The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-0827 PEC Public Notice pLANNINCi ANA ENV'1flONMENTAL CQraMissfoN PUBLIC MEE7fPtG SCNErnn F Ixonday, n~u®t 27, 2u[rt public Hesdlsg Twm C~unc11 ClTambers • 2:OK1 p,m. • • ~~~ i ~lfLll~„L. THIS ITEM MAY AFFEGT YOUR PROPERTY ~ ~ PUBLIC NOTIGE .~ ~ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of ~~ '~~'~ Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Sec#ion 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on August 27, 2001, at 2:00 P.M. in the Tawn of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a ftnal review and recommendation to the Tawn Council for the adoption of two view corridors within Lionshead, as identified within the Lionshead Redevelopment. Master Plan. View Corridor 1 is located approximately at the main pedestrian exit looking southwest towards the Gondola Gft Line. View Corridor 2 is located approximately from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifthouse Lodge looking south up the Gondola lift line. A mare specific legal description of the two view corridors is on file at the Community Development Depa~#ment. Applicant: Town of VaiV Planner: Allison Qchs A request for a final review and a recammendatian to the Vail Town Council on the Tawn of Vail's proposed amendment to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, located at EastlWest Meadow Drive, Vail Village. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther A request for a final review and a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposed amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan to allow for a change from a "Law Density Residential" land use category to an "Open Space" land use category, located at 5206-5215 Black Gore Drive 1 Lots 1-12, Vail Meadows Filing 2; and a request for a final review and a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposed rezoning from "Agriculture and Open Space"' to "Natural Area Preservation District," located at 5206-5207 Black Gore Drive 1 Lots 1-4, Vail Meadows Filing 2. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson A request far a final review and a recammendatian to the Vail Town Council on a proposed amendment to the Vai! Land Use Plan to allow for a change from a "Low Density Residenfial" land use category to an "Open Space" land use category, located at 3880 and 3$9fi Lupine Drive /Lots 15 & 16, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addtion; and a request for a final review and a recommendation to the Vail Town Council an a proposed rezoning from "Two-1=amity Primary/Secondary Residential" to "Natural Area Preservation District" located at 3880 Lupine Drive /Lot 15, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition; and a request for a final review and a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposed rezoning from "Agriculture and Open Space" to "Natural Area Preservation District" located at 3896 Lupine Drive 1 Lot 16, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition, Applicant: Town of Vail Planner; Brent Wilson A request for a final review and recommendation to the Vail Town Council on proposed "housekeeping" amendments andlor corrections to Title 11, Vail Tawn Code ("Sign Regulations"), Title 12, Vail Town Code {"Zoning Regulations"), Title 13, Vail Town Code {"Subdivision Regulations"}, and Title 14 ("Development Standards"}. A detained description of the proposed housekeeping amendments is available at the Department of Community Development. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson 1 ~. _. ,~ TDWN OF YA,~ A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within required setbacks, located at 5122 Grouse Lane 1 Lot 7, Block 1, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant; Kuchar, represented by David Irwin Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a final review and a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on proposed revisions to Title 14 {"Development Standards"), Vail Town Code, regarding the use of alternate building materials within the Town of Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson The applications and information about the proposals are available far public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Fron#age Road. The public is invited to atfend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Communi#y Development Department. Please call 479-218 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 August 10, 2001 in the Vail Trail. • • 2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELdPMENT Rublishstl In The Vail Trail on Auyusi 10, 2007 Public Nr~tice NOTdCE IS HERE~9Y GIVEN that the PPan- ning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vai! will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 32-3^8 04 the Municipal Coda o1 the Tavn of Wail on August 27, 26107 at 2:6}0 p.m. in the Town of Vail Mun4dpat Building. Vn considera- tion aF: A request far a Erna! review and recommen- dation fa tlta Town Council Yor the adoption of tv+o view corridors within Lianshoad, as identified within the Lionsheatl RetlevelopmoM Master Piart. V18w corridor 1 is located apprgximatety al the main pedestlan exit Iookiitg southwest to- wards the Gondola lift line. View Corridor 2 fs to- toted approximately from the pedestrian plaza a[ tdre easE and of the Lifittouse Lodge looking south up the Liorrdola i"rft line. A more specific regal de- scription aF the two view rorridars is on file at the Gammuniry Developmont Department. plrcant: Town of Vail P annex. Allison Ochs A request for a final review and a recammen- dafion to the Vail Town Council on d7o Town of Va!'s proposed amendment to the Town of Vaii Sireetsoape Master Plan located at EastlWasE Meadow Drive, Vail Village. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Author A request for a final review and a recommen- tn to the Vail Town Council on a proposod ndment to the Vail t-and Lase Plan 4o aifow for ango from a "Law Density Residential" land category to 2n "Open Space" land use cate- Eocated al 520fi-5215 91ack Gore Drive/Lots Vail Meadows Filing 2, and a request Far a review and a recommendation ta the Vail .i Council on a mpvs©r1 rezoning tram "Agri- ~re and Open Spaco" to "Natural Area Pres- tion District; located at 5206-5207 Black ' Driver'Lols 1-4, VaU Meadows Fiting2. A piicant:Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson A request for a final review and a rerammen- datlon to the Vail Town Caunutil on a proposed amendment to the Vali Land 4Jse Plan to allow for a change from a "Low Dansfly Aesidanlial" land use category to an "Open Space"land use cate- gory rotated at 3860 and 369& Lupine DrivalLols 35 and t6, Bighorn Subdivision SacorM Addition; and a request for a final review and a recomm~n- dation to the Vail Town Council on a proposed re- zoning from "Two-Family Primary/Secondary Fiesdenlai" to "Natural Area Preservation Dis- iricl' iocatod at 3860 Lupins Ddve/Lot 1@, Big- horn Subdivision Second Addition: and a roquest for a final review and a recommendation to [fTe Vail Town Coundl on a proposed rezonlnq from "Agriculture acrd ripen Spaco" to "YJatural Area Preservation District" boated at 3896 Lupine DrivalLot 1S, Aighorn Suttdivlsion 5ecand Addi- tion. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson A request for a final review and recUrnmen- datian~ to the Vail Town Council an prapoaed °housakeepmg' arttendmenls and(or corractlarts tc Title t 1, Vail Town Cade {"Sign Aogulatlons"}. Title Y2, Vail Town Code ("toningg t'dagulaEionS° Titfr: 13. Vaii Tawn Code {"Subrivision Regula- tions"), and Tttie to ("Development Standartlfl"}- A detailod descnplion of Iho proposed hoes®- keeping amendments is available at rho Dapart- ment of Community Development. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner. Brent Wilson A request for a valance from Section 12-6D- 6, Vail Town Code, to akfow for an addition within required satdacks located of 5122 Grouse Lane(Lot 7. B4oek t. Gore Creek Sutxkvision. Appllcanr Kuchar representod ~' David Ir- win Planner: Allison t]chs A request for a final review and a rest lotion to the Vail Town Council on pro stone to Title ?d {"Devetopmenl Stand2 d Town Code regarding the use of altamaa ing materials wilhan the Town o3 Vail and forth details in regard theralc. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gipson The aovlications and information alp lopmenl Depadment, 75 South ~e public is [nutted to attend pn d the site visits that precede ih the Town of Vail GornmunR4 D Telephone for Published in 7fte Vall T an August 10, 2170E 9. Approval of August 13, 2001 minutes 10. Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's once located at the Town Qf Vail Community development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 far information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, far information. Community Development Department Published August 24, 2001 in the Vail Trail. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • • PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS Monday, August 27, 2001 PROJECT ORIENTATION ! -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME` MEMBERS PRESENT Dick Cleveland Brian Doyon Chas Bernhardt Galen Aasland Diane Golden Doug Cahill Site Visits 1. liuchar residence - 5122 Grouse Lane 2. Vail Meadows - 5206-5207 Black Gore Drive 3. Lots 15 ~& 16 - 3880 ~ 3898 Lupine Drive Driver: Brent 12:.00 pm 1:00 pm ~~ NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6.00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request far a variance from Section 12-6D-5 ("Lot Area and Site Dimensions"), Vail Town Code, and a final review of a minor subdivision located at 3834 and 3838 Bridge Raadl Lots 11 ~ 12, Bighorn Subdivision 2" d Addition. Applicant: Gary Weiss, represented by Steve Riders, Architect Planner: Ann i<jerulf MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Dick Cleveland VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED -VARIANCE MOTION: Brian Dayan SECOND: Dick Cleveland VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH SCONDITIONS -MINOR SUBDIVISION 1. That the minor subdivision shall only be valid if the variance from section 12-6D-5 is also approved. 2. That the applicant shall, in accordance with the Town`s subdivision regulations, revise the plat prier to recording to indicate the total buildable area on the proposed let, to delineate the buildable area an the proposed lot, and to indicate the locations of all applicable hazards. t a~ TOWN OF YAfL MEMBERS ABSENT John Schofield 3. That the applicant shaA revise the plat prior to recording to designate a building envelope in order to limit future construction to the buildable area of the site. 4. That the applicant shall have the existing trash facility located in the Town's right-of-way removed prior to the recording of the plat. 5. That the following notes shall be added to the plat: • The total allowable gross n?sidenfial floor area permitted on Lot 12 shall be based on a site area of 64, 033 square feef which is one half of fhe tofal site area of Lof ?2. • Gross residential floor area shall be calculated pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 15 of the Vail Town Code, which may be amended from Time to time. 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Vail Tawn Code, to allow for an addition within required setbacks, located at 5122 Grouse Lane /Lot 7, Black 1, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: John Kuchar, represented by David Irwin Planner: Allison Ochs MOTION: Dick Cleveland SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VQTE: 6-0 TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 10.20i~1 3. A request for a final review and a recommendation to the Vail Town Council an a proposed amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan to allow for a change from a "Low Density Residential" land use category to an "open Space" land use category, facated at 5206-5215 Black Gore Drive 1 Lats 1-7 and Lot 12, Vail Meadows Filing 2; and a request for a final review and a reeorrmmendatian to the Vail Town CounciE an a proposed rezoning from "Agriculture and Open Space" to "Natural Area Preservation District," located at 5206-5207 Black Gore Drive /Lots 1-4, Vail Meadows Fling 2. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson MOTION: Brian Dayan SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 6-0 RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL -LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT MOT10N: Brian Doyon SECOND: 'Doug Cahill VQTE; 6-0 RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL -REZONING 4. A request for a final review and a recommendation to the Vail Town Council an a proposed amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan to allow for a change from a "Low Density Residential" land use category to an "open Space" land use category, located at 3880 and 3896 Lupine Drive 1 Lots 15 & 16, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition; and a request for a final review and a recommendation #a the Vail Town Council on a proposed rezoning from "Two-Family PrimarylSecandary Residential" to `°Natural Area Preservation District" located at 8880 Lupine Drive 1 Lot 18, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition; and a request for a final review and a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposed rezoning from "Agriculture and Open Space'" to "Natural Area Preservation District" located at 8896 Lupine Drive 1 Lot 16, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 6-0 • .~ RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL-AMENDMENTS TO THE VAIL LAND USE PLAN. MOTION: Brian Doyon SEGOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 6-© RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL- REZONING OF LOT 15, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION 2"~' ADDITION. MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Chas Bemhardt VOTE: 6-0 RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL- REZONING OF LOT 16, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION 2ND ADDITION ~. A request for a final review and recommendation to the Vail Town Council on proposed "housekeeping" amendments andlor corrections to Title 11, Vail Town Code ("Sign Regulations"}, Title 12, Vail Town Code ("Zoning Regulations"), Title 13, Vail Town Code ("Subdivision Regulations"), and Title 14, Vail Town Code ("Devefoprnent Standards"), and setting forth details in regard thereto, A detailed description of the proposed text amendments is available at the Department of Community Development. . Applicant: Town of Vail Planner; Brent Wilson MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 6-0 RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL 6. A request for a fnal review and a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on proposed revisions to Title 14 ("Development Standards"), Vail Town Cade, regarding the use of alternate building materials within the Town of Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 7. A request for a final review and a recommendation to the Vail Town Council vn the Town of Vail's proposed amendment to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan., Located at. EastfWest Meadow Drive, Vail Village. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL. SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 8. A request for a final review and recommendation to the Town Council for the adoption of two view corridors within I_ianshead, as identified within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. View Corridor 1 is located approximately at the main pedestrian exit looking southwest towards the Gondola lift line. View Corridor 2 is located approximately from the pedestrian plaza at the east end of the Lifthouse Lodge looking south up the Gondola lift line. Amore specific legal description of the two view corridors is on file at the Community Development Department. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 10, 2Q01 9. Approval of August 13, 20Q1 minutes 10. Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available foe 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 Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department • • MEMORANDUM TO: Piet Dieters Vail Recreation District Board of Directors Town of Vail Council Members Vail Planning and. Environmental Commission FROM: Vail WARP Women's Hockey Team Vail $reakaways Women's Hockey Team RE: Drop-in Hockey for Women DATE: August 22, 2401 We are writing on behalf of the hvo organized women's hockey teams representing Vail and the many women who are in the process of learning or beginning to play hockey. Women have played hockey in Vail since the 1970'x, often on men's teams or competing with men's leagues for the few ice times available for practice. In 1997, a group of women obtained usage of the outdoor ice arena at the golf course to begin a second women's hockey team. Through snow storms when we had to shovel the ice before we could skate. frigid cold, and warm spells of melting ice, the time period from 6:30 to 8:00 pm on Tuesdays vas reserved far novice women to play hockey. Two years later we were able to obtain ice time at Dobson Arena, but asked the VRD to retain the fi:30 -R:00 pm time slot as a drop in hockey time for «<omen. Women of all ages came to learn and play. We had equipment to loan and coaching and usually had 24-34 women for each session. Last year, rye were told that Vail Junior Hockey Club was scheduling the ice for both Dobson Arena and the lee Bubble and that we would not be able to have our usual drop-in time of fi;30 - 8;40 but would be moved to an R:34-14;40 pm slot. We protested this on numerous occasions and with various Recreation Department and Town of Vail officials and received no satisfactory resolution. We arc writing to request that an earlier time slot be scheduled for women's drop-in hockey for the following reasons: 1. The amount of time scheduled for wvomen's hockey is not proportionately equal to the amount scheduled for boys/men's hockey, which is obviously unfair and probably illegal. Girls hockey has two of the worst tunes scheduled for them through V1H (Wed. 8:00 pm and Fri. R:34 pm) and there are only two other times in both arenas for women's hockey practice. This total of 4 scheduled times is a pitifully small percentage of ice that is scheduled for men and boys hockey. 2. When the time is scheduled so late, high school and junior high school girls who are learning or wishing to try hockey arc unable to attend due to the obligations of school. During the late time that was scheduled last year, we did not have a single school age girl "drop in". In previous years at the earlier time we often had 6 - 8 junior high and high school girls. We believe this number would be even higher now because of the growing interest in girls' hockey. 3. We are concerned that Vail Junior Hockey seems to control all the ice time available at both rinks. Since this is a ta.Y payer operated facility, it seems to us that decisions should be made by the VRD as to what times are available for youth hockey, rather than relinquish all responsibility for this decision making. 4. We believe it is important for the school age girls to be able to skate with the adult women- Not only are hockey skills taught, but the older women arc role models for young guts regarding maintaining an active fife style. And we can't discount the confidence that the young girls gain when they are able to help one of the novice women players learn a new skill • We respectfully request that time beset aside for women's drop in hockey at a time when junior high and high school women can also attend. We can be flexible regarding the exact time and day of the week. We would like the ice time to begin around 6:34 or 7;OU in the evening, last an hour and a half or hour and a quarter, and occur once a week on either Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday evenings. In our opinion, the Vail f~ecreation District should regain control of tl~e ice at both venues by telling Vail Junior Hockey what times are available for tlieen to use. Further eve request that VAD schedule a reasonably early time for ~vornen's drop-in hockey such as was available in past .years. Sincerely, tinny Crowley Barb SchoE~ield • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRAM: Community Development Department DATE: August 27, 2001 S4JBJEGT: A request for a variance from Section 12-6^-5, Vail Town Code, and a final review of a minor subdivision located at 3834 and 3838 Bridge Road/ Lots 11 ~ 12, Bighorn Subdivision 2"d Addition. Applicant: Gary Weiss, represented by Steve Riden, Architect Planner; Ann Kjerulf I. DESCRIPTI+QN OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Gary Weiss, represented by Steve Riden, has submitted an application to the Town of Vail Cammunity Development Department for a minor subdivision of Lots 11 and 12, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition and a variance from Section 12-6D-5 due to the lack of buildable area on the site. Minor Subdivision: The request involves the resubdivision and consolidation of Lots 11 and 12 to create Lot 12. Pursuant to the Vail Town Cade, 13-2-2 (E}, a minor subdivision is defined as follows: "Nlinar subdivision" shall mean any subdivision cantainr'ng Hat mare than four (4) Iafs fronting on an existing street, not involving any new street or road or the extension of Municipal facilities and not adversely affecting the development of the remainder of the parcel or adjoining property." Currently, Lot 11 is 223 Acres in size and Lot 12 is 0.71 Acres in size. The total area under consideration is 2.94 Acres. The creation of a single lot would be accomplished by vacating the existing property line between Lots 11 and 12. As part of the minor subdivision,. the applicant is proposing a building envelope to restrict the location of buildings on the site. Furthermore, the applicant has agreed to a plat restriction that would limit the gross residential floor area (GFtFA} which could be constructed on the property in the future. The fallowing plat notes are proposed: • The Total allowable gross residential Haar area permitted on Lat 12 shag be based on a site area of +54, Q33 square feet or one half of The total site area of Lat t2. • Gross residential floor area shall be calculated pursuant tc~ Title 72, Chapter 95 of the Vail Tawn Code, which maybe amended from time to time. The intention of the second Hate is to ensure that Lot 12 will receive."equal treatment" in Weiss Minor Subdivision and Variance Request August 13, 2001 1 ~. T'O1~V11~' OF VAIL case Title 12, Chapter 15 is amended in the future to increase the development potential of properties with the same zoning designation as Lot 12. Without a plat restriction, the applicant would poten#ially be able to construct up to 11,003 square feet of GRFA. Members of the Planning and Environmental Commission, Town Council, and staff share the concern that this degree of development potentiai is out of scale with neighboring properties. Variance: Newly subdivided lots in the Two-Family Primaryr'Secondary Zone District must meet the lot area and site dimension criteria outlined in Section 12-6D-5 of the Town Code: The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand (95,(70U) square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (3U ), ~Furthermare, buildable area is defined as: "Any site, Iot, parcel or any portion thereof which does not confain designated flood plain, red hazard avalanche area, or areas in excess of forty percent (40%) slope. °' Afiter red hazard avalanche areas and areas with forty percent {40°fo) slopes or greater are elimina#ed, the total buildable area on Lots 11 and 12 is 13,T55.8 sf. Due to the lack of buildable area on the proposed lot, the applicant requires a variance from Section 12- 6D-5 in order for the minor subdivision request to be approved. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Minor Subdivision: The Department of Community Development recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the applicant's request for a minor subdivision in accordance with Section 1V of this memorandum and subject to the following findings: 1. That the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision Regulations, 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. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve the minor subdivision, staff requests that the following conditions of approval be considered: 1. That the minor subdivision shall only be valid if the variance from section 12-6D-5 Weiss Mirror Subdivisi©n end V~r7arrCe Request, August 13, 2o0Y 2 is also approved. 2. That the applicant shall, in accordance with the Town's subdivision regulations, revise the plat prior to recording to indicate the total buildable area on the proposed lot, to delineate the buildable area an the proposed lot, and to indicate the locations of all applicable hazards. 3. That the applicant shall revise the plat prior to recording to designate a building envelope in order to limit future construction to the buildable area of the site. 4. That the applicant shall haue the existing trash facility located in the Town's righ#- of-way removed prior to the recording of the plat. Variance: The Department of Community Development recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approve the applicant's request for a variance from Section 12-6D-5, Tawn of Vail Code to allow for relief from the buildable area requirement subject to the following findings: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. 2. There are exceptions ^r extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the PrimarylSecondary Residential Zone District. 3. 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. lil. BACKGRUUN© 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 11 ~ 12 have remained in the current configuration since being platted. The Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition was annexed into the Town of Vail pursuant to Ordinances 13 & 2t}, Series of 1974. The annexation became effective on November 5, 1974. Upon annexation into the Tawn of Vail, Lots 11 & 12 were zoned Two Family PrimarylSecondary Residential. At the time of annexation, a residential structure existed an Lat 12 and Lot 11 was vacant. Hazard Regulations 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. !Weiss Minor Subdivision and Variance Request, August 13, 2©09 3 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 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. Town of Var'l Land Use Plan In 1988, the Vail Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Land Use Plan. Similar to the Geologic Hazard Maps, the Land Use Plan is a component of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. According to the Land Use Plan, Lots 11 & 12 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. Cnstitutional/public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. The Town of Vai! Comprehensr've Open Lands Plan In 1994, the Vail Town Council adapted 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 specifc 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 35Q parcels were evaluated with 51 parcels on which actions were recommended. The recommendations were developed utilizing specific criteria to evaluate the areas of highest priority. Generally, areas received the highest priority if they rnet the stated objectives of the Town and its citizens and were an integral part of the open lands Weiss Mrnor SubdJvision and Variance Requesf, Augusf 93, 2009 4 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 1Vlountain 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. Ta date, the Town of Vail has taken action on at least 41 of the 51 parcels identified for action in the Plan. This mast recently includes Lot 16 of Pighorn Subdivision, 2nd Addition. The Action Plan and Priority Plan of the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies Lots 8, 1~, and 11, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition as "Parcel 40" for implementation purposes. Parcel 40 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 4D is located in a geologically sensitive area. Strategies for protecting Parcel 40 include purchasing the development rights, andlor acquiring an access easement through the parcel. As a high priority classification, Parcel 40 meets bath Level One and Level Twa 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 civic/public uses. Level Two Evaluation focuses on the availabilify of the parcel utilizing criteria such as the threat of development ar irreversible damage, opportunities to leverage other funds, cost, unusual opportunity with a motivated seller, opportunity for trade with the IJSFS, low management requirements on the Town of Vail and low liability to the Town. On Tuesday, July 17, 20Q1, Community Development staff met with the Town Council to determine the level of interest in acquiring Parcel 4Q. due to the prevalence of geological hazards and the lack of potential for the development of the South Trail, the Town Council opted to take no action on Parcel 4~. It was decided that the Town's hazard regulations and development standards may sufficiently guide and limit development on Parcel 40 in the future The Council was amenable to the possibility of acquiring conservation easements upon Parcel 40 at the discretion of the land owners. L3evelopmenf Regulations 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 8 -Twa-Family Primary/Secondary Residential Weiss Minor Subdivision and Variance Request, August 13, 200? 5 Chapter 21 -Hazard Regulations The purpose s#aternent of Chapter 6 (Article D. Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS} District) states: "The Two-Family PrimarylSecondary Residential District is intended to provide sites for single-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 approper7ately be located in the same district. The Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential District is intended to ensure adequate light air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two-family occupancy, and fo maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards." To date, there is no structure on Lot 11 and there is a single family dwelling on Lot 12. The applicant wishes to construct an addition to the existing residence an Lot 12 and essentially double the GRFA of this residence. ey leaving the current lot configurations as they exist, there is insufficient development potential an Lot 12 alone to accommodate the proposed addition under Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential zoning. By consolidating the lots, the applicant would gain sufficient development potential to construct the proposed addition. Development has been proposed on Lot 11 in the past. However, due to the difficulties • presented by geological hazards and steep slopes, development has never occurred on the site. There are three geologic hazard analysis reports in the legal file for Lot 11. Each report identifies geologic hazards on the site including high severity rock fall, debris flow, and snow avalanche. There are varying opinions as to whether Lot 11 is located in a moderate or high hazard avalanche area. However, in a recent study of Lots 8, 10, & 12, Arthur Mears identifies an area of Red Hazard avalanche which clearly impacts Lot 11. Figures 6 & 7 have been attached for reference. 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 finished grade and "splitting wedges". However, no construction is permitted in a Red Hazard Avalanche area so these building techniques would not be applicable. The purpose statement of Chapter 21(Hazard Regulations) states: "The pure©se of this Chapter 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 6e subject to flooding and avalanche or which maybe 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 geological sensitivity and slopes; fa minirni2e damage to welss Minor Subdivision and Variance Request August 13, 200'! :7 6 public facilities and utilities and minimize the need for relr'ef in cleanup operations; to give notice fo the public of certain areas within the Town where flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity exist; and to promote the general public health, safety and welfare." Furthermore, Section 12-21-10 (Hazard Regulations) states: A. No structure shall be Built in any flood hazard zone or red avalanche hazard areas. No structure shall be built on a slope of forty percent or greater except in Single-Family Residential, Two-Family Residenfial, or Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residenfial Zone Districts. The term "structure" as used in this Section does not include recreational structures fhat are intended for seasonal use, not including residential use. 8. Structures maybe built in blue avalanche hazard areas provided That proper mitigating measures have been taken. C. The Administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to build in an avalanche hazard zone of influence to submit a definitive study of the hazard area in which the applicant proposes to build if the Town's master hazard plan does not contain sufficient information to determine if the proposed Iocafion is in a red hazard or blue hazard area. The requirement for additional information and study shall be done in accordance with Chapter 12 of this Tifle_ D. The Administrator may require any applicant or person desiring to build in an identified blue avalanche hazard zone fo submit additional information or reports as to whether or not improvements are required to mitigate against the possible hazard. If mitigation is required, said information and report should specify the improvements proposed therefore. The required information and reports shall be done in accordance with Chapter 12 of this Tifle. The Tawn has adopted Official Hazard Maps (as described in section 12-21-15: Restrictions in Geologically Sensitive Areas) which identify areas located within or potential within rockfall, debris flow, or avalanche areas. Subdivision and/ar development proposals within any geological hazard area requires asite-specitec geologic investigation: According to section 12-21-15: In any area Iocated within the boundaries of the Lincoln DeVore Map, or in any area identified as a debris flow or debris avalanche area by the Mears Map, or in any area identified as a rock fail area by fhe Schmueser Map, no initial application for a building permit, grading permit or major or minor subdivision shall be approved until a life-specific geologic investigation is complete. For fhe purpose of this Section, asite-specific geologic investigation shall be deemed a detailed geologic investigation which is applicable fo each respective site. A!1 reports and studies required by this Section shall be prepared by a "professional geologist" as defined 6y Colorado Revised Statutes section 34-1-01, as amended, ora "registered professional engineer'; as defined by Colorado Revised Statutes section 12- Weiss Minor Subdivision and 1/ariance Request August 13, 200? 7 25-1 Q2, as amended, under the direction of and of the expense of the owner/applicant and submitted to the Department of Community Development. 2. The extent of fhe site-specihc ecologic investigation required shall be determined by the geologist or engineer who is responsible for fhe investigation; however, the investigation shall be of sufficient thoroughness and accuracy to allow such expert to certify to fhe following: a. For al! sfruc#ures other than single-family, duplex and primary/secondary dwellings, and "accessory uses" thereto as defined in Sec#ion 92-BC-4 of this Code: {9) Whefher the geologic conditions are such that fhe site can or cannot be developed for fhe specific strucfure or use proposed withouf corrective engineering or engineered consfrucfion, or other mitigation or alterations. (2) Whefher corrective engineering or engineered construction, or other mitigation or alterations can or cannot be accomplished fo reduce the danger to fhe public health, safety or to property due to problems relafed to geologic sensitivity to a reasonable level, and not increase the hazard to other properties or structures, or fo public buildings, rights of way, roads, sfreets, easements, u#ilities or facilifies or other properties of construction. b. For single-family, duplex and primary/secondary dwellings, and "accessory uses" thereto as defined in Section t2-tiC-4 of this Title, the site-specific geologic investigation shall certify fo fhe following: (1) Whether the site can be developed for the specific sfructure or use i proposed withou# corrective engineering or engineered consfrucfion or other mitigation or alterations; or (2J That the site is a geologically sensifive area buf development will not increase the hazard #o ofher property or structures, or to public buildings, rights of way, roads, streets, easements, utilities or facilities or other properties of any kind. In order to provide reasonable notice to the public of the problems related to geologically sensitive areas, notice regulations and requirements (Section 12-21-15(F)) have been adopted. One of these requirements is that; 1. Alf subdivision plats recorded after the effective date hereof shall identify and designate each tot and block, or portions thereof, located within any geologically sensitive area, together wr`th applicable sub-zone designations, by a stamp or writr'ng in a manner providing reasonable notice to inferested parties. Weiss Minor Subdivisirrn and Variance Request, August 73, 2007 • 8 IV. ZONING ANALYSIS LOT 11, BIGFIORN SUBDIVISION, SECOND ADDITION Zoning Two-family PrimarylSecondary Residential {PS) Existing Lot Size 2.23 Acres (97,139 sf) Proposed Lot Size to be eliminated Standard Allowed Fxi~tina Proposed Qensity: 2 DUs + 1 EHU n!a GRPA: 9,457 sf n/a Site Coverage: 19,428 sf nla Setbacks: Front -2o ft. n/a Sides-15 ft. * nla Rear- 15ft. n/a Landscaping; 58,283 sf * nla Puilding Height: 33' max nla *Lot 11 is an undeveloped lot. Weiss Minor Subdivision and variance Request, August 13, 2001 9 LQT 12, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, SECOND ADDITION Zoning Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS} Existing Lot Size 0.71 Acres (30,928 sf} Proposed Lot Size 2.94 Acres (128,066 sf} Currently Proposed Proposed Standard Allowed Existino Allowed construction Density: 2 DUs + 1 EHU 1 DU 2 DUs + 1 iEHU 1 DU GRFA: 6,146 sf (+250) 3,35D sf 7.802 sf f+2501**' 6,421 sf Site Coverage: 6,185 sf 1,378 sf 25,613 sf 2,935 sf Setbacks: Front -20 ft. 22.5 ft 20 ft 22,5 ft Sides-15 ft. 63 ft/17.6 ft 15 ft 17,5 ft/17.5 ft Rear- 15ft. 16 ft} 15 ft 16 ft* Landscaping: 18,557 sf 28,769 sf 76,840 sf 124,385 sf*" Building Height; 33' max 31' 33' max 31' Weiss Minor Subdivision and Variance Requesf, August 13, 2001 10 • • "'The roof of the existing structure encroaches i.5 ft more than is accep#abie into a required setback. This is a legally non-conforming situation. **Includes natural areas not to be disturbed by construction. "**The total allowable gross residential floor area permitted on Lot 12 shall be based on a site area of 64,033 square feet or one half of the total site area of Lot 12. V. MINOR SUBf)IVISfON CRfTERIA A basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of new lots 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 12-6D-5 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations, the minimum lot or site area in the Two-Family PrimarylSecandary Residential f~istrict is 15,[100 sf of buildable area. Sfaff Response: With only 13,755.$ sf of buildable area, the proposed lot (Lot 12} does not meet the minimum lo# area requirement outlined in Section 12-fiD-5. Because bath of the existing lots (Lots 11 & 12) were platted in Eagle County, and did not meet this requirement when the lots were annexed into the Town of Vail, they became legally non-conforming lots. By combining the lots, the proportion of buildabie area does not change. Furthermore, the degree of non- conformity is actually lessened when buildable area is factored over the combined area of the two lots. Hence, staff dues not believe that the deficiency in buildable area should have a bearing upon the minor subdivision request. For further clarification, buildable area is applicable only for subdivision purposes and is not a basis for calculating development potential in the Two-Family PrimarylSecondary Zone ®istrict. The Town Code does allow construction to occur on slopes greater than forty percent (4©%) in the Primary-Secondary zone district. Frontage: According to Section 12-6D-5 of the Town of Vail Regulations, each lot in the Twa-Family Primary/Secondary Residential District shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30'}, Staff Response: The proposed lot {Lot 12} complies with the minimum frontage requirement. Dimension: According to Section 12-6D-5 of the Town of Vai! Regulations, each lot in the Two-Family PrimarylSecondary Residential District shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area 80 feet on each side within its boundaries, Staff Response: The proposed lot meets the dimension requirement. B. The second set of review criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request is outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, 13-3-4, and is as fiollows: "The burden of proof steal! rest with the applicant to show that the application is fi compliance wifh the Infent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning Weiss Minor Subdivrsron and Vadarrce Request, August 13, 2001 11 and Environmental Commission deems applicable.... 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. `" The purpose section of Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, is intended to insure that the subdivision is promoting the health, safety and welfare of the community. The subdivision purpose statements from 13-1-2 (C) are as follows: "To inform each subdivider of the standards and criferia by which development proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. „ Staff Response: Staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the intent and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. "Ta provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with develapment on adjacent land. " Staff Response: The Vail Land Use Plan identifies Lats 11 & 12 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 #ypically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acre. Development has never occurred on Lot 11 due to the obstacles which have been presented by the geologic hazards onsite. Although it also contains geologic hazards, a single family dwelling unit exists on Lot 12. This is consistent with the intent of the Land Use Plan.. flyer 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 far single- family and two-family primarylsecondary residential development. A majority of the lots in the neighboring area are also Ivcated within geologic hazard zones. Development on these lets, as with lots 11 and 12, 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. " Staff Response: Staff does not believe that the minor subdivision of Lots 11 & 12, Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition would have any negative impacts an the value of land in the Town of Vail. Construction can not occur on a large portion of the Weiss Minor Subdivision and variance Request, August 13, 2001 12 proposed lot due to the prevalence of red hazard avalanche. Furthermore, the owner of the subject property has expressed an interest in creating a conservation easement upon the lot to ensure the preservation of open space. 4. "Ta ensure fhaf 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: Staff believes that the proposed plat restriction limiting the gross residential floor area on the site makes the development potential for the site more comparable to neighboring properties. Table 1 has been attached for reference. This provides a summary of development potential for neighboring lots. Furthermore, staff believes that the Town's hazard regulations and development standards can sufficiently limit the future development of this site, The inclusion of a platted building envelope will limit the location of construction and the prevalence of red hazard avalanche ensures that a large portion of the site will remain as open space in perpetuity. 5. "'Ta guide public and private policy and action in order fo provide adequate and efficient fransporfafion, wafer, sewage,. schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation, and ofher public requtremenfs and facilities and generally fo provide fhaf public facilities will have sufficienf capacity fa serve fhe proposed subdivision. " Stafif Response: The Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies a public purpose for Lots 8, 18, and 11 (Parcel 4©), Bighorn Subdivision, Second Addition. The applicant has expressed an interest in meeting this need by creating a conservation easement upon the property. However, in the absence of a conservation easement, the Town's hazard regulations and development standards can adequately guide future development with minimal impact upon Parcel 40. 6. "'To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land acrd fa esfablish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. " Staff Response: Staff believes that the current proposal satisfies this purpose statement. 7. "To prevent the pollution of air, streams and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water fable and fo encourage fhe wise use and management of natural resources throughouf fhe Town in order to preserve fhe integrity, stability, and beauty of the comrnunify and the value of the land." Staff Response: Staff believes that the request will not conflict with this purpose statement. Weiss Minor Subdivision and Variance i~aquest, August 13, 2001 13 VI. VARIANCE CRITERIA A. Consideration of Factors Regardino the Variance: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. As proposed, staff does not believe that the requested variance will have any impact an potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The variance will not increase the degree of non-conformity with respect to buildable area. 2. 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.. Staff does not believe that the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege due to the fact that the lots were originally platted in Eagle County and did not meet the buildable area requirement when annexed into the Town of Vail. Again, the variance would not increase the degree of non- conformity with respect to buildable area. 3. The effect of the requested variance an light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff does not believe that the requested variance will have any negative impacts on the above referenced criteria- B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the fallowing t'indings before Granting a variance: 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 improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the fallowing 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. Weiss Mrnor Subdivision and Variance Request, August 93, 2009 14 b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not app6y 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. • Weiss Minor Subdivision and Variance t?equesf, l~ugust 93, 20Q1 15 .A _~ '~"' A~ ~ /~ ~+ J rrr ~7~w O •~ ~U ~ O .,'~ C3' m N .--~ °~ .-i ~I O ~Z • Fr _'~i~Y:'. ~.~ t~ Lr ny 1--, ._ ... -fir; ~l -~;r'F ~ '+~ ~ ~ ~ + ~ ~l L~~1 r ~~r - ,_ ~f. ° ,d f~ . ~~~. . ' . ,~. ~ ~ ~'~..` ~. . ~. 4' r. r ~ '~ . 5 ~4 ., i ; +I ; ' .1 p'hi-. h y~ - e ~ _~ ~ •,P ;::. ,~ N~~ `V _ r _ 1 ~e ,+SS 4 F 1 r ~' ~hS Y f ~ , 'l .' , A .r a sit ~rw t+ _d ' ..'' ~ 4 N _ ' ~' L I 54 t• ~ ti ~ ~~ r FlGUR~ B.+ Ma of the maxrmum exfent of rockfalf hazard !n the Bridge Road and west Lupine t`` ,- ea. Map uvas induced from aerial photography taken !~ 99A7, thus recent constructlort '~; r , ~ ~ 4{ ,~ Drive ar p p ~ : , ~ .; ,. does not appear orgy the map. ~~ -- 900' . ~,~~,~ t~ ~ SCALE: 9 ~ ~' /~ ,,' '~5~1~11~t~'~'W~~i"' f Tlu ya s .t,~... ,y f rb .~A ..xd:~ ~t F'.• ~ .,~~ 4~!la 5. lL..-I~n.. H 9r ~ .J ,I1 M: . `.1. ~ ~ 1, 4 _ ~..1e4- :~e .. .t } '" . ,l ~~ H .~ 1L' ~ '~ r' •,~ Jt if ~ ~5 .d <3' ~' ~.I" J~~ 1 1 1 Yr' +" 4 _ r~. ~,['~. Rr i..+,i t p ~I, ~1 r 'rll.r Lr~,K'x 4 r1i J~i71`A rv~~Sf t~L.'1 y'' ~t '- ~ Vk`t ,i3a ~t } l~ ~ r. ~ -- .} 1 v-y C4~by,~~yy ~'~!'-It'-.k~ ~1„i~. ~. , 5 ~ ~,r t 1' ,.'k" 1 '' ~ i r s~~3 ~i ty Xt, ~y 3S"L. 4U +i n.: ..;.r H F1 t t`/ ,r+i "'.r .: rt , t' ,~ _ v ~. 'r L _ ~ ~f i ~r1~~r4 J h a. r _ y.} Jar s,1 ~.~1/•j a 4~~ we L 5 t -a~.o ~A ~t Y~,1 ~~i ~v'b rta' ' h _ 1 + Y Is f ~ ~, ~aJP _~ , ~'. S . ^ ~~1ALP~t~G{~ `'t, ~Y`~ !1~ t e r, r pt o ~?54vyr~:~,~.. d J ~ SS' I J ~ L AI 1 ~J ~ t'4 IJ A ryMl + ~l~ I i Y y rr}~,~~~~f 15 I~Ae a~) q~ I _~~ i,~StAf,T~rt~. '~+r }~S i '~1~~~' L~ k 1-~ L ~+a.. J 1. .k 4 ~r r + I ,~ `^ ,~ ` ,v ,~ _ ' ~ - ~ r - J !- rail r + -~,-• ,un ; 't 7 f T' if 1 `+ ~I} 4' I _ ;1~ _ ~ :f•r 'L ,,, ~ ~+ps4~, rJ ~ ~1 - ~Tt~ ~~ p °A.i'. ,V ,. u1 ,2. r r, 1 ilj7'r~ r 4' ~}y 5x ' +'1 ~L - , ._ ri ~, f ,~ . M ~~J~ ,~ !, .I'~ to -~xi F ~' d ~~ - r+ r ~ fh~pM ~~t,v ,1•,1}~ rir ' i dJ ._~ y; i ~.'~ +~ }i s'. r ~.' ~` '•;~ .l '''Atl )x' Lr`+ ~- 4 ~ 1 .,x ~{ 4ry. N ' f 1.. ~5 I -.. a {; a if 5_ ix,L. - pl I. 1 ". 4~~. { 'r~ r1 ~.1`,ir r - `" - 1 t19Jt. -t. '` .~. J :~ tL , ~ la e r~ J ~ti~F'}unL` r~~i; ~ fi~(4i k~~~ a, L~ ~ ;. t } ~:, _ -~ b {. r Y~I'^` .A{' ,• r terr< <<~i.t' r r - ~., f t .t~; JJ T ,fit i SLAr i +h. L 1 er~~!' i M''1. r~N S , f s.' ,~/~~ Y 9l . -i, 1 ,..r, L ICI -_i'I~ k ,sr 11 .J~F i {Y .'.'L .- `i.h !'"u i 1.-i'• fl.l ]1 t A ~J^ J S 1 i+ 1~'+!'".'~J7 ., IM e1 , ~ ~~ .l ~ .1 ~7~;1'ii~~`. rzf }IStI a ~y- ~ f~J~J ~ , ~ 31 J r }., ' d ..~.al.? LL: ~. 1!,~p r ^~~F { Fr .# ry , ~ k. ~ ~ b ~y ~~. ' ~ x4 r .,~ + + ') 7 d' °r`lt 1 ,. J r ° R y '~' t rt J e L i.r t ~ ;, , ' 4 ~ .s : J .1r F~ { ~'~' i.(1 4t ° 1 L .,ttxl~~~+. f. -S"sf , !e .r ~, ~. 1 ~ ,~. ~r Y k ~ +-s + ~' ra yy .. .~ r p t ~ -9~~, .C i fir... i' 1~ c ~ r 1 J ~ r ~' ' lt'.4' Y. 41 ~. Ir~ .~ t } . '.4J/ er a; 1 ~~Jr ...R t+.1.,y r ,,, a t'! ,, ~ $„f_ ~ L _ 2 r + -^`~' 4,r7.. , r5t., s'. 1 4 r x.: 1 5 CO ~' tr' `~ M 1 ~T ~' ~ ` a 11. ~ .r, 1 !w ~'4t, ail t~r. 9 ~.~ °;J. ~. x~l~A kyw ,.~ S .l. 1=1GURE 7. Map of the n~axlrnurn extent of snow or debn's avalanches in the Bridge Rand and r; .. - ~, west Lupine Drive area. ,Red (high hazard) and Blue (moderate hazard) zones are shown. Map ~ ~ ~ `° ~~ ~,:.:. , ;' ~ was produced from aerial photography fakers in ~i997, thus recent construction does not appear :,-_ ,' ` ' ~ > on the ,map. ?.._~ ._...,... _ SCALE: 9"= 1(10' _.~' .1~4~J' _._ - _ _ _- •~ - °..~ ,e.~ ~I r. ~ ~ ~ w~ ~. _ ~-- ~ - ___ ~ ,1 _ .._ _ - ~-- ---- --- -- ~_---- ~ r_.. • • • {-~^~1 W : ; , f a z• r z~ r r v r m ~ m r ~°' z~ r ~ ~ .z~ ~ s r r r v r r r z~ ° ~ F r ° r ° ,~- r te ~ in m°Q ~ m° a rn m s°ri [o rn v y in ni ~ rn i in i ra > in m <n cn > in " rn in ' <n vi~ in ' s ~ ui > rn ~ ri ~ sn u a v ~ `vi i rn r. - v m m rr r rn rn '~ G' r t o - h s c c t fY S i 2 z z S S S _ Z T S 2 = S S S Z x S _ . ~ z = S . 2 b V LL ~ N m R ^ m m ~ 3 a x LL 3 ~ - m w. u, ~ m 4f m LL N A m '~ O Q - ~ LL _ a LL C n a ~ m m ~U m m d GI ~ ,~ m L s N U C 4 d 4 ~ ~ v d a ~ o d v, ~ w m fl n m v v a 'v p m ] Z d w 4 LL LL p a` .`o ~ u w ~ ' m t i ~ so ii n ~ c i .~ b a m io a m 0 ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ m C7 O p m 4 ar I~ m d m ~ 0 0 0 c L L ~ e c a q P X11 rA D. 4 m 0 m o a Q1 m O U rn *La lii U .i g' m c c ^ T T S 1 2 Z 2 Z ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ r E '4 y T Z T 2 S i S S Y = m U `v F C m ~ ~ - ~d N c ~ '~ y m N ~ ~ ~ £ m io O R ~ O 4 m O 0. m H 2 x a w a[ m m m V W u V V V V' s 'i N ~ 6d '~ W m 3 d 3 ~ W d m ~ d m d 0l U m i m - a _ d - m m _ e 7 r m ~ b ~ ~ m °' ~~ y ~ ~ a: a o a a m n-w o m w 0 m P 0 m ° o c c c o m c c m n o m `a o ~v ~ ~u ~ n o n a~ m _ ca _ ~ u ~ o !~ n 0 ~v ,o 0 m v 0 Q ~ = z ~ ~ z z a a eti a a a a a z < z a e a a a e e a c c 4 LL O knV a a r _ ~ ~ [a ¢ ~ E ~ N a ~ 1-_ r O m O o[ [-- m N 6 m vi ~i m ~ ~ u"i ~ o -- iQ w 16 °_ A rn ~D Q ~ r ~ a a a ~ M ~ r~ ri v ~ us - r- ur c® ~ ~ w w o ~ W ~ Sri iri in N ~ a 0 m 9+ ~ N ~ V y, 6 +O ~ ~ a ~ A o 1O A eU ~ ~ ~ W ~ m { tN'J e lT W ~ ~ Q; ~ ~ ~ O 4 W ~ G? ~ ~ j lp v O ~ '- - rv ni P r~'e fv N m to v C) fn +f V [T V 01 O N W OI o ~ ~ ~ N 7 ~ re ~ cn rR K ¢ ~ ~ a ~ ¢ ~ K w LL w ~ LL yr :L vi LL yr ti- cn a m tl w LL rn LL w a mi e ±n e rn a to O. Q a s o_ t a _ o _ o _ ~ _ o ' a _ O c a -" C c .4 ... _ c a n `o " p e tl .~. r _6 .' a d m d °~ d a d YJ d c 'b d c O a c "O a C 'aa d ab v 4 v a a cocd~ d es Q N N N N N N N N N N Q N a N s N ~ .~ N .o u' - ~ ~ ,Z $ X $ 2 ~ 2 ° ' 2 ~ ~ ~ 2 t ~ ~ - z -s V YS ° b ° ~ U C b b a ~ a 9 a G a a a b N a - eo N E Yn ~ f!] e N ~ N E N e ~ in N e r11 - fn ~ n VJ ~ a - rn a - vy a ~ p a C o a ~ a C o K C _ a C 0 a C 0 ¢ C o .g H O .n ,Q r O ~, . ~ 'y -°~, ~~ E O O O O O t ~ O F L O V ~ c ',c .2 .2 .2 N'. .2 2 ~2 .G .~ .~ ~~ P P b F} P ~ G9 c ~ m ~ m m m Of m ¢ m - _pu m T m - L a+ m 90 m W m ~ m Gf m L ~+ W ~ Kl ~ N a fn a (~ a UJ a U7 a 'U1 9 uJ V ° 47 A ~ L ~ L r~ °~ ua rp ~ 4A E , A d N ~ N ~ ~ o ry o a ~ D O o u A P P ~ e ~ 4 YJ E L s C c G .C ~ E ~ a n T o O> Ot ~ `o m m {'~ r m m m ® m 4 m m m ¢ m of m m m m ~m a m ai ~ m -% ~ ~' m ~ ~ ~ rsl .~ m ai F] Oi _ m Oi m a+ i'P '.. m o m ~ Ci N i0 r-i ' Q a m ~ m ~ m ~ N N m Q a .rs ass rri n ri rti o u'i ro ~ ac as _ Y 1 0 0 0 ® O O O O O D O O o [i P 0 0 9 J O O D ~ O O J 0 o ~ B i S 2 ` > ` s j .2 ~ m ? o ? ` m ? 8 m 2 o m .~ v .~ o v .2 ` u ~ ` m a ~ m 2 ~ m .~ ~ m .~ ~ m 2 ` m 2 n m 2 o m 2 ~ ' a m ~ ro ~ ro s m .~ m .z c m 3 o '~ C _ Q L n t n m tl r ~ C m m o gym, a _ 7, n m m _ ^ m - o m - m - m - c N - d - n m - m ~ m - v m II m a m a m _ ~ m - N - m ~ 1 t ~ ~ J _ ~ _ J 4 6 _n IR ~ m - - _ a PJ L7 N ii5 [D W f< [D 1+ r- r~ r 6 ~~ tT. t~ J P ^ J C J Y~ J ti 4 -J W J ti6 OF J ~ J rc J b ~ 40 ~ N a8 N ~ ~ b C9 tD ~ d of M 9[ M 41 rJ p[' t+i~ 4i M. Qr M Q1 ~ Q1 r1 4Y rY n) °, [~ W ~ r rF1 .. m ~ m e9 ~[ ~ ~ 1+ of I~ RI t0 r7 ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ n W Ti n v ~ ~ O D _ ~ m n ~ w ~ m 5 E ~ E rs ~ ~ T _ LL E E ti zi c ~ 3 ~ ~ r ~ ii a w a MILTON R. BLOWN 2435 CLL~ITON ROAD ROCIQaORD, ILLW015 61103 July 18, ~QQ1 The Town of Vain Community Development Department 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Attention: Ann Kjerulf Subj: Subdivision proposals for Bridge Street `" Dear Ms. Kjerulf: On two occasions I have discussed with you the subdivision proposals for lots located on the south end of Bridge Street. It seems to me that this particular area is not appropriate for the construction of residences. The area is very steep as it rises with the mountain and many of the trees that shape the natural beauty of East Vail would have to be removed. I would think that it could also destabilize the land in an already avalanched designated area. I would appreciate it i# the Planning and Environmental Commission would take these factors into consideration. Very truly yours, Milt Brawn i ~~ ~ , n ~~ ~ ~ a ~ $ ~ ~'t s ~ ~~ K ~ ~9 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ 1 ~_ ~ ~~ c+~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ z~ 6 a $~` 1 ~ ~~ M ~~ ~ ~ ,t,. R ~ 1 x ~ 4 b ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 fj ~ ~! 9 d ~ ~" ~ ~ ~~ rts ~~~~~ ~ E ~ 'i~ p~ C ~ ~~ r~ ~ a M ~ G~ ~~~ ~ ~..r' ~~~~ `,;., ~~a ~~ ~ a H ~~ ~p 7% s ~~ r 3 r~ ~~~ ~ ~9 e ~ {~ c !~ ~ -~ i~ i r' K ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ s ~~ ~~ ~q ~3 ~~ s ~ ~~ ~ a a'~~~ y ~+ ~ G ~~ ti~ p~~ ~`~ ~~ a ' ~.~ a~,Y ~~g~ ~~ ~ $~•~ ~~~~ }r ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ti s l~~~ ~~ Y ~~ I {i ~~y ~# ~~ Y~ ~~ a 9 W ~~ r~- j `'. -~,. 1 +~ rjf 1 r rfl f ~ 7 t f ~~,,, j ~! 1tr i ~. ~ 1 ~! fr 1 j t ~" M t Y J ~ ~ ~~, ~~ ~qa ~~~ ~ `~' ~~ A ~-- ~ ~h~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ °'~,~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~-, ~ Ate o ~ ~=' ~~ ~~ f R 1^41 L~ ~ ~ om-xo~oo `xauno~ ~'I~~''3 `zlvA .~~ ~ie-O,L " ®~ ~ F ~- lQOLLIQQI~ Q1~iOp3S ISOISIAIQffI1S I~[?IpH~IB g w R] _ 7I d.01 ~ #. ~ o ,I.Ituts~at~ cit~F4 ~IHdI~?3~Od0,I, ~ "~ ~ -+ s.~ e~~~ e q~3 ~~~ 8~~ff f ~~O 3~~~ ~rv~~ ~~~z ~f~~ ~~~~ 4i +/3 ~~`~ m ~ O Y J n J \ • 7 ~ C_ ~~ ~ ~ p~ F a ~~ 4 • €~ • `'- R gg ~~ ~ S~ ,/ f ~~ iii ~'a of ~ /~ \ ~ ,~Ir ~~ R ~ ~~ / ~ ~~~~~ ~~ a ~~r r ~ .~ ~ ~-~ ~ a .~ y ~1 'i Q !~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ f~ ;~ ~i~~t A ~i ~s ~ i~ ~~' ~i~~ a ~A~x~ ~~3 d ~~ " ~i ~~a ~~ ~~ ~ ~g ~~ E ~~~~~~ ~~ ~Y ~~ ~~ ~Fgg~ ~~~ ' g ~s ~i~ ~9 sY ~Ef~ t~~~.~ ARTHI~R I. tME~4RS, P.E.. INC. 1Vaturai HazarcU Cor~ulrants 22? Fau Gothic Avc. Cxmni,on, Calaadio 8 ~ 230 303 ' b4I -3236 V ' gctcber 31, 1~~(7_ Mr. Er~an Hobbs Vail Rssociates Real Estate P . q . Bc~x 7 Vail, Cq 81558 Darr Mr. Hobbs: ~,. _ ~ -, - - t ~~ ~. The enclosed analysis t~f roc;~fall, snow avalanche, and debris avalanche affecting Lot 1~,, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition *.~as completed as we discussed earlier this month. Please contact me if ydu have ary questions or desire additional consultation. S3*-cerely, Arthur I. Dears, P.E. Avalanche-control engineer Encl. r. { , - ,~ ~~ r ~ngineerirtn ROCRFADL, g~1OW AY~ii~A3~tC$E, AND DEBRIS AVALANCHE ANALYSIS I~flT ? 1, BIGHOR'Y SDSDI~TSION, SECOND AI)DITIOi1 Prevarad Faa MT. Eryaa Hobbs Prepared By Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc.. Gunnison, Colorado October, 199+0 • • SI1Mi~iA_~Y AND REC®I~lEND~,TIONS Lat. lI is exposed to rockfall, snow avalanches, and debris avalanches aver the entire area of the lat. IIesign-magnitude events, which m~:st be considered in planning and engineering, have bee;a considered in this analysis. 'The design ROCK?~LL event, based on field observations and a cflmputer simulation of rockfall, will consis~ of a 3-foot diameter rock which becomes detached and begins rolling at the limestone cliffs, mare than 300 feet above the building site. At the building szte, this rock will have a velocity of roughly 70 ftJSecand (~8 mph) and will be bouncing at least 13 feet a:oove the ground. Such conditions require ranking the site as potentially Hiah Hazard Rockfall. Mitigation of rockfall ccauld be achieved only by cons`..ruction cf a catching fence immediately above the building site. However, such canstructiQn would oat be. practical because of the snow and delaris avalanche exposure described below. The design SiICiW AVALANCHi event will begin approximately 50o feet vertically above the building site (north end of Lot 11), will fall over the limestone cliffs and reach the building site at approximately 5fl mph velocity. Stagnation pressures of such an event will exceEd 1,0(30 lbsjft2. Such hig:~ pressures define the building site as lying in a aotentzally Hiah H zard Snow r Ito ~~~.~ n.. i .... ... ~.., Avalanche area.. In accordance with Town of a~.l~~crdinance, building is not permitted in high-hazard areas. The design DEBRIS AVAr•~~'CHr event will begin on the. steep slopes below the limestone cliff, will entrain wet snow, soil, rocks, trees, and other vegetation, and may deposit up to 15 feet deep at the building site. Although velocities and pressures are less than those associated with snow avalanches, impact with a structure will be complicated by debris entrained into the flow. MITIGATION of the rockfall, snow avalanche, and debris avalanche can be achieved o~~vo~.~,ance. At this site i.dance could be achieved by bu~idin~underground~iri'i:~7°~l:~i~' illsit3e anci~ ~~"~ forcing the slope 'pr®cesses •~o p'ass over the building. Some residual risk would be *.naintained, however, because the pets©ns one wishes to protect may not be inside the specially-designed structure when the design event .occurs. • 1 c73J3CTiv~~ r~~iD LItiiITATIQNB OF STUDY a. Analysis and computation of rockfall hazard pn the lower portion cf Lot 11; Via. Analysis and computation of snow avalanche hazard on the lower pcrtian of Let 3.1; and c. Analysis and computation of debris a~ralanche hazard on the lower portion of Lot Il. The study is site specific, therefore th,e results and conclusions should not be applied to other sites. Furthermore, although the analysis presented in this repast does prnvide analytical and quantitative descriptions of the rockfall and avalanche processes, design parameters far structures have not been provided and are beyond the scope of the present study. This analysis of "design-magnitude" roekf ail, snow avalanche and debris avalanche an Lat J.1, was requested by Mr. Bryan Hobbs of Vail Associates Real Estate and has the following objectives; • 2 ROC~ILZ ANr~LY8I8 0 2.1 PREVY~?L7S WORK As indicated on aerial-photra mapping completed for the Town of Vail in 1984, Lot 11 is located in a 1°High Severity'° rockfall area which was defined as follows; "Rock outcrops were thick ar ,numerous and more. than 100 feet above the hillside with significant fracturing and perhaps a large number of rocks or boulders at the base of a steep hillside...,' The Town oz Vail study states that additional studies an rockfall phenomena may affirm, negate, or require substantial revisiar_s to the findings of the Town study, including revisions to the hazard lines arzd severity definitions. ~~ U 2.2 ~L~R_~2ENT FIELD C}BSERVATIOhiS A field site inspection of the site was completed on October 23, 1990. Observations made during this site inspection are s~~mmarized below. a, The rockfall sources consist of a massive limestone outcropping located south and approximately 320 to 350 feet above the site. Rockfall may also begin on the steep, aspen covered cc~lluvial slope below the cliff, which has a lower terminus at the north end of Lot 11. i~ it it b. Rocks of vayicus sizes, up to 10-f¢et in diameter have rolled down the slope and over Lot lI in the past, however smaller racks up to 3 feet in diameter are typical cif thi s rockfall area. ~ ~t~''~ c, Rockfall is not a annu event at this location, rowe~~er same fresh rockfal was observed an the steep slope where rocks hati been stopped by trees. d, The slaps supports a dispersed aspen forest and has a rough surface; both factors were considered in ccr;puter simulation of rockfall at the site. 2 , 3 Si?~Z7I~1TIC7~T P_i+1f~ OUA~7TIFICATZrJN QF Rs~C~~'~LL 0 ~i ~i G 7 r The rockfall process was simulated through application of the 'TColc~rada Rockfall Simulation Program," (CRSP) , a computer program. that computes rockfall velocities, bounce heights, and runout distances given input data about slope steepness, roughness, and hardness. 'The CRSP model treats rockfall as a stochastic process in which a large number of simulated rockfalls of a given size achieve various velocities, bounce heights, and runout distances, just as they do in nature. In modeling racks at Lot 11, a 3-foot diameter rack was assumed, and lOQ rocks of this size were rolled (by CRSP) down the slope to produce a statistical range in rockfall behavior. This computer model has been tested extensively and is used regularly in design of rockfall mitigation in Glenwood Canyon. In application to the rockfall affecting Lot 1I, slope steepness was measured, and estimates of slope hardness and roughness were obtained by climbing the steep colluvial slaps to the limestone source area, The program was run and input parameters were adjusted so that the observed distribution of rockfall stopping pasa.tians clang the Bridge Raad cul-de-sac was duplicated. The theoretical CR5P model, therefore, was forced tQ simulate what has actually Qccurred at the site. Because rockfall behavior at the building site located an the north end of Lot 11 is of interest, an "analysis paint" was chosen at this laeatian far generatir~n of rockfall statistics by the GRSP model. "Exceedance pre~babilities" of 5, 10, and 2{~$ were used to determine the design rock behavior, This means that, according tc~ CRSP, there are 5, 10, and 20~ chances that the fallowing values will be exceeded by a 3-foot diameter rock. TABU 1. Design Rockfall Characteristics Exceadance P Velocity Bounce Ht Kinetic Energy 5 ~ 10 ~ 20 79 ftfs 19 ft 225,94 ft-lbs 76 ftJs 16 ft 2Q9, 3.55 ft-lbs 69 ft/s 13 ft 172,401 ft-lbs Inspection c~ Table 1 indicates that the smaller probabilities correspond to higher ve~.ocity, higher energy, and higher bouncing rcc!~fall events. However, even the least conservative (20$) roc?cfall has large velocity, energy, and bounce heights and would be difficult is design for at this site. Appendix A at the back of this report contains the detailed data generated 'cy the CRSP rackfall model and will enable alternate values of exceadance probabilities to be used for design :urposes, if desired. 3 sNDW-~,V~x+iCH~ AL'7~-LYSIB :s , 1 PRE~IIDIIS WC`RK not 31, is located in an "avalanche influence zone" an Town of Vail maps produced in 1917. This designation means that avalanches are tht~ught to affect the site, but that the avalanche process has not been quantified to determine the level of severity or potential hazard. 3.2 CU?RFt~'NT FIEI.,D OBSERVATIONS As noted in Section 2.2, the slope was climbed on October 23, 1990. During' this site inspection, clear evidence of snow avalanche impact immediately below the limestone cliff indicates that avalanches have begin above the cliff and fallen on the lower slope. In addition, observations indicate a sufficiently dispersed forest which will also allow small avalanches to begin. within the trees below the limestone cliff. Damage to the trees, including brol~en limbs, bent main stems, and debris aligned dawn slope suggest periodic avalanche activity, 3 . 3 A~vALY5IS A3VT~' DrtaNmTr ICATI(~N OF SNL)W AVALANCHES, The design-magnitude ("10o-year") avalanche, an event usually considered in planning and engineering of fixed facilities at Vail., was analyzed by the following 2-step procedure. a, Avalanche runaut distance, or stopping position, was determined through application of a statistical regression equation based on 112 documented rare approx. 100-year} avalanches studied in CDlorado. b, Avalanche velocities along the path profile were then computed through application of a 2-friction- dynamics m©del given a starting position above the limestone cliff and a stopping position, determined in step "a," at the intersection of Lupine prive and Bridge Road. • ~J • The computed design snow-avalanche velocity and stagnation pressure at the budding site on Lot 11 az'e summarized in Table 2. TA3LE 2. Design Snow Avalanche Characteristics velocity: 22.5 m/s (5a mph) utagnatior, Pressure: 51.1 KPa (1,ab8 lbs/~tZ7 Appendix B at the end cf this report contains the detailed computations cf the avalanche-dyna~uics analysis, The pressure computed at the building site (3,068 lbsfft~} is ,~ substantially in excess cf the maximum pressure allowed in snow- avalanche "Blue" zones by Town of Vail ordinance, which allow up to 615 lbs/ft`. This means the building site, located at the northern end of Lot 11 is in an avalanche "Red" zone, an area in which residential construction is not permitted by Vail ordinar:ca . ~ DEB3~I$ ~,'G'AL~NCHES 4.3 PREVIOUS WORK As indicated in a 1984 report to the Town of veil, Lflt 1.3 lies within a high-hazard debris-avalanche area. Such areas are defined in the Vail study as follows: "These (high-hazard debris-avalanche) areas can experience severe structural damage by impact. and deposition ar wet snow, sail, rock, and debris." Building within these areas is not recommended by the Town of Vail unless mitigation can black the flaw, thereby reducing the area of debris avalanche runout and preventing these events from reaching the proposed development. 4.2 C'UR.RENT FIELD OBSERVATIONS Field observations made during the October 23, 1990 sate visit indicate the steep slope above Lot 33 shows past evidence of debris avalanches, Such evidence consists of undulating (lobe- shaped} deposits and unsorted debris. The slope is similar in terms of slope, soil, and vegetation, to several that produced debris avalanching during the rapid thaw which occurred in the Vail area during May, 1.984. 4.3 POTENTIAL DEBRIS-AVALANC:HF CQNDITIUNS Debris avalanches will be much slower-moving that the snout avalanches described in Section 3, consequently they will not travel as far into the runout zone. Nevertheless, Lot z1 is steep and debris avalanches will crass the entire lot. Based can i observations of many similar avalanche events in the Vail area. during 2984, debris avalanches will consist of wet snow, soil, rocks, and entrained aspen and other vegetation, consequently they would have a very high flaw and deposit density. At the building site, deposits of up to 15 feet thickness could occur which would produce vertical pressures of SCI lbs/ft~. aynannic thrust for debris avalanches that stop in the cul-de-sac about 50 feet below Lot 11 could reach 25 KPa (520 lbs/ft2). Although this is less than the design snow avalanche pressure discussed in section 3, impact may be even mare damaging than that associated with snow avalanches because the flw will contain tree trunks and racks which can carve as battering rams an exposed structures. The present study, therefore, concurs with the "High-hazard" ruing far debris-avalanches defined in the Town of Vail, study. Residential construction is not permitted in high-hazard areas. 5 MITIGATION Details of mitigation design are be_ycnd the scope of this study. However, the following points should be considered if mitigation is to be considered at this site. a. Surf ace buildings (with exposed uphill walls) will not be practical because of high impact loads and would be in violation of Vail ordinance. b. Surf ace avalanche/rockfall defense structures, intended to stop avalanches and rockfail above the building site, would not be practical because of high impact loads. c. Certain types of underground construction which would avoid impact loading may be feasible; but ?n.ay be undesirable from the standpoint of building design and/ar appearance. Rep rt prepared by, Arthur I. Mears, P.E, Avalanche-control engineer • • LGL_f.°1F;;~Lil:~ riL~l.f~'F~iI...L ~?I"iUl_ATZQ4V ~'Rr1~Fir'aM F;,QQf•;: STHT I ~~T i CS Q."' ;' LL ai='F~Eri? CF~L ~:iQi~k~ : i . ~ FT F:~ ~~ I L1E hdUr~1~E., CF CEi_La 7 ~NA.L4`~~~ F~aszTZ~ra .-~~.> IN~C1T DATA II`JITI~L Y ZOI'JE 7{?.~ TCp 7i~ IiJXTi~L X VELOCIT`a` 1 FTJ~EC ih-IITI~L '~' 'Jt*~_ QCI T Y -1 =T/QEC T~h~GE~J7IAL h•iQF;r~IAL SUF'Ff~CE. ~:.QE~ r` I ~~ i i=i••I T CQ~FF I r ? EPdT ~EQ ~ r~dnl I ~v Ei'~kD 1: hdl= CELL ~ F,C~!J~ H~JESS F~E T I TL}T I Gr•~ k , Y ::. Y R 1 i ~ ~ ,~.. ~ v l,l ~_5 ~ ~ ~ _i J ~ c yy ~.~ ~: J,~ ~ ,~+y+~J ~~ r , - _a _, ~_._ _f. y ~~ A~ ~NI1I:C A. Rack=all sim•~latian using CRS. A-1 ~y 3a 47 -Y :4 ..~ 4 tJ t C'" ~ •G c3 ~ ~ ~ ~ N Tj ~ a a O G .r{ U c3 N ~ ~ FS ~ ~ ~ 7 .^.,... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ .r~ ~ U1 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ cd N U d `va 1' ~~ y ~~r. N ~ ~ ~ ~ a _~_ 7 ~ ~ U3 ~ <C ,sue' C"" O O -.~ 1.t~ •~s'' ~~ EIL1=~[~~LE~ ISrFuI'~'~Z"````habb~>. 1 f'!~ X 1 N!IJi~'! UELQ~ T T'r ~'S ET I SEC '~1VEFi'r^,l~E VELL7CIT~' ~2 FT/5EC i"'1=NIh,Ut'I VELi~CITY `~ FTiSEC "f ~+fv Ei A F.' TJ L'~ E'r' I ~« T i "u [`~l { t~1 E L ~ C I i'r' i 4 . ~r 1 ,~'JERr;I~c. E~~~}. L;f~ICE He. .I ~EHT ~` FE~T N1~ n I {~~_~!"1 ~~~~:~~~ !"~~_ I ~~I"{T ~ }, dr' EET i~lr-,~Ih2UM F~::Ii~~Ei IC, E,dEnE~'r' ~~~:^1~ FT L HCUNC= 1-iE l to r ~ ., , ~~=f ~ ~--~ r ~ ti Z~ 7~ I7 r '~ 1 J '}~ 7 i], .f - Y 1 '? 1I ~' 1 +:~ 9 ~ ~' d Y -'r Y 7 t]. -;t n Y 1 7` i"~ FRE~E!ENC'~' 8 r ~ ~" .-n ' 4 ; .: i ~C r ~~ r=~I~a~L'~'E I S F°~~ I ~1T ~~l:lJl`iCE HE I Snl' Ire I STFr I iU T I ON i ~ e.ccao rnce probz=lit; C~_~) FciE~L~ENC `Y' r NF=LYSIS.rF'CIP~T ~tEL;~~~IT'~f CIS T F;I~'~CfT! CSC`! C LL~Ll.?~ .Z! L C rr~~'~ ~ E ~ £L"t rrL Cr~C~tC~~r a VE} OC I T l~, ' ~' r ~r? r~r'r~ ~~~ ~ fi ~ ~~ lfl~ exceeda_nce probability (typ~ J~ ~ li S.~ St~.tistic~i i+n2"csrmation ow rock velocity 2nd bouncy height generated at the "ana' ysis peint'° (nuildi n; site . A -3 FILE fd~C'IE: `.rcck:si. ~e'~.f°sc~~~, 1 E~C3UNCE ~CiLl~~l~v HEIGFrT iaR~F'H ~EZ~ ~. J ~~ + r 7 ~.'~ +~ ~ J" L l~ 1~ ~ 1 1 l~ ~1~ =~ L-~`C ~CCCCCC r`C CCCr~-rC 1;- .~ 'rrLrr-rr-rrr; ri-rr~ _r1_~.C 1 ~ .; rr C:, r~Ct t-CLC!"fLC~"CC~L'-L"? '~' ¢ CCiCC C?d'rrCiC"?CCCF'r~'+"Cr_C+CLCCC ? r' CCCC C~ CC C? C~ CCCCCCC~ Cc CarCCCCCrCCC CCC w~J ~ ~CCCrL rL '-C rL rc it rL CCCrrI'i f( '`d'L' _f ~rCL~L rCClr~ -- .~ri'CCCCC'"C,''CCCC CC CC C C CCi I'CCCC !`~'CrC ~rC CC CCC L C C C C ~~. ~CC~'C : C~ ~ CC ,= CCC, CCCCCC C~"C~'CCCC ~ C~:'CC : CCCCCCCZCCCCCCC i;r Il=jF X16 ~4 4=.~ S~? ~4° nI~F' I ZCl~ll'~L ~ I ST~i~IC~ +' '~``LL~' I TY GF;AF Fi ~,~~~~ c z ~-'~ H7 91 ~ !' ~v ~ CL C C C CL'" ?'~ ~ rCCCC CC 'C C ~~ r_CL'L C ?.' •~' C CL rC LL'CLLL•r``CL-LLLC~L b ~' ~ CCC CC _ CC~ ~_CCc"4 CCL CCC L' `~C C_CC c_C!~ ~*? ~' CLLLLL~:~LLCit4CzCLCCC±;.+.`L_`LLLLLa.C ~5 ~' !'C±LL~iL'CLCCC~CCtLLtCCCCt:. !'CCL'L'CC ~~: .~ ~ C~ C CL'C L'L~C ? CCCCC CCC CrrC -CC`ri' -r{', i'[ 4.~ 7~ C L CC L ? C C CCC CCCCC, CCC CCCCCC '`CCCCL'rCCCC''C -? ~CC~'CCCCc`~~CCC~ t'CC C!~CC~ CCCC~ C~ C ~ L~C C!'CCCCCCC CC =1 -fC'C..C'C=CtCC'_'.,CCLCrCCtCCt'CLCCL`.,GCCCCL~C~CCr'~r~i!' l~t:}~ ~l~ ~y4 4~°~' S~1 6~9 ha~I Z~]id T ~L DISrr~l'.ICE' ~ouncn hezghts 2r_d velocity cii st~llautic~ns along slope pro~ile . A -4 • FILE tdFt'~E. •..rccl::site`°.~a~as.l iFTiS LC? (FTiScC? ~ -~- ~ ~ r 1I '-F -~ ~C.) c~ ~ _ J ~7 ~ u._ ~ is iP ? h~U F:UL4;5 F'ASSEJ F'^~N7 n li`.ITcFi'Jt=;L FiuC~::S S7C,F•F'EI7 .?? C:i 7 Cl ~`E~_:~ FEET ~ T9~:~ T^ 4•c it i FEET `? ~}~:;c:~ TU ~~ i. ~ ~ FEET 5 ~ 1 t? T^ 4.~Cr FEET S C?,~t_i I L ~%C i FEE j c 4~t:y TLS 4~9c:; F~=T ~ ~t~i r Tt~ U 1+:~ Fc~T ~, 51?f ^~e:i T D TU ~2t:? ~.° C; Fc.-T FEET 1 5'"t i TU ~=#.tj FE~,T =} c4c; T^ ~~t:i FEET "` 5~c_; TU ` ~i6c:; Fr=ET 5bt`i 1 D 57r:i FEET 59t:i TCJ ~S't:> FECT i STFihI~r~F~ DEV~A°rl++^hd ~`~r uc z T•~ ~ - ~. ~1 1 C? , 7 t 1 . ~ J 1 1 , t:i 4 ~. ~ ~~JEF;(-~u= E~OiJ~lCE HE=t~Hi (FTi c~ E 7 M{=tX i C'IL1t~3 ~"C~UC`It:E ~~z~~~T ~~ ~ ; 1 Y ,~, r. ~~~ S ~.tistics of raakfall behavior at various paints that ss~bdivide the s' ape prafa? e, and c3istributiQn of stappin~ positiar_s of rac?ss used to validate use of t;:e C;RS~ model at t;zis lacatian. A °5 ~~~ s ~7~ HC]=DS H"+1F~LA~CHE: East r,~a_ L , Col arado SE.Ei'i S~`dF' E`JT LEt~IGTH (m) lJT GATA hPdGLE !"l_J _ _ ~ , t~ ~r 4~:~ r~,-r~ vE~©crTZE~ SEaMENT Vttdp} V(br~ttgm) 1 ~_T, is m/s 14. ~ m/s E 34.4 mfs ?1.8 mis 4 "~~~~.6 m/s ''1. ; mIs 5 `~1.6 mss ^1.9 m/s " ~ "'1 . 9 ~ I4.5 m%s m!s `^. a mfs ~9,° mis 8 9.4 m/s 1.5 m/s ;~ ~~ f ~L ?rte ~ ~ ~. i w~ ? ~t~le C Avalanci~~ aces ndt stop- P"I/D (m) 1~1 ~~ ! 111 1'1 1T1 i. 1 ==~zy!~L~ ~. Iteration ar:alysis used in calc~.~?ating sncW-a~~alanche ve~.ocities a?.ong, statzstlcally-dete~•ni.ned. runo~at path (1), and detazled prinout o~ velocities along the dose pro#`ile., (2~. Enter Hama o. -r:ile w=t,`t ~:ra~ile and friction co?fficient data. \praco\dc~as Erster f i rs ~ g~_~ess for mass/drag rati a .;'ra ~d1CUZ~~iOn prCC4?s5 is ~'C~lrtlnC. • : tarot i on iteration come 1 cte w], 4.h F~~r_rn ccmcZets with F;~cn Cud C~~tt Error r Error = BC and 47 and Mass-Drag Mass-~ F<ati b = F . ~_ i ~r_, 1 terati ^n CCmC Z ter'; SV: t~, F.~:n C.~ut Error = ~'' and ,ra~ f"ass-Grog ;a.tio = Ratio = i ?^ iteration iteration com{~ I e* w, tt~ Ro_cr ccmale~e with Faun Cut Gut Error = Error r 1 1 anq 5 Mass-Dr-aG +;at i o ~ 14c iteration ccmcrie'~e ;with F~~:r~ Ciu- Error = and '~ and Class-Drab Mace-C~rac~ F~atio = Ra~.c = ~, ,7 1 tzra~zon Gampr.itatz c ccmcZe~a with Rirn ns were te+~i na:t="d . C~ct Error = 1 and Mass-Drag Ratio = 1 _ 1~ Measured Fi nn Cut Di stv nce = -?~ . i~ d~etres Ccmcuted R ~:n L~~;t Distin~~e = ?~.. ~ ,metr-es . Mas=-~rac Ratio = 1'1 met res Veloczties at tMetop and b c tiar~ fen each e2gment i n metresleec. are ,a3 ~u',Z- 1 . r_~ ^ ~ - [[ yy ''!! . ~ ! 14 , ~ .:. .1. . G I T ~r~f / .`~f~" . J i ^f_ rl 'T I .'9 • L ^1 1 r y Pr eG~ any l~:e}~~ to continue B -1 • MEf1lIORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRiOM: Community Development Department DATE: August 27, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within required setbacks, located at 5122 Grouse Lane I Lot 7, Slock 1, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: John Kuchar, represented by David Irwin Planner; Allison Ochs ~. DESCRIPTIQN ~F THE REQUEST The applicant, John Kuchar, represented by David Irwin, is requesting a variance from Section 12-6D-6 (Setbacks} to allow for an addition in the required front setback, located at 5122 Grouse Lane. In addition, the applicant is also proposing to relocate the entry staircase. This also requires a setback variance, as the proposed staircase is located in the setback further than allowed by the Town Code. However, the applicant is removing a large portion ofi the existing entry stairway and decking. Gore Creek Subdivision was platted in Eagle County in 1989. The area was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1974. Information regarding the original construction of the house in unavailable- However, when the house was originally constructed, it was built over the property line and portions of it were constructed into the right-of-way. The Town of Vail vacated that portion of the right-of-way with encroachments by Ordinance No 21. Series of 1989. Ordinance No. 21 states, "The owner shall be obligated to maintain the vacated roadway Arad to keep it in good repair. 1Vo additional structures shall be placed upon the real property, except for the purpose of replacement of the existing structure." In 1991, a garage was constructed on the property, accessing off of Black Gore Drive and providing additional required parking. A portion of the required parking is currently located in the right-of-way. The applicant is proposing to add a new entry feature to the house. While there is no new GRFA proposed, the applicant is proposing additional roof overhang which encroaches 14 ft. into the required 20 ft. front setback (6 ft, from property fine). The existing building encroaches 12 ft. into the 20 ft. setback ~8 ft. from property line). According to the Town Code, roof overhang can encroach up to 4 ft. into required setbacks. In addition, the applicant is proposing to relocate the stairway which leads from the parking in the right-of- way to the entry to one of the units. In conjunction with this relocation, the applicant is proposing to eliminate a large portion of the existing deck. This deck is also currently nonconforming with regards to setbacks. According to the Town Code, decks and stairways can encroach up to 5 ft. into required setbacks. U +, T(3WN Diw' PAIL ~i t II. STAFF 1RECON1iMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the setback variance to allow for an entry-feature addition within 1 D ft. of the property line subject to the criteria outlined in Section Vi of this memorandum and the following findings: That the granting of the variances does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the PrimarylSecandary Residential Cone 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 strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the setback regulations does result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the development objectives of the Town Cade or the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District, 4. 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. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the variance request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. That the applicant removes the parking located within the right-of-way. The applicant must provide a revised site plan indicating all required parking spaces prior to DRB approval. This may require fhe applicant to reconfigure the access to the units and revise the proposed stairway relocation. 2. That the applicant provides revised plans which indicate no new improvements located within Parcel A the right-of-way vacated by ordinance No. 21, Series of 1989} in accordance with Condition A, Section 1, of Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1989. 3. That the applicant submits an exterior lighting plan that complies with Title 14 and removes the flood lights in the right-of-way and any other exterior lights which do not comply to code. The exterior lighting plan must be submitted prior to applying far a building permit and shall be reviewed by staff. III. REVIEWING BOARD R©LES A. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict ar literal interpretation and 2 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 grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transporEation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B, The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8. 7. 8. 9. 1 a. 11. 12. IV. ZC3NING S 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 TATISTICS Staffi has reviewed the proposal according to the PrimaryJSecondary Zone District and the survey submitted. The analysis provides the following: ~.ot Size: 16,444 sq. ft. Zoning: Two-Homily Residential Hazards: none Standard Allowed Existing Proposed GRFA: 4,740 sq. ft. 3,906 sq. ft. no change Primary 2,759 sq. ft. 1,806 sq. ft. no change Secondary 1,981 sq. ft. 1,742 sq. ft. no change Site Coverage: 3,284 sq. ft. 2,711 sq. ft. 2,800 sq. ft. Setbacks.: Front: 20 ft. 14.4 ft. 6 ft. Roof 16 ft. $ ft. 6 ft. Deck 15 ft. 4 ft. 0 ft. Sides: 15 ft. 7 ft. no change 15 ft. 30 ft. no change Rear: 15 ft. 15 ft. no change 3 V. CRITERIA ANU FfNDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Reaardina the Variances, The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The existing building is non-conforming with regards to setbacks. Staff does not believe that the proposal wiU have a negative impact on existing structures and uses in the vicinity. The applicant is proposing to remove a significant area of decking that is currently non-conforming, and minimizing the encroachment both into the setback and the right-of-way by relocating the stairway. Staff believes that the proposed variance will have no effect on adjacent properties. 2. 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. Staff believes that the granting of this variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege. The existing building was built in the county and does not currently comply with setback regulations. The building was originally constructed partialEy within the right-of-way. In 1989, the Town Council passed Qrdinance N'o. 21, Series of 19$9, to vacate a portion of the right-of- wary. Staff believes that due to the existing configuration of the building, the granting of this variance would not. be a grant of special privilege. Any improvements the applicant would propose to the front entry would result in the need for a variance. f-lowever, staff believes that the design of the entry feature exceeds the minimum relief necessary to achieve the goals of the design, which is to provide an improved entry feature. In addition, Qrdinance No. 21, Series of f 989, included a condition that no new structure would be located in the portion of the right-of-way that the Town vacated. Staff believes that the roof should not encroach further into the setback than the existing roof (which is currently 8 ft. from the property line.) The existing roof is 8 ft. from the property line and there is currently 406 sq. ft. of roof area in the front setback. The proposed roof will be 6 ft. from the property line and there will be 551 sq. ft. of roof area in the front setback. There is currently 551 sq. ft. of deck area in the right-of-way and front setback. As proposed, the applicant will be removing 4i 8 sq. ft. of deck area from the front setback and right-of-way. in addition, staff is recommending that the applicant remove the parking from the right-of-way. By doing so, the applicant's access would be off of Black {sore Drive. This would then change the setback requirement (from 20 ft. to 15 ft.) for the proposed addition. Staff recommends that the applicant explore alternate locations for parking for the residence. There is adequate area off of the Black Gore Dr. access to construct additional parking or an 4 additional garage, which would not be within the setback. This access is granted via a legally established easement. Amore recent survey shows that there is no flood plain located on this lot, and the recently constructed access drive will allow for adequate access to this portion of the lot. Staff recognizes that a variance will be necessary for the applicant to improve the entry to the unit. However, the conditions of the Ordinance No 21, Series oft 989, must be met, which allows no new structure in the portion of the vacated right-of-way. Staff recommends that the PEC grants a variance to allow for an entry addition to encroach no more than t Q ft. from the property Fine. This will fulfil the terms of Ordinance No. 21 and allow the applicant to improve their property. 3. The effect of the requested variance an light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. There is an existing non-conforming situation with rogard to parking location. Currently, parking for the residence is located within the right-of-way, Cars often hang over into the street, making snow removal more difficult, In addition, the constrained space makes it difficult far fire trucks to turn around. Staff believes that as a condition of approval of the variance request, the applicant must provide a revised site plan indicating the removal of the parking and the relocation of parking on site. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantino a variance: 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 improvements in the vicinity- 3. 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. 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. 5 d a ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 -¢ ~~ ~~~ ~~ \ ~' i ~ _._-_~~ / ~ -~ ~'~- ~ - - 4 wA x W ~ o° ;•: -- :~=; - _~~.._ . 'v.3. ~~~~ ~~: - .4 ~,- ~~ ~v~tRS _ ~r 1 °- .x.~ _-] I • 1 I I~ ~ ~ fly ~ ~~~ ~ ~, .» X590 za ` ~_ $s ~~• ~ ~' o l' PINE 41 ~, 3' QINE 5 3' PINE 2.5 PINE ~ .~', L • ~ _ DVERHANG, SHED ~ ~ r l06 YR. FLOOD PL6pN - BELOW ~ 1 ~ - T. 4. Y. FLDOD INSURANC ~ +~ ,~+ ~. DECK ` \\, ~, 5 ASPEN r`0 /~ 2' ~ ~a&. 8' s 3~ ~s r 5• ASPEM `~ 2 ! p" ` /~ l ~r~ + ' i ti~ f I.©• P1NE5 ~ ~ 1 i~ 2 5TDRY WD00 FRAMED ~ TyP,) 4 °' T.D• PIME ~• RESIDENCE V` ( ~ ` V ~~/Yy ~ '~' DECK l4 ' 6UILDINfi 1 DYER HANG l l 5• PINE i' ~, ~ Q£ 3~ 6 ~ ~ ~1 W000 STAIRS ' ~~ ~- ~ _ _ f l S' PINE r -- - _ OI ~ ~5` PINE ~_ _ _ 'n~ _ 'aI ~ ___ _ - ~ ~3. ~ + ~~- ~~ ~ ~~9U1L09NG ~'+~^ ~ WALKWAY -\ 9 Z' '8~ -' / OVERHANG ~ ,/ 6 • ~Jo~/ ///i! / -•wAYER VdIYE ~ ~ ~ FNC PIN 8 CAP ~ ~ `~~_ ~~ PARCEL B ~ PC1h L S Nn 168GS - ~ B M. EL .= 859' 7 y ~ _ ~ ~ ~' ~' PINF ~-© 53. 59 ~ a ~ 64' FNp. PIN 8 CAP L.S. Nn. 168aa 'I ~ z ' 6~ wPDE TIM®ER PHONE BO% I ~ RETAINING WALL ~ a Tv CA@L FIRE ~BO7( ~ HYDRANT I ~ B~ ,. ~ ! ~, ~. SEWER MANHOLE r •r RIM ELEV.=`@6D9.9 ~~~ r~ / ~ _ ~~O ~~I~~I~ r ~~ r ,. ~ ~ ' R = 45.(J01 wood STArRS L =60.9~I /~~ ,~'/ yr ! LIGHT PQLE CH = N85°QU'4CI~W , 5~-3~~ J i~ i i i .f f ` , ` ~~ c`DGE DP PAVEMENT ~`~ ~\ f 1 C ~ \ ~ PHi~NE @4x I ~ \ 1 r ~ • MEMQRANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: August 27, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a final review and a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposed amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan to allow for a change from a "Low Density ResidentiaP' land use category to an "Open Space" land use category, located at 520E-5215 Black Gore Drive 1 Lots 1-7 and Lot 12, Vail Meadows Filing 2; and a request for a final review and a recommendation to the Vai! Town Council on a proposed rezoning from "Agriculture and Open Space" to "Natural Area Preservation District," located at 5205-5207 Black Gore Drive /Lots 1-4, Vail Meadows Filing 2. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson DESCRIPTION QF THE RECUEST C] This application involves two requested actions: ^ Amending the Vail Land Use Plan to bring certain land use designations into conformance with other elements of the Vaii Comprehensive Plan. ^ Rezoning Lots 1-4 within the Vail Meadows Filing 2 subdivision to bring the zoning into conformance with existing land uses and designations within the Vail Gamprehensive Plan. This application only involves lots owned by the Town of Vail_ No private lots will be impacted by the proposed rezoning and Land Use Plan amendments. Il. BACICGRaUND AND H15TORY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY Vail Meadows Filing 2 was approved by the Eagle County Commission ^n March 4th, 1074. With the subdivision approval in 1974, a significant number of residential lots were created within the 100-year floodplain and on slopes in excess of 40%. Subsequent annexation of the lots into the Town of Vail presented numerous conflicts between Eagle County and Town of Vail development and subdivision regulations. Over the past 25 years, multiple developers have explored development options on the lots with no success. • In 1986, the Vail Town Council adapted the Town of Vail Land Use Plan_ The Land Use Plan is a component of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. According to the Land Use Pian, Lots 1-7 and Lot 12 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. Private recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools, and club houses for the use of residents of the area are also included in this land use designation. Institutianaifpublic uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. In 1994, the Vail Town Council adapted 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; Ta 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 dedication to public use. In developing the plan, over 350 parcels were evaluated with 51 parcels recommended for specific actions. The recommendations were developed utilizing 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: 1. Protect sensitive natural habitat areas, riparian areas, and hazard areas; 2. Extend the Vail Trail to East Vail and add several trailheads to access the trail;. 3. Add a new trail on the north side and western half of Town to connect existing trailheads and neighborhoods; 4. 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; 5. Add bike lanes to the north and south frontage roads and add paved shoulders to Vail Valley Drive. The Town of Vail has taken action on aver 40 of the 51 parcels identiified for action in the Plan as of the drafting of this memorandum. The Action Plan and Priority Plan of the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identifies Lots 1 and 2, Vail Meadows Filing 2 as "Area 4$" far implementation purposes. Area 48 is an environmentally sensitive area and a high priority for acquisition and preservation. As a high priority classification, Area 48 meets "Level One 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 civic/public uses. As a resale of the findings within the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan, the Tawn of Vail recently purchased the remaining privately held lots within Vail Meadows Filing 2. In an attempt to attain the goals outlined in the plan, the Town is requesting a rezoning and Vail Land Use Plan amendment for Lots 1-4 and a change in land use category designation far Lots 1-7 and Lot 12 from "Low-density Residential" to "Open Space." The current zoning on Lots 1-4 is "Agriculture & Open Space." Under this designation, certain types of development (including single-family residences} are permitted. The proposed zoning far Lots 1-4 is "Natural Area Preservation District" (NAPD). Under the proposed NAPD designation, uses on the property would be restricted to nature preserves and passive outdoor recreation. Copies of the "Agriculture & Open Space" and "Natural Area Preservation District" zoning regulations have been attached as Exhibits A and B, respectively, far reference. III. STAFF REC©MMENDATION LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT The Department of Community Development recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission fonnrards a recommendation of approval of the proposed amendments to the Vail Land Use Plan, based upon the criteria for evaluation listed in Section V of this memorandum and the following findings: 1. The proposed plan amendment is consistent with the adapted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the Town of Vail's development objectives. 2. That the proposed amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the area. 3. That the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the public health, welfare and safety. REZONING • The Department of Community Development recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval of the proposed rezoning, based upon the criteria for evaluation listed in Section VI of this memorandum and the following findings: The proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and 3 policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the Tawn of Veil's development objectives, 2. That the proposed rezoning is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the area. 3. That the proposed rezoning is in the best interest of the public health, welfare and safety. IV. R©LES CJF THE REVIEWING BOARDS LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal and make a recommendatinrt to the Tawn Counci[ on the consistency of the proposed amendment with applicable review criteria and the policies, goals and objectives outlined in the Vail Land Use Plan and other applicable master plan documents. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB has NO review authority on Land Use Plan amendments. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to consistency of the proposed amendment with applicable review criteria and the policies, goals and objectives outlined in the Vail Land Use Plan and other applicable master plan documents. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible for fine! approvaltdenia! of a Vail Laird Use Plan amendment. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the consistency of the proposed amendment with applicable review criteria and the policies, goals and objectives outlined in the Vail Land Use Plan and other applicable master plan documents. ZdNINGIREZONING Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal and make a recommendatic~r~ to the Tawn Council .~ 4 on the compatibility of the proposed zoning with surrounding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impact on the general welfare of the community. Design Review Board: Action: The DRS has NO review authority on zoning/rezonings. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to cornpGance with the Zoning Regulations. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approvaf/denial of a zoning/rezoning. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibili#y of the proposed zoning with surrounding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impact an the general welfare of the community. V. VAIL LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATIONS: REVIEW CRITI=RIA FQR AMENDMENT General Qvervew of the Plan The Vail Land Use Plan was initiated in 1985 and adapted in t 986 by the Vail Town Council. The main purposes of the Land Use Plan are two-fold: To articulate the land use goals of the Town. 2. To serve as a guide for decision making by the Town. The Vail Land Use Plan is intended to serve as a basis from which future land use decisions may be made within the Town of Vail. The goals, as articulated within the Land Use Plan, are meant to be used as adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. In conjunction with these goals, land use categories are defined to indicate general types of land uses which are then used to develop the Vail Land Use Map. The Land Use Plan is not intended to be regulatory in nature, but is intended to provide a general framework to guide decision making. Where the land use categories and zoning conflict, existing zoning controls development on a site. To be effective, the Land Use Plan must be updated to reflect current thinking and changing market conditions. The Vail Land Use Plan can be amended in three ways: 1) The Community Development Department can update and revise the plan periodically. The Community Development Department then. makes recommendations for the proposed changes to the Planning and Environmental Commission, where these changes would then be considered in a public hearing format. The Planning and Environmental Commission would then make a recommendation to the Town Council, where another public hearing would be held. The Council then adopts the changes by resolution. 2) The Planning and Environmental Commission or Town Council can also initiate amendments to the Land Use Plan. Again, both boards hold public hearings and the changes are adopted by the Town Council by resolution. 3) The private sector can also initiate amendments to the Vail Land Use Plan. Applications may be made by a registered voter, a property owner, or a property owner's authorized representative. The amendments are then heard by both the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council. The Town Council then adopts the changes by resolution, LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION Current Land Use Plan Designation; Low Density Residential -This category includes single-family detached homes and two family dwelling units. Density of development within this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acre however, al[ of the adjacent residential uses exceed 3 dwelling units per acre. Also within this area would be private recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools and clubhouses for the use of residents of the area. Institutional /public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. Proposed Land Use Designation: Open Space -Passive recreation areas such as greenbelts, stream corridors and drainages are the types of areas in #his category. Hillsides which were classified as undevelopable due to high hazards and slopes over 4D% are also included within this area. These hillside areas would still be allowed types of development permitted by existing zoning, such as one unit per 35 acres for areas in agricultural zoning. Also permitted in this area would be institutional/public uses. CRITERIA FOR CHANGING THE LAND USE PLAN Any amendments to the Land Use Plan require a public process. Adjacent properties are notified, the Planning and Environmental Commission holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the Town Council on the proposal. The Town Council adopts the changes by resolution. Any changes to the Land Use Flan must address the following three criteria: Criterion 1: Ho-+v conditions have changed since the plan was adapted? Physical conditions and the fundamental land use patterns of the neighborhood have not changed since the 1986 adoption of the plan. However, it has been demonstrated aver the years that the platted lots do not have building potential due to significant 6 environmental constraints, Since the adoption of the Vail Land Use Plan, the subject property has been identified in the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan as an environmentally sensitive area and a high acquisition priority. Therefore, the Land Use Plan is presently inconsistent with other elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Criferion 2: How the plan is in error? The Land Use Flan, unlike the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan, does not take into account the environmental conditions of properties within designated land use categories. The Town of Vail Zoning Regulations prohibit (or severely restrict) the ability to develop the lots under the "low-density residential" land s,se pattern. Therefore, the Land Use Plan is presently inconsistent with the land development and environmental preservation provisions contained within the Town's zoning and subdivision regulations. Therefore, staff believes the Land Use Plan is in error. Crr`terion 3: Haw fhe addition, deletion or change to fhe plan is in concert with the plan in general? Adjacent lots within the subdivision are zoned "Natural Area Preservation District." This proposed change is consistent with adjacent land uses and zoning designations. Neighboring property to the east is within the White 'River National Forest and is designated as "gackcountry Recreation -Non-motorized" and "Primitive Wilderness" in the U.S. Forest Service's pending management plan. Specific Land Use Plan goals that are relevant to this proposal include 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. t .6 Development proposals 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. 2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur prirrmarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. Staff' believes the proposed amendment is in concert with the plan and the goals stated above. Vi. REZONING REQUEST: CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION ........ ........ Z~N]NG C]VERVIlrW The current zoning is "Agriculture and Open Space," The Town of Vail is proposing to rezone the property to "Natural Area Preservation District." The Town of Vail Zoning Regulations are intended to: "Promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality." In contrast to the Land Use Plan, which serves as a guide in land use decision making, the zoning and subdivision regulations are regulatory tools used to control development for the benefit of the public health, safety and welfare. The zoning regulations are specifiic with regards to development on property, including density, setbacks, height, etc. Where conflicts exist between the Land Use Plan and the zoning for a site, existing zoning controls development, However, in cases where a change in zoning is considered for a site, the land use designation and land use objectives as identified in the Land Use Plan are important considerations in the decision making process, REZONING CRITERIA 1} Is the existing zoning suitable with the existing land use on the site and adjacent land uses? Staff believes the existing zoning designation is suitable with the existing and adjacent land uses, but inappropriate for the subject property given the environmental constraints and the Town's identified objectives for preservation of portions of the area. Lots 1-4 are non-conforming under the existing "Agriculture & ©pen Space" zoning as they do not meet the minimum 35-acre lot size. However, there is no minimum fot size established for the "Natural Area Preservation District" and the lots would be conforming under the proposed rezoning. 2} Is the amendment presenting a convenient workable relationship with land uses consistent with municipal objectives? The proposed rezoning would bring the property into conformance with the Town's stated goals for open lands and it is consistent with the zoning designations on immediately adjacent properties, The proposed zoning designation would bring currently non- conforming lots into conformity with the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. 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 Comprehensive Plan elements, staff believes this rezoning provides for the growth of an orderly viable community. Staff believes any development under existing zoning would circumvent the Town's desire for the growth of an orderly, 8 viable community. 4) Is the change consistent with the Land Use plan? The proposed zoning and Land Use Plan amendment are consistent with the goals, objectiwes and policies stated in the Comprehensive ©pen Lands Plan and all other elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Specific Land Use Plan goals that are relevant to this proposal include: 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.6 Development proposals 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. 2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. ~.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 r LC) L~9 T ~~ ~i l.J I ~N ~ , ,_ ~a ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ .~? ~ ~ ~~~ Q=~ • ,~ ~7A565 07-Q3A.TXT (1} ARTICLE .A~. AGRICULT[JRAL AND OPEN SPACE ~(A) DISTRICT SECTION 12-$A-I: Purpose 12-8A-2: Permitted Uses 12-8A-3: Conditional Uses 12-SA-4: Accessory Uses 12-8A-5: Lot Area And Site Dimensions 12-8A-6: Setbacks 12-8A-7: Height 12-8A-8: Density 12-8A-9: Site Coverage 12-8A-10: Landscaping And Site Development 12-8A-11:Parking 12-$A-I: PURPOSE: The Agricultural and (?pen Space District is intended to preserve agricultural, undeveloped, or open space lands from intensive development 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 Agricultura! 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 spade characteristics of the District. (Ord. 8(1973) § 12.100) 1Z-SA-2: PERMITTED ~,rSES: The following uses shall be permitted in the A District: Plant and tree nurseries and raising of Held, row and tree crops. Public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces. Single-family residential dwellings. (Ord. 8(1973) § 12.200) 12-$A-3: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of~a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Any use within public parrs, recreation areas, and open spaces which involves assembly of more than two hundred (200) persons together in one building or group of lauilciings, or in one recreation area or other public recreational facility. Cemeteries. Churches,. rectories, and related structures. Low power subscription radio facilities. Private golf, tennis, swimming and riding clubs, and hunting and, fishing lodges. Public and private schools and colleges. VA565 07-03A.TXT ~2) / Semi-public and institutional uses, such as convents and religious retreats. Ski lifts and tows. Type II employee housing unit (EHU} as provided. in Section 12-13-5 of this Title. Well water treatment facility. (Ord. 8(1992) § 30: Ord. 37(1991} ~ l: Ord. 30(198$} ~ 1: Ord. 16(19$5} § 1: Ord. 16{1976) ~ 1(a}: Ord. 14(1975} ~ 3: Ord. 8(1973) ~ 12.300) 12-SA-4: ACCESSARY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the A District: Accessary buildings and uses customarily incidental to permitted agricultural uses, including barns, silos, sheds, corrals, pens, and similar uses. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section i2-14-1? of this `Title. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single-family residential uses. Retail sale of plants, trees, or other farm or agricultural products grown, produced or made on the premises. Other uses customarily incidental and. accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. (Gird. 21(1994} § 12: Ord. 16(1976} ~ 1(a): Ord. 8(1973} § 12.400) 12-8A-5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be thirty five (35) acres with a minimum of one acre of buildable area. (Ord. 34(1979) § 1 } 12-SA-6: SETBACKS: In the A District, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20'}, the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15'), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15"}. (Ord. 50(1978} 2) 12-$A-7: IIEIGHT: For a t~lat roof or mansard roof, the height ofbuildings 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-$A-$: 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; provided, 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,OOfl} square foes of gross residential floor area (GRFA). (Ord. 34(1979) ~ 1 } 12-~A-9: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed five porcent (5%} of the total site area. (Ord. 17{1991} § 14: Ord.. 8{1973) ~ 12.507} VA565 fl7-fl3A.TXT (3) 12-SA-10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DLVEL4PMENT:. Not applicable in the A District. (Ord. 8(1973) ~ 12,509) 12-SA-11: PARKING; Off=street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter ] 0 of this Title. No required parking shall be located in any required setback area, except as maybe specifically authorized in accordance with Chapter 17 of this Title. (Ord. 8(1973) § 12510) • *~7A565 o7-43A.TXT (1} . ARTICLE C. NATL~RAL~ AREA PRESERVATION (NAP} DISTRICT SECTION: 12-8C-1: Purpose 12-8C=2: Permitted Uses 12-SC-3: Conditional Uses 12-SC-4; Accessory Uses 12-SC-5: Development Standards 12-8C-b: Parking And Loading 12-SC-7: Additional Development Standards 12-8C-1: PURPOSE: The Natural Area Preservation District is designed to provide areas which, because of their environmentally sensitive nature or natural beauty, shall be protected from. encroachment by any building or other improvement, other than those listed in Section 12-8C-2 of this Article. The Natural Area Preservation District is intended to ensure that designated lands remain in their natural state, including reclaimed areas, by protecting such areas from. development and preserving open space. The Natural Area Preservation District includes lands having valuable wildlife habitat, exceptional aesthetic or flood control value, wetlands, riparian areas and areas with significant environmental constraints. Protecting sensitive natural areas is important for maintaining water duality and aquatic habitat, preserving wildlife habitat, flood control, protecting view corridors, minirni~ing the risk from hazard areas, and protecting the natural character of Vail which is so vital to the Town's tourist economy. The intent shall nat preclude improvement of the natural environment by the removal of noxious weeds, deadfall where necessary to protect public safety or similar compatible improvements, (Ord. 21(1994) ~ 1Q~} 12-8C-Z: PERMI >< >< ED USES: The following shall be permitted uses in the NAP District: Nature preserves. (Ord. 21(1994) § 10} 12-8C-3: Ct)NDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the NAP District, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title: Equestrian trails, used only to access National forest system lands. Interpretive nature walks. Parking, when used in conjunction with a permitted ~r conditional use. Paved and unpaved, nonmotorized, bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways. Picnic tables and informal seating areas, Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof, with the exception of buildings. (Ord. 21(I994} ~ 1(7} 12-SC-4: ACCESSORY USES: VA5{5 Q7-03A.TXT (2) Not applicable in the'~IAP District. {©rd. 21{1994} § 10} I2-SC-5: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: ?~1ot applicable in the NAP District. (Ord. 21(1994) § i0) I2-8C-6: PAR~~1G AND LOADING: Parking and loading requirements will be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission during the review of conditional use requests in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title. (Ord. 21(1994) ~ I D) ><?-8C-7: ADDITIONAL DEVELOPI4IENT STANDARDS: Additional regulations pertaining to site development standards and the development of land in the Natural Area Preservation District are found in Chapter 14, ""Supplemental Regulations", of this Title. {Ord. 21{1994) ~ 10) ARTICLE D. SKI BASEIRECREATION (SBR} DISTRICT SECTION: 12-8D- I : Purpose 12-$D-2: Perrrlitted L''se5 12-SD-3: Conditional Uses 12-8D-4; Accessory Uses 12-8D-5: Location Of Business Activrty 12-8D-~: Development Pian Required 12-8D-7; Development Plan Contents 12-8D-8; Development Standards/Criteria For Evaluation 12-8C3-9: Lot Area 12-8D-1f]; Setbacks I2-8D-1 l: Height 12-8D-12: Density Control 12-$D-13: Site Coverage 12-8D-14: Landscaping And Site Development 12-8D-15: Parking Pfan And Program I2--8D-1: PURF[]SE: The Ski BaselReereation District is intended to provide for the base facilities necessary to operate the ski mountain and to allow multi-family residential dwellings as a secondary use if certain criteria are met. In addition, summer recreational uses and facilities are encouraged to achieve multi-seasonal use of same of the facilities and provide for efficient use of the facilities. {Ord. 24{1995) § 1} 1Z-8D-2: PERMITTED [.1SES: A. Within IV1ain Lodge: The fallowing uses shall be permitted within the main base lodge building in the Ski Basel Recreation District; Basket rental. Injury prevention and rehabilitation facilities far owners' use. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRJM: Department of Community Development DATE: August 27, 2061 SUBJECT: A request for a final review and a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposed amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan to allow for a change from a "Low Density Residential" land use category to an "Open Space" land use category, located at 38$6 and 3896 Lupine Drive /Lots 15 & 16, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition; and a request for a final review and a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposed rezoning from "Two- Family Primary/Secondary Residential" to "Natural Area Preservation District" located at 3886 Lupine Drive f Lot 15, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition; and a request for a final review and a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposed rezoning from "Agriculture and Open Space" to "Natural Area Preservation District" located at 3896 Lupine Drive /Lot 16, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson I. DESCRIPTION C}F TFiE REQUEST This application involves three requested actions: • Amending the Vail Land Use Plan to bring the land use designations far Lots 15 & 16 into conformance with other elements ofi the Vail Comprehensive Plan, • (3ezoning Lot 15 to bring the zoning into conformance with existing land uses and designations within the Vail Comprehensive Plan. ^ Rezoning Lot 16 to bring the zoning into conformance with existing land. uses and designations within the Vail Comprehensive Plan. This application only involves lots owned by the Town of Vail. No private lots will be impacted by the proposed rezoning and Land Use Plan amendments. IL BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 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. r , 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 to Agriculture & Open Space. 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 Flan. 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 PrimarylSecondary 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, prahibi#ing habitable structures from being 'built an Lot 16 for a period of twenty years (September 1, 1992. In 1978, the Town of Vail adopted geologic 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 geofogicaily sensitive areas.; to regulate the use of land areas which may be geologically sensitive; and further to regulate development an 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 Hazard Maps, the Land Use Plan is a component of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan. According to the Land Use Plan, Lots 15 & 16 are designated "low density residential". The purpose of the low4densty 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 far the use of residents of the area. Institu#ional/public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. • 2 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 environmen#al resources, trails, and to reserve lands far 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 Pfan 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 nar#h 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 Greek; • Add bike lanes to the north and south frontage roads and add paved shoulders to Vail Valley Qrive. The Town of Vail has already taken action an over 40 of the 51 parcels identified for action in the Plan. The Action Plan and Priority Plan of the Comprehensive C-pen Lands Plan identifies Lot 18, 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 3 access easement through the parcel. 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 civic/public 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, cast, unusual opportunity with a motivated seller, opportunity for trade with the USFS, law management requirements on the Town of Vai! 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 4i. 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 {TOVIUSFS), 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 1 fi. There are three geologic hazard analysis reports in the file. Each report identifies the same geologic hazards on the sites high severity rack 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 finished grade and "splitting wedges". In 2000, a proposal to replat and rezone portions of the lots was received by the Community Development Department. The proposal involved creating 3 lots and conveying two of those lots to the Town of Vail for open space while retaining one lot with PrimarylSecondary zoning. There is a "by right" development potential on lot 18 of one 2090 square foot single family dwelling unit. As a result of the findings within the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan, the Town of Vail and the Eagle Valley Land Trust recently purchased the lots. In an attempt to attain the goals outlined in the plan, the Town is requesting a rezoning and Vail Land Use Plan amendment far Lots 15 & 1 fi. 4 • III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT The Department of Community Development recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval of the proposed amendments to the Vail Land Use Plan, based upon the criteria for evaluation listed in Section V of this memorandum and the fallowing findings: The proposed plan amendment is consistent with the adapted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the Tawn of Vail's development objectives. 2. That the propased amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate far the area. 3. That the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the public health, welfare and safety. REZONING The Department of Community Development recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendafion of approval of the propased rezoning, based upon the criteria for evaluation listed in Section VI of this memorandum and the following findings: The proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the Tawn of Vail's development objectives. 2. That the proposed rezoning is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the area. 3. That the proposed rezoning is in the best interest of the public health, welfare and safety. IV. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT Planning and Environmental Commission: Actisn.• The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal and make a recommendation to the Tawn Council on the consistency of the proposed amendment with applicable review criteria and the policies, goals and objectives outlined in the Vail Land Use Plan and other applicable master plan documents. • Besion Review Board_ Action: The L7,RB has NC3 review authority an Land Use Plan amendments. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to consistency of the proposed amendment with applicable review criteria and the policies, goals and objectives outlined in the Vail Land Ilse Plan and other applicabie master plan documents. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible for final approval/denial of a Vail Land Use Plan amendment. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the consistency of the proposed amendment with applicable review criteria and the policies, goals and ©bjectives outlined in the Vail Land Use Plan anal other applicable master plan documents. ZONINGJREZaNING Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEC is advisory to the Town Council. The PEC shall review the proposal and make a recommenda#ion to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed zoning with surrounding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impact on the general welfare of the community. Design Review Board: Action: The QRB has NQ review authority on zoning/rezonings. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning Regulations. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Action: The Town Council is responsible f©r fins! approval/'denial of a zoning/rezoning. The Tawn Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed zoning with surrounding uses, consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans, and impact on the general welfare of the community. V. VAIL LAND LfSE PLAN DESIGNATIONS: REVIEW CRITERIA FOR AMENDMENT General Overview of the Plan The Vail Land Use Plan was initiated in 1985 and adopted in 1986 by the Vail Town Council. The main purposes of the Land Use Plan are two-fold: 1. To articulate the land use goals of the Town. ~'. To serve as a guide for decision making by the Town. The Vail Land Use Plan is intended to serve as a basis from which future land use decisions may be made within the Town of Vail. The goals, as articulated within the Land Use Plan, are meant to be used as adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. In conjunction with these goals, land use categories are defined to indicate general types of land uses which are then used to develop the Vail Land Use Map. The Land Use Plan is not intended to be regulatory in nature, but is intended to provide a general framework to guide decision making. Where the land use categories and zoning conflict, existing zoning controls development on a site. To be effective, the Land Use Plan must be updated to reflect current thinking and changing market conditions. The Vail Land Use Pian can be amended in three ways: 1) The Community Development Department can update and revise the plan periodically. The Community Development Department then makes recommendations for the proposed changes to the Planning and Environmental Commission, where these changes would then be considered in a public hearing format. The Planning and Environmental Commission would then make a recommendation to the Town Council,. where another public hearing would be held. The Council then adopts the changes by resolution. 2) The Planning and Environmental Commission or Town Council can also initiate amendments to the Land Use Pian. Again, bath boards hold public hearings and the changes are adopted by the Town Council by resolution. 3) The private sector can also initiate amendments is the Vail Land Use Pian. Applications may be made by a registered voter, a property owner, or a property owner's authorized representative. The amendments are then heard by both the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council. The Town Council then adopts the changes by resolution. LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION Current Land Use Plan Designation: • .Low Density Residenfia!-This category includes single-family detached homes and two family dwelling units. Density of development within this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acre however, all of the adjacent residential uses exceed 3 dwelling units per acre. Also within this area would be private recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools and clubhouses for the use of residents of the area. Institutional !public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. Proposed Land Use Designation: Qpen Space -Passive recreation areas such as greenbelts, stream corridors and drainages are the types of areas in this category. Hillsides whioh were classified as undevelopable due to high hazards and slopes aver 40% are also included within this area. These hillside areas would still be allowed types of development permitted by existing zoning, such as one unit per 35 acres for areas in agricultural zoning. Also permitted in this area would be institutionaVpublic uses. CR1TEFtIA FOR CHANGING THE LAND USE PLAN Any amendments to the Land Use Plan require a public process. Adjacent properties are notified, the Planning and Environmental Commission holds a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the Town Council on the proposal. The Town Council adopts the changes by resolution, Any changes to the Land Use Plan must address the following three criteria: Cri#erio,~ 1: Hvw condi#iorts have changed since the plan was adopted? Physical conditions and the fundamental land use ,patterns of the neighborhood have not changed since the 1986 adoption of the plan. However, it has been demonstrated over the years that the platted lots do not have building potential due to significant environmental constraints. Since the adoption of the Vail Land Use Plan, the subject property has been identified in the Comprehensive Qpen Lands Plan as a geologically/environmentally sensitive area and a high acquisition priority. Therefore, the Land Use Plan is presently inconsistent with ocher elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Cri#erion 2: How the plan is in error? The Vail Land Use Plan prescribes updates every five years to reflect changes in community needs or land conditions. The plan has nat been amended to date to reflect geologic hazard study findings, community input or town council actions on the subject property. The Land Use Plan, unlike the Comprehensive Qpen Lands Plan, does not take into account the environmental conditions of properties within designated land use categories. The Town of Vail Zoning Regulations prohibit (or severely restrict) the ability to develop the lots under the "low-density residential" land use pattern. Therefore, the Land Use Plan is presently inconsistent with the land development, geologic hazard and 8 environmental preservation provisions contained within the Town's zoning and subdivision regulations. Therefore, staff believes the Land Use Plan is in error. Criterion 3: How the addition, aleletion or change to the plan is in concert with the plan in general? Specific Land Use Plan goals that are relevant to this proposal include: 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.6 Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated an a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for same 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. 2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and open space lands while continuing to purchase open space. 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. Staff believes the proposed amendment is in concert with the plan and the goals stated above. This proposed change is consistent with adjacent land uses and zoning designations. Neighboring property to the Werth, east and west is zoned for law-density residential development. Neighboring property to the south is within the White River National Forest and is designated as °Backcountry Recreation -Non-motorized" in the U.S. Forest Service's pending management plan.. VI. RESONING REQUEST: CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION Z©NING OVERVIEW The current zoning for Lot 15 is "PrimarylSecondary Residential." The Town of Vail is proposing to rezone the property to "Natural Area Preservation District." The current zoning for Lot 16 is "Agriculture and ripen Space." The Town of Vail is proposing to rezone the properties to "NaturaR Area Preservation District." The Town of Vail Zoning Regulations are intended to: "Promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality-" In contrast to the Land Use Plan, which serves as a guide in land use decision making, 9 the zoning and subdivision regulations are regulatory tools used to control development for the benefit of the public health, safiety and welfare. The zoning regulations are specific with regards to development on property, including density, setbacks, height, etc. Where conflicts exist between the Land Use Plan and the zoning for a site, existing zoning controls development. However, in cases where a change in zoning is considered for a site.,. the land use designation and land use objectives as identified in the Land Use Plan are important considerations in the decision making process. REZ©NING CRITERIA 1) Is the existing zoning suitable with the existing land use an the site and adjacent land uses? Staff believes the existing zoning designations are suitable with the existing and adjacent land uses, but inappropriate for the subject property given the environmental constraints and the Town's identified objectives for preservation of portions of the area. Lots 15 has severely limited building potential due to geologic hazards and Lot 1 t? is non-conforming under the existing "Agriculture & open Space" zoning as it does not meet the minimum 35-acre lot size. However, there is no minimum lot size established for the "Natural Area Preservation District" and bath lots would be conforming under the proposed rezoning. 2} Is the amendment presenting a convenient workable relationshiq with land uses consistent with municipal objectives? The proposed rezoning would bring the property into conformance with the Town's stated goals for open lands and recent policy decisions by the Vail Town Council. The proposed zoning designation would bring currently non-conforming Pots into conformity with the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations- 3) Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly viable community? In accordance with the provisions of the Town ofi Vail Zoning and Subdivision Regulations and Vail's Comprehensive Plan elements, staff believes this rezoning provides for the growth of an orderly viable community- Staff believes any development under existing zoning would circumvent the Town's desire for the growth of an orderly, viable community and could pose "life safety" concerns. 4) Is the change consistent with the Land Use Plan? The proposed zoning and Land Use Plan amendment are consistent wifh the goals, objectives and policies stated in the Comprehensive Open Lands Plan and all other elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Specific Land Use Plan goals that are relevant to this proposal include: 1.2 The ~{uality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. i ~a 1.6 Development proposals 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. 2.7 The Town of Vail should improve the existing park and apen space lands white continuing to purchase open space. 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. • 11• s ~~C .~ 5 • ,~ '~ ~~ ti `, ~~ / ~`~ ~ ~ _ {~ ^ ~' ' ~ ~ u ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ,~ ,~ ;'; ~f, ~ ,/ / / ~~~ / ~ C / i ~~` ~~. ~~ ., ,, (~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ . m ~, r ~,,•) Q= VA555 07-03A.'r"X'I' (1) ARTICLE A, AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE (Aj DISTRICT SECTION: 12-8A-1: Purpose 12-8A-2; Permitted Uses 12-8A-3: Conditional Uses 12-8A-4: Accessory Uses 12-8A-5; Lat Area And Site Dimensions 12-8A-C: Setbacks 12-8A-7: Height 12-8A-8: Density 12-8A-9: Site Coverage 12-8A-10: Landscaping And Site Development I2-8A- 11: Parking 12-8A-1: PURPOSE: The Agricultural and Open Space District is intended to preserve agricultural, undeveloped, or open space Lands 4Tom intensive development 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 afthe District. (Ord. 8(1973) § I2.100) 12-$A-2: PERMITTED USES: The fallowing 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-$A-3: COIV'DITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter I ( of this Title: Any use within public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces which involves assembly of mare than two hundred (200) persons together in one building or group of buildings, or in one recreation area or other public recreational facility. Cemeteries. Churches, rectories, and related structures. Low power subscription radio facilities. Private golf, tennis, swimming and riding clubs, and hunting and fishing lodges. Public and private schools and colleges.. VA565 07-03A.T~T (~} Semi-public and institutional uses, such as convents and religious retreats.. Ski lif%s and tows.. Type II employee housing unit (EI-IlJ) as provided in Section 12-13-5 of this Title. Well water treatment facility. (Ord. 8(1992)~~' 30: Ord. 37{1991) ~ l: Ord. 30{1988) ~ 1: Ord. 16(1985) ~ l; Ord. 16(1970 § 1(a): Ord. 14(1975) ~ 3: Ord. 8(1973) ~ 12.300) 12-$A-4: ACCESSORY iJSES: The following 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. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-14-] 2 of this Title. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single-family residential uses. Retail sale of plants, trees, or other farm or agricultural products ;gown, produced or made on the premises. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory 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-$A-5: LOT AREA AN'D SITE DIMENSIONS: The minimum lot or site area. shall be thirty five (35) acres with a minimum of one acre of buildable area. (C)rd. 34(1979) ~ 1) 12-$A-6: SETBACKS: In the A District, the minimum #ront setback shall be twenty feet (20'), the minimum. side setback shall be fifteen feet {15'), and the rninicnurn rear setback shall be fifteen feet {15'). (Ord. 50(1978) ~ 2) 12-$A-7: HEIGHT; For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty feet (30'). Far a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty three feet {33'), (Ord. 37(19$0) § '?) 12-$A-$: DENSITY: 1`1ot more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted for each thirty five (35) acres of site area, of which one acre must be buildable; provided, however, that one dwelling, shall be allowed on a lot or parcel of less than thirty five {35) acres which contains one acre of buildable area. Such dwelling shall not exceed two thousand (2,000) square feet of'grass residential floor area (GRxA). (Ord. 34(1979) § 1) 12-$A-9: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed five percent (5%) of the total site area. (Ord. 17(1991) § 14: Ord. 8{1973) ~ 12.507} VA565 fJ7-O~A.TXT (3) 12-SA-1Q: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEyELOP1~~IENT: Not applicable in the A District. (C-rd. &{1973) § 12.509) 12-SA-11: PAF.KIN G: Oft=street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. l~'a required parking shall be located in any required setback area, except as may be specifically authorized in accordance with Chapter 17 of this Title. (Drd. 8(1973) § 12.510) • VASC~ 07-Q3A.TXT (~.} ' ARTICLE D. PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL (PS} DISTRICT SECTION: 12-bD-1:Purpose 12-t5D-2: Permitted Uses 12-6D-3: Conditional Uses 12-6D-~: Accessory Uses 12-bD-5: Lot Area And Site Dimensions 12-bD-F~: Setbacks 12-6D-7: Height 12-6D-$: Density Control I2-6D-9: Site Coverage 12-6D-10: Landscaping And Sitc Development 12-~iD-1 l: Parking 12-fll-1: PURPOSE: The Two-Family Primary/Secondary Residential District is intended to provide sites for single-family residential uses or two-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public #acilities as may appropriately be located in the carne district. The Two-Family primary,'Secondary Residential District ~s intended t© ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropnate srte development standards. (Ord. 30(1977) § 2) 12-f~D-~: PERMITTED USES: The following uses shall be perrnittcd: Single-family residential dwellings. Two-family residential dwellings, Type I employee housing unit as provided in Section 12-13-4 of this Title. (Ord. 8(1992) § 1 I: Ord. 30(1977) § 2) 12-bD-3: C©NDITIONAL, USES: The fallowing conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title;: Bed and breakfast as further reb ]aced by Section 12-1~-1$ of this Title. Public buildings, gxounds and facilities, Public or private schools.. Public park and recreation facilities. . Public utility and public service uses. Ski lifts. and tows. Type II employee housing unit as set forth in Section 12-13-5 of this Title. {Ord. 8(1992) ~ 12: VA~55 07-{73A. TXT f 2 } Ord. 31(1989) ~ 2:Ord. 3{1(1977} ~ 2} 1Z-6D-~. ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted: Horne occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation perrrrit in accord with the provisions of Chapter 14 of this Title. Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single-family and two family residential uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. (Ord.. 30(1977) ~ 2) 12-6D-a: LOT AREA AND SITE DIll~IENSIONS: The minirrzurn lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand {15,OOQ} square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty Poet {30'). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of`enclosing a square area, eighty feet {50') on each side, within its boundaries. (Ord. 12(1978) ~ 3: Ord. 30(1977) y ~.} 12-bD-6: SET'BACI~S: In the Prima rv/'Secondary residential 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. 50(1978} ~ 2) 1~-6D-7: HEIGHT: Far a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty feet (30'). Far a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty three foet (33"). (Ord. 37{1.950} ~ 2) 12-613-8: DENSITY CONTROi~: A. Dwelling Units: Not more than a total of two {2) dwelling units shall be permitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permitted on lots less than ffteen thousand (15,000) square feet. B. Gross Residential Floor Area: ] .The fallowing gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site: a. Twenty five {?5) square feet of Gross residential floor area (GRFA} far each one hundred (100) square feet of the farst fifteen thousand {15,{100} 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 fifteen thousand (15,Q00) square feet, ~nat to exceed thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of site area; plus c. Five {5) square feet of gross residential Door 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 abo~re, four hundred twenty five {~25) square feet of gross resid~:ntial floor area (GRFA} shall be permitted for each allowable dwelling unit. On any site containing two (?} dwelling units, one of the units shall not exceed forty percent {40%) of the VA565 07-03A.TXT (3) total allowable gross residential floor area (GI~FA}, No primarylsecondary residential lot except those located entirely in the red hazard avalanche zone, or the flood plain, or those of less than fif#een thousand (15,fl00) square feet shall be so restricted that it cannot be occupied by a primaryisecondary dwelling. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Type I employee housing unit (EHU) may be permitted on lots of less than fifteen thousand (15;000} square feet in. accordance with Section 12-13-4 of this Title. C. Employee Housing L'nts: Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections A and 13 of this Section, a Type I employee housing unit {EHU) shall be permitted on lots of less than fi#teen thousand {15,000) square feet in accordance with Section 12-13-~ of this Title. (Ord. ${ 1992) ~~ 13, 14: Ord. 37(199©) ~ 5: Ord, ]9{1990) ~ 1: Ord. 12(19$$) ~ 4; Ord. 23(19$6) ~ 1: Ord, 23{1981) ~ 2: Ord.. 22(19$I) ~ I :Ord. 35(1980) ~ 1: Ord. 22{1979) § 1: Ord. 12(197$) ~ 2: Ord. 30(197'7) ~ 2) 12-fiD-9: SITE CUVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed twenty percent (?0°1°) of the total site area. (Ord. 41{1990) § S: Ord, 30(1977) ~ 2} I2-fiD-IQ: LANDSCAPING AND SI7."E DE VELOYMEiVT: At least sixty percent {60%} of each site shall be landscaped. The minimum of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be ten feet (10') (width and length) with a minimum area not less than three hundred {300) square feet. (Ord. 30{197$) 5 2) IZ-6D-11: PARkING: Off street parking shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. {Ord. 30(1977) 2} VA565 07-03A.TXT t1} ARTICLE C. NATLIRAI.~ AREA PRESERVATIQN (NAP} :DISTRICT SI~CTION: 12-8C-1: Purpose 12-8C-2: Permitted Uses 12-8C-3: Conditional Uses i 2-8C-4: Accessory Uses 12-8C-S: Development Standards 12-8C-b: Parking And Loading 12-~C-7; Additional Development Standards 12-SC-1: FURPaSE: The Natural Area Preservation District is designed to provide areas which, because of their environmentally sensitive nature or natural beauty, shall be protected from encroachment by any building or other improvement, other than these listed in Section 12-8C-2 of this Article. The Natural Area Preservation District is intended to ensure that designated lands remain in their natural state, including'reciaimed areas, by protecting such areas from development and preserving open space, The Natural Area Preservation District includes lands having valuable wildlife habitat, exceptional aesthetic or flood control value, wetlands, riparian areas and areas with significant environmental constraints. Protecting sensitive natural areas is important for maintaining water quality and aquatic habitat, preserving wildlife habitat, flood control, protecting view corridors, minimizing the risk from hazard areas, and protecting the natural character of Vail which is so vital to the Town's tourist economy. The intent shall not preclude improvement of the natural environment by the removal of noxious weeds, deadfall where necessary to protect public safety or similar compatible improvements. (Ord. 21(1994) ~ l fl) 12-8C-2: FERMITT`ED USES: The following shall be permitted uses in the NAP District: Nature preserves. Ord. 2I (1994) ~ 1 fl} 12-8C-~; C(3N~3ITIQNAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the NAP District, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with. the provisions of Chapter lb of this Title: Ec{uestrian trails, used only to access National forest system lands. Interpretive nature walks. Parking, when used in conjunction with a permitted br conditional use. Paved and unpaved, nonrnotorized, bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways. Picnic tables and informal seating areas. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses and necessary for the operation thereof with the exception of buildings. (Ord. 21(1994) § IO) 12-8C-4: ACCESSORY USES: V~,565 07-Q3A.TXT (2) Not applicable in the NAP District. (Ord. 21(1994) § i0} 12-SG-5: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Not applicable in the NAP District. (Ord. 21(1994} ~ 1~3}. 12-8C-6: PARkING AND LOADING: Parking and loading requirements will be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission during the review of conditional use requests in accordance with the provisions of Chapter i 6 of this Title. (Ord. 21(1994} ~ 10} 12-8C-7: ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Additional regulations pertaining to site development standards and the development of land in the Natural Area Preservation District are found in Chapter ] 4, "Supplemental Regulations", of this Title. (Ord. 21(1994) ~ 10} ARTICLE D. 5~ BASEIRECREATI©N PSBR) DISTRICT s1ucTION: 12-8D-1:Purpose 12-8D-2: Permitted Uses 12-8D-3: Conditional Uses 12-8D-4: Accessory Uses 12-8D-5: Location Of Business Activity 12-8D-6: Development Plan Required 12-8D-7: Development Plan Contents I2-8D-8: Development StandardslCriteria Far Evaluation 12-3D-9: Lot Area 12-8p-1©~ Setbacks 12-$D-11: Height 12-8D-12: Density Control 12-8D-13: Site Coverage 12-8D-14: Landscaping And Site Development 12-8D-15: Parking Plan And Program 12-SD-1: PURPOSE: The Ski Base/Recreation District is intended to provide for the base facilities necessary to operate the ski mountain and to allow multi-family residential dwellings as a secondary use if certain criteria are met. In addition, summer recreational uses and facilities are encouraged to achieve multi-seasonal use of some of the facilities and provide for efficient use of the facilities. (Ord. 24(1995} ~ l} 12-SD-2: PERMITTED USES: • A. Within Main Lodge: The following uses shall be permitted within the main base lodge building in the Slti Basel Recreation District: Basket rental. Injury prevention and rehabilitation facilities for owners` use. MEMORANDUM TC7: Planning and Environmental Commission FRt7M: Community Development DATE: August 27, 2001 SUBJECT: A request for a final review and recommendation to the Vail Town Council on proposed "housekeeping" amendments and/or corrections to Title 11, Vail Town Code ("Sign Regulations"), Title 12, Vail Tawn Code ("Zoning Regulations"), Title t 3, Vail Town Code ("Subdivision Regulations"), and Title t 4 ("Development Standards"). Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson !Bill Gibson I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Through the review process of various zoning applications, problems arise with specific code sections that are not clear to applicants. This often occurs with zoning code amendmen#s, changes in procedures, or errors in codification. Therefore, staff periodically returns to the Planning and Environmental Commission and to the Town Council to "clean-up" the Zoning, Subdivision, and Sign Codes. These amendments are not intended to amend the substantive content of the cacie, but rather to "clean- up" errors and clarify sections of the code. None of the proposed amendments result in a change of policy, The amendments to the Town Code included in this memorandum are described briefly below: • Amendments to the Definitions Chapter, • An Amendment to the lighting provisions within the Sign Regulations, • Amendments to the Commercial Core II Zoning Regulations, • An Amendment to the PA Zone District, Amendments with regard to references to adopted building and fire codes. • Amendments with regard to parking areas on private property. Mare detailed descriptions and the reasoning behind each are described in Section IV of this memorandum. L _J ~r ,TO}4'NOFYAIL ~; ,- II. RQLES 01= THE REVIEWING BGIARDS Plannina and Environmental Commission: Action: The PEG is advr'sary to the Town Gouncil. The PEC shall review the proposaP for and make a recommendation to the Town Council on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided. The staff advises the applicant as to compliance with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. Staff provides analyses and recommendations to the PEC and Town Council on any text proposal. Town Gouncil: Action: The Town Gouncil is responsible for fine! approval/denial on code.amendments. The Town Council shall review and approve the proposal based on the compatibility of the proposed text changes for consistency with the Vail Comprehensive Plans and impact on the general welfare of the community, Desion Review Board: Action: The DRB has IVO review authority on code amendments. Ill. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval of the proposed amendments to the Town Code to the Vaii Town Council, subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposed amendments are consistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail. 2. That the proposal is consistent and compatible with existing and potential uses within Vail and generally in keeping with the character of the Town of Vail. 3. That the proposed amendments are necessary to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Vail. 4. That the proposed amendments do not alter the intent, purpose, or policy of the current Town of Vail regulations. • 5. That the proposed amendments will make the Town's development review process less problematic and more "user friendly." -2- IV. DESCRIPTIONS OF AMENDMENTS (Text to be deleted will be is!€~. Text to be added will be underlined.) A. AMENDMENTS TO THE DEE'INITIONS CHAPTER -REGULATORY ELEMENTS Currently the Tawn of Vail Zoning Regulations contain a significant amount afi regulatory elements {as opposed to strictly definitionsy within the "Definitions" chapter. This causes confusion for applicants and expands the parameters of the definitions section well beyond the provision of text definitions. The fallowing definitions are proposed for amendment. There are no text amendments proposed, only the placement of regulatory elements within the appropriate chapters, rather than within the definitions- The portions indicated in bold type are proposed to be moved. ACCOMMODATION UNIT: Any roam or group of roams without kitchen facilities designed far or adapted to occupancy by guests and accessible from camman corridors, walks, or balconies without passing through another accommodation unit or dwelling unit. Each accommodation unit shall be counted as one-half (112) of a dwelling unit for purposes of calculating allowable units per acre. This language will be moved to the "Density Centro!".sections in the High-Density Multiple Family, Public Accommodation, Commercial Core I and Commercial Core !! zone districts. BED AND BREAKFAST: A business which accommodates guests in a dwelling unit in which the bed and breakfast proprietor lives an the premises and is in residence during the bed and breakfast use. A bed and breakfast operatiion may short-term rent separately up to three (3) bedrooms or a maximum square footage of nine hundred (900) square feet of the dwelling unit. Bed and breakfast operations shall only be permitted to accommodate a "family" as defined in this Section. This language will be moved to the "use specific'° criteria outlined in the Conditional Use Permits chapter. DWELLING UNIT: Any room or group of roams in a two-family ar multiple-family building with kitchen facilities designed far or used by one family as an independent housekeeping unit. A dwelling unit in amultiple-family fauilding may include one attached accommodation unit na larger than one-third (113) of the total floor area of the dwelling. This language will be moved to the '"Density Control°'sections in the Residential Cluster, Low Density Multiple Family, Medium Density Multiple Family, Nigh Density Multiple Family, Pu61ic Accommodation, Commercial Core !, Commercial Core Il, Commercial Service Center, Lionshead Mixed Use 1, Lionshead Mixed Use !! and Ski Base Recreation zone districts. -~- FRACTIONAL FEE CLUB: A fractional fee project in which each condominium '~ unit, pursuant to recorded project documentation as approved by the t Town of Vail, has no fewer than six (6) and na more than twelve (12) owners per unit and whose use is established by a reservation system The Ir. cjas# and is managed on-site with a front desk operating twenty four (24} hours a day, seven (7) days a week providing reservation and registration capabilities, Each of the fractional fee club units are made available for short-term rental in a managed program when not in use by the club members, The project shall include or be proximate to transpartatian, retail shops, eating and drinking establishments, and recreation facilities. These sentences will be moved to fhe "use specific" criteria outlined in the Gonditiona! Use Permifs chapter- B. AMENDMENTS TO THE DEFINITIONS CHAPTER -TEXT CORRECTIONS The following is a proposed minor text correction within the definition of a lodge: LODGE; A building or group of associated buildings designed for occupancy primarily as the temporary lodging place of individuals or families either in accommodation units or dwelling units, in which the gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation units ar fractional fee club units, is equal to or greater than seventy percent (7Q%) of the total gross residential floor area on the site, and in which all such units are operated under a single management providing the occupants thereof customary hotel services and facilities. Notwithstanding the above, for properties containing gross residential floor area equal to or less than eighty (80) square feet of grass residential floor area far each one hundred (100} square feet {~-g8'~ of buildable site area, such properties shall be defined as lodges, provided that grass residential floor area devoted to accommodation units or fractional fee club units exceed the gross residential floor area devoted to dwelling units. C. AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION ZONE DISTRiCT- CORRECTION OF A TYPO The following amendment is proposed for Section 12-7'A-12: 12-7A-12: EXTERIOR ~! TEf-1fiJ•A~TIQAJa ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS: D. AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMERCIAL CORE II ZDNING REGULATIONS In December of 1998, the Vaii Town Council adopted the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Subsequently, the CommerciaC Core 11 district within Lionshead was rezoned to Lionshead Mixed Use I district. Today, the only property remaining under Commercial Core II zoning is the Village Center property in Vail Village. Therefore, the references to the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan within the Commercial Core !I zone district are obsolete and -4- inaccurate. The following changes are proposed: 12-7C-1; PURPOSE: The Commercial Core 2 District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple-dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core 2 District in accordance with the Vail ' ~^ Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations, as adopted in Section 12-7C-15 of this Article is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards. {1997~Code: Ord. 21 {198Q} § 2} 12-7C-5; EXTI=RICER ALTERATIQI~IS OR IUIQDIFICATI(~hIS: A. Review Required: The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building which modifies exterior rooflines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new outdoor dining deck or the modification of an existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject #o review by the Planning and Environmental Commission {PEC} as follows: 1. Application: An application shall be made by the owner of the building or the building owner's authorized agent or representative on a form provided by the Administrator. Any application for condaminiumized buildings shall be authorized by the condominium association in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations. 2. Application; Contents: An application for an exterior alteration shall include the following: a. Completed application form, filing fee, and a list of all owners of property located adjacent to the subject parcel, A filing fee shall not be collected for any exterior alteration which is only for the addition of an exterior dining deck; however, all other applicable fees shall be required. The owners list shall include the names of all owners, their mailing address, a legal description of the property owned by each, and a general description of the property {including the name of the property, if applicable), and the name and mailing address of the condominium association's representative {if applicable}. Said names and addresses shall be obtained from the current tax records of Eagle County as they appeared not more than thirty (3a} days prior to the application submittal date. b. A written statement describing the proposal and how the proposal complies with the Vail t_icns#ead Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail -ch~7d Village Design Considerations and any other relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. c. A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating existing conditions on the property including the location of improvements, topography, and natural features. d. A current title report to verify ownership, easements, and other encumbrances, including Schedules A and B3. e. Existing and proposed site plan at a scale of one inch equals ten fleet {1" = 10"}, a vicinity plan at an appropriate scale to adequately show the project location in relationship to the surrounding area, a landscape plan at a scale of one inch equals ten feet {1 " = 1 fJ'}, a roof height plan and existing and proposed building elevations at a minimum scale of one-eighth inch equals one foot (118" = 1'}. The material listed above shall include adjacent buildings,and improvements as -s- necessary to demonstrate the project's compliance with urban design criteria as set forth in the Vail 1=+c,~"2a~ Village Urban Design Guide Plan, Vail' a^~~a;a Village Design Considerations, and any other relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. t. Sun/shade analysis of the existing and proposed building for the spring/fall equinox (March 21/September 23} and winter solstice December 21} at ten o'clock (t 0:00) A.M. and two o'clock (2:00} P.M. unless the Department of Community Development determines that the proposed addition has no impact on the existing sunlshade pattern. The following sun angle shall be used when preparing this analysis: SpringlFall Equinox Sun Angle 10.00 A.M. 40° east of south, 50° declination 2:00 P.M. 42° west of south, 50° declination Winter Solstice Sun Angle 10:00 A.M. 30° east of south, 20° declination 2:00 P.M. 30° west of south, 20° declination g. Existing and proposed floor plans at a scale of one-fourth inch equals one foot (1f4"' ~ 1'} and a square footage analysis of all existing and proposed uses. h. An architectural or massing model of the proposed development. Said model shall include buildings and major site improvements on adjacent properties as deemed necessary by the Administrator. The scale of the model shall be as determined by the Administrator. i. Photo overlays and/or other graphic material to demonstrate the special relationship of the proposed development to adjacent properties, public spaces, and adopted views per Chapter 22 of this Title j. Any additional information ar material as deemed necessary by the Administrator or the Town Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). The Administrator or the Planning and Environmental Commission may, at his/her or their discretion, waive certain submittal requirements if ii is determined that the requirements are not relevant to the proposed development nor applicable to the urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail ! °~rrh Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail , ~^ Village Design Considerations and any other relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 3. Application Date And Proceduresl: Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted biannually on or before the fourth Monday of February or the fourth Monday of September. Submittal requirements shall include all information listed in subsection A2 above; provided, however, that the architectural or massing model shall be submitted no later than three (3) weeks prior to the first formal public hearing of the Planning and Environmental Commission. No public hearings or work sessions shall be scheduled regarding exterior alterations prior to the biannual submittal date deadlines. At the next regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Gommission meeting following the submittal dates listed above, the Administrator shall inform the Planning and Environmental Commission of all exterior alteration submittals. The Administrator shall commence with the review of exterior alterations following this initial Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. a. A property owner may apply for a major exterior alteration (greater than 100 square feet) in any year in which he or she shall submit an application an the February or September dates as set Earth in subsection A3 of this Section. Said -s- application shall be termed a "major exterior alteration" b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area. of not more than one hundred feet {10©'), applications to alter the exterior rooflines of an existing building, applications for new outdoor dining decks and applications for modifications to existing dining decks may be submitted on a designated submittal date for any regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. Said applications shall be termed "minor exterior alteration". The review procedures for a minor exterior alteration shall be as outlined in this Section. All enclosed floor area for an expansion or deletion pursuant to this subsection A3b shall be physically and structurally part of an existing or new building and shall not be a freestanding Structure. c. A single property owner may submit an exterior alteration proposal which removes or encloses floor area of one hundred (100) square feet or less on a designated submittal date and will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission at any of its regu{arly scheduled meetings. 4. Work Sessions: If requested by either the applicant ar the Administrator, all submittals shall proceed to a work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Administrator shall schedule the work session at a regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission meeting and shall cause notice of the hearing to be sent to all adjacent property owners in accordance with subsection 12-3-6C of this Title, Fallowing the work session, and the submittal of any additional material that may be required, the Administrator shall schedule a formal public hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission in accordance with subsection i 2-3-6C of this Title. ~. Hearing: The public hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be held in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of this Title. The Planning and Environmental Commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with Section 12-3-3 of this Title. f. Compliance With Applicable Comprehensive Plans: ]t shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance ^f the evidence before the Planning and Environmental Commission That the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the CC2 District as specified in Section 12-7C-1 of this Article, that the proposal is consistent with applicable elements of the Vail ~ia~sJ~ea~ Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail t=ic:rosY~~c~..d Village Design Considerations, and that the proposal does not otherwise negatively alter the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with all other applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan. 7. Approval: Approval of an exterior alteration under subsection A5 and A6 of this Section shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements including siting, building setbacks, bulk, height, building bulk and mass, site improvements and landscaping. 8. Lapse Of Approval; Approval of a major or minor exterior alteration as prescribed by this Article shall lapse and become void two {2) years following the date of approval of the major or minor exterior alteration by the Planning and Environmental Commission unless, prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued to completion. i 9. Design Review Board Review: Any modification or change to the exterior facade of a building or to a site within CC2 District shall be reviewed by the ~~- Design Review Board in accordance with Chapter 11 of this Title. B. Compliance Burden: It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the Design Review Board that the proposed building modification is in compliance with the purposes of the CC2 District as specified in Section 12-7C-1 of this Article; that the proposal substantially complies with the Vail ~rrrc~d Village Design Considerations or that the proposal does not otherwise alter the character of the neighborhood. (Ord. 1(1998) § 1:1897 Code: Ord. 4{1993} § 2: Ord. 7(1384) § 1: Ord. 4(1983) § 1: Ord. 25(1982) § 1 {e}: Ord. 21 {1980} § 2} 12-7C-6. ACCESSORY USES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the CC2 District: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-14-12 of this Title.. Minor arcade. Amusement devices shall not be visible or audible from public way, street, walkway ar mall area. Outdoor dining areas operated in conjunction with permitted eating and drinking establishments.. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios or other recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential or lodge uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. {Ord. fi{1982) § 4{a}:Ord. 8{1373) § 9.530) 12-7C-$: SETBACKS: In CC2 District the minimum front setback shall be ten feet {10'); the minimum side setback shall be ten feet (10'}; and the minimum rear setback shall be ten feet (10') unless otherwise specified in the Vail L~~;~Q Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. (Ord. 21(1980} § 2} 12-7C-9: HEIGHT: Far a flat roof ar mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty five feet {45'}. For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty eight feet {48'). These restrictions per#ain unless otherwise specified by the Vail i~~ha~ Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Urban Design Considerations. (Ord. 37{1980} § 2') 12-7C-1.0: Dl/NSITY CONTRC?L: Unless otherwise specified in the Vail ~ie~~hcnd Village Urban Design Guide Plan, not more than eighty (80} square feet of gross residen#ial floor area (GRFA} shall be permitted for each one hundred (100} square feet of buildable site area. Total density shall not exceed twenty five (25} dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. (Ord. 21(1980} § 2) 12-7C-11: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed seventy percent (70%} of the total site area, unless otherwise specified in the Vail L;z~;~~Q Village 'Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. (Ord. 17(1991 } ; 9: Ord. 21(1980) § 2) 12-7C-12: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT: At least twenty percent (20%) of the total site area shall be landscaped unless otherwise specified in the Vail ! i~nch4ad Village Urban Design Guide Plan and -s- Design Considerations. (Ord. 21(1980) § 2} 12-7G-13: PARKING AND LOADING: flff-street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title. At least ane~half (1f2) the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings. No parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area. (Ord. 8(1973} § 9.610) 12-7G-15: ~^NC,'~€~4D VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN C©NSIDERATIONS: A_ Adoption: The Vail t=icrcric~~ Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations are adopted for the purpose of maintaining and preserving the character and vitality of Vail ! icnch~ Village (CG2) and to guide the future alterations, change and improvement in the CG2 District. Copies of the Vail ~n3h~ Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations shall be on file in the Department of Gommunity Development. B. Revisions: Revisions to the Vail ~ieF-c`'c^d Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations shall be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Gommission with official action to be taken by the Town Council by resolution on asemi-annual basis to ensure that the plan reflects the purposes and intent for which it has been adopted. The review and action shall take place within thirty (30) days following the public hearing on the applications, (Ord. 21(19$0) § 2}. E. AMENDMENTS TO THE LIGHTING PROVISIONS WITHIN THE SIGN REGULATIONS With the recent adoption of the Development Standards Handbook {Title 14, Vail Town Code), the town's design guidelines have been moved to Title 14, Vail Town Cods. Therefore, the following update to the lighting provisions for signage is proposed: 11-3-8: LIGHTING: Lighting should be of no greater lumination than is necessary to make the sign visible at night and should not unnecessarily reflect onto adjacent properties. Lighting sources shall not be directly visible to passing pedestrians or vehicles and should be concealed in such a manner that direct light does not shine through any element of a sign. Lumination should meet the requirements far outdoor lighting in Title 14 of this Code. F. AMENDMENTS WITH REGARD TO REFERENCES TO ADOPTED BUILDING AND FIRE CODES Within the next year, the Town of Vail will be adopting the International Building and Fire Codes. Therefore, any references in the Zoning Regulations to the Uniform Building Code will become obsolete and inaccurate in the near future. Staff proposes a reference to °adopted building and fire codes" so the zoning text will remain accurate, no matter which codes the town uses. The following specific revisions are proposed: 9- STCIRAGE AREA: An area within a dwelling unit which is designed and used i specifically'far the purpose of storage and is not required by the latest edition of the !'rifer -n !~il~e adopted building code to provide either Eight, ventilation, or to comply with. any code requirement for its function or existence. 12-11-11: ENFORCEMENT; INSPECTION: Before occupying or using any structure included in a design review application, the applicant must obtain an occupancy certificate after inspection by the Department of Community Development. The Department of Community Development shall inspect the site to ensure that the work has been completed in accordance with the application and plans approved by the Design Review Board. It shall be the duty of the property owner or hislher authorized agent to notify the Department of Community Development that such work is ready for inspection in order to ascertain compliance with approved plans. If the project is found upon inspection to be fully completed and in compliance with the approved design review application and plans, the Department of Community Development shall issue a final certificate of occupancy. If the project is found to be completed in such a manner that a temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued as specified by the l~+#erri °~ ~°'~~Qe adopted building code the applicant shall past a bond as set forth in Section 12-11-8 of this Chapter. Upon forfeiture of said bond or surety, the Town shall proceed to install the improvements for which bond or surety was posted. In the event that the cast of installing the improvements exceeds the amount of the bond, the owner of said property shall be individually liable to the Town for the additional costs thereof. Furthermore,. the amount that the cost of installing said improvements exceeds the amount of the performance bond shall automatically become a lien upon any and all property included within the design review application. 12-15-4{C): INTERIOR CONVERSIONS {Standards) 3. Proposals far GRFA pursuant to this Section may involve exterior modifications to existing buildings, however, such modifications shall not increase the building bulk and mass of the existing building. Examples of exterior modifications which are considered to increase building bulk and mass include, but are not limited to, the expansion. of any existing exterior walls of the building, regrading around a building in a manner which exposes more than two {2} vertical feet of existing exterior walls and the expansion of existing roofs. Notwithstanding the two (2) vertical foot limitation to regrading around a building described above, additional regrading may be permitted in order to allow far egress from new interior spaces. The extent. of such regrading shall be limited to providing adequate egress areas for windows or doors as per the minimum necessary requirement for the l~ifcrrr~ R" "ilydin., r~,.,~,, adopted building code. Examples of exterior modifications which are not considered to increase building bulk and mass include, but are not limited to, the addition of windows, doors, skylights, and window-wells. Subject to design approval, dormers may be considered an exterior modification in conjunction with interior conversions permitted by this Section. Prior to approval of proposed dormers or regrading for windows or doors as described above, the staff or the Design Review Board shall find that they do not add significantly to the bulk and mass of the building and are compatible with the overall scale, proportion, and design of the build'ong. For the purpose of this Section, "'dormers" are defined as a vertical window projecting from a sloping roof of a building, having vertical sides and a gable or shed roof, in which the total cumulative length of the dormer(s) ~o- does not exceed fifty percent (SQ%) of the length of the sloping roof, per roof plane, from which the dormers} projects. (SEE FIGURI= IN CODE BOOK ON FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE) 1 ~-1$-9: RESTORATION: Whenever a nonconforming use which does not conform with the regulations for the district in which it is located, or a nonconforming structure or site improvement which does not conform with the requirements for setbacks, height, density control, building bulk control or site coverage is destroyed by fire or other calamity; by act of God or by the public enemy, its use may be resumed or the structure may be restored, provided the restoration is commenced within one year and diligently pursued to completion. All new construction must conform to the applicable k~i#erifdin~ Cccln l'nifcrm Firc ~`ade adopted building codes, fire codes, and other relevant codes regarding safety and construction which are in effect at the time rebuilding is proposed. 13-7-6; ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS TO EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS: The applicant proposing to make a condominium conversion to employee housing units shall provide the following documentation with the preliminary map: A. Conversion Report Listing Building Conditions: A condominium conversion report from the Town Building Official on the condition of the building, listing all building code violations, fire code violations and related violations which are detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the public, the owners, and the occupants of the building. B. Required In#ormation: As part of the Planning and Environmental Commission's review of a conditional use permit request for conversion to employee housing units, the following submittal information shall be required: a report of the proposed conversion #hat includes a summary of the proposed ownership of the units; the approximate proposed sale price of units and financing arrangements to be provided by the applicant; a written statement demonstrating compliance with the objectives outlined in the Vail Land Use Plan, with specific reference to goal statements 3.t, 3.2 and 3.3; a draft set of condominium declarations demonstrating compliance with the provisions of this Title. These declarations will be reviewed again by the Town during the condominium platting process. C. Plans And Descriptions: Plans and descriptions showing how the following will be performed: ~ . All site work shall be brought up to current Town standards unless a variance therefrom is granted to the applicant by the Planning and Environmental Commission in accordance with the variance procedures of Title t 2 of this Code. The Planning and Environmental Commission may, if it deems necessary, require additional parking facilities to meet requirements of owners and guests of the condominium units. 2. Corrections of violations cited in the condominium conversion report by the Building Official.. 3. Condominium projects shall meet current adopted building code requirements. • ,~- G. AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS -RESIDENTIAL PARKING STANDARDS The following language is currently Contained within the commercial parking provisions of Title i 4, Vail Town Code: Location Parking spaces, aisles and Turning areas shall be entirety within lot lines and shah Trot encroach on any public right of way. No parked vehicle shall overhang any public right of way. Although the Town has enforced these provisions for residential parking areas for decades, the language does not appear within the residential parking provisions of Title 14, Vail Town Code. Therefore, the identical language is proposed for the "Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards" section of Title 14. • -~z- Approved sr~ara~ F~LANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS/MINUTES Monday, August 27, 20(31 PRC3JECT ORIENTATION 1-Community Development Dept. PUBLiC WELCOME' 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Dick Cleveland Brian Dvyvn Chas Bernhardt Galen Aasland Diane Gulden Doug Cahill Site Visits 1. Kuchar residence - 5122 Grouse Lane 2. Vail Meadows - 5205-520 Black Gore Drive 3. Lots 15 & 16 - 3880 & 3896 Lupine Drive Driver. Brent 1:00 pm ~~ NOTE: 1f the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 ~ 6:30 Public Flearinq -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request far a variance from Section 12-6D-5 ("Lot Area and Site Dimensions"~, Vail Town Code, and a final review of a minor subdivision located at 3834 and 3838 Bridge R©adJ Lots 11 tx ~?, Bighorn Subdivision 2~d Addition. Ap~:~li~:nt: Gary Weiss, represented by Steve Riders, Architect Planner: Ann Kjerulf • Ann Kjerulf asked if the PEC wo~a;d like to wait for the applicant to arrive. The PEC decided to proceed. Ann Kjerulf presented an overview of the staff memorandum, including the changes from the previous meeting when the PEC reviewed the application. Galen Aasland asked fcr public and applicant comment- There was none. Brian Doyon sated that he would like to ensure those notes are on the plat prior to filing. Ann Kjerulf stated that Galen Aasland would be able to confirm the notes when he signs the mylar. Galen Aasland expressed concerns about the two plat notes and ensuring that there is definitely a limitation on the GRFA. Ann Kjerfulf Gtated that both plat notes are necessary. ~~ T(1WN OF YAIL MEMBERS ABSENT John Schofield Approved 9110/01 MOTION (variance}: Brian Doyon 2"d: Dick Cleveland Vote: 6-D Motion (Minor Sub): Brian Dayorl 2~d: DlCk Cleveland Vote: t3-0 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition v,rlthin rrcUfrec" setbacks, .I~ccated at 5122 Grouse Lane 1 Lot 7, Block 1, Gore Creek Subdivisi;~n. Applicant: ,John Kuchar, represented by David Irwin Planner : p_?lisor- Ochs Allison Ochs presented the history of the property, the criteria for review of a variance request, the required findings and staff's position on the request, including proposed conditions of approval. David lnNin spol~,~ on `~ehalf of the: applicant. He presented the owner's proposed upgrades for the property. He rec~~aested the P1=C consider the maintenance of the parking within the right-of-way, due to the three-story separation between the existing garage and the entry level. Galen R"a5land requested public, comment. There was no public comment. Diane Gol+aen .asked wh~~ parking could not be located on the lower portion of the lot. David Irwin explained the issue of the three-story separation between the lower level and entry level. Brian Doyon said any request far parking within the right-of-way should include a revision to bring the parking area closer to the residence so the encroachment into the right-of-way is minimaC, Brian stated he> thought the request deviated more than necessary for a practical solution. Galen Aasland stated hu did riot think the applicant could remove all the parking an Grouse Lane, given the issues on the site. Doug Cahill stated he thought some structure should be permitted within Parcel A. He recommended caetting some input from the neighbors about placing structures within Parcel A to demonstrate there would be same: public benefit. Diane Golden stated she thouq'ht some creativity was needed to facilitate the use of the vaeant portion of the property on the lower north side. She suggested a funicular instead of the parking irrtprovements on Grouse Zane. Dick Cleveland suggested the PEC table the item, so the applicant could pursue all the alternatives and demonstrate the d~.viations were minimal. He said there would be a public benefit in getting the parking spaces pushed farther out of the cul-de-sac_ Brian Doyon stated he thought some of the parking should be allowed in the right-of-way, since the house was built in the c~?unty and the existing configuration was problematic, but he said the degree of ~:ievia,tion vti~as e.~cess,i~re and that some effort needed to be made to pull at least part of the parkinv area out of the cul-de-sac. Chas Bernhardt said h agreed •>vth Dick and Brian and that it might be best to table the item, so modifications cn~~ld !~e mar'e. Approved 9110lD1 Galen Aasland said he ~Isc agreed with Dick and Brian. He said he thought some additional parking should be provides at the lower level, Dick Ciev2land made a motion to table this to September 10, 2401. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a Date of B-d. 3. ,4 request fcr a final revie~r,~ and a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposed amendrr,~:nt to the Vail I_nt~d Use Plan to allow for a change from a "Low Density Residential" ianc± use category to an "Open Space" land use category, located at 5206-5215 Black Gc~-e Drive ,' Lots 1-; and Lot 12, Vail Meadows Filing 2; and a request for a final review and a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposed rezoning from "Agricu.t+~re and •~7p~=n Space" to "Natural Area 'reservation District," located at 5206-5207 Black Gore Drive f Lots 1-4, Vail Meadows Filing 2. Applicant: Town of Vail PlBnne:-: Frert ~N~ls,^rl Brent Wilsara gave an c~r~;r<riev~r :f the staff memorandum detailing the request for an amendment to the l~.nd use i~lar~ for i_ots 1- 7 a~~d Lot 12, Vail Meadows 1riling 2 to a designation of Open Space and the requeyct fr~r a r~.znnng of E_.ots 1-4, Vail Meadows Filing 2 to Natural Area Preservation District. Ha st_+t€~d that t'h.e sta~# -s commendation is for approval. Dick Cleveland stated that the application was consistent with the goals and objectives of applicable planning doct±menfs in i:he Town of Vail. Brian Doyon had no cor;;ments. Ghas Bernharc't +tad ro eo+~ments. Diane Golden ~:.s!;ad for clarification of the location of the creeks in the vicinity. Brent Wils~in pra~rided „lari~ficaticsr+, explaining that the current GIS produces maps which are nat. to scale an{:t t+~at +^^,ations cif features are approximate. Galen P,asland asked fcr clarification of the lots in question.. Bren# U~rlson s'.ated that the In±s +rrere owned by the Town of Vail. Galen Aasland e±ated `h?;t he ~n~,s in agreement with the proposal. Brian Dr~ynn m~^!e e, mc~t~a^ to make a reco+r+mendation to the Vail Town Council of approval of the requr~si for ^ land ~ use ~,lar± r,~ andment, in accordance with the criteria and findings in the staff memorandum. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. Brian Doyon made a motion to make a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to approve the request for a r~~aninc# of Lcts 1-~ within Vail Meadows Filing 2, in accordance with the staff memorand J,~n, ~°r t-ria ~= r.d `indin~s on pages, and conditions listed on page.. Doug Cahill sec;~r~ded the motion. Approved 9110101 The mo#ion carried ~-r~. 4. A request for a final review and a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposed amendment to the Vail Land Use Plan to allow for a change from a "Low Density Residential" IanG use category to an °'Open Space" land use category, located at 3880 and 3896 Lur~~ne Dri~ira f Lats "5 & 16, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition; and a request for a final revi +n+ and a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a proposed rezoning from "Two-Family PrimarylSecondary Residential" to "Natural Area Preservation District located at 3880 Lupine Drive 1 Lot 15, Bighom Subdivision Second Addition; and a request for a final r~2'ri~~;4 and a rec4mn"~endation to the Vail Town Council on a proposed rezoning from "Agriculture and Qpen Space" to "Natural Area Preservation District" located at 3896 Lupine nri~•~e f !_•:~t 16, E~i~harn S~ihdivision Second Addition, f~ppiie.ar~t~ T~~,,~iz of 1f ai! Pla~7n~r- r3~~nt Vlfi!sc~ ~? Brent Wiis^n g=~ti~~~ an o•,~~=:rti~ie;lr of th~~ staff memorandum involving a request for an amendment to the Vail ~_arzd lJ~-~e Pian a~~r~ re~or~ing or' Lots 15 & 16, Bghom Subdivision 2"d Addition. The staff recommendat+~r: cr, these rFq~:PSts is that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendatir:~n of apFaraval to t"~e Vail Tavvn Council. Doug Cahill stated that' he was in agreement with the proposal. He added that some parking should h€' adcicr., to the ;;te t;~ acd.ommodate public use of the site. Diane Golden agreed vftth Qougs comments. Dick ClevEian screed ~.~:~;t!-. the comments already stated. Brian Dc°ycn :.t~: ted that Nome a~_'~'itionai signage could be allowed to facilitate public use of the site. Galen ~,a.slan~~ ~~t~~tEd tl-r:!# h~ v~,•r,~ ir, agreement with the Commissioners. He asked how the parking situation. vuauld w,e handlFd. Brian Dayan made a rnation to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council, to allow for the orrnr~:~w`t arie~r~~rn~-.~*.s to the Vail Land Use Plan. Chas B~~^rnharlt cec;;,nr+~;~ the m,^`ion. The motion carr+ed 6-0. Brian Deyron m:~c!c~ a mnt€o~ :*.o r~~~~vard a recommendation of approval to the Vai! Town Council to allow far the rezanir~g c+f Lot 15, Bighorn Subdivision 2"d addition, in accordance with the staff memorandum :a~ ;:~ findir ~s. Chas Bernhardt second3d the motion. The motion carried 6-0. Brian Doyan marls a motion to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council to allow for the r~:~cning o` I_ot 16; G~ghorn Subdivision 2"d addition, in accordance with the staff memor;.~ndum rrd F~ndinc~s on pa~t;e 5. Chas Bernhardt ser.,anc:e~~ the motion. The motion carried ;~-0. Approved 9110/Di Brian Dayan asked that a mama be forwarded to Council noting the PEC's recommendations regarding parking and sic~nage at the site and a request that these improvements be included in the RETT priorit;f prajer..t list. Brent INilsan a~~rr:ed to foruvard ~ `Attar to the town council summarizing the PEC's request. 5. A reque~s` f:sr a fir;a6 re1EiE~~r~r and recommendation to the Vail Town Council on proposed `~house~:ee~jing" amendmeE~ts andfor corrections to Title 11, Vail Tawn Cade {"Sign RegulQt~ons"~, Title 12, Vail Town Cade ("Zoning Regulations"), Tide 13, Vail Town Code ("S!~bc!i~~ision Rpg~~latir7ns"~, and Title i4, Vail Town Code ("Development Standards"), and setting forth det~ i!s in regard thereto. A detailed description of the proposed text ?rnencl~-n~nts is a~~ailable at the Department of Community Development. Applicant: T~~~+vn of 11,~a~1 Planner; Brent Wilson Brent W~Iscn statAc that ail Corr,missioners had been presen# when the item was discussed in the pre-mectinca b~ ,~ he'd be happy to address any outstanding issues or answer any additional questions. . Galen P.^~s!ur'r~ t.lced fr•~ p~~tric cr~rrimpnt. There was no public comment. Doug Ca'~,~sl as':~;d if th= ~~ev,r.Elafi~~~~ information in the definitions could be copied rather completely removed. Dick C'~,velanr st'~tfc1 that t`7r: r~ ~~ulator)r information should be removed from the definitions. Brent ti~t'i?san sta+ed that a °~ote could be added to definitions directing one to the regulatory sections cif the c~;de, if the FEC felt strongly. The other PEC members stated they felt the regulatory content should be relocated to the appropri^`: sir+`.r~ns ar~'~ remoti,~;~ from the definitions section of the code. Doug Cahill made a motion to for,rvard a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council in accordE.nr~3 ~~r1ji'':1 '~'~~ St.-,`` y,•;"^m~,r::~~~vam. Diane C:~c~idr:n °;~cc~~7ded''he rroLian. The mrtian carri~- d q-©_ 6. ~~ -eoun~+ for ~ `~r~al revi~~r, r,nd a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on proposed rs~visi+~na co Title `4 ("Deus lopment Standards"), Vail Town Code, regarding the use of szlternc,t~=. Iju±ldint~ rnatFriFlr within the Town of Vail, and setting forth details in regard g nrp "1-,~tf AA,nrylica~~t: T~~°r~i°~ cf ll,-~~ Fl;~nner: i~'~i Gibson TABLED I.d[tiTli.. SCPTEP~B€R 1©, 2001 7. ^, req~!;1t f^r a `irGl r~~k•i?u.~ .rld ,~ recommendation to the Vail Town Council 4n the Town of !!a'±"s ;~r~~!~a~~•d am~:n~t^~K~nt to the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, located at Eart~`~t~^:st h~eac?.~w DrivQ, VaiV Village. Approved 9/10/01 p€anner: George r.uther Y',~~LI `d Jlloli 6#.. J~,r ~ Ir 1~Vi~CR 1 Qr 2VV1 '~ 8- ~'~, regue~t fora ',=i~ ~a, reE~iet~u and recommendation to the Town Council for the adoption of ::~~,a viev~~ torrid°s •y^Y~ithir ~~onshead, as identified within the Lianshead Redevelopment i Master '''a€~, V;ewr C~arrd+~r 1 is located approximately at the main pedestrian exit looking southwest towards tf 3e Gondola lift line. View Corridor 2 is located approximately from the pedestri,:a;~ plan:: ~.tt ~~h~ ~.~:'7t end of the Lifl:house Lodge looking south up the Gondola lift ~~ line. Amore specific lens! description of the two view corridors is on file at the Community r7evelopment Department. l~pplicant: -r owri e~f l/sii planner f,iiis~n C~cr.s ~T~-aLrfJ Ulv'1"I~. SEI~TEtv±i~IwR 10, .2041 9. Appra+><al of August 13, ?tlrll minutes Dick Clevelar€ei mati4n~C~ tc~ ep;~€'~+ve the August 13, 20Q1 minutes• Doug C~~1h~i!l s~~'ir6):~u.~d ±a~~-, rnc~ti ~. ~. The motion cared Q-~r,7. 1{~. lnf:~rma.~cr, Upc~te Regarding, the "t~ubb:.~ ' Dick Cleveiant~ Mated treat zhe ~:ouncil should review the schedule put forward by the Vail Recreation District. Brian Doyon stated his +;nnt.ern regarding the management of the Bubble and that the Council should review tree proposed schedule and management of the Bubble. Doug Cahiii saal;ed that ai-€e schedule should be non-biased and benefit the Community as a whole. Diane Gallen afjreed treat there needs to be a more equitable schedule. Galen Haslana agreed 4vit>`, the CurT€rr~issianers. Brent V',lilson stated that the PEC s comments would be forwarded to the Council. Russ Ft~rr~:st ~~4t~rated F';ent's c~~~-nments. Customer 5~rvzy regerdit~c~ Fee Structure: Russ Ftarrest el~i.~oratec~ un tree r:€arrent study being performed regarding the Town's Fee Structure for devEylc~pmer€° ^errt~i•t F?us.~ ~~:ated that there would be discussion regarding fees and related applicati+~n prc~reses ar~d the amount of time spent on projects vs application fees. Doug C=tl~~ill st.r~iw~d that ~f~e fees =~t~ould be sealed with the cost of a project. For more expensive projects, 'the f ~+: ;,I~auld be nref t:~r and for less expensive projects, fees should be kept down. Diane Gnlden :greed wt•"~ Day€ca. Dick Clevc'a^~.~ rt.,=~tti~; t:~~~~:t the fe: structure should be based on the amount of time needed for ,project ~~eview, as oppaaPd to a riot dollar amount. r~ Approved 9110!01 Brian Dc~~ron s"~.t~,d tha`, he thous ~:~ that most of the application fees are too low especially for projects vrhich r~~=~ tabl~~ei repeat~:dly. He indicated tl~at it should be more difficult when large commercial projects coinQ in for review, whereas they are able to receive multiple reviews now for a relative'ij~ lo~~° ;;.r;st. Chas Bernhardt stated that tt?e a project could be charged based on the number of Board reviews it receives. In a=_i>ar •~c~°~':s, ti +e project should be feed based on the cost to the Town cif Vail. Galen AaslaE~d [Mated ti ~~:t ~ili~h i`~,:~ividual homeowners, fees should remain low. However, with larger projects, tree To~~~~ ~ should t~~e reimbursed for staff time. He noted that residential fees are still extre~rel~~ ~c,~~lr ana could b~ i ~:~her rased on comparisons with neighboring communities. •