on October 21, 2020 where commission members offered the following preliminary comments. • The concept is interesting but requires additional refinement. • More interest needed in architectural expression. Question how the architectural approach will fare over time. • Too much surface parking. • Need clarification on how the design meets the Vail Design Criteria. • Design needs to be more representative of Vail heritage in contrast to Crested Butte or Telluride. The applicant expressed appreciation for the provided feedback and looked forward to returning to the DRB with revised plans in the future. III. BACKGROUND The original Park Meadows development consisted of 32 small (300 sq. ft.) units built under Eagle County jurisdiction in 1965-1966. The property was annexed into the Town of Vail via Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1982. This development was razed approximately four (4) years ago with the site remaining vacant. There have been two development proposals previously approved for this site. In 2014 the Design Review Board (DRB) approved a project consisting of 19 DUs and 4 EHUs erected upon a partially buried parking plinth. This development included approximately 35,000 sq. ft. of GRFA. The second development was approved in early 2019 and consisted of 9 DUs and 1 EHU in a more traditional townhouse style layout with parking located within (under) each unit. The approval consisted of approximately 31,000 sq. ft. of GRFA. This approval is still valid with an expiration date of early 2021. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal. Town of Vail Page 3 Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code Chapter 1— Title, Purpose, and Applicability (in part) (emphasis added) 12-1-2: PURPOSE: 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. urposes: 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. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town. 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. Town of Vail Page 4 Chapter 6, Article H, High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District 12-6H-1: PURPOSE.- The URPOSE: The high density multiple -family district is intended to provide sites for multiple -family dwellings at densities to a maximum of twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre, together with such public and semipublic facilities and lodges, private recreation facilities and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The high density multiple -family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with high density apartment, condominium and lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable residential and resort qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, which relate to the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community and, where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residential character of the zone district. (Ord. 29(2005) § 23: Ord. 37(1980) § 6: Ord. 30(19 77) § 6: Ord. 8(19 73) § 6.100) 12-6H-2: PERMITTED USES.- The SES: The following uses shall be permitted in the HDMF district: Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, recreational or retail establishments, located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor area (GRFA) of the main structure or structures on the site,- additional ite,additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. Multiple -family residential dwellings, including attached or row dwellings and condominium dwellings. (Ord. 1(2008) § 9) 12-6H-3: CONDITIONAL USES.- The SES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the HDMF district, 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. Dog kennels. Funiculars and other similar conveyances. Home child daycare facilities, as further regulated by section 12-14-12 of this title. Town of Vail Page 5 Private clubs and civic, cultural and fraternal organizations. Private parking structures. Private unstructured parking. Public and private schools. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public park and recreation facilities. Public parking structures. Public transportation terminals. Public unstructured parking. Public utility and public service uses. Religious institutions. Ski lifts and tows. Timeshare units. (Ord. 2(2016) § 6: Ord. 12(2008) § 9) 12-6H-4: ACCESSORY USES.- The SES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the HDMF 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, attached garages or carports, swimming pools, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential and lodge uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. (Ord. 29(2005) § 23: Ord. 8(19 73) § 6.400) 12-6H-5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS.- The IMENSIONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10, 000) square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet (80) on each side within its boundaries. (Ord. 12(1978) § 3) Town of Vail Page 6 12-6H-6: SETBACKS.- The ETBACKS: The minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20), and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20). (Ord. 50(1978) § 2) 12-6H-7: HEIGHT. For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty five feet (45). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty eight feet (48). (Ord. 37(1980) § 2) 12-6H-8: DENSITY CONTROL.- Not ONTROL: Not more than seventy six (76) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Total density shall not exceed twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. Each accommodation unit shall be counted as one-half (1/2) of a dwelling unit for purposes of calculating allowable units per acre. A dwelling unit in a multiple -family building may include one attached accommodation unit no larger than one-third (1/3) of the total floor area of the dwelling. (Ord. 14(2004) § 9: Ord. 31(2001) §§ 3, 5: Ord. 50(1978) § 19: Ord. 12(1977) § 2) 12-6H-9: SITE COVERAGE.- Site OVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed fifty five percent (55%) of the total site area. (Ord. 17(1991) § 6: Ord. 8(1973) § 6.507) 12-6H-10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: At least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. (Ord. 19(1976) § 7: Ord. 8(1973) § 6.509) 12-6H-11: PARKING AND LOADING.- Off OADING: Off street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. At least seventy five percent (75%) of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view or shall be completely hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscaped berm. No parking shall be located in any required front setback area. (Ord. 19(1976) § 7: Ord. 8(1973) § 6.510) Chapter 9 — Special and Miscellaneous Districts (in part) 12-9A-1: PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY: Town of Vail Page 7 A. Purpose: The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development with the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities, to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas, and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail comprehensive plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district. 12-9A-4: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES.- A. ROCEDURES: A. Approval of Plan Required: Prior to site preparation, building construction, or other improvements to land within a special development district, there shall be an approved development plan for said district. The approved development plan shall establish requirements regulating development, uses and activity within a special development district. B. Preapplication Conference: Prior to submittal of a formal application for a special development district, the applicant shall hold a preapplication conference with the department of community development. The purpose of this meeting shall be to discuss the goals of the proposed special development district, the relationship of the proposal to applicable elements of the town's comprehensive plan, and the review procedure that will be followed for the application. C. PEC Conducts Initial Review: The initial review of a proposed special development district shall be held by the planning and environmental commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. Prior to this meeting, and at the discretion of the administrator, a work session may be held with the applicant, staff and the planning and environmental commission to discuss special development district. A report of the department of community development staff's findings and recommendations shall be made at the initial formal hearing before the planning and environmental commission. Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a proposed amendment, the planning and environmental commission shall act on the petition or proposal. The commission may recommend approval of the petition or proposal as initiated, may recommend approval with such modifications as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or may recommend denial of the petition or rejection of the proposal. The commission shall transmit its recommendation, together with a report on the public hearing and its deliberations and findings, to the town council. D. Town Council Review: A report of the planning and environmental commission stating its findings and recommendations, and the staff report shall then be transmitted to the town council. Upon receipt of the report and recommendation of the planning and environmental commission, the town council shall set a date for hearing within the following thirty (30) days. Within twenty (20) days of the closing of Town of Vail Page 8 a public hearing on a proposed SDD, the town council shall act on the petition or proposal. The town council shall consider but shall not be bound by the recommendation of the planning and environmental commission. The town council may cause an ordinance to be introduced to create or amend a special development district, either in accordance with the recommendation of the planning and environmental commission or in modified form, or the council may deny the petition. If the council elects to proceed with an ordinance adopting an SDD, the ordinance shall be considered as prescribed by the Vail town charter. 12-9A-6: DEVELOPMENT PLAN.- An LAN: An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses and activities of special development districts. A development plan shall be approved by ordinance by the town council in conjunction with the review and approval of any special development district. The development plan shall be comprised of materials submitted in accordance with section 12-9A-5 of this article. The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the special development district shall develop. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to, the approved site plan, floor plans, building sections and elevations, vicinity plan, parking plan, preliminary open space/landscape plan, densities and permitted, conditional and accessory uses. 12-9A-9: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.- Development TANDARDS: Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the town council as part of the approved development plan with consideration of the recommendations of the planning and environmental commission. Before the town council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determination is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed special development district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in section 12-9A-8 of this article. V. ZONING I SDD NO. 44 ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: 1472 Matterhorn Circle Park Meadows Subdivision Existing Zoning: High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District Existing Land Use Designation: High Density Residential Mapped Geological Hazards: Steep Slopes >40% (result of prior development) Page 9 Standard Allowed / Required Proposed Complies? Multi -family Residential HDMF East: Single Family/Two Family Site Area Min. 10,000 sq. ft. 43,375 sq. ft. YES West: Front — 20' Varies from 5' to DEVIATION Setbacks Side — 20' 15' REQUIRED Rear — 20' Flat or Mansard Roof Sloping Roof — 29' YES Height — 45' Sloping Roof — 48' 25 DUs/ per acre of 23 DUs YES Density* buildable site area, or 1 EHU (Type III) 24 units on a .996 parcel Max. 76/100 Buildable 13,600 sq. ft. YES GRFA* Site Area or 32,965 s . ft. Site Coverage* Max. 55% of total site 15,122 sq. ft. YES area (23,865 sq. ft.) Per Chapter 10 36 spaces DEVIATION Parking/Loading 40 spaces are REQUIRED required Landscaping Min. 30% of total site 15,234 sq. ft. YES area 13,012 sq. ft. *Type 111 EHUs do not count towards GRFA or DU/acre maximums. VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING VII. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGN CRITERIA Before acting on a special development district application, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed special development district. A thorough review of the criteria will be offered at a future meeting 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. 2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Town of Vail Page 10 Existing Land Use Zoning District North: Multi -family Residential SDD #4 Cascade East: Single Family/Two Family SDD #4 Cascade South: Single Family/Two Family SDD #4 Cascade West: Multi -family Residential High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) District VII. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGN CRITERIA Before acting on a special development district application, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed special development district. A thorough review of the criteria will be offered at a future meeting 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. 2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Town of Vail Page 10 3. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter 10 of this title. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, town policies and urban design plans. 5. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. 6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. 7. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. 8. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 9. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. VIII. DISCUSSION ITEMS Staff poses the following questions to encourage discussion related to the Alura development and the proposed new SDD: 1. The SDD criteria requires design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Does the Commission believe that the project, as proposed, is consistent with this criterion related to compatibility and sensitivity? 2. The SDD criteria require that site plan, building design and location and open space provisions are consistent with the overall aesthetic quality of the community. Does the commission believe that the minimalist approach to building form and function is consistent with this criterion? 3. Is the proposed public benefit, three (3) restricted units above the required Inclusionary Zoning requirements, commensurate with the requested relief from the dimensional and parking standards? Town of Vail Page 11 4. Does the proposed parking with four guest spaces (that may be reduced to two) result in a workable plan that meets the parking demand of the project and will allow emergency services to access the property without interference? IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission continues PEC20-0028 to the November 9, 2020 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting in order to respond to questions raised by staff and for the applicant to provide detailed responses to anticipated questions from Commissioners and the general public. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Project Narrative C. Plan Set Town of Vail Page 12 - % SENIDV4 - - - WFS \ \ \ �`Ul %g&O, \ I'm sure you are all familiar with the Matterhorn neighborhood and the adjacent Cascade and Intermountain areas. Our specific site is located immediately above the Eagle Point Timeshares and Matterhorn Circle dead ends into our lot. Previously our site was the location of the Park Meadows Lodge which stood from 1969 until 2015. Since that time we have proposed several different projects for development, the majority of which were relatively high-end, for sale, homes. That said, our desire was always to construct an operating business on the site that would serve the community - and when COVID hit earlier this spring we were able to reassess our previous proposals and design something that we feel would serve the community far better than just more high end vacation homes. Our proposal is essentially a small community of attached units that provide private, non -shared living space along with parking and storage. Drawing on the classic and popular hygge esthetic, our architecture firm, The Brown Studio (recently featured in Architectural Digest for their outstanding work in Tahoe) designed units that show off the clean lines and intimate feel of a Nordic enclave - they are smaller in stature so as not to overwhelm the site and rely on modern mountain architecture to make the spaces as efficient as possible. We've worked to maximize the available parking so that each unit has a minimum of one space per bedroom as well as provide additional guest parking - though the real benefit of our site is the proximity to the public intown bus as well as immediate proximity to the in -town bike trail and walkability to the Grand Hyatt ski lift. Since the site previously housed 32 condo units, the overall proposal is a huge reduction in density, though it is an increase in usable space and in desirable living space for anyone who might want to take up residence - and it is our belief that there is a shortage of newer, desirable housing in the Vail area that doesn't out price a large portion of the population. The site has no known hazards or traffic conditions and we have retained the world renowned landscape architecture firm, Design Workshop, headquartered in Aspen to create a landscape plan that will provide a lasting aesthetic and enhance the overall experience over time. Our purpose of this SDD is to add some additional density to the project so that we can accommodate more rental units. We have a back-up site plan already designed that meets code but would only accommodate 18 units - and while we feel that it would be a nice project, our suspicion is that there are at least 6 more people who would like to take up residence in Vail but are unable to find housing. Due to the nature of our site and its unique location, adjusting setbacks would still place adjacent properties well outside 20 feet. Eagle Point is the exception, however our site sits above their roofline so the impact would be negligible. Our trade off for additional parking is green space. Code asks for more parking under HDMF zoning - however it is our belief that more people are getting by these days with fewer cars and 4 spots for 3 units is sufficient under most conditions. Thank you for taking time to review our project - we welcome your feedback. « 00'TVA 30H oNHO Hg-LLd eM > : 0 § |mz§ !} -i|vA | " n -iv �(§ ( )��i§( \- \ jj )^ | o w J:I _ { / > \ / o < 2= LLJS§/ \ § / G »§ b : y « y: s / ! G , oo- ! !{ /i§rr `� '� ` ;}\ /}\ EE< �:: ;° !:<:: ![ §n r .- — 0 2wl g w y § \ \j) \\) / 6\ w \/ »/ (/\\ \/d8 ! / §\\> \�:/ z�\ ) � �(\\\: \: § >( \ :d LU z/ 1». ;: ® - _ r « e \ \ w _ _ / , 9 & \� \ 0. - - ) �� 2 - © G LU \\ ,0 ( \ | Ze % E \\/ \/\ / I y�waa z =_:- od» p ::>t IL t:l: : o °°>§ w}<3o:—\: o r§ :> w §: Lu\§. G < \ _::_: IL z:zz\ o o w J:I _ { / > \ / o < 2= LLJS§/ \ § / G »§ b : y « y: s / ! G , oo- ! !{ /i§rr `� '� ` ;}\ /}\ EE< �:: ;° !:<:: ![ §n r .- — 0 2wl g w y § \ \j) \\) / 6\ w \/ »/ (/\\ \/d8 ! / §\\> \�:/ z�\ ) � �(\\\: \: § >( \ :d LU z/ 1». ;: ® - _ r « e \ \ w _ _ / , 9 & \� \ 0. - - ) �� 2 - © G LU \\ ,0 ( \ | Ze % E \\/ \/\ / I y�waa z =_:- od» p ::>t IL t:l: : o °°>§ w}<3o:—\: o r§ :> w §: Lu\§. G < \ _::_: IL z:zz\ WESoff "'oF',. 29912 OpeaO100 'pen apaiO UJOgJOgeW ZLb6 Z j —m cervi o z J�^o U U Q Z z K —;w w¢� NJ3 dao® _'oR 3 oma LLo U yNj� Zpw y�jU Z_ W Q W K � m J = J ¢�3 of zr o=w Z9912 OPeao100 'pen o epaic) uaoyaageW ZLb6 O Amo o=_ -11VA 3' w z w rc�i a 0000000 0 0 0000000 0 000000 0 0 00 ME 6a2 2-E H. - w- w I V I o� wY yoo v _ Effil _ _ Geo _- w - YaEs O- - - - - 8 �l FEE - - --o - - - - - - - - o z - - Z - -STE - paffi ��a�3�a� 2 LOW OPWOPO JOA apaiO uaoyaageW ZLb6 �o® - Isms ------------ F 6 � i �, ','p'iiii 'i �i i ii A ? � >i cy lax I � �` � ���'k,,--8040- long � �.J_- \� owl `m o,w, /. r..,.,o.®.,�...,�.m A � � o °fix o=w LS962 OPeaoI00 'hien w apaiC) uaoyaageW Z/-t7[ N Amo o=_ SIVA � b�lfl�b� �R �o� 3 w z w o 0 a ----------- ----------- -- ---- ---_ _ / FS=CF�FF—CFSL—CF—KCF—CF—CT��CF—CF��LFFF—lF—Cf-+--CF SCF—CF—CF �CF�\6F—/FCF�—CF W F�Cy-v FO CFo� \ \ — -- --- as F-- 8050 ftw h 1J - - 0 oe o ease �'i ilii i�, ii � o � , �� �r ae � V �• � , � �' I i i r o 0 � eons ------------- - �--arae--------�------------_—_—_--->------- �� � � — r— ------ --��---__ eon< ,vo - - ------ �ee a �Z� o i1, i moo � w° � v o10 E o \� � o. o o=w LS962 OPeJO100 'pen w apaiC) UJOgJ94eW ZLb6 �o® CO Amo o=V -livA "n-lv a �R o 3 w z w oa ti— __-- \ OSOB \ \ \ 'A � i aoi i m i V I I I I� o m iv i II as s N ----- iii A i�vli i -- -- i — O —t SOB_-- —_ __ 050 — � ti— __-- \ OSOB \ \ \ 'A � i aoi i m i V I I I I� o m iv i II as s N 11 z \soa v o \\\V I 1 _ ------------------------------ --------------------- ------------- ---73 —----------- ----saoe------------------========================� " --- __ ---------=T =------------ v�y I I II W� Q� 0 ow r..,,w ...... iii A i�vli i 11 z \soa v o \\\V I 1 _ ------------------------------ --------------------- ------------- ---73 —----------- ----saoe------------------========================� " --- __ ---------=T =------------ v�y I I II W� Q� 0 ow r..,,w ...... z \soa v o \\\V I 1 _ ------------------------------ --------------------- ------------- ---73 —----------- ----saoe------------------========================� " --- __ ---------=T =------------ v�y I I II W� Q� 0 ow r..,,w ...... o=w LS962 opeaoI00 'hien apaiC) uaoyaageW Z/-t7[ p Amo _ o=_= �ivA I vNme �pLO o I w z w w Ww oaf a w o EASEMENT 20 00 WATEF - — 'A A, ®_ o � , -� - - -(, I,- _ _ y kATI�``A �z ee o m-A \ ao I vVIII A c'��II-� °ml iIIIVI sN ��� eaoa ESS' nd .A ASS 1 II 11,E I 1� \� v o l aI \ asoa� VIII � � \u l�" I I III 'Iti 1 Illlllli I i � vv\m sse 'WII '��_ II I w a Q 1 I I�III,i�o II I � o` a� -II II ISI Is o' I ulI I�IM� Illlililill li I II � i o , A I I 1 sl v y� I IIIiIIIIII �5 I I III I II I o p o �� I Illllilill I I Ilz I I o m�e ss ` - --- , o�m ' III 111 hll "IIS mlm e' mai - KIWI IIII li II n Tsss- , I' III II I II I �si`'il I� � � .II II Ilillill I I II Qu�ll Illol� VIII I i I M �JVI z 4 � IIII VIII II eo50 e� / II \IV II�o dlhl �I s M IIA II Illlllp o u,�E�,r v � � h I A I vll I III w 1 ASEMENi % r II i I I I ^I 1I y ^a s5 SS \ / - IIII I II II 11 3 W pviII�o_ IIIA I I v � 1�� m�e o��� - VA�pll III`Ili I S IIYII I aes° v ��515�1 ml I Im I1 oa � II I' W I IpI I I awl � II I\ I I I A - I I I I „ - - w I I I Iv ill�`Ilo I11 — I-+ — sdl. s I ISII11 II�IIII Ili v`�R \ v � v I il`7 `I X11v�` 1 I y G�vv ,v,iII aII megvrl / 4� a a _ � spas 1 _ --- _________--------------_____ ---- --_-- --- \ oa _ < I vsi A IIII>�l A V A `v loo ffi l I II �w����a Q .,.o.®.,�...,�.mo..m�,no,.,o�.m.,.���.,ouA..�,.moo_....�oo��..�..�...a..,,,,.,�.,o.,.,,....o.,.. � \ o=w L9962 opeJO100 'pen apaiC) uaoyaageW ZLb6�o® Amoo=_ �rvA l b�lmv �R - 3 G o G �m LL o' w o - Lo RE 18 10 2 HN 003 n n v n m m m w n m v m N Z n n z w _ ya - - m - --=o _ gas, a 2 RE - LG - - in g - - - - - - - - - E2 2 w of aw d t o r _ o or - a �o oG � og oG a - o w - - - - - - _ Z - o z - - - - - - - a - - - - in - - _ - - --- oGa o- Zm��LL a� .. o=w L9962 OPM0100 'pen o� 913<) uaoyaaueW Z/-t7[ 3 w z w > z� p m = iwo �Z� _• - P". o •81 ZM � oV o V 0 0 lk ZO 71 02 h4 i� Z3 2y 2r o i J `2G G� mi 2 1d7 ��3 el3 m m -gym - II J I 2 II - I m n a I � II 9 zz I _ \ \ I I 11� Q M 5 p^ I II 1 1 II wY - I C7 I it ro � 000UTILITY - I�Iz i z 2 w w II I I 2 \ 7/77 oZ oem ry �a s= - Q s SIIS I- 2 • 'LUW" I�Ii�llllll � � � � Illllf�lll II� ■����■ IIIIIII. Ili�llllll .IIIIIII � � � � Illlll�ill� ■ ■ II�III III�IIIIIII IIIIII � � � � . Illllf�lll IIIIII . ®®®I ® ®_ ® -----------_ _ ® ----------------------------------- ���� ® o IY IY o ® ® �1i ■� _ ® ®--------------- 1 Is �� ® o I® ■I o® ! MI■ fid ®---------------- ------------- IM INiffiff INN ® I 1 ' �� IIIIIIIIIIIIIII o■a ___11111111111111 -= M■ .� m� � •• 'gym �:' _ i..u� ;111111111111111_ II '= IIIIIIIIlIlIII = llllllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIII = no o■� SO �. ILJ - �■o 111111111111111=1 ®'Illlllllllllll ■� --------- - =-- - - - 11111111111111---��--�-==-----�--�--��-� n N LL o=Pa I i LL Co LL Co LL 00 N O -- 00'TVA 310HIO NHOHHI-LLVW ZZ14 N O -iivA I "n -id 0 w <(o m �Q = Q O o >? LLoCl) n N LL I i LL Co LL Co LL 00 N O (0 W m a� 0 w <(o ZZ O o >? LLoCl) LU LU 0 0 LU LL www o0 o0 � DQE �� LOLO LL LL 0 0 0 oo � J 0 �� U) U) 0000 Q J° LU Of Of oo ZZ� 0LU PIX (n (o (0, MO U =_ 00 ==Z ~07 m -u, (00 0 (3) M— N� U U) 000 aUrn c� Q.. 00 Qco0 HHH HHF M lL JD LU WJE 00 »> ?» ao Dao IL U�LL Q 00 000 00Q Q0LL w LU LU coco www comm wwF coco0 O LL' LLOQ LL'J W w0o LL' Q �N — — N —N F iJ i)QLL fnQLL n N I i —"" CL w u� D O O LL LL n N =�a -- 00'TVA 310HIO NHOHHI-LLVW ZZ14 cY) O Amo o=oo -iivA I "n-id a W3 a ww w Q o w w a a rn co M II II LU cr w O LL LL C O oocr CO a 00 LU Z LOLOcl) U U) w C,4 v w Q O v�-U a U �Zo- �Ln a I I Z D co (D w CO� Of(D N iJ II Q U H cr w Z 110 CL ZWMU Z R wacn200o � z z LULU 0- va UQ�— coJ as ~a a IL IL W 00 I I I I z a Z 0 � a 00'TVA 310HIO NHOHHI-LLVW ZZ14 O Amo o=oo -iivA l "n -iv olo � o = pow o z ow z w i i IL Y o � "k o N a �' o O z 04 LU cn LL IL L:- C14 1 z �w z w a L E hl � � LU U �b Q 0 LL � z IL a cn cn M =�a LO 00'TVA 310HIO NHOHHI-LLVW ZZ14 O Amo o=oo -iivA l "n-ivo z W3 ww w Q pow o p (D T 0 Z N p — z LL LU 0 0 p— Jcr U J zwC<J IzpU)QJ ��LU HY� IC�a~~2 Lu Cr QQ�co ioa>�(D m L---------T---1-----J J I I I I I I I I I k :r, a I - - I - I I I �vv � I s i R. I � I I I � - I t } 4 W L -------------------- I! I U 1 r t _ � G 00 11VA 310HIO NHOHHI-LLVW ZL176 0 Amo o=oo -iivA l "n-iv o _ CO _ - �w = W3 Q �ow o J w 1f��— alll w1-11— Hill I �I III Irtl I I— III- _ w �III'I I— �I=1 o Fill- II I I =_'' I —II I I I I I I I I I I I'I •: I I ISI I EllIIIII -IIIIII 1—III LL- II11 SII —III- • IF III=IF ..11111=1�1 IES � I I Ir1111i i I I�il �• � , 'i'i'i 1 i I11�1 i 1 i1T1� w ��11i=11 w w IIIIII J �I� J 0 In 111 0 44 0 4111 'i111i o 0 I11 z n rcn I III ¢.� �_ 1 A 04 o=Pa -- 00'TVA 310HIO NHOHHI-LLVW ZL176 N O Amo o=oo -iivA I vun-id W3 a ww w Q W=WIII� I I-� ISI-�I z III ����IIIE II II - o =- 0 Ell > II w J ISI w III = J a� 8 0 _ F LL If I= W Joao _ 00'TVA 301HIO NHOHHI-LLVW ZL176 Amo o=oo -iivA l vmn-ivo l 3 W o W �owo� �LL .0-z a 0 ZI ZW OLl O ------------------- -------- -- < m -------- z--------- -- z ------------------ ------------ -------- a x x 0 0 p p J E E J A,-.£ ..6-1 ..6-1 A7-.£ ..8/£0-.66 ..8/£0-66 I � ..0-.Z6 ..0-.Z6 J W W Q J Joao _ 00'TVA 301HIO NHOHHI-LLVW ZZ14 N Amo o=oo -iiNfA l vmn-iv o - _ �o Q 3 = W W 0 x x (V - N O N O U � m Z (V � � O K K M J ❑ ❑ J ..6-36 ..L -.LL ..0-Z6 � ��0-.Z6 N J W >„ W J Joao _ \ -- OO'TVA 101HIO NHOHHI-LLVW ZZ14 Amo a s o=oo _ - -iivA I "n-id �� = Q W= �3� �owo� ww ww lo Z-.9 u� 0 m i i a ..9/6 0-�Z6 ..9/6 0-�Z6 ..0 bZ Q J IL LL o O0� 0 . . ......... . Joao _ \ -- 00'TVA 301HIO NHOHHI-LLVW ZZ14 =.m oz 3 0= -iidA I "n-id P zLO �owo� oOf� I �- r a , / -------------- - -- - III�II�I-ISI-ISI-ISI=� I II � II I - II-ISI-ISI-III-III-� III—III—III=III=III' II��I=ISI=ISI=ISI= I I I=III=III-III-_II III-III-III-I � I I-I � I-III-III-I III-III-III-III- I .r --_ �.�' Z III IIII IIII III i / •_., � IIIIII=III= � �-- ', I II II II I II II II I = IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII z � r 11=III—III—III=III=1 I =III=III= � � IIIIIIIIIIII=III= -_ II III I II I II� I I I� I I I� I I _ I�1 iHiI�II�II= --_HMA — —I I—I I-I I-I — 11 z ----------- -- �------------- -III-III-III-III- III�IIHMI —__ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII —III—III—III—I — —II-III-ISI-III-III- HMI HMI I11 HMI I HMI H H —== — HMI HM 00000❑ I � MH II III I (IIII II III II HMI HMI VIII IIIIIII ITIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIII IIIIIII IIIIII IIII --Mll_ 11 �I I Io� II I�I I ISI I o S STS-I � w J =� W 04 Joao _ OO11VA 101HIO NHOHHI-LLVW ZZ14 N o wLO m° Pw = Q pow o ryl� w JIB 3 -.so l -11111 „�-,o� I 111III1111I1111II1111I1111 oo ITT 1< o Ill o 1111I111111111111I III- _=1 11=1 11=1 I I 1 11111111 1 11111111 1 11111111 1 11111111 I r '' I I—III—III—III—I I I r � III—I 11—I 11—I I I— r� II=111=111=111=1II r Q r IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII — - � � � III=III=III=1 I—III=III=111= � � � `: III—III—III=1 � � i ��� II—III—III—III= IL ITT] I � � ;'. 111111111 11111111 1111/111 —III—III—I �\ � ; IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11�1 11IIIIIIIII11 �—-------------- —--- -- —I I-MIT I-1 I I IIIIII=III= -1 I I-1' MMF 11 I1 1 Iu11-11 � 11— WE 0-.6 -.8 ..8/£L-.ZL — lW J W Joao _ \ -- OO'TVA 101HIO NHOHHI-LLVW ZL176 _, m gym° 3 0= ids I �o►2inod m Pw = LO W3'.._ - Q �owit o o< a = -_ IQ Qw�� o � o o to U m- �\ :II�I,ILII����IIII����IIII����IIHIT I����IIII����II'I�� =—_ I El I El I I Ell Ell Ell El I EI 11 �Ab/E 0 -.6 THE IF .��', —_ IIIEIIIEIIIEIIIEIIIE III III III III III III III III —= 11=1 11=1 11=1 V I 0 jo WW �m m w` °rm O(IVHOIOO 'IIVA �W 110HIO NHOHHIIIVW ZZ14 ��oa� t2 Zo \i 3zme �m wa. Bien I v�jmv o 0 I U W D a U W K —+ (>+X ❑ �W �QI O OH€ _ O z dW ' LLI z p o= Z9912 opeJO100 'pen o Q v _ apaiO UJOgJ9AeW Z/ -t7[ 6 m x5's a Vim= 0-C5 [If LU 021 LU 3 1�V/\ I V�111V = aZLUm z Z o= 29912 opeaoI00 'pen o U a Q apaiO uaoyaaAeW Z/ -t7[0 Ba a$ O m0- LU3 �idn I dbmd = aZ- w Q 0_ ° c�n _ ai Ion t �II li= =11x . .... o ®nmli � s ■::,Illillls®Ii111111111i _ ■■■■:�. Ylrii�iiii�i� IIIIIII'i■■■■® 1111111111111 �0®��1 it■1■■!■1!1■li ss��iilli�lh®lilililillli�llll�®�'. EM INS- ■moi ■1■■■■� ■■■■ ,�■ � II �lillllll i"' -==moi liiil���l�l� IIIIIIIIIIII:I�i�ll� A■i■■1■i■I■!■ 1111111MMMMMWIMM ® �I� ® � jjNNNIIIIIIIIIIIINN W■ m T �:'i■31®IWC r -- ' il- I II. VIII y „ i , � 0 JUL 1 I, ,I F-- Z 01. z o o— ZS912 OPeJOI00 'I!eA - �W z . LU F-- eloi!o UjoqJ94evy Z/ ce) C� 021 Lu 0 co ::J co zo > o 11VA vmniv LU LU 0- 0.— LLJ°e - zzzzz ---- --- --- 8 Z LLI e. LLI Z G , —FHNWS O� .................... �jj Fl ........... it I SYN) —71 ............ ...... ............ ... . . . . . . . . . . . ....... - - --------- . ... .. . ... ..... ........... x x c �jj Fl it I ............ ...... ............ ... . .......... . ....... - - --------- . ... .. . ... ..... ........... z p o= 29912 opeJO100 'penLu Q v _ OIOJ!/OUJOgJ9A/eW^ZLb[ - mx�'s � Vim= U)C5 [If LU >0 3 1�V/\ I V�111V = aZ LU Q °_ O z w s w aa w e W o W o J \I/ ......... n•�•••w _..........rviva.... ... . .. III m i i 4 7 i i u. Y _ 0 C � � i i sc s m ` 1 0 0 m o a hw 0 o Y i 0 I 0 } I s a • � ss �� I I w .II T h .I I I _ o j �......: �. ,. ..... V� .... . �. .... ............. ' _��} a .I i 'v m i i i "`� i . i --------------- i i I 1 r l� ss V, a Is ss I � III �i a s ss ss a Y A y I 'III 11 � I iii s ss 9 i� i I I r 1 I , i i i i I � �s tial m , iii \ o s \x\�' HSIM _ i oao ........< <.... y z o o= - ZS968opeao100'pen o °; a Q v-_ epaio uaogJ94eW Z/ w� m x�E - (,LO 3 = 11VA I = a3fi` fLu O Vim= COLD oa Vm111V �doa - o 3 o�� D Q p. z w �N w V V� .... . �. .... ............. ' _��} a .I i 'v m i i i "`� i . i --------------- i i I 1 r l� ss V, a Is ss I � III �i a s ss ss a Y A y I 'III 11 � I iii s ss 9 i� i I I r 1 I , i i i i I � �s tial m , iii \ o s \x\�' HSIM _ i oao ........< <.... y City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 26, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of an Exemption Plat, pursuant to Section 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to establish utility and driveway easements at Red Sandstone Elementary School, located at 545, 551, & 559 North Frontage Road/Block 2, a portion of Lot 8, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0029) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC20-0029 Staff Memo Red Sandstone Exemption Plat.pdf Staff Memorandum [Attachment Al Vicinity Map.pdf [Attachment A] Vicinity Map [Attachment Bl Applicant Narrative.pdf [Attachment B] Applicant Narrative [Attachment Cl Final Plat.Ddf [Attachment C] Proposed Final Plat TOWN OF Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 26, 2020 SUBJECT: A request for review of an Exemption Plat, pursuant to Section 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to establish utility and driveway easements at Red Sandstone Elementary School, located at 545, 551, & 559 North Frontage Road/Block 2, a portion of Lot 8, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0029) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Erik Gates SUMMARY The applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting the review of an Exemption Plat, pursuant to Section 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to establish utility and driveway easements at Red Sandstone Elementary School, located at 545, 551, & 559 North Frontage Road/Block 2, a portion of Lot 8, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1 to establish utility easements and a driveway easement for Red Sandstone Elementary. Based upon staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval of this application, subject to the findings in Section VIII of this 1"L�' it•0"0 0:"111 II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting a review of an exemption plat in order to establish necessary easements on the Red Sandstone Elementary site. These easements include driveway easements extending into the adjacent Town of Vail owned lots, underground utility easements for Holy Cross Energy, and utility easements for water and sewer lines. The graphic below shows the proposed plat map with all proposed easements: E[Ei1PT[ON PLAT RED SANDSTONE ELEVENTARY SUBDIVISION A RESUBDIVISION OF VAIL/POTATO PATCH. BLOCK 2 A PORTION OF IDT 8 TOWN OF VAIL COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO am.R".^al��_ f.: H:rnl I I I I I I I I I I I � I mm��N lI A vicinity map (Attachment A), the applicant narrative (Attachment B), and a Proposed Final Plat (Attachment C), are attached for review. BACKGROUND Red Sandstone Elementary was originally constructed in 1976 and received a number of exterior improvements prior to 2017. From 1991 to 2004, a number of conditional use permits were granted for this property for various improvements to the site. These include: cellular antennas in 1991, an athletic field in 2001, and a gymnastics center in 2004. In 2017, a number of approvals were granted on this site by the PEC in order to facilitate the renovation of and an addition to Red Sandstone Elementary. These included an amendment to the existing conditional use permit for the school to facilitate an addition, a new CUP to allow for the construction of a new parking structure, and a variance request for a retaining wall above six feet (6') for the new parking structure. Construction on these renovations began in 2018 and continued into 2019. These renovations and additions to the Red Sandstone Elementary site are triggering the need for the easements proposed in this exemption plat. Town of Vail Page 2 This plat has been reviewed and approved by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. IV. 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 9, Article C. General Use (GU) District (in part) 12-9C-1 PURPOSE.- The URPOSE: The general use district is intended to provide sites for public and quasi -public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in section 12- 1-2 of this title and to provide for the public welfare. The general use district is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi - public uses permitted in the district are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. (Ord. 29(2005) § 28: Ord. 21(1994) § 10) 12-9C-2 PERMITTED USES.- The SES: The following uses shall be permitted in the GU district: Bicycle and pedestrian paths. Communications antennas and appurtenant equipment. Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. Passive outdoor recreation areas, and open space. (Ord. 12(2008) § 24) 12-9C-3 CONDITIONAL USES.- A. SES: A. Generally: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the GU district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title.- Child itle: Child daycare centers. Equestrian trails. Golf courses. Healthcare facilities. Town of Vail Page 3 Helipad for emergency and/or community use. Major arcades. Plant and tree nurseries, and associated structures, excluding the sale of trees or other nursery products, grown, produced or made on the premises. Public and private parks and active outdoor recreation areas, facilities and uses. Public and private schools. Public and quasi -public indoor community facilities. Public buildings and grounds. Public parking structure. Public theaters, meeting rooms and convention facilities. Public tourist/guest service related facilities. Public transportation terminals. Public unstructured parking. Public utility and public service uses. Religious institutions. Seasonal structures or uses to accommodate educational, recreational or cultural activities. Ski lifts, tows and runs. Water and sewage treatment plants. 12-9C-5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.- A. TANDARDS: A. Prescribed By Planning And Environmental Commission: In the general use district, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as prescribed by the planning and environmental commission.- 1. ommission: 1. Lot area and site dimensions. 2. Setbacks. 3. Building height. 4. Density control. 5. Site coverage. 6. Landscaping and site development. 7. Parking and loading. B. Reviewed By Planning And Environmental Commission: Development standards shall be proposed by the applicant as a part of a conditional use permit application. Site specific development standards shall then be determined by the planning and environmental commission during the review of the conditional use request in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title. (Ord. 29(2005) § 28: Ord. 21(1994) § 10) Town of Vail Page 4 12-9C-6 ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.- Additional TANDARDS: Additional regulations pertaining to site development standards and the development of land in the general use district are found in chapter 14 of this title. (Ord. 29(2005) § 28: Ord. 21(1994) § 10) Title 13 — Subdivision Regulations, Vail Town Code Chapter 1, General Provisions (in part) 13-1-2: PURPOSE.- A. URPOSE: 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. 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. Town of Vail Page 5 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 in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of the land. 13-1-3: COMPLIANCE.- A. OMPLIANCE: A. General Prohibition: It is unlawful for any person, business, or corporation to violate any of the provisions of this chapter or to transfer, sell, lease or agree to sell or lease, any lot, tract, parcel, site, separate interest (including a leasehold interest), interest in common, condominium interest, timeshare estate, fractional fee, or timeshare license, or any other division within a subdivision within the town until such subdivision has been approved in writing by the administrator, planning and environmental commission and/or the council (whichever is applicable) and a plat thereof recorded in the office of the Eagle County clerk and recorder; provided, however, that a written agreement to sell or lease which is expressly conditioned upon full compliance by the seller with the subdivision regulations of the town within a specified period of time and which expressly recites the seller's failure to satisfy such condition within such period of time shall terminate the agreement and entitle the buyer to the prompt return of all consideration heretofore paid by the buyer under such agreement, shall not constitute a violation of this subsection. B. Prohibitive Conveyance: No lot or parcel of land, nor any interest therein, shall be transferred, conveyed, sold, subdivided or acquired either in whole or in part, so as to create a new nonconforming lot, or to avoid or circumvent or subvert any provision of this chapter. Town of Vail Page 6 C. Responsibility: The owner, developer, buyer, or seller shall be fully responsible for all acts of agents or employees thereof that are committed in violation of the terms of this chapter. Chapter 2, Definitions (in part) 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. 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 Town of Vail Page 7 4. The extent of the effects on the future development of the surrounding area, and 5. The extent to which the proposed subdivision is located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development; and 6. The extent to which the utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade undersized lines, and 7. The extent to which the proposed subdivision provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole, and 8. The extent to which the proposed subdivision results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features, and 9. Such other factors and criteria as the commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed subdivision. 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. Town of Vail Page 8 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 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. Town of Vail Page 9 V. ZONING AND SITE ANALYSIS Address: Legal Descriptions: Zoning: Land Use Plan Designations Current Land Uses: View Corridor: 245, 551, & 559 N. Frontage Road West Vail Potato Patch Filing 2, Block 2, Lot 8 General Use (GU) Public/Semi-Public Elementary School, None Parking Garage Development Allowed / Existing Standard Required Site Area Determined by 184,912 SF (4.25 PEC acres) Site Coverage Determined by 17,197 SF (9.3%) PEC Front: 36.3' Setbacks Determined by Side (E): 33' PEC Side (W): 5.2' Rear: 12.3' Determined by 61,360 SF (School) Density PEC 8,978 SF (Gym) 52,088 SF (Garage) VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use: Zoning District: North: Open Space Natural Area Preservation (NAP) South: CDOT ROW None East: Multi -Family Housing (H) West: Open Space Outdoor Recreation (OR) 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 Staff finds that the plat is consistent with all 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. The proposed plat simply establishes easements for the redevelopment of the Red Sandstone school and garage. This redevelopment has previously been found to help further Vail Land Use Town of Vail Page 10 Plan goals of providing a public use outside high -hazard areas (Goal 1.10) via the school and by providing additional parking for day skier needs (Goal 2.8). Staff finds the proposed subdivision meets 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," of this code, and other pertinent regulations that the planning and environmental commission deems applicable; and The proposed final plat meets all of the applicable standards set by the PEC during the September 2017 meeting. No changes to these standards or the site are proposed as part of this exemption plat. Staff finds the proposed subdivision meets 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 Staff finds that the proposed subdivision presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives. As mentioned previously, the proposed plat will result in no change to the approved site plan. The proposed development for this combined lot has previously been reviewed by the Town and found to be harmonious with the surrounding land uses while furthering town development goals. Staff finds the proposed subdivision meets this criterion. 4. The extent of the effects on the future development of the surrounding area; and The proposed plat is not anticipated to have significant negatives impacts on the future development of the surrounding area. The surrounding properties have either been developed or are protected open space. Staff finds the proposed subdivision meets 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 The exemption plat makes no changes to development lines and establishes driveway easements for a drive aisle approved by the town previously. Staff does Town of Vail Page 11 not anticipate this exemption plat creating any inefficiencies for public services or resulting in "leapfrog" development. Staff finds the proposed subdivision meets 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 undersized lines; and Staff finds that the proposed plat is already served by appropriately sized utility lines, resulting in no future land disruptions to upgrade undersized lines. The exemption plat simply establishes the easements for these utility lines. Staff finds the proposed subdivision meets 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 finds that the proposed plat and previously approved updates to the site provide for the growth of an orderly viable community and serves the best interests of the community as a whole. Staff finds the proposed subdivision meets 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 The exemption plat will not result in any adverse impacts to other natural environments, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. The exemption plat does not result in any additional impacts to the surrounding environment as it simply establishes easements. Staff finds the proposed subdivision meets this criterion. 9. Such other factors and criteria as the commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed subdivision. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, of an exemption plat, pursuant to Section 13-12, Exemption Town of Vail Page 12 Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to establish utility and driveway easements at Red Sandstone Elementary School, located at 545, 551, & 559 North Frontage Road/Block 2, a portion of Lot 8, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this minor subdivision, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for Exemption Plat, pursuant to Section 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to establish utility and driveway easements at Red Sandstone Elementary School, located at 545, 551, & 559 North Frontage Road/Block 2, a portion of Lot 8, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this exemption plat, the Community Development Departments recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon a review of Section Vll of the October 26, 2020 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- That inds: That the subdivision is in compliance with the criteria listed in Section 13-3-4, Minor Subdivisions, 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,- 3. own, 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. " IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant Narrative C. Proposed Final Plat Town of Vail Page 13 Town of Vail Page 14 TOWN OF 0 VAIL' 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 vailgov.com MEMORANDUM Public Works/Transportation Department 970.479.2158 970.479.2166 fax To: Vail Planning and Environmental Commission From: Vail Department of Public Works and Transportation Date: October 20, 2020 RE: Narrative for Replat of Red Sandstone Elementary School Parcel The recently completed Red Sandstone Elementary School remodel and construction of the new Town of Vail Red Sandstone Parking Garage required significant utility relocations. It was determined before construction to re -plat the parcel based on the final location of the utilities. This exemption plat reflects the as -built conditions of the relocated utilities and other easements required for the development. -\--------\ - � - H (11- D x C, \\ \ \= g \\ C, _( \%§� %<<ag »§\a2 /®%^3 (\\§% se»c \eaa6 zocj i /\<2 } < IMISSION NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII i i i II i 1z�a a� fi MFS) I I I I r ------------------ ti 500'07'12E 233.35Y—',) r — I_�/I lI II96 IN z q no'b�G ni w /o� 1> w r Im I rl ISI I I I m I � u w 2`099gINE�l IS I y I I II INI I to I 1 U r I I rJ ry -o \ w i z aof I rv� i \ I I o I � \ s m s `Nt1'1"I'22 W II WIry'I �\�s N N II w z m Nt�'1722,W I 409.451Mc II � — \\ I II � n City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 26, 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 Description PEC20-0015 Spraddle Creek Staff Memo 10-12-2020 with graphics.pdf Staff Memorandum Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf Attachment A. Vicinity Map Attachment B. Introductory Memorandum from Applicant.pdf 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 26, 2020 SUBJECT: A request for review of an exemption plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter 12, Exemption Plat, Vail Town Code, to allow for increases to the allowable Site Coverage and Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) allotment for individual lots within the Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0015) Applicant: Spraddle Creek Estates Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence SUMMARY Homeowners, represented by Zehren and The applicant, Spraddle Creek Estates Homeowners, represented by Zehren and Associates, are requesting the review of an exemption plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter 12, Exemption Plat, Vail Town Code, to allow for increases to the allowable Site Coverage and Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) allotment for individual lots within the Spraddle Creek Estates subdivision. 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 information in Section IV. 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 an amendment to the exemption plat 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. 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 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 Exit #176, Vail Town Center Interchange, as shown below: Town of Vail Page 2 NA ;;;Z�Mb III. BACKGROUND On January 15, 1985, the property comprising Spraddle Creek Estates, approximately 39.55 acres was annexed into the Town of Vail. On November 18, 1986, the Town of Vail adopted the Land Use Plan which identified Spraddle Creek Estates as being within the Hillside Residential land use designation. The plan identified Spraddle Creek Estates as the single property within this land use designation. On October 26, 1987, through the adoption of Ordinance 38, Series of 1987, the Town of Vail created and imposed the Hillside Residential District on Spraddle Creek Estates. Town Staff developed the Hillside Residential District in response to the adoption of the Land Use Plan. On April 17, 1991, the Design Review Board granted final approval to the development of Spraddle Creek Estates. This approval was for roadway design, retaining walls design, landscaping of entry and common parcels, and a design standards handbook for the subdivision. Town of Vail Page 3 On February 24, 1992, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved several variances for retaining wall height and roadway grades in excess of those permitted. On July 12, 1993, a minor subdivision was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission to adjust the shared lot line between Lots 14 and 15 to increase the size of Lot 15 to allow for a primary unit and a caretaker unit on the lot. On September 7, 1993, the Town of Vail adopted Ordinance 11, Series 1993, which rezoned Tract C of Spraddle Creek Estates from Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District to Single Family District in order to permanently restrict the lot as an employee housing unit (gate keeper house). On April 5, 1995, the Design Review Board approved a change to the Residential Design regulations for Spraddle Creek to allow for glass expanses in excess of 36 feet. On June 22, 1998, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved an amendment to the Spraddle Creek Estates plat to allow for interior conversions to residences which complied with the regulations. On August 1, 2006, the Town Council, through the adoption of Ordinance No. 17, series of 2006, approved changes to the Section 12-21-14E, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code. These amendments do apply to properties zoned Hillside Residential. On June 11, 2007 The Planning and Environmental Commission approved a similar request to increase allowable GRFA and Site Coverage in the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision. This request was accompanied by a text amendment to the Hillside Residential (HS) Zone District increasing the allowable Site Coverage from 15% to 20% that the Commission recommended approval to the Town Council. As some of the requests related to site coverage were contingent on the text amendment, the PEC approvals for additional GRFA and Site Coverage were conditioned on the approval of the text amendment by the Town Council. On July 17, 2007 the Town Council tabled the proposed text amendment to the Hillside Residential District after providing feedback to the applicant. An excerpt from the meeting minutes is provided below: Town of Vail Page 4 The fifth item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2007, an ordinance amending the prescribed zoning regulations, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to Section 12-6A-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code (Hillside Residential District), to increase allowable site coverage from 15% to 20. Chief Planner Warren Campbell reported that on June 11, 2007, the PEC held a public hearing on the request to amend the prescribed zoning regulations for the Hillside Residential District to increase allowable site coverage from 15% to 20%. Upon consideration of the request, the Commission approved a motion recommending approval of the text amendment to the Vail Town Council by a vote of 5-1-1(Cleveland opposed, Gunion recused). Campbell assured Council that building envelopes would not increase. Community Development Director George Ruther clarified, "We are only talking about changing the method in the way Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) is calculated." Moffet moved to table the item to August 21 with Newbury seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The applicant was directed to explore options for adhering to the town's recently adopted inclusionary zoning requirements into their proposal. On August 21, 2007 the Town Council denied the proposed text amendment, resulting also in a denial of the proposed increases to GRFA and Site Coverage previously approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. An excerpt from the meeting minutes is provided below: On June 11, 2007, the PEC held a public hearing on the request to amend the prescribed zoning regulations for the Hillside Residential District to increase allowable site coverage from 15% to 20%. Upon consideration of the request, the Commission approved a motion recommending approval of the text amendment to the Vail Town Council by a vote of 5-1-1(Cleveland opposed, Gunion recused). On July 17, 2007, the Town Council unanimously tabled this item after providing feedback. Dave Kasak with Zehren and Associates asked for a modest increase of Gross Residential Floor Area and site coverage. Logan moved to approve the ordinance with Hitt seconding. The motion failed 4-2, with Logan and Slifer voting for the ordinance. The following items have been attached for review: Attachment A. Vicinity Map Attachment B. Introductory Memorandum from Applicant, July 13, 2020 Attachment C. 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. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION At the August 24, 2020 meeting, 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. At the October 12, 2020 meeting the Planning and Environmental Commission requested a photo simulation of Forest Road homes within a Spraddle Creek Estates context. Please see the following exhibits provided by the applicant labeled Spraddle Creek Estates Additional GRFA/ Site Coverage Proposal, Spraddle Creek: Additional Lot Information and Forest Road Neighborhood. The first exhibit illustrates the revised proposal including percent increases. The second exhibit 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. The final exhibit shows existing conditions in the Forest Road and Spraddle Creek areas and a photo simulation of Forest Road homes within the Spraddle Creek Estates context. 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 Am aE Z A IR Mo Mo c� (j) 7' aE Z W V 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 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 Staff finds 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 and are commensurate with the average increase in GRFA found on other large lots within this community. The amendment is consistent with the with the development objectives of the town and the goal of the Vail Land Use Plan root that the quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 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 Staff finds the proposed amended final plat which proposes to amend the Lot Summary Chart is in compliance with the Vail Zoning Code. The changes made to 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 Staff finds 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 and are commensurate with the average increase in GRFA found on other large lots within this community. The amendment is consistent with the with the development objectives of the town and the goal of the Vail Land Use Plan root that the quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 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 Staff finds the proposed amended final plat which proposes to amend the Lot Summary Chart is in compliance with the Vail Zoning Code. The changes made to Town of Vail Page 14 the Chart will be consistent with or more restrictive than zoning prescriptions for GRFA and site coverage within the Hillside Residential Zone District. Staff finds 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 effect on the elements listed in this criterion. Staff finds 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 finds 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 finds that this criterion is not applicable to the request. 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 Staff finds that this criterion is not applicable to the request. 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 finds that the amendments to the Lot Summary Chart provide for the growth of and viable community. Staff finds the amended final plat complies with this criterion. Town of Vail Page 15 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 finds that the proposed amended final plat does not result in adverse impacts as the amendment does not affect access, area or building envelope configurations. Staff finds 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. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, of an amended final 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. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this amended final plat, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for an amended final plat, pursuant to Title 13, Chapter 4, 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." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this amended final plat, the Community Development Departments recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission makes the following findings: 'Based upon a review of Section Vll of the October 26, 2020 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- That inds: That the subdivision is in compliance with the criteria referenced in Section 13- 12-3, Exemption Plat, 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,- Town own, Town of Vail Page 16 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." 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 oriainal aaaroval of Saraddle Creek Estates in 1991. Town of Vail Page 17 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 x � -v o O C�j U N ' 0 a) CA N O N CA141 ^� O CIJ M0 N � C�j cnN V � ; CA CA �C�j CJ N00 NN C�j �� o O +r a) 44.1) +C� N Q O U C�j U � vU NZs OO _� n C�jO U CA ti ti N CjCA O C�j ti CA U �� N sU. C N lz x � -v 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#..... 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'#-::•-x37##'=QRRQYYiiiQFL�6R:67xtxNi Z--1' A. 3Nn Haivw t.� t� � i � cnosczcax'ccscc''a's'ap&eppnp&6Ep¢cP193p56@L'BEfi I A x. � •f I di m 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: October 12, 2020 PEC Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Pec results 101220.pdf October 12, 2020 PEC Meeting Results 0 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 Ad #: 0000630540-01 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 10/23/2020 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 10/23/2020 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 10/28/2020. Mark Wurzer. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 10/28/2020. Jeri Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 19, 2024 aFJU NFDINA NOTARY Nal1C A OF COLORADO MxlusT t& AL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 28, 2020, 1:W PM Town Council Chambers Frontage Road - Vail, Galomdo, 8185/ CaII to Order 1.1. Register in advance for phi binar: htlos://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/reaislerNJN V9iO4H5a0nGFCWw-TbcG d AB ,,m9Istering, you will —lVe a cornmratlon small containing Information bout I'wn,,g the web,n,,. 1.2. Attendance Main Agenda 2.1. Arequest for a recommenda8on to the Vail Town Council to establish a new Special Development District, (Alum Vail), W rsuant to Section 12-9-A Special Development (SDD) District, Vail Town Code, to allow for the develapmeM of 24 multifamAy residential units n eight (8) buildings with associated site provemeMs, lOcatetl at 14]2 MatterhOm CHCIeN011 Park MeatlOws Subtlivision, antl setting fodM1 details in regard thereto. (PEC20- 0028) 60 min. Applicant: Alum Vail LLC, represented by The Brown Studio Planner: Jonathan Spence 2.2. A request for review of an Exemption Plat W mwnt to Section 13-12, 2.3. Exemptlolf—wiew of an n Plat Vad Town Coda to allibn lofor nc alat, pu,u,ntses 10l the s 13uoweter lMeShe Coverage and Gross Resitlential Floor Area (GIIA) allotment for intliNtlual 1015 wdhin the Spmddla Creek Estates subtliasi0n, antl setting tonM1 tletails m Bard thereto. (PEC2o-Dots) 30 min. Applicant Spmddle Creek Estates Homeowners, represented by Zehren and Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. Oclober 12, 2020 PEC Results 4. Adjournment The applications and Information about the proposals are ayal'able for public inspection during gularol- fice hours atthe Town of Val' Community Development DeparlmeM, ]5 South Frontage Road. The Wb'ic Is mated to attend the project orientation and the sire visits that precede the public hearing in Me Town of Vail Communhy Dewlap— Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what turns the Planning and Ensironmenia' Commission w"' con- sider an Item. Please cel' (910) 479-2138 for additlonal Inbrmatbn. Please call 711 for sign language Inter- pretation 48 hourprior ro meeting time. Community De's Deportment Published in the Vail Daily October 23, 2020. 0000830540 Al 0000626746-01 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN Mat the Planning and Your account number is: 1023233 holdapublc�h arn9 �e di ewiMsecpooll VIII 3-6, Vail Town Code, onO—ba, 2& 2020 at 100 PROOF OF PUBLICATION pm in Me Town of Vail Municipal Building. trItn' /usD2wevbzoonruWwab ar/odWer/WN Y91 VAIL DAILY Atter registering, you will moel a a conMmatlon STATE OF COLORADO mil dalning infonnatign about joining the gi webinar. COUNTY OF EAGLE A request for a recommendation to Me Vail Town Council to estadisn a ew Special Development District, (Alum Val), Wrsuant to Section 12-9-A I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of Coda�o°Ilm k'lh6 d6 ebPm° ;`d�z4Ymuulrem% the VAIL DAI LY, that the same daily newspaper in ly residential units in eight )e) buildings with associ- Wed she improvem—, boated M 14M Matterhorn printed, whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, ono aetaillsPa eg aclowe S (PE i ion, andsetting State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; APPlbanb Buow VSa dlu ",rep esemed by The that said newspaper has been published continuously and Planner: Jonathan Spence uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a of Arequest forreview of an P—pdm Plat,pursuant P—. to S.ol- 1&12, Eaempffon Plat Revyan period more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the Vail Town Code, to establish Nilit - y me ist Red Sandstone Elementary S hpo1, located at 545, 551, 8 559 North Frontage first publication of the annexed legal notice or Road/Bbck 2, a portion of Lot e, Vail Potato Patch 1, and seting brM details in regard Merelo. advertisement and that said newspaper has published the (PE Appl' an 029Town gf Val Planner: Erik Gates requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The ap digauons and Int—abonaboutthe props - ala are available for public inspection during :,a hours at the Town M Vail Cnmmuniry Develgpmera Oeparlmeni 75 South Frontage Road. The public nvited to attend site visna. Please call 9]0 -4]9 - The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium, P 9 9 allaa or visitwww.valgov—planningrorada0bn- l iMorma,ign. only forjurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. quest with-h—o lifiwton, dial 711. le upon re - Published Cclobar 9, 2020 in Me Vail Daily. 0000626]46 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. /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 aFJU NFDINA NOTARYana— NDl1C A OF COLORADO as ,a—