Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-0809 PEC4. A request for a worksession for a proposed major subdivision (Trapper's Ridge) to create thirty-three Hillside Residential lots to be located on Lot 3, Block C, Tail Ridge and Lots 1, 1, and 21, Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 31 West, generally located north of 1 -70 and west of the Vail Ridge Subdivision. Applicant: Jahn Ulbrich, represented by Gateway Development, Inc. (Gary Arthur) Planner: Jinn Curnutte 5. A request for a worksession to amend the approved development plan for the Briar Patch Condominiums, located at 1390 Buffehr Greek Road /Lot F, Lions Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2. Applicant: Briar Patch Condominium Assoc., represented by David Leach Planners Shelly Mello 6. A request for a modification to the conditional use permit for the snow dump to allow an expansion of the road located at 1309 Vail Talley Drive/an unplatted parcel located west of the Town of Tail shops. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner. Andy Knutsen 7. A request for a worksession for a minor subdivision, a request for a variance from Section 18.13.050 buildable area, and a request for a rezoning from the High Density Multi-Family to the Primary /Secondary Residential zone district for a property located at Lot 4, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision Filing No. 3/4333 Bighorn Road. Applicants BAB Partnership Planner: Andy Knutsen TABLED TO AUGUST 23,1993 . A request for a major exterior alteration to allow for a retail expansion and a request to amend a previously approved Conditional Use Permit for an existing "Television Station" at the Sunbird Lodge, located at 675 Lionshead Place /Lot 2, Block 1, hail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Tire Keoe Planner: Tim Devlin TABLED INDEFINITELY 9. A request for a major exterior alteration in CC[, for an addition and exterior upgrades to the Cyranos Building, located at 293 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot C, Block 2, Vail Tillage 1st Filing, Applicant: Margretta B. Parks Planner. Mike Mollica TABLED INDEFINITELY 2 subdivision as well as approximately one mile worth of new road. He gave the PEC brief history of the land comprising the proposed Trapper's Fridge Subdivision. He stated that there were geologic hazards which exist on the site and that any prospective developer would need to be sensitive to the existing topography. He stated that there would be two variances associated with the proposed development of the property. The first variance request would be for an increase in the maximum allowed road grade by 0.8% and the second variance request would be for retaining wall heights to exceed the maximum allowed wall height by 2 feet. Jim made a presentation per the staff memo summarizing the issues staff has identified as being a concern with regard to this proposal (see pages 4 through 0 of the staff memo). Jim stated that at this time, the applicant has not identified driveway centerline locations or building envelopes on each lot, but these would be shown on the subdivision plat at the next PEC worksession. ristan Pritz stated to the applicant that the Town would like to see all above ground power lines on the site buried and that they should contact Holy Cross Electric Association as soon as possible to determine their guidelines for the under rounding. She pointed out that Holy Cross has indicated that, in a number of instances, the undergrounding may be required beyond the subdivision boundary property lines. Gary Arthur, of Gateway Development, introduced himself and pointed out that the project engineer, Steve Wilson, would make the first presentation on behalf of the developers. Steve Wilson, of Colorado Land Consultants, stated that he had brought two drawings: t ) an aerial photograph with are overlay of the subdivision's roads and lots; and, ) a map showing where the requested road grade acid wall height variances would be located on the site. Bill Anderson pointed out that access on Arose Drive is already a very bad condition. Bill asked the applicant whether or not the proposed access was going to be taken off of Arosa thrive in its present location. Stove Wilson stated that this section of the road would be widened and flattened out. He said that he was working with Greg Hall to devise a safe way to access Trapper's Ridge. Bill Anderson stated that the proposed access off of Arosa Drive could be the easiest' solution with the least impact. He likes this location better than Cortina Drive or Davos Trail. Bill pointed out that access to the property seemed to be the most critical part of this proposal: _ Steve Wilson explained 'why the two alternate locations for access were ruled out. Steve stated that they had considered traffic, the fact that this area is used heavily for recreational purposes, and that Arosa ®rive still seems to be the best solution. He stated that Davos Trail had been looked at and that the extreme slope would necessitate excessive fill in order to reach the property. The second alternative considered was via Cortina. Lane, but they felt that access through this area would cause significant I disturbance to the surrounding land and would require a large road cut on National Forest Planning and Environmental Commission August g, 1993 i I land at the first switchback. Greg A sden asked about what the situation is with regard to easements on National Forest property in order to use National Forest land for access. Gary Arthur stated that he was not Tar on National Forest requirements for obtaining easements for access on National Forest land. Diana Donovan asked the applicant hew they arrived at their figures for density. Gary Arthur stated that they considered the existing zoning as well as the existing topography and concluded that the number of lots that they were proposing would be acceptable, and in fact, are on the average, 44% larger than the minimum lot size required in this zone district. Gary pointed out that the number they had arrived at was definitely not based on seeing how many lots they could possibly squeeze onto the site. Diana inquired whether the applicants had seen the reap that was used when the property was zoned Hillside Residential. Gary Arthur stated no, he had not seen it. He stated that he believed that lot locations were determined with respect to site sensitivity® Greg Asen inquired whether Block 2 would be zoned open space and stated that the lot locations are a concern, Gary Arthur stated that Block 2, as well as all open space tracts, are designated as open space but could be rezoned to open space if the PFG felt that it was necessary. Allison Lassoe inquired whether the applicant had spoken to the United States Forest Service abort this proposal's possible impact on elk migration, as well as the stream impacts. Gary Arthur stated that they had preliminary discussions with the USFS and Division of Wildlife. He said that, so far, neither agency had indicated any concerns about the proposed project. He mentioned that all possible impacts will be addressed in detail as a part of their environmental impact report. He stated that the drainage flowing through I� the property is a seasonal drainage, not a stream. Stove Wilson Mated that the drainage travels in a southeasterly direction and that the proposed new road would only affect a 600 feet section of the stream, which would be shifted to the north. Dalton Williams stated that he was concerned with the steepness of Arosa Drive. Steve Boyd, an adjacent property owner, inquired how the applicants were proposing to ,flatten out" Arosa Drive. Gary Arthur stated that they would be removing the curb. Steve Wilson stated that they would widen the road. He stated that the only traffic that would need to yield would be the traffic that would be turning left into the Trapper's Ridge Subdivision. He said that the road would be shifted to the west. Steve Boyd inquired how the applicants proposed to divert the stream. Gary Arthur stated that it would either be culverted or it would flow naturally. Peter Stadler, an adjacent property owner who lives on Cortina Lane, inquired how many trees would be out as a result of this project and also mentioned a snowslie /debris flow that he thought affected this props Gary Arthur showed Mr. Stadler the aerial photograph and proposed road layout and talked about the developer's intention to avoid the largest stands of existing trees. Gary I felt the slide had not occurred on this property. Peter commented that he wished that the subdivision would not happen. i Kay Mednick, property owner at the end of Davos Trail, pointed out, as the PEC had earlier that day, a lot of people park in her driveway looking for a way to get to the National Forest props Dalton Williams stated that he was concerned about the lot locations. He stated that he was extremely concerned with the proposed access location. He said that the proposed development and access drive would cause a major scar to the area that is now heavily wooded. He said that 40 to 50 feet of fill in the drainage seemed excessive and that bridge could work better at this location. He stated that he thought the applicant should contact the United States Forest Service concerning access off of Cortina Lane. He felt that a bridge could work better at this location or off of Davos Trail. He pointed out to the developer that if they do have to use Street A, then they should look into acquiring the lot at the bottom of Arosa Drive (Susan Boyd's house). Dalton was in favor of caretaker units j and that a specified number should be required on the site or built somewhere else off- site. I Allison Lassoo stated that she would like to see additional useable open space j designated. She said that she echoes Dalton's comments with regard to the provision of employee housing units. Jeff Bowen stated that it was his opinion that the only practical wary to access this site was via the existing Forest Service Road. He recognized that the Cortina Lane access would` impact the neighborhood which was also of concern. With regard to variances, he stated that he was opposed to retaining walls and road grades exceeding what is allowed by node. He said that he would like to see the number of lots for this proposed subdivision reduced. Jeff felt that fewer lots would mean less road and leas need for the proposed variances. He said that he felt that the environmental impact statement would be open space within the lot boundaries that was accessible to everyone in the neighborhood. Rill said that the idea of accessing this area via two different routes was positive, but that Cortina Lane cannot support any more additional traffic than what it already has which creates a traffic issue. He stated there was still a grade problem on I Arosa. He stated that the retaining walls would be okay with hire if an acceptable material were used and the lineal footage of the road was minimized. He stated that he felt that caretaker units were positive and that he did not have a particular requirement in mind. j' wilding envelopes and driveway access points are critical to identify. Kathy Langenwalter pointed out that the Jail Land Use Plan says that development within Hillside Residential zoned properties would require sensitive development. She stated that she was concerned that this proposal was not sensitive enough to the existing topography of the site. She stated that there is already access to the site via Cortina Lane but that Cortina Lane could not support thirty-three lots (possibly sixty -six units). Kathy suggested that the applicants do not do anything with the stream and leave it as it is. She stated that her main concern was scarring the land. She stated that rezoning Lot 8 was not a concern. She stated that she was concerned about both the road grade and wall height variances. She suggested that the applicant try to avoid any variances if possible. Public access roust also be considered. She added that the environmental impact statement would be an important tool for the P G in evaluating this proposal. She stated that she is very concerned with the visual and wildlife impacts associated with the proposed development. She pointed out that the drainage way is in a debris flow hazard are and suggested that the applicant just simply stay away from it. She agreed that employee housing was a must, undergrouning the power line was needed, and that as many utilities as possible should be put in the road and open space should be provided. Gary Arthur stated that he wanted to clarify the reasons that they would be requesting retaining walls. He stated that their sole reason for requesting retaining wall height variances was to minimize the road cuts made into the hillside. He pointed out that he can comply with the retaining wall height maximum allowed if the P G desired hire to. However, that would actually result in more site disturbance. Kathy Lanenwalter told the applicant that he should try to develop the area in such a way that it stays within the Town of Vail development standards. Jeff Bowen stated that historically retaining walls have been used to creme greater density and that he would not vote for approval of any variances. He stated that if the applicant reduced the density for the project, the retaining wall heights would not need to be two feet in excess of what the zoning standards allows Allison Lassoe stated that she would like to see the applicant shove greater sensitivity to the topography ra h of the area. Dalton Williams stated that possibly 30% (Road A) of the proposed roads could be eliminated from this proposal with access off of Davos Trail via a bridge. He said that by reducing the amount of roads, that less of the site will be disturbed. He said that he Planning and Environmental Commission August 9, 1993 g Jay Peterson stated that the owners of Building D and E are not full-time local residents. Greg Amsden inquired of staff how GRFA was figured for the existing units. He added -� r'' ,'' ---°' PCOL 4r { ,.... r j. 1_ m 7,0,W; .y. O � 4r � \ \�� /�/ - il_ I - �� - �' , �- � � ,, J; �- 1111 -,r�,. Lot Area • 4 a TO- Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 9, 1993 Applicant: Gateway Development, lnc.\Gary Arthur Planner: Jim Curnutte 4,; In conjunction with the construction of the new roads within this subdivision, the applicant is proposing to utilize Keystone retaining walls to lessen the impacts of road cuts and fills. Some of these walls will have a maximum height of 8 feet. The Town of Vail Zoning Code allows for a maximum height of 6 feet for all walls within the public right-of-way. A variance would be required for the additional 2 feet of wall height. I Since the existing Lot 8, Block C, Vail Ridge, which is zoned Primary/Secondary, will become part of the new Lot 1 within the Trapper's Ridge Subdivision, it does not make sense to have a lot zoned both Hillside Residential and Primary Secondary. Therefore, it is necessary to rezone Lot 8 in conjunction with the approval of the subdivision request so that all of the Trapper's Ridge Subdivision is zoned Hillside Residential. 111. BACKGROUNDMISTORY OF THE PROPERTY Lot 8 was created on October 5, 1965 by virtue of the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners approval of the Vail Ridge Subdivision plat. This lot, along with the entire Vail Ridge Subdivision, was annexed into the Town on October 29, 1986 (Ord. No. 26, Series of Lot 21 ' which Is currently an unplatted parcel of property, was annexed into the Town at the same time as the Vail Ridge Subdivision (October 29, 1986) and was zoned Hillside Residential on November 17, 1987 (Ord. No. 37, Series of 1987). Lots 16 and 19, which are also unplatted parcels, were annexed into the Town of Vail on September 28, 1988 (Ord. No. 27, Series of 1988) and Hillside Residential zoning was applieti to the property in January of 1989 (Ord. No. 1, Series of 1989). The Hillside Residential zone district was created on July 21, 1987. This district was created for the purpose of carrying out recommendations in the Vail Land Use Plan to provide areas for hillside development at densities lower than that permitted by the existing residential zone districts in place at the time. The Land Use Plan identified two properties in town that the Hillside Residential zone district would be applicable to and these are the proposed Trapper's Ridge Subdivision and the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision property. 2 ` ` dwelling units per buildable acrd. These areas would require sensitive development, due to A. Rezoniqa2f Lot 8 Lot 8 is currently zoned Primary /Seconds ry. Since this lot is proposed to be replatted in order to make it one-half acre in size, it does not make sense to keep the Primary/Secondary zoning on a portion of the new Lot 1, Trappers Ridge Subdivision. Therefore, in conjunction with the proposed subdivision and related variances, a rezoning application must be applied for to change the zoning of what is now Lot 8 to Hillside Residential. Staff has also discussed with the applicant the possibility of utilizing a portion of Lot 8 to provide useable open space as an amenity to the neighborhood. This property may take the form of a small tot-lot or a playground. B. Subdivision access and related road issues 0 5 D. Environmental impact The applicant will be required to submit a detailed environmental impact report in conjunction with this project. The environmental impact report will contain information and analysis of sufficient detail, and adequately supported by technical studies, to enable the staff, PC and Town Council to determine the environmental impact of the project and to review the measures proposed to reduce or negate any harmful impacts. The environmental impact report will include a comprehensive, qualitative and quantitative analysis of any significant impact that the proposed project will have on the environment and will include an environmental inventory, which identifies the properties hydrologic, atmospheric, geologic, biotic, visual, land use, circulation and transportation conditions, population characteristics and other environmental conditions. The staff feels that it is appropriate to utilize building envelopes on all lots within the project. All structures should be located within the building envelopes. In addition, we have requested that the applicant provide a detailed study of the most appropriate driveway locations for each lot. All driveway/road intersections will be identified on the final plat of the subdivision. At this early stage in the subdivision development, no building envelopes or driveway locations are currently shown, therefore, staff has not done a detailed review of their proposed impacts on the site or surrounding properties. All building envelopes and driveway locations will be required to be shown on the final plat of the subdivision. Staff believes that building envelopes and driveway locations are necessary due to the sensitivity of the site. F Site coypLaqe Due to the large size of the lots, the site coverage allowance for each lot is extremely high. Staff would like to see a reasonable cap put on the amount of site coverage allowed on each lot. 0 7 established several years ago. Configuration H. Lot Section 1 8.09.050 of the Vail Municipal Code (Lot Area and Site Dimensions) stags that* "The minimum lot or site area shall be 21,780 square feet of contiguous buildable area. Each site shall have a minimum frontage of 50 feet. Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square 80 feet on either side within its boundaries." t Although the applicant has shown that all thirty-three lots within the subdivision currently meet the minimum lot area and site dimension requirements specified in the Hillside Residential zone district, staff has concerns with regard to some of the proposed lot layouts. Specifically, a few of the lots appear to be forced onto the site in order to gain one or two more lots rather than reducing the overall number of lots in order to obtain a more workable subdivision layout. I. Architectural guidelires Architectural guidelines are being proposed with the subdivision. Approval of the Trapper's fudge Design Review Board would be required before the plans for a proposed residence could be submitted to the Town of Vail Design Review Board. The proposed guidelines will be reviewed by the staff, the P G and the DRB throughout the subdivision review process, however, the Trapper's Ridge Design Review Board would be responsible for enforcing their guidelines.The Town of Vail may choose to become a party to the subdivision covenants and would have to review and approve any changes that may be proposed to the covenants. In addition to reviewing proposed building architecture, the design guidelines would also address site planning and landscape concerns. Staff would suggest that no fencing be allowed around the houses to maintain the natural appearance of the props 1. Q2gL space The applicant has proposed three open space tracts within this subdivision. Staff believes that it is important that these tracts of land be set aside as permanent open space. As currently discussed, these lots would remain Hillside Residential. Staff would recommend that the owner agree to rezone all open space tracts to Greenbelt Open Spade at the time the final plat is approved. This property may be either deeded to the Town of Vail or retained in the ownership of the homeowner's association. Staff has also suggested to the applicant that, in addition to the three open space tracts provided, there be some provision for open space which has the grades, size or other characteristics which would allow it to be considered useable open space, rather than simply providing tracts of land that are not developed, such as the three tracts mentioned above. Staff has suggested to the applicant that an area on what is now Lot 8, would be a nice location for a pocket park. r 14 � * � The drainage way which flows through this property in a west to east direction, shows up on our geologic hazard maps as a high severity and medium severity debris flow. The applicant intends to perform a more detailed, site specific geologic investigation of this drainage way in order to determine the limits of the debris flow zone. N. Utility easements Staff is encouraging the applicant to consolidate the utility easements in the proposed roadways. We think that this suggestion is necessary in order to minimize cuts on the hillside. The applicant is proposing to construct all improvements in the subdivision during thQ summer of 1994. It is not clear to date whether or not construction activity will preclude the use of the road for accessing National Forest land beyond or whether alternate access will be provided. ill! A IN a I 1 111,1111 1111 1 Illlllii I P11 1 111111 milli -q 111111 11 7 f Lb49 w/ 2 2653 2A82 37 2602 2;56 /�,,!703 2 83 2683 2673 �� 4 26i2 - � y OTJRT1SdA 7 262, 6 ? ( U 7 2632 24 2575 2 $ 2642 4 13 10 9 26 23 585 2566 25I 2722 2 Ii 2692 2682 26 P2 22 2605 3 21 2702 21 2609 20 2527 5 ® 14 — 2615 Is 19 2635 4 257 2705 15 16 2655 2645 3 2 6 � 9 ® 26 5 2699 -��t lu T 5i � I 7 26259 �e 2547 6 ® j ., g �a 21,'` C pAVO� 2 2226 � 6 257 7 526 6 52 [.OT ® 2696 26 2567 ��9 6 558 ® 2686 260 21 2597 2587 20 -566 17 ® 637 3 56 247 246, 7 2647 4 236!0 2 2 1 2576 2 57 2® 79 1 648 2608 2586 2578 AROSA 26 24 7 _489 1� ®'4 3 ® 4~ °497 -- 4' O 23 , 1 B° 5 2499 2657 2604 $ 249 2893 c 0 E CH i A 8' E SWIM AND TENNIS CLUB MEADOW CREEK 843 p Cllvj!/l UNPLATTED 2693 SUBDIVISIO, T 2414 853 2823 0 2821 A UNPLAiTED 2695 2771 2753 ARE 2783 ? 2743 24 UNPLATTED 2733 0 �O1 CAMELOT 2633 � 2., 0 UNPLATTED A 2 0WNHOUSES p I p ry lgc�n Kifi NIC " ROAD gi i�y 7t2 ,0 ® 2 L C ® ng6 2 ���'R I i ___� 2./ _ MEMORANDUM Currently, a triply and roadway exist on the property. The original plan allowed for fourteen STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS variance provided it was significantly screened. At this time, the staff is not considering any other wall height variances. Any wall height variance associated with the construction of the units would be reviewed individually at the time that units are proposed. • 4 4. Construction within thg 0% slaps N Construction within the 40% drape is - s- �s-=•K 5-�-. K.a -a-al; n�east as mown ®n this p . Planting wilt '4,-5- n acaordin 1 to a ®commodat* new wall cons. . However, it is not the intent to reduce pl'antin from commit .,indicated by this drawing. ° 3° Existing contours at two (2) feet intervals on all portSbns of the site proposed for development to tell (10) feet inbrvals . -.- ;PR_POSED NATIVE DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTINGS TO INCLUDE; I,2211MON within their natural .'state. MIN° Aspen P ®Pulu. tww.al.di s 1 ,+ Mountain Poplar Popuius an ustA fml ga LGNIk 1,f`N AFV? ffrelnain.in t Area for snow removalApproximate atr- , PROIfOSED NATIVE EVF.RCREF.N TREE PLANTINGS TO IIfiCLUAE.. ° location of existing Aspen to remaln. •. . _. .Limber PIns Alnus fl ®x111s - 6-8, Colorado Spruce - Pi... Pungens A _. ° PROI?OSF.D NATIVE :11l g °AND G,R0UNDL`SVE MMASS P�I.ANTjNCS TO INCLUDI \ MIN. :Chok ®ohgrry Pruhus melan ®®arpk 5'Ga. j MountD4n Willow Salix monvioola Ga, Servi —berry AmAlanmhl +r alnIfQQ1 a- �P ®king Cotoneaster ?1a ,5 5 Ga' Cotoneastwr a:sutlTO :Thimbl ®berry ®Rube— delloloaus ® 5°Ga. ... 5 Ga' iAlpinq Currant -. RSbcs alpintun 5 Ga: Red Tw(g Dogwood Cofinus stoloniFora NITHIH IN r�OM (Brush Cinquofoal P0twnj1l Id- '.frutiaosa 5 Ga) Sago .._ a Art aminAa trjdaataja ii�e Ci ®mat is _ ... .,.o Clnamatls ligusi "jc(fol la -. 5 Gal. 112111's iSOn ®ysu�klu LonliCra japonica, 1 Gat. 1 G81 �C3 VII IGi t O ra h44- ��T AU— rjeTUia t> N A Fc PLC o� TO I �2 �irvY P - s- �s-=•K 5-�-. K.a -a-al; n�east as mown ®n this p . Planting wilt '4,-5- n acaordin 1 to a ®commodat* new wall cons. . However, it is not the intent to reduce pl'antin from commit .,indicated by this drawing. leaf legend'. ;PR_POSED NATIVE DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTINGS TO INCLUDE; I,2211MON m NASiF. DOTANTICAL NAME a MIN° Aspen P ®Pulu. tww.al.di s 1 ,+ Mountain Poplar Popuius an ustA fml ga LGNIk 1,f`N AFV? 1 "- atr- , PROIfOSED NATIVE EVF.RCREF.N TREE PLANTINGS TO IIfiCLUAE.. ° (COMMON. NAME .Limber PIns Alnus fl ®x111s - 6-8, Colorado Spruce - Pi... Pungens A g_g <. ° PROI?OSF.D NATIVE :11l g °AND G,R0UNDL`SVE MMASS P�I.ANTjNCS TO INCLUDI COMMON NAME I3OTANICPL NAME a MIN. :Chok ®ohgrry Pruhus melan ®®arpk 5'Ga. j MountD4n Willow Salix monvioola Ga, Servi —berry AmAlanmhl +r alnIfQQ1 a- �P ®king Cotoneaster ?1a ,5 5 Ga' Cotoneastwr a:sutlTO :Thimbl ®berry ®Rube— delloloaus ® 5°Ga. ... 5 Ga' iAlpinq Currant -. RSbcs alpintun 5 Ga: Red Tw(g Dogwood Cofinus stoloniFora 5 Ga °.. (Brush Cinquofoal P0twnj1l Id- '.frutiaosa 5 Ga) Sago .._ a Art aminAa trjdaataja ii�e Ci ®mat is _ ... .,.o Clnamatls ligusi "jc(fol la -. 5 Gal. 112111's iSOn ®ysu�klu LonliCra japonica, 1 Gat. 1 G81 �C3 VII IGi t O ra h44- ��T AU— rjeTUia t> N A Fc PLC o� TO I �2 �irvY • -I"- 40' mpw Ewa aaw • LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALF -NORTH, • -I"- 40' mpw Ewa aaw • 416 \ � i P �_ b\ \ \\ - - - -7. - -- ---- • �r r ►" 4 1� Behr.) "u7y 6 -4"04r CP/s #C-4r6 L4-, u�. two-f.aL waK �Itf:'.Y. N+K e\t'L s4. mbVan hOCr� GTffG 1 Ifs' 1✓ e�4!4•M�/ I � H01MrilHiY.a� :7LM.Iw IfY.�be -L6 b4a4 ��• lifTEdf tIL PH�I1.hGV .+�6e! b ►L rM�TiiCJ -IEp L{L _ _ - a.ef le-1 vHr..�.:•►H.�r.vr+ wf e.r sblcs f1CLedF14 - n -� ww warr�eH v n. w s,.i.ri TI..► tw. d / LANDSCAPE PLAN e mom U o' N co0 N V a C� m N as o as U — 7.12.83 nr.o. 7.30.83 3 sy AN R \ / C /A 1. �• � � Woo •,r.c frysak. fhr.> J iu.+i�.� eNa .owno.4a x �\ �Q� NIN I PARTIAL SITE PLAN e Kom G�GC1�i�vic� ro�va,�. 0 ^�O U N •a � w y 'y V a m •y a°' g J U 7.12.93 -.� 7.999] M 2 MEMORANDUM The purpose section of the Public Use District, as listed in Section 13.36.010 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, states that this district is "intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi public uses... are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors of Vail and to harmonize with surrounding uses..." Staff believes that this project will certainly help meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail as it is a critical component in the Town's snow removal effort. . The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that there will be no negative impacts from the expansion of the snowdump on the criteria listed above. . Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive n pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street parking r The staff believes that there will be a positive effect on traffic with the construction of this portion of the snowdump. By making the snowdump work more efficiently, staff believes that the Town will be able to improve snow removal on the streets and roads in the communi 4. Effect upon the character e area in is the r is to e located, including the sc le and bulk f the proposed rein relation to urru i tae® Staff believe that them are two separate issues to identify regarding the proposed expansion to the snowdump. The first is the amount of site disturbance above the existing line of disturbance. Staff understands that the new line of disturbance will be approximately 20 to 26 feet above the existing line. This extension of the disturbance will not create a noticeable change to the hillside as viewed from surrounding properties. The second point of discussion is the amount of regrading proposed on the west end of the site. There are several large bushes in this area that should be preserved. Furthermore, staff believes that this would be the most visible extent of regrading as seen from the soccer fields and the rest of the neighborhood south of the interstate. By leaving this area as it is today, staff believes that there will be little impact on the function of the snoop because the road at the far west end is wider than the road around the rest of the snowdump Staff is recommending that the `regrading and the road expansion begin approximately 190 feet from the westernmost end of the snowdump so that the existing vegetation can be saved. By preserving these shrubs, the cut can be 2 0° .0' 20' 30° 60. - / /, e.^°^ — c® i ~� �• J "-.} %' s4 ° 49,650 N _ ,� - - °° _, - - ,p - - _-... _ `�' 1 _ 92 ° 829 r — 90 = % 6 ct ✓ bob 1_ T C:! L _ �ST� AND ✓ �- n0 5':0.82_ 50,210-).9 ®> p0 8275 b 6 F .-; s'"° a c a wi --!' 7 b= 0 i EC' 05 R -35 i ii,STAU 5' °r TEE 6" G`I P. .° .r m f�:d: ' :,- cPJ.BLY Oh! SOU'. ° / l�0 Tc c J. ? UG OPd %gVESI — 6RANCH 3 ON- 5' 52 12, PERF0 f3ATED Iva BO By 1 f r \ `_-- -- ®�°`-- -�""". - � - -,�-'�`_® _ ! � ®i_ 0R C, Oss S_CT!OPeS s,1:; _!"'.. .i f ', j �---" i s:A - I i - _ — "• C ,OSS SECT 'I J`: "C- ✓ i _ 1 _ S dd 0 - ui• h a9,200 N' = - -- REJISIONS ;NC, S70RJ c E PROJECT )(_T LAN �R WINGS . J. ate•! r - _ LA N _ J (' 6i�;L f� ° 5r '. z urc,w� � � cu• .s ,t W rMF11 E";GiN EERIN(, CO 1 aC. C 40R'l'3 .. - COtiSUli7::C £NG7;iCERS Pans... 0 0 n vnv. stirrn so® lJw ,,...P. ._L:.( DP,PJE. n,wo aoaze sane .,0 P,1657 °r ' (999) 99; -JS00 r e..,.,.n 'y c Q.• ». $+C , .. Z.