Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-0925 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public h - p c earmg �n accordance with Section 12 3 6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on September 25, 2400, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a minor amendment to an approved development plan, to allow for a reduction in the number of parking spaces at the Austria Haus parking garage, located at 242 East Meadow Drive /A part of Tract C, Vail Village V" Filing, Applicant: Austria Haus Condo Association Planner: George Ruther A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a multiple- family unit on the first floor in the LMU -1 Zone District, located at 380 E. Lionshead Circle, Unit 110 (Lodge at Lionshead) /Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Vt. Applicant: Shackleford. Properties, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson A request for a final review for a major subdivision and variance from Section 12 -66 -5 (Minimum Lot Frontage) of the Town Code, to allow for the subdivision of Lot 8 into Lots 8A & 8B, located at 1467 Aspen Grove Lane /Lot 8, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4. Applicant: Robert Selby, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a recommendation of the Planning and Environmental Commission on an amendment to the Donovan Park Master Plan, generally located at the intersection of Matterhorn Circle and the South Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Odell Architects, Inc. Planner: George Ruther A request for a final review for a minor subdivision to allow for the reconfiguration and replatting of two existing lots and the rezoning of Lot 16, Bighorn 2nd Addition, from Agricultural & Open Space to Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential, and the rezoning of Tract A to Natural Area Preservation District, located at 3886/3896 Lupine Drive /Lots 15 & 16. Bighorn 2nd Addition. Applicant: Wilson Family Trust, represented by Jay Tschimer, First Land Development, LLC Planner: George Ruther The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 479 -2138 for information_ Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published September 8, 2000 in the Vail Trail. .; TOWN OF Y,4LL 1 0 CJ J PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, September 25, 2000 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1 - Community Development Dept. MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits : MEMBERS ABSENT 1. Lots 15 & 16 — 3886/3896 Lupine Drive 2. Hockey facility — 1778 Vail Valley Drive 3. Austria Haus — 242 E_ Meadow Drive Driver: George PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm �o NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6.00 p.m.. the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m_ 1:00 pm Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a rezoning (from Outdoor Recreation to General Use), a minor subdivision and a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a seasonal ice hockey rink at the Vail Golf Course, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive 1 Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3. Applicant: Vail Junior Hockey Association, Vail Recreation District. Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson 2. A request for a final review for a minor subdivision to allow for the reconfiguration and replatting of two existing lots and the rezoning of Lot 16, Bighorn 2 " Addition, from Agricultural & Open Space to Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential, and the rezoning of Tract A to Natural Area Preservation District, located at 3886/3896 Lupine Drive /Lots 15 & 16, Bighorn 2"d Addition. Applicant: Wilson Family Trust, represented by Jay Tschirner, First Land Development, LLC Planner: George Ruther A request for a final review for a major subdivision and variance from Section 12 -6B -5 (Minimum Lot Frontage) of the Town Code, to allow for the subdivision of Lot 8 into Lots SA & 8B, located at 1467 Aspen Grove Lane /Lot 8, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4. Applicant: Robert Selby, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs 4. A request for a minor amendment to an approved development plan (SDD #35), to allow for a reduction in the number of parking spaces (and the conversion of these spaces into common storage) at the Austria Haus parking garage, located at 242 East Meadow Drive /A part of Tract C, Vail Village 14' Filing. Applicant: Austria Haus Condo Association Planner: George Ruther TOWN OF VAU 5. A request for a recommendation by the Planning and Environmental Commission on a proposed amendment to the Donovan Park Master Plan, generally located at the intersection of Matterhorn Circle and the South Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Odell Architects, P.C. Planner: George Ruther & A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a multiple - family unit on the first floor in the LMU -1 Zone District, located at 380 E. Lionshead Circle, Unit 110 (Lodge at Lionshead)/Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead V" Filing. Applicant: Shackieford Properties, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson WITHDRAWN 7. Approval of August 28, 2000 minutes and September 11, 2000 minutes 8. Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2356. Telephone for the Nearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published September 22, 2000 in the Vail Trail • 40 ILI F-1 LJ • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, September 25, 2000 PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12 :00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden John Schofield Doug Cahill Tom Weber Site Visits : MEMBERS ABSENT Brian Doyon 1. Lots 15 & 16 — 3886/3856 Lupine Drive 2. Hockey facility -- 1778 Vail Valley Drive 3. Austria Haus -- 242 E. Meadow Drive Driver: George �D NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6 30 p,m. 1 :00 pm Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a rezoning (from Outdoor Recreation to General Use), a minor subdivision and a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a seasonal ice hockey rink at the Vail Golf Course, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive / Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3. Applicant: Vail Junior Hockey Association; Vail Recreation District, Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED (REZONING) WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. The applicant must process (PEC) and record (Eagle County) an approved final plat to reflect the amended zoning district locations prior to construction of the facility. MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Tom Weber VOTE; 6 -0 TABLE (MINOR SUBDIVISION) UNTIL OCTOBER 9, 2000 MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED (CONDITIONAL USE) WITH 9 CONDITIONS: TOWN OF MIL �A All mechanical equipment associated with the rink must be fully screened. If possible, the equipment should be moved to the north side of the rink. 41 2. If traffic or parking issues arise, the approval will be called up for additional review by the PEC. 0 3. The noise ouput of the rink and its associated equipment will be the lesser of the 55db (day) /50db (night) cutout allowed under the town's noise ordinance, or the existing noise output of I -7C traffic. This will be confirmed by town staff with noise monitoring equipment. 4. The parking lot must be maintained at ail times for use at full capacity (110 spaces). No snow storage (or business activities) can be accommodated within the parking lot. 5. This conditional use permit will be valid between the dates of November 1 st through April 1st (annually) from 7 :30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. daily. 6. This approval is for a limited time period beginning November 1st, 2000 and ending April 1st, 2002. 7. Full compliance with Town building ordinances and the Uniform Building Code must be demonstrated by the applicant. 8. Scheduling and use of the rink (through the Vail Recreation District) will be open to the general public. 9. As required under the proposed General Use zoning, any future additional land uses or activities on this site must go through the conditional use permit review process. 2. A request for a final review for a minor subdivision to allow for the reconfiguration and replatting of two existing lots and the rezoning of Lot 16, Bighorn 2°'d Addition, from Agricultural & Open Space to Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential, and the rezoning of Tract A to Natural Area Preservation District, located at 3886/3896 Lupine Drive /Lots 15 & 16, Bighorn 2nd Addition. Applicant: (Nilson Family Trust, represented by Jay Tschirner, First Land Development, LLC Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 9, 2000 3. A request for a final review for a major subdivision and variance from Section 12 -613-5 (Minimum Lot Frontage) of the Town Code, to allow for the subdivision of Lot 8 into Lots 8A & 8B, located at 1467 Aspen Grove Lane /Lot 8, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4- Applicant: Robert Selby, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 6 -0 APPROVED WITH 4 CONDITIONS: That the applicant will revegetate any site disturbance in conjunction with the driveway with natural and native vegetation, to include Mountain Mahoagony, Snowberry, Seviceberry, Buckbrush, etc., at the time of construction. 1) ti 2. That the applicant resolve all fire department requirements in regards to hydrant number and locations prior to the submission of the final plat to the Community Development Department. 3. At any time within one year after the Planning and Environmental Commission has completed its review of the preliminary plan.. the applicant shall submit a final plat to the Department of Community Development. 4. That the DRB be asked to consider that substantial revegetation be required on roadcuts with large walls. 4. A request for a minor amendment to an approved development plan (SDD #35), to allow for a reduction in the number of parking spaces (and the conversion of these spaces into common storage) at the Austria Haus parking garage, located at 242 East Meadow Drive /A part of Tract C, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Austria Haus Condo Association Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 9, 2000 5. A request for a recommendation by the Planning and Environmental Commission on a proposed amendment to the Donovan Park Master Plan, generally located at the intersection of Matterhorn Circle and the South Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Odell Architects, P.C. Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Galen Aasdand SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 6 -1 (Schofield opposed — uses are fine but crammed too much into too little space) APPROVED RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL WITH 1 CONDITION: 1. That the Town Council take an active participartory role to determine the actual scope of what can fit in the Park. 6. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a multiple- family unit on the first floor in the LMU -1 Zone District, located at 384 E. Lionshead Circle, Unit 110 (Lodge at Lionshead) /Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead I" Filing. Applicant: Shackleford Properties, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson WITHDRAWN 7. Approval of August 28, 2000 minutes and September 11, 2000 minutes 8. Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification Please call 479 -2353. Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department 1101 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE= September 25, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a rezoning (from Outdoor Recreation to General Use), a minor subdivision and a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a seasonal ice hockey rink at the Vail Golf Course, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive / Lot 3, Sunburst t=iling 3. Applicant: Vail Junior Hockey Association, Vail Recreation District, Town of Vail Planner' Brent Wilson DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST This request involves the placement of a recreational ice hockey facility at the Vail Golf Course adjacent to the existing clubhouse. The structure would be located where the existing seasonal ice rink is situated, but the proposed new facility would be entirety enclosed. The subject property is currently zoned "Outdoor Recreation" (OR)_ The intent of 40 the OR zone district is to "preserve undeveloped or open space lands from intensive development while permitting outdoor recreational activities that provide opportunities for active and passive recreation areas, facilities and uses." The OR designation encourages recreational uses that do not include enclosed buildings or structures. Therefore; a rezoning to "General Use" is necessary to accommodate an enclosed ice facility. The structure is proposed to be 120'x 225' in size and it would be located on the north side of the clubhouse. Associated mechanical equipment will be enclosed within a 25' long, 8' wide and 8' tali enclosure located to the northeast of the clubhouse_ This enclosure will be removed once it is no longer required for the facility operation. A Zamboni will be housed within the golf cart storage facility inside the clubhouse. Daily hours of operation, according to the Vail Recreation District, will be from approximately 8:00 a.m. to 11.00 p.m. from mid - November to mid - March. Therefore, the Town of Vail is requesting a rezoning of a portion of the Vail Golf Course from Outdoor Recreation to General Use and a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of the "bubble" and appurtenant equipment. A minor subdivision application request will also need to be reviewed to legally describe the portion of the Vail Gold Course property to be rezoned. 11. BACKGROUND In pursuing the council's desire to provide an additional enclosed sheet of ice this winter, staff examined two options: 1) expanding the existing "General Use" parcel at the golf course clubhouse to include the proposed site, and; 2) writing a text amendment to the "Outdoor Recreation" zone district to allow buildings or structures (seasonal or permanent). The following is a synopsis of the issues involved with each option. 0 Expanding the existing "General Use" parcel at the clubhouse This process is consistent with the way the Town has previously addressed the need for public buildings that are associated with recreational uses at the golf course. All uses in the GU district (other than pedestrian paths and open space) are conditional uses. This means any proposals for new development require PEC review and approval at a public hearing. Adjacent property owners would be notified of hearings. The PEC has the ability to impose time restrictions or "sunset" provisions on conditional uses. Future Land Use Designation is "Park" (Vail Land Use Plan) —This means any future development proposals must be related to recreational uses. The PEG and staff must ensure this during the conditional use permit review process. Amending the Outdoor Recreation Zone District to include "buildings" This would impact a large number of properties throughout the town (please refer to the attached reap) beyond the scope of this specific proposal. Many of the areas zoned "Outdoor Recreation" are intended to provide passive or active recreation opportunities on lands that may not be suitable for development. The Town's stream tract (between the International Bridge and the Covered Bridge) is one example. Master plan provisions (Vail Land Use Plan, Vail Village Master Plan, Comprehensive Open Lands Plan) may prohibit development on certain lots that are zoned Outdoor Recreation. Amending the zone district text would create inconsistencies between the zoning regulations and applicable master plan documents. III. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: - Conformance with development standards of zone district - Lot area - Setbacks - Building Height - Density - GRFA - Site coverage 2 • • = Landscape area Parking and loading Mitigation of development impacts - Compliance with the goals and requirements applicable Master Plans The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings Fitting buildings into landscape - Configuration of building and grading of a site, which respects the topography - Removal /Preservation of trees and native vegetation Adequate provision for snow storage on -site Acceptability of building materials and colors Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms Provision of landscape and drainage Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures Circulation and access to a site, including parking, and site distances 'Location and design of satellite dishes Provision of outdoor lighting IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Rezoning Staff recommends that the PEC forward a recommendation of approval of the applicant's request for a rezoning from "Outdoor Recreation" to "General Use" to the Vail Town Council, subject to the following finding: 1. That the proposed zone district is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses, consistent with the Town's Land Use Plan and Zoning Regulations, and appropriate for the area. If the PEC chooses to recommend approval of this request, the Department of Community Development requests the following condition be placed on the approval: 1. The applicant must process (PEC) and record (Eagle County) an approved final plat to reflect the amended zoning district locations prior to construction of the facility. 3 Conditional Use Permit 0 Staff recommends that the PEC table (to October 9th) the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a "seasonal structure to accommodate recreational activities" and the maintenance of an existing outdoor recreation area, to allow staff additional time for review of outstanding relevant issues. If the PEC chooses to approve the request at this time, staff recommends the approval be subject to the following findings and conditions: Findings- 1 . That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of Chapter 12 -16, Town of Vail Code and the purposes of the General Use district. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety: or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of Chapter 12- 16, Town of Vail Code (Conditional Use Permits). Conditions: 1. Town staff will closely monitor and measure the sound output of the rink during peak usage to ensure conformity with the noise ordinance. In accordance with hourly restrictions described in the town's noise ordinance, the facility will not be open for use between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m. 2. The approval of this conditional use permit will become void two years from today's date (September 25'h, 2002). The Planning and Environmental Commission reserves the right to revoke this approval at any time during this period if conformance with the criteria for review and conditions of approval is not demonstrated. This includes provisions for snow clearance and/or removal_ Minor Subdivision Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission table (to October 91h) the request for a minor subdivision until additional information is received. V. REZONING REQUEST —CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION 1) Is the existing zoning suitable with the existing land use on the site and adjacent land uses? Staff believes the both the existing and proposed zoning designations are suitable with the 0 r,I existing and adjacent land uses. The town's intent has been to provide opportunities for public recreation at this location. Through the conditional use permit process, staff and the PEC can ensure that all future use of the site will be compatible with master plan goals and development objectives. General Use Purpose Statement The General Use District is intended to provide sites for public and quasi - public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 12 -1 -2 of this Title and to provide for the public welfare. The General Use District is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi- public uses permitted in the District are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses. and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses. 2) Is the amendment presenting a convenient workable relationship with land arses consistent with municipal objectives? Through the conditional use permit review process, the PEC can ensure that any future proposals are consistent with municipal objectives. This review process is intended to address development impacts such as traffic; parking, noise, hours of operation; etc. • Please refer to Section IV of this memorandum for complete details. 3) Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly viable community? In accordance with the provisions of the Town of Vail Zoning and Subdivision Regulations and Vail's Master Plan Elements, staff believes this rezoning provides for the growth of an orderly viable community. 4) Is the change consistent with the Land Use Plan? The Vail Land Use Plan places a future land use designation of "Park" on the subject property. These types of parcels are intended "for both active recreation activities such as athletic fields, golf courses and playgrounds, as well as areas for various passive recreation activities." Staff believes a zoning designation of "General Use" (a district intended for public facilities) is consistent with the goals and objectives outlined for the "Park" land use category. The following goals from the Plan are specifically impacted by this proposal: 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. Staff Response — Given the demand demonstrated for public ice at the Dobson Ice Arena, staff believes the provision of an additional (temporary) ice facility is consistent with this goal. 1.10 Development of Town owned lands by the Town of Vail (other than parks and open space) may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development is for public use. Staff Response— This project involves the placement of a public recreational structure on Town lands. This portion of the golf course property is not located within any identified geologic hazard areas. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). Staff Response —The subject property is an infill lot. 2.5 The community should improve non -skier recreational options to improve year -round tourism. Staff Response — This is a non -skier related winter recreational facility. When coupled with the existing golf course driving range, the property will provide year - round tourism amenities. 2.6 An additional golf course is needed. The Town should work with the down valley communities to develop a public golf course as we// as other sports facilities to serve the regional demand for recreational facilities. Staff Response — the Town has discussed the issue of down - valley ice facilities with other jurisdictions. Currently, Eagle County and the Town of Eagle have plans for the construction of additional public ice sheets dawn - valley. Additionally, the Town of Vail has plans to construct additional public ice as part of the "Hub Site" Community Facilities Plan. However, these are not anticipated to be availab4e for public use within the next 2 -year time frame. Therefore, the Town Council has agreed to appropriate funding for an additional temporary ice sheet in an effort to support local and regional demand for public ice for the short term. 2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. Staff Response - The intent behind the enclosure of the existing rink is to provide an extended period of use (regardless of weather conditions) and a higher quality ice surface. Staff believes this effort is consistent with the stated goal of improvement of existing park lands and facilities. VI. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW The conditional use permit is necessary for both the "seasonal structure to accommodate recreational activities" (hockey rink) and the maintenance of the existing use of the golf course driving range in the summer and fall months. In accordance with Chapter 12 -16 of the Town of Vail Code, an application for a conditional use permit within the General Use District shall be subject to the following development factors and criteria; 0 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. Applicable goals from the Vail Land Use Plan are outlined in Section III of this memorandum. Development standards for the General Use zone district are prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission in the form of an approved development plan for the project. Staff believes this proposal is consistent with the intended recreational uses identified for this site. Compatibility with adjacent residential uses is addressed under item #3 of this section. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. Transportation facility impacts are addressed below. Staff believes the improved ice surface will provide a positive impact upon demonstrated parks and recreation facility needs. Staff does not believe this proposal will impact the other above - lister! facilities. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. 40 Summer Traffic — Staff believes there are existing summer golf course traffic demands placed on Vail Valley Drive and Sunburst DJve that exceed an acceptable level of service. Clearly, these demands are due to summer golf course usage and they result in traffic congestion and occasional safety issues. However, staff believes the driving range is an accessory to the primary golf course usage and that the range is not a primary generator of "stand alone" trips. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers, we should expect a golf course of this size to generate approximately 731 -754 average daily trips. Assuming each driving range tee is used 8 times a day, we would anticipate approximately 400 trips (or 20 %d of the total estimated Vail Valley Drive traffic) being generated by the driving range. However, many of these trips are already attributable to the golf course itself and are considered "internal." Therefore, staff believes the driving range is a "stand alone" generator of approximately 15 % (or fewer) of the trips along Vail Valley Drive. Any trips east of the golf course along Sunburst Drive are generated by residential uses. Town staff is in the process of conducting traffic counts along Vail Valley Drive to determine peak hour activity and average daily traffic. Winter Traffic - Staff believes the enclosed facility will generate a nearly identical amount of traffic as the existing exposed ice rink. Winter traffic demand on Vail Valley Drive and Sunburst should fluctuate throughout the day. As opposed to the peak "shotgun" tee time intervals during summer use, staff anticipates a more evenly spread volume of traffic throughout the day with the varied mix of users of the golf course property during the winter months_ According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers, we should anticipate approximately 268 average daily trips for a recreation facility of this size. Given the mix of uses at this facility and the level of interest shown by Vail citizens for winter sports, staff would anticipate at 7 least a 15% increase over this estimate, bringing the total average daily trip estimate to approximately 308 average daily trips. Staff believes this is an acceptable volume (approximately 15.4% of total trips) for a residential collector road such as Vail Valley Drive / Sunburst Drive. Summer Parking - There is an existing shortfall of summer parking at the subject property due to the demand generated by golf course usage. According to the Vail Recreation District, 240 (or more) cars may be parked at any given time in the parking lot and along Vail Valley /Sunburst Drive during peak user periods. These trips are directly attributable to golf course usage and staff believes the driving range functions as an accessory to the golf course and is not a primary traffic generator. If the driving range were to be treated as a primary use (and principal traffic generator) peak user demand would impose a need for approximately 28 spaces (or 11.6% of peak parking demand). According to survey data produced by the American Planning Association, the number of parking spaces required for the golf course itself should be more than doubled. However, this need is not attributable to the driving range alone and is not relevant to this specific proposal. Winter Parking —The Vail Junior Hockey Association states that peak parking demand for the rink (assuming two teams arriving and two teams leaving simultaneously and one car per player) is 56 spaces. According to survey data provided by the American Planning Association: we should artic_.ipate a peak parking demand of 53 spaces for an enclosed (team sports) recreation facility of this size_ Staff believes an estimate of 58 spaces (during peak periods between practice sessions) is conservative and realistic. Since the rink is intended for use as a practice facility (games and events will be held at the Dobson Ice Arena), no additional parking generation is expected from outside spectator demand; although limited bleacher seating will be available to accommodate parents, coaches and guests. According to the Vail Recreation District, the Nordic Center serves anywhere from 20 -45 daily users during peak periods. It is anticipated that peak hours of usage at the nordic center will occur earlier in the day (during the week) than the activity at the hockey rink_ However; certain events (the "5 at 5" for example) will create a demand for nordic center parking during evening hours. Thus, the conservative estimate of 36 spaces is used for calculating peak parking demand (assuming carpooling and use of the adjacent bus stop - @ 1.2 persons /vehicle), although the primary use of the nordic areas is anticipated during the earlier daylight hours. The restaurant space at the golf course clubhouse is considered an accessory use to the golf course and it experiences a decrease in users when the golf course is closed. It is anticipated that the restaurant will serve many parents of hockey players while children practice. Therefore, many of the trips associated with the restaurant should be considered internal to the hockey rink or nordic center use. The golf course site also serves as a site for winter sleigh rides. On its busiest day, the VRD expects a total of 20 daily sleigh ride customers (or an assumed peak s parking demand of 5 spaces attributable to the sleigh operation throughout the day). Summary of Estimated Daily Winter Parking Demand* Land Use/Activity Anticipated Max. Parking Needs Hockey Rink 58 spaces Nordic Center 36 spaces Restaurant 9 spaces Sleiah Rides 5 soaves Total Gross Daily Parking Needs = 108 spaces (gross daily) (Turnover Factor ** 0 10 1%) Estimated Peak Parking Needs = 97.2 spaces Available Parking on Site = 110 spaces * These figures include anticipated employee parking. ` *This factor assurnes a length of stay of 6 hours or less (including -1 aver Jrop_: ,ff and pick up) and a fluctuation in hours of peak usage for all uses on site. This factor also assumes some of the trips to the restaurant will be associated with nordic center or hockey rink usage. Therefore, there should be a limited shared parking space occurrence on site_ Staff believes the above- listed parking estimates are very conservative and reflect a worst -case soenar'.0 eak parking demand. Hav^lever, stuff believes it is imperative that snowplowing (fc. the entire ;otj and parking lot �aintena,i c Nec�are a key priority at the site. Snow storage ..i ouid not be ucc ,t;m:odcteu lot. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Bulk and Mass— Pursuant to the Vail Town Code (Section 12 -2 -2), a seasonal use or structure shall not constitute site coverage and shall not be subject to building bulk control standards. For a point of reference, however, the following information is provided: Building Height Floor Area Site Coverage Setbacks Parking Spaces Allowed /Required per PEC approval per PEC approval per PEC approval per PEC approval per PEC approval Proposed approx. 35 feet 28,125 square feet 0 square feet min. 200' from private properties 110 spaces Adjacent properties include duplexes (limited to a maximum of 33' of building height), and townhouses (limited to a maximum of 38' of building height). The proposed height of the temporary structure is approximately 35 feet at its highest center portions. Given the setback from the road and adjacent properties and the 9 location of the proposed structure with regard to the existing clubhouse, staff is believes the bulk and mass are compatible with the established bulk and mass of adjacent properties. Noise —The Town's noise ordinance permits a noise level not to exceed 50 dB (nights) and 55 dB (days) in most residential areas (measured 10' from the noise source on public property). It is anticipated that the maximum noise output of the rink's associated blower /refrigeration units is 80 dB. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to enclose the equipment in an effort to mitigate the aesthetic and noise impacts. However, documentation of the extent of noise mitigation is not available at this time. Given the ambiguities in determining the potential noise impacts, however, staff is recommending a condition of approval that the Town will measure the sound output of the rink (and its associated mechanical equipment) during peak usage to ensure conformity with the noise ordinance. Additionally, it is recommended that the hours of operation be limited to 7;00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m. Adjacent neighbors have expressed concerns about the noise generated by the existing outdoor hockey rink (pucks bumping against dasher boards, shouting). Staff believes the enclosure of the facility will help to alleviate some of those noise concerns. VIL SUMMARY OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES Staff believes additional time is necessary for adequate review of the following outstanding issues: ■ Potential floodplain impacts (if applicable). ■ Peak hour traffic counts and average daily traffic for Vail Valley Drive. ■ Compliance with exiting requirements in accordance with building /fire codes. ■ Additional information regarding methods of noise impact mitigation. The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the Zoning Regulations and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Regulations. 0 10 Existing Adjacent Land UE Land Use low density residential medium density residential open space pa rk • SDD #8 �SDD #24 • 09 -20 -2000 12149PM FROM DR. JONES TO 19704792452 P.02 Mr. Brent Wilson, Being a part time Vail Resident and formerly a business owner, I feel compelled to write this letter in regards to the proposed ice rink bubble to be erected on the Vail Golf Course. Our immediate thought is of the beauty and natural settings that you have worked so hard to protect - 'why would you evert think that a bubble in the midge of a golf course would be anything but distracting; certainly not fatting with the beautiful surroundings. We certainly are concerned that you would consider changing the zoning in this residential area without a lengthy hearing on both sides of the issue. The cost sounds astounding for a temg5rary cover plat the cast of removing it in the spring and then reinstalling it in the fall. This will most likely be an issue someday which may cause there to be a permanent structure in place - hence no driving range for the golf course. There are far more people using the golf driving range than use the ice rink. You are asking the Vail taxpayers for a large amount of money that will be used primarily by people that don't live in Vail. Why not build this structure near the people using it - such as Eagle Vail or Avon? 4-- My wife and I are very concerned about this issue and are in hopes you will vote no to the rezoning and approval of this unsightly structure. With best regards, Act 0, &14 �, Bradley H. Jones, D.D.S., M.S. cc; Planning & Environmental Commission Chairman - Mr. Russel. Forrest Chairman of the Design Review Board Vail Daily TOTAL P.02 C, . . 09/15/2000 09:45 816421727.E WALKFR'S F ❑OD PRQD.0 PAGE 02 0 SEPTEM91?_R 14.2000 MAYOR LUDWIG KURTZ TOWN OF VAIL MUNICIPAL BUILDING 75 FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, CO 81657 DEAR MAYOR- AS A PROPERTY OWNER I EXPRESSED MY OPPOSITION IN WRITING AUUUST 25th TO THE PROPOSED BUBBLE TO HOUSE A NEW ICE RINK ADJACENT TO THE VAIL GOLF C0uRSE CLUBHOUSE. MY MAIN OBJECTION WAS, AND CONTINUES TO BE THAT A" BUBBLE " WOULD BE UNSIGHTLY AND HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE IMMEDIATE GOLF COURSE AREA RESIDENTS AS WELL AS CREATE A VERY PROMMNT EYESORE VISIBLE TO BOTH VISITORS AND OTHER RESIDENTS OF VAIL. HOWEVER, ON A TRW TO VAIL SEPTEMBER 12th TO FIRSTHAND BECOME MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPOSAL MY' CONCERNS WERE HEIGUM --NED AND BECAME BROADER. I WANT TO SHARE THESE ADDITIONAL CONCERNS W[TH YOU AND THE TOWN COUNCIL, BUT FIRST, AS A FORMER HOCKEY PLAYER AND WHOSE SON PARTICIPATED IN SEVERAL MARK JOHNSON'S HOCKEY CLINICS AT DOBSON ARENA I AM NOT ANTI HOCKEY NOR ARE ANY OF MY FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE HARMONIOUSLY LIVED WITH THE EXISTING UNCOVERED RINK FOR SEVERAL YEARS. HOWEVER, WE UNANIMOUSLY OBJECT TO'I'L CONSTRUCTION OF AN UNSIGHTLY AND EXPENSIVE BUBBLE THAT WILL SOON BECOME AN UGLY 5770,000 WHITE ELEPHANT. I OBJECT TO THE TOWN COUNCIL "5 " iNI"'ORIWAV APPR RIATION AND SPENDING OF $770,000 OF VAIL TAXPAYERS MONEY FOR A "FAST TRAM PROPOSAL THAT: BREACHES EXISTING ZONING} REGULATIONS AND THEREFORE REQUIRES AN UNDESIRABLE ZONING CHANGE THAT ALMOST CERTAINLY WELL FORCE THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO LEGALLY CONTEST. CLEARLY AND OUTRAGEOUSLY VIOLATES THI~ DESIGN GUWEL NES ESTABLISHED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AS IT PROPOSES A STRUCTURE NOT IN HARMONY WITH ITS NATURAL SURROUNDINGS AND WOULD BE SUBSTANDARD TO VAIL'S ESTABLISHE D RIGOROUS BUILDING REQUIREMENTS. HAS NOT BERN SURJEC.'TED TO A PLANNTNO AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION REVIEW WHERE; IT MOST LIKELY WILL VIOLATE PERMISSIBLE NOISE LEVELS BECAUSE OF THE BLOWER REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE BUBBLE SPENDS $770,00I01F VAIL TAXPAYERS MONEY ON A SECOND (TENMRARY PRACTICE) VAIL HOCKEY RINK FOR TIC BENEFIT OF ONLY A FEW VAIL USIDENI'S WHILE THE MAIN BENEFICIARIES OF THE RINK LIVE AND PAY TAXES DOWN VALLEY FAILS TO REQUEST THE CLOWN VALLEY NON VAIL PROPONENTS AND USERS OF THE PROPOSED RINK TO SHARE IN THE CONSTRUC'T'ION EXPENSE OF A SECOND ICE FACILITY IN VAIL CL r1 L_J 07i /15 /20dd b9:49 8164217273 WALKER'S FOOD PROD.0 PAGE 03 DOESN'T SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN WHY THE ,PROPOSED "TEMPORARY" PRACTICE RINK IS NOT BEING LOCATED AT EDWARDS, EAGLE OR AVON WHERF- iT WOULD BE MORE CONVENIENT TO MOST OF THE PLAYERS AND THEIR FAMILIES? OVERLOOKS A VERY INEXPENSIVE ALTERNATIlI-JO THE $ 770.000 BUBBLI~ BY SIMMY COVERING THE ICE WITH A TARP WHEN NOT IN USE AS THEY DO AT THE BEAVER CREEK RINK AND MOST OTtMR RINKS CONSTRUCTED FOR PRACTICE THAT DO NOT REQUIRE SPECTATOR AMENITIES IGNORE15 THE PROPER SEQUENCING PROCESS THAT THE CITY HAS LEGAL AND FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS TO ENFORCE TO PROTECT IN'TEREST'ED AND AFFECTED PARTIES WHEN A PROJECT IS PRESENTED TO THE TOWN COUNCIL. FINALLY, 1 AND SEVERAL OTHER VAIL PROPERTIES AND BUSINESS O'W'NERS I SPOKE WITH VIEW THIS `Bt JBBLE° ISSUE AS ANOTNE.R BREACH OF OUR TRUST BY THE TOWN. IT IS FURTHER EVIDENCE OF THE APPARENT DISTAIN THE COUNCIL AND SOME OTHER VAIL DEPARTMENTS HAVE FOR THE VAIL TAX PAYERS AND BUSINESS LEADERS WHO HAVE BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN MAKING VAIL A SUCCESS. n-W EROSION OF CONFIDENCE INCREASES IN EVERY INSTANCE WI-IUE THE TOWN COUNCIL AND THE TOWN DEPARTMENTS CHANGE OR CIRCUMVENT THE RULES THEY ESTABLISHED AND FAIL AS A RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY CARETAKER OF LOCAL TAXPAYERS INTERESTS IF THIS BELLIGERENT BEHAVIOR CONTiNUFS THE TOWN OF VAIL WILL FIND IT DIFFICULT TO ATTRACT OR RETAIN INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES WILLING TO INVEST AND SUPPORT THE TOWN AND THE EXODUS DOWN EY WILL INTENSIFY. S ROBERT BOYCE CC. TOWN COUNCIL VAIL DAILY VAIL TRAIL L_� • LEONARD W. BUSSE 1720 SUNBURST DRIVE #4 VAIL, COLORADO 81857 TEL: (970) 476 -0379 FAX: (970) 476 - 6986 E -MAIL_ Busse @cotorado.net August 24, 2000 Mayor Ludwig Kurtz Town of Vail Municipal Building 75 Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mayor: I am the President of Vail Golfcourse Townhomes, Phase I, which consist of 15 town homes on Sunburst Drive adjacent to the golf course. After reading the article "Vail Town Council approves $770,000 for indoor ice facility ", I have been instructed by our Board to raise a strong objection to this bubble being installed at the Vail Golf Course driving range. This unsightly large bubble would directly impact our 15 town homes that are valued at close to $1 million each_ This bubble would (1) reduce the value of our neighborhood real estate, (2) create a parking hazard for emergency vehicles if cars park on the street already narrowed by piled snow since the golf course parking lot has limited parking in the winter due to Steve Jones sleigh rides, parking for the Nordic Center, day skiers and piled snow, (3) create a negative environmental impact in our neighborhood because of the size of the bubble, the light at night, the noise of equipment, and the traffic_ Our neighborhood does not need a zone change from "outdoor recreation" to "general use ". if there must be a $770,000 bubble, which 1 doubt as a taxpayer to begin with, place it out on the ball fields. Our neighborhood has an appropriate size outdoor skating rink next to the Golf Club, which already suits our recreational purposes. Vail Golfcourse Townhomes Association request the Town Council reject the bubble at the Vail Golf Course driving range. Sincerely Leonard W. Busse President, Golfcourse Townhomes Association Copies: Sybill Navas Chuck Ogilby Greg Hall Vail Daily Kevin Foley Greg Moffet Piet Pieters Daily Trail Rod Slifer Russell Forrest Brent Wilson Diana Donovan Bob McLaurin Vail Management Company James E. & Mary A. Buncher 1730 Golf Lane, 476 Vail, CO 81657 • August 24, 2000 To the Vail Town Council Re: Bubble Covering of Ice Rink at the Vail Golf Course As a twelve year property owner and taxpayer in Vail, and as President of the Vail Golf Course Townhomes Association, Phase IV, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed indoor ice rink at the Vail Golf Course driving range, I am opposed to this for several reasons as outlined below: The golf course area is already highly congested during the winter months. The golf course parking lot contains the base for sleigh rides for our visitors, which limits the space available. The golf course is used for cross - country skiing. Downhill skiers use the parking lot and take the free bus to the slopes providing some relief for the village parking problem. If the rink were heavily used at times, parking will be required on the street, a dangerous situation that would impede the access for emergency vehicles. In addition, street parking will inhibit proper snow removal and further compound the problems. It is known that this is already a congested area, that is why there is a 15 MPH speed limit on Sunburst. Don't add to this congestion when there are better alternatives available. Such temporary structures are unsightly and not in keeping with the neighborhood. It will adversely impact real estate values in this area. Think about how much nicer it looks now that the one that was on the North Frontage Road is gone. The visual impact at night will be especially bad and makes Vail look cheap and uninviting. Do we want to look like Copper Mountain? These structures are just plain ugly. Has an environmental impact study been done? Most communities worry about the environment. This type of structure and adding to the congestion in an already congested area cannot be good for the environment. Is there really a demonstrated need? We have Robson Arena, a second indoor rink is included in the proposed Lionshead plan. Has a Needs Analysis been done to determine if a third indoor rink is really needed before we spend 11% of the budget to satisfy a small special interest group's request. Junior Hockey is certainly a fine program, but do we need to spend $770,000 in support of such a limited group with a second indoor facility already planned for Lionshead? Visitors to our community, our economic life- blood, come in the winter for outdoor activities. Where will they have outdoor ice skating? They can skate indoors at shopping malls in the communities from which they come. We need to provide a natural outdoor rink as we have in the past. Has there been a public hearing on the necessary zoning, change? As a property owner and taxpayer in the area, I have not received any notice of a hearing for a change in zoning that will adversely impact all property values in the area. I think it inappropriate to make such a zoning change without an open scheduled public hearing, with adequate notice to all property owners who will be impacted. • Ford Park is a much more logical location if there is a demonstrated need for a third indoor facility. It doesn't have the congestion, it has more winter parking space available, it will have less environmental impact, it is more convenient to guests in village hotels and in the spring, it will not cause a delay in the opening of Vail's only golf driving range. There is more than one baseball field but only one golf practice range. There should be no action taken by the Vail 'Town Council at the September 5, 2000 meeting other than to send consideration of this expenditure back to the Planning Commission for proper study and consideration of alternatives. We haven't done our homework relative to the need, environmental impact, zoning change impact on the neighborhood, congestion to be created or a proper evaluation of the alternatives and the need to retain an outdoor natural facility for use by our visitors who support our economy. If we continue this type of thinking of ourselves first, and our visitors second, we will become a second rate destination for winter activities. Lastly, I note that the structure is to be erected and removed by the hockey association members. I assume the Council has considered the issue of liability when one of the association members is severely injured erecting or removing the structure. And I hope you have also considered the cost when there isn't enough interest or support from the hockey association to get the structure up or down in a timely manner. James E. Buncher • ROCHELLE B. LAZARUS GEORGE M. LAZARUS, M.D. 1720 SUNBURST DRIVE #2 VAIL CO 81657 E -MAIL: GEORGELAZARUSMOL.COM September 1, 2400 Mayor Ludwig Kurtz Town of Vail Municipal Building 75 Frontage Road Vail CO 81657 Dear Mr. Mayor: As owners of one of the Golf Course Townhomes, we strongly object to the proposed zone change affecting our neighborhood, and also to the proposed indoor ice facility at the Vail Golf Course. The Vail Golf Course neighborhood is quiet, residential, and beautiful. The recreation path runs right through it, and we are properly zoned for "outdoor recreation." This designation protects the character of the neighborhood, and it is the peace and quiet of the Golf Course that attracted us as homebuyers in the first place. The proposed bubble structure will be an eyesore. It will cause traffic and parking congestion in an area that is already unable to handle the traffic and parking associated with the Nordic Center and the Clubhouse. Last winter there were numerous times when the Golf Course bus could } • • E • L. J not get through on Sunburst Drive because of cars and piled snow_ We already have an outdoor skating rink next to the Golf Club, and, of course, there is the Dobson Arena. We don't understand the need for this bubble, but if it is to be built, we agree with Leonard Busse's suggestion that it be placed at the ball fields. This location is much easier to access from larger roads than Sunburst Drive, and if the bubble were placed there it would not impact a quiet residential area. We urge you not to build this indoor ice facility at the Golf Course. Ver truly yours, Rochelle B. Lazar s CC: Sybill Navas Kevin Foley Rod Slifer Diana Donovan eorge M. Lazarus, M. D. Chuck Ogilby Greg Moffet Russell Forrest Bob McLaurin Vail Management Company Vail Daily Daily Trail Greg Hall Piet Peters Brent Wilson R013ERT A. EEoYCE AUGUST 25, 2000 MAYOR LUDWIG KURTZ TOWN OF VAIL MUNICIPAL BUILDING 75 FRONTAGE ROAD VAIL, CO 81657 DEAR MAYOR KURTZ: I WISH TO EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A "BUBBLE" ON THE VAIL GOLF COURSE PARKING LOT TO HOUSE ANOTHER INDOOR ICE FACILITY, THE PROPOSED LOCATION WOULD CREATE A TRAFFIC PROBLEM FOR VAIL GOLF COURSE TOWN HOME PROPERTY OWNERS AND MORE IMPORTANTLY BE A VERY VISIBLE EYESORE THAT WOULD COMPROMISE THE ESTHETICS OF THE GOLF COURSE AND THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD. ONE ONLY NEEDS TO DRIVE PAST THE "BUBBLE" AT COPPER MOUNTAIN THAT IS THE BUTT OF MANY JOKES TO UNDERSTAND WHAT A SORRY MESSAGE THIS PROPOSED "BUBBLE" EYESORE WOULD SEND TO BOTH WINTER AND SUMMER TOURISTS. IF A BUBBLE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED IT WOULD SEEM PRUDENT TO LOCATE IT WHERE IT WOULD HAVE LITTLE OR NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE IMMEDIATE AREA. CERTAINLY NOT LOCATE IT NEXT TO EXPENSIVE PERSONAL RESIDENCES AND ADJACENT TO AN ATTRACTIVE GOLF COURSE WHERE IT WOULD BE VERY VISIBLE TO VISITORS AND EVEN PROSPECTIVE VISITORS FROM THE HIGHWAY. AS A PROPERTY OWNER IN VAIL FOR OVER THIRTY YEARS I HAD ALWAYS BEEN COMFORTABLE IN MAINTAINING A SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN THE AREA. I BELIEVED THAT THE TOWN COUNCILS WOULD CONTINUE TO MAKE FORESIGHTED DECISIONS TO PROTECT VAIL PROPERTY OWNERS INVESTMENTS WHILE EXERCISING INTELLIGENT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TO EVERYONE'S BENEFIT. CONTRARILY, THIS PROPOSED REZONING TO CONSTRUCT AN EYE SORE WOULD BENEFIT RELATIVELY FEW AT THE EXPENSE OF MANY PROPERTY OWNERS AND COMPROMISE THE ESTHETICS OF ONE OF VAIL'S MOST VISIBLE A ETS, THE GOLF COURSE. PLEASE GIVE THIS PROPOSAL MORE THOUGHT! i i. ROBERT AND IkN BOYC OWNERS, UNIT #3 VAIL GOLF COURSE T I HOMES COPIES: VAIL TOWN COUNCIL S976 EAST 12TH AVENUE . N13RTH KANSAS Girt, MISS13L RI 64116 • (916) 472 -9121 , FAX (976) 421-7273 • (SE30) 725 -2372 EMAM -: SALADS20A L.CoM C • • • Page 1 of 1 Dear Sir: As an owner and week -end resident of Fallridge, which is across from the Vail Golf club house, we have enjoyed use of the ice rink over the past five years_ Use of the ice rink has, in my view, supported weekend residents, including my family, and guests who don't ski or choose to take a day off. Dobson has been largely unavailable for these purposes (and we have checked schedules for public skating numerous times.) Our concern is that the "overflow" from Dobson would monopolize the rink, leaving little to no time for public skating. Additionally, we like the low -key, outdoor rink and are opposed to the bubble concept_ Please contact us if you have any additional questions. Scott and Pat Perrin (303)277.9611 or (970)476 -7290 ksperrin@home.com file:HC:IWINDOWSITEMPIGW } 00002.HTM 9/18/00 k � �� . � ���. L� p ;�� ����- �� cow .� �, � � -�� �� � ��� � ; �� �- � � � ��-� , �- J r 7 SEASONAL ICE RINK PROPOSAL � VAIL GOLF COURSE � TOWN OF VAILNAIL RECREATION DISTRICT ' AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT PLAN ZONE CHANGE ' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT September 2000 n 1 I. M 0 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to provide information relative to a request for a Gone Change, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan Amendment to allow for a seasonal enclosure of the existing ice skating surface located on the site of the Vail Golf Course Driving Range. 3 The Vail Golf Course Driving Range is currently utilized as a seasonal, open air ice skating rink. The skating surface is groomed by a Zamboni ice resurfacing machine and is surrounded by hockey dasher boards. An overhead lighting system allows for evening use of the facility. The skating surface is maintained as long as weather allows but is often subject to closure due to heavy snow or warm temperatures. The Town of Vail, Vail Recreation District and the Vail Junior Hockey Association are ( all interested in increasing the viability of this existing recreational site by allowing for a ' seasonal enclosure and the use of a mechanical refrigeration system. The intention of this application is to amend the existing driving range zone district E designation from Outdoor Recreation to General Use, provide the appropriate information to allow for the concurrent review of a Special Use Permit for the requested use, and to receive approval for an amendment to the development plan for the Vail Golf Course. During the initial research into this proposal it was determined that the existing Golf Course Starter Shack and the Golf Course Clubhouse are located on land that is zoned as Outdoor Recreation. In order to correct this non conforming situation the proposed zone district amendment encompasses the Golf Course Clubhouse, the Driving Range and the Starter Shack location. i2.0 PURPOSE The purpose of this request is to increase winter recreational opportunities for local children, local adults, and our winter guests by providing for a viable seasonal ice surface that will not be impacted by unseasonably warm temperatures, direct sun, or heavy snows. Dobson Arena is currently the only covered and mechanically refrigerated ice surface in Vail and Eagle County. The increasing participation in local youth programs, adult it skating programs, women's hockey and figure skating, along with the continued use of Dobson Arena as a community special events facility has created a demand for ice time s that has surpassed the capacity of Dobson Arena. While more permanent options for permanent skating facilities are currently in the discussion and planning stages these facilities are several years away from meeting the current demand. The intention of this seasonal facility is to address that demand until a permanent facility is constructed. Seasonal Ice Rink Proposal I. Participation in the Vail Junior Hockey Association program alone has grown significantly over the past 5 years, with the 1999 -2000 season gaining an additional 20 children over the previous season. The majority of this program growth is at the lowest age levels, indicating a strong demand for available ice time will continue for years to come. Meanwhile other programs have begun and flourished which also place pressure on ice time demands. The Vail Girls' Hockey Club grew to 30 players last year and this year, under the wings of the Vail Junior Hockey Association, participation in that program is expected to increase by up to 25 %. Vail is also home to a competitive women's hockey team, several competitive men's senior league teams and a thriving local men's senior league. The establishment of a seasonal enclosure over the driving range ice surface will benefit all of those users and allow for the continuation of these popular recreation programs while other permanent solutions are discussed and evaluated. 3.0 PROPOSED PLAN The proposal is to locate a seasonal structure of approximately 225 feet in length, 120 feet in width and 36 feet in height (225' x 120' x 36) on the Vail Golf Course driving range at the location of the existing seasonal outdoor ice skating rink. The Vail Golf Course driving range has long been the site of a seasonal outdoor skating rink. The existing rink is surrounded by hockey dasher boards, the ice surface is maintained by a Zamboni ice surfacing machine and a lighting system allows use well into the evening hours. During the winter of 1998 -1999 Vail hosted the 1999 World Alpine Championships and the entire VJHA program was shifted to the golf course rink for several weeks while Dobson Arena was transformed into a special events center and rodeo ground. During the winter of 1999 -2000 the in -floor refrigeration system in Dobson Arena failed and again the recreation activities scheduled for Dobson Arena were shifted to the Golf Course rink for several weeks. The intent of this request is to increase the viability of this recreational site and remove the scheduling and use uncertainties that are related to the outdoor facility and its exposure to the weather. The proposed structure will be an air supported clear span dome constructed of a 23 ounce per yard coated poly vinyl fabric in a white color. The structure will be anchored by a removable timber and 4' long augur stake system attached to steel cables incorporated into the structure fabric. The structure will be a new, state of the art, energy efficient structure designed expressly for this use. The structure will meet or exceed industry standards and Uniform Building Code requirements. Mechanical equipment consists of a blower to maintain air ressure and an ice making g chiller system. The chiller system is approximately 25 feet long, 8 feet wide and 6 feet iSeasonal Ice Rink Proposal 2 high. This portable system will be mounted on a trailer and placed at the east end of the ice rink. A wooden fence will be installed to provide visual screening of the equipment. The chiller is powered by a 200 horsepower electric motor and according to the chiller specifications and conversation with the manufacturer the maximum noise output during peak motor output is 80 dba at the source. This output level is only necessary during the initial ice making period. At normal ice maintenance operation levels the noise output is expected to be significantly lower. If noise levels are recognized as a problem the applicant is willing to mitigate the noise levels by fully enclosing and baffling the mechanical system. The Zamboni has historically been stored within the cart barn of the Vail Golf Course Clubhouse and a garage door system at the east end of the structure will allow the Zamboni access to the ice surface. A pair of revolving doors along the south side of the rink will allow convenient access from the parking lot and to and from the Golf Course Clubhouse. Skate changing and dressing will occur within the structure and within the cart storage level of the golf course clubhouse. Restroom facilities are available in the clubhouse. The existing parking lot at the Vail Golf Course can accommodate 100 cars and is adequate to accommodate the proposed use. In addition to the existing ice rink, the Golf Course restaurant will remain open and includes a horse drawn sleigh ride attraction The clubhouse is also the location of the Vail Nordic Center. The parking lot has been sufficient to accommodate these uses in the past and it is anticipated that there will be plenty of available parking. A maximum parking demand for the rink facility may be calculated by assuming a game situation with two teams arriving and two teams leaving at one time. The average team size is 14 players and using a conservative assumption of one car per player the maximum parking demand would be for 56 parking spaces. The more typical use of the rink will be for overlapping single team practices which will only require parking for 15 to 20 cars. The facility has the potential to be used from approximately 6:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. on a daily basis, however, the bulk of the demand for ice time comes from the after school hours until 10:00 p.m. 4.4 APPROVAL CRITERIA In order to allow for the seasonal enclosure of the existing ice rink a Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit and Amendment to the Development Plan are required. The following sections address the criteria required for approval of each land use action. Seasonal Ice Rink Proposal 3 4.1 Zone Change The Planning Commission and Town Council must make certain findings in order to approve a zone change request. The following paragraphs list those findings and provide a response that describes how this proposal meets those findings: 1. Is the existing zoning suitable with the existing land use on site and adjacent land uses? The existing zoning of the golf course clubhouse, the driving range and the starter shack is Outdoor Recreation. This zone district is not suitable for the starter shack or clubhouse uses and should be changed to recognize these existing buildings and uses. This change will bring the existing facilities into conformance with the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The existing land uses have proven compatible with the adjacent land uses. 2. Is the amendment presenting a convenient workable relationship with land use consistent with municipal objectives? The applicant believes that this proposed amendment does present a workable relationship with land use in a manner consistent with municipal objectives. The land use in question, a seasonal skating rink, has existed on the site as an outdoor use for several years. As the center of activity for the golf course uses, as a year -round restaurant, as the home of the Vail Nordic Center and as an existing skating rink, this location is clearly appropriate for recreational uses that benefit the entire community. 3. Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly viable community? Response: The rezoning does provide for the growth of a orderly viable community by extending the viability and reliability of an existing seasonal recreational use. The increase in demand for this facility is well documented. 4. Is the change consistent with the Land Use Plan? Response: The Land Use Plan category for this area is Park, which allows for both active and passive recreational uses. Seasonal Ice Rink Proposal 4 I � 9 4.2 Conditional Use Permit Section 18.60.060 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code addresses criteria for the review of a Conditional Use Permit. The following paragraphs list those criteria and provide a response that describes how this proposal meets those criteria: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town; T Response: The proposal to cover and mechanically refrigerate the existing seasonal ice skating surface at the Vail Golf Course furthers the idevelopment objectives of the Town by creating a more reliable and functional seasonal recreational facility. As a winter season use the ' skating rink complements the summer use of the golf course and takes advantage of the existing infrastructure. The use can be located with no damage to the driving range facility and with little or no impact to the immediate neighborhood. The existing buildings and landscaping will help to screen the facility from residential uses and the mechanical equipment location will be designed to mitigate any potential impacts to residential properties. 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs; Response: The Vail Golf Course driving range is currently the host to the seasonal outdoor ice skating rink. The proposal to cover and refrigerate ' this skating surface should have no additional effect upon the above criteria. 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas, Response: The existing street circulation system and golf course parking lot are capable of handling the traffic with no increase to congestion or negative impacts to safety and traffic flow. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be f� located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses; Response: While the proposed structure is fairly large in size the proposed location should minimize any negative visual considerations from n ISeasonal Ice Rink Proposal 5 1� 7. Prior to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a time -share estate, fractional fee or time -share license proposal, the applicant shall submit to the town a list o fall owners of existing units within the project or building; and written statements from one hundred percent of the owners of existing units Indicating their approval, without condition, of the proposed time - share, fractional fee for time -share license_ No written approval shall be valid if it was signed by the owner more than sixty days prior to the date of filing the application for a conditional use. All buildings which presently contain time -share units would be exempt from this provision. Response: This Conditional Use Permit request does not entail time -share ■ or fractional fee use. 4.3 Development Plan Amendment The development plan for the Vail Golf Course will be amended by the addition of a seasonal use structure located on the existing driving range. There are no permanent facilities or improvements proposed and the existing vehicular circulation, parking and building infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed use. The applicant believes that the amendment to the development plan is in compliance with Town goals and policies and represents sound site planning. ISeasonal Ice Rink Proposal 6 residential properties in the vicinity. The white color of the structure will blend in well with the winter conditions of the site. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use; Response: The applicant is willing to address any other factors or criteria the commission deems applicable. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56; Response. Due to the seasonal, non - permanent nature of the facility and the use of existing infrastructure for access and parking the applicant Environmental Impact Report. respectfully requests a waiver of the 1� 7. Prior to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a time -share estate, fractional fee or time -share license proposal, the applicant shall submit to the town a list o fall owners of existing units within the project or building; and written statements from one hundred percent of the owners of existing units Indicating their approval, without condition, of the proposed time - share, fractional fee for time -share license_ No written approval shall be valid if it was signed by the owner more than sixty days prior to the date of filing the application for a conditional use. All buildings which presently contain time -share units would be exempt from this provision. Response: This Conditional Use Permit request does not entail time -share ■ or fractional fee use. 4.3 Development Plan Amendment The development plan for the Vail Golf Course will be amended by the addition of a seasonal use structure located on the existing driving range. There are no permanent facilities or improvements proposed and the existing vehicular circulation, parking and building infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed use. The applicant believes that the amendment to the development plan is in compliance with Town goals and policies and represents sound site planning. ISeasonal Ice Rink Proposal 6 VJHA Seasonal lee Hockey Facility Peter Tamar Associates, Inc. Scale 1" =100` July 2000 north Y1, .x i� G — — :: rye I� i i r / CO �;p N ti l n' WON Existing Driving Range f Limit of Disturbance CO Oslo WO7Te i� Facrfa (225' VJHA Seasonal Ice Hockey Facility Ca 44— Aura: = Pan j.n Arne Wct, fea PO Dr—'IV Va. CO 63W T� 9%d419,B104 Par 770.449'1479 E..1 PJAQVA1LNET m .m 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION IPurpose of Report The purpose of this report is to provide an Environmental Impact Report, in accordance with Chapter 18.56 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, for the proposed seasonal ice rink facility to be located on the driving range of the Vail Golf Course_ The Vail Golf Course driving range is currently utilized as a seasonal, open air ice skating rink. The skating surface is groomed by a Zamboni ice resurfacing machine and is surrounded by hockey dasher boards. An overhead lighting system allows for evening use of the facility. The skating surface is maintained throughout the winter season as long as weather and ambient air temperatures allow. The Town of Vail, Vail Recreation District and the Vail Junior Hockey Association are all interested in increasing the viability of this existing recreational site by allowing for a seasonal enclosure of the ice surface and by adding a mechanical refrigeration system to maintain the ice surface temperature. The proposed plan is to locate an air supported fabric structure of approximately 225 feet in length, 125 feet in width and 36 feet in height (225' x 125' x 36) on the Vail Golf Course driving range at the location of the existing seasonal outdoor ice skating rink. Mechanical equipment will consist of a blower to maintain the air pressure within the structure and an ice making refrigeration system. The refrigeration system equipment approximately 25 feet long, 8 feet wide and 6 feet high. This is a portable system that will sit on a mobile truck trailer. The refrigeration system is powered by a 200 horsepower electric motor. The refrigeration system uses a Freon based chiller /condenser to cool a liquid brine which is circulated through a piping mat under the ice surface. The system is closed and fully self contained. The ice rink facility will be installed on a seasonal basis from mid November to mid March. The Seasonal Ice Rink environmental analysis addresses each of the conditions listed in Section 18.56.020, Applicability, of the Vail Zoning Code, as follows: A. Alters an ecological unit or land form, such as a ridgeline, saddle, draw, ravine, hillside, cliff, slope, creek, marsh, watercourse, or other natural land form feature, ' The seasonal ice rink will be located on the driving range of the Vail Golf Course and will not alter any ridgeline, saddle, draw, ravine, hillside, cliff, slope, creek, marsh, watercourse or other natural land form feature. B. Directly or indirectly affects a wildlife habitat, feeding, or nesting ground; • The seasonal ice rink will not affect or impact, either directly or indirectly, any wildlife habitat, feeding or nesting ground. C. Alters or removes native grasses, trees, shrubs, or other vegetative cover; • The seasonal ice rink is proposed to be located on the driving range of the Vail (golf Course. A portion of the driving range, roughly equivalent to the 225' x 125' footprint of the seasonal structure will be regraded to create a level surface. This graded area will be revegetated with turfgrass to match the remainder of the driving range. In future year installations of the seasonal structure no further disturbance to the vegetation will be required. D. Affects the appearance of character of a significant scenic area or resource, or involves buildings or other structures that are of a size, bulk, or scale that would be in marked contrast to natural or existing urban features; B. F. • The ice rink proposal entails the placement of a seasonal structure over the existing seasonal, outdoor ice rink on the Vail Golf Course driving range. The structure will be in place from mid November until mid March of the winter season and will be a 225' x 125' white fabric air supported dome. It is the belief of the applicant that the white color of the building will blend well with the winter conditions of the driving range and will not be in marked contrast with the natural or existing urban features. Potentially results in avalanche, landslide, siltation, settlement, flood, or other land form change or hazard to health and safety; • The proposed use should not increase any natural hazard conditions, and does not change any land forms that would result in a hazard to health and safety.. Discharges toxic or thermally abnormal substances, or involves use of herbicides or pesticides, or emits smoke, gas, steam, dust, or other particulate matter; • Thp ice rink will not discharge any toxic or thermally abnormal substances, does not involve the use of herbicides or pesticides, and does not emit smoke, gas, steam, dust or other particulate matter. Involves any process which results in odor that may be objectionable or damaging; • The ice rink will not produce any odor that may be objectionable or damaging. P H. I. J. K. L. M N Requires any waste treatment, cooling or settlement pond, or requires transportation of solid or liquid wastes to a treatment or disposal site; • The ice rink will not require any waste treatment, cooling or settlement ponds or require transportation of liquid or solid wastes to a disposal site. Discharges significant volumes of solid or liquid wastes; • The proposed ice rink will not discharge significant volumes of solid or liquid wastes. The Vail Golf Course Clubhouse restroom facilities will be available to the ice arena users. The ice surface will be maintained by a Zamboni ice resurfacing machine. This machine scrapes off and collects the top surface layer of ice and applies hot water to the freshened surface. The collected snow and ice flakes will be deposited outside. This snow deposit will melt away with the spring thaw. Has the potential to strain the capacity of existing or planned sewage disposal, storm drainage, or other utility systems; • The seasonal ice rink proposal will not create any strain to the capacity of the existing infrastructure. Involves any process which generates noise that may be offensive or damaging; • The mechanical system of the proposed ice rink will generate some noise, however information available to the applicant indicates that the noise level should not be offensive or damaging. Additionally, the applicant is willing to pursue mitigation measures to minimize any noise impacts of the mechanical equipment. Either displaces significant numbers of people or results in a significant increase in population; • This proposal will not displace any people nor result in a population increase. Pre -empts a site with potential recreational or open space value; • The stated intent of this proposal is to increase the viability of an existing recreational site. Alters local traffic patterns or causes a significant increase in traffic volume or transit service needs; • The enclosure of the existing outdoor ice rink may result in an increased use of the facility, which in turn, may result in a minor increase in traffic. 0 2.0 However, the increased traffic generated by the enclosure of the existing ice surface will remain significantly below the summer traffic associated with the golf course use. O. Is a part of a larger project which, at any future stage, may involve any of the impacts listed in this section. 0 This proposal is not a part of any larger project. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SUMMARY Existing Conditions The proposed seasonal ice rink project entails enclosing and mechanically refrigerating an existing seasonal outdoor ice skating surface that is located on the Vail Golf Course driving range. The driving range is an approximately 3.5 acre area located immediately adjacent to the existing Vail Golf Course clubhouse and parking lot on Vail Valley Drive. The range is a flat turfgrass field and is enclosed by a tall fence /netting system that contains errant practice shots. The driving range area has been utilized for several years as a seasonal outdoor skating rink. The ice surface is laid out over packed snow and maintained by a Zamboni ice resurfacing machine. The ice is enclosed by hockey boards and the rink area includes a lighting system which allows evening use. The clubhouse functions as a garage for the Zamboni and as a skate changing and warming but for the ice rink. The golf course is also used seasonally as a Nordic skiing venue, with a set track along the fairways and with the clubhouse functioning as the Nordic center. The golf course clubhouse restaurant remains open in the winter and serves dinner nightly. A sleigh ride operation operates on the golf course, in conjunction with the restaurant. Hydrologic Conditions The enclosure of, and addition of mechanical refrigeration to, the existing ice rink will not change or affect the existing hydrologic conditions of the site. No change to the existing drainage patterns will occur and no significant additional stormwater runoff will be created. There will be no impact to any wetland features, riparian vegetation or flood plain. 4 Atmospheric Conditions The proposal will not create any additional smoke, steam, dust or other particulate generation other than the minor contribution of vehicular exhaust if there is an increase in local traffic. No woodburning will be associated with the proposed use. Air quality within the Vail Valley is generally quite good and exceeds state and federal standards. No noticeable or measurable degradation of air quality should occur due to this proposal.. Noise and Odor The proposed mechanical system includes an electric blower fan to maintain air pressure in the fabric structure and an electric motor to operate the refrigeration system. This mechanical equipment will be located outside of the structure and will be surrounded by a visual screen enclosure. Sound readings taken by the manufacturer of the proposed structure indicate that the blower system of a similar structure registers approximately 60 -62 DBA at a 30' distance from the mechanical unit. Information provided by Burley's Fink Supply, a refrigeration system manufacturer indicates that the refrigeration system sound output may be expected to be a maximum of 80 dba immediately adjacent to the source. This maximum sound output only occurs when the refrigeration system is running at full capacity. This situation only occurs during the initial "freeze in" of the ice surface. During normal winter operations the refrigeration system will run at a maintenance level and produce less sound. There are two residential areas that may be impacted by the sound of the mechanical systems. The Vail Golf Course Townhomes are located approximately 300 feet west of the west end of the proposed structure. The mechanical equipment is proposed to be located another 225 feet away, on the east end of the structure. The location of the structure should serve to muffle the noise heard from the direction of the Vail Golf Course Townhomes. To the east and south east of the proposed rink structure are 9 homes along Sunburst Drive that may be exposed to some noise levels from the mechanical equipment. These homes range from approximately 400 feet to 800 feet from the east end of the structure. The location of the mechanical equipment is approximately halfway between Interstate 70 and the residential properties. It is the applicants belief that the impact of the mechanical equipment will not greatly exceed the existing background noise of Interstate 70 traffic. However, in order to mitigate potential impacts to residential properties the applicant, The Town of Vail and the Vail Recreation District will commit to working closely with the residents to minimize any noise impacts. E Additional mitigation techniques, such as adding sound muffling equipment or insulating the screen enclosure with sound absorption materials should be effective in minimizing sound impacts. The addition of the seasonal enclosure and mechanical refrigeration system will not produce any significant odors. Geologic Conditions The driving range is not located in any known geologic hazard area and the addition of a temporary, seasonal air supported structure will not increase or create any geologic hazards. No significant grading is associated with this proposal. Biotic Conditions The driving range, like the remainder of the golf course is a highly managed turfgrass environment. The seasonal ice rink is currently constructed over the existing grass and the proposed structure will be placed directly on the turfgrass. Any damage to this grass is and will continue to be repaired as a part of the standard golf course maintenance operations that occur annually. No trees, shrubs or native vegetation will be impacted by the proposed use. Population Characteristics The proposal to enclose and refrigerate the existing seasonal ice rink at the Vail Golf Course driving range will not impact residential densities or neighborhood patterns and will not displace any residents or businesses or otherwise impact population characteristics of the area. ! Visual Conditions The proposed cover for the skating rink is a 225' x 125' x 36' white fabric air supported dome. The skating rink is visible from 3 primary view shed locations: 1) The Vail Golf Course Townhomes 2) Sunburst Drive residences and 3) Interstate 70 and the Frontage ! Road. The Vail Golf Course Townhomes are located 300 feet to 400 feet west of the ice rink location, directly across the street from the Vail Golf Course clubhouse parking lot. Although the view of the skating rink will be filtered by the existing, extensive landscaping and is partially screened by the clubhouse, portions of the structure will be visible from some locations within the Vail Golf Course Townhomes. However, the distance from the twnhomes will allow the views of the surrounding mountains to remain unobstructed. Cl 1 There -Are 9 single family homes along Sunburst Drive that will also view the proposed structure. The closest of these homes is approximately 400 feet from the proposed rink, the furthest of the 9 homes is approximately 800 feet away. The view of the rink facility from these homes is to the north and northwest. The distance separating the rink from the homes will ensure that the view of the northern hillsides of the Vail Valley will remain unobstructed. The skating rink will block some low level views of Interstate 70 and the Frontage Road. From the Interstate and the Frontage Road travelers will view the ice skating rink from across the 10th fairway of the golf course, a distance of approximately 500 feet. A set of photographs are included under cover of this report to illustrate the view characteristics from the adjacent residential properties. The ice rink structure is proposed as a seasonal use, from mid November until mid March. The white fabric color should blend in well with the background snow cover. The existing ice rink utilizes an overhead lighting system to allow for night time use. The installation of the cover over the ice surface should result in less ambient light escaping the site. A mechanical equipment enclosure will be constructed to provide visual screening and sound muffling for the equipment. It is anticipated that an 8' tall wooden screen will be utilized. The final design of this enclosure will be presented for final design review. Land Use Conditions The Vail Golf Course driving range has been used as an outdoor skating rink for several years. The proposal to add a seasonal cover and a mechanical refrigeration system to the existing rink does not represent a major change in land use. The use of the golf course facility for winter recreation presents an efficient use of infrastructure and facilities and is compatible with other officially approved land uses and open space policies. Circulation and Transportation Conditions The ice rink is located on the driving range of the Vail Golf Course, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive. Vail Valley Drive intersects with the Frontage Road, which functions as the primary collector road in the Golf Course and East Vail neighborhoods. A Town of 1 Vail bus stop is located at the clubhouse parking lot, approximately 100 feet from the proposed ice rink location. The Vail Golf Course clubhouse and driving range location is the primary destination for all Vail Golf Course traffic. The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation 6th Edition manual is the standard reference for traffic and transportation analysis. The ITE Trip Generation 6th Edition, page 699, indicates that the trips on a typical Saturday for a golf course range from 375 to 1,300 with the average at 725 vehicular trips. The ITE golf course trip generation chart is attached for reference. J I According to statistics available from the Vail .Recreations District, the management ' entity for the Vail Golf Course, the course averages a range of 288 to 320 rounds of golf per day during the summer season. The Vail Golf Course is also host to an active driving range and practice facility which adds additional daily trip generation. In the winter time the Vail Golf Course restaurant remains open for evening meals, and hosts a sleigh ride operation, the Vail Nordic Center operates out of the Vail Golf Course clubhouse and the existing outdoor skating rink is available for both scheduled and unscheduled use. The proposal to cover the existing ice surface and to add mechanical refrigeration should not significantly impact traffic and circulation issues on the Frontage Road or Vail Valley i Drive. While the covering and refrigeration of the existing ice rink may create some additional winter traffic to the area the overall winter traffic is anticipated to remain well below the busy summer traffic generated by the Vail Golf Course. The scheduled uses of the Vail Golf Course Rink are generally by the Vail Junior Hockey Association, the Vail Figure Skating Club and the men's and women's senior league skaters. These users are generally scheduled from the after school hours (3:30 p.m. until 11:00 p.m.). During these hours, whether the user is the Vail Junior Hockey Association, the Vail Figure Skating Club or the senior leagues, there are generally 15 -- 25 people utilizing the facility at any one time. A typical ice skating or hockey practice session lasts for one hour, so every hour from 3:30 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. a group of 15 - 25 people will enter and exit the golf course facility. Given the average car pooling and ride sharing associated with these uses it can be fairly anticipated that approximately. 10 - 12 cars will enter and exit the Vail Golf Course on an hourly basis from 3:34 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. For this 7 hour period of use there may be an average of approximately 140 vehicular trips. This trip generation is well below the current level of summer traffic and is capable of moving safely and efficiently on the existing road system. The Vail Golf Course parking lot has approximately 102 parking spaces. This level of parking should be more than sufficient to accommodate the winter uses of the clubhouse and the skating rink. The average parking demand, based upon a typical practice schedule of the Vail Junior Hockey Association is expected to be approximately 15 to 20 cars. Maximum parking demand is anticipated to be 55 to 56 spaces if the rink is used for a game situation. ft t 1�8 Land Use: 430 Golf Course Description T Iwe golf courses Gant. -lincci in this land use include 9 -. 1 H -. 27- and 30 -Bale municipal courses and private country clLjbs. _sOme sites have driving range$ and clubhouses With a pro shop andCor restaurant, lounge, and banquet facilities_ Many of the municipal courses do not have any of these faclities. Miniature golf course (land use 431), golf drivii3 range (land use 432), and multipurpose recreatlonaf facility (land use 435) are related uses. Additional Data The sites were surveyed from the late 1960s to the mid -1990s throughout the United States. Most of the facilities were located in suburhan areas; a few were in scenic, rural areas. Source Lumbers 7, 11, 12, 13, 18, 98, 102, 214. 376. 407, 440 Trip nwreration, Ea'+.h Ed0ion 676 Institute of Transportation Engineers 09 '15-2-1000 10: 504V1 970 926 -33% P . 0. Golf Course (430 ) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Holm On a: Saturday Number of Studies: 12 Average Number of Holes; 19 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 500% exiting Trip Generation per Hole Average Rate Rwoe of Elates Standard Deviation 40.63 16.00 - 70.80 17.1.E uam rjot ana equation 1,300 1,2AD 1,100 1,000 w 9 W .1 CL 1— W4 V U m N 640 Q 50U 440 300 2w .. ................. .. - -.a_. ... ---... . _ • . mss". .. 5 -' . • • _ . . - . . . . • �f� • . . - • . • . . .. _ .. .. _++ter. .. -- _ -. ..t..- _..r... •. .. a • .. �f.a _ .. ••• _ ........... yI .J4 ..• • • -. . . .. .. • _• -. -• • . • a a___•____ • • •X • : • - 1011 a 10 11 12 13 14 15 i6 17 18 t9 20 21 22 23 24 26 26 27 K = Number of Holes X Act1u1 vau Porrlt!i Fitted Curve Equation_ Not given t Trip Gene.mtinn, 6th Edition -- Avempo Rate p2 = .,.. 699 Institute of Transportation Engineers i 09 -- - 10:51W 970 926 33911 F. 05 ;t E f i1 I [ A u View from Sunburst a East Vail Ho Peter Jama.r I Septemb E i ' - I DAF � � k:.. � +rte_ '�` � �� �`.• + ,c �4 ly s i • s. • f 4 w7ft ft im." , „- -- 1` "'yam [ ! � � -• �- t. -r �` a i � q w S 1 I 1 irs �lipT . .. View from I8th Gr East Vail Ho4 Peter Jamar A; Septembt View from 18th Fairwa East Vail Hach Peter Jamar Ass September I I I View from the Rough East Vail Hod Peter Jamar As; September 4�� x 1 C.- it View from 18th FairA East Vail Hacke Peter Jamar Assa September 11 BERNIE AND STARR BONIFACE August 29, 2000 Vail Town Council Re: project for Bubble Covered Ice Rink As an eleven -year resident of Sunburst Drive, I am appauled at the posibility of a bubble inclosure for an ice rink. Vail golf course area has enough projects to take care of such as skiers parking, Nordic track skiing, and Steve Jones sleigh rides. I was thankful when the bubble on Frontage Read came tumbling down, it was a terrible sight and personally, I felt Vail Valley deserves better. During the winter months, the golf course parking lot is very limited in space, school buses and town buses sometime have a hard time in the turnaround area. I am in high hopes that the town council will take in to consideration the adverse impact on property value this structure will have on our neighborhood. If it were up to me we would not consider another indoor rink and spend the large amount alotted for this on a more worthwhile project. I am in hopes that all adverse input will be taken in consideration. We are very proud of our street and will do what it takes to protect our neighborhood and future on Sunburst Drive. Starr Boniface 1j o �U� { • 40 DOBSON ICE ARENA SPECIAAL EVENT CALENDER 2000/2001 DOBSON EVENTS RE 14SED AS OF 9,,'21,•00 SEPTEMBER/00 SEPTEMBER 6 - 7, 2000 SEPTEMBER 9 - 14, 2000 FRIDAY, SEPTEMMER 15.2000 SATURDAY. SEPTEMBER 16.2000 THURSDAY, S1PTEIVIBER 21.2000 FRIDAY, SEPTE -vBER 22, 2001 i SATURDAY. SEPTEMBER 23.2000 SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2000 FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2000 OCTOBER/00 VAIL JUNIOR HOCKEY REGISTRATION (IN LOBBY) DALLAS STARS TRAINING CAMP - (NO MORNING ICE) CONCERT - (NO ICE) NO ICE BEFORE 11:00 AM SPECIAL EVENT - (NO ICE AFTER 6:00 PM) SPECIAL EVENT - (NO ICE) SPECIAL EVENT - (NO ICE) SPECIAL EVENT - (NO MORNING ICE BEFORE NOON) CONCERT - (NO ICE) - CANCELED FRIDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2000 CONCERT - (NO ICE) - DATE CHANGE OCTOBER 20 - 22, 21WO AAA TOURNAMENT THURSDAY;', OCTOBER 26, 2000 NO ICE AFTER 6:00 PM OCTOBER 27 - 29, 2000 SKI SWAP - (NO ICE) TUESDAY. OCTOBER 31, 2000 POSSIBLE CONCERT ? - (NO ICE) ? 0 NOVEMBER/00 NOVEMBER 3 - 5, 2000 VAIL JUNIOR HOCKEY TOURNPI ENT NOVEMBER 10 - 12, 2000 VAIL JUNIOR HOCKEY TOURNAMENT NOVEMBER 17 - 19.2000 VAIL JUNIOR HOCKEY TOURNAMENT NOVEMBER 23.2000 CLOSED FOR THANKSGIVING NOVEMBER 25, 2000 CONCERT - (NO ICE) - DATE CHANGE NOVEMBER 25 - 26, 2000 CURLING TOURNAMENT -NO ICE - CANCELED DECEMBER/00 DECEMBER 14 -15, 2000 POSSIBLE CONCERT - (NO ICE) ? DECEMBER 20 - 22, 2000 VAIL FIGURE SKATING FESTIVAL - (`NO ICE) DECEMBER 29. 2000 SKATING CLUB OF VAIL ICE. SHOW - TENTATIVE (NO ICE) DECEMBER 30, 2000 POSSIBLE SPECIAL EVENT (NO ICE) ? (ADDED) DECEMBER 31. 2000 `RAVE IN THE NEW YEAR" - YOUTH SERVICES (No ICE) JANUARY /01 JANUARY 1, 2001 CLOSED JANUARY 30, 2001 CONCERT - (NO ICE) (ADDED) FEBRUARY /01 FEBRUARY 2, 2000 FEBRUARY 3, 2001 FEBRUARY 4, 2001 FEBRUARY 26, 2001 FEBRUARY 27 - 28, 2001 MARCH/01 SPECIAL EVENT - (ADDED) (NO ICE) SPECIAL EVENT - (NO ICE) NO MORNING ICE (BEFORE 11:00 AM) SPECIAL OLYMPICS - (NO ICE BEFORE 5:00 PM) POSSIBLE CONCERT ? - (NO ICE)'? MARCH 8 - 10, 2001 RED "WNG ALUMNI - (NO ICE BETWEEN 6:00 -10 :00 PM) • • 0'8/22/00 T'-'E 09:56 FAX 1 707 785 1965 STEWARTS Aug - 22--00 09 :26A Col©rado Spca.ker- Sur -eau 970 476 OSOS PUBLIC PE11TION if we request tiiat the Vail Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commissicm deny the application of Developer, Henry lay Tsthirner, and Property owner, the Wilson Family Trust to subdivide Lot 15 and rezone Lot 16, Bighorn, 2nd Addition, from Open Space to Primary /Secondary Development. 1) Whereas, the Vail Open Lands Plan has designated lot 16 as in Parcel 41, the "Highest Priority" In the preservation of open space in Vail; 2) Whereas, ti& Vail Open Lands Plan states its objective "is to protect natural, open space and preserve tide `mountain experience'." ;) Whereas, the Vag {open Lands Plan states that the Plan protects open spaces whicfi provide a "recreational, environmental, and visual resource THEE, WE VIGOROUSLY OEUECT TO THE St BDrVISION OF LOT 15 AN D THE PMZOPJZNG OF LOT 16 FROM OPEN SPACE TO PRIMARY /SECONDARY HOUSMG_ The Undersigned: Printed Name Address Signature Date �m O�J2 P_01 2y4CC 06 PUBLIC PETITION gam. 1 1 East Vilrwaterfall We request that the Vail Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission deny the application of Developer, Henry Jay Tschirner, and Property Owner, the Wilson Family Trust to subdivide Lot 15 and rezone Lot 16, Bighorn, 2nd Addition, from Open Space to Primary /Secondary Development.. 1) Whereas, the Vail Open Lands Plan has designated lot 16 as in Parcel 41, the .`Highest Priority" in the preservation of open space in Vail; 2) Whereas, the Vail Open Lands Plan states its objective "is to protect natural, open space and preserve the'mountain experience ", 3) Whereas, the Vail Open Lands Plan states that the Plan protects open spaces which provide a "recreational, environmental, and visual resource ". THEREFORE, WE VIGOROUSLY OB3ECT TO THE SUBDIVISION OF LOT IS AND THE REZONING OF LOT 16 FROM OPEN SPACE TO PRIMARY /SECONDARY HOUSING. The Undersigned: Printed Name Address ��� Signature _w Date C.{f V > / • • • • 23. '- L4� 26. 51�e-Il'-S-- 30. 31. cz, 141-�Igxl cze 33• cc) 35. 36. I 38. 39. I -JN Li �� 16 s 47. DL 48. 49. • so. 51. 52. 53. 54, • 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 6s. 66. 67. 68. • Dear Galen, As Chairman of the Planning and Environmental Commission, there are two requests that we East Vail residents have pertaining to the August 2e meeting. 1) We would like 3 minutes per family to present our views. 2) We would appreciate a question and answer time. 3) We would like to submit the attached example petition on Monday as we would like to accumulate the signatures of our weekend residents. Thank you for your consideration. We are having a meeting Saturday morning in East Vail. If you have any direction it would also be appreciated. Please call Bill Stewart at 476 - 4316. 0 Sincerely, Concerned East Vail Residents 610 • PUBLIC PETITION RE: East Vail- Waterfall We request that the Vail Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission deny the application of Developer, Henry Jay Tschirner, and Property Owner, the Wilson Family Trust to subdivide Lot 15 and rezone Lot 15, Bighorn, ?d Addition, from Open Space to Primary /Secondary Development. 1) Whereas, the Vail Open Lands Plan has designated lot 16 as in Parcel 41, the "Highest Priority" in the preservation of open space in Vail, 2) Wherollik the Vail Open Lands Plan states its objective "is to protect natural, open sWe and preserve the "mountain experience'." 3) Whereas, the Vail Open Lands Plan states that the Plan protects open spaces which provide a "recreational, environmental, and visual resource ". is THEREFORE, WE VIGOROUSLY OB]!R.'T TO THE SUBDIVISION OF LOT 15 AND THE REZONING OF LOT 16 FROM OPEN SPACE TO PRIMARY/SECONDARY HOUSING. The Undersigned: Mum 1 ► i- CA • August 14, 2000 Doug Cahill Planning and Environmental Commission Municipal Bldg. 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Cahill: You are probably aware that the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission meets August 28 to consider an application to re -zone and re -plat lots 15 & 16 in the Bighorn 2d addition in East Vail. These lots are directly below the waterfall on Lupine Drive. As you know, the waterfall is one of the more scenic attractions in the Vail Valley, visual from 1 -70, Bighorn Road and Lupine Drive. Hundreds of people every year stop on Lupine Drive to photo the fails or climb to its base. Lot 16 is currently zoned open space / agricultural, and the applicants proposal is to change the classification and re -plat the two lots to allow the construction of four housing units, which would effectively block the view of the falls. In addition, the area is classified by the Town as being within a high hazard zone for rock falls, snow slides, and mudslides. Any construction to mitigate these hazards would almost certainly 10 affect the adjacent property owners. Also, drainage from the falls creates a wetlands issue on the two lots. In view of the Town's commitment to open space, there would seem to be no valid reason to change the zoning of lot 16 to allow construction of housing units. urge you to become involved in this issue so that a decision is made that is in the best interest of the Town of Vail and its visitors. Signed, I Neil Muncaster • RECD AUG 212000 August 14, 2000 Diane Golden Planning and Environmental Commission Municipal Bldg. 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Ms Golden: You are probably aware that the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission meets August 2.8 to consider an application to re -zone and re -plat lots 15 & 16 in the Bighorn 2d addition in East Vail. These lots are directly below the waterfall on Lupine Drive. As you know, the waterfall is one of the more scenic attractions in the Vail Valley, visual from 1 -70, Bighorn Road and Lupine Drive. Hundreds of people every year stop on Lupine Drive to photo the falls or climb to its base. • Lot 16 is currently zoned open space I agricultural, and the applicants proposal is to change the classification and re -plat the two lots to allow the construction of four housing units, which would effectively block the view of the falls. In addition, the area is classified by the Town as being within a high hazard zone for rock falls, snow slides, and mudslides. Any construction to mitigate these hazards would almost certainly affect the adjacent property owners. Also, drainage from the falls creates a wetlands 41 issue on the two lots. In view of the Town's commitment to open space, there would seem to be no valid reason to change the zoning of lot 16 to allow construction of housing units. I urge you to become involved in this issue so that a decision is made that is in the best interest of the Town of Vail and its visitors. Signed, p9/ &/ Neil Muncaster REVD AUG 2 2 2000 0 Planning and Environmental Commission August 21, 2006 Town of Vail Dear Commissioners Aasiand, Doyon„ Scholfield, Golden, Cahill, Bernhardt and Weber: We object to the rezoning of Lot 16 and the Subdivision of Lot 15. We are adjacent property owners. We ask you to deny the applications in front of you on the 2e of August. A vote yes is a desecration of open space in Vail. George Ruther's semantics on Open Space are null and void. Open Space is open space regardless of who owns it. Please consider. 1) This was downzoned more that twenty years ago at the request of the current owner, Martha Wilson and the Wilson Family. The taxes paid on Lot 16 are $134/year. The application for the initial downzoning is attached. It states "This is the waterfall area in Bighorn and the lot is right on the slide area ". Hopefully this is not a case of tax fraud, but then what is it? 2) Art Mears states in the letter attached dated 9/6/79 that "building be avoided on Lots 15 and 16." The Wilsons' and Mears negotiated the downzoning 25 years ago and now are asking for upzoning? Has the hazard changed? Or the money? And can you make a decision on only one paid consultant? 3) According to the Vail Open Lands Plan Lot 16 is the "highest priority" for preservation. George Ruther entered negotiations with the Wilsons and made an offer. We request disclosure on the offer and the terms involved in Ruther's current negotiations. We believe that the Town of Vail has an obligation to fulfill the provisions of the Open Lands Plan. 4) According to Town of Vail Hazard Regulations any development must prove without a doubt that there is "not (an) increase in the hazard to other properties and structures" before a subdivision is approved. We have not been satisfied that there is any work done concerning the safety of our property and family. 5) This is a severe geological hazard and geographically sensitive area with avalanche danger, rock slides, debris, wetlands protected by the Clean Water Act of 1972. The Town Hazard regulations require that there is "clear: and convincing evidence" that the property should not be considered geographically sensitive. Since only the developer has provided data, by the same engineer with a different story every twenty years we do not consider it accurate nor obviously objective, and do not think a legal interpretation would be that the geologic report is in any way "clear and convincing evidence ". 6) We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars upgrading our home and views per town hazard reports and are shocked that the reports could be changed on the whim of Community Development. • Page Two August 21, 2000 Dulude /Sim Comment As you review these applications please also consider: (a) Requesting a bond as specified in 12-21 -17 "Requirement of Bond" for $50,000 to "ensure that the reports and requirements are completed and - ompiled." (b) Requesting disclosure on "intent" from the Town of Vail Community Development, the Developer, Jay Tschirner, the Owner, the Wilson Family Trust, and the Broker, Jo Ellen Nash. Thank you for your consideration and please vote no on the applications noted above. Sincerely, Claudia Dulude & Dalton Sim 3916 Lupine Dr., Vail, CO PS: Please note as we file this letter on 8/25/00 at noon that we have not been notified as to the recommendation of Community Development and have not been provided time to respond. • ARTHUR 1. MEARS, P.E. NATURAL HAZARDS CON5ULTANT 222 East Gothic Avenue Gunnison, Colorado 81236 I-WA3 } 64 f -3236 September 6, 1979 Mr. Hillis Akin Box ,5502 Snowmass R ezort, CC 81615 Dear Mr. Akin. At your request I conducted a preliminary field appraisal of the snow avalanche hazard to Lots ddition,, on September 5, 1979• These two lots are affected by design- magnitude avalanches in the "Waterfall" avalanche path and are included in an ava- lanche influence zone by the Town of Vail. As a result of my inspection i offer the following general comments regarding the Waterfall avalanche and the effects of this avalanche to Lots 15 and 16. However, these comments should be considered to be tentative and possibly subject to revision in the event that a detailed s-.udy of the avalanche is conducted. The Waterfall Avalanche During, very severe and infrequent conditions large dry slab avalanches will release from large steep areas generally above 10,200 feet elevation in the upper portions of the avalanche path, and will flow down the intermit - tend stream course that produces the waterfall. A portion of the avalanche mass will stop above the cliff bands in the forest, but a portion will also fall over the cliffs, entrain air, and probably reach Gore Creek. Nearly all of Lot 16 and the eastern portion of Lot 14 will be covered by such an avalanche. The resulting impact pressures, although not computed through a consideration of the avalanche dynamics, would most likely be well in excess of those for which buildings are usually designed, and may place Lot 16 entirely within a "high hazard zone." Wet ,snow avalanches will also occur and will affect Lot 16, but because of their lesser velocities can be deflected to the west to- affect the western portion of Lot 15. Thus major avalanches will probably affect all of Lot 16 and most of Lot 15. Recommendations I concur with the Vail avalanche zoning map and recommend that building be avoided on o s 15 an Although i is possible that some ortion o t ese a7, -would be c ossified as "moderate hazard,' thus al! owing_ specially designed building the boundaries of the mo cannot be etermined without a detailed study of the avalanche topography and dynamics. We appreciate the fact that you have considered potential avalanche hazard in your assessment of this property and hope to have the chance to work with you in the future. 0 -- cc: u_M ru'Din Sincerely, •�- Arthur i. Mears, PE Avalanche Dynamics, Defense, Zoning • Mountain Tarrant Analysis • Slope StobiiLey f1j" 1-;;i,* VAR I AW'A p rl A M - cul4l)[I f0wo. 1p,;I_ PFl,:ll•l 7C i o r: .4: tj t e i ci r I w r% e; t i r: r 0 'If .0 * to aplic-2- tiefcjre Ice ',Iij;! u n n ir. • (cal L 0 rt i (I g C 1r a rip e ie I rV L v a r CLnbi L I (IT, Z, I r t I is oil- rom Cie I r, u r p c a and n t e r. 01 t;,+ f: z! -Z n roc-; ;t; the kar-67;:-,ip UL ii e3 ko6v', AD.. �_- _.'c,- -er, -_'o cam-- r Xl ■ i AMJFI.a — - W-4 y • August 24, 2000 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Members of the Commission, Mrs. Stevenson and I are homeowners residing at 3987E Lupine Dr. for the last nine years. We have been advised by public notice of the application to rezone and subdivide Lots 15 and 16 located at 3886/3896 Lupine Dr. We want to urge you to reject this application. This property is in a 40 high hazard zone for rock falls, snow slides and mud slides. In addition, it is our understanding that part of this property falls within the red zone and other parts in the blue zone. It is not apparent to us that even with mitigation that such large units could be built without effecting us and other property owners. We also believe that there could be a wetlands issue resulting from drainage from the falls. We would also appeal to the commission on the broader issue of maintaining your commitment to open space. This area is one of the most scenic visual sites within Vail and is enjoyed by many hundreds of residents and visitors for photography and hikes to the base of the falls. Allowing a rezoning and reconfiguration to build two monstrous primary /secondary structures blocking this pristine view seems unnecessary and not in the spirit of supporting an open space obligation. • This position is supported by many other Vail residents who may not have written to you on this matter. We are convinced that this request is not in the best interests of the T ©V or its residents and once again request the application being denied. Sincerely, 0 Mark Stevenson Cc: George Ruther • Maureen Stevenson P u6 /24/21100 09:40 FAX 719 546 0588 W.L and Trudy Thornu 4027 Lupine Drive Vail, CO. 81657 Planning and Zoning Commission Town of Vail CO August 24, 2000 USBC PiperJ'affray Subject: Re- zoning request for lots 15 & 16 on Lupine Drive To Whom It May Concern: Please enter into the minutes as part of the record our letter of concern regarding the above referenced re- 20ning of the aforementioned lore. We have lived at 4027 Lupine Drive for 15 years, and have very nMe enjoyed the scenic view and openness that has been afforded us with these two lots being vacant of any structures. We also have very strong convictions as to open space being protected and sensitivity to the environment being preserved for fixture generations. We are urging you to voce NO on The re- zoning request before you. We need to be responsible for preserving open space and natures wonders for both those that live in the area and visit. Sincerely, W.1. Thomas Trudy Tbornss Z002 • • • 0 To: Town of Vail Design and Review Board Members of the Board, My name is Mike Grant. I reside at 4026 Lupine Drive, Vail. This letter is in regards to the re- zoning of lots fifteen and sixteen, Lupine Drive in the Bighorn Subdivision. I have been a builder and developer in this area for several years. I have always been environmentally sensitive to the over development of many of our residential and commercial areas. I have learned that we need to live and develop within our needs, not necessarily our desires to create more financial stability. The transferring of units of square footage from one parcel to another for whatever reason is not living within the guidelines that we created. To rape the land for square footage that cannot fit into a previously zoned building envelope is like they say," trying to fit ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag" This area of Bighorn Subdivision is primarily single family and duplex 0 homes and has been created by the Town and the people of this community. I highly oppose this project for more than what it was created for originally. I personally re -zoned my own property from a duplex lot to a single family lot to preserve a small part of what we all came here for, the serenity and beauty of what this state has to offer. If we continue to allow over development in environmentally sensitive areas, WE ALL LOSE IN THE END! Thank You, s Michael Grant FROM : Gary /Linda McDaniel August 19, loop PHONE NO. : 970 476 7170 <2.... GARY A. & LTKpA R. b%CDA X" 4057 LUPINE Drevle. VAIL, C0 1A)HAUd 81657 -4816 (970) 476 -7170 TOV Planning & ]:environmental Commission Re: Lets 15 & 16 Bighorn Aug. 26 2000 10 :41AM P1 It is my understanding that a rezoning and development request has been submitted and a hearing to consider same is scheduled for 3 :00 p.m. on August 28, 2000. Although I am not in close proximity to the Iota in question, I am opposed to the rezoning. These lots sit on an alluvial fan below a limestone outcrop over which�fla w water in the spring and accumulates ice in the winter. This type of process makes the area hazardous as to rock fall and floodingYmud slide (in the event of heavy precipitation andjor rapid snow thaw). Permitting structures in this hazardous environment makes the TOV liable in the event of a disaster. Tt can happen and has: consider the mud slide on Bald Mountain, mud slide at the Vail Racquet Club and the falling rock problem north of I -70. These incidents cost the TOV (read that the taxpayors). I would urge you to dehy"the application. These lots have been classified as non - buildable due to hazard. I have ab- solutely no sympathy for those bringing the application. In my opinion they are simply trying to profit by changing the rulers. I would ask the Commission this: if we are going to change the zoning in hazardous non- buildable areas, then why should we have such zoning in the first place? 0 ere y, "Garr A. & Linda R. McDaniel cc: TOV Council • • AUG -25 --2000 03:36 FROM:J© ELLEN MASH i I • 10WO, of V811 ly box 100 rail, colorado 81657 13031 476.5613 August 5, 1931 9709267655 Q— TQ:9704792452 department of community development David A_ Feagin 1885 Ponder freights Dr. Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906 P.001/001 Dear Mr. Feagint This letter is to certif at lot 15 of 8i or division, 2nd Addition 1 th Town of Vail is a buildable lot. The lot is zoned Residential Primary /Seconds nd cotttai sufficient street frontage °to qualify A- a duplex lot. _ The lot contains 2.092 acres, or 91,153 sg .'fit . and will be allowed 2 units, one of which cannot exceed 40% of the total allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA). The total GRFA allowed on the lot is 8301 sq.ft_ Your design,proposal must be approved by the Design Review Board of the Towel. Please contact our office for the current submittal requirements for the Design Review Board. If you have any further questions, please contact me. Very tru ours, A. Peter Patten, Jr. Senior Planner APP-df 1 "ill; 14.i4 P'AA lil86920bbZ TRrSST7M_r;1x PAPTNr_, RS & CO. 6.130 Fir-Tit Aw z;;wur- 19 T°11 FT.0( 112 Nis tiY Nis ytY0*1%_ 10111 A0()3 , rv0Dl,nT D. T.1NPsAY 1'a -700- 0'_+1'7 M1NAC:NL: GCNrAAt nrnrNrtt • FA _Y' 21'`,- 9G9- rSL}aiL'' VIA FACSIMILE: (970) 479 -2452 September 19, 2000 Mr. George G_ Ruther Senior Planner Department of Community Development Vail, Co Dear Sir, RE: Lots 15 & 16, Big Horn Sub- Division, 2 "d Addition East Vail "East Vail Waterfall ". My name is Robert D. Lindsay. My wife, Terry, and I own a home at 3907 Lupine Drive, Vail, CO. We are writing regarding Lots 15 and 16, Big Horn Sub- Division, 2" a Addition East Vail, commonly known as the 'East Vail Waterfall" We support the preservation of this property as open space and the 1994 Open Space Act ( "OSA "). This property, designated as Lot 41, was deemed high priority preservation as open space. I believe that the money from concerned citizens plus the funds from the land transfer tax should be used to purchase this property to keep as open space- Due to the fact that most of this property is in the "Red Avalanche Zone" I believe its development to be a tremendous environmental hazard and we are opposed to any development on this area. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Feel free to call me at (212) 708 -9217 with any questions or if you feel it necessary. Sincerely, Robert D. Lindsay • 0 Groundwater Specialists 5806 Teltudde Mace lsoulder, CO 80305 TEL: (303) 49+8122 FAX. (303) 49 +5443 August 26, 2WQ E -matt: swSQUAVest ,,ct Mrs. Claudia Dulude .3l % Lupine Drive Vatic, CO 81657 Dear Mrs. Delude: At your *guest, I made a visit and investigation on August 24, 2000 of the "Water Fall" area located in Sec. l 1, T. 5 S., R. 80 W. (Vail East Quadrangle). The "Water mall" area is a well - defined avalanche chute and also a perennial stream. The base of the avalanche chute is a dcbns-flow and rock -fall area_ It is obvious this is a sensitive geologic area that is subjected to avalanches during heavy snow years, and has been subjected to debris Mows and rock falls in the past_ It is my understanding that lots 15 and 16, which are directly in the path of the avalanche chute and are undeveloped due to hazardous geologic conditions, arc being proposed for rezoning and development. It is my opinion that it would be a serious mistake to grant rezoning and development of these two lots because of obvious hazardous geologic conditions. The avalanche zone begins in a tree barren area above elevation 10,600 feet and from this area to below the falls (elevation 8,600 feet) ttte grades of this chute range form 44 to 67 percerrt. From below the falls to Lupine £hive (elevation 8,400 feet) the grades range From 20 to 32 percent. The southwestern portion of these two lots is mapped as being in the red avalanche zone and the northeastern parts are in the blue zone. The entire debris - flow area below the falls has been mapped as a rock -fall area. A. I. ?blears (May 2004 report for J. Tschir ) ,discounts the hazard potential of rock falls and debris flows for lots 15 and 16. He considcm debris rows on to tlhese two lots as rare events and rock fall as not a significant hazard Both these geologic hazards have previously occurred. To put the occurrence of geologically hazardous events on a timetable or as a st, sticatl risk can be a costly mistake. Mears does recognize the avalanche hazard as serious because he recommends development close to Lupine Drive and at the north and south comers of the lots. He also recommends a "ramp roof' back exposure of the building. My question is why build in an obvious geologically hazardous area. he Board making the requested rezoning decision should visit the site observe the large boulders and the debris flow and sued on Lupine chive and look up at the avalamhe chute. This is a classic geologic hazard area and should be open space not a site for residential development. Sincerely, William H. Bellis I* Certified Professional Geologist #3982 r MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmentai Commission FROM: Community development Department DATE: September 25, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a minor subdivision to allow for the reconfiguration and replatting of two existing lots and the rezoning of Lot 15, Bighorn Second Addition, from Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential to Single Family Residential, and Lot 16, Bighorn Second Addition, from Agriculture & Open Space to Natural Area Preservation District, located at 3886/3896 Lupine Drive /Lots 15 & 16, Bighorn 2nd Addition, Applicant: Wilson Family Trust, represented by Jay Tschirner, First Land Development, LLC Planner: George Ruther I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The applicant, the Wilson Family Trust, represented by Jay Tschimer, of First Land Development , L.L.G., has submitted two development review applications to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The applications are for the resubdivision and rezoning of two lots in East Vail. A. MINOR SUBDIVISION The applicant is proposing a minor subdivision to resubdivide Lots 15 & 16 in the Bighorn Subdivision; Second Addition. These lots are located at 3886 and 3896 Lupine Drive. Lot 15 is currently 1.92 acres in size and Lot 16 is currently 2.89 acres in size. The total size of the area under consideration is 4.81 acres. The purpose of the minor subdivision is to create two new lots (15A & 15B), each approximately !2 acre in size and to establish Lot 16, a tract of land 3.8 acres in size, to be dedicated to a third party (i.e., TOV, USFS, Eagle Valley Land Trust). The creation of the two reconfigured lots will be accomplished by vacating the existing property line between the existing Lots 15 & 16 and replatting two new property lines. A reduced copy of the proposed plat has been attached for reference. B. REZONING The applicant is proposing to rezone the newly created Lots 15 A/B & 16, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, Lot 15 is currently zoned Two- Family Primary /Secondary Residential and Lot 16 is zoned Agricultural & Open Space. The applicant is proposing to rezone the newly created Lots 15A & 15B to Single - Family Residential and to rezone the newly created, undevelopabte ! 1 TOW*IVIALLL Lot 16 to Natural Area Preservation District. The effect of rezoning Lot 16 to Natural Area Preservation is a down - zoning of property in the neighborhood. A complete analysis of the resulting development potential can be found in Section IV of this memorandum- fl. S T AFF RECOMMENDATION A. MINOR SUBDIVISION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the request to resubdivide 'Lots 15 & 16, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition. Staff's recommendation for approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section V of this memorandum. Specifically, staff finds that the request complies with the applicable criteria used in the evaluation of a minor subdivision request. Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to approve the minor subdivision request, staff recommends that the following conditions: 1 _ That the applicant revises the plat, prior to recording with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office, removing all portions of the Red Snow Avalanche hazard area from Lots 15A and 15B_ 2. That the applicant revises the plat, prior to recording with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office, so that the total allowable GRFA for the combined area of Lots 15A & Lot 15B does not exceed 7,933 sq_ ft. excluding credits. While staff is recommending approval of the minor subdivision request; we believe another option for the minor subdivision should be explored. Based upon input from the neighbors, information provided by the Consulting Geologic Engineer, Arthur I. Mears, and feedback from the Planning & Environmental Commission at the previous worksession, staff believes another way to resolve this land use issue exists. Another alternative to the current proposal is to resubdivide the site into two lots rather than three. This option would simply reconfigure the size and shape of Lots15 & 16. Lot 15 would remain residentially zoned (Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential) with the ability to construct either one or two dwelling units. Lot 16 would remain as the area designated to protect and preserve the views to the waterfall, to provide access to the waterfall and USES land, and to provide open space within the neighborhood. Furthermore, the creation of one lot rather than two for residential development would cluster the development further insuring that the intent of the Zoning Regulations and Hazard Regulations are met. Staff also believes that this alternative would be consistent with the Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan and the Vail Land Use Plan. Should the Planning & Environmental find that this alternative warrants further evaluation and consideration, staff recommends that the minor subdivision and rezoning requests be tabled until October 9, 2000. The tabling will afford the applicant, neighbors and staff more time to evaluate the alternative and present our findings to the Commission at their next meeting. B. REZONING 2 is The Community Development Department recommends approval of the request to • rezone Lots 15A & B and Lot 16, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition, to Single - Family Residential and Natural Area Preservation. Staff's recommendation for approval is based upon the review of the criteria for a rezoning as outlined in Section VI of this memorandum. Specifically, staff believes that the proposed rezoning request will result in a more appropriate land use designation given the site consideration and that the proposed zoning is compatible with the goals and intent of the Vail Land Use Plan. Further, staff finds that the rezoning request and resulting development potential is compatible and consistent with the existing and potential uses in the vicinity and the Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. Ill. BACKGROUND The Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition was platted on July 22, 1963. The Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County approved the platting as the property was then under 'Eagle County jurisdiction. Lots 15 & 16 have remained in the current configuration since their original platting. The Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition was annexed into the Town of Vail pursuant to Ordinances 13 & 20, Series of 1974. The annexation became effective on November 5, 1974. Upon annexation into the Town of Vail, Lots 15 & 16 were zoned Two Family Primary/Secondary Residential. Lot 15 remains to be zoned Two- Family Primary/Secondary Residential, Lot 16 has been rezoned. In 1976, the Town of Vail contracted with Arthur I. Mears to complete a Geologically Sensitive Areas Study. For purposes of the study geologically sensitive areas were defined as snow avalanche, rock fall and debris flow. In response to the findings of Mr, Mears' study the Town of Vail adopted Geologic Hazard Maps for snow avalanche, rock fall and debris flow as components of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. The maps were adopted by the Town in 1977. In 1977, Lot 16, Bighorn Subdivision. Second Addition was rezoned. The lot was rezoned to Agriculture & Open Space from Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential- The request for the rezoning was submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Stanley and Martha Wilson. According to the information in the Town's file, the reason the rezoning was requested was because a restriction had been placed on the warranty deed, dated September 1, 1972, prohibited habitable structures from being built on Lot 16 for a period of twenty years (September 1, 1992). In 1978, the Town of Vail adopted Hazard Regulations. The purpose of the regulations is to help protect the inhabitants of the Town from dangers relating to development of flood plains, avalanche paths, steep slopes, and geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use of land areas which may be geologically sensitive; and further to regulate development on steep slopes; to protect the economic and property values of the Town, to protect the aesthetic and recreational values and natural resources of the Town, which are sometimes associated with flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity and slopes; to minimize damage to public facilities and utilities and minimize the need for relief in cleanup operations; to give notice to the public of certain areas within the Town where flood plains, avalanche paths and areas of geologic sensitivity exist; and to promote the general public health, safety and welfare. In 1986, the Vail Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Land Use Plan. Similar to the Geologic 0 3 Hazard Maps, the Land Use Plan is a component of the Town Vail Comprehensive Plan. According to the Land Use Plan, Lots 15 & 16 are designated "low density residential ". The purpose of the low- density residential designation is to provide sites for single - family detached homes and two- family dwelling units. Density of development with in this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acre. Also within this area would be private recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools, and club houses for the use of residents of the area. Institutional /public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. In 1994, the Vail Town Council adopted the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. The objectives of the plan are: • To identify citizen and visitor needs and preferences for a comprehensive system of open space uses such as parks, recreation, protection of environmental resources, trails, and to reserve lands for public use; • To prioritize available open lands for acquisition or protection; • To identify creative strategies to implement the acquisition and protection program; • To define a management system to appropriately manage Town -owned open space lands, and; • To buffer neighborhoods with open space. The Comprehensive Open Lands Plan is an action - oriented plan that identifies specific parcels of land that require some kind of action either for protection of sensitive lands, for trail easements, or for public use. In developing the plan, over 350 parcels were evaluated with 51 parcels on which actions are recommended. The recommendations were developed utilizing specific criteria to evaluate the areas of highest priority. Generally, areas received the highest priority if they met the stated objectives of the Town and its citizens and were an integral part of the open lands system. Within the 51 parcels, there are five priority areas made up of a number of recommended actions. These priorities are: • Protect sensitive natural habitat areas, riparian areas, and hazard areas; • Extend the Vail Trail to East Vail and add several trailheads to access the trail; • Add a new trail on the north side and western half of Town to connect existing trailheads and neighborhoods; • Add three "trailheads" in the core areas to access Vail Mountain trails and inform visitors of trail opportunities and provide better access to Gore Creek; • Add bike lanes to the north and south frontage roads and add paved shoulders to Vail Valley Drive. To date; the Town of Vail has taken action on over 40 of the 51 parcels identified for action in the Plan. The Action Plan and Priority Plan of the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies Lot 16, Bighorm Subdivision, Second Addition as "Parcel 41" for implementation purposes. Parcel 41 is classified as a "High Priority ". The high priority classification is based upon the Town's desire to acquire both the development rights and trail easements for the proposed South Trail extension. The plan also notes that Parcel 41 is located in a geologically sensitive area. Strategies for protecting Parcel 41 include acquisition through a fee simple purchase, purchasing the development rights, and /or acquiring an access easement through the parcel, 4 • As a high priority classification, Parcel 41 meets both Level One and Level Two Evaluation criteria. Level One Evaluation focuses on meeting community needs relating to the natural resource system, the recreation system, trails system, and reserving lands for future civiclpublic uses. Level Two Evaluation focuses on the availability of the parcel utilizing criteria such as the threat of development or irreversible damage, opportunities to leverage other funds. cost., unusual opportunity with a motivated seller, opportunity for trade with the USFS, low management requirements on the Town of Vail and low liability to the Town. In 1995, the Town of Vail Community Development Department sent correspondence to the owner of Parcel 41 (Lot 16). The purpose of the letter was to gauge the level of interest of the property owner to sell Parcel 41 to the Town of Vail. The property owner expressed no interest and no further communications have taken place. The Town of Vail has never made a formal written offer to purchase Parcel 41. Research into the Town of Vail Zoning Map indicates that there are twenty properties in the Town of Vail zoned Agricultural & Open Space. Of these twenty properties seven are privately owned.. The other thirteen properties are either publicly owned (TOV /USFS), owned by Vail Associates and restricted as dedicated open space as part of the original subdivision, or owned in common by a homeowner's association and restricted as dedicated open space. Of the seven privately owned properties, three are legally platted subdivisions. One of the legally platted properties is Lot 16. The Town of Vail Zoning Code prescribes the land development regulations for development within the Town. The following code sections are particularly relevant to the evaluation of the applicant's proposal. Chapter 6 — Single- Family Residential Chapter 6 — Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential Chapter 8 — Agricultural & Open Space Chapter 21 — Hazard Regulations Copies of each of the code sections listed above have been attached for reference. At the Planning & Environmental Commission worksession meeting on August 28, 2000, discussion arose regarding the development history of Lot 11, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition. Lot 11 is generally located to the north and west of Lots 15 & 16. The following is a summary of the information contained in the Town's files: ■ There are three geologic hazard analysis reports in the file. Each report identifies the same geologic hazards on the site, high severity rock fall, debris flow, and blue snow avalanche. All three of the reports suggest possible and potential hazard mitigation measures; earth -built structures, locational siting of the structure, boulder barriers, a rear concrete foundation wall protruding at least six feet above finish grade and "splitting wedges ". A variance application for an avalanche mitigation wail was submitted to the Town of Vail. On May 10, 1982, the Planning & Environmental Commission held a public hearing to evaluate the variance request. The Commission's primary concern with the proposed mitigation wall was the potential negative impacts it may have on the adjoining lots. The Commission requested that a site - specific avalanche flow path study be completed. A study was never 0 5 completed and the applicant subsequently withdrew the request. IV. ZONING ANALYSIS The purpose of the Zoning Analysis is to provide a written comparison of the existing development rights of Lots 15 & 16, The analysis also provides a comparison of the lot sizes, allowable GRFA, and geologic hazards associated with other properties in the same neighborhood. LOT 15, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, SECOND ADDITION EXISTING PROPOSED (Two Family Primary/Secondary Residential) (Single- Family Residential) Lot Size: 83,653 sq. ft. 15A 20,354 sq. ft. 15B 22,683 sq.ft. Density: 2 DU + 1 Type II EHU 1 DU + 1 Type II EHU /Lot GRFA: 7,933 sq. ft. + 500 sq. ft. (EHU) 15A 4,335 sq. ft + 500 sq. ft. EHU 15B 4,568 sq. ft. + 500 sq. ft. EHU Site Coverage: 16,731 sq. ft. 15A 4,070 sq. ft. (20 %) 15B 4,537 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front -20 ft, Same Sides -15 ft, Rear- 15ft. Landscape Area: 50,192 sq, ft. 15A 12,212 sq, ft. (60 %) 15B 13,610 sq. ft. Building Height: 33' maximum Same NOTE: The existing Lot 15 is significantly encumbered by the Red Snow Avalanche hazard rendering much of the lot undevelopable. The buildable area of Lot 15 is approximately 1,100 sq. ft. LOT 16, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, SECOND ADDITION EXISTING PROPOSED (Agriculture & Open Space) (Natural Area Preservation) Lot Size: 125,797 sq. ft. 166,395 sq. ft. Density: 1 DU + 1 Type II EHU 0 DU GRFA: 2,000 sq. ft. + 500 sq. ft. (EHU) 0 Site Coverage: 6,289 sq. ft. 0 (570) 6 • 11 • Setbacks: Front -20 ft, NIA Sides -15 ft- Rear- 15ft. Landscape Area: NIA Same Building Height: 33' maximum 0 NOTE: The Natural Area Preservation Zone District has no development potential with the exception cf parking areas, equestrian trails accessing the USFS trail system, interpretative nature walks, paved and unpaved bicycle and pedestrian paths, picnic tables and informal seating areas. V. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA A basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new lot(s) must be met. This subdivision will be reviewed under Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Code. A. The first set of criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision application is: Lot Area: According to Section 12 -6B -5 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, the minimum lot or site size in the Single- Family Residential District is12,500 sq. ft. of buildable area. There is no minimum lot size for the Natural Area Preservation District. Staff Response: Each of the proposed lots (15A, 15B, 16) comply with the minimum lot area requirements of the respective zone districts Frontage: According to Section 12 -6B -5 of the Town of Vail Regulations, each lot in the Single - Family Residential District shall have a minimum of 30 feet of street frontage. There is no minimum street frontage requirement for the Natural Area Preservation District. Staff Response: Each of the proposed lots (15A, 158, 16) comply with the minimum frontage requirements. This is a change from the original application. The applicant is now proposing to establish street frontage for Lot 16. Previously, the applicant had proposed a 12 -foot access easement for accessing the waterfall area. Dimension: According to Section 12 -6B -5 of the Town of Vail Regulations, each lot in the Single- Family Residential District shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area 80 feet on each side within its boundaries. There are no size and shape requirements in the Natural Area Preservation District. Staff Response: The size and shape of Lots 15A & 15B comply with the minimum size and shape requirements. B_ The second set of criteria to be considered with a Minor Subdivision application, F as outlined in the subdivision regulations. is: The .burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter. the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13 -3 -3C. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the .esthetics of the Town. The Specific Purpose of the Subdivision Regulations is as follows: 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development proposals will be evaluated, and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: Staff has reviewed the minor subdivision for compliance with the applicable evaluation criteria. Upon the completion of our review the staff finds that the proposed resubdivision of Lots 15 & 16, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition complies with the subdivision criteria. 2 To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land_ Staff Response: The Vail Land Use Plan identifies Lots15 & 16 as areas for "low density residential" development. According to the Vail Land Use Plan, the purpose of the "low density residential" designation is to provide sites for single - family detached homes and two - family dwelling units. The density of development within this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acre. Buildable area is defined as that area of a lot outside the 100 -year floodplain, red snow avalanche areas and slopes less than 40 %. Lots 15 & 16 are the last lots to be developed in the area. Over the years, the Bighorn Subdivision, First and Second Additions have been developed in concert with the Vail Land Use Plan as residential neighborhoods. The area has been zoned for singie- family and two - Family primary/secondary residential development. A majority of the lots in the two subdivisions, as well as within much of East Vail, are within geologic hazard zones. Of the twenty -nine lots most immediate to Lots 15 & 16, all are located within a geologic hazard zone (high severity rockfall), twenty -four are impacted by snow avalanche hazard, and twenty -one are influenced by debris flow hazards. Most importantly, however, all development on these tots is governed by the adopted Hazard Regulations in the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the Municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. 8 0 Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the minor subdivision of Lots 15 &16, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition will have any negative impacts on the value of land in the Town of Vail. Further, with the implementation of the Hazard Regulations as stated in the Vail Town Code, staff believes that the value of any buildings or improvements on Lot 15A & B or the value of any existing or potential buildings or improvements in the vicinity of the lots will be protected and conserved. 4. To ensure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinances, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses; consistent with Town development objectives. Staff Response: As previously discussed; the staff has completed an analysis of the minor subdivision proposal and finds that the application complies with the Town's ordinances. The proposed minor subdivision and subsequent use of Lots 15A & B for residential development and the preservation of Lot 16 in a more restrictive configuration and zoning designation insures that a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among existing and potential land uses will be achieved. Staff would recommend, however, that the applicant amend the proposed lot lines for Lot 15B to remove all portions of the Red Snow Avalanche area from the lot. Staff believes that the minor subdivision furthers the development objectives of the Town. One of the goals of subdivision regulations is to insure the reasonable and appropriate development of land. Lots 15 & 16 were originally subdivided in 1963 under Eagle County jurisdiction. In 1963, there were no regulations in place prohibiting the subdivision of land in geologic hazard areas. Given the current regulations, it is likely that neither Lot 15 or 16, nor most of the other lots in the Bighorn Subdivision, First and Second Additions. could be platted today in the Town of Vail. Staff believes that this minor subdivision request is an opportunity to improve the current platted situation and remove those portions of existing Lot 15 & 16 impacted by geologic hazards from development potential. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation, and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Response: The Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies a public purpose and recreational need of Lot16 (Parcel 41), Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition. Staff finds that while the proposed minor subdivision does not convey ail of the existing Lot 16 to the Town of Vail, it does accomplish the goals and interests expressed in the plan. The goal and interests expressed in the plan for Lot 16 are providing access to the waterfall and adjoining public (USFS) land and restricting development in the red snow avalanche area. The proposed subdivision, with the revised lot lines, establishes fee simple ownership of a piece of land connecting to the public street_ This piece of Lot 16 will provide recreational access to the waterfall. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. Staff response: The proposed minor subdivision plat has been prepared in accordance 0 with the standards prescribed in the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations. Staff finds that the applicant has complied with the above- described criteria. 0 r. To prevent the pollution of air, streams and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the Town in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of the land_ Staff Response: Staff believes the minor subdivision request complies with the above - described criteria. VI. REZONING CRITERIA The Planning & Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before recommending approval of a zone change request: 1) Is the existing zoning suitable with the existing land use on the site and adjacent land uses? Staff Response: Staff does not believe that existing zoning on Lots 15 & 16 is suitable with the existing land use. Staff believes that a more appropriate zoning designation for the majority of the site area is Natural Area Preservation. The portion of the site that is currently zoned for development is the area that is most inappropriate for development (Lot 15). Staff does believe, however, that the existing and potential land uses surrounding the site are appropriate and reasonable (residential) and in compliance with the Vaii Land Use Plan. Staff also believes that if the intent of the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan, with regard to Parcel 41 (Lot16), is to preserve and protect the waterfall and prevent residential development in the red snow avalanche area; then the proposed rezoning accomplishes this goal. A visit to the site has determined that the waterfall is located on Lot 15 not Lot 16. Staff believes that the most appropriate zoning designation for the waterfall and immediate is Natural Area Preservation. 2) is the amendment preventing a convenient workable relationship with land uses consistent with municipal objectives? Staff Response: Staff believes that the proposed amendment to rezone the two lots will not prevent a convenient workable relationship with land uses consistent with municipal objectives. The Vail Land Use Plan designates the two lots as "low density residential ". The Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies Parcel 41as a high priority acquisition. Staff believes that when the goals of these two plans are combined and looked at collectively, the minor subdivision and rezoning requests results in compliance with the Town's development objectives. 3) Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly viable community? Staff Response: Staff believes that the rezoning request provides for the growth of an orderly, viable community. One of the goals of the Vail Land Use Plan is to provide for additional growth in existing developed areas (infill). The sizes of the buildings that would be permitted on Lots 15A & B would be consistent with the sizes of the existing homes in the neighborhood. The average amount of allowable GR1=A in the Bighorn Subdivision, 10 .0 First and Second Filings, is approximately 6,667 sq. ft. The average lot size is nearly 28,000 sq. ft 4) Is the change consistent with the Land Use Plan? Staff Response: Chapter 11 of the Vail Land Use Plan outlines numerous goals and policies for the development of land in the Town. The goals and policies reflect the desires of the community as expressed during a series of public meetings that were held throughout the development of the plan (1990). These goals are to be used as adopted policy guidelines in the review process of new development proposals. The following is a list of goals and policies of the Land Use Plan staff believes are relevant to the proposed minor subdivision and rezoning requests: General Growth /Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment; maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water, and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill). Skier /Tourist Concerns 2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.2 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 0 11 SITE PLAT AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAP, LOT 15 & LOT 16 BIGHORIN SUBDIVISION SECOND ADDITION Tnwn nE Vail Stnip of ('nlnra rl n. s1 sYt..r oac� ddr tx Yam. open IaeaFinnl plat r E:q,tvm15addiJ Ion�l�Seaond kNNtlanmJnd Su wY M ummla found ni tna Ilene M 11ie uu v. Mmm Ina�� ny Earrey Java a v bouvNwy n+my n wY �n.eallgeuon role Herod mewnmta v encum4re nrt�ute grates r;a. rnr a,.a.«er di i1SrAnON Wllrv.: 9rf l.e r M lea n r/2' a aee m..rt wmwe. 'P9 -a.e n ver.tr ocean ar :« n , a+w beryl .,. ra= at .ee � ��n,m�ao+r .,•a .er,ml ad.+ n�lo m.'.ac.�a •1 Cde MA M, —wµ 2 tow. gq unll4e u e ana �p .eneldY anq ene.elJ tc n'ald +eNeea p e, in mcaralron, 6} Mayor t9ntl Srateme daea not .,rnnl r caflly !v Me rote q +'ply of anq i o—r bdd 1=1140 .n — P-lddn AW lk'm tnaa and —1q. rj SmUl h0511F55 . ° °. N SEee tadeu rNi taut eoaeea }. it Nee m.r. w a I�w � ores hMwty w+asme l� �oL a�neni cnmfda. :l, j :.a ✓w.WV... n Ua rw >c Jmr -ey .war r.ny, 3M:. n , 9j tre9mee ane:}r:e .w 6 Mor4me tn.ip�nadnld Soinlbne, ate +. � w ,wW'vl "..' no•a u xq"..m'aa. ,«, a •'^•an li,.mwd awt lnr v eo , Yparyq'n,c <oaaw.va .ta,m n -led yala.ldJ Vlar metivMe' a at owner � ae adorn Hessen ' 1 �9q Man «s nn aaore q+eow I +.w. tnx «rnrn tye m.d nr lea a ao�a� dorera9« nl ten le :E <a neaamlm, anraee..a.ad coon sours uue a I J7 dmekawmt.. q .� a WI r& i.d tr bo7 14 irozpm T17Dnwc?4 S p9 Ati'i0al . P3i91iDID 7[0.7 n 196E Yap FvSR 0. OA .= N0. = 1¢C. R0. 97754 1.07 ]A Yt5R5m1 singagqqs5p 66copo xlgamroN AW= 2m MA 2. 0, I YAa CJ'..E Y. 30, p0. Il1: ALC. N5. 97194 uIRAO RAM OF AIDINU ele6RC 1a1/A, pAtelmu. 1y�7 n - a•,sv5• R = 37A 76' L 90.05' ca = N3JYR'3irw cps slboo' 2[77 11, 91l.ffo q 8009M R'tcow A9 mm amimm = 22, 196E ,,I, 666, PACK ela. M0. pro. 9Tlroe ANT) 79POCRAPRi RICRaRN sunoll Horan a,,,, ,. dawaF.. w asr mnn.nv .r raa we Y,N 0 Thursday, September 21, 2000 George Ruther. Chief of Planning Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 HAND CARRY Re: Lots 15 and 16 Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition (3886 and 3896 Lupine Drive) Dear George, Thank you for your assistance. After listening to the concerns of our neighbors and the comments of the commissioners that were expressed during our work session on August 28, First Land Development, LLC is requesting the consideration of our revised applications for minor subdivision and rezoning of the above property for the following reasons: 1) Working together, we can seize a significant opportunity. Let's save Vail's historic, landmark waterfall for future generations. First Land Development, LLC hopes to preserve the proposed reconfiguration of Lot 16 as a Town of Vail (TOV) Park. We are prepared to convey through a LOCO grant or conceivably donate (subject to legal and tax consequences) approximately 3.83 acres (136% of the area of the existing Lot 16) including one of the most beautiful waterfalls in Colorado. And, with the inclusion of a 30 feet wide "flag pole" to Lupine Drive, provide the deeded public access that this site has previously lacked. Rezoning will protect Lot 16 with a more appropriate land use designation (Natural Area Preservation District) and a deed restriction that will prohibit development_ The new lot lines will encompass the waterfall itself, which is currently included within Lot 15, zoned PIS. 2) Rezoning the remaining portions of Lots 15 and 16 to R (proposed: two single family Lots 15A and 15B) is consistent with the neighborhood. You can find similar examples in the minor subdivisions of Lots 1A and 1 B, Lots 2A and 2B, Lots 4A and 4B and Lots 5A and 5B, within Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision Addition 1. Proposed Lots 15A and 15B will be completely within the 'Blue Snow Avalanche Zone" similar to adjacent lots which have been previously developed. George Ruther, Page Two Thursday, September 21, 2000 3) Building plans and intended improvements will meet all existing TOV design guidelines. Particular attention has been paid to "hazard" regulations. No variances are contemplated at this time. We are sensitive to the concerns of our neighbors and will continue working with Art Mears and Monroe and Newell Engineers, Inc. to assure our compliance with acceptable standards for hazard mitigation. 4) TOV will receive exactly what the "Comprehensive Open Lands Plan" envisions regarding "Parcel 41 ": • Access • Preservation • Open Space Conceivably, at no cost to TOV taxpayers. George, as you know, land use regulations are a time honored mechanism for providing incentives to private land owners for dedication of property for parks, schools, fire stations and so forth. This request is tendered in the spirit of that tradition. Sincerely, FIRST LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC Jay'Tschirner, Manager POB 2083 Edwards, CO 81632 cc: Charles Wilson • • e • BIGHORN SUBDIVISIONS FIRST &SECOND ADDITIONS e BIGHORN SUBDMSION ADDIT10N 2 BIGHORN SUBDIVISION ` ADDITION 1 • • LOT 15116 REZONING ANALYSIS 08/28/2000 Address Legal Description Zoning Lot Size Allowed GRFA Avalanche Hazards Debris Flow Hazards 3966 Lupine Drive Lot a, Block 2, Bighorn Subdivision Addb }on k R 56,445 7,422 High & Moderate Hazard High Debris Avalance 3956 a Drive Lot 4, Block 2, Bighorn Subdivision Addition i R 48818 7,046 High & Moderate Hazard High Debris Avalance 3916 Lupine Dnve Lot SA, Block 2. Bighorn Subdvisbn Addltioo 1 R 30,296 6,115 High d Moderate Hazard, & PasSUre In0uence High Del Avalance 3918 Lupine Drive Lot 513, Block 2, Bighorn Subdivision Addition 1 R 36,717 6,436 Moderate Hazard & Possible Influence High 8 Moderate Debris Flow 3967 Lupine Drive Lot 1A, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision Addition 1 SFR 21,432 4,868 Moderate Hazard & powder Blast None 3977 Lupine Delve Lot 113, Block 1. Bighorn SubdivWon Addition 1 SFR 21,432 4,868 Moderate Hazard & Powder Blast None 3947 Lupine Drive Lot 2A, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision Addition 1 R 29,692 6,069 None None 3647 Lupine Drive Lot 2B, Block 1. Bighorn SubdivlaionAddition 1 R 12,628 3,582 None 1 3907 Lupine Drive Lot 3, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision Addition 1 R 37,126 6,459 Possble influence Moderate Debris Flaw 3897 Lupine Drive Lot 4A, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision Addition 1 R 11,406 3,277 Possible Influence Moderate Debris Flow 3897 Uq& Drive Lot 45, Mock 1, Bighorn Subdivision Addition 1 R 13,9407 3.910 Possible 111eLCnee High & Moderate Debris Flow 3867 Lupine Drive Lot SA, . Black 1, Bighorn Subdlvlslon Addillon 1 R 18.602 4.960 Possible Influence High & Moderate Debris Flow 3887 Lupine Drive Lal5B, Biock 1. Bighorn Subdivision Addition 1 4967 Passible influence Hfgh 8 Moderate Debeis Ffow 3877 Lupine Drive Lot 6. Block 1. Bighorn Subi ivison Addition 1 39,220 'E 561 Possible Influence Moderate Debris Flow 3847 Lupine Drive lot 7, Block 1, Bighorn Subdlvlslon Addition 1 34,333 6.317 Possible Influence Moderate Debrls Flow 3827 Luprne Drive Lot 2. Bighorn Subdwision Addition 2 qR18.673 29.839 6,084 Possible Influence None 3807 Lupine Dnve Lot 3, Bighorn Subdvision Addition 2 26.885 5,789 None ,cone 3797 Lupine Drive Lot 4. Btghom Subdivision Addition 2 35.109 6,355 None 3796 Lupine Drive Lot 5, 9ghom Bull Wi on Addition 2 28.321 5.932 None None 3785 Lupine Drive Lot 6, Bighorn Subdivisdon Addition 2 PS 24,964 5.596 Possible Influence High Debris Avalance 3776 Lupine Drive Lot 7, 819hom Subdwismn Atldition 2 PS 30,644 6,132 Possible Influence High Debris Avalance 3616 Lupine Drive Lot 8, Bignorn Subdivision Addition 2 PS 37.888 6.494 Possible Influence High Debris Avalance 3826 Lupine Drive Lot 9. Blghom Subdivision Addition 2 PS 14,41 4,160 Possible Infuence High Debris Avalance 3826 Bridge Road LoS 10, Bighorn Subdivision Addklon 2 PS 12.898 3.650 Possible influence High Del Avalance 3834 Bridge Road Lot 11, Bighcrn Subdivision Addition 2 PS 53939 7,597 Possible Infuence High Debris Avalance 3838 Bridge Road Lott 2 Bighorn Subdivision Addition 2 PS 29,016 6,002 Possl61e Influence High Debris Avalance 3846 Lupine Drive Lot 13, Bighorn Subdlvlslon Addklon 2 PS 14.844 4,561 Possible nFluance High Debris Avalance & Modera. 3876 Lupine Drive Lot 14A. 8lghorn SubdiYfsronAddition 2 PS 19,971 5,097 Possib a ,i%ance High Del Avalance, High & M 3876 Lupine Drive Lot 148, Bighorr SubdMslon Addition 2 PS 2l 5,146 Poss bs ,f'uence High Debris Flow AVERAGE 127,961 Jill i Two - Family Residential District Si Single- Family Refildonlfat District P5= Two-Family PlmarylSecondary Residential District • • 12 --9-D -1 CHAPTER 6 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS ARTICLE C. TWC- F,4WLY F✓RI 1AFWSECCNDARY RESMENTfAL (PS) DISTRICT SECTION: 12 -6D- 1: Purpose 12 -6D- 2: Permitted Uses 12 -6D- 3: Conditional Uses 12 -6D- 4: Accessory Uses 12 -6D- 6: Lot Area And Site Dimensions 12 -6D- 6. Setbac6 -,s 12 -6D- 7: Height 12 -6D- 8: De7sity Control 12 -60- 9: Site Coverage 12- 60-10: Landscaping Ar,u Site Development 12- 6D -11: Parking 12 -6D -1: PURPOSE. The Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential District is intended to provide sites for sin- gle- family residential uses or two- family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential Dis- trict is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwell- ing, commensurate with single- family and two - family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site develop- ment standards. (Ord_ 30(1977) § 2) 12 -cD -3 12 -60-2: PERMITTED USES: The follow- ing uses shall be permitted: Single- family residential dwellings_ Two - family residential dwellings. F ype I employee housing unit as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title. (Ord. 6(2000) § 2: Ord. 8(1992) S 11: Ord. 30(1977) § 2) 12 -60-3: CONDITIONAL LEES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a con- ditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Bed and breakfast as further reauiated by Section 12- 14-18 of this Title. Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public or private schools. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. Type 11 employee housing unit as set forth in Chapter 13 of this Title. (Ord_ 8(2000) § 2: Ord. 8(1992) § 12: Card. 31(1989) § 2: Ord. 30(1977) § 2) Town of Vail June 2000 12 -5D -4 12 -6C -4: ACCESSORY USES: The follow- ing accessory uses shall be permitted: Home occupations, subject . to issuance of a home occupation permit in accord with the ;provisions :�f Chapter 14 of this Title. Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhous- es. garages or carports, swimming pocis, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidentai to single- family and two - family residential uses. Other uses customarily incidental and ac- cessory to permitted or cc.nditionaf uses, and necessanv for the operation thereof. (Ord. 30(1977) § 2) 12 -8D -5: LOT AREA AND SITE IDITMEN- SIONS: The rninimurn lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30'). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enc ?csing a square area,. eighty fee, (80" on each side, within its bound- aries. (Ord. ;2(1978) § 3: Ord. 30(1977) & 2) 12 -6D -6: SETBACKS: In the Primary/ 5eccndary Residentiai District, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (24'), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15'), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15'). (Ord. 50(1978) § 2) 12 -6D -7: HEIGHT: For a flat roof or man- sard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty feet (30'). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall 12 -6D -8 not exceed thirty three feet (331. (Ord 37(1980) § 2) 12 -8C -8: DENSITY CONTROL: A. Dwelling Jniis: Not more than a total of two (2) dwelling units shall be per- mitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permitted on existing lets less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet. 6. Cross Residential Floor Area: ,tune 2000 Town of Vail 1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site: a. Twenty five (25) square feat of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of the first fifteen thousand (15,000) square, et of site area; plus b. Ten (10) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, not to exceed thirty thou- sand (30,040) square feet of site area; plus c. Five (5) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand (30,000) square feet. 2- In addition to the above, four hun- dred twenty five (425) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each allowable dwelling unit. • • �J r t 2 -6D -8 C. Ernplayee Housing Units: Notwith- standing the provision of subsections A and. E of this Section, a Type em- ployee housing unit shall be permitted on lots of less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of this Title. Any Type I employee hous- ing unit existing on or 'before April 18, 2000: shall not be eliminated unless all dwelling units are demolished, in which case the zoning on the property shall. apply. However, an existing Type I employee housing unit may be re- placed with a Type It employee hous- ing unit on lots of fourteen tho"and (14,000) square feet or greater. (Ord. 6(2000) § 4: Ord. 8(1992) §§ 13, 14: Ord. 37(1990) § 5: Ord. 19(1990) § 1: Ord. 12(1988) § 4: Ord. 23(1986) § 1: Ord_ 23(1981) § 2: Ord. 22(1981) § 1: Ord. 38(1980) § 1: Ord. 2211979) § 1: Ord. 12(1978) § 2: Ord. 30(1977) § 2) is 12 -6D -9: SITE COV EI?LkGE: Site cover- age shall not exceed twenty percent (20 11'o) of the total site area. (Ord. 41(1990) § 5: Ord. 30(1977) § 2) U 12- 60-10: LAINDSCAPING AND SITE DE- VELOP'NEENT: At least sixty percent (60 %) of each site shall be land - scaped. The minimum of any area qualify- ing as landscaping shall be ten feet (10') (width and length) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. (Ord. 34(1978) § 2) 12- 6D -11: PARKING: Off- street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. (Ord. 30(190 § 2) Town of Tail 12 -6D -11 June 2000 • • • 12 -21 -1 12 -21 -2 CHAPTER 21 HAZARD REGULATIONS SE+ST1CN: 12 -21- 1: Purpose t 2 -21 - 2: definitions 2 -21 3: Master Hazard Plans 12 -21- 4: . -kpproval Of Master Flans 12 -21- 6: Town Manager Accumulate Information 12 -21- 6: Suopiemental Studies By Applicant 12 -21- 7. Report To Town Counci€ 12 -21- 8: Interpretation 12 -21- 9: Disclaimer Of Liability 12- 21 -10: Devoiopment Restricted 12- 21 -11: Flood Hazard Zones And Flood Hazard Studies 12- 21 -12: Improvements On Nonconforming Structures 12- 21 -13: Duties Of Administrator 12- 21 -14: Restrictions In Specific Zones On Excessive Slopes 12- 21 -15. Restrictions In Geologically Sensitive Areas 12- 21-16: Right Of Appeal 12- 21-17: Requirement Of Bond 12 -21 -1: PURPOSE: The purpose of this Chapter is to help protect the inhabitants of the Town from dangers reiat- ing to development of flood plains, ava- lanche paths, steep slopes and geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use of land areas which may be subject to flooding and avalanche or which may be geologically sensitive; and further to regulate develop - ment on steep slopes; to protect the eco- nomic and property values of the Town, to protect the aesthetic and recreational val- ues and natural resources or the cwn, which are scrnetirnes assccia;ed with flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of ceo- logical Sensitivity and slopes; to minimize damage to public fac;iities and utiiiiies and minimize the Need for relief in c,eanup op- erations; to give notice to the public of certain areas within the Town where flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geo- Icaic sensitivity exist; and to promote the general public health, safety and welfare. (Ord. 5(1985) § 1: Ord. 12(1978) § d 12 -21 -2; DEFLNITIONS. For the purposes cf this Chapter, the words con- tained 'n this Section are defined as fol- lows. SLUE HAZARD Ai,`ALANCHE AREA: An area impacted by a snow producing a total static and dynamic oressure less than six hundred (600) pounc.-s per square foot on a flat surface normal to the flow and /or a return inten/al in excess of twenty five (25) years. FLOOD HAZARD ZCNE: That area covered by the base flood. The base flood area is any numbered A, AO, AH, or area of 100 -year shallow flooding indicated .on the Flood Insurance Rate Map, associated work reaps, and Flood Insurance Study. The flood hazard zone is also any area indicat- ed as "flood piainu as defined by the Gore Creek Flood Plain Information Report, 1975, as designated in Section 12 -21 -11 ci this Chapter- Town of Vail 12 -21.2 12 -21 -3 F .CCC INSURANCE STI UG`!: The official 'spor. provioed by the Feceral Emergency Management Agency that inci des 'flood profiles and water surface elevation of the base flood_ GEOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREA: An area within the Town of Vail which may be subject to rcck fails, mud flews, debris flows, debris avalanches, and unstabie soil, `lopes or rocics. REc^. HAZARD AV,4L41VCi -E AitE._4�k: Any area Impacted by a snow avalanche pro- ducing a total static and cynamic pressure ir, excess of six hundred (600) pounds per square foot �n a fiat surface normal to the flow and/or a return interval of less than twenty five (25) years. SLOPE. "Slope" is as defined in Section 12 -2 -2 of this 'rtle. SUBSTANTIAL IMPEOVEIVIENI I: Ar;v re- pair, recorizi ructicn", cr improverent, CT a structure, the cost of whic7 equals or ex- ceeds fifty percant (501 %) of the market value of the structure, Market value shall be aeterrnined by a qualified assessor desig- nated by the Administrator. The market value of a structure is determined either: A. Before the imprGvement or repair is started; or 15_ If the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the dam- age occurred. For the purposes of this definition "substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alter - aticn affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not, however, include any project for im- provement of a structure to comp ly with existing State or locai health. sanitary, or safety code spsc;fications which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions. ?CNE OF INFLUENCE: Any area in a po- tential avalanche hazard zone where de- tailed information is not currently available but which may be impacted by said hazard. These zones of influence shall be designat- ed cn the .appropriate maps of the Adminis- trator of the Town. (Ord. 5(1985) § 2: Ord_ 16(1983) § 1: Ord. 12(1978) § 4) 12 -21 -3: MASTER HAZARD PLAINS: The Town Manager shall formulate and develop master hazard plans for the Town. Said hazard plans shall be based on engineering studies and shall indicate the location of known flood plains, avalanche and geological hazard zones of influence, known red and blue avalanche and geologi- cal hazard areas, and fort] perc^nt (40 %) slope areas. In addition, the plans may show any other information or data deemed to be desirable by the Town Manager. Max- imum citizen participation during the fcrmu- IaaiGn of the master hazard plans as well as other phases of the information imp €emen - tation of the hazard studies and reculaticns, shall be encouraged. The purpose of the master hazard plans is to identify and alle- viate present and future problems created by the construction of improvements in the hazard areas within the Town by meads of presenting in an orderly fashion the general data and information which are essential to the understanding of the relationship be- tween the hazards and improvements locat- ed within said areas. The master hazard plans may be altered from time to time to- conform with new information or existing conditions. (Ord. 12(1978) § 4) Town of Vail • • • • 0 12 -21 -4 i2 -21 -4: APPROVAL OF MASTER PLANS: the master hazard plans shall net be considered to be cfficias hazard roaster plans of the Town until and unless the Town Council adopts `he same, by motion. No substantial modification of he master hazard plan shall be made un- less it is first approved by the Town Councii M a similar manner. As soon as the master hazard plans are adopted, or perticns thereof are adapted, a copy cf it snail be placed on file in the office of the town Cleric, wnere it may be inspected by any interested party during normal Business hours. (Ord_ 12(1978) § 4) 12 -21 -5: TOWN 'MANAGER ACCUMU- LATE INFORMATION. The Town Manager, with the advics and approv- al of the Planning and Environmental Com- mission, shall continue to study and accu- mulate information as to hazard areas. When additional information is available, it shall be reviewed by the Planning and Envi- rcnmentai Commission and added to the master hazard plans. (Ord. 12(1578) § 4) 12 -21 -5: SUPPLEVIENTA.L STUDIES BY APPLICANT: if an application is made to guild in an identified avalanche hazard zone of influence or modification to the flood plain, the Administrator may re- quire the applicant to conduct supplemental studies as specified in this Chapter. The information submitted by the applicant fol- lowing completion of said studies shall be viewed by the Town staff and the Planning and Environmental Commission and may be added to the master hazard plans. (Ord. 12(1978) § 4) 12 -21 -7: REPORT TO TOWN- COUNCIL: The Town Manager shall report 12 -21 -10 to the Town Council not less than once each year on any additions that have been made to the master hazard plan. (Crd, 12(15781) § 4) 12 -21 -8: INTERPRETATION: 7-le provi- sions of this Chapter shall be deemed to be minimum requirements_ Noth- ing herein shall impair the obligations of or nteriere with private agreements in excess of the minimum requirements. Where this Chapter imposes a restriction different from that imposed by other appiicable provisions of law, contras., or deed, the more restric- tive provision shall control. (Ord. 5(1980 § 8) 12- 21 -9: iCiISCLAINIER OF LIABILITY: This Chapter is based on scien- tific and engineering considerations which are continually being develo1ed. Compli- ance with the provisions herein cannot insure freedom from risk to life, safety or properly. This Section sinall not create Ila- biiity on the part of the Town or any officer or employee thereof for any damage that may resuit from reliance on this Chapter, or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. The designation of certain areas as hazard areas or geologically sensitive areas pursuant to maps incorporated into this Section does not imply in any way that areas not so designated are free from all risk to life, safety or property. (Ord. 5(1985) § 4) 12- 21 -10: DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTED: A. No structure shall be built in any flood hazard zone or reel avalanche hazard area. No structure shall be built on a slope of forty percent (40 %) or greater except in Single - Family Residential, Town. or Vail 12-21-10 Twc- 7amiJy Presidential, or Twc- 1=ami- fy Primary /Secondary Residential Zane Ci :riots. The term "structure' as used in this Section does not include 'ecrearenai structures that are intend- ed for seasonal use, not ir,c uding residential use. V P. Structures may be built in blue ava- lanche hazard areas provided that proper mitigating measures have been taken. C. The Administrator -nay rewire any applicant or person desiring to wild in an at.-alancle hazard zone of influence to submit a definitive study of the hazard area in which the applicant proposes to build if tha Town's master hazard plan does not contain suffi- cient information to determine if the proposed location is in a red hazard or blue hazard area. The requirement for additionai information and study shall a done in Accord with Chapter f2 of this Title_ D. The Adminnistratcr may require any applicant or person desiring to guild in an identified blue avalanche hazard zone to submit additional information or reports as to whether or not im- provements are required to miticate against the possibie hazard. If mitiga- tion is required, said information and report should specify the improve- ments proposed therefor. The required information and reports shall be done in accordance with Chapter 12 of this Title. E_ The Administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to modify the flood plain by fill, construction, channelization, grading, or other simi- lar changes, to submit for review an 12 -21 -12 envronmental impact statement in accordancS with Chapter 12 of this Title, to establish that the work will not adversely affect adiacent properties, or increase the quantity or ve:ocity of flood waters. (Ord. 1 13(1983) § 1: Ord_ 12(1978) S 4) 12- 21 -11: FLOOD HAZARD) ZONES AND F L :') OD HAZARD STUDIES: There are two (2) sets of flood hazard maps and studies designated and adopted for the awn. They are: A. All areas designated as flood hazard zones in the Plocd Insurance Hate Maps, as well as the flood Insurance Study, dated November 2, 1982, are hereby designated and adopted for the areas encompassed by the Tawn as of December 1, 1980. S. The Core Creek Floodpiain Informa- tion, 1915 study, and accompanying maps are hereby adopted and desig- nated for an area described in the West Vail annexation plat, dated De- cember 13, 1980, (Ord. 10(1983) § 1) 12- 21 -12: 12YIPROVEI+PE'N ;S ON NON CONFORN UN; C STRUCTURES: A. Protection Of Structures: Structures which are substantially improved must be anchored to prevent flotation. coi- lapse, or lateral movement during a base flood event; substantially un- proved structures must also elevate the lowest floor elevation, including basement, to at least one foot (V) above the base flood eievation. Toga of Vail • • [-.Ij • • C7 i2 -21 -12 E Apciica =ion: Contents: Accdcations for the wubstartiai improvement Tor struc- �ures shall include the following= — E.;gineered drawings and s ecifica- -ions sufficient to illustrate that the proposed structure will be anchored to W revent flotation, cCilapse or lateral mcvement during a base flood event. Such dra'Nings shall bear the stump CDT a registared, professional engineer. 2. i=iocr plans and elevations iHustrat- ing that the lowest floor elevations including basement, of the structure steal be elevated to at least one foot ( I" above the base flood e,evation. 3. Before a temporary certificate of occupancy is issued for a substantially improved structure, an improvement oe4ticn certificate shall be obtained illustrating structure location in rela- tion to property boundaries, building :imensions, ail utility service lines as built, easements, lowest floor eleva- tion, and roof ridge elevation_ The improvement location certificate shall bear the stamp of a registered, profes- sional surveyor, (Ord.. 16(1980) § 1) 12- 21 -13: DUTIES OF ADMINISTRATOR: The duties of the Administrator shall be to: A. Review all building permit applications to ensure that the requirements of this Chapter have been satisfied. B. Review improvement location certifi- cates for substantially improved struc- tures to ensure that the lowest floor elevation has been elevated to one foot (V) above the base flood eleva- tion. 12 -2' -14 C. Submit an annual report to the =eder- al Emergency Management Agency concerning flood hazard zone rran- aaernent and deveicpment activity. (Ord. 16(198) § 1) 12- 21 -14: RESTRICTIONS I'ti SPECIFIC ZONES ON EXCESSIVE SLOPES: —he following additional swecial restrictions or requirements shall apply to develanment can any ict in a Hiiside Resi- dentiai, Sinoie- Family Residential, Two - Family Residential or Two- Famiiy Prima - ry/Secondary Residential Zone Districi where ;he average slope of the site beneath the existing or proposed structure and park- ing area is in excess of thirty percent (30 %): A. A seii and foundation investigation, prepared by and bearing the seal of a registered professicnai engineer shall be required. B. Foundations must be desienated and bear the seal of a registered profes- sional engineer. C. A topographic survey prepared by a registered surveyor, with contour in- tenials of not more than two feet 12% shall be required. C. Structures must be designed by a licensed architect. F. Site coverage as it pertains to this Chapter, as permitted by Sections 12 -6A -9, 12 -6B -9 and 12 -6C -9 of this Title, is amended as follows: Town of Wail 1. Not more than fifteen percent (15 %) of the site area may be covered by buildings; and 12-27 -1d 12-21 -i:. 2. Not more than, ten percent (1013%) of 12 -21 -" : RESTRICTIONS IN GLGLOGI. 0 • Town of 'Vail the total site area may be covered by CALLY SENSITIVE AREAS: driveways and surface parking_ �. Maps Adopted: The fallowing reaps A site trading and drainage pian shall are hereby adopted as the C.ffic'al be required_ Macs cf the Town, identifying areas of aeolc( is sensitivity: G. A detailed plan cf retaining walls or cuts and fills ire e cess of five feet (5') 1. The Debris Flow and Debris Ava- shall be required. lanche Hazard Analysis Map prepared by Arthur I. Mears, P.B., Inc., and H. A detailed revegetation plan must tie dated Novemcer 1984. submitted. 2. The Rockiall Map prepared by L The Administrator may require an Sc "rnueser and Associa °es, Inc., and environmental impact report as provid- rated '14ovember 29, 1984. ed in Section 12 -12 -2 of this Title. ^. All areas witWn the boundaries of J. A minimum o; cne covered pari4ing the Geologic Ha -zards Map, Figure 3, space shall be provided for each prepared by Lincoln DeVore Engi- dwelling unit. nears, Geologists and dated August 16, 1982. K. Setbacks, as they apply to this Chap- ter, as required by Sections 12 -6A -6, B. Investigation: 12 -6B -8, 12 -6C -6 and 12-6'U-6 of this T i #le, are amended as follows: there 1. In any area located within the small be no required front setback for boundaries cf the Lincoln DeVore garages, except as may be required Map, or in any area identified as a by the Design Review Board. Garages debris flow cr Debris avalanche area located in the front setback, as provid- by the Mears Map, or in any area ed for in this Section, shall be limited identified as a rock fail area by thf-7 to one stcry in height (not to exceed Schmueser Map, no initial application 10 feet) with the addition of a pitched for a building permit, grading permit or or flat roof and subject to review and major or minor subdivision shall be approval by the Design Review Board_ approved until a site - specific geologic investigation is complete. For the L. Retaining wails up to six feet (6') in purpose of this Section, a site - specific height may be permitted in the set- geologic investigation shail be back by the Design Review Board deemed a detailed geologic investiga- when associated with a permitted tion which is applicable to each re- garage as referenced in sucsection K spective site. All reports and studies of this Section. (Ord. 2(1995) § 1: required by this. Section shall be pre - Ord. 13(l 994) § 1) pared by a "professional geoicgist°, as defined by Colorado Revised Statutes section 34 -1 -01, as amended, or a "registered professional engineer ", as • Town of 'Vail • 12 -21 -1 w defined by Ccicrado = evised Statutes section 12 -2E -1(02. as amended, under the direction of ana at the expense OT the owner /applicant and submitted to the Department ci Community Devel- opment. 2. Tine extent of the site - specific eco- lccic investigation required shall be deterrnined by the geologist or engi- neer who is responsible for the inves- tigaticn; however, the investigation shall be of sufficient thoroughness and accuracy to ailow such expert to certify to the following: a. For all structures other than singie- family, duplex and prima - ry /secondary dwellings, and "accesso- ry uses" thereto as defined in Section 12 -6C -4 of this Code: (1) Whether the geologic condi- tions are such that the site can or cannot be develcped for the specific structure or use pro- posed without corrective engi- neering or encineered construc- tion, or other mitigation or alter- ations. (2) Whether corrective engineer- ing or engineered construction, or other mitigation or alterations can or cannot be accomplished to reduce the danger to the pub- lic health, safety or to property due to problems related to geo- logic sensitivity to a reasonable level, and not increase the haz- ard to other properties or struc- tures, or to public buildings, rights of way, roads, streets, easements, utilities or facilities or other properties of construc- tion. 12-21-15 b. For s,ngie- family, duplex and primaryrsecondary dwellings, and "accessory uses" thereto as defined n Section 12 -6C -4 of this Title, the site - specific geologic investigation shall cartify to the following: (1) Whether the site can be de- veioped for the specific structure or use proposed without correc- tive engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations; or (2) That the site is a geologically sensitive area but development will not increase the hazard to other property or structures, or to public buildings, rights of way, roads, streets, easements, utili- ties or facilities or other proper- ties of any kind. C. Development Plan Cr Building Permit: Following the completion of the site - specific geological investigation and its review by the Department of Com- munity Development, a development plan may be approved or a building permit may be issued as follows: Torun of Vail 1. For all structures other than sincle- family, duplex and primary /secondary dwellines, and "accessory usas�' there- to as defined in Section 12-6C-Al of this Title. a. If the conclusion of the encineer or geologist performing the investiga- ticn is that the site can be develcped for the specific structure or activity proposed without corrective engineer- ing or engineered Construction or Other mitigation or alterations, the subdivision plan or building permit or grading permit may be approved livith- 12 -21_15 12 -21 -15 c-ut conditions relating to the mitiga- tion cf the areas OT geoiccic sensitivi- tv. b. If the finding of the engineer or ceciogist performing the geologic inves,igaticn is that the site is a geo- lccically sensitive area, but that crar- rective engineering or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations can be accomplished to reduce the danger to the public health and safety or to property to a reason - able level, and such mitigation does not increase the hazard to other pro '+ - erty or structures, or to public build- ings, roads, streets, rights of way, easements, utilities or facilities, ap- proval of the development plan and/or the issuance of the building or grading permit shall be conditional and contin- gent upon approval of plans for cor- rective engineering and engineered construction or other litication or aiter- atiens as set forth in this Title. c. if the conclusion of the geologist or engineer performing the site- specif- ic geologic investigation is that the site cannot be developed for the struc- ture or use proposed because the danger posed by the geologically sensitive area cannot be reduced or mitigated to a reasonable level, the subdivision plan or building permit or grading permit shall be denied. 2. For single- family, duplex, and pri- mary /secandary dwellings, and "ac- cessory uses° thereto as defined in Section 12 - 6C -4 of this Title: a. If the conclusion of the engineer or the geologist performing the investi- gation is that the site can be devel- oped for the specific structure or use Town of Vail propcsec without corrective engineer - ina or engineered ccnstructlfln or other mitica icri or alterations, or *hat the site is a geologically sensitive area. but will not increase the hazard to other property or structures or to public buildings,. roads, streets, rights of way easements, utilities or facili- ties, a grading permit or building per- mit may be issued. b. If the finding of the engineer or ceologist performing the site specific geologic investigation is that the site is a geologically sensitive area, but that corrective engineering or engi- neered construction or other mitigation or alterations can be accomplished so that there is no increased hazard to other properly or structures, or to public buildings, roads, streets, rights of way, easements, utilities or faciii- ties, the issuance of a building or grading permit shall be conditional and contingent upon approval of plans for corrective engineering or engi- neered construction or other mitigation or alterations as set fcrth in this Sec- tion. c. If the conclusion of the geologist or engineer performing the site- specif- ic geologic investigation is that the site cannot be developed for the struc- ture proposed because the danger posed by the geologically sensitive area cannot be reduced or mitigated so that the hazard to other properties or structures will not increase from the present level or the hazard to public buildings, roads, streets, rights of way, easements, utilities and facilities will not increase from the present level, then the building permit or grad- ing permit shall be denied. U 12 -21 -15 D. Construction Requirements: The fol- lowing requirements snail pertain to the construction of a ^,y building or stri-cture to be built in an identified or designated area of geologic sensitivity and which requires corrective engi- neersng or engineered construction or other mitigation or alterations tc re- duce the danger to public health and safety or to property due to such prob- lems as set forth in subsections Clb or C2b above. t. The certified site specific reports and plans required by this subsection shall be prepared by each engineer and geologist as applicable to their area of expertise and specialty and shall certify that: a. Adequate base data as may be pertinent has been provided. b. Said base data is utilized in the design and planning of the proposed project or structure- c. Design and construction proce- dures derived from said base data are executed. d. Design and construction will reduce danger to the public health, safetrr or property due to geciogic sensitivity to a reasonable level. 2. No certificate cf occupancy, tempo- rary or permanent, shall be issued E until the following have been approved by the Department of Community Development or its authorized repre- sentatives: a. Inspection and certification by the Town 'Building Official and the engineer or geologist who prepared Town of jail the plans and specifications that the wcr '.< vvas properly performed in accar- dance with the plans and s,oecifica- Vons. b. If the engineer, geologist, or Building Official of the Town finds that the work is not being done in accor- dance with the approved plans and specifications, the discrepancy shall be reported immediately in writing to the contractor and to the Department of Community Development. Recom- mendations for corrective measures, if necessary, shall also be submitted. c. All geologic reports prepared under this Section shall be sioned by and prepared by or under the respon- sible direction of "professional geolo- gists" as defined by Colorado Revised Statutes section 34 -1 -201, as amend- ed. Such professional geologist shall be experienced and competent in the geologic specialty required to meet the objectives of this Chapter. Such professional geologist shall be respon- sible for certification of all gecicgic maps and reports prepared by him /her under his /her responsible direction as specified in this Section. All engineer- ing reports required by this Section shall be done by a 'registered proces- sional engineer" as defined by Colora- do Revised Statutes section 12 -25 -102, as amended. Existing Uses Continued; Exceptions: Existing use of land; structures or premises which are not in conformity with the provisions of this regulation may be continued, except for the following: 1. No buiiding permit will be issued for the exterior expansion, alteration or 1221 -15 12 -21 -15 addition to exiyiing struc Lres In ge - 3. Prior to the Issuance of any building logically sersitive arias except for permit €or construction within the gec- windows, skviiahts and oilier similar logically sensitive areas, ;he owner minor alterations unless the require- shall submit a written, signed and meats cf subsections a thrcuch D of notarized affidavit ceMiying acknowi- this 'Section are complied with. edcaement of receiving personal notice of the tact that said building or struc- 2. Structures _ °,dstina can the effective ture is in an area of geologic sensitivi- date hereof which are damaged or ty and notice of the studies conduced destroyed may be recons,rac#ed with_ to date with regard thereto. out compliance to this Section as long as said structure complies with other . A €€ owners, lessors or agents who applicable ordinances and is ccn- rent, lease or subiei any structure or str ucted to substamiaily the same premises within an area of geologic dimensions as existed prier to dud?- sensitivity shai€ provide the tenant, age or destruction, unless given ap- lessee or subtenant with written notice proval by the sewn to alter the design. that said property is located within said area prior to any lease being F. Notice Requirements: In order to pro- entered into or occupancy, whichever ,ride reasonable notice to the public of cccurs first, if said rental lease or the problems related to geologically sublease will extend into the period of sensitive areas, the following notice April 1 through ,fury 1 of any year. regulations and requirements are hereby adopted `or all real propery 5. Each and every real estate agent, -nd structures liccated in geologically sales person and broker, and each sensitive areas: and every private party who offers for vale or shows a parcel of real estate 1. All subdivision plats recorded after and /or structure for sale within said the effective date hereof shall identify area of geologic sensitivity, shall pro - and designate each lot and block, or vide the prospective purchaser, with Portions thereof, located within any written notice that said real property geologically sensitive area, together and/or structure is located within said with applicable sub -zone designations, area of geologic sensitivity. Fur'her- by a stamp or writing in a manner more, written notice shall be made in providing reasonable notice to inter- all instances prior to the execution of ested parties. any sales documents and shall state that this Section and the studies and 2. All plans submitted after the effec- maps referred to in this Section are tive date hereof with the building per- available for public inspection at the mit application for property within said office of the Department of Communi- areas shall be stamped by the appli- ty development and that said maps, cant "Geologically Sensitive Area" studies and this Section should be together with the- applicable zone reviewed prior to any party entering designation. into any agreement or contract with regard thereto. • Town of Mail • • • 12 -21 -1 W C H Disputes; Prccadure: In any case wriere a person wishes to dispute the designatic:� ;f any propemy as a geo- logica'.ly sensitivs area by one of the snaps and studies adopted by this Section, the following procedures shall be followed: _ A written application shall be filed with the Cepartment of Community Development requesting such a hear- ing, and providing a supporting site - specific geoicgic investigation. 2. A hearing shall be set on a date a minimum of thirty (30) days after the application has been filed to allow for a staff review. 3. At the hearing before the Town Council, the applicant shall be given a reasonabie opportunity to present his /her case and submit technical and geologic evidence to support his /her claim. If the site-specific geologic investigation establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the property should not be designated as a geolog- ically sensitive area, the Town Council shall direct the Department of Com- munity Development to amend the map appropriately- Additions To Maps: In any case where a person wishes to have one of the official mans adopted by this Title amended to notate more detailed site - specific information is available, the following procedure shall be followed: 1. A written application shall be filed with the Department of Community Development requesting such a hear- ing and providing a supporting site - specific geologic investigation. 12 -21 -17 2. A nearing snap be set on a date nct !ess than thirty (30) dais after ,re application has been filed nor more than sixry (60) days tc allow for a staff review. 3. If the applicant estabiishes at the hearing by dear and convincing evi- dence that the information contained in the site- specific geoiogic investiga- tion is reliable, the 7Gwn CaunciI shall direct the Department of Community Development to keep a copy of said site - specific investigation on file in the Department of Community Ceveico- ment and availabie to the general public and shall further direct the Department of Community Develop- ment to notate the appropriate official map adopted by this Chapter so that it indicates that said site - specific investi- aadon is on file with the Department of Community Development. (Ord. 20(1985) § 1: Ord. 5(1985) § 5) 12- 21 -16: RIGHT OF APPEAL: clothing in this Chapter shall be deemed to deny any interested person his /her rights to appeal the decision of the Administrator in accordance with Section 12 -3 -3 of this Title. Also, nothing in this Chapter shall be deemed to deny any interested person his /her rights to seek a variancs from the requirements of this Chapter, except in the case where a proposed structure or fill will raise the base flood elevation or increase the quantity or velocities of flood waters during a 100 -year flood. Variances shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 17 of this Title. (Ord. 16(1983) § 1) 12- 21 -17: RE+QUIRENEE T OF WNW: Any applicant under this Chapter may be required to post bond, a letter of credit, Torun of Vail 12 -21 -17 or other cuerantee �o ensure that the im- prevernents. re -ors, or other recuirernents :f this Chanter are completed and complied with. (Ord. 1 2!1 963) § 1) Town of Vail 1Z -c1 -1 F • • • • / 12 -8A. -1 12 -8A -3 CHAPTER 8 OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION DISTRICTS ARTICLE A. AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE (A) DISTRICT SECTION: 12 -8A- 1: Purpose 12 -8A- 2: Permitted Uses 12 -8A- 3: Conditional Uses 12 -8A- 4: Accessory Uses 12 -8A- S: Lot Area And Site Dimensions 12 -8A- 6: Setbacks 12 -8A- 7: Height 12 -8A- 8: Density 12 -8A- 9: Site Coverage 12- 8A -10: Landscaping And Site Development 12- 8A -11: Parking 12 -8A -1: PURPOSE: The Agricultural and Open Space District is intended to preserve agricultural, undeveloped, or open space lands from intensive develop- ment while permitting agricultural pursuits and low density residential use consistent with agricultural and open space objectives_ Parks, schools, and certain types of private recreational facilities and institutions also are suitable uses in the Agricultural and Open Space District, provided that the sites of these uses remain predominantly open. Site development standards are intended to preclude intensive urban development and to maintain the agricultural and open space characteristics of the District. (Ord. 8(1973) § 12.100) 12 -8A -2: Pl✓RMJTTEI3 USES: The follow- ing uses shall be permitted in the A District: Plant and tree nurseries and raising of field, row and tree crops. Public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces. Single - family residential dwellings. (Ord. 8(1973) § 12.200) 12 -8A -3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a con- ditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Any use within public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces which involves assembly of more than two hundred (200) persons together in one building or group of buildings, or in one recreation area or other public recreational facility_ Cemeteries. Churches, rectories, and related structures_ Low power subscription radio facilities. Private golf, tennis, swimming and riding clubs, and hunting and fishing lodges. Public and private schools and colleges. Town of Vail June 2004 12 -8A -3 12 -3A -10 , Semipublic and institutionai uses, such as convents and religious retreats. Ski lifts and tows. Type 11 employee housing units (ENIf) as provided in Chapter 13 of this Title. Well water treatment facility. (Ord. 6(2000) § 2: Ord. 8(1992) § 30: Ord. 37(1991) § 1: Ord. 30(1988) § 1: Ord. 16(1985) § 1: Crd. 16(1976) § 1(a): Ord. 14(1975) § 3: C:-d. 8(1973) § 12.300) 12 -8A -4: ACCESSORY USES: The follow- ing accessory uses shall be permitted in the A district: Accessory buildings and uses customarily incidental to permitted agricultural uses, including barns, silos, sheds, corrals, pens, and similar uses. Nome occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 -14 -12 of this Title. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhous- es, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single- family residential uses. Retail sale of plants, }reel, or other farm or agricultural products crown, produced or made on the premises. Other uses customarily incidental and ac- cessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. (Ord. 21 (1994) § 12: Ord. 16(1976) § 1 (a): Ord. 8(1973) § 12.400) 12- 8A. -5,: LOT AREA AND SITE DIIVIEN- SIONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be thirty five (35) acres with a minimum of one acre of buildable area. (Ora. 24(1979) § 1) 12 -8A -8: SETBACKS: in the A District, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20'), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15'), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15'). (Ord. :0(1978) § 2) 12 -8A -7: HEIGHT. For a flat roof or man- sard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty feet (30'). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty three feet (33')- (Ord. 37(1980) § 2) 12 -8A -8: DENSITY: Not more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted for each thirty five (35) acres of site area, of which one acre must be buildable; pro- vided, however, that one dwelling shall be allowed on a lot or parcel of less than thirty five (35) acres which contains one acre of buildable area. Such dwelling shall not exceed two thousand (2,000) square feet of gross residential flour area (GRFA). (Ord. 34(1979) § 1) 12 -8A -9: SITE COVERAGE: Site cover- age shall not exceed five percent (M) of the total site area_ (Ord. 17(1941) § 14: Ord. 8(1973) § 12.507) 12- 8A -10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DE- VELOPMENT: Not applicable in the A District. (Ord. 8(1973) § 12.509) ,tune 2007 Town of Vail • • • • 12 -8A -11 12 -8A -11 12- 8A -11: PARKING: Off - street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. No required parking shall be located in any required setback area, except as may be specifically authorized in accordance with Chapter 17 of this Ttle. (Ord. 8 {1973} § 12.514) Town of Vail r 12 -6B -1 • • CHAPTER 6 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS ARTICLE E. SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SFR) DISTRICT SECTION: 12 -68- 1: Purpose 12 -6B- 2: Permitted uses 12 -613- 3: Conditional Uses 12 -68- 4: Accessory Uses 12 -66- 5: Lot Area And Site Dimensions 12 -68- 6: Setbacks 12 -68- 7: Height 12 -6B- 8. Density Control 12 -68- 9: Site Coverage 12- 66 -10: Landscaping And Site Development 12- 68 -11: Parking 12 -68 -1: PURPOSE: The Single- Family Residential District is intended to provide sites for low density single- family residential uses, together with such public facilities as may be appropriately located in the same district. The Single- Parnily Resi- dential District is intended to ensure ade- quate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single - family occupancy, and to maintain the de- sirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. (Ord. 8 (1973) § 2.100) 12 -66 -2: PERMITTED USES: The follow- ing uses shall be permitted in the SI=R District: Single - family residential dwellings. (Orel 8(1973) § 2.200) 12 -66 -4 12 -66 -3: CONDITIONAL USES. The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a con- ditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title. Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 12 -14 -18 of this Title. [log kennel_ Public buildings, grounds and facilities. Public or private schools. Public park and recreation facilities. Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts and tows. Type 11 employee housing unit as set forth in Chapter 13 of this Title. (Ord. 6(2000) § 2: Ord. 8(1992) § 6: Ord. 31(1989) § 1: Ord. 20(1982) § 5: Ord. 8(1973) § 2.300) 12 -68 -4: ACCESSORY USES: The follow- ing accessory uses shall be permitted in the SFR District: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 -14 -12 of this Title. Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhous- es, garages or carports, swimming pools, June 2000 Town of Vail 12-613-4 patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single- family uses. Other uses customarily incidental and ac- cessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. (Ord. 8(1973) § 2.440) 12- 613-5: LOT AREA AND SI IM DIMEN- SIONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be twelve thousand five hundred ;12,500) square feet of buildable area. Each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30'). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet (80') on each side within its boundaries. (Ord. 12(1978) § 3) 12 -66 -6. SETBACKS: In the SFR District, the minimum front .3etback shall be twenty feet (20'), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15'), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15'). (Ord. 54(1978) § 2) 12- 61? -7: HEIGHT: For a flat roof or man- sard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty feet (30'). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty three feet (33'). (Ord. 37 (1980) § 2) 12- 613 -8: DENSITY CONTROL. A. Dwelling Units: Not more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted on each site. I 12 -6S -10 S. Grass Residential Floor Area: 1- The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site: a. Twenty five (25) square feat of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of the first twelve thousand five hundred (12,500) square feet of site area; plus b. Ten (10) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over twelve thousand five hun- dred (12,500) square feet.. 2. In addition to the above, four hun- dred twenty five (425) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each allowable dwellinc unit. 3. No single- family residential lot ex- is kept those located entirely in the red hazard avalanche zone or the flood plain shall be so restricted that it can- not be occupied by one single- family dwelling. (Ord. 37(1990) § 3: Ord. 12(1978) § 2) 12 -6E -9: SITE COVERAGE: Site cover- age shall not exceed twenty percent (20 %) of the total site area. (Ord. 41 (1990) § 3: Ord. 19(1976) § 3: Ord_ 8(1973) § 2.507) 12- 613 -10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DE- VELOPIVIENT: At least sixty percent (60 %) of each site shall be land- scaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be ten feet (10'), with a minimum area of not • Juste 2000 Town of Vail 12 -86 -10 less than three hundred (300) square feet. (Ord. 19(1976) § 3: Ord. 8(1973) § 2.509) 12- 88 -11: PARKING: Off- street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. (Ord. 8(1973) § 2.510) Town of Vail 12 -EB -11 7 • C] • GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS AND MAPPING ANALYSIS WATERFALL AVALANCHE PATH & LOTS 15 & 16 VAIL, COLORADO Prepared For Mr. Jay Tschirner First Lanes Development Prepared By Arthur 1. Mears, P.E., Inc.. Gunnison, Colorado May, 2000 ARTHUR I. MEARS, P.E., INC. Natural Hazards Consultants 555 County Road 16 Gunnison. Colorado 81230 Tel/Fax: 970- 641 -3236 artmeam @rmii.com May 22, 2000 Mr_ .lay Tschimer Resort Radio, Inc. First Land Development P.O. Box 2083 Edwards, CO 81632 RE- Avalanche and geological hazards analysis, Lots 16 & 16, Bighorn Subdivision 2' Filing Dear Mr. Tschirner: As you requested, I have completed a site - specific analysis of snow- avalanche, debris flow, and rockfall hazards affecting the above- referenced lots in Vail. Although geological hazards do exist and are fairly extensive on these lots, certain limited areas can be built upon with mitigation, consistent with the Town ct "Mail Hazard Ordinance. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Arthur I. Mears, P.E. Avalanche - control engineer Encl. Mass W-ting - Avalanches - Avalanche Control Engineering v • • • 1 OBJECTIVES AND LIMMITATIONS As discussed with Mr. Jay Tschirner, this geological hazards stud has e � � y th following objectives: a. Identification, quantification and mapping of snow avalanche extent and hazard; b. Identification, quantification and mapping of debris flow extent and hazard; c. Identification, quantification and mapping of rockfall extent and hazard- This report also has the following limitations, which must be understood by all those relying on the results and recommendations: a. Substantial alteration to the forest cover (through forest fire, forest disease or landslides, for example), could lead to more frequent and larger avalanches and debris flows; and b. Mitigation and specification of loading criteria depends on site- specific design and is beyond the scope of this study. 2 TERRAIN As shown on Figure 1, the Waterfall avalanche and debris -flow path extends from approximately 10,400 feet elevation down nearly to Gore Creek at an elevation of 8,380 feet. PGURE 9. Waterfall snow- avalanche and debris -flow path in East Mail. Avalanches begin in the open unforested area between 10,200 and 10, 400 feet elevation. Debris flows start in central channel. Both avalanches and flows ca,-7 cross Lupine Drive and reach nearly to Gore Creek during exceptional conditions_ W FIGURE 2 Topographic map of the Waterfall avalanche runout zone showing l limits of the red and blue avalanche- hazard zones. Suggested building location(s) are shown as circles just above Lupine Drive near the northeast and southeast corners of the property. ,'Elinor and rare debris flow events will reach to Lupine Drive. Rockfall, during exceptional conditions, reach to the end of the avalanche red zone. MM -- CLi_.� 4'.}7f1 ='vim Ni "- 1r pr 'ILLS O= "JPZ j- r V w 1 CA Z � ` r • 7 • The largest and potentially most destructive avalanches begin in an unforested, triangular area within the lodgepole -pine forest on a steep, northeast- facing slope between 10,206 and 10,400 feet elevation. Debris flaws can start within the deep, encised central channel between 9000 - 10,600 feet elevation. During extreme conditions expected an average of once in 100 years', either snow avalanches or debris flows will reach the steep alluvial fan, cross Lupine Drive, and stop near Gore Creek. Because these large and unusual events must be considered in land -use planning and engineering within the Town of Vail, they are described in Sections 4 and 5 of this report. 3 PREVIOUS WORK Several reports have addressed the avalanche, debris -flow and rockfall hazards in the Waterfall path. The runout zone on the alluvial fan (where private property is located) was designated an "avalanche influence zone" in 1976 mapping for the Town of Vail. The influence -zone designation indicates further quantification of avalanche hazard would be dependent upon future detailed study. In 1984, as part of a municipality -wide study commissioned by the Town of Vail, the entire alluvial fan was mapped as a "high-severity" hazard rockfall area and as a debris - flow area. Additionally, the Lot 15 and 16 areas were described qualitatively in letters written by myself to Mr. Hillis Akins in 1979 and Mr. C. Stanley Wilson in 1988. These letters indicated that snow - avalanche hazard exists but has not been quantified to determine mitigation design criteria. The 1988 letter also indicated that rare debris flows may occur on Lots 14 -16 but that rockfall is probably not a significant hazard. This conclusion is contrary to the Town of Vail rockfall study referred to in the subsequent paragraph but is consistent with this report. 4 SNOW AVALANCHES 4.1 Design- magnitude avalanches and Vail hazard regulations Design- magnitude avalanches are, as defined in the current (1998) hazard regulations, subdivided into "red" and "blue" zones as follows. a. Red Zone -- Any area impacted by a snow avalanche producing a total static and dynamic pressure in excess of 606 pounds per square foot on a flat surface normal to the flow and /or a return interval of less than twenty five (25) years. This is an order -of- magnitude estimate of the true return period of the design avalanche which may lie between 30 and 300 years. A 100 -pear return- period event has an annual probability of 1/100 = 0.01 = 1 %_ The avalanche annual probability does not change from one year to the next_ b. Blue Zone —An area impacted by a snow (avalanche) producing a total static and dynamic pressure of less than six hundred (600) pounds per square foot and/or a return interval in excess of twenty five (25) years. The ordinance restricts development in avalanche zones as follows: a. Fled Zone — No structure shall be built in any red avalanche zone; and b. Blue Zone — Structures may be built in blue avalanche zones provided that proper mitigating measures have been taken- An objective of this study is therefore to define, according to the best available current methodology, the limits of the avalanche red and blue zones so that buildable areas can be identified. 4.2 Avalanche characteristics and hazard zones Snow avalanches have been quantified by utilizing a two -step procedure as follows: a. The stopping position of major avalanches here was determined by comparison with known runout distances of other major avalanches in Colorado. These events occur when the entire unforested area above 10,200 feet releases as a dry snow slab. Stopping position was further determined by comparison with similar events in the Vail area and by personal experience. Avalanches of major (design- magnitude or 100 - year return period) proportions can stop just above Gore Greek, impacting existing buildings on the north side of Lupine Drive. b. Avalanche velocity and impact - pressure potential was computed by applying a multi - component stochastic avalanche- dynamics model and forcing this model to stop just above Gore Creek, the stopping position determined in step "a." The analysis indicates that major avalanches will reach a velocity of roughly 30 m/s (65 mph) on the steep upper slopes; but will decelerate to approximately 10- 5 m/s (20 to 30 mph) on the alluvial fan where lots 15 and 16 are located. The details of the computer output are provided in Appendix A; the avalanche map (Figure 2) subdivides the runout zone into red and blue zones and indicates approximate lot lines. This is the best and most detailed topographic map avaiiable in the Town. detailed topography is not available above 8,450 feet in the vicinity of Lots 15 and 16. Impact- pressure potential was determined by computing the pressure, P, on a large, flat surface normal to the flow (as required by Vail ordinance) by the relationship p =PV2, 0 Where p is flow density (175 kgIM3) and V is computed velocity. Figure 2 also indicates the boundary between the red and blue zones. All construction must take place below the red zone, a band approximately 100 -150 feet wide on Lot 16 and up to 200 feet wide on Lot 15. 5 DEBRIS FLOWS As noted in Section 2, debris flows were mapped for the Town of Vail in 1984. This mapping indicates that Lots 15 and 16 are debris -flow areas. The entire alluvial fan, which extends all the way to Core Creek, was formed by pre - historic flows. The alluvial fan surface provides clear evidence, in the form of an undulating topography and boulders on the surface, that debris flows have occurred. However they probably have not fallen over the waterfall during the past 100 years, possibly not for several centuries. Inspection of U.S. Forest Service aerial photos dating back to 1939 do not indicate recent debris -flow activity at this location. The historical, photographic, and geomorphic evidence indicate that debris flows are rare events, probably with return periods in excess of 100 years. However, since they are possible they should be considered in design of buildings (Section 7). 16 6 ROCKFALL Rockfall is a serious geological hazard at many locations within Vail. However the alluvial fan upon which Lots 15 and 16 are located does not appear to be within a significant rockfall hazard area. The boulders on the fan surface result, instead from pre- historic avalanches or debris flows, not from rockfall. Rockfall would be an insignificant problem on the lower alluvial fan. The extent of rockfall mapped in 1984 indicates the hazard extends across Lupine Drive and all the way to ;ore Creek. I believe this mapping is unrealistically conservative and not based on field evidence in the source or deposition areas. 7 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are based on the field observations and analysis reported in this study; a. If development of parts of Lots 15 and 16 is to take place it should be as close to Lupine Drive as possible and near the north and/or south corners of the properties (see Figure 2). b. Buildings should be designed with a "ramp roof' back exposure (Figure 3) to minimize avalanche loads and eliminate deflection of snow toward other properties (consistent with the Vail Hazard Ordinance); and 0 c. Buildings should be specially designed to resist the avalanche loads. If steps "a" through "c" are taken, any buildings can be safely designed to resist avalanche forces and the minor forces resulting from the very rare debris flows and rockfall events. evat on vie r). Reinforced AVaIl'CC �? ;O.Of Debris F3 caw Prctecttedl Area FIGURE 3_ The "ramp -roof' design recommended for ,building on Lots 15 and 16. The back roof will intersect the ground surface at a small angle, thereby reducing impact load magnitudes. This type of design will not deflect snow toward other property. Report prepared by, Arthur 1. Mears, P.B. Avalanche- control engineer • • APPENDIX A. Graph showing the avalanche speeds, stopping position of debris and debris distribution in the runout zone. Subsequent six pages of printout are the avalanche- dynamics output which was used to determine the red zone /blue zone hazard delineation. • • 602 particles start -from top segment. 1930 particles deposited. r•,, r , lk \wat`rfall 1.txt drops: 616 m tion gnu = 0.25 -M /D = 2.50 on, P = 0.250 a = 23.E degrees 0 Front steps at X = 1400 ray speed (max = 23.5 m /s) - -- _____Mean speed (max = 29.2 m /s) Deposition (not to scale) Exit and view distributions in your file c : \plk \results.txt Ground slope profile, speed graphs, and stopping PTsitions • • • • • results Please note= all v- variables are in meters /second. Please note: all t- variables are in seconds. Please note: NP is number of particles in packet. AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 2 1S -61 18.06 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 602 18.07 20.72 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 0 20.53 20.92 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 121 22.99 23.78 WHIGH 14.48 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN vLOW 3.00 1 El -E7 2.00 3.00 vRANGE 11.48 2 2.00 3.43 3.49 vMEAN 10.40 3 3 -43 4.86 5.05 vSTDEV 3.20 4 4.86 6.29 6.65 5 6.29 7.72 6.20 tHIGH 14.87 6 7 -72 9.15 9.60 tLOW U-57 7 9.15 10.58 10.89 tRANGE 14.31 8 10.58 12.01 12.06 tMEAN 9.69 9 12.01 13.44 13.12 tSTDEV 3.54 10 13.44 14.87 14.06 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 3 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 818 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 0 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 337 vHIGH 30.59 PACKET tMIN vLOW 2.13 1 14.38 vRANGE 28.46 2 15.61 vMEAN 22.05 3 16 -64 vSTDEV 4.21 4 18.07 5 19.30 tHIGH 26.69 6 20 -53 tLOW 14.38 7 21.76 tRANGE 12.31 8 22.99 tMEAN 20.86 9 24.23 tSTDEV 2.58 10 25 -46 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 4 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 11105 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 0 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 524 vHIGH 32.34 PACKET tMIN VLOW 2.12 1 21.87 vRANGE 30.22 2 23.17 vMEAN 23.81 3 24.47 vSTDEV 4.52 4 25.77 5 27 -08 tHIGH 34.88 6 28.38 tLOW 21.87 7 29.68 tRANGE 13.01 8 30 -96 tMEAN 28.46 9 32.28 tSTDEV 2.38 10 33.58 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 5 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 11,47 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 0 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 666 vHIGH 32.05 PACKET tMIN vLOW 2.00 1 27-S5 vRANGE 30.05 2 28.93 vMEAN 23.37 3 30.30 vSTDEV 4.56 4 31 -67 5 33 -04 Page 1 avalanche - dynamics computer output. NP 12 24 35 48 58 68 77 86 93 1115 tMAX vMEAN NP 1S -61 18.06 5 16.84 19.25 34 18.07 20.72 84 19.30 20.28 123 20.53 20.92 165 21.76 22.88 105 22.99 23.78 98 24.23 24.12 97 25.46 23.99 81 26.69 22.59 26 tMAX vMEAN NP 23.17 21-41 8 24.47 22 -26 41 25.77 22.70 93 27.08 22.48 133 28.38 23.32 22S 29.68 23.90 231 30.96 25.62 113 32.28 25.77 103 33.58 24.55 54 34.88 24.2[ 14 tMAX vMEAN NP 28.93 23.51 14 30 -30 23.45 55 31.67 22.55 77 33-04 23.13 143 34.42 22.72 308 results tHIGH 41.28 6 34 -42 35.79 23.34 290 tLOW 27.55 7 35.79 37.16 24.32 131 tRANGE 13.72 8 37.16 38.53 24.84 82 tMEAN 34.29 9 38.53 39.91 24.74 40 tSTDEV 2.30 1D 39.91 41.28 23.98 7 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 6 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 1312 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED ❑ METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 831 vHIGH 30.53 PACKET tMIN tMAX VMEAN NP vLOW 1.64 1 34.30 35.92 22.08 19 vRANGE 28.89 2 35.92 37.53 20.94 62 vMEAN 20.51 3 37.53 39.14 20.38 105 vSTDEV 4.19 4 39 -14 40.76 21.06 196 5 411.76 42.37 21.02 309 tHIGH 50.44 6 4? -37 43.99 20.15 371 tLOW 34.30 7 43 -99 45.60 19.38 184 tRANGE 14.14 8 45.60 47.21 213.98 56 tMEAN 41.90 9 47.21 48.83 21.41 7 tSTDEV 2.46 10 48.83 50.44 20.40 1 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 7 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 1519 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED ❑ METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 1038 vHIGH 31.70 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 1.89 1 42.40 44.18 19.66 14 vRANGE 29.82 2 44.18 45.96 20.41 59 vMEAN 21.87 3 45.96 47.74 20.72 104 vSTDEV 3.87 4 47.74 49 -52 21.29 244 5 49.52 51.29 22.16 333 tHIGH 60.19 6 $1.29 53.07 22.45 369 tLOW 42.40 7 53.07 54.85 22.26 258 tRANGE 17.78 8 54 -85 51..63 21.77 115 tMEAN 51.18 9 56.63 58.41 21.03 21 tSTDEV 2.83 10 58.41 60 -19 22.05 2 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 8 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 1617 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED ❑ METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 1136 vHIGH 33.67 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 2.35 1 46 -05 47.83 18.91 1= vRANGF 31.32 2 47.83 49.61 20.83 64 vMEAN 25.119 3 49.61 51.39 21.96 137 vSTDEV 3.76 4 51.39 53.17 25.63 201 5 53.17 54.95 25.49 331 tHIGH 63.85 54 -95 56.73 25.73 397 tLOW 46.05 7 56.73 58.51 25.81 283 tRANGE 17 -80 8 58.51 60.29 25.71 147 *_MEAN 55.02 9 60 -29 62.07 24.73 41 tSTDEV 2.96 10 62.07 63.85 26.22 4 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 9 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 1698 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 0 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 1217 vHIGH 3..26 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 2.83 1 48.72 50.50 18.20 1L vRANGE 33.43 50.5❑ 52.29 22.15 71 vMEAN 29.17 3 52 -29 54 -07 26.78 150 vSTDEV 3.92 4 54.07 55185 29.10 E26 • Page 2 results • • AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 5 55.85 57.63 29.99 311 tHIGH 66.54 6 57.63 59.41 30.08 403 tLOW 48.72 7 59.41 61.20 311.19 304 tRANGE 17.92 8 61.20 62.98 29.78 164 tMEAN 57.70 9 62.98 64.76 29.24 48 tSTDEV 3.11 10 64.76 66.54 30.28 5 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 1D 58.24 17.15 36 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 1662 60.21 15.59 71 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 61 62.18 15.57 222 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 12$2 64.16 14.413 379 vHIGH 29.17 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 1.86 1 51 -28 53.05 22.37 6 vRANGE 27.31 2 53 -05 54.83 21.01 31 vMEAN 19.64 3 54.83 56.60 20.51 61 vSTDEV 3.37 4 56.60 58.37 18.08 263 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 12 5 58 -37 60.15 19.82 315 tHIGH 69.01 6 60.15 61.92 20.11 373 tLOW 51.28 7 61.92 63.69 19.80 359 tRANGE 17.73 8 63.69 65.47 19.99 174 tMEAN 60.73 9 65.47 67.24 18.89 63 tSTDEV 2.89 10 67.24 69.03 18.78 17 • • AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 11 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 1654 323 METERS TRAVELLED FROM NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 171 PACKET tMIN vLOW METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 1344 21.97 2 63.87 vHIGH 23.97 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 0.82 1 54.29 56.27 18.01 6 vRANGE 23.15 2 56.27 58.24 17.15 36 vMEAN 14.43 3 58.24 60.21 15.59 71 VSTDEV 3 -37 4 60.21 62.18 15.57 222 5 62.18 64.16 14.413 379 tHIGH 74.02 6 64.16 66.13 14.38 451 tLOW 54-29 7 66.13 68 -113 13.95 310 tRANGE 19.73 8 68.10 70.07 13.40 124 tMEAN 64.57 9 70 -07 72.05 12 -135 47 tSTDEV 2.98 10 72 -05 74.02 9.58 8 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 12 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 1749 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 171 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 1439 vHIGH 22.26 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 0.64 1 60 -18 64.95 14.42 50 vRANGE 21.62 2 64.95 69.71 13.45 377 vMEAN 11.44 3 69.71 74.48 11.93 815 vSTDEV 3.47 4 74.48 79.25 9.89 364 5 79.25 84.132 6.96 93 tHIGH 107.86 6 84 -G2 88.79 5.19 29 tLOW 60.18 7 88.79 93.56 4 -29 14 tRANGE 47.68 8 93 -56 98.32 4.08 3 tMEAN 72.84 9 98.32 103.09 3.97 2 tSTDEV 4.90 ill 103.09 107.66 3.98 2 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 13 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 1607 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 323 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 1449 vHIGH 22.25 PACKET tMIN vLOW 0.27 1 60.78 YFANGF- 21.97 2 63.87 vMEAN 11.91 3 66.96 Page 3 eA�1n111 ng OS EC '; gone tMAX vMEAN 63.87 15.61 66-96 14.39 70.05 13.81 NP 17 76 as& resets vSTDEV 3.06 4 70.05 73.14 12.64 493 5 73.14 76.23 11.30 457 tHIGH 91.66 6 76.23 79.32 9.76 215 tLOW 60.78 7 79.32 82.41 8.50 69 tRANGE 30.90 8 62.41 85.50 6.75 13 tMEAN 73.03 9 85.50 88.59 6.01 6 tSTDEV 3.96 10 88.59 91.68 3.17 3 AVALANCHE EENTERING SEGMENT 14 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 1385 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 561 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 1465 vHIGH 21.06 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 1 -36 1 61.81 64.55 13.45 14 vRANGE 19.69 2 64 -55 67.29 13.59 41 vMEAN 10.93 3 67.29 70.03 12.99 140 vSTDEV 2.97 4 70.03 72.77 11 -86 339 5 72.77 75.52 1A -98 431 tHIGH 89.23 6 75.52 78.26 9.77 273 tLOW 61.81 7 78.26 81.00 8.51 131 tRANGE 27-42 8 81.00 83.74 7.52 26 tMEAN 73.84 9 83.74 86.48 651 9 tSTDEV 3.75 10 86.48 89.23 4.52 1 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 15 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 1109 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 853 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 1481 YHIGH 20.02 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 0 -77 1 63.06 65.47 13.61 7 vRANGE 19.26 2 65.47 67.88 12.30 33 vMEAN 10.17 3 67.88 70.29 12.17 88 vSTDEV 2.89 4 5 70.29 72.71 72.71 75.12 11.22 10.58 181 297 tHIGH 87.19 6 75.12 77.53 9.60 271 tLOW 63.06 7 77 -53 79.95 8.95 146 tRANGE 24.13 3 79 -95 822.36 7.80 61 tMEAN 74 -71 9 82.36 84.77 5.92 21 tSTDEV 3.69 10 84.77 87.19 6.90 4 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 16 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 994 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 976 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 1489 vHIGH 19.04 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 1.10 1 63.80 66.20 12.82 9 vRANGE 17.94 2 66.20 68.61 12.33 31 vMEAN 10.22 3 68.61 71.01 32.06 82 vSTDEV 2.77 4 71.01 73.42 11.20 181 5 73.42 75.82 10.50 E58 tHiGH 87 -AE 6 75.82 78.23 9.67 237 tLOW 63.80 7 78.23 80.63 8.70 133 tRANGE 24.05 8 80.63 83.04 7.82 48 tMEAN 75.19 9 83.04 85.44 7.19 12 tSTDEV 3.64 10 85.44 87.85 7.40 3 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 17 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 523 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 1460 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 1502 vHIGH 17.18 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 0.44 1 65.50 67.46 9.55 7 vRANGE 16.74 2 67.46 69.42 8.49 20 • Page 4 results NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 93 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 1930 FASTEST PARTICLE SPEED AT FRONT 33.3 m/S FASTEST PARTICLE SPEED (ANYWHERE) 37.1 m/s ALPHA 23.8 degrees MAX_DEPOSIT 1541 maters rsae 5 vMEAN uSTDEV 7.89 3.80 3 4 69.42 71.39 71.39 73.35 8.88 8.81 48 69 5 73.35 75.31 8.36 111 tHIGH 85-11 6 75.31 77.27 7.79 118 tLOW 65 -50 7 77.27 79-23 7.14 82 tRANGE 19.60 8 79.23 81.19 6.19 48 tMEAN 75.30 9 81.19 83.15 6.93 15 tSTDEV 3.52 in 83.15 8.5•11 4.68 5 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 18 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 353 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 1641 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 1513 VNIGH 17.44 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 0.69 1 67.08 68.95 10 -43 7 VRANGE 16.75 2 68.95 70.82 7.51 17 vMEAN 8 -67 3 70.82 72.69 9.60 38 vSTDEV 2.75 4 72.69 74.56 9.15 52 5 74.56 76.43 9.04 Al tHIGH 85 -78 6 76.43 78.30 8.82 74 tLOW 67.08 7 78.30 80.17 7.94 42 tRANGE 18.70 8 80.17 82.04 7.10 28 tMEAN 76.00 9 82.04 83-91 7.72 10 tSTDEV 3.44 10 83.91 85.78 6.14 4 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 19 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 231 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 1772 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 1522 vH16H 15.75 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP VLOW 0.58 1 67 -96 69.68 9.22 6 vRANGE 15.16 2 69.68 71.40 10.33 6 vMEAN 7.74 3 71.40 73.12 8.44 's8 VSTDEV 2 -84 4 73.12 74.85 8.30 3G 5 74.85 76.57 8.03 50 tHIGH 85.18 6 76.57 78.29 7.71 50 tLOW 67.96 7 78.39 80-01 6.68 39 tRANGE 17.23 8 80.01 81.74 7 -75 1° tMEAN 76.66 9 81.74 83.46 6.46 6 tSTDEV 3.23 111 83.46 85.16 5.23 7 AVALANCHE ENTERING SEGMENT 20 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 108 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 1909 METERS TRAVELLED FROM START 1536 vHIGH 1573 PACKET tMIN tMAX vMEAN NP vLOW 1.98 1 69.48 71.22 9.89 6 VRANGE 13.75 2 71.22 72.97 10.44 2 vMEAN 8.66 3 72.97 74.71 9.35 12 vSTDEV 2.52 4 74.71 76.46 8.82 19 5 76.46 78.20 8.74 25 tHIGH 86.93 6 78.20 79.95 8 -612 22 tLOW 69.48 7 79.95 81.69 6.26 11 tRANGE 17.45 8 81.69 83.44 6.59 7 tMEAN 77.45 9 83.44 85.18 6.54 3 tSTDEV 3 -25 10 85.18 86.93 6 -97 1 NUMBER OF PARTICLES MOVING 93 NUMBER OF PARTICLES STOPPED 1930 FASTEST PARTICLE SPEED AT FRONT 33.3 m/S FASTEST PARTICLE SPEED (ANYWHERE) 37.1 m/s ALPHA 23.8 degrees MAX_DEPOSIT 1541 maters rsae 5 results MIN_DEPOSIT 1217 meters RANGE—DEPOSIT 324 meters MEAN_DEPOSIT 1468 meters STD_DEV_DEPOSIT 63 meters Packet Max(m) Min(m) Particles 1 1249 1217 40 2 1282 1249 41 3 1314 1282 47 4 1347 1314 43 5 1.379 1347 0 6 1411 1379 0 7 1444 1411 104 8 1476 1444 487 9 1509 1476 US 10 1541 1509 333 • Page 6 1 SITE PLAN AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAP, LOT 15 & LOT 16 BIGHORN SUBDIVISION SECOND ADDITION Town of Vail, State of Colorado SLk15iY NOTES: 12' ACCESS EASEMENT TO BE DEDICATED TO THE II I.w..r oat. dal. Ix. dOOO T0'm4 01 Vrrt 1) 1— al ..a.rrrrril., lot W.w Ru1•&q En yy r.d [.r.m..l. v1 baud bran In. IN.I Nal .t No— krey'.kim Sward Fad 1- end S—, rdenunnl. Dwnd .1 yr. tlm..1 <Mk _y .. Idl..n hewn, Z. S —y de...et tmrlil.lr . 9 —y .—Y •a en, 1- 1-g.11a. brie •...j w—..1. O1.%,'I" 'I" my —t' 3) ravAIIDN Dow I.II.a' l.r $. loo .1emy.. W -11.` ......n ream N CM..a -tRp, p.yen or 1.1 I. ...r L.,I,. pM Hwd .n 1..M .1 Yb...rl.l pn.l.9r..Yrl ..d Meal Mwm kMI N. .) MI" MILRYAL: Y 4..1. 6% Dw. e. .ne.n gpra.lm.ldr and oM d M Rdd w•Inrd arlr le ae..wne, Rj R.� Lead 9nl.m. 6w. •r.l .arrant n crylr 1. In. Nlegrnr .I r^Y oyllei Ddld I.r0I1.0 In .yrNnclk+r •Rh Ink ma..rre .u•...Y. �) 1"t0 ACD-U : M115 k W95 l.al,r Dora (,.L .a.l.d IIJ R.d xw wd &.. Iar..yrr Aub.rl. y.a.pktl e..md n'.RPe'9 ..wy.i. DR NI «Mn.IbM r.. I. bp..d en IM. rspwl lv.. bi blew L Yam.. d.l.d Mar 4R. � q vr.lk.d1 aMNl.l...d .... b1 urrlaw Endrornrmu SdvlWn., Flu N N. aa. r N 1lR.vw. em..r.w. k..«tae, . locale. In. . «Lnrsa pwib. .r I.MygMk lawra9. Y..l... ..ISd ..I..tld b .Ml.rrdr .. yv .s•I..a.l ev.e. !! M Wa.M r.rwr f LOT lr.e. r. n. /.P.. grwlr Inrr MR xW. yr. c•.. a* 4o.up•Mde m•.•ear j !! l �} 5 I ! i' I ! I ! I ! ! I LDT 11 ETGIMRN BUMI 1a1DN 'rCOND ADINTIDN RLC ©FOLD TIILY . 1Dea MAP id Re E. NRAIRDR; o xfl, !r 7 L ! 6 = 8'18'48' R - 334.78' T a 3SDY L 50.05' cslt6 = CB - N37'4B 38 -w CH 5O.0D' LDT It R:GRDRN 5'IIRUMm- SEEON..tD.ttlnM MfONDYD fELY 2x. 1Ra5 ' DODY 3R3 E'.GE IID. RYE NO 9h.. MYIaD 1.71 -9D.O, Lx_Lld SCI'F PLAN AND TOPORRAPIiIC MAP L0 DIGHDNN WOWIVIS ION VC 357.83' AAlAlit= T nAT33 Or 4RDRIGA ark ee .ur�.�mr°� "r.,"' •m�:.•a.�.��'w «r�.r.rOm IYY ANN NATIONAL rOKV MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 25, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a major subdivision and variance from Section 12 -613-5 (Minimum Lot Frontage) of the Town Code, to allow for the subdivision of Lot 8 into Lots 8A & 88, located at 1467 Aspen Grove LaneiLot 8. Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4. Applicant: Robert Selby, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST MAJOR SUBDIVISION Lot 8, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4, is currently zoned Single Family Residential (SFR) and is approximately 3.296 acres. The applicant, Robert Selby.. represented by Braun Associates, Inc., is proposing to re- subdivide Lot 8 into two lots, Lots 8A and 8B, and an additional open space tract. According to the Town Code a major subdivision: means any subdivision involving more than four (4) lots, or a subdivision proposal without all lots having frontage on a public, approved street, or with a request to extend Municipal facilities in a significant mariner, or a proposal which would negatively affect the natural environment as determined under Section 12- 12 -2, 'Applicability'; or if the proposal would adversely affect the development of the remainder of the parcel or the adjacent property. Because Aspen Grove Lane is not a public street, this request is a major subdivision. As a major subdivision, it is subject to the review process and criteria as outlined in 13-3 of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town Code. Section V of this memo summarizes this process. l e►da In addition to the subdivision, the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 12 -613- 5, of the Town Code to allow for a variance from the minimum frontage requirements. According to Section 12 -66 -5: Lot Area and Site Dimensions: The minimum lot or site area shall be twelve thousand five hundred (12,500) square feet of buildable area. Each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30'). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet (80) on each side within its boundaries. The applicant is requesting a variance for the lots from the 30' frontage requirement. Access for both lots is proposed to be through the "open space, access, utility, and landscaping" easement. The criteria for a variance are outlined in Section V11 of this memorandum. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION MAJOR SUBDIVISON 119 The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed major subdivision subject to the fallowing findings: 1. That the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Major Subdivision Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. 2. That the application is appropriate in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents. and effects on the aesthetics of the Town. The Community Development Department also recommends the following conditions: 1. That the applicant will revegetate any site disturbance in conjunction with the driveway with natural and native vegetation, to include Mountain Mahoagony, Snowberry, Seviceberry, Buckbrush, etc., at the time of construction_ 2. That the applicant resolve all fire department requirements in regards to hydrant number and locations prior to the submission of the final plat to the Community Development Department. 40 3. At any time within one year after the Planning and Environmental Commission has completed its review of the preliminary plan, the applicant shall submit a final plat to the Department of Community Development. VARIANCE The Community Development Department recommends approval of the variance from Section 12 -613-5, to allow for lots with less than 30 ft. of frontage, subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Single Family Residential District. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Regulations. I' b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the Single Family Residential Zone District. Ill. BACKGROUND Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4 was originally subdivided in Eagle County in 1980 and rezoned from Resource to Residential Suburban Low Density. Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4 was then annexed into the Town of Vail in 1987, at which point it was zoned Single Family Residential (SFR), At the original subdivision for Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4, extensive studies were done in accordance with the subdivision regulations of Eagle County. While this is considered a major subdivision because the lots lack frontage on a public road, because this is a resubdivision of an existing platted lot, some of the submittal requirements have been waived. Please refer to the legal file on the original Lion's Ridge Subdivision for additional information. IV. ZONING ANALYSIS Standard Existing Lot 8 Proposed Lot 8A Proposed Lot 813 Lot Size 143.573.8 sq. ft. 60,243.5 sq. ft 60,243.5 sq. ft. Density 1 du + 1 EHU* 1 du + 1 EHU* 1 du + 1 EHU* GRFA 16,653 sq. ft. 8,324 sq. ft. 8,324 sq. ft. Site Coverage" (20 %)21,529 sq. ft. 12,048.7 sq. ft. 12,048.7 sq, ft. (15 %)28,706 sq. ft. 9,036,5 sq, ft. 9,036.5 sq. ft. `subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit " site coverage is reduced to 15% if the footprint of the building is located on slopes > 30% V. REVIEW PROCESS FOR A MAJOR SUBDIVISION Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code establishes the review process and criteria for a major subdivision proposed in the Town of Vail. Pursuant to Chapter 13 -3 (Major Subdivision) of the Town Code, the first step in the review process is for the applicant to meet with a Town Planner to discuss the preliminary plan. Staff has met with the applicant on several occasions to discuss the proposal and address submittal requirements. Staff feels the applicant has successfully complied with the initial step in the review process. The Town of Vail is required to notify the following agencies that a major subdivision is proposed and that preliminary plans are available for review: a. Department of Public Works. b. Town Fire Department. c. Town Police Department. d. Public Service Company of Colorado. e. Holy Cross Electric Association. f. U-S_ West g. Cablevision company serving the area. 01 h. National Forest Service. i. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. j. Vail Recreation District. k. Eagle County Ambulance District. I. Other interested agencies when applicable. All of the above agencies have been notified. No responses have been received. The next step in the review process shall be a formal consideration of the preliminary plan by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. The applicant shall make a presentation to the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. The presentation and public hearing shall be in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Town Code. The applicant's appearance before the Planning and Environmental Commission today shall serve to meet the public hearing and presentation requirement. The burden of proof that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Zoning Code and other pertinent regulations shall lie upon the applicant. In reviewing the preliminary plan. the Planning and Environmr -7tal Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to- 1. Subdivision Control; 2. Densities proposed; 3. Regulations; 4. Ordinances, resolutions and other applicable documents; 5. Environmental Integrity; 6. Compatibility with surrounding land uses; and 7. Effects upon the aesthetics of the Town and surrounding land uses. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall have twenty -one days from the date of the review of the preliminary plan to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions or modifications, the major subdivision request. Within ten days of making a decision on the request, the staff shall forward the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision to the Vail Town Council. The Council may appeal the Planning and Environmental Commission's action. The appeal must be placed within seventeen days of Planning and Environmental Commission's action. If the Council appeals the Planning and Environmental Commission's action, the Council shall hear substantially the same presentation by the applicant as was heard at the Planning and Environmental Commission public gearing. The Council shall have thirty days to affirm, reverse, or affirm with modifications the Planning and Environmental Commission decision. The appeal hearing shall be held during a regularly scheduled council meeting. The final step in the review process of a major subdivision request, after Planning and Environmental Commission preliminary plan review, is the review of the final plat. At any time within one year after the Planning and Environmental Commission has taken action on the preliminary plan, a final plat shall be submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The staff shall schedule a final review of the final plat. The final review shall occur at a regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing. The review criteria for a final plat are the same as those used in reviewing the preliminary plan as contained in Section 13 -3 -4 of the Subdivision Regulations. n The Town of Vail has the ability to require certain improvements when approving a major subdivision. The following improvements shall be required by the applicant unless otherwise waived by the zoning administrator, Planning and Environmental Commission, or Council: 1. Paved streets and parking lots; 2. Bicycle and pedestrian path linked with the town system and within the subdivision itself; 3. Traffic control signs, signals or devices; 4. Street lights; 5. Landscaping; 6. Water lines and fire hydrants; 7. Sanitary sewer lines; 8. Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers; 9. Bridges and culverts; 10. Electric lines; 11. Telephone lines; 12. Natural gas lines; 13. Other improvements not specifically mentioned above but fnund necessary by the Town Engineer due to the nature of the subdivision. VI. MAJOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA Section 13 -3 of the Town of Vail Code provides the criteria by which a proposed major is subdivision is to be reviewed. Section 13 -3 -4: Commission Review of Application; Critera states: The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13 -3 -3C above. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town. Subdivision Control According to Section 12 -66-5: Lot Area and Site Dimensions: The minimum lot or site area shall be twelve thousand five hundred (12,500) square feet of buildable area. Each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet (80 ") on each side within its boundaries. The proposed lots are 60,243.5 sq. ft. Lot 8A has 23,157 sq. ft. of buildable area, while Lot 8B has 30,823 sq. ft. of buildable area. Each lot can enclose an square 5 80 ft. by 80 ft_ The applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum 30 ft frontage requirement. (See Section V11 of this Memorandum). 0 2. Densities Proposed Currently, Lot 8 is zoned Single Family Residential (SFR). Lots 8A and 8B are proposed to remain SFR. According to Section 12 -813-8, "not more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted on each site." The proposed subdivision of Lot 8 would allow for one single - family dwelling unit on each lot, for a total of 2 dwelling units. in addition, each unit could construct an Employee Housing Unit, in accordance with Section 12 -13 of the Town Code. EHUs are a conditional use in the Single - Family Residential Zone District. While EHUs do not count as density, they do have an effect on required access to the units (see below). The Land Use Plan designates this lot as Medium Density Residential, which allows for densities ranging from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre. 3. Regulations Zoninq Code The purpose of the Single- 1=anvily Residential ?one District (12 -6B -1) is state' n~� follows: The Single - Family Residential District is intended to provide sites for low density single- family residential uses, together with such public facilities as may be appropriately located in the same district. The Single- Family Residential District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single- family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. Refer to Section IV of this memorandum for the zoning analysis. Development Standards The Purpose of the Development Standards is stated as follows: It is the purpose of these rules, regulations, and standards to ensure the general health, safety and welfare of the community. These rules, regulations, and standards are intended to ensure safe and efficient development within the Town of Vail for pedestrians, vehicular traffic, emergency response traffic, and the community at large. The Development Standards will help protect property values, ensure the aesthetic quality of the community and ensure adequate development of property within the Town of Vail. While most of the Development Standards apply to the actual construction of new units, the subdivision must also conform to the standards imposed. Section 3: Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards specifies standards for driveways and feeder roads. According to the Development Standards, a driveway must be a minimum of 12 ft. wide to serve up to 3 units. The requirement for 4 units is a driveway of a minimum of 20 ft. However, should the owners choose not to construct EHUs on both lots, all that will be required to actually construct is a 12 ft. wide driveway. As requested by the Planning and L Environmental Commission, the applicant has provide a pull -out area for passing cars. In addition, the applicant will provide a fire truck turnaround area. The Fire Department will be requiring fire hydrant(s). All other Development Standards have been reviewed by the Public Works Department. 4. Ordinances, resolutions and other applicable documents In reviewing this proposal, staff relied upon the Town Code, the restrictions recorded on the plat, and the Vail Land Use Plan. The issues relating to the Town Code have been addressed previously. The Vail Land Use Plan contains goals which staff considers to be applicable to the major subdivision request. The applicable goals include: 1.0 General GrowthlDevelopment 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a "aiance between residential. commercial and recreaticn-PI ryses to serve birth the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.8 Development propcsals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infiil areas). 5.0 Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. The Vail Land Use Plan identifies this neighborhood as Medium Density Residential. According to the Land Use Plan: 7 k 0 The medium density residential category includes housing which would typically be designed as attached units with common walls. Densities in this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable acre. Additional types of uses in this category would include private recreation facilities, private parking facilities and institutional /public uses such as parks and open space, churches, and fire stations. Environmental Integrity In a report dated July 17, 2000, Collins and Associates reviewed the geologic hazards on Lot 8. That report has been attached for reference. To summarize, the proposed building envelopes are located within the Medium - Severity Rockfali Zone. The report indicates that "normal" mitigation will be required at the construction of units within the building envelopes. "Normal" mitigation includes raised and strengthened foundations, limited openings on the uphill side of structures, berms or rock walls, landscape grading, structure orientation, etc. A preliminary drainage study completed by Peak Civil Engineering has also been attached for reference. An Environmental Impact Report was required for the original subdivision and is on file with the Community Development Department. T,e applicant has completed a new Environmer.ta! !; va ^t Report which is attached for reference. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses The surrounding residential lots are zoned Single- Family Residential_ Tract A is zoned Natural Area Preservation. Staff has completed an analysis of all of the lots in Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4 for comparison to the proposed subdivision for Lot 8. The analysis provides the following: Lot Lot Size (acres) Zoning Allowable GRFA (sq. ft.) Block 1 1 .36 SFR 3,868 2 .36 SFR 31 868 3 _772 SFR 5,663 4 .509 SFR 4,512 5 .499 SFR 4,474 6 .727 SFR 5,467 Block 2 1 .587 SFR 4,857 2 .474 SFR 4,365 3 .413 SFR 4,099 4 .397 SFR 4,029 5 .472 SFR 4,356 6 .479 SFR 4,387 7 .545 SFR 4,674 a 3.295 SFR 16,653 8A 1 .383 SFR 8,324 8B 1.383 SFR 8,324 9 .598 SFR 4,905 10 .392 SFR 4,009 11 1.543 SFR 9,021 Average Lot Size for Block 1: .538 Average Lot size for Block 2: .59 0 current proposed proposed • • .7 0 7. Effects Upon the Aesthetics of the Town and Surrounding Land Uses As with all new construction, any application for development on the proposed lots will be reviewed by the Design Review Board. The review will include a limits of disturbance, associated lighting, colors, grading, etc. The proposed building envelopes are sited to minimize site disturbance and the proposed driveway will meet the minimum required width for the number of units actually constructed. Staff has recommended a condition of approval which states that all disturbed areas. in conjunction with the driveway, will be revegetated with natural and native vegetation. VII. VARIANCE CRITERIA CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE '?t? FT. MINIMUM FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Variance: The r31atlonshix"`. of the requested `danancc C-- potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Because of the nature of the request, staff does not believe that the variance request will have any detrimental effects on other uses and structures in the vicinity. Z The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. The purpose for variances is stated as follows: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this Title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. The staff believes the applicant is requesting the minimum amount of relief from the minimum street frontage regulation necessary to achieve the desired goal of subdividing the property. Staff believes the applicant has adequately met the intent of the minimum thirty -foot (30 °) street frontage requirement through the dedication of the access easement �Ottl proposed on the final plat. A similar variance was granted at Tall Pines and in Glen Lyon. 0 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with this proposal on the above - listed criteria. B. The _Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: ^ 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; or materially injurious to properties or mPr ,v,_,r ivnts i th �i ety. I That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons; a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C_ The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. • 10 • Major Subdivision Request 4 NTE LMATIPN Vl�h1. k0Y MAP LA,Sa Ug swMA4C rxlm xlLx yr amts] Ear ew PRELIMINARY PLAT LIONS ,RIDGE SUBDIVISION FILING No. A BFSUBDIVISION OF L 0 T 8, BL0CK 2 TOWN OF PAIL, COUNTY OF EAGLE, .57'.4TE OF COLORADO M&RAL NaTM. r w� a mrn Yw14 P,R a � asa va�ol at �eK a� sxe uelw�¢ ivaec+n m L w.xar. a Ia 4. aan vlvare to PPnw.cT 4 rP�"awan ro� ESn. Hlxn r rwau� n�ua�s4'�rE.ir a x4�cca sflB�etr. wew,w�� un'�vsMein aiow �.'�'�oi .,�tt arr. � FFL >nE W Fe! ri Tr4 P411 Ii R dKArf :nR u ®. xve a Sxnixl HfPdtlx, m mu.�,t gn4 n DES u:.lexl ro rw IPr em, uw ro caure ML Swlale Lx. qM IIC1lW, e xah�m _ +. u�r mF wx�.w�F .I.+wl vw ra9r Sraa�,w °al�`°a mwBMrr �'"' IIn�C�INY Mr AfPO lAtb erKl xxv PprLT PI Ti YA1EY e[ CItlIG'® 'ro¢ KMSr4W TK artd QAIT,CAxfeY RPWI xaSUL A SS R�9uP R T9 Mr9i01 .AYE eKUGE411E w LA>Lwlln RSN KEGtE% b i Cr SSAAI6O. K W eFB E •W PP: V -JM'. STrapFL4 m M rwt .AA4�V eMOS U16 M[WtTWRfYREAQf Vtl Mk ilNRwl i rX. E Q9 a LOT r 1—Z TRACT A //� Z_ - =.9P.IL.:L ar A rb x OPEN SPACE, J r ACCESS, N, / / a, 8 AND SC TRACT APIHC F1r aCxL4 A f / LOT 9 / LOT I / / k LximxP �` / LOT 10 Cl TRACT C ,sa+ mxE ulP. TRACT 8 r "f- er i 4 IPaA m R C CURVE 1ABLE I cumr E aAlus csAam uriur 1 m —f �� - x'-� Fa QxwI _ of DMrAU N MO 01MER'SHIP ale. we xaM 4. T� „KSF�rE Slhr eefMl r. mar.He Ynrs wa >wersa rPAw rr a. LEr a recr , Exdvde YPp a4s¢ xa4L Cp ISO HSM n TILE IALrr wP om. rwTRO Hd ISWIe NSA SM sW[ Ixm. IEE NO Sl?m4lJ HPYY Ep P!K PPYY,Ww1 rur uvon rxL x rliC T. ItaMS �S SULEmam rvwP V a S RTIPPIH.G1 p LPr A Nfsi a .ii tpSIT[IIPI R �Jr� Ia �1k NK CPeA FIF IY rPGIUSIfI®,aesW �ral L ®Tu wtiP Pu.os am eT.le r•.e,P IPrwxarxrs wP nrES aT sIExT a Pie ueaxxw,Tx4� s re T. �wc v Ta a wuc rwwm un oar reilrm nI>s..a TlPae Plar IP Tc W.._ vlVq Sp LhEY4SA4 W WXE RG pK N�NV'�09InEYl Yx�Lia.NN w�AUw# 4ti 4Lr wlvr® T!!�h 49 P4A. glgY GNIrY 1Fl MW I ro asr... Teo Slrpi n 1SIRdL OItlYY In9oL3'!S 1P rwxmxP rK SFnrN fa THIS TI[ IPAOkEe mYm Pi T�E4TKI AIIP PAIrGENR FAS hYVtvw.p® 46tu V, E0.att u w.:o� tiPnlua o Nno PY XSVC PW uerow s.i "m o S2 m ... � d .ro RIti�� Cwg Pof, Sep ;A t5: 53: 03 2000 TG z m m a 1 1 OVERALL SITE PLAN UON's RGQE sUBDMSK)N FP-NQ 4 - LOT S VAL COLORAOO e� 0 Tai HORIZ VAMTWI t t E F t; e E F! 8 -40 -20 0 20 40 94-nn -40 -70 p 20 40 8492 8488 8484 8480 8438 0 le H©RIZ+ VER Fl( OF -40 -20 0 20 40 4+90 mmm Emm mm�EE �= _ME�MEE _ MWIMAE slawwwl mm mm'', IOM 61 nk . — EMM . mm mmmmmvmmm_ t t E F t; e E F! 8 -40 -20 0 20 40 94-nn -40 -70 p 20 40 8492 8488 8484 8480 8438 0 le H©RIZ+ VER Fl( OF -40 -20 0 20 40 4+90 -40 -20 0 20 mmm Emm mm�EE �= _ME�MEE _ MWIMAE IOM 61 nk -40 -20 0 20 0 1 0 unurr NroYES ,. Niurwi nr emr�r.wnnw�. +I..In�w. �.. •...o.n .�...w ..wr�bAti swwr...- w+...ww+ .[..�le..ray..... "L YM 0.eIIPTN IFY��MI v..M��M el. N W..M�iYLt tM IW e.. Mf.r.�r'rr. ..wr b w .!@e. r+wL rtbxA.i sa Ca .N N N x.Ma.:aY !. ..:..:�...� esA I A M .M tl .rx ..vew Mt M...an.•M 4 NCYS .� A YM. � .�i aar�w.M1! .w: rQaN .TFY �MMrM xa.�/. iFkMrY) .lmtlea�.. .� M a[ta.TN pv I• brrMd .I NwA rwulwM. x �..6. .�M. x.t�r� u y bJ h GkJQ M � OJ T�_r ♦ e W Mb�iaYr.n�etl.a: tai.�ar a.. b :sxnnn•.r..n d gw:.Cn.1 A a.e w N.MN xn .aa ..m. A°r +•.e peW W rN �.r.tQx A.w. :Q Q!. Nr:v.x.r .w..s.✓f . aSfA .H . a.xnw. m.aa N rt. -b .MN. err. b ®OrYWa +u a�i '.°s:�`.r.�� �x,:r aw t�ixa�x w�w'x••rwA.�b o a.was+. r .�w .x error N mrwe.v we .�N....a., IS N q.AVtlr enw .N w 9...w °xu ...axcar w .`i'•a.x:M Mbr. r! e.b.Ax rwa'x �waPM..reeN:.r r.. la n ws..nr a e.. x.px AA « r N bwM:r. �Nrle � M rbr tie.:aw wx rxr GN....N.uo.. rMir..�wi u'r tlsiiY�w u.:. �tlle M .W w +✓ rc +e +� T� w.. u� r%•petta. n N .ao.an...r .e�+�tl cawu w w r«Hw .rr.r •,•...ter.. +. r_....,W.. +,. rww.wwawi b'� wtl�rnW�� .+.n «arr•�n�..�. :•eweir�ow. � NOTE. CONTRACTOR MUST OBTAIN PUBLIC WAY "� - . -• - PERMIT FROM TOWN OF PAIL PUBLIC WORKS BEFORE BEGINNING ANY CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE ROAD RIGHT -OF -WAYS -. _ _- - 7&»b:_ - . -: 7 - =rte ."'"r..r"rr` " -. . -... •��. _. - - `- ono -,`�/s E�TJ .mom- NOTE. CONTRACTOR MUST OBTAIN PUBLIC WAY "� - . -• - PERMIT FROM TOWN OF PAIL PUBLIC WORKS BEFORE BEGINNING ANY CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE ROAD RIGHT -OF -WAYS - e r _ k CSAP9lC "• iar -■ W LOT TOTAL AREA(sf) 6p 60.265 N 60.265 23.000 BAiiBIRAUiN AssociiAYiES. iiNc. 0 PLANNING and COME UNITY DEVELOPMENT August 14, 2000 George Ruther Chief of Planning Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Preliminary Plat Application for Lot 8, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4 Dear George: Included with this letter is an application for a preliminary plat to re- subdivide Lot 8 into two single - family residential lots. Additionally, a request for a variance from the minimum frontage standard of 30' is also included in this application. Summary of Request Lot 8 is currently zoned Single- Family Residential which requires a minimum lot area of 12,500 sq. ft. Lot 8 is approximately 3.295 acres (143,530.2 sq. ft.) in size. The proposal creates 2 lots; Lot 8A is approximately 2.295 acres and Lot 8B is approximately 1.0 acre, both containing in excess of 12,500 sq. ft. of buildable area. Both lots are proposed to contain a building envelope sized in order to restrict development to certain areas of the lots as well as grant sufficient flexibility to home designers to develop creative structures. The application also limits the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area allowed on the two lots to that allowed on the lot before any re- subdivision. The GRFA is proposed to be limited by a plat note. Access to the site will be provided from Aspen Grove Lane via a driveway constructed to the Town of Vail Development Standards. An easement is proposed to provide legal access to the easternmost lot (Lot 8B). A driveway of this nature will be required whether this site is developed for one lot or two and therefore does not represent a change in potential conditions on the site. The Homeowner's Association for this subdivision has discussed the proposal and is supportive of this application. Additionally, the adjacent property owners have been contacted and are aware of this application. Edwards Village Center Suite C -209 Ph. - 970.926.7575 0105 Edwards Village Boulevard Fax - 970.926.7576 Post Office Box 2658 www.braunassociates.com Edwards, Colorado 81632 • • We believe you will find this application complies with all of the criteria necessary for the Planning and Environmental Conunission to grant approval. If you have any questions, please feel free contact me at 926 -7575. S' cer ly, Dominic Mauriello, AICP Lot 8, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4 Page 2 of 2 Braun Associates, Inc_ PRELEMINARY DRAINAGE STUDY LOT 8, BLOCK 2 LION'S AGE SUBDIVSION, FILING 4 TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO AUGUST 2000 Prepared for: Mr, Tom Braun Braun and Associates PO Box 2658 Edwards, CO 81632 Prepared by: Peak Civil Engineering 1000 Lion's Ridge Loop Vail, CO 81657 • • I?N3 _ ODUCTION Lot 8, Filing 4, Lion's Ridge Subdivision is located in V ' Colorado. The existin site g �, g contains grass, sagebrush, and some rock outcroppings with one noticeable swale down the center of the property . Two single - family homes are proposed on the bench on the northeast portion of the site. This preliminary drainage study will review the necessary drainage size and structures to safely distribute the runoff away from the proposed driveway and structures. HYDROLOGY The drainage area behind Lot 8 generally slopes from northwest to southeast, from elevation 9200 to elevation 8430 at the south portion of the lot. The area of the basin was estimated to be 11.25 acres from the USGS Quad Map. Refer to the offsite drainage basin plan included in the appendix. Per Town of Vail Development Standards the rainfall intensities, runoff and flows were estimated from "Procedures for Determining; Peak Flows in Colorado ", published by USDA -SCS. These figures. are included in the appendix. According to Town of Vail Development Standards the 25 -year frequency storm is used for design of all drainage structures under all minor streets. The maximum flow produced during a 25 -year storm is approximately 5.75 efs. 0 HYDRAULICS The Inlet - Control Nomographs from the HEC -5 Hydraulic Charts (FHA 1965) were used to size the two proposed culverts — one located near the entrance of the drive and one located within the existing swale in the center of the property. In order to be conservative each pipe was sized to handle all of the off -site and on -site runoff. Based on an HD/W of 1.0 an IS -inch pipe will be sufficient. Refer to the attached nomograph in appendix. • rimr IWO 4 : @:-�•' -. 1� M iw: Mr .,ri 1 - 1, _ - � . €' �tiLr�s�y - _ -ter - - a . +pl ° !t. •� r� ',. "� � � �•' - c� -s :f. 't 'V Y ! ,yyam� i ,."- S�3X`1. � � . 4 - i - • � ` q _ ! std . IL 7 -..r - �,• � 4� : p, a � .zi'_L:r � ,..� -.:,�� 1 -,;. sue.. � n;- __ =•r � _ - JiL � i�T•H� -�_ i �♦ L -- T t^ � „ ! i MP ��■■ ■® II'��uu ��� u® l xm uu■� ■u ■ �t+�u u� ® ■u ■emu ■■u® m � uu�uu®u■ uauu■u ■u uu ■N��u ��u �uu� u�■ ■ ■uuuuu ■ ■uuu■u ■ utu■ ��� �■a e sum ■ CURVE 70 I" Ali! 9lill �l,�r fl A Ii RUNOFF FOR INCHES OF RAINFALL 0.0 I 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 .0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.11 0.14 C.1 0.20 2 0.24 C.28 0.32 0.36 0.41 6.46 0.50 0.56 0.61 0.66 3 0.72 0.77 0.83 0.89 0.S5 i. 01 1.07 1.14 1.20 1.27 4 1.33 1.40 1.47 1.54 1.61 1.68 1.75 1.82 1.89 1.96 5 2.04 2.11 1 2.19 2.26 2.34' 2.42 2_49 2.57 2.65 2.73 6 2-81 2-e9 2.97 3.05 3.13 3.21 3.2') 3.37 3.46 3.54 7 3.62 3.70 3.79 3.87 3.S6 4.04 4.13 4.21 4.30 4.38 -8 4.47 4.55 4.64 4.73 4.E1 4.90 4.91 5.07 5.16 5.25 .9 5.34 5.43 5.52 -5.60 5.69 5.78 5.87 5.96 6.05 6.11, 10 -6.23 .-6. 32 6.41. 6.50 0.59 6.68 77 r 6.7+ 6 . 8 �6 6.95 7.04 -7.13 7.23 7.3Z 7.41 '7.50 --7.59 -7.6? 7.78. 7.87 7.96 2: 8-05 8.14 8.24- 8.33 8.42 8.51' 8.61 -,-8.70- 8.79 8.89 8.98 . 9.07 9.17 '9.26 45 9.54 .6 3 '9.63' 9.73 9.82 J4, .:9.92. 10.10 10.20 10.29 10.39 10.48 113-57 10.67 - 10.76 :15 10.86 10.95 11.05 11.14 1L.24 1 i. 33 11.43 11.52 11.62 1 11.71 1.6. u.8' 1 11.90 12.00 12.09 12-19 12.28 -12 38 12. 47 12.57 12.67 -17 12.76 12.86 12.95 13.05 .13.14 13.24 13.34 13-43 13.53 13.62 13-72 13.82 13.91 14.01 14.10 14.20 14.30 14.39 14.49 14.5E 19= 1-4.68 :-14.78 -14.87 14.97 15.07 1 >.16 15.26 A5-.36 15.45 15.55 5,65 _1.5, 74 1.5.84- .1.5.94 -1, .03 16.13-1 16.23 16-.32 X16.42 16.52 CURVE 98 RUNOFF FOR INCHES OF RAINFALL 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 -.' -0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 OiLLO .9 Inches 0 0.01 0.07 0.15 0.23 0.32 0.41 0.50 C.60 1 0.79 C.89 0. .9 9 .- 1 »Q8 2 . 8 1.38 1.48 1.58( 1.68 2 1.77 1.8 . 7 1.97 --2.07 2.17 2.27 2.37 2.47 2.57 3 2-.77 2.87 2.97 3.07 . 3.17 . 3.27 3. 1 37 3.47 3.57 3.67 4 3.77 8 3. 6 3.96 41.16 4.26 4.36 1 4.46 4.56 4.66 5 4.76 4.86 4.96 5.06 5.16 :^.26 5.36 5.46 1 5.56 5.66 6 5.76 5.86 5.96 6.06 6.16 .26 6 6.46 6.56 6.66 7 6.76 6.86 6.96 7.06 7.16 7.26 7.36 7.46 7.56 7.66 8 7-.76 7.86 .1 7.96 8.06 8.16 8.26 8.35 8.46 8.56 8.66 9 8.7b 8. . 86 8.96 - 9.06 9.16 9.26 9.36 19 46 9.56 9.66 9.76 9.86 9.-96 10.06 10.16 10.26 1 10.36 10.46 10.56 10-66 10.8,6 10.96 11.Obw 11.1 26 11 36 11 -11.56 11.66 li i6 11.86 11.96 12.06 1c.16 12.26 12.36 12.46.- .12.56 12.66 13 12.76 12.86 m 12..96 13.06 13.16 13.26 13.36 -.13.46. 13.56_t 13.66 14" "6.76 13.86 13.-96 14' 06 4. 6 14- 26 14. 36 14.46 14.56 14.66 14.76 14.86 14. 96r 15.06 15.16 15.26 15.36 15.46 15.56 15.66 .16 15.76 15.86 15. 9,5 16. '06 16.16 16.26 16.36 16.46 16.56 16.66 7 16.76 16.86 16.96 17.06 17.16 17.26 17.36 17.46 17.56 17.66 18-. -- .17.76 17.86 17.96 18.06 18.16 18.26' 18.36 18.46 18.56 18.66 - -1,-8-.76 18.86 18.96 19.06 19.16 19.26 19.36 19.46 19.56 19-66 1 20 - 1 : 9. -� 6 - 19.96 -, 20, 0�1 0 - ..16 1. 2L. - - 26 ... - 20-.36 -2-0 20.56 20.66 «.�i �rirMiwryiris� ��o d• �' ••�. pi�i.p�r wYnn.r� ■•+�r +,orruYwsa.■Y� +r��aa.f�YY�■pY� 1�YY''��Y� I��...�rprrl!+IYr.+ +rrriw �Yp•. �Y.++.+. Wr+ �rwgi. �aw��pw� +�/I+II.i+r.WY ■.p4wwYY1Y+ bYrwtlwY�YIrY 71ra•1l41i�+Y+r�rwrY.Y� ++ n1i iirY:�iiii - nlr. fn.. rn+ onwia.. W�Wi���.niW��i'li.i~./.Yrtawrra r+fawa..Y�oaaro rwwown ►.+mnrsrr.p� .r• nn trim r�aa arra + rrrwro r�ai l n.nrr �.nna 1+�pn■�itl �iarm�lyunrUn i /ywa a�pe�..�m i+in°1i�ma% ~� Lj��nlY.lrNare n,1�H1��i1COX urNt+w COX Mon na��a�mm$'�i'�o�n°ni��u - M= r.wa irrw� � �g �rus .•i'iii++ wr II ■raaflnnew.w■ iti Mum ran mom IM C�F7 C tlz f�i 7RIC�7 1 'CIO'. VOMM C��C1a =MEN MOM= i Nis Mr.- � MUM u + www ■nt Big HOUR MOM rrr�ar��;;a as Ma �aa'r°eaa� 0 on MAI Uln�� no t.lal�aaaWtlon 11 i� 1a�1�1��r�7gr�r� �Iry p un I tU W �1Y37.�7.q�.pYrrYl ®f♦rlrn Oman Nunn aau'air i iia 1�1 6'i' c °d�r�°�i MUNK i■i�isi '° : i�iur 6111 •r 5: — �...... rr....,—.,.v. ..�{aa= .aa�■a�.SS..;r�.gi���::: ���.lSS � riii�an 'aul�.[nii."■a ®"ii'ii°m' °o'oai°W 5....iaOS7 ii'o.i�oWri �i® .° �l�Wtl'.' o'riim�iSNUNN ii ror.rrrnn.nnrlai■ tll wiiW4tli.l VRirW[ n. YiRliwiiRliW wri■in■■tl ■■ii mmm ay. sm rra■i w■M ■rr ■i ■MI r /I. IWlffiiiM ■■uno aialiii■[Qr��;`AIfnE■�J ein�irso'�l1iWO@ItliH�iit1■11n ■i�Rrpr■Wwl�tffil4rpl7/Hl1 ®gnu °nr�rai'if A�iiri�aoiairi _ HOME PMR :�>•a■ tls+.■■■■tl a a a ..■ mow iiu ■■ ■ ■.■. rr.■ "�or �ufip ! M.I.111■al.r.. ■rr■■rss - nr �rt1 Ell �j$,•�•'�+ra 1� to .fir. ■.rurrr .■n inn Jim us" um oaap .l.■ r■■rr Qrsr■.�.�r.. .r.l.I�i.► HE • .r iip........� r i01n:.rsr"�- —in—own uui..in � Ana iw � P�� �,��+� ^>. r� ■ g�� ■YY..rl.glOL'iiQ ar■ uu .wnrotl��Gi ■ ■..tlorr ■ ■YlIR.tllf ■u�iunuiia�iu i■ n�igtl MiYr�ii 1I 'I. ■�i . b: .■btl! ti., wtir■ tlW YY!vani ru. r1tl ■'■■nsiiiA riWnnamoiir■e iii■i o ■rA nnwnn.� ■ W�■o ��� ri■ m A �i MITI IffirAiu no r. ■.,e p UP �► 19 nm 1 rr ■ ..r-= u■umulu �oisME ■o u °i■a�■a�s i MIN 1 ■ s.2121 m� Ct ��'�r' i' �' tl�r "i�C�7':3`JYir"s'i9>��CS'1Za'� �.' k�. 'a1a4.`.�.1�iitYlS■faC� ®�i.i�A1 11 tl���+i���i-��tlitl�i�i.Ai� ®��.i.�yy���■i'i�rF �/� '�riri- S■°i�ir■ ®�Siagi� ©e - f.�iWS tli0 .im■1■fiOiitli<wiiiWWlOWiritl�i fi��iFr■ifiii/i■�r�%zLi` iY... "f =moo;: `�■� u°/ OnA1�i�' ra✓' an�o' �ir���u�i0o� .�A��:��lk�■"�i■�1rra riai .r�B ■ ■... M!tl 4. s■ tlryst,i PmAd NA r �■ Smi i 9 ■■..■Iraiunitl�e�■.■tl� rs a�r'rred =M_ 0 u SO= o �■. ��' an �wrin■■ A.li,` "s��a■.�' ����as. r a.aa ■■rr a.u+rr ,f. l� ■ rr,��► r ier.i � w RXII ��jDj1�Ie; '=4�e4 KVI ■A ■■f�11Q qq ■■�liiiin11m1 IHi li�i • Sq�: �'C"�11R'�I'i�C�a3P��.�S.■>�9'. ICS. �. R�'..' �S4iin `.�SC3C�'�.1.�..�..��"w".rt'��9' *�"'. 1�."'7f�"iSiaC.�w �''ll�i��laS�r� ,��'r". EIi�SOiiilrrr :.�5'°` "�",°.�S�7T■' itNINE ir■f°ia'��� rwAr ¢NIN aaa MI gram Um mzcsce razrzm Im 0MRr°am Mrs c r;�7=ffffl go-ME R. FAIT 0.0. :" III -- gig rS ii:ai -ia ' ,� -s io�.'a�mim '� ii wt7Zi ■'�aiii� i . .a WINE r =Q R�R��IF ■.riiiii rata■■■■ p.r ii i■ nr■nirsaitin. �i3,c2"m w�.l� u . run ou iir ■■ a.rrrar!■rir�p rssAi 'lgiAA ■ ■ wi■si sii t■ lre ■■ ...! � ■■ ■�A■�iiis� in ■� ifi�■.iir■i1 pnisi�i� iAn ■ ss� ■r„ iliAl■9�� � so c _ NI'- ;F■l �llgl���ilV�l p! 11 't som!" c: i i - i CHART 5 _ 180 _ 10,000 I } 168 8,000 EXAMPLE ( (2) j tss 6,000 36 inches {3.0 !cell s. I 5,000 0:66 cfs (3) 144 4,000 5, 6. Mw' mw 132 3,000 0 (fata) 5 6 L5 (1) 1,8 5.4 120 W 2,004 (m 2.1 6.3 5. 4 a (3) 2.2 6.6 108. a 3• 4, e D In feet 96 1,000 3. a 800 3. 84 N 600 2• 500 400 / r 2. 2. f 72 300 / o - U7 % ar 60 U- f 200pE� 1.5 1.5 Lu [ F- 0 54 a w W w 14 {} a Or w 48 0 0= 8o - U s- c� l 60 Z 1.0 1.0 f 42 f N 50 0- 1 -0 4 0 _ �J — l 36 +r 3o HW ENTR E SCALE PE cc ?1 r G 33 20 0 `(1) cad ■all rw a O 8 8 ® 30 (2) Miterad to conform W f3 - - to slope S ti g 2T - 10 (3) Projecting .T C 1'. .7 .7 a 24 6 �•r. in 5 To use scale (21 or (3) project .' 21 4 -horizontally to scale (1), then •6 .6 - use straight inclined line through 3 D and 0 states, or reverse as 6 18 illustrated. I .. • 2 (5 .5 . 5 - t.0 _ I - = --- 1z -. :. 4; HEADWATER .. . TH `.FOR . ,DEP C M E CULVERTS WiTH INLET CONTROL . BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS -JAN. 1963 - I CO NS & A&WaATES GeOLD&ICAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE CoNslL-rANrs P, D. Box 23 - 1116 MINEOTA ORNE SILT, CC1.CRADO 81652 PHc NEIFAx (970) 876 -5400 b=*Wrof.net July 17, 2000 Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP Robert Selby HAI/Braun Associates, Inc. 4380 N. Campbell Ave. No. 200 P.O. Box 2658 Tucson, Arizona 85218 Edwards, Colorado 81632 8, i ION5RIDG& SUBDIMION FILING No. 4 Gentlemen: At Mr. Mauriello's request I have examined the subject property for the purpose of evaluating potential geologic hazards to the tract, and the effects of mitigating such hazards as may exist on adjacent properties, in accordance with Town of Vail Regulations Chapter 12- 21 -15. The property was the subject of a previous investigation and report dated Dezember 4, 1990, by Dr. Nicholas Larnpiris; it is being reexamined in light of the proposal to subdivide the parcel into two lots, generally in accordance with the conceptual site plan provided by Mr_ Mauriello. According to this plan, the two lots are located near the northeast end of the parcel, with a driveway extending northeasterly from the. existing cul- de-sac at the end of Aspen Grove Lane. 0 Lot 8 itself consists of a moderately -steep slope (up to 271 along the southeast side, a bench area through the center of varying width with slopes from flat to less than 10 °, and bedrocicslopes up to the northwest generally between 20° and a maximum of 30 °. The lower outslope consists of glacial drift composed of cobbles and boulders of various rock types in a matrix of silt and sand. These materials are generally quite stable, although care must be taken to avoid saturating them, especially where disturbed by cuts or excavations. The bench itself is the result of resistant ledges of upper Minturn Formation sandstones and limestones. The contact between the Pennsylvanian Minturn and the overlying Maroon Formation of Pennsylvanian — Permian age occurs along and near the northwest boundary of the property; the Tipper slopes consist of-red Maroon silstones, sandstones,-and. shales, with some limestone-,— - - exposed ledges of which can be seen especially above proposed lot 2. These slopes also appear to be stable. The two proposed building envelopes as shown on the conceptual diagram occupy the relatively - level bench toward the northeast end of the tract, while the driveway climbs from Asper Grave lane onto the bench through a swale in the center. The conceptual lot and access locations appears to be the best possible, taking full advantage of the existing topography. The building envelopes are located on very gently - sloping to nearly -flat land, while the driveway will curve up and through a gap in the Minturn Formation ledges, thereby minimizing potential rock work. As originally recommended by Dr. Lampiris, excavations that are required into hillside slopes should be supported by engineered retaining walls. If hillside excavations are required for structure foundations, those foundations should be designed accordingly. Because of the unconsolidated glacial drift that composes the slope below the envelopes, landscaping should be limited to the extent possible to native vegetation that does not require supplemental irrigation. All drainage should be designed and constructed in such a manner as to prevent saturation of these materials. Page 2 Both conceptual envelopes lie within the medium - severity rockfall zone as shown on the Town of Vail geologic hazard maps. The hazard is present in the form of the slopes noted above and rock ledges of the Minturn and Maroon Formations on these slopes. The beds that make up these ledges dip generally north, into the hillside, and bedding is such that fragments that do break off are usually slabs or blocks, which do not tend to roil far down the slopes. hope variations and vegetation further reduce the actual rackfail hazard, although it is certainly not nonexistent_ One or more "normal" rockfall mitigation measures such as raised and strengthened foundations, limited openings on the uphill side of structures, berms or rock wails, landscape grading, structure orientation, and so on may be recommended on a site - specific basis once building envelopes are established with certainty and conceptual building designs are available. Extraordinary mitigation requirements are not anticipated. While the site area is not included in any of the Town of Vail's snow avalanche hazard zones, because of the moderately -steep slope there is the remote possibility of small slab -type slides after unusually heavy snowfall, and snow - rolls, or "doughnuts," are also a possibility. Mitigating measures for rockfall that may be- required- depending on- fmal-�--nve- lope - location- and- concepGtual stFuctuce- design should- also provide -- adequate protection against either phenomenon. The necessity for proper drainage has been noted. Soil testing should be sufficient to locate near - surface bedrock areas, if any, and foundations and perimeter drainage should be engineered accordingly. While soils and bedrock materials found in the area do not ordinarily contain radioactive minerals, inhabited structures should as a matter of course be designed to preclude radon gas accumulation. Likewise, the Vail area is one of many faults, some of them of significant displacement, and as a result, although there has been no movement on these structures for thousands of years, inhabited structures should be designed and constructed according to the Uniforms Building Code provisions for Seismic Zone 1. The site is in an area of modest geological sensitivity, and site-specific mitigating p $ g measures are not anticipated to be significant. The proposed building envelopes and access road are aswell- located relative to existing topography and recognized geologic hazards as possible. There is nothing to suggest that the proposed subdivision or potential site specific hazard - mitigating measures that might be required will increase the hazard to other property or structures, or to public buildings, rights-of-way, roads, streets, easements, utilities, or facilities or other properties of any kind. This report is intended to comply with appropriate portions ofTown ofVail Regulations Chapter 12- 21 -15, and nothing contained herein should be interpreted as suggesting that the subject property is not exposed to the mapped hazards. If you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact nee. This report concerns natural processes that are unpredictable and in large measure poorty understood. it is intended to ideridfy poteMai observable hazardsto which the subject property is exposed and to suggest mitigating measures in compliance with applicable regulaoans- Nothing in this report should be construed or Enterpreted as suggesting the absence ofthe described hazards, orthat the recommended mitigations wail pmtectthe sub ea property from the desn -bed hazards undo all arcwnstances, foreseen or wrftrreseen- wrthing in this report should be construed or interpreted as suggesringthat additional unidentified hazards are not present. It muse also fir vmdcrstood that 'mitigataon" /foes not mean eitherthe elimirratiun ofthe hazardjsj or prevention ofthe consequences ofa hazard event or events, only the reduction to the extent rtasonabty possible ofthe latter. By acceptingthis report all present and subsequent parries thereto agree to indemnify and hold harmless the preparerfnr anyand all damago.. direct, indirect or consequential, including personal injury orlossoflife, above and beyond theoriginal cost ofthis study, caused by or resulting from any uccurrenceufthe described or ndrer hazarei{sl, whedier or not such damages may result ft rn failure to identify said hazardfsj or fmm failtu a or inadequacy of properly engineered, constructed, and mairnined recommended mitigations. The prepatxr of this report cannot and wilt not be responsible in any way or mamrcrwlratsnerrerfor the proper engineering , construction, andlormaiatenance of recommended mitigations, orthe inadequacy �r failure of i mpr opedy engineered, constructed. and/or maintained recommended mitigations, or mitigations that have been altered in any way whatsoever from Chase recommended by the preparers ■ BAtiBIRALIN associiATES. iiNc. I��' �► 1�ii►C e�i.[ �Li ]'ul5[�P►11�7�7� *I�i79�Iq►'�1 September 15, 2000 Allison Ochs Planner 2 Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Environmental Impact Report for the Subdivision of Lot 8, Block 2, Lionsridge 4t' Filing — Robert Selby Dear Allison: At the pre - application conference for this project we discussed the need to provide an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). At that time it was determined at that an EIR would not be required due to the minor nature and impacts of the proposal as well as the existence of an environmental impact report that was completed when the Lionsridge Subdivision 4`'' Filing was originally developed. This report, contained in the Town's files, was prepared by Allen Gerstenberger Associates. The report is comprehensive in nature and included the proposed lots to be created (i.e., Lot 8 as two lots). While the report is quite dated, the conditions presented in this report are unchanged. Below is a summary analysis of the proposed development impacts to the site based on the eight criteria outlined in Chapter 12 of the Zoning Regulations. Since the current condition of Lot 8 would allow the development of one single- family home, the net impact is the addition of one single - family home. Hydrologic Conditions: Hydrologic conditions of the site will not be adversely impacted by the addition of one dwelling unit. The total potential footprint of buildings has been reduced due to the creation of building envelopes for each lot- Soil erosion prevention techniques will be employed to ensure proper stormwater quality entering the Town's drainage system. A drainage report and a geologic hazards report have been provided for the proposed subdivision. Atmospheric Conditions: The proposed addition of one single - family home will have little, if any, adverse effect on air quality. Both homes will be constructed in conformance with Town of Vail fireplace requirements and emission standards. Dust control techniques will be utilized during construction on the site to reduce impacts to the neighborhood. Edwards Village Center, Suite C -209 Ph. - 970.926.7575 0105 Edwards Village Boulevard Fax - 970.926.7576 Post Office Box 2658 wwrw.braunassociates.com Edwards, Colorado 8 16 32 PJ 0 Geologic Conditions: The proposed addition of one single - family home to this site will have no adverse impacts to geologic conditions on -site. A geologic assessment was prepared and submitted to the Town and is made part of this report_ Biotic Conditions: The proposed addition of one single - family home to this site will have little, if any, adverse impacts to biotic conditions on -site. The overall potential footprint of buildings is being reduced by the establishment of building envelopes and grading impacts from the construction of the driveway to the site have been minimized with the use of retaining walls. In addition, the driveway would be constructed even if only one home were built on the site. The vegetation impacted on the site will be restored with native vegetation. Visual Conditions: The proposed addition of one single - family home to this site will have little, if any, adverse impacts to visual conditions on -site. Under the current development conditions a very large single- family home of 16,000 sq. ft. could be constructed on the site, which could arguably have a greater visual impact to surrounding uses compared to two smaller structures. The proposed development scenario reduces the overall impact by taking the same building mass and dividing it into two structures. This improvement, along with appropriate vegetation and siting, will reduce potential visual impacts. Land Use Conditions: The proposed addition of one single - family home to this site will have little, if any, adverse impacts to land use conditions on -site. This site is located in an area with single - family homes and in an area designated by the Vail Land Use Plan as Medium Density Residential. Most of the sites in this neighborhood are smaller than Lot S. The proposed subdivision will ensure the preservation of open space in the neighborhood as well as create smaller development sites, which are more in conformance with the remainder of the neighborhood. The proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding land uses. Circulation and Transportation Conditions: The proposed addition of one single - family home to this site will have iittleAf any, adverse impacts to circulation and transportation conditions on -site. The transportation pattern will be unchanged. The volume of trips will increase only by a negligible amount. Aspen Grove Lane and Buffehr Creek Road are currently operated well below their design capacity and the addition of one dwelling unit will not have adverse impacts on the level of service of these roads. Population Characteristics: The proposed addition of one single - family home to this site will have little, if any, adverse impacts on the population characteristics of the Town. The increase in population in the worse case scenario is 3 persons due to this subdivision. 2 The preparation of this report relied upon our knowledge of the development site via the analyzes which were developed as part of this subdivision application, numerous visits to the site by key personnel, and the existing studies prepared for the Lionsridge Subdivision 4 h Filing as contained in the Town of Vail files. Sincerely, Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP • • • • • E BAIIABRAUN ASSOCIATES, JINC. PLANNING and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT September 14, 2000 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail CIO Allison Ochs 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Subdivision application for Lot 8, Block 2, Lionsridge 4`i' Filing —Robert Selby Dear Commissioners: Thank you for your thoughtful and positive worksession hearing on September 11, 2000. We were happy to hear your positive remarks regarding the subdivision of Lot 8 and the variance for minimum lot frontage. The Commission appeared to be in favor of the subdivision, but requested that some additional information be provided for the final review of the proposal. The Commission characterized the proposal as being more in line with a minor subdivision rather than a major subdivision. This letter is intended to address the issues raised at the worksession hearing. Car Passing Zane One of the issues raised was the ability for two cars to pass one another traveling on the proposed driveway. We agree with this concern and have provided two areas where cars can pass. Both areas have an asphalt width of 16', a 4' wide gravel shoulder, and 1.5' of curb and gutter. The first location is located at about the halfway point on the driveway (refer to revised plan and sections). From this location, a driver traveling from east to west can view the bottom of the driveway and a car at the bottom can view a car coming down before proceeding up the driveway. The second location is provided in front of the building envelope for Lot 8A (refer to revised plan). This location allows cars traveling in both directions to view the entire second half of the driveway. We believe that these areas are sufficient in both size and location to allow cars to conveniently pass one another. Site Grading A concern was raised about the proposed grading for the site. Site grading is now being depicted on the overall site plan sheet and has been shaded to clearly show regraded areas. As depicted on these plans, site impacts from grading are significantly reduced by the use of retaining walls. Additionally, a concern was raised regarding some areas of the driveway, which are proposed to be regraded at 1.5:1. Areas are proposed to be graded at 2:1 and 1.5:1. The Development Standards Handbook allows for grading up to 1:1 with permanent slope protection measures. Areas of 1.5:1 have been proposed to minimize the extent of areas disturbed by grading along the driveway. Detailed construction and re- vegetation plans and details will be provided for Design Review Board approval in conjunction with Design Review Application. Disturbed areas will be re- vegetated with native trees, shrubs, and grasses. Edwards Village Center, Suite C -209 0105 Edwards Village Boulevard Post Office Box 2658 Edwards, Colorado 81632 Ph. - 970.926.7575 Fax - 970.926.7576 www.braunassociates.com Rock Outcroppings 0 It was requested by the Commission that the rock outcroppings found on-site be indicated on the site plan. The rock outcroppings are now shown on the site plan and are shown slightly oversized in order to insure proper protection. Two major rock formations occur on -site. These areas are not impacted by the driveway grading or potential home construction. A small portion of a smaller rock band will be impacted by the proposed driveway. The driveway design was modified at the eastern third of the driveway in order to move it further to the north (uphill) thereby providing ample distance between any grading and the eastern most rock formation. We believe the revised plan provides ample separation from these features on the site. Retaining Walls There were issues raised with respect to the proposed retaining wall heights and materials. The driveway design is a combination of an uphill cut and downhill fill. This method reduces the overall height of retaining walls. Retaining walls are proposed at heights ranging from 2' to 6' as permitted by code (refer to driveway sections). While the final deign of these walls will be provided with a Design Review Application for Design Review Board approval, the owner anticipates construction of a split -face block type wall in earth tones. Examples of the use of this material for retaining walls can be seen close to the site on Buffehr Creek Road, which were recently constructed by the Town. We believe that the use of these walls and landscape treatment will provide an attractive appearance. Most of the views of these walls will be from great distances and therefore the material used for walls will be difficult for most observers to determine, especially when blended into the landscape using earth -tone colors. Landscape Plan 9 At the worksession hearing there were some questions about potential landscaping on the disturbed areas of the site. A conceptual landscape plan will be presented at the hearing to help alleviate any concerns of the Commission. In general, the disturbed areas will be re- vegetated using native trees, shrubs, and grasses. A final landscape plan will be provided for DRB review in conjunction with a Design Review application. Lighting There was an issue raised regarding the impact of lighting for the driveway. The owner intends to provide minimal low -level down lighting in order to ensure safe travel on this driveway. Additionally, the owner may pursue a lighted entry feature at the beginning of the driveway. A detailed and comprehensive lighting plan will be provided with a Design Review Application. Impacts to adjacent properties will be minimal. Fire Department Requirements The owner plans to meet all of the Fire Department requirements for these lots. A fire truck turnaround has been designed and shown on the driveway plan. A fire hydrant location will be coordinated with the Fire Department and the Eagle River and Sanitation District during the development of the final plat. C 2 Thank you for your diligent and professional review of this project. We will be available at the hearing scheduled for September 25, 2000 to answer any questions you might have. Sincerely, Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning & Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 25, 2000 SUBJECT: A notification and request for the confirmation of a minor amendment to Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, allowing for the conversion of nineteen (19) parking spaces to common storage area, located at 242 East Meadow Drive, a part of Tract C, Block 5 -D, Vail Village First Filing. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Johannes Faessler, representing the Austria Haus Condominium Association, has submitted an application for a minor amendment to Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The purpose of the amendment is to convert nineteen (19) parking spaces (approximately 3:249 square feet of floor area) to common storage area. The area to be converted is located on the lower level of the Austria Haus in the parking structure. The existing parking spaces that are to be converted are no longer required spaces pursuant to Ordinance #9, Series of 2000. The new parking requirement based upon the amended standards is forty -four (44) spaces. II. BACKGROUND Special Development District #35, Austria Haus, was approved by the Town of Vail pursuant to Ordinance #12, Series of 1997. According to Section 5 (G), Development Standards, the minimum number of required parking spaces is sixty -three (63). The required number of parking spaces was derived from the existing parking and loading requirements as prescribed by the Zoning Regulations. The required number of parking spaces is determined based upon the total square footage of the differing types of uses (retail, lodging, residential) in the building. Ordinance #9, Series of 2000, amended the off - street parking requirements for properties within Vail's commercial core areas. In amending the off - street parking requirements, certain types of land uses resulted in a reduced parking requirement based upon square footage of use or numbers of units. According to Vail Core Parking Map 1, the Austria Haus is located within an area affected by the amended off - street parking requirements. III, MINOR AMENDMENT The procedure for a minor amendment to an existing Special Development District is outlined in subsection 12 -9A -10 of the Zoning Regulations. According to subsection 12- 9A-1 0, "minor modifications consistent with the design criteria outlined in subsection 12- 9A-2 of the Zoning Regulations, may be approved by the Department of Community Development. All minor modifications shall be indicated on a revised development plan. Approved changes shall be noted, signed, dated and filed by the Department of Community Development. " Further, according to subsection 12 -9A -2, a "minor amendment" to a special development district is defined as, °modifications to building plans, site or landscape plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved special development district, and are consistent with the design criteria of the Zoning Regulations. Minor amendments may include, but not be limited to, variations of not more than five feet (5) to approved setbacks and /or building footprints, changes to landscape or site plans that do not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation throughout the special development district, or changes to gross floor area of not more than five percent (5 01o) of the approved square footage of retail, office, common areas and other non- residential floor area." IV. STAFF ACTION The purpose of this memorandum is to inform the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission that on September 25, 2000, the Community Development Department staff approved the minor amendment to Special Development District #35, Austria. Haus, to allow for the conversion of nineteen (19) parking spaces to common storage area. Staff's approval carries with it the condition that, • the applicant submits a revised parking level plan to the Community Development Department illustrating the removal of the nineteen (19) spaces and the creation of the common storage area, prior to the application for a building permit. The revised plan shall become a document of record in the Approved Development Plan for Special Development District #35, Austria Haus and the new minimum on -site parking requirement for the District shall be 44 parking spaces. In approving the minor amendment request, staff finds that the amendment complies with the criteria outlined in subsection 12 -9A -2 as the amendment does not alter the basic intent or character of Special Development District #35 and is consistent with the design criteria of the Zoning Regulations. Furthermore, the creation of approximately 3,250 square of common area is a change to less than 5% of the approved total square footage of the Austria Haus. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 25, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation of the Planning and Environmental Commission on an amendment to the Donovan 'Park Master Plan for the lower bench of Donovan Park, generally located southeast of the intersection of Matterhorn Circle and the South Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail & Vail Recreation District, represented by Odell Architects, Inc. Planner: George Ruther DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The Town of Vail, represented by the design team of Odell Architects, Inc., Design Workshop, Inc., Sasaki Associates, Inc_, Architectural resources, Inc., and Economics Research Associates, Inc., is requesting the review and a recommendation of the Planning & Environmental 40 Commission on a proposed amendment to the Donovan Park Master Plan (1985). The purpose of the master plan amendment is to provide an updated reflection of the community needs, concerns, and priorities as they relate to the lower bench of Donovan Park. While seeking to preserve the overall site values and design guidelines of the 1985 Donovan Park Master Plan, the amendment expands and clarifies anticipated and desired community uses of the property, The major components of the amendment include: • Regulation high school -size (150' X 300) soccer /recreation field, • 21,000 sq. ft of informal park area„ • 13,000 sq. ft. Youth Center lawn recreation area that includes a full -size outdoor basketball court, • 27,000 sq. ft. "Preserve Area" at the east end of the park, • 9,000 sq. ft youth center, 6,500 sq. ft. community pavilion, • 12.000 sq. ft. community recreation center, and • Approximately 150 surface and structured parking spaces. A copy of the proposed Donovan Park Master Plan Amendment with the supporting illustrations has been attached for reference. 1 4YALL TOWN C IL STAFF RECOMMENDATION 46 The Community Development Department recommends that the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council on the proposed Donovan Park Master Plan Amendment. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the finding that the final proposed master plan amendment has been prepared in response to the feedback and input received from the community and the town boards, Further, staff finds that the proposed amendment addresses the expressed and desired needs of the community and furthers the development objectives of the town. Iii, BACKGROUND On November 23, 1999, the Town of Vail and the Vail Recreation District entered into an agreement with Odell Architects, P.C. to program, design, and construct a community center and park facility on the lower bench of Donovan Park to primarily serve Vail valley residents. Following nearly one year of public meetings, discussions with the Vail Town Council and Vail Recreation District Board and development of the park program and site plan, the Design Team is prepared to present the final development proposal and master plan amendment to the town for consideration and approval. As a result of discussions with the Vail Town Council, Vail Recreation District Board and the community, the park program includes: • Regulation high school -size (150'X 300') soccer /recreation field, • 21,000 sq. ft of informal park area, • 13,000 sq. ft. Youth Center lawn recreation area that includes a full -size outdoor basketball court, • 27,000 sq. ft. "Preserve Area" at the east end of the park, • 9,000 sq. ft youth center, 6,504 sq. ft. community pavilion, • 12,040 sq, ft. community recreation center, and • Approximately 150 surface and structured parking spaces. A copy of the proposed site plan has been attached for reference. The development of Donovan Park has been broken down into two possible phases. The first phase of development anticipates the construction of the community pavilion, parking structure and the majority of the required site work (recreation field, paths, retaining walls, playground, utilities & infrastructure). It does not include the Youth Center and Community Recreation Building. The total estimated cost (construction cost f owner's soft cost) of Phase One is approximately $10.4 million. The total estimated cost of Phase Two (Youth Center, Community Recreation Building and minimal sitework) is approximately $11 million. A copy of the Projected Costs of Construction has been attached for reference. 2 0 C] DONOVAN PARK Master Plan Amendment jf �f - __ .yam— cUk�_1:�E'v✓4_i...kei°'S.- .._.f ...M1/"�'��,yVYy�.I✓�Ao�JI ` C 4F Yf r -e 's I of Prepared Far: Town of Vail Community Development Department Vail Recreation District Prepared By: Design Workshop, Inc. Odell Architects, P.C. Sasaki Associates, Inc. October 3, 2000 DONOVAN PARK MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT I. Introduction ! This document is an amendment to the August b, 1985, Donovan Park Master Plan Development Final Report. This document updates any portions of the 1985 document that deal with the lower bench of Donovan Park. A. Purpose of the Master Plan Amendment The purpose of this master plan amendment is to provide an updated reflection of community needs, concerns, and priorities as they relate to the lower bench of Donovan Park. While seeking to preserve the overall site values and design guidelines of the 1985 Donovan Park Master Plan, this amendment expands and clarifies anticipated and desired community uses of the property. B. Master Plan Amendment Process In December 1999, the Vail Town Council initiated a study of potential community facilities for the Town of Vail. This study included multiple sites, among them the 12- acre lower bench of Donovan Park. The Donovan Park master planning process, a joint venture between the Town of Vail and the Vail Recreation District, has been based on the input of the following: 1. Public Input Process. During the late winter and early spring of 2000, a series of public input meetings was held to ascertain the public's opinion on overall site values, critical issues, perceived opportunities and constraints, and the potential uses and facilities to be developed on Donovan Park. 2. Vail Tomorrow Process. The citizen initiated Vail Tomorrow visioning process, which predated this most recent Donovan Park master planning process, resulted in consensus on a number of site development objectives and program priorities for the lower bench site. 3. Vail Town Council. Since the beginning of the master plan process, the Vail Town Council has articulated what it sees as the most important community facilities that could potentially be located on the lower bench site. In addition, the Council has provided direction on overall development issues such as site preservation, site access and infrastructure, and the timing and financing of recreational development. 4. Vail Recreation District. As a partner in the Donovan Park master plan process, the Vail Recreation District has provided programming input documenting recreational needs and priorities in the district. Page 2of17 DONOVAN PARK MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT S. Donovan Park Master Plan Team. The master plan team consists of representatives from the Town of Vail Community Development and Public Works departments, the Vail Recreation District, and the planning /design consultant team of Odell Architects (Evergreen, CO), Sasaki Associates (San Francisco, CA), and Design Workshop (Vail, CO). This team was responsible for facilitating the public input process and conducting the subsequent site analysis and site planning studies that have resulted in the recommendations of this document. C. Community Purpose of Donovan Park The analysis and recommendations made in this master plan amendment are based on the fundamental purpose of creating a community amenity on the lower bench of Donovan Paris that serves the recreational, educational, and cultural needs of the residents and guests of the Town of Vail. The community amenities provided on this site should be compatible with a "park like setting" and consistent with Donovan Park's inherent physical and visual characteristics. Based upon this purpose, the general program of facilities to be located on Donovan Park could include the following: 1. Neighborhood park, including a playground, open turf areas, and support facilities (parking, restrooms, etc.). 1* 2. Recreation field. • 3. Multi- purpose center, able to support existing and future community recreation programs. 4. Community activity center, able to provide for existing children's programs and future community uses. 5. Community pavilion, providing space for community meetings, programs, and cultural events. Page 3 of 17 DONOVAN PARK MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT II. Site Values and Program Goals A. Site Values and Suitability Assessment During the public input process and subsequent site analysis by the master plan team, the fallowing site values were established. These site values represent inherent site characteristics (see figure A) that should be considered prior to any development: 1. The Core Creek Riparian Corridor. The Gore Creek corridor is an essential asset to Donovan Park and the surrounding neighborhood. No development or additional activities should occur within this corridor. 2. The "Preserve" Area. This area is located on the eastern end of the site between the Gore Creek corridor on the south and a steep hillside on the north. It is characterized by rock outcroppings, large spruce and pine trees, and native grasses. No development should occur in this area. Core Creek Riparian Corridor The Preserve Area Page 4 of 17 • C • • DoNOVAN PARK MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT 3. The "Kettle ". This natural depression contains a stand of specimen spruce trees and a larger grouping of aspen trees. The area immediately surrounding the spruce trees should not be disturbed, preserving as much of the "kettle" area as possible. 4. Lower Terrace. This area is relatively flat and consists of historically disturbed and compacted soils. It is the best location for higher intensity recreational fields, which require larger, level surfaces. 5. middle Terrace and Slopes. This area is composed of native grasses, some aspen and spruce trees, and steeper hillsides. Any future development in this area will need to respond to the natural topography of the site, and any regrading must minimize steep cut banks through the use of stepped retaining walls and slopes no steeper than 3.1. Page 5 of 17 The kettle Lower and Middle Terraces DONOVAN PARK MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT 6. Upper Terrace. This upper portion of the site forms the visual foreground for vehicles approaching from the east on the South Frontage Road. Composed primarily of native grasses, this visual foreground should be preserved in its natural state to the greatest extent possible. 7. South Frontage Road. The South Frontage Road is an east -west arterial that forms the northern boundary of the site. It is critical that any access points into the site from the frontage road take into account the road gradients approaching six percent in this segment, the road's design speed (45 mph), and the present and projected volume of traffic. Of particular concern is the westbound left from the frontage road to Matterhorn Circle. As with an access point into Donovan park, this South Frontage Road intersection should provide for left -hand turn lanes so that the westbound traffic flow is not impeded by vehicles slowing down or stopping to make a left hand turn. B. Conceptual Land Use Framework One of the initial tasks undertaken by the master plan team was to analyze the site for basic land use (program) suitability, in response to the site values described above and the following basic anticipated programmatic land uses: • Site access • Active recreation fields and open park space • Building program • Parking • Preserved site areas This effort resulted in the following recommended land use framework (see figure B), on which potential site development scenarios were based. Gore Creek Riparian Corridor. Development limited to needed repairs or realignment of the existing recreation path. Page 6 of 17 • DONOVAN PARK MASTER PLAN AIMENDMENI' 2. Recreation Fields. Given its level topography, size, and general proportions, this area is recommended for potential higher intensity recreational uses and field sports. Building Program. An area in the central portion of the site is recommended for any buildings that may be constructed on the property, such as a community building, gymnasium, youth facilities, and recreational support facilities (restrooms, lockers, offices). This area is the optimal place for buildings not only because of its central location, but also its proximity to the recreational site components and the potential to step buildings into the hillside, reducing their visual height and presence. 4. Parking. The best area for parking is located on the northeast (uphill) side of the architectural facility zone (discussed above), giving direct vehicular access to potential facilities while also providing a buffer between buildings and the South Frontage Road. The linear nature of this parking area allows for maximum connectivity to the site as a whole, and minimizes the width and visual impact of the parking. Locating the parking zone on this steeper portion of the site will allow construction of two stacked parking levels that are not visible to vehicles approaching from the east on the South Frontage Road. 5. Preserve Area. Development should be limited to a possible recreation path along this area's perimeter. 6. Site Access Point. This central point is the only place that provides the necessary length for both eastbound and westbound acceleration, deceleration and turn lanes. It is also where the elevation on the frontage road most closely matches the elevation of the middle terrace. 7. Matterhorn Circle Intersection. It is not anticipated that any of the proposed developments on the lower bench of Donovan Park will impact the traffic volume entering or exiting Matterhorn Circle. However, this intersection is dangerous, particularly the westbound left -hand turn from the South Frontage Road in icy road conditions. With the potential construction of the Donovan Park entrance, it is highly recommended that the Matterhorn Circle intersection be improved. The Kettle. Development in this area must preserve and protect the stand of specimen spruce trees. 9. ''Views Into Site. The west end of the site is the most visible portion of the property from the South Frontage Road. The site plan should preserve the quality of this area as the visual foreground to the rest of the park. 10. Parking Connection to Buildings. There should be a strong point of connection linking the larger parking area to the buildings. Likely functioning as the primary arrival and drop -off point for vehicular traffic, this area will act as the gateway into Page 7 of 17 DONOVAN PARK MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT the architectural facilities. In addition, the parking lot should provide parking for linkage to the outdoor recreational components of the park area. • 11. Connection Between Buildings and Recreation Fields. An important functional relationship exists between the buildings and the adjacent outdoor recreation areas. This relationship requires a strong pedestrian linkage between these two site components. 12. Connection Between Buildings and the Gore Creek Riparian Corridor. Visual connection to the Gore Creek riparian corridor is a significant design goal of the buildings, particularly those that function as community meeting space. 1-1 C7 Page 8 of 17 DONOVAN PARK MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT 0 Ill. Donovan Park Master Plan • The site master plan for the lower bench of Donovan Park was developed by the master plan team during the spring and summer of 2000. This plan represents the general program of uses based on the input and direction from all the stakeholders described earlier in this document. A. Conceptual Plan All the points of the following narrative reference the Donovan Community Park Conceptual Master Plan, shown in figure C. 1. Gore Creek Riparian Corridor. The only proposed impact in this area of the site is a minor realignment of the existing recreation path on the western end of the property. This realignment will allow for a stepped retainage system along the steep and semi - eroded fill slope on the north side of the existing recreation path. No trees should be impacted by this adjustment. 2. Preserve Area. This area should be preserved in its existing condition, with only a recreation path running along the toe of the existing slope on its north edge. 3. The Kettle. The existing Aspen stand in this area will likely be reduced in size by the park development, but the existing stand of mature spruce trees should not be disturbed. 4. Open Turf Area. This area on the western end of the site is to function as a passive recreation area of open turf, walking paths, picnic equipment, and landscaped areas. Playground. This area is reserved for a tot -lot playground similar in size and activity to other playgrounds in existing Town of Vail community parks. To provide safety and convenience for parents and children visiting the park, the playground is located adjacent to the multi - purpose center and community activity center (which will include public restrooms), the recreation field, the outdoor basketball court area, and the parking lot. 6. Outdoor Basketball Court Area. This area contains a regulation size high school basketball court, adjacent plaza and turf area. It is located immediately west of the building that will house community youth programs. This location provides an adjacent outdoor recreation area for the children and is close to the indoor public restrooms and the playground. 7. Recreation Field. With a regulation surface of 150' by 300', this field will support regulation play for youth league soccer, a need strongly articulated by the Vail Recreation District. The field, located on the most level portion of the site, also contains sideline setbacks consistent with accepted national youth soccer standards. Page 9 of 17 DONOVAN PARK MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT S. Multi- Purpose Center. The multi- purpose center will have a 25' clear ceiling height and provide a state -of -the -art facility for youth gymnastics, along with lockers and office spaces. A common lobby space connects both the multi - purpose center and community activity center. This facility will be approximately 15,000 gross square feet. q. Community Activity Center. The community activity center will be used by children ages 2 -15 years for a large variety of programs on a year round basis for youth activities. The heaviest use will occur during summer when Youth Services operates Camp Vail, Pre -Damp Vail and Planet Fun. It will also provide several multi - purpose I multi - generational activity rooms that could be used by the community in the evening with planned courses such as aerobics, marital arts, dance class, photography courses and art. This facility will be approximately 13,000 gross square feet. 10. Community Pavilion. The community pavilion is a one -story building with a small entrance tower. It will be a world -class beacon for the community both architecturally and functionally. The pavilion will provide a public gathering space for multi- purpose community oriented activities. The large multi- purpose space can be transformed into a theatre space with retractable seating for up to 200 people. When weather permits the building can open to the Gore Creek riparian corridor and use the hard - surface terraces as additional outdoor program area. This facility will be approximately 7,800 gross square feet. 11. Parking. The proposed parking configuration takes advantage of the topography of the site to allow for a two -level parking structure on the east end of the site, where it can be visually screened by the north hillside. When a final development plan for Donovan Park is submitted, the total number of parking spaces should be based on an analysis of parking at comparable facilities, the potential program of activities that could occur at the park, and the following principles: a. Efficiency. All parking on the site should be laid out in a manner which provides maximum flexibility and convenience of use for park visitors, while remaining spatially efficient in layout. b. Operational management. Parking lot capacity should reflect normal park usage, and provide for the largest event anticipated at the community pavilion. It is anticipated that the community pavilion will be the largest single parking generator. It will be the responsibility of the park management to schedule events so as to avoid severe parking problems. c. Transit. It is not anticipated that a large number of park users will arrive via the Town of Vail transit system, and an internal bus -stop at Donovan Park is not recomunended (see section 1113.8). However, transit ridership should be encouraged as a means of accessing the park, reducing the need for parking. d. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access. Strong connections must be provided between the park elements and the existing recreation path, enabling the local community to access the park easily and safely via this recreation path. Page 10 of 17 DONOVAN PARK MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT The conceptual parking layout shown in figure C provides the following parking areas; • Uncovered on -grade parking • On- structure parking • Below- structure parking • Short term parking • Curbside drop -off parking 12. Garden Wall. An important visual element of the conceptual master plan is the wall that forms the northern edge of the parking lot and structure. This wall is slightly higher than the top of existing grade, providing a consistent visual line and screen between the parking lot and the South Frontage Road. B. Circulation All the points of the fallowing narrative reference the conceptual site master circulation plan, shown in figure D. 1. Site Access Point. The designated site access point allows for the construction of full eastbound and westbound acceleration, deceleration, and turn lanes. The intersection design should provide for the unobstructed passage of through- traffic. 2. Internal Vehicular Circulation. Internal vehicular circulation will be restricted to the parking areas and facilities arrival point. The vehicular circulation layout should emphasize pedestrian safety, logic of circulation, and aesthetic quality. Emergency Vehicle Access. The vehicular circulation plan must permit emergency vehicles to access all buildings and the recreation fields. 4. Service and Delivery Access. Service vehicle access (which includes trash removal) is provided on the east end of the community pavilion and on the west end of the recreation building. Dual service points are recommended due to the physical separation of these buildings and the possibility that the recreation building and youth center may not be constructed in the initial project phase. 5. Existing Recreation Path. It is likely that the western portion of this trail will be slightly realigned to allow space for retaining walls on the north side of the path. Other than this potential adjustment, no changes to the path are recommended. 6. Internal Pedestrian Circulation. Walkways are to connect all elements of the park. Important elements of the pedestrian circulation system are connections to the existing recreation path at both east and west ends of the park to form a continuous loop trail. Page I i of 17 DONOVAN PARK MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT 7. Pedestrian Bridge. A pedestrian bridge over Gore Creek is provided to connect the park and existing recreation path to Matterhorn Circle. The purpose of this pedestrian bridge is: a. To provide a safe pedestrian and bicycle crossing for the residents of the adjacent neighborhoods to the existing recreation path on the south side of Gore Creek. The current crossing is on the Matterhorn Circle bridge, which is narrow and considered unsafe by neighborhood residents. b. To provide a direct and safe connection between Donovan Park and the Town of Vail transit stop on Gore Creek Drive. c. To provide a utility crossing structure connecting the park to Matterhorn Circle. 8. Town of Vail Transit Access. The issue of whether or not to locate a transit stop within Donovan Park was closely studied during the master planning process. The final decision was not to locate a new transit stop within the park, but rather to provide a quality connection to the existing transit stop on Gore Creek Drive. This decision was based primarily on the following: a. A transit bus turnaround is at least 124' in diameter, including the adjacent walkways and shelter requirements. This would have a significant negative impact on the quality of adjacent spaces in the park, and would consume too much space. 0 b. Adding a transit stop would bring a significant number of buses into the park, but with a low ridership into Donovan Park. The gradient of the South Frontage Road at the site access point is in excess of five percent, making it extremely difficult for the large transit buses to make a safe and undelayed right -hand turn into the eastbound traffic lane of the South Frontage Road. The only way to make a bus lane viable would be to create a one - way loop that enters the park at the main access point and exits the park at its west end, south of the Matterhorn Circle/ South Frontage Road intersection. This would significantly increase the amount of paving in the park, reduce the amount of open park space on the west end of the property, and cause traffic congestion at the intersection. d. A safe, well signed access route from the Gore Creek Drive transit stop into the park will adequately meet the transit access needs of Donovan Park. C. Phasinc, Dear the conclusion of the planning process, the master plan team was directed to demonstrate how the proposed development plan could be phased over time. Page 12 of 17 DONOVAN PARK MASTER PLAN AVmNDMENi' If at all possible, construction phasing should avoid a scenario where the initially constructed components are damaged or shut down during latter construction phases. However, it is likely that at least some portion of the recreation field, if constructed in the initial project phase, will be required for construction staging during subsequent construction phases. As it is likely that the entire park program will not be constructed at the same time, the following two phases are recommended based on direction from the Vail Town Council. Phase one 1, Site Infrastructure. In order to maximize project efficiency and minimize disruptions, it is strongly recommended that all site utilities and infrastructure be completed during the initial construction phase. 2. Parking. If possible within the project budget, all site parking should be constructed during the initial construction phase. 3. Park and Playground. Throughout the master planning process, it was clear that all stakeholders want the park and playground elements to be part of the initial construction phase. 4. Recreation Fields. The recreation field emerged as a high c011Irrnm1ty priority and is recommended to be in the initial construction phase. Community Pavilion. The Vail Town Council has directed that the community pavilion be part of the initial construction phase. Phase Two If financing considerations require the park to built in phases, it is recommended that the multi- purpose center and community activity center be delayed to phase two. These facilities will likely be in a single structure and thus will need to be constructed at the same time. DONO'VAN PARK MASTER PLAN ,AMENDMENT Master Plan Amendment- Appendix The following paragraphs, dealing with the property history and park design guidelines, are taken from the 1985 Donovan Park Master Plan. In February of 1980, a 51 acre parcel of land in the Matterhorn area of West 'Vail was acquired for $3,875,000 and designated by Council resolution as John F. Donovan Park, 'Whereas, John F .Donovan has served on the Town Council for fourteen years; has long been a supporter of a strong recreation program for residents and visitors; the Town Council hereby commends John F. Donovan for his leadership and dedication to insuring the future of the Town of Vail, anti designates the recently acquired public park in the Matterhorn area John F. Donovan Park. " The landscape of Donovan Park includes native plant communities typical of the valley, such as sagebrush, yucca, mountain common juniper, creeping mahonia and stands of quaking aspen. The Gore Creek, which winds through the park from East to West, is lined with Colorado spruce and subalpine fir. Donovan Park is actually two separate parcels of open space separated by residential land uses to the southeast of the Gore Creek. The two parcels are commonly referred to as the upper bench and lower bench. The lower bench is comprised of approximately 12 acres. Gore Creek located to the south is most predominant as a landscape feature with its natural barrier of spruce and fir. The adjoining land uses to the east and west are residential in character with very little natural buffering. Matterhorn Circle and a residential area lie to the south of the site and is separated and buffered by Gore Creek. Once again, to the north and adjacent to the park site is the Frontage Road and eastbound lanes of Interstate 70. The lower bench of Donovan Park is a 12 acre parcel of land. Two terraces step down the site towards Gore Creek, of which the small upper terrace affords a grand view of the entire site and Creek bottom. Access to the lower portion is limited to the northwestern corner ofthe site where Matterhorn Circle and the Frontage Road connect. There is no development currently existing on Donovan Park. Plant associations and communities are similar to those found in Vail's Ford Park, however, the patterns of vegetation on the lower portion of Donovan Park are more interesting and complex, suggesting that many factors have played a role in shaping them. Recent history of this area reveals that human actions related to adjacent development have destroyed some plant communities and introduced others. This is evident when one visually inspects the site from west to east, The lower bench of Donovan park has the best opportunities for development affording easy access and protection to its developed recreational facilities. Like Ford Park, it also provides Vail residents and visitors with a beautiful backdrop of the Gore Creek, a natural amenity to be enjoyed by all. 0 Page 74 of 17 DONOVAN PARK MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT PARK DEVELOPMENT AND LANDSCAPE CHARACTER The planning of Donovan Park should carefully onsider the reservation and retention of the y p Gore Creek and its natural character, in contrast to the creation and maintenance of a totally manicured landscape. A careful blend of maintained active recreational areas and natural passive areas should be achieved to accommodate the diverse pleasures and interests of the mountain community. Park visitors should notice that care has been taken to conserve natural areas, plant communities, slopes and creek edges. Where new construction of trails, buildings, roads and play facilities will disturb natural areas, the creative blending of grades, and the use of trees, shrubs and ground - cover native to this area should be used to revegetate the disturbed areas. Dense planting buffers should be designed to insure privacy and protection within park developments by screening adjacent public road -ways and non - compatible land uses. Planting buffers should be used to protect and separate adjacent use areas within the parks where potential conflicts are present. Existing slopes and changes in grade should be integrated into the master plan to enhance separations between activity areas, minimize the verticality of proposed structures, define spaces, and to provide new viewsheds into the park and surrounding mountains. DESIGN CRITERIA Considerations of conservation, maintenance, and park development led to the design criteria discussed in the following paragraphs: Site Preservation. The quality of the existing site in regard to Gore Creek and existing plant communities can be reinforced through the removal of creek debris, undesirable man -made elements, scrub undergrowth, diseased and damaged plan specimens. Extending these preservation programs into projected development helps to keep future maintenance costs low by preventing undesirable growth and park user practices. Revegetation. Natural areas that are cleared or disturbed during construction, and are not subsequently developed, should be replanted to encourage plant associations that develop naturally under these specific site conditions. Activity Transition. Screen plantings soften the edge between developed park areas, natural sectors, and conflicting adjacent land uses. Such plantings unify developed and natural areas as well as providing a protective buffer where the adjacent land uses conflict with recreational activities. Definition of Activity Spaces, Spaces for different recreational activities should be defined by landforms, structures, or plantings. By defining these spaces and creating mass and contrast, visual landmarks are formed to assist visitors in movement on the site. 49 View. Plantings and landform manipulation direct views by framing interesting and attractive features such as distant mountain ranges, ponds, or the Gore Creek corridor. Visual screens of Page 15 of ' 17 DoNoVAN PARK MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT plant materials serve to close off undesired views to interstate, frontage roads or neighboring development. 0 Energy Conservation. Due to the unique wind and sun patterns within the valley, open spaces, play areas, and buildings should be oriented to take advantage of warm winter exposures and buffering from wind. Vegetation can be implemented as 'an energy conservation measure, providing recreational spaces with a protective wind buffer and shade in the summer. Snow accumulation by wind drifts can be directed through the use of wind channels formed by planting masses active as a snowfence. Accent. In areas of special interest or activity, and in pedestrian areas, plantings provide color, texture, form and scent to highlight and emphasize the special character of these places. Vertical architectural elements such as shade structures and play apparatus should be colored to blend harmoniously with the surrounding landscape. Horizontal groundplane textures such as native shrubs, groundcovers, colored pavers, and smooth boulders also can be used to compliment the environment. Major architectural structures should be designed and accented to attract visitors without becoming a distracting visual element to the valley. Accessibility. Areas with difficult access routes should be improved through the addition of well planned systems of bike paths, bridge crossings, and pedestrian trails. Parking areas should be sensitively planned to provide needed parking without impacting natural or recreational use areas, and should be visually screened. Vehicles should be prohibited from park areas except for periodic maintenance and service visits. Separation/ Integration. Landforms and massed plantings can be used to separate conflicting recreational/ cultural activities. Noise generating and active play areas should be integrated together and placed away from passive or natural areas. Needed service facilities, such as restrooms, drinking fountains, etc., should be located in or adjacent to activities with a high use demand. SITE GUIDELINES Alternative building materials and construction techniques which would be used to achieve a park -like mountain theme should be investigated. The resulting vocabulary of designed elements should be considered a "family" of materials and details which are in harmony with the environment. During construction phases, materials should be chosen and construction methods used which adhere to the following general guidelines: Appropriateness. Materials and detailing fit into the Park's environment and are both inviting and functional. Compatibility. Construction materials should be expressive of natural and native material, not contrasting. Flexibility. Materials and techniques should be able to adapt to future expansion needs and programs. 0 Page 16 of 17 • • DONOVAN PARK MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT Continuity. Common materials should have interrelated forms and colors, Maintenance. Maintenance should be reasonable but realistic in cost with ease of accomplishment, and consideration of long -term maintenance expenditures. Page 17 of 17 • • • LEGEND E L1) Gore Creek Ripadan Corridor 1i 1 Preserve Area the Kettle [ j) Lower Terrace Middle Terrace and Slopes Upper T Views 1 South F /I. I Donovan Community Park Facility Master Plan Amendn LEGEND Gore Creek Riparian Corridor t K) Preserve Area l . } The Kettle l 1 V )) Recreation Fields � Buildings Parking [ �) Site Access Point (H ). Matterhorn Circle Intersection (�) Views Into Site Parking Connection to Recreation Fields Parking Connection to Buildings ++. Pedestrian Connection Between Buildings and Recreation Fields /1 Pedestrian Connection Between Buildings and Gore Creek Recreation Path Donovan Community Parr Facility Master Plan Amendme f .7 Ili LEGEND ( i ] Community Activity Center •� �J) Community Pavilion 1l K) Rec. field and playground parking [ 1 ) Curbside drop -off parking Short term parking () Ramped parking [( )) Parking deck (2 levels) l 1-� )� "Garden" wall z< r i cc �T Donovan Community Park Facility Master Plan Arnendrr Gore Creek Riparian Corridor Preserve Area The Kettle (1 1) Open Turf Area 6 Playground F) Basketball Court 0 Multi- purpose recreation field f H) Multi - Purpose Center ( i ] Community Activity Center •� �J) Community Pavilion 1l K) Rec. field and playground parking [ 1 ) Curbside drop -off parking Short term parking () Ramped parking [( )) Parking deck (2 levels) l 1-� )� "Garden" wall z< r i cc �T Donovan Community Park Facility Master Plan Arnendrr LEGEND Site Access. Point I K ]• South Frontage Road {(�) Matterhorn Circle intersection Fxisting Town of Vail Recreation Path l r 1 Vehicular Circulation Pattern t F } Pedestrian Circulation Pattern l [ 7 Service Dock H) Pedestrian Bridge ( 1 1: Existing Transit Stop sm cc Donovan community Park Facility Master Plan Amendme • • AMIA 1I Phase one site plan components Phase two site plan components �l 000000000 lie a Donovan Community Park 'Facility Master Plan Amendrr P • Ir � • MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt John Schofield Diane Golden Doug Cahill Tom Weber Public Hearinq PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 25, 2000 Minutes MEMBERS ABSENT Brian Doyon Galen Aasland called the meeting to order at 2:20 Approved October 9, 2000 APPROVE., DOCT o 9 Zvi STAFF PRESENT: Russ Forrest George Ruther Allison Ochs Brent Wilson Judy Rodriguez Tom Moorhead 2 :00 p.m. A request for a rezoning (from Outdoor Recreation to General Use), a minor subdivision and a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a seasonal ice hockey rink at the Vail Golf Course, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive / Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3. Applicant: Vail Junior Hockey Association, Vail Recreation District, Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson Galen Aasland asked, due to the large number of public present, that speakers limit their comments to 3 minutes. Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo and recommended tabling the conditional use permit and minor subdivision today, and a recommendation of approval on the rezoning. Galen Aasland asked if this could be a worksession today, but noted that it was published to be a final review today. Brent Wilson said yes, but the PEC was under no obligation to approve, deny or table this today. He then gave the next steps in the approval process Galen Aasland said we are here to review the land issues according to the ordinances and if comments were related to costs, he reminded the public that the PEC was not here to review the casts. Galen Aasland asked for any applicant comments. Rick Pylman, represented the Vail Junior Hockey Association, clarified the owner, applicant and user being the VRD, TOV and the VJHA. He said they would provide more information on traffic and building code information and were committed on working on the noise issue. He said they would place visual screening and play around with the location and direct the noise with sound baffling towards 1 -70. He then gave some background on why this came about. He said the existing ice rink on the golf course was seasonal, but the VJHA used it extensively as an accessory rink. He explained the growth of the hockey association with the addition of girl's teams and competitive teams and that this would be a stopgap measure to keep the winter activities moving. He then explained a rendering of the location, which was immediately adjacent to the clubhouse, exactly where the present rink is now located, being 225' long by 125' wide. He said the existing rink was 200' by 85'; or 25' longer. He said the parking would function well, with 20 -25 cars at a time. He said the traffic would be from 3 :30 on, with 15 -25 users at any given time for 1 -11/2 hr. at Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Approved October 9, 2000 R a time. He said the traffic should be much less than in the summertime with golf. He mentioned that there would also be drop -off traffic and they didn't get a lot of spectators. He said they met the criteria for rezoning and can meet the criteria for a conditional use permit as well. He said the golf course parking lot is zoned General Use now, with the Clubhouse and starter shack Outdoor Recreation and so it should be rezoned. Galen Aasland asked Rick to explain why rezoning was consistent with the Land Use Plan. Brent Wilson said it was staff's position that where there were buildings associated with recreation, it was consistent with the standard of the park designation. Galen Aasland asked if it wouldn't be a stretch to do this. Brent Wilson said if it was changed to General Use, any proposal has to be consistent with the recreational designation in the Land Use Plan and so the burden falls on the PEC and staff to make that finding. He said the existing General Use District would be extended north to make matters cleaner and to create one General Use district. John Schofield asked how the scheduling would be taken care of. Jim Heber, Director of Dobson Arena, explained that the outdoor rink in the past had been going through Tom Gaylord with the VRD. He said it would not be just for hockey. Shawn Boris, President of the Skating Club of Vail, said they would like to increase their programs and she explained the programs. She said the most important part was the impact of special events at Dobson Arena that took away their programs and said that the Vail Invitational was not held for the first time in 19 years, due to no ice time. Jim Heber said many events were turned away. The new rink would enable more events to be held at Dobson. John Schofield asked if there were any scheduled games to be held at the seasonal rink. Jim Heber said the games would be held at Dobson, since there would be no locker rooms at the seasonal rink. Doug Cahill asked about the numbers that would use it. Jim Heber said the ice would be limited to practice with 20 kids on the ice at one time and resurrect some public skating at night at Dobson. He said there would be two employees at night to run this and the system would not be as noisy as Dobson. He said he would equate it to a dull hum rather than a pounding and the noise would be located at the northeast comer of the seasonal ice facility, as it needed to be at one end of the building or the other, since there was not much flexibility to put it on the side. He did say the equipment could be put on the highway side and there would potentially be a back up generator, but it was not in this application package. He said that the bubble could hold pressure for a 24- hr. period and that the lighting would be less intrusive. John Schofield asked about the outdoor lighting. Rick Pylman said there would be no more outdoor lighting_ Jim Heber said the bubble would be stored out of sight in the off - season. John Schofield asked about the traffic generation. Jim Heber said only the teams would be using the seasonal ice rink and public skating would be increased at Dobson, since there would be public skating here. is Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Approved October 9. 2000 Rick Pyiman explained the dome shape being 36' at the top tapering at the sides and the ends. Chas Bernhardt asked Brent if changing the zoning to GU allowed more development. Russ Forrest said any use change would require a conditional use hearing except open space and bike paths. Chas Bernhardt said he had seen the Town stretch the law to put in housing. Brent Wilson said there were provisions for employee housing within the GU District, but it would have to come before the PEC and it would come with a recommendation from staff for denial if it didn't' comply with the Land Use Plan. Russ Forrest said the PEC was the watchdog for this. Diane Golden asked about the floodplain. Brent Wilson said there was a site specific study being done right now, as they wanted to make sure there wasn't an issue, however, the concerns were with the grading. Chas Bernhardt said the floodplain was a non- issue, since the floods come in the spring. Doug Cahill asked about the time line, as far as setup and teardown. Rick Pyiman said mid - November to mid - March. Brent Wilson said 7 months was the maximum, per the Town Code. Rick Pyiman said it would take a week to set up and tear down_ He then explained the parking lot with the sleigh ride operation and said that the parking would be more efficient. Galen Aasland requested a written parking plan when this comes back and also wanted to see a written plan regarding the back -up generator. He asked if there would be a glow inside the bubble after the lights are shut off at night and would like to see a written proposal on the lighting. Tom Moorhead advised the PEC to evaluate this as any other conditional use permit. Galen Aasland asked for any public comments. Gretchen Busse read a letter objecting to the mass, bulk and height and said the Townhcmes would see this all winter and it would be very negative to our neighborhood. She said this would destroy the Gore Range View and there would be no more outdoor ice rink. Jerry Lath, owner of a Golfccurse unit, suggested using a tarp like the Denver Country Club uses to eliminate the large, unsightly bubble. He then gave the example of Zermatt Switzerland and what they use. He then questioned the home addresses of the hockey players and mentioned that some of the players come up from Denver and so this was only benefiting 200 players. He said they all enjoyed the outdoor ice rink and said he wondered if the alternatives had been thoroughly investigated. Chris Shuck, an East Vaii resident for 14 years, said this seasonal ice rink was vital for the community and a nice asset and a great idea. He said let's look at the overall benefit to everybody. Marnie Murner, an owner on Spring Hill Lane. said a bubble doesn't represent a premier mountain resort community. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Approved October 9, 2000 Leonard Busse. President of the Golf Course Townhomes, stated that 15 units right on the Golf Course were opposed to the bubble. We want it outdoors and don't want to see that bubble in the daytime. He said this was a signature location in Vail and to retain it_ Star Boniface said she used to be a townhome owner and claimed the parking figures were totally wrong. Jim Potter said he lived in Vail for 25 years and watched people move down valley. He said that this was a wonderful opportunity to provide a recreational facility. Kirk Hansen said he supported the conditional use permit. He said there were over tag skating adults, 100 learn to skate people and 200 hockey players and so we really need additional ice. He said that down valley was not receptive to having an ice rink and it made sense to put the ice rink on the golf course. He said inflatable architecture was ugly, but economical and having it enclosed would cut down on the light and the noise. He said a white bubble on a white snow field was not objectionable and that home values decreasing was a stretch. Len Busse said he lived across from the parking lot for 10 years and the sleigh operation took up one third of the parking lot every year with the additional space needed to tum the horses. He said that parking was an issue when the snow was piled and if parking occurs on the street emergency vehicles can't get through. He said busses come in constantly for the Nordic events. Brent Wilson said the sleigh ride operation would take place elsewhere on the site. He said the Fire Dept. would maintain access, as per the Town Code_ Brent said all the standards would have to be met. Rick Sackbauer said he was a parent of an ice hockey player and said he had lived at the site of the golf club. He said the parking lot would be managed so that it was a safe place. Deborah Webster said she lived in this Town for 30 years and had a conflict. She said she started the Skating Club in 1976 and also lives on Sunburst Drive. She said we need the seasonal ice rink, but not in a residential neighborhood, as it would be the first sight when entering Vail. She said she would like to see how many years it would be there: not just 7 months a year. She said the Town Council and the Town Attorney said the bubble would happen, so now we need to clarify how long it will be temporary. Flo Steinberg said she was against the bubble and would like to state that she doesn't want it in Ford Park either. Phil Hoversten said his property looks right at this bubble and he is 100% for it. He said we are getting the job done with the bubble. He said shading ice like they do in Breckenridge or Denver Country Club doesn't work and a bubble was the only way to address the sun and the snow. He said that traffic was a bigger problem in the summer and the parking could get solved. He said the bubble would provide a reliable source of ice. He said the VRD donated $25,000 for the outdoor ice rink, so they could have a rodeo. Galen Aasland asked about the vertical sun shades. Phil Hoversten said Breckenridge was 1,000 ft. higher and the problem with the vertical sun shades was constantly clearing the snow. John Cogswell said he was in favor of the community adding this new surface and giving kids an opportunity and also to energize Dobson. He said the value of the material had great resale value. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Approved October 9, 2000 George Webster, a resident of 1875 Sunburst Drive and property owner since 1969, said he was a retired Engineer. He asked the PEC to visualize a bubble that would be double the size of the Council Chambers and that is what he would look at from his bedroom window which was not very desirable. Art Abplanalp, representing the Golf Course Townhomes, Phases 1 -4, said he gathered that the PEC was going to vote on this. Galen Aasland said they haven't decided on this yet. Art Abplanalp said that the Land Use Plan said the Vail Golf Course would not change and this rezoning was a direct contradiction, so there was no basis for the rezoning. He said this wasn't a growth matter, but a Band -Aid and so the residents were asked to suffer from the impacts instead of the Town of Vail dealing with this. He said shifting the impact and injury to a neighborhood that was opposed to it flies in the face of the Comprehensive Plan. He said Vail Pass would have book -end bubbles. He then asked to see the Town files. as he said the application wasn't' signed by anyone and therefore, the application wasn't valid. He said an approval didn't deal with the traffic impacts. He said the rezoning was fundamental to the hockey rink alone. He said this was being put in because no one down valley wanted it and he asked if the Town of Vail wanted to inflict the impacts. He said this shouldn't be before you at this point and he hoped the PEC would deny this. Galen Aasland asked if a valid application was received. Brent Wilson said the Town Council waived the fee. He said we had documentation on record that Council had given us authority to proceed and there was a motion on record to move forward. Tom Moorhead said there was a valid application pending. Art Abplanalp said the application was for Rick Pylman's signature. Galen Aasland stated that the application was not signed because the Town of Vail is the applicant. Tom Moorhead said that was correct. Brent Wilson explained the land uses. Cary Brandt said this was an opportunity to rebuild some of our assets. He said he knew a first class facility was now being considered in Edwards. Piet Peters asked if we needed more ice. He said there were 20 local skaters in Vail and 190 adults and this was our chance to do something for the people in Vail. He said there were not that many people in the hockey program. Glenn Davis said he was President of the Vail Junior Hockey Program and Avon had two skating facilities in their PUD and the Berry Creek 5 "' had one facility slated. He said Dobson was an aged facility. He asked the PEC if they wanted to move another activity down valley. He asked the PEC if it was their job to protect a view corridor or maintain activities for our families. He said this had already been approved for the Berry Creek 5" Shawn Boris said she was President of the Skating Club of Vail, but also a business owner. She said she wanted to give people a reason to come to Vail. She described dropping her daughter off, at the ice rink and then going to the gas station and grocery store in Vail which kept the sales tax dollars in Vail. • Chris Shuck asked if this isn't right for Vail, what is? Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Approved October 9, 2000 Peter Kyle, with the men's hockey league, said we deny 100 men and women to play competitive hockey because of the lack of ice time. He said the ice along the boards, at the current rink, melt right now and is dangerous. He said it was a myth that the bubble would kill all the views. He said the outdoor rink was noisier with the players screaming and the bubble would muffle the noise. Mike Grant, a resident of East Vail and shopowner, said he was frustrated seeing things move down valley and so he was in favor of this. Steve Blanchard, a resident at 1825 Sunburst drive, said the temporary nature needed to be addressed more succinctly. Art Abplanalp said there were 5 letters that didn't reach the staff. He said the Town did have a bubble, previously at Vail Run; and couldn't' get rid of it. John Schofield said the Vail Run bubble was overruled by the Council and given permanent stature. Tom Moorhead gave examples of structures utilized on a temporary basis. Doug Cahill said he would like to move forward on all three items. Brent Wilson said we would like to table the subdivision, since we don't have that plat and ii would need to get PEG approval. John Schofield said he was comfortable making a decision on all three items and suggested the PEC give an indication that this was subject to the plat Diane Golden said she was comfortable on all three items. Chas Bernhardt said he was uncomfortable with the zoning and asked if a bubble could be in an OR District. 0 Tom Moorhead said a seasonal structure was ok for GU; not OR. Chas Bernhardt asked if this was approved could it then become applicable to any OR in Town. Tom Moorhead said you would have to change the written description. Chas Bernhardt said if we could limit this to two years, he could vote on this. Brent Wilson said two years is in the condition and suggested adding a condition that the conditional use permit was pending the rezoning request's approval by the Town Council. However, staff requested the PEC table the conditional use permit to the following meeting. Galen Aasland said he would like more information on the management plan and asked if this went through without a plat, would that be a potential problem. Tom Moorhead said he and staff were uncomfortable moving forward without the plat, but said that the rezoning was just a recommendation to Council. Galen Aasland suggested tabling the minor subdivision. Doug Cahill said we should move forward with the rezoning for recommendation to Council and as for the conditional use permit there was concern with the residents. He said we do need to keep uses in the valley, but need to monitor the noise, lighting, what kind of glow is emitted, parking availability and bulk and mass. He said they were looking at a two -year period and at any point in Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Approved October 9, 2000 time this could be called up and so he was comfortable with going forward with this at this time. He said the neighboring community looks at the 85' high nets and so he doesn't think this will be as obtrusive. He said this was a temporary use and the applicant had looked at other options. John Schofield thanked the public for showing up. He said that this commission served at the pleasure of the Town Council. He said from a zoning standpoint, this Commission looked at the zoning and then at the use. He said going to the GU was a vast improvement and since any use would have to go through this Commission, there were more options for review. He said as far as the use, everyone supported the ice; just disagreed how it was to be covered. He said the PEC had to react to the project, not the design. He felt very strongly that it should stay this way with public use, as it had been in the past. He said the parking in the winter was a non - issue. He said the lot would have to be plowed and maintained to its full extent and not be used for snow storage. He said the peak traffic was in the summer but the PEC could review the parking with the traffic, under the conditional use process, and call it up at any time and review it. He said lighting in the past had been bare bulb and so this will be an improvement. He said any other uses proposed would have to be reviewed by this Commission. He said his greatest concern was the noise and suggested the lesser of the 50 decibels or 1 -70 be the maximum allowed. He said another provision would be that all the equipment be removed and stored off -site when the bubble was removed. He said the bubble was temporary and he was comfortable with the two year term, as it was a good solution for the short term. Diane Golden thanked the public and said she listened to their concerns and thoughts. She said other locations have been ruled out fairly, as well as other covers. She said the bubble was a last resort and the benefits of having a temporary ice rink far outweigh the negatives. She thinks this will keep people in Vail when they drop off their children. She thought the bubble might mitigate some of the highway noise. She said the most important thing to remember was that this was temporary and can be called up and so she said she was in favor of the temporary bubble structure. Tom Weber said he was in favor of the rezoning and he said the GU Zone District would provide more review for all uses. He said he was in favor of a conditional use with conditions that they are all in agreement with. He asked if this would grandfather in other uses. Brent Wilson said the ice rink, restaurant and sleighrides. Tom Weber asked if all the uses expire in two years. Brent Wilson said that would be up to the Board. Tom Weber wanted to place an erection time en the bubble, as it would be important for the public to know that. Brent Wilson said 4 months would make it seasonal. Jim Heber said 5 months would be the maximum, with 2 weeks to put it up and 1 week to take it down. Tom Weber said the structure would provide less of an impact to the neighborhood, in terms of noise and exterior lighting, than what is there currently. Chas Bernhardt said the parking would not be a problem. He said the issue was the quality of life and two years was an acceptable alternative. Galen Aasland thanked the public and said he was in favor of the rezoning. He said he was distressed that the Vilar Center went down valley and we needed to continually invest in our Town. 9 He said limiting the number of years was applicable. He said with lighting, noise and parking conditions, he could vote for this. Planning and Environmental. Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Approved October 9, 2000 John Schofield made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning to the Town Council, in accordance with the findings in the staff memo, with 1 condition that the applicant must process (PEC') and record (Eagle County) an approved final plat to reflect the amended zoning district locations prior to construction of the facility. Tom Weber seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. John Schofield made a motion to table the minor subdivision portion until October 9; 2000 Tom Weber seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. John Schofield made a motion for approval of the Conditional Use Permit with 9 conditions: 1. All mechanical equipment associated with the rink must be fully screened. If possible, the equipment should be moved to the north side of the rink. 2. If traffic or parking issues arise, the approval will be called up for additional review by the PEC. 3. The noise output of the rink and its associated equipment will be the lesser of the 55db (day) 150db (night) output allowed under the town's noise ordinance, or the existing noise output of 1 -70 traffic, whichever is less. This will be confirmed by town staff with noise monitoring equipment. 4. The parking lot must be maintained at all times for use at full capacity (110 spaces). No snow storage (or business activities) can be accommodated within the parking lot. 5. This conditional use permit will be valid between the dates of November 1 st through April 1st (annually) from 7:30 a. m. to 11:00 p.m. daily. 6. This approval is for a limited time period beginning November 1 st, 2000 and ending April 1 st, 2002. 7. Full compliance with Town building ordinances and the Uniform Building Code must be demonstrated by the applicant. 8. Scheduling and use of the rink (through the Vail Recreation District) will be open to the general public. 9. As required under the proposed General Use zoning, any future additional land uses or activities on this site must go through the conditional use permit review process. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 2. A request for a final review for a minor subdivision to allow for the reconfiguration and replatting of two existing lots and the rezoning of Lot 16, Bighorn 2 "d Addition, from Agricultural & Open Space to Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential, and the rezoning Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Approved October 8, 2000 of Tract A to Natural Area Preservation District, located at 3886/3896 Lupine Drive/Lots 15 & 16, Bighorn 2 "d Addition. Applicant: Wilson Family Trust, represented by Jay Tschirner, First Land Development, LLC Planner: George Ruttier Tom Weber stated for the record, that the applicant met with his employer about architecture, but the applicant did not retain his firm and so he doesn't feel he has any conflict. George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. Chas Bernhardt asked about the on- street parking. George Ruther said staff would recommend informal parking for 1 -2 cars to take the parking off the street. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add. Jay Tschirner, representing First Land Development LLC, said the waterfall was not in the previously dedicated open space and he said he would like to see language recorded in the plat to not allow development. He said most of the studies had been done by Art Mears who had done the hazard regulations for the Town of Vail. John Schofield asked what he thought about tabling this. Jay Tschirner said, no, he would like a vote. Galen Aasland asked if there was any public comment. Tanya. Stewart read the names of neighbors who had to leave or who were not present. She said the neighbors had been active in making this a dedicated park. She said eight families wanted to table this until October 9, 2000. She said that Mr. i schirner finally talked to her last Wednesday. Scott Ridler, owner of Lot 12, Bighorn 2 "`i, asked who assumed liability for the creek diverting with any debris flow. Torn Moorhead said if the water is not moved from its natural course, no one assumes liability. Scott Ridler suggested purchasing Lot 11 for S90.000, as open space for access to the waterfall. He said the lot had been for sale for 20 -30 years and could tie it in. Neil Muncaster, a neighbor, told why the waterfall was worth preserving and said that any development there was hugging the red zone. Jay Tschimer said that at 9 a.m., on August 22 "d, he met Mr. Stewart on the site. He also met with Claudia Delude in her home during the same time period. Tanya Stewart said that was not entirely correct, but we would like to pursue this in two weeks. George Ruther said he had a meeting with Jay at 2 p.m. on this Wednesday. Tom Weber asked George to explain his reason for limiting GRFA.. George Ruther explained the reason was in keeping it with the GRFA sizes in the other subdivisions. Planning and Environmentai. Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Approved October 9, 2000 Tom Weber said that Lot 15 was encumbered by the Town and so there was a vested value in Lot 15. He said that views from two separate structures would be less obtrusive than one large structure. 0 Chas Bernhardt said to table this for better solutions. Doug Cahill said since there was an issue among the neighboring homes which centered on the building envelopes, he would prefer to table this. George Ruther said this met the minimum criteria for a subdivision and if this was tabled it would add 4 -6 weeks before it comes back again. John Schofield had no comments. Diane Golden said that this was the applicant's property and the neighbors concerns were not strong enough and that she was uncomfortable tabling this. Galen Aasland said the developer has development rights., but given the hazards, if I had to vote on this today, I would vote against it. He said the applicant could improve the application and modify it to what George had suggested. John Schofield made a motion to table this until October 9, 2006. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4 -2, with Diane and Tom voting against. 3. A request for a final review for a major subdivision and variance from Section 12 -68 -5 (Minimum Lot Frontage) of the Town Code, to allow for the subdivision of Lot 8 into Lots 8A & 8B, located at 1467 Aspen Grove Lane /Lot 8, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4. Applicant: Robert Selby, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memo. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add. Dominic Mauriello summarized the major issues. He showed a revised grading plan showing that two cars could safely pass with widening the road to 16' of asphalt. He said they had provided a fire truck turnaround. He said they had provided retaining walls and explained the scale they used. He said the two rock outcroppings were impacted less by moving the road 10' -12'. He said they were looking at block similar to those used on Buffehr Creek Road to reduce visual impacts and the DRB would review that. He said the guard rails would be what is seen typically, but again the DRB would make its final call on that. He explained that the lighting would be low level downlighting complying with the Town of Vail regulations and that the neighbors had voiced their support for this proposal. Allison Ochs said this was a preliminary plat and the final would be seen within one year. Galen Aasland asked if there was any public comments. There was no public comment. Doug Cahill said two 5,606 sq. ft. homes were very large and he said he Vrould like not to see the light source from Town or from the neighbors. He then asked about the turnaround. 0 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Approved October 9, 2000 Dominic Mauriello said it was according to the Development Standards Handbook. John Schofield had no comment. Diane Golden said her concern was the turnaround and asked if Lot 9 would share the entrance. Dominic Mauriello said there would be another entrance and went on to explain Lot 9. Tom Weber said all concerns and requirements were met. Chas Bernhardt had no comment. Galen Aasland requested significant vegetation. John Schofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo, with the additional condition that the DRB be asked to consider substantial revegetation on roadcuts with large walls. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 4. A request for a minor amendment to an approved development plan (SDD #35), to allow for a reduction in the number of parking spaces (and the conversion of these spaces into common storage) at the Austria Haus parking garage, located at 242 East Meadow Drive /A part of Tract C, Vail Village 1" Filing. Applicant: Austria Haus Condo Association Planner: George Ruther George Ruther explained what was required by the PEC Galen Aasland asked for any public comments_ There were no public comments. Tom Braun asked for options. John Schofield made a motion to table this until October 9, 2000. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 5. A request for a recommendation by the Planning and Environmental Commission on a proposed amendment to the Donovan Park Master Plan, generally located at the intersection of Matterhorn Circle and the South Frontage Road. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Odell Architects, P.C. Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had any comments. Ethan Moore of Design Workshop gave an update of the amended items on the plan. Otis Cdell said there were 6 public sessions to gather input over the last year. George Ruther said this would come before the PEC once again for the conditional use permit. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 25, 2000 Approved October 5, 2000 Galen Aasland asked if there were any public comments. Guy Aero, a resident on lower Matterhorn Circle, said he had no objection, but felt they had shoehorned an awful lot of stuff on that space and said it was awful crowded. Tom Weber shared the same concern as Guy Aero, but said as these things came forward with the conditional use, it would be a key site and so he was in favor of it. Chas Bernhardt agreed with Mr. Aero and Tom Weber. Dcwg Cahill said he would like to see ice. John Schofield said it doesn't all fit and that he could vote either way and that was Council's decision. Diane Golden said she had no comments_ Galen Aasland said he was in favor of it. Galen Aasland made a motion for a recommendation of approval, in accordance with the staff memo. John Schofield asked to amend the motion to have Council remove some of the density in the park. Tom Weber said he had a real concern with the technical aspects of getting all that stuff in. Galen Aasland amended the motion to have the Town Council take an active participatory role in determining the actual scope of what can fit into the park. John Schofield said they were trying to jam too much into too little. Tom Weber said service, delivery and vehicular access would be challenging. Galen Aasland said he felt this was fine, although some of the Commissioners felt it was too big. Russ Forrest asked the design team to give a percentage of the total site that was developed . Ethan Moore said 3O% of the site coverage. He said in totality it was not congested, Just where the buildings were located. Tom Weber said when the conditional use permit comes before us, we will address it at that time. Tom Weber seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5 -1, with John opposed. 6. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a multiple - family unit on the first floor in the LMU -1 gone District, located at 380 E. Lionshead Circle, Unit 110 (Lodge at Lionshead)/Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1"Filing. Applicant: Shackleford Properties, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson WITHDRAWN Planning and Environmental Commission 12 Minutes September 25, 2000 • • • Approved October 9, 2000 7. Approval of August 28. 2000 minutes and September 11, 2000 minutes Chas Bernhardt mode a motion for approval of the August 28, 2000 minutes. Doug seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4 -0 -2. with John and Galen abstaining. John Schofield made a motion for approval of the September 11; 2000 minutes. Chas Bemhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 8. Information Update John Schofield made a motion to adjourn. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Manning and Environmentai Commission Minutes September 25, 2000