HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocuments 1983-1987'l t
Bighorn 1'Addition,
Lot 1, Blk 1,
Gommon Elements
210 1 111 02 012
t o
1987
(ft,pi
ff-6J znn ){av/
ORDINANCE NO. 33
Seri es of 1987 6')-/
! y fr,nl*n ,U
AN oRDINANcE AMENDING oRDINANcE N0. 37, sERIEs 0;l' Q, F87
OF 1983 TO ELIMINATE CONDITIONS RESTRICTING THE
NUMBER OF DRIVEWAYS TO SERVE THE RESUBDIVISION OF
LOT 1, BLOCK 1, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, FIRST ADDITION
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Vail is of the opj nion that there are
no negative impacts resulting from two driveways to serve Lots lA and 18, Block l,
Bighorn Subdivisjon, First Addition; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has unanimously recorunended
approval of this amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Town Councjl considers that it is in the public benefit to allow
Lots lA and 18, Block l, Bjghorn Subdjvision, First Addition, to have indjvidual
driveway access.
NOhJ, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOll|N COUNCIL OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
2 of 0rdinance No. 37, Series of 1983 is Section l. Subparagraph 2 of Section
hereby amended to read as follows:
Z. Access to Lots 1A and 1B shall be limjted to two driveways as general 1y
indicated on the site plan by Peter Jamar Associates, Inc', dated
September 4, 1987.
Section 2.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of thjs ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it
would have passed this ordjnance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence,
clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts'
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invaljd.
Sect ion 3.
The reoeal or the repeal and re-enactment of any provisions of the Vail Municipal
Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued,
any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof,
any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or
by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any
provision hereby shall not revjve any provision or any ordinance previously
repea'l ed or superseded un'less expressly stated herein.
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS day of
1987, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the _ day of
,7987 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal
Bui1ding, VaiI, Colorado-
Ordered published jn full this day of , 1987.
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING ANO ORDERED PUBLISHED
th is day of , 7987.
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pimela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Town Council
Cornmunity Development Department
October 6, L987
A request for an amendment to Series of L983, pertaining to Block 1-, Bighorn Subdivision,Applicant: James Sheahan
Ordinance No. 37,the rezoning of Lot L,First Addition
r.BACKGROUND ON THTS REQUEST
In October of l-983, Lot I, Block 1, Bighorn First Addition, was subdivided and rezoned to allow for two single farnily lots. Previous zoning on the property was Primary/Secondary. The application was approved with conditions restricting the total amount of GRFA for each lot, that only one driveway be developed to serve both lots, and that an existing sewer line be relocated by the applicant. The Planning Commission memorandum, minutes,and the ordinance approving this application are included for your information.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED REQUEST
The applicant has requested the removal of the restriction liniting access off of Lupine Drive to one driveway. The attached letter to Tom Braun from Peter Jamar Associates outlines the applicantrs rationale for this reguest. To sunmarize, the main justification for allowing two driveways lies in the fact that they can be developed without the removal of any existing vegetation on the properties.
Irr. sTeFF RESPONSE TO THrS REoUEST
In reviewing the history of this application, it is evident that the applicants originally proposed one driveway cut. The staff recommendation acknowledged this aspect of the proposal , but did not condition approval of the request on their being only one driveway. It is assuned that the reason for one driveway was to minimize any inpact on the mature trees on the lot.
Following the devetoprnent of one single family structure on Lot B, it has been demonstrated that a second driveway accessing Lupine Drive can be accommodated without affecting the lotts vegetation. The newly proposed
driveway alignment also presents no appreciable impact on adjacent properties in the area.
II.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATTON
Staff would recommend approval of the reguested amendment to Ordinance No. 37, Series of i-983. while a condition of approval was originally iruposed on this zonLnq, lirniting the number of driveways to one, staff finds it difficult to argue the merits of the reguested arnendment.
It should be noted that the Planning Cornmission action on this request is advisory. Action by the Council will be required to amend the ordinance originally adopting this zoning. In ttlis reqard, we would recommend the following condition be incorporated into any arnendments to the existing ordinance No. 37:
l. Access to Lots A and B shatl be limited to two driveways as generally indicated on the development plan by Peter Jamar Associates, fnc., dated September 4, L987.
(l*^r^1,^ L 4r'r*{, *
c--..--'9.
PJ-anning and Environmental Cornmission
Conmunity Development Departrnent
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
r.
--1 a^\
September 28, 1987
A request for an arnendment to Series of l-993, pertaining to Block 1-, Bighorn Subdivision,Applicant: James Sheahan
BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST
In October of 1983, Lot l, Block l, Bighorn First Addition, was subdivided and rezoned to all_ow for two single fanily lots. previous zoning on the property was Primary/Secondary. The application was approved with conditions restricting th- total arnount of GRFA for each lot, that only one driveway be developed to serve both lots, and that an existing sewer r-ine-be rerocated by the applicant. The planning Commission menorandum, minuces,and the ordinance approving this application are incruded for your inforrnation.
Ir.
Tle applicant has requested the removat of the restriction limiting access off of Lupine Drive to one diiveway. The attached retter to Tom Braun from peter Jamar Associates outrines the applicantrs rationare for this requesc. To sumrnarize, the main justification for allowing two driveways lies in the fact that they can be developed without the removal of any existing vegetation on the properties.?
IIT. STAFF RESPONSE TO THIS REQUEST
fn reviewinq the history of this application, it is evident tnaf tne appricinr= orisinliit-;;;;;!ed one driveway cut. The staff reconmendati6n-acinowledged this aspect of the proposal, but did not condition approvar of the request on their being only one driveway. It is assumed that the reason for one driveway wa-s to rninirnize any impact on the rnature trees on the 1ot.
Forrowing the development of one single family structure on Lot B, it has been demonstrated that a seclnd arivewiy accessing Lupine Drive can be accommodated without affecting the lotrs vegetation. The newly pioposed driveway arignrnent arso presents no appreciabtl imlact on adjacent properties in the area.
7**
Ih,*,t
Ordinance No. 37,the rezoning of Lot 1,First Addition
f::lt'
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff would recornmend approval of the requested amendrnent to Ordinance No. 37, Series of 1983. While a condition of approval was originally imposed on this zoning, liniting the number of driveways to one, staff finds it difficult to argue the merits of the reguested amendment.
It should be noted that the Planning Commission action on this request is advisory. Action by the Council will be required to arnend the ordinance originally adopting this zoning. fn this regard, we would recornmend the following condition be incorporated into any arnendments to the existing Ordinance No. 37:
t. Access to Lots A and B shall be linited to two driveways as generally indicated on the development plan by Peter Jamar Associates, Inc., dated Se.pternber 4, L987 .
l.
Attached is an applicarion for resubdi'ision and rezonLng for Lot l,Block l, Bi.ghorn subdivision, First Addi.tion. r am requlsting a change froo tr^'o ianily residentiar (42,2s3 sq. ft.) to t.,,o single farnily lors (2I,726.5 sq. fr. approximarely),
The reasons for the request are as follows:
August 29, 1983
IIr. Peter Patten
Zoning Adminis trator
Town of tr'ai I
Vai1, Colorado 81657
llr. PaEten:
i) The i::ass creaEed by two single family houses will have much less impact on the site than the mass crealed by a duplex.
2) The height required by tr-'o houses r,rill be less than that required by a duplex.
The large stand of
houses.
lluch nore a ttent i on
while retaining the
and its vegetation.
Duplex home sites across the strean have less streeE frontage than we are proposing.
In closing, we feel as long-tine VaiI residents there is a shortage of single fanrill' hornes; primarilv due ro the high cost of land. We ieel that this is one of the fer" sites that lends itseLf to resubdivision.
Sincere Jt 7 (/tl
, :-= / . - /l/l*'/'"''----L. bneanan
1\
4)
trees can be left undisturbed by the use of 1gr)
and decail can be given to landscaping
general feel of the surrounding area
Rocky S.Chris topher
s)
JES/RSC:dvb
\
'
"tl .l (
PEC 9/26/83 -4-
\\
@
6.
Appl icants: Bi I i and pattilnd-ersoi-, RusGl I l4otta
Jim savre explained lh:: l{^It:l:llglns the lot tines, there viourd be no change in the square foctage of each propeityl
Viele rnoved and Pierce seconded to approve the uest for the subdivision the staff recommenZation.vote was 5-th Corcoran a s!alntnQ.
pt rcants: JanEiJlreahii . 'rr ' ' sq', L). .,dnes 5neahan & Rocky Chri stophef
approve the
1?
sljgl=:=nrllE_s ubd i v i s i on r the staif-mEhorvr't-uriher res tri cJ ion -tEaT-thE
-)
7.
Peter pat.uen pnesented the request. C"l::::l,reminded the board that they rvere only to recomnend the zone to the Town Council. Eskwith itated that the application for the mTnoFlubdivision r.i i"rtirgent.on.tn. ..rori"g."pi"..u felt thal.he had no problem, piper was generarry inl.t.ineo-;;-;;;;;;"i'singte famiry structure,but there was more tendency for th"e stitt to. zone ror dupiexes. piper fert that thot the applicants' reason staled "mass createo uy ir.ro-siniT"-rur:)y structures rvill be Jess than that required uv_u ouJi.*;,,.t" r"ii.iriJt"ii,J'in.ruuru in square foota-oe made it difficurt to agree. The reason-,'rne neigir;-;d;i.; by trvo houses rvil be less than that required uv.-orii.-.'" pipu. r6sponded io uv stating that usualry the height has rittle regard as to'wneiirgl or 1ot a house is singre fami]y or dup)ex."The large stand of treei can be left-undisturbei [v ir'J'rJ" of tr.ro housei.,, piper stated that there would be increased ritu.ou".a_oe, increasec, driveways, and an increased footprint, ',.herefore h;-;ir;;;""a wrttr-trrri ;;;;;; ror the request.
Donovan agreed rvith Piper and added that.this.r,ras spot zoning, and that the commun.ity vrourd not sain from this change. -irr" ija"J inJi-tn5r";;;';" quarantee that there H:'l.l;;r:in3o[]o'"t' ror a iezone in the tuture. -sil."i"rt
u.'" prui"nt-.".""iit
Sheehan responded that he vrould not have to have the maximum GRFA or heights. Eskwith added that the pEC could-p1a5:9..iirr'iiions.^ sheahan ttul"j ilgr i," was_wilinq to ;::'i:':li.iff';;':i;i :l-il:u idlt';#h:- Pait;; ;;pi;i;;; that a singr;'iiliiv
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ ECT:
MEI'lORANDUM
Pl anni ng and Environmental Cominission
Conrnuni ty Development Department
September 2l , .l983
Request for a minor subdivision and rezoning Residentjal to trvo Single Famtily jots on Lot Applicant: James E. Sheahan
ZONE \t I F I # UNITS
ALL0'y{ED
to t,convert one lot zoned
Block 1, Bighorn lst.
It would be difficult in this matter to discuss the tr.ro requests separately due to their reiiance upon each other. Thus, thJ r"ro-"ili i.Jit ilru twJ iequisii-basicaily as one to better understand the impacts and meriis of the overall effect.
The statistics of "before and after,' are as fol.l orvs:
ExistingLotl R 42,253 New Lot A SFR Zl,126 New Lot B SFR Zi,1?6
(llote: The proposal results in a net
GRFA
2 5862 1 39E7 _1 398i
increase of GRFA of ZlrlZ sq ft.)
suitable to evaluate this
The proposal also includes desiEnated building envelopes for each nerv lot which keep structures out of the "blui zone" ivatanitre i'u.ii.j-on-ihe south side of the lot. ..One access drive off of Lupine Drive is uiso-pioporeo. The applicant,s reasons for this request are attached. Note that rte ools-iot proposed any special development standard restrictions other than thoie ir-;;; sin oistrict and that he r'rould relocate the_ existing sewer line and associateJ-u]rur"nt t.hat runs through the middle of proposed Lot A.
CRITERIA EVALUATION
Ii:;::it:]'l';ili::t'tions state cri teria vihich are
uihe burden of proof shall rest rvith the applicant to shorv that the application is.in compliance with the intent and purpoiis.of this gnuJr"., 6"-roiing-o.jinur,..arrd other pertinent regulations that the.PEC deems appiicable. cre consicirltion shall be given to the iecommendations old:^gy public'!-ounii.r, ui.ilitv ioiiu,,,iu,and other aqencies ccnsul'ued under l7.l6.ogo. 'ine prc'shill ievrew ti,"-.JIii'.ltion and considei its appropriateness in regard to Torrn "i-viii'poticiei ;;i.;;;;'""to subdivision controi , densities proposed, regulations,'o.bjnun..s and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental i"t"g.iiv'una'.onpuiilirity-wii,rr"
s urround i ng I and uses. ',
,L .t e/2) /83
4.lq![qlili_lX tvi th Surroundi n Area
, Blk l, Eighorn lst -Z-
from the Upper
relocating of
the rezoning
s'
I f t.Dens i ty
The nunrber of units resulting__in thisproposal are the sane as the existing situation. However,. potentially, there could be an inc..is" in GRFA of 2112 square feet if both single-famiiy tot ovrners-br;ii'ii-tn. maximum.It should be noted here that this roi could easily,u"i ite subdivision regulations concerning minimum lot sizes for tne "nesiJeniiit ton. 1^erutting jl lng duplex tots and four units. Thus,_this p.oporii.oJta u" u.iuiitv "limiting density by proposing trvo single faimirv rbti-raiher ttran trvo duplex rocs.
Proposed Site Plan
The single access off of Lupine Drive is a good solution for the tlvo ne\,/lgtr. Hor'rever, the proposbd buiraing'envelopu,,r,'orii"be-eriminated and the siting of the houses'reft until tie DRB i!".r-irrr.r-tillv'.un be more closely studied according to ail .onii.urnrs ano opportunit.i es.
Server Line and Easement
As of this date, we have not received any rvritten approval Eagle Vailey r'rater and sanitation 0istriits concernil,s-ih"the ser'rer line and easenent. This must be outaineJ uirJ."goes to Council.
2.
?
The entire surrounding area is zoned Residential vrith very few'lots having the buildable site area of Lot l. The houses in lfre a.ea are general)y duplexes contained in a single structure or attached structures. The proposal of tw:ij single family buildiigs on this site or nuuiiv-in acre will not be incompatible with the neighborhood in terms ;; ;;;;;iy; scale, tot size or remaining open space.
RECOI1MENDAT I ON
rhe community Development Department recommends approval of the minor subdivision and rezoning proposais. The benefit to the rown i! a potentiar decrease.in density if one considers that_it ippears this could,eut ir,e requirement for two duplex rots. The singl.e lglitv structures proposed wiri oe compatible with surrounding developrnent and will be sited according to future ona aiprovai."'""Conditions of approval are as fojlows:
1. The set'rer line and easenrent vacation and relocation must be verified in writing 9y Upper Eagle Vailey l{ater and sanitation Districts before the proposal goes to Council for rezoning approval.-
2. The building envelopes must be elirninated.
r- :.; r...r'F. a.,'
PETER JAMAR ASSOC!ATES, lNC.
PLANNING, OEVELOPMENTANALYSIS, RESEAFCH
September 8, 1987
Tom Braun, Senior Planner
Tor,rn of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road, I'Iest Vail , Colorado 81657
Dear Ton:
rn 1983, tot 1' Brock 17 Bighorn First subdivision lras subdivided and rezoned in order to create two single farnily lots from one duplex lot. At the tirne of t.he subdivision and rezoning a restriction vas placed upon the lots r'rhich provided that "there sha]1 be onJ.y one drivevray off of Lupine orive accessing both lots.r' The purpose of this application is to remove this restriction in order to allorv each home to have its ovrn access onto Lupine Drive. one residence has been constructed upon Lot B and access currently exists for t.his single farnily c}relling in approxinately the sane Location indicated previously for aicess to both lots. The new requested drivelay vrould provide a separate access for the single family dr.relling to be built upon Lot A.
9lhen Lot 1 r.ras subdivided there r{as concern expressed regarding the retention of the Iarge number of existing Lrees upon-the site. since the exact siting of the dwelling units wis unknovrn at the tine' it vras fett that a single drivevray access for the two separate hornes would possibly serve to rninirnize lhe future possibility of tree removal. Holrever, now that more detailed sit,e planning has taken place and one of the trvo homes has been constructed it is clear that a second driveway access can be constructed vrithout any removal of Lhe existinq trees. This driver'ray access would be located in the sane l6cation as the previous utility easement which was relocated (see attached site plan) .
The owner berieves that the provision of separate access for each hone wirl elininate a nunber of potentiar pioblems in the future regarding maintenance and parkin| as werr is provicling aaaiiionar privacy for each hone.
l:' 'the driveways bringing
.-:J. "-i
The configuration of the nen access would result in being located to the rear of each hone as opposed to
Suite 308. Vail National Bank Euilding
108 South Frontage Boad V1/est . Vail, Colorado 81657 . (903) 476-7154
igrli"yti t",
Pranner
Page 2
traffic into the side yard. rt is a rnuch rnore desirable solution now that the exact rocation of each structure and the lack of impact upon the existing trees is knovrn.
r_hope this clarifies the request being nade. please ret me know if you have any questions or need further infornation.
Pet.er Jan
PJ:ns
Enclosu re
. 'Y.4., - i:..-,:;^t."'-+...-':..
. -=.;-.gtd
Janar, AfCP
PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
PLANNING, DEVELOPN4ENT ANALYSIS, RESEARCH
Septenber 8' 1987
Tom Braun, Senior Planner
Town of VaiI
75 S. Frontage Road' west
Vai1, Colorado 8L657
Dear Tom:
In 1983, tot 1r BLock 1r Bighorn First Subdivision ltas subdivided
and rezoned in order to create two single family lots fron one
duplex lot.. At the time of the subdivision and rezoning a restriction vras placed upon the lots which provided that "there shall be only one driveway off of Lupine Drive accessing both lots.tr The purpose of this application is to remove this reetriction ln order to alLow each home to have its own access
onto Lupine Drive. One residence has been constructed upon Lot B
and access currently exists for this single fanily dwelling in
approxinately the same location indicated previously for access to bottr lots. The new reguested driveway would provide a
separate access for the single fanily dwelling to be built upon
Lot A.
when Lot L was subdivided there qtas concern expressed regarding the retention of the large number of existing trees upon the site. Since the exact siting of the dwelling units was unknown at the tine, it. was felt that a single driveway access for the two
separate homes would possibly serve to mininize the future possibility of tree rernoval. However, nout that nore detailed site planning has taken place and one of the two homes has been
constructed it is cLear that a second driveway access can be
constructed without any removal of the existing trees. This
driveway access would be Located in t.he sane location as the
previous utility easement which was rel.ocated (see attached site
plan) .
The owner believes that the provision of separate access for each
hone will elininate a nunber of potential problems in the future
regarding maintenance and parking as wefl as providing additional privacy for each home.
The configuration of the new access would result in the driveways
being located to the rear of each home as opposed to bringlng
Suile 308, Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Road West . Vail, Colorado 81657 . (303) 476-7154
Tom Brauni Seniqg Planner
Town of vaif __!Septenber 8, 19f,
Page ?
traffic into
now that the
impact upon
I hope thls if you have
the side yard. It is a much more desirable solution
exact location of each structure and the lack of
the existing trees is known.
clarifies the request being made. Pl.ease let me know
any questions or need further informatlon.
PJ: ns
Enclosure
Peter Jamar, AICP
o o
1984
Uppen Enelr Vnu-ev
WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICTS
846 FOREST ROAD . VAIL. COLORADO 81657
(303) 476-7480
May 8, 1984
Town of Vail
P. O. Box I00 Vail, Colorado 81658
RE: Easement Vacate for Lot l, Block L, Bighorn
Subdivision 1st Addition
Dear Sir:
The property owner to the above lot has requested to vacate an interior utility easement. The vacating of the
easement wil-1 be addressed at the next scheduled Upper Eagle
Val1ey Sanitation District Board Meeting, on May 15, 1984.I will recommend the Board vacate thi.s easement.
The property owner has already relocated the District
sewer line over to the east property 1ine. I hope this l-etter will aLlow him to proceed with the re-plat and obtaining a building permit.
Sincerely,
o a7
Y,;g'.4
David Krenek, P.E.
Technical Director
DK: pf
ff Prnntcteefl c DtsTntcTs - ARRoWHEAD METRo WATER o AVoN METRo WATER . BEAVER CREEK --,1 tll METRo wATER . BERRy cREEK METRo wATER e EAGLE.VAIL METRo wATER . EDWARDs wp:.ta /' c!€4N \
/ltl LAKE cREEK MEADows wATER r uppER EAGLE vALLEy sANrrATron . uo,l uofiit @ ! ff coNSoLrDArED wATER o VAIL wATER AND sANrrATroN
EASEMENT DESCRIPTION
A strip of Land across Lot 1, Block l, Ilighorn subdivision, Firsr Addition,
Town of vail, colorado, according to Ehe map recorded under ll.eception No.
97239 in the office of Elre tragle county, colorirdo, clerk and Recorder, sai<i
sErip being 20 feeu wide and lying 10 feet on each side of the f ollor.rine
described cencerline:
Beginning aE a point on Ehe northrresterly line of said LoE 1, whence the mosE
norcherly c('rner of said Lot I bears N 49'11' E 19.01 feeE distant.: lhence
s 46o13'04" E 92.48 feer; rhence s 44o51t14" E 83.16 feet Eo rhe sourheasEerly
line of said Lol l, whence the mosE easterly corner of said Lot I bears
N 34"41 ' E 2(.48 feet distanc.
TCGET!{EP. I,JITH
A 15 foot r,Iide strip of land l)'ing adjacent to, norgherly of, and p;rrallel
nith the southeasterry line of said Lot l, rhe bearing of said line being
N 34'41',E.
Tite side lines of the abo';e strips are shortened or lengthened to terrninaEe
aE DroDertv lines.
LOT 2 s46<'i3'O4"E,92.48'
s 440 5 t'14" E,83. t6'
oo
Exisfing lO
New l5 Sewer
LOT 8
,*
+
= IOO
EAGLE VALLEY ENGINEeRING AND SURVEYING lNC,, Voil. Calorodo
Ulility Eo sernent
Eosement
R= 847- 69
L - 214.51
"ii;l+
.oA
S:"s".\ \-o.
\i (**g,'"i*f.\
.//
>71 /r /a
o o
1983
t t
ORDINANCE 37
Series of 1983
AN ORDINANCE SUBDIVIDING AND REZONING
LOT I, BLOCK I, BIGHORN lst SUBDIVISION
TO CONVERT IT FROM A DUPLEX LOT TO THO
SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS t,llTH RESTRICTIONS
t^IHEREAS,
resuiting
a duplex
the Town
frorn the
upon said
Council is of the
allowance of two
lot; and
opinion that
s i ng I e-fami ly
there are no negative impacts
residences rathlr ttran ' r''',i
WHEREAS, the zoning proposed is compatib]e with the sumounding area and. li'mitations
0poi the GRFA below those normally allolable in.the Single Family Residentiai
zone district are proposed; and
l^lHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental commission has recommended approval
of said subdivision and rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the Town Counci] considers that jt is in the pub'lic benefit to subdivide
and rezone said lot.
NO|'l, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
Section l.
The officjal zoning map of the
manner:
Lot 1, Block l, Bighorn lst Addition shall be zoned Single Family Residential
and divided into parcels of equal size.
Section 2.
Town of Vai I s hal I be al tered i n the fo1 'l owi ng
than 3300 square feet
Drive accessing both lots
and Associates dated
The following conditions apply to said rezoning:
'| . Each single family lot sha'l I be at'lowed no more
of Gross Residential Floor Area.
2, There sha'l ) be only one driveway off of Lupine
as generally shown on the site plan by Baldwin
August 29, .l983.
3. The sewer line existjng on the eastern part of said lot must be relocated
as per the letter from David Krenek of Upper Eagle Va1 1ey water and
Sanitation Djstricts to Peter patten dated September 23, l9g5
a;.t
I
I
Section 3
q
Section 4
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordjnance is
necessary and proper for the hea'l th, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and
the inhabitants thereof.
Section 5
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal
Code as provided in this ordinance shal'l not affect any right which has acsrued,
any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof,
any prosecution commenced' nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under
or by virtue of the provision repealed or repea'l ed and reenacted. The repeal of
any provision hereby sha'l 'l not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
The minor subdivision
on September 26, .1983
the Town Counci'l .
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED
1983, and a publ.ic hearing
of October
Panela A. Brandmeyer
Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND
approval given
shall be null
by the Planning
and vo'id if this
and Envjronme4tal Commission
ordinance is denied by
ON FIRST READING THIS 4th
sha'l I be held on this ordinance
lay of October
on the
Counci l
18th
Chambers of
day -
the
Vail Municipal Building, Vai1,
, .|983, at 7:30 p.m. in the
Col orado.
Ordered published in full this 4th day of October , 'l gg3.
I
APPROVED
th is
ON SECOND
18th
READING
day of
AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
October , '1983.
Pamela A. Brandmeyer
Town Clerk
Rodney I 'ifer,
Rodney
T0: Planning and Envjronmental Cornrnission
- FR0M: Conrnunity Developirrent Department
DATE: September 2l ,.1983
SUBJECT: Request for a minor subdivision and rezoning to convert one lot zoned
Residential to tlo Singie Famlily lots on Lot l, Block l, Bighorn 1st.
Appl icant: James E. Sheahan I
It wou.l d be difficu1 t in this matter to discuss the tvro requests separately due I to thejr reljance upon each other. Thus, the memo will treat the two requests I basjcally as one to better understand the impacts and merits of the overall effect. I
rhe statistics or t":il: "0 "il'" "f,r,riil'' GRFA I
MEMORANDUM
txistingLotl R 42,253 2 5862 New Lot A SFR 21,126 I 3987 New Lot B SFR 21,126 -1 3987
(Note: The proposal results in a net increase of GRFA of ?112 sq ft.)
The proposai also includes designated building envelopes for each new lot which
keep structures out of the "blue zone" avalanche hazard on the south side of
the lot. One access drive off of Lupine Drive is also proposed. The applicant's
reasons for this request are attached. Note that he does not proposed any special
development standard restrict'ions other than those in the SFR district and that
he would relocate the existing sewer ljne and associated easement ihat runs
through the middle of proposed Lot A.
CRiTERIA EVALUATION
The subdivision regulations state criteria which are sujtab'l e to evaluate this proposal as a who I e:
"ihe burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of th'is chapter, the zoning ordinance
and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems appf icab1e. Due consideration
shall be given to the recommendations nrade by public agencies, utjlity coinpanies
and other agencies consul*ued under .l7..l6.090. The PEC shall rer,iew the application
and consider its appropriateness in regard to Toi.rn of Va'i 1 policies relating
to subdivisjon control , densities proposed, reguiations, ordinances and resolutions
and other applicabie documents, environmental integrity and compaiibility with
surroundi nq Iand uses, "
b'Lo t l,o Blk I, Bighorn 1st -2-
Density
The nurnber of units resulting in thisproposai are the same as the existing sjtuation. However, potentia11y, there could be an increase in GRFA of
2112 square feet if both single family 1ot owners bujlt to the maximum.It should be noted here that this lot could easiiy meet the subdivision
regulations concernjng minimum lot sizes for the Residential zone resulting jn tvro duplex'l ots and four units. Thus, thjs proposal could be actually limiting density by proposing trvo single faimily lots rather than two duplex
I ots.
Proposed Site Plan
The s'i ngle access off of Lupine Drive is a good solution for the two new lots. Hovrever, the proposed building envelopes should be el iminated and
the siting of the houses left until the DRB level when they can be more
closely studied according 'uo all constraints and opportunfties.
Sewer Line and Easement
As of thjs date, we have not recejved any written approval from the Upper
Eagle Va11ey l,,later and San.itatjon Districts concerning the relocating of the ser^rer line and easenent. This must be obtained before the rezoninq
goes to Council.
4. lsqs
The entire surrounding area js zoned Residential with very few lots having
the buildable site area of Lot l. The houses in the area are generally
duplexes contained jn a single structure or attached structures. The proposal of two sfngle family buildings on this site of nearly an acre will not be
incompatible with the neighborhood in terms of density, sca1e, lot size or remai ni ng open space,
RECOMMENDAT I ON
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the minor subdivision
and rezoning proposa'l s. The benefit to the Town is a potential decrease in density if one considers that it appears this could meet the requirement for two dupiex lots. The single family structures proposed will be'compatible with
surrounding development and will be sited according to future DRB approval .
Conditions of approval are as follows:
l. The server line and easement vacation and re'location must be verified in writing by Upper Eagle Va11ey l,,later and Sanitation Districts before the proposal -ooes to CounciI for rezoning approval.
2. The bu'i lding envelopes must be el iminated.
9/2t / 83
I
t'
2.
?
t
August 29, 1983
IIr . Peter PaEten
Zoni.ng Adminis crator
Tor,'n of Vail
Vai1, Colorado 81657
IIr. Patten:
At.tached is an application for resubdivision and rezoning for Lot l,
Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision, First. Addition. I am requesting a change
from two fanily residential (42,253 sq. ft.). to two single family lots
(21,126.5 sq. ft. approximately).
The reasons for the request are as follows:
1) The aass created by two single family houses will have much
less irnpact on the site than the mass created by a duplex.
2) The height required by two houses r-ri1l be less than that
required by a duPlex '
The large stand of trees can be left undisEurbed by the use of i trr)
hou ses
lluch nore attention and detail can be given to landscaping
!r'hile retaining the general feel of the surrounding area
and its vegetation.
Duplex home sites across the stream have less street frontage
lhan ;-e are proposing.
In closing, we feel as long-time Vail residents there is a shortage of
single fanily homes; primarily due to Ehe high cost of land. We feel
that thi-s is one of the few sites that lends itself to resubdivision.
a')
s)
Yr ( lrl ) //t /
-/./ltU//a"\'.-,-" ,/ |L. Sheanan Rocky S. Chr i s topher
I
!
I
I
Sinc er e
T.Fc /pca.dvb
PUBLTC NOTTCE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GMN that the Planning and Environmental
Cornmission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the municipal code of the
Tor'im of VaiI on September 28, l-987 at 3:00 PM in the Town of Vail
Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
l-. A request for an exterior alteration of less than i-OO sqluare
feet to locate a storage locker on the west side of the Bel1
Tower Building at 201- East core Creek Drive.
Applicant: BeIl Tower Associates, Ltd.
2. A request for a conditional use pennit in order to operate
commercial storage in the Concert Hall plaza Building on Lot
1, Lionshead 4th Addition.
Applicant: Vail Investment Co.
3. A request for a minor subdivision to create two
Primary/Secondary lots on Lot 4, Block 4, VaiI Village 3rd
Filing, 443 Beaver Dam Road.
Applicants: Ben and Martha Rose
4. A request to anend Ordinance 37, Series of L983, pertaining
to the rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision, First
Addition.
Applicant: James Sheahan
, ..)
I)t lv
I
The appJ-ications and inforrnation about the proposals are availabl_e
in the zoning administratorrs office during regular office hours
for public inspection.
TOWN OF VAIL
COMMUNTTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
THOMAS A. BRAUN
Zoning Administrator
Published in the VaiI Trail on September t_1, L997.
/ ,6*z /.e*X E.A
SL.tn^
f ?/ Buak /, 8/6 rttutJ
h); l/,a,.n D' Qet'oil #7 fur.y H'//s 0t'"e 6n/tu'L?/ Co Setto U
,&*z( S. S;ay /
2/"-/ 5. ome,& #6/z
fu4l@r / 8ozz.{
tol g 6,4horn SuJ
&b{ n *€/tu
? 07 L,+oi<, Drtre
'^'l /-, L D/r.-+2
ft"O 0, 4/6n,fia m 519b Stwrny L<<. + /e /O
h//a> ,TX' 7{zz-s:
//4,*3
bl 2, 6o Ow,(Ar(
ElWeFeStS t-\-.
n #4 4/4tt/e I t\ e'si/'"
h,A, ilY /oo17
"/
l
0z,q
9e/
rr'a,l
o
brz, &.at 2 9AWau
&yt".*r0 6tQ
&uk 6qq
Va, /, (a 8/ess
79,EroctQ, Eto6Mn /2*,)
fm"k C, sharb.
7gz Lr'aco/.t F/e, e
&v/Aa., Co AoSoz
*
\Ail Associates Real Estate
A Subcidiary of Vail Assmiatcs. Inc., Crcaton of Vail and Bcarrcr Crcek
April 15, 1983
Mr. Jim Sayer
Town Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail-, CO 81657
Jim:
Pursuant to our phone conversatlon, Itm enclosing the 1982
avalanche study done by Art Mears for Lot 1, Block 1, Bighorn
Subdivision, First Addition.
Because of the unusual location of the rear corner pins (i.e.
I-n the creekbed), I rrould llhe to get a l-etter from you as to
the Town of Vai,lts positlon concerning the hundred year flood
plain and the Town of Vailts requirements for building on the above
lot.
Sincerely,
_Y4I!_AsSOCI-N[ES REAL ESTATE, rNC,
\ .-l- r',
-4,'{-,4 i-ff q*,J1,\_-\2)a* .), -,)/- :.
Rocky S. Chrlstopher
Associate Broker
RSC/pd
Enc Losure
Box 7, Vail, Colorado 81658 . Vail Village Officc (303) 47645@ o LionsHcad Office (303) 4763393
Avon Officc, Box 5t3, Avon, Colorado 81620. (303) 949-4404 o Toll Free Denver Arca 571-5594
o o
1982
o
AVALqNCHE HAZARD AND I'IITICATIOII .
LOT I, BLOCK I, BIdH0RII SUBDIVISION,
VAIL, CqLoMDo
t.
PREPARED FOR
I.IRI PATRICK DOUGHERTY
Ar.thur I. ilears, P.E.' Inc.
Gunnfson, Colorado
August, 1982
o
ARTHUR l. MEARS, P.E., tJ,tC.
Natural Hazards Consultanf s'
Arlhut l. Mears ;
222 Easl Gothic Avenue
Gunnison. CO 8123{l
(303) 64 1 -3236
Bichard C. lbcullough
2649 Champa Sl.
Denver, CO 80205
(30:!) 82t1140
August 3, 1982
.
Mr. Patrick Dougherty ,'
Box 2717
Escondito, Ca] ifornia 92025
Dear Mr. Dougherty:
The enclosed study of ava'l anche hazard to your property in Vail was
conducted in accordance with discussions with Rocky Christopher.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sfncerely,
/!llJ/ '\Jquu\( rue1r4
Arthur I. Mears, P.E.
AIl4 : be
Encl osure
ci: Rocky Christopher
Ayabncho Dynemics . O€tsnsa Zonino .Avalsncha Cootrol EngirE ing
OBJECTIVES
The following study of potentia'l avalanche hazard to Lot 1'
Block 1, B'ighorn Subd'ivision, VaiI, Colorado, ivas requested by Mr.
Ricky Christopher of Vai'l 'and Mr. Patrick Dougherty of Escondito'
California. As requested, the study describes the hazard, specifies the
magnitude of avalanche loads, and reconrnends structure locations.
:
TYPE OF AVALANCHE HAZARD
The avalanche hazard was described in a detailed 1975 study to Mr.
Abe Shapiro of Vail. Fr-gure 3 of this previous study (an avalanche map),
surmarizes the findings and is inc'l uded here to show the'location of
Lot l with respect to the flowing and powder avalanche runout zones.
Since the 1975 study was prepared, buildings were constructed on
Lots 9, 1, and 2, on the south side of'Lupine Drive, but Lot 3 (directly
across from Lot 1), has not been bui'l t on. Therefore, the avalanche
boundaries shown near Lot I are correct today.
The design-magnitude flouring avalanches that must be considered in
design and'location of facilities have return periods of 100 years' an
"order-of-magiritude" estimate based on terrain analysis, comparison
with other simi1ar avalanche areas' application of equations of
ayalanche motion, and study of vegetation. l'lhen the design avalanche
occurs, a dense flow of ava'lanche debris will cross Lupine Drive as
shown on the enclosed nap and reach the southern end of Lot 1. Floting
ava'lanches will be moving slowly after crossing Lupine Drive and are
not a major design consideration, as discussed in tJte next section.
Powder avalanches will also occur here and will produce the maior
effect on structures because they cannot be avoided. The design-magni-
tude powder avalanche wil'l deve'lop as dry-snotv ava1anches fall over the
c'l iffs, entrajn air, and flow around and through the aspen forest south
of Lupine Drive. This low-density avalanche fonn wi'l 'l be approximately
30 feet deep and will protluce forces similar to those of an intense wind
gus t.
Avalanche damage ii evfdent in the trees south of Lupine Drive but
not in the coniferu n"u" Lot 1. Therefore, inspection of damage suggests
I
an avalanche of the magnftude described here has not occurred for a long
time (perhaps 50 to 100 years), and has a long return period.
AVALANCHE LOADS AND MiTIGATION
Although Lot I is within range of the design ava'lanche, the des-
tructive potential is m'inor and mitigation is feasible as described
below.
1. Avoidance of the flowing avalanche. The flowing avalanche can
be completely avoided if buildings are located at least 60 feet nortJt
of Lupine Drive. The northern 150 feet of Lot 1 will not be reached by
the design floning avalanche. Buildings should be located in this
portion of the lot.
2. Building reinforcement for powder avalanches. Powder avalanches
extend north of the flowing avalanche 'limits and will affect all of
Lot 1. The design powder avalanches will have the following character-
istics at this location:
?5 n/sec (55 mph)
io kglm3 (0.6 tbs/ft3)
10m (33 ft)
Stagnation pressure: 30 kPa (60 lbs/ftz)
The 60 lb/t*.pressure will have a duration of 5 seconds and wil'l pro-
duce forces on the structure equivalent to that produced by a S-second
gust of wind (clear air at sea level) moving at 150 mph. The ava'lanche
ve1 ocity is much le_ss than 150 mph but the pressures would be equivalent
because the avalanche iS assumed to be 8 times as dense as air'
Buildings on Lot i may safely w-ithstand the powder-avalanche forces
if they are designed for lrag and lift forces induced by avalanche
passage. Eecause of the avalanche depth (33 ft) a'l I surfaces will be
subject to these moderate forces, including walls and the roof. The
rngnitudes of the drag and lift forces wi'l I be of the same order as the
stagnation pressure (60 lbs/ft2), but the values of the forces depend
upon building design details, including orientation, size, and shape.
These design details must be taken into account by the engineer and
architect to determine the final loading.
The 60 lb/f* stagnation pressure is not excessive and is similar
to wind pressures used in design of buildings in areas exposed to
strong wfnds, such as in hurricane areas. Proper design for powder
avalanches in this casewill not necessarily exclude windovrs and doors
facing Lupine Drive providing they can withstand the powder-avalanche
pressures.
ResPectful lY submitted'/-.(i*,,." I tA,l n-v)c(l"utn V. l't't ?fu4
Arthur I. Mears, P.E.
Vel oci ty :
Dens i ty:
Flow thickness:
I f
o
(tl rl
LrJ '\\ \\
'r';,4
(JltJ.
(/?t.
f\dn1
o (v
ll
trl
_l
C)a
t/
.l t'7
(42./
W,
':2 t
i7;.
ra
(l,
L
f
,9
LL
Z/
'€,c o
o c J
(u
E
c I o
c,
T'3 C'&
IF
l.:q
1..1 b.l f.l tal
trtl
q,c o
=o c J
a,E 4J c g
o
C'
CD c,'t
I
n
!,
=a
o
€,o !)
lrJ
T&i:"frlii/,7.2 t irirrt
illllll>,111:irtrtrrrirr:iiirirrtrr/Llrtttrirtt /at,"///'
ril
tl
il
^l .il
9t
il
tl
,()l
I
.. :
=q H.tr
OF.
o.5
a o c u,
l;\
Ir iJ
!i
wffi
[,i;:r,:&
ffi,r9,, .' .{1 s:lgl (.-7'..'.'ff
;i .$...:-.'.
:.'.?.'.t;: -.f-r'.)
.Al/^
17 1.Y firti tttfh ,t t{i
{ {,i.
+.'ct-- o -!r{r #g
.attaa
'. a:4 7i'w;:i