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.