Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTown Council Results - 7.20.2001F'' F ^iPY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: METIORANDUM Legal Files for Lots 8, 10, & 11, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition Community Dwelopment Depa.tment July 20, 2001 Results of Town Council Executive Session regarding the detemination ol interest in purchasing or acquiring conserualion easements on Lots 8, 10, & 11, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition Suunlnv or Besulrs Community Darelopment Department stafl met with members of the Town Gouncil on July '17, 2001, to determine the lerrel of interest in purchasing or acquiring conservation easements on Parcel 40, noted in the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan as being a high pdority for acquisition. The Council had lhree options: OmoN A _ PUR8UE A PURCHASE oF LoTs 8, 10 & 11 Parcel 40 is approximately 3.4 acres in size. The option to purchase the lots wilhin Parcel 40 has not been discussed with the present owners. The benefit to the Town in purchasing the lots is that the Town would acquire all of the de''relopment rights. Hence, the Town would be able to ensure that the lots would remain as open space in perpetuity. Though there may be limitalions due to geologic hazards, all of the lots may be dweloped at presenl. Omox B - PuRsuE coilsEnvAnoN EASE||ENTS uP(x{ Lors 8, f 0 & 11 The applicants' representative has inlormed statf that the owners of Lots 8, 10, & 11 may be amenable to the Town of Vail acquiring a conserualion or environmental easement across the rd hazard avalanche areas on these lots. This would not preclude dwelopment on the lots altogether. Howwer, it could ensure thal the geologically sensitive areas and steep lots would not be dareloped in the future. Also, the derelopment rights for the easemenl areas could be translerred to the Town of Vail and/or to the Eagle Valley Land Trust. This would signilicantly reduce lhe development potential of Lots 8, 10 & 11. Omor C -TxE No AcrloN The red hazard avalanche designation exists on a large porlion of Parcel 40 (Lots 8, 10, & 11). The Town ol Vail hazard regulations prohibit dwelopment in the red hazard avalanche area. Hence, Council may decide not to take action on the subject lots. The downside to this is that although the red hazard area can not be built upon, the area is still included in calculating development potential. Hence, the owners of Lots 8, 10 & 1 1 would retain all their existing dwelopment rights. Tom Courrcil opted for Option C, to take no action on Parcel 40. The decision was rationalized by the facl that the To^,n's existing hazard regulations and de'relopmenl slandards will strictly regulate any luture darelopment on this site. The Council noted that the orvners should be encouraged to create conservation easements on their lots to ensure the preservation of open space while realizing a prop€rty tax savings. TO: FROM: DATE: FORUM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM FILE COPY Vail Town Council Community Deuelopment Department July 17,2001 Town Council Worksession, Executive Session Determination of Town Council interest in purchasing or acquiring conservalion easements on Lots 8, 10, & 11, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition Suuuanv Lots 8, 10, & 1 1 , Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition are referred lo as Parcel 40 in the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. Parcel 40 is identified as a high priority for acquisition because it could prwide access to a potential South Trail and is located in a geologically sensitive area. The Community Dwelopment Department has received a proposal to consolidate Lots 11 & 12. Another proposal has been received to resubdivide Lots 8, 9, & 10. Both ol lhese proposals were reviewed by the Planning and Ervironmental Commission on June 25, 2001. Since thal time, it has been determined that the minor subdivisions can nol occur without variances due to the lack of buildable area on Lots 9, 10, 1 1 , & 12. Hence, a final review of both minor subdivisions and associated variance requesls is scheduled for August 13, 2001 . Prior to a linal decision by the PEC, stafl would like to determine whether or not the Town Council has an interest in purchasing or acquiring conservation easements upon any of the subject properties. There are three options: OprroN A - PuBsuE A puRcHAsE oF Lors 8, 10 & 11 Parcel 40 is approximately 3.4 acres in size. The option to purchase the lots within Parcel 40 has not been discussed wilh the presenl owners. The benelit to the Town in purchasing the lots is that the Town would acquire all ol the dwelopment rights. Hence, the Town would be able to ensure that the lots would remain as open space in perpetuity. Though there may be limitations due to geologic hazards, all of the lots may be dweloped at present. OpnoH B - PuRsuE coNsERvATtoN EAsEilEnrs upoN Lors 8, 10 & 11 The applicants' representative has informed staff that the owners of Lots 8, 10, & 1 1 may be amenable to the Town of Vail acquiring a conservation or erwironmenlal easement across the red hazard avalanche areas on these lots. This would not preclude dwelopmenl on the lots altogether. Howeryer, it could ensure that the geologically sensitive areas and siteep lots would not be dweloped in the future. Also, the de/elopmenl rights for the easemenl areas could be transferred to the Town of Vail and/or to the Eagle Valley Land Trust. This would significantly reduce the dwelopment potential of Lots 8, 10 & 11. Oprron G - TaKE No AcrtoN The red hazard avalanche designation exisls on a large portion ol Parcel 40 (Lots 8, 10, & 1 1). The Town of Vail hazard regulations prohibit dwelopment in the red hazard avalanche area. Hence, Council may decide not to take action on the subject lots. The downside to this is that although the red hazard area can not be built upon, the area is still included in calculating dwelopment potential. Hence, the owners of Lots 8, 10 & 1 1 would relain all thelr existing development rights. o oescnimon or tffe Mlron SueotvtEoN REouEsrs The applicants, June Frazier and Jetf Dahl, represenled by Stwe Riden, have submitted an application to the Town of Vail Community Dwelopment Department for a minor subdivision of Lots 8, 9, and 10, Bighom Subdivision, Second Addition. The request is lor the reconfiguration of the property lines shared by these three lots. Currefily, Lot 8 is 0.87 Acres in size, Lot 9 is 0.34 Acres in size, and Lot '10 is 0.30 Acres in size. With a resubdivision of these lots, Lot I would be 0.825 Acres in size, Lot g would be 0.372 Acres in size, and Lot 10 would be 0.367 Acres in size. The total area under consideration is 'l .56 Acres. There are cunenlly no dwelopment proposals for any of the lots. Howwer, slatl anticipates that these would be torthcoming if the minor subdivision is apprwed. The applicant, Gary Weiss, represented by Ste,ve Riden, has submitted an application to the Town of Vail Community Derrelopment Department tor a minor subdivision ol Lots 11 and 12, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition. The request is for lhese two lots to be consolidated. Currently, Lot 11 is 2.23 Acres in size and Lot 12 is 0.71 Acres in size. The total area under consideration is 2.94 Acres. The creation ol a single lot would be accomplished by vacating the existing property line between Lots 11 and 12. In conjunclion with the minor subdivision request, the applicant is proposing lo construct an addition to the existing single lamily residence located on Lot 12. BAcKGRoUND The Bighom Subdivision, Second Addition was platted on July 22,1963. The Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County apprwed the platting as the property was then under Eagle Gounty jurisdiction. Lols 8-12 have remained in the current con{iguration since being platted. The Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition was annexed into the Town of Vail pursuant to Ordinances 13 & 20, Series ol 1974. The annexation became eflective on Noirember 5, 1974. Upon annexation inlo the Town of Vail, Lots 8-12 were zoned Two Family Primary/Secondary Residential. At the time ot annexation, residential structures existed on Lols I & 12, and Lots 8, 10, & 1 1 were vacant. In 1976, the Town of Vail contracied with Arthur l. Mears to complete a Geologically Sensitive Areas Study. For purposes of the study, geologically sensitive areas were delined as snow avalanche, rock fall and debris flow. In response to the lindings of Mr. Mears'study, the Town of Vail adopted Geologic Hazard Maps f or snow avalanche, rock lall and debris flow as componenls of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. The maps were adopted by the Town in 1977. In 1978, the Town ol Vail adopted Hazard Regulations. The purpose of the regulations is to help protect the inhabitants of the Town from dangers relating to development of llood plains, avalanche paths, steep slopes, and geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use ol land areas which may be geologically sensitive; and further to regulate dwelopment on steep slopes; lo prolect the economic and propefi values of the Town, lo protect the aesthetic and recreational values and natural resources ol the Town, which are sometimes associated with llood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity and slopes; to minimize damage to public facilities and utilities and minimize the need tor relief in cleanup operations; to give notice to the public of certain areas wilhin the To^,n where flood plains, avalanche paths and areas ol geologic sensitivity exisl; and to promote the general public health, safety and welfare. In 1986, the Vail Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Land Use Plan. Like the Geologic Hazard Maps, the Land Use Plan is a componenl ol the Town ol Vail Comprehensive Plan. According to the Land Use Plan, Lots 8-12 are designated "low density residential". The purpose of the low-density residenlial designation is to pro/ide sites for single-family detached homes and two-family dwelling units. Density of dwelopment with in this category would typically not exceed 3 struclures per buildable acre. Also within this area would be private recrealion lacilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools, and club houses for the use ol residents of the area. Institutional/public uses permitted would include churches, lire stations, and parks and open space related lacilities. ln 1994, the Vail Town Council adopted the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. The objectives of the plan are: . To identily citizen and visitor needs and preferences for a comprehensive system ol open space uses such as parks, recrealion, protection of environmenlal resources, lrails, and to reserve lands lor ' public use;. To prioritize available open lands for acquisition or protection;. To identrty creative strategies to implement the acquisition and protection program;. To define a management system lo appropriately manage Town-owned open space lands, and;. To butfer neighborhoods with open space. The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan is an action-oriented plan that identifies specilic parcels of land that require some kind of action either for protection of sensitive lands, for trail easemenls, or lor public use. In dweloping the plan, over 350 parcels were waluated with 51 parcels on which actions were recommended. The recommendalions were developed utilizing specific criteria to evaluate the areas ol highest priority. Generally, areas received the highest priority if they met the stated objectives of the Town and its citizens and were an integral part of the open lands system. Within the 51 parcels, there are five priority areas made up of a number ol recommended actions. These priorities are: . Protect sensitive natural habitat areas, riparian areas, and hazard areas;. Extend the Vail Trail to East Vail and add several trailheads to access the trail;. Add a new trail on the north side and western hall of Town to connecl existing trailheads and neighborhoods;. Add three'trailheads" in the core areas to access Vail Mountain trails and inform visitors of trail opportunities and prwide better access to Gore Creek;. Add bike lanes to the north and south frontage roads and add paved shoulders to Vail Valley Drive. To date, the Town of Vail has taken action on at least 41 of the 51 parcels identified for action in the Plan. This most recently includes Lot 16 of Bighorn Subdivision,2no Addition. The Action Plan and Priority Plan of the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identilies Lots 8, 10, and 11, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition as "Parcel 40" lor implementalion purposes. Parcel 40 is classitied as a "High Priority". The high priority classification is based upon the Town's desire to acquire both the dwelopment rights and trail easements for the proposed South Trail extension. However, in September ol 1999, Town stafl worked with a lormer U.S. Forest Service lrail construclion supervisor lo determine the feasibility of constructing the South Trail from the East Vail water tank to Mill Creek and the Vail ski area. As a result of lhis study, the following problematic issues were delermined: . Clitfbands and steep grades along the proposed route make access to lhe trail f rom most East Vail neighborhoods difficult and/or dangerous. Access points along the trail would be limited to the East Vail water tank and portions of lhe Vail Trail adjacent to Golden Peak.. The pending White River Nalional Forest Management Plan revisions change management direction in the area lrom "Backcountry Recreation, Non-Motorized' to "Forest Carnivore." Therefore, the U.S. Forest Service may not permit the construction of a new recreation trail under this designation. The plan also notes that Parcel 40 is located in a geologically sensitive area. Stralegies lor protecting Parcel 40 include purchasing the de/elopment rights, and/or acquiring an access easemenl through the parcel. As a high priority classilication, Parcel 40 meets both Larel One and Lerel Two Evaluation criteria. Lwd One Evaluation locuses on meeting community needs relating to the natural resource system, lhe recreation system, trails system, and reserving lands for future civic/public uses. Lsi el Two Evaluation focuses on the availability of the parcel utilizing criteria such as the threat of dwelopment or inanersible damage, opportunities to leverage other funds, cost, unusual opportunity with a motivaled seller, opportunity lor trade wilh the USFS, low managemenl requirements on the Town of Vail and low liability to the Town. The Town ot Vail Zoning Code prescribes the land development regulations for ds/elopment within the Towtt. The following code sections are particularty relevant to the s/aluation of the applicanls'proposals: . Chapter 6-Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential . Ghapter 21 -Hazard Regulations The purrpose slatement of Chapter 6 (Article D. Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) Distric0 states: "The TwoFamily Primary/Senndary Besidential Districit is intendd to provide sites for singl*family residential uses or two-family residential uses in whidt one unit is a larger pimary residence and the swnd unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, Wether with sudt publb facilities as may approperiately be l@ated in the same distrid. The Twe Family Primary/Seandary Hesidential District is intended to ensure adequate light, ah, privacy and qen space lor each &velling, @mmensurate with singl*family and two- tamily mupancy, and to maintain the deshable residental qualities of sudt sites by establishing appropiate site develqment standads." To date, there are no structures on Lots 8, 10, or 1 1 . This is due to the prwalence ol geologic hazards on these lots including avalanche and rocklall (see Figures 6 & 7 attached). Dwelopment has been proposed on Lot 'l 1 in the past. Howsver, due to the difliculties presented by geological hazards and steep slopes, development has ne/er occured on the site. There are three geologic hazard analysis reports in the legal tile for Lol 11. Each report identilies geologic hazards on lhe site including high severity rock lall, debris flow, and snow avalanche. There are varying opinions as lo wtrether Lot 11 is located in a moderate or high hazard avalanche area. Howwer, in a recenl study of Lols 8, 10, & 12, Arthur Mears identifies an area ol Red Hazard avalanche that clearly impacts Lot 1'1. Figures 6 & 7 have been attached lor reference. All three of the reports suggest possible and potential hazard mitigation measures; earth-built structures, locational siting of the slructure, boulder barriers, a rear concrete loundation wall prolruding at least six feet abwe linished grade and "splitling wedges". However, no construction is permitted in a Red Hazard Avalanche area so lhese building techniques would not be applicable. According to the Hazard Regulations (Section 1?-21-10): A. No structure shall be built in any fld hazard zone or rd avalanche hazard areas. No structure shall be built on a slqe of lorty percent or greater except in Single-Family Residential, Two-Family Fesidential, or Two-Family Primary/Swndary Residential Zone Districts. The term'structure" as used in this S*tion does not include r&reational structures that are inteMed lor seasonal use, not including residential use.B. Structures may be built in blue avalandte hazard areas providd that proper nittgating measures have been taken. C. The Adninistrator may require any applicant or person desiring to build in an avalanche hazard zone of influence to submit a definitive study ol the hazard area in which the applicant prorpses to build if the Twrn's master hazard plan does not @ntain sufficient information to determine if the proposd lnation is in a red hazard or blue hazard area. The rquirement lor additional information and study shall be done in affirdance with Chapter 12 of this Title. D. The Administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to build in an identffied blue avalanche hazard zone to submit additional information or reprts as towhether or not improvements are required to mitigate against the pssible hazard. lf mitigation is required, said information and reprt should specify the improvements proposed therefore. The requkd information and reryrts shall be done in awrdance with Chapter 12 of this Title. L ilt.ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning Existing Lot Size GRFA: Site Coverage: Setbacks: Landscaping: Building Height: LOT 8, BTGHORN SUBD|VIS|ON, SECOND ADD|T|ON Two-family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) 0.87 Acres (37,888 sf) Proposed Lot Size 0.825 Acres (35,937 s0 Standard Allowed Existino Proposed Density: 2DUs+1EHU 0 6,889 sf 7,578 sf Front -20 ft. Sides-15 ft. Rear- 15ft. 22,733 st ' 33'max 0sf 0sf nla nla nla undeveloped undeveloped 2DUs+IEHU 6,694 sf 7,187 si 20 ft. 15 fi. 1sft. 21,562 33'max Zoning Existing Lot Size Proposed Lot Size Standard LOT 9, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, SECOND ADDITION Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) 0.34 Acres (14,941 s0 0.372 Acres (16,204 sf) Cunently Proposed Allowed Existinq Allowed Density: GRFA: Site Coverage: Setbacks: 1DU+1EHU 4,160 sf (+250) 2,988 sf Front -20 ft. Sides-15 ft. Rear- 1Sft. 8,956 sf 1DU 2DUs+1EHU 4,720 et (+2501 3,211 el 20ft 15ft 15ft 9,722 el 33'max Landscaping: Building Height 33'max *The existing development statistics for Lot 9 are not known. o o Zoning Existing Lot Size Proposed Lot Size LOT 10, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, SECOND ADDITION Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) 0.30 Acres (12,898 s0 0.367 Acres (15,986 sf) 1DU+1EHU * Currently Proposed Standard Allowed Existino Allowed Density: GRFA: Site Coverage: Setbacks: Landscaping: Building Height 33'max *Lot 10 is an undeveloped lot. 3,650 sf 2,580 sf Front -20 ft. Sides-15 ft. Rear- 15ft. 7,739 sf 2DUs+1EHU 4,697 sf 3,197 sf 20ft 15ft r5ft 9,592 sf 33'max LOT 11, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, SECOND ADDITION Zoning Two-family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) Existing Lot Size 2.23 Acres (97,139 sf) Proposed Lot Size to be eliminated Standard Allowed Existino Prooosed Density: 2DUs+1EHU t GRFA:9,457 sf Site Coverage: 19,428 sf * Setbacks: Front -20 ft. i Sides-'l5 ft. Rear- 1sft. Landscaping: 58,283 sf Building Height 33'max *Lot 1'l is an undeveloped lot. nla nla nla ' nla nla nla nla Zoning Existing Lot Size Proposed Lot Size LOT 12, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, SECOND ADDITION Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) 0.71 Acres (30,928 sf) 2.94 Acres (128,066 sf) Currently Proposed Proposed Density: GRFA: Site Coverage: Setbacks: 2DUs+1EHU 1DU 6,146 sf(+250) 3,350 sf 2DUs+lEHU l{,003 sf 25,613 sf 20ft 1sft r5ft 76,840 sf 33'max Landscaping: 18,557 sf Building Height 33'max 6,185 sf Front -20 ft. Sides-15 ft. Rear- 1Sft. 1,378 sf 22.5ft 63 fU17.5 ft 16 ft' 28,769 sf 31' 1DU 6,421 sf 2,935 sf 22.5ft 17 .5 fti17 .5 ft 16 ft- 124,385 sf'' 31' "The roof of the existing structure encroaches 1.5 ft more than is acceptable into a required setback. This is a legally non-conforming situation.**lncludes natural areas not to be disturbed bv construction. o o <= s .o .t 'iJ 'ic < E s o u s)(r) .s o +:E =.:>-6 .='4 .9s .< .o-.t 6 o "O o\ @ u o J &6{ @ o o <= ( I t( a t\ <9 s o +-t E -rf g o L'q, r.r) g CLO :.p >t .E -O gJ '6(n L o -.9 .9 dt N "6 vt o J F.('r8 (o (t) and west LuPine Drivearea. Mapwasproditiil'iiii"',i"tpnotographii"iliintlseT'thusrecentconstuctton does not appear on the map. SCALE: 1,, = 100, .a the Brilge Road and west Lupine Drive area. *;:;'i;;;;;;;i;;tz;1'a,'^2i1i!^;:*!,"::!J,,'fi,3i3!,i,.!271!;!f!, Y"Z:' ;f;i':,";;:;'lJ;,"iii"i;:;;;;l;;;i";;;7es7,'tnu' recent construction does not appear on the maP. SCALE: 1"= 100'