HomeMy WebLinkAboutCLIFFSIDE LOT 2 LEGALq
N
rl
l{
-lq()(,,
$-e*\,n
T,t l
=
$$$t
.rrr at- F a\\+-\J(Ja
b,
_ooc\lo
ll
?It I
bslNto
o\t\t
tls
*'Y.
s
F{!{ql(t
g"
---o
$N
f\.-o
ll
J
d
s,y,
sa\t\l
c;-
q
*J
lrJF-
H
'se(J
q
s
H
i(/)
trf
-'fE,o
o
^|
il
H
-bp
IRFtg
ffiIf,o
!
r)Ioso(o(o
v)
N\t\t
tlT(J
o$
NJ
o)p
tlt
-l:-t\l$ls
Itl
IJ
-lo
!o\f
ro
otr)
tlt<
-8i-*
eH8
&*p
(\t
e
-ro
_(\lo-oolhx
Y6s|lJ
4)-?
v\
t
z
\r)'i",
$
oo
rls
\$
z
0co-
t:t. cc : ..-t cj c O o c r-J,O rJ
l-C' l -l C C !o-lJc,r'r(JCO€ -C-'..^'..c,ccFlifo>oo-i.,1 i !)-OL
l\t)aj!JvL!!0!:- c(3..rrc cJ)' '-t O, ) -a C +-a>!a]ir.rE(,J] rr i; O F.i C) + Lr
_J1,.)_U.\/c" c d..J.3 C.i trt O
r.-ir>.(]1FJC0., ar -_i r' a ;- '>+r ci. of o 5oc ccc('f'!r .crl-
; c d J': c - :C {n C O r O C.J O-r E3 !!3'-r '-i t.t-l - -3'-'o a d (^ a.1: a o aE O CCOCI'|.I.:
L \t,.'-r ;.o r, rc c o I,u. cr (,]co >11 (r)tf0 troc oo.1ritrdfi :t cl rc.-t d !..lci aNu.cEu! c.r a:-]- 3l.p!.-r O EOO-r 2>O( C'>.1 ..1 Ut,..A CO.CLC..r o l]co0f0x00tlu ca tr. I ol-q- cc !'o.cJo+- c. I'j. ! O-i'rJ O - tr)a> O . ,-r tll O!.iJ'+.l ! >,O C Lc C C--l C t O
oc (d!L-CCc'O i+-1n a Jl ..r i3 t rN.-r l. O.-l O !-l C- ..r O r0 -Pt t- l!
O() ..1 a.E O,rl C!' Or !tlr >!C)CO! U.-rf (4qr o ,r t .a c l.r o c .-l .-.1 ..1-r fl..J -l .Fl | :i Q, '.r tr! (, O '.1
"-r D. .lJ +J fJ nl .-1 !r
O .d lr 2' q-r In 5, O lr -lJ ! !
Fl C\OOlraC !CrOO\ U U s.d Oq- fJ.q C(\i \ XO(rC(iOU
-r !1 (J O i.-..-t O o (.)
! 'Fl () '-1 .c: O>!CrJiilrOd -a.lrO.-O!O gC)
'l> !-l i-d OC tl ..r !."1 i! orJ c d o o,! o(jJ O C lr C cJ C-r Ul+r lr t O > >O 'n a6ACCuCOor'-1Ha.COrc'.rt!Fl"r.Ci.-
\t
+r !.i
c0l
..4
+r +l
H
H()
<E
$\
Hg
$3
:-
$
ot
=orf)-(o
so(o
.(4
tU
aslaro
ooro
=
HEH,t r, .fl-rq6
co'cc--lJ
rJO31
Qj -r +-i
o
o" .c c ..
E rJ <l rHicg cO O.+-l-r
'.-l -i r-t
-C.6_r O
.lJ Cr) i.!
UA
..i-' O .-j U.0 -e -C (i
>,.; o .q+, (.) .-i.--a()!! .+o!-rCOoooo(j
.tJ rc
> tU '-l >.Qo>lroOdlr
OQ,.cc)!o-cO!rH .P r-t-r Or
z,
Hi
Frl
.il
F;i
F-";-i
.^\
(4
too 6
s
s
oa
Eq
E
,:F*
H3$40S()\ trrJJ()('-sNIUs*3s
b
s
P
FsoJ
l-
=s
s
R
=
FnO
ur i, [)
","t'|,t60UIJ;Z.iii{5;>5r.'i
:<
!EI
Eb0.;-ll.I
=L=0)?6)_eE
=.rl5U
Ea-I-
E \
oo^,ool,
,.in(JY,
xu$
i6n">x0- < !.i
PETITION FORM
a
FOR
eetitiorfte
A}4ENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
OR
6/4/84
the zonj-ng ordinance
REQUEST FORA CIIANGE IN DISTRICT BOTJNDARIES
I. This procedure is required, for any amendment toor for a request for a district boundary change
A. NAME OF PETITIONER DARYL R. BURNS, D. D. S.
ADDRESS 649 SO. MoNRoE wAY, Denver, CO 80209
NAME OF PETITIONERIS REPRESENTATIVE
ADDRESS
c.NAME 0F OWNER (print or type)
SIGNATURE ,oz<- -1/t
ADDRESS
D. LOCATTON OF PROPOSAL
ADDRESS VAIL, co, CLIFFSIDE SUB. #2
DA" ,t ("L---
fl IZZ-tatu
PHONE w 757-0A67
B.SAME
PHONE
PHONE
BK
BK
BK
o2a2
0334
0334
PG.0707
o232
0230
r.ts 2-,
LEGAI DESCRIPTION Gt +: block
$100.00 PAID "/"/rt 4t{z'
F. A list of the names of owners of arl property adjacent to thesubject property , and their mailj.ng a,pd.pis
L^r u ;;:'BJB#,,.
!'re'**rr"-S{"t'
/rii/:<
vArL, co 8rs57 7 .
A .y \/ RT.HARD N. BRowN L* 4' I /"t € A) ""\ '
Ln | | l-780 SOUTH BELAIRE ST. #106 _ I- ! ou*rr"*, co 80222 ( s' /3c"'nt )
../^Dt
L^ r ;A,- t= ki *n t" r t r-r
, )^' l!-2t., 6 c( ,-$,r,
lr'l t*u) tL"'"<-&^ G u&r,l-io(,,,, U?:"' ,?*,it ^'?
''( tl 'i)' so*'(ili' l3x :
"/'/,.ts-= U'll ,/ r/c--. U t,-.,(
A L'- n ) t7 r c/a*/ (o',ER)
.4\ /4 "
W '1'-,ro s ("1'(o')."-- f r Yoz-2 (- b.;JL./ 6/'.,
Petition form for At,"ra zonins ord or Request ,ln.rrn" ir, uo[i!i"i""
II. Four (4) copies of the following information:
A- The petition shall include a sunnary of the proposed revisionof the regurations, or a_comprete d-scription oi the proposedchanges in district boundaries and a map indicating tir--lxistingand proposed district boundaries. Applicant mrst subnit written and/o}graphic naterials stating the reasons for iiquest.
,III. . Time Requirements
The Planning and Environmental Comnrission meets on the 2nd and 4thMondays of each month. A petition wittr the necess€rry accompanyingmaterial must be su:bmitted four weeks prior to the date of-the meet-ing. Forlowing the Planning and enviiofunenial cormission meeting,all amendments to the zoning ordinance or district b"""a;d-cfraniimust go to the Town Council for final action.
DA_ByL R. BURNS. D.D.S.
v. r{ett Bonk prof essionol Building
5055 Eost Kentucku Avenue
De^ver, Cotorddo 80222
T€lephone 757 -0867 D;plomote Americon Bo,lrd of Orthodontic5
June 6, 1984
Planning and Environmental ConmissionVail, CO 81657
Mr. David CoIe would also like to have his lot zoned SFR.
Please see enclosed Exhibit A.
o*b
DARYI BURN'. D.D.s.
l€ft Bonk Profestionol Building
5055 Eost K€ntuckrl Ave^ue
Denver. Colorado 80222
t€l€phone 757 -0,857 Diptomdt€ Americon Bodrd of Orthodontlca
June 6,1984
Planning and Environmental CommissionVail, Co 8165 7
Dear Sirs:
I wonder if you could help me with a problem. f am the owner of Lot +3
in the Cli-ffside Subdivision f2 in Vail, Co. It was annexed into the
town of Vail on December 21, 1980 and was zoned Residential Cluster (RC)
on December 14, 79a2. Since then, the Planning and Environnental Com-
mission has recommended unanimously to the Town Council for rezoning to
Single Famity Residential (SFR). Without an SFR status, I feel my Iot
is reduced to an unbuj- ldable site. For the past two years I have been
trying to get the necessary zone change.
In addition to obtaining a SFR zone change, I would also apprecia te en-
tering the 1ot from the existing access road positioned directly above
my building site. I fu11y realize the concerns of the Ridge at Vail
property owners; and, during a mid-February trip to Vail I talked in
person with Mr. Craig Snowden (architect for the Ridge at Vail Devel-
opment and for Mr, David Cofe's house on IoL #2 adjacent to mine) and
Mr. Jim Flaum (real estate representative for Ridge at Vail), Mr. Snow-
den was not particularly concerned with the position of my lot (#3) in
relation to the Ridge at Vail condominiums. He felt that since Mr. Cole's
house was already in p1ace, in my direction' that my position would not
impact the Ridge at VaiI units. I asked hj-m if he were to design a house
for my lot, which road access would he prefer. His answer was that ei*
ther entry would. work, but that he would prefer the entry from above.
Mr. Flaum was not against my obtaining an SFR zoning, but questioned the
entry to my lot from the road. above.
I have encLosed some pictures of various vj-ews from the southeast cor-
ner unit of the Ridge at Vail. I have also included a schematic draw-
ing of the area to ilfustrate the cannera positions from which the pic-
tures were taken. Per my pictures and drawings I feel that the Ridqe
at Vail views of the Gore Range and the Vail Ski Area are not impacted
by my 1ot. In the direction of the already standing Cole house there
would be my entry way and the upper portion of a structure.
In srunrnary I would appreciate being considered for a zoning change from
RC to SFR. I rrould also appreciate being allowed to enter my lot from
the access road above.
Sincerely yours,
Daryl R. Burns, D. D. S.
DRB: em
oo*rluuRNs. D.D.s.
Left Bdnk Protessionol Building
5055 Eost Kerrtuckq Avenu€
Denver. colorodo 8O222
t€lephone 75? -0867 Diplomot€ Americdn Boord ot Orthodontica
June 6, 1984
Planning and Environmental Commission
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Sirs:
r wonder if you could help me with a problem, I a:n the owner of Lot #3
in the Cliffside Subdivision #2 in Vai1, CO. It was annexed into the
town of Vail on December 21, 1980 and was zoned Residential Cluster (RC)
on December L4, 79A2. Since then, the Planning and Envirorunental Com-
missj-on has recommended unanimously to the Town Council for rezoning to
Single Family Residential (SFR) . Without an SFR status, I feel my lot
is reduced to an unbuildable site. For the past two vears r have been
trying to get the nccessary zone chanqe,
In addition to obtaining a SFR zone change, I would also appreciate en-
tering the 1ot from the existing access road positioned directly above
ny building site. I fully realize the concerns of the Ridge at Vail
property ownersi and, during a mid-February trip to VaiI I talked in
person with Mr. Craig Snowden (architect for the Ridge at Vail Devel-
opment and for Mr, David Colers house on l.ot #2 adjacent to mine) and
Mr. Jim Flaum (rea1 estate representative for Ridge at Vail). Mr. Snow-
den was not particularly concerned with the position of my 1ot (#3) in
relation to the Ridge at Vail- Condominiums. He felt that since Mr. Cole's
house was already in place, .in my direction, that rny position would not
impact the Ridge at Vail units. f asked him if he were to design a house
for my lot, which road access would he prefer. His answer was that ei-
ther entry would work, but that he would prefer the entry from above.
Mr. Flaum was not against my obtainingt an SFR zoning, but questioned the
entry to my lot from the road above.
I have enclosed some pictures of various views from the southeast cor-
ner unit of the Ridge at VaiI. I have also included a schematic draw-
ing of the area to ilLustrate the camera positions from which the pic-
tures were taken. Per my pictures and drawi-ngs I feel- that the Ridge
at Vail views of the Gore Range and the Vail Ski Area are not impacted
by my lot. In the direction of the already standinq Cole house there
would be my entry way and the upper portion of a structure.
In surunary I would appreciate being considered for a zoning change from
RC to SFR. I would also appreciate being aIlowed to enter my loL from
the access road above.
Sincerely yours,
Daryl R. Burns, D. D. S.
DRB: em
oo*rluuRNs. D.D.s.
L€ft Bdnk Protessionol Building
5055 Eost Kentuckq Avenu€
Denver. colorodo 80222
t€lephone 757 -0867 Diplomote Americdn BoortJ of Orthodontica
June 6, 1984
Planning and Envirorunental Commission
Vai1, CO 41657
Dear Sirs:
I wonder if you could help me with a problem. I arn the owner of Lot #3
in the Cliffside Subdivision #2 in Vai1, CO. It was annexed into the
town of Vail- on December 21, 1980 and was zoned Residential cluster (RC)
on December 14, 1982. Since then, the Planning and Environmental Com-
mission has recommended unanimously to the Town Council for rezoning to
Single Family Residentlaf (SFR) . Without an SFR status, I feel my lot
is reduced to an unbuildable site. For the past two years I have been
trying to get the necessary zone change.
In addition to obtaining a SFR zone change, I would also appreciate en-
tering the 1ot from the existing access road positioned directly above
my building site. I fully realize the concerns of the Ridge at Vail
property ownersi and, during a mid-February trj.p to Vail I talked in
person with Mr. Craig Snowden (architect for the Ridge at Vail, Devel-
opment and for Mr. David Cole's house on lot #2 adjacent to mine) and
Mr. Jim Flaum (rea1 estate representative for Ridge at Vail). Mr. Snow-
den was not particularly concerned with the position of my 1ot (#3) in
relation to the Ridge at Vail Condominiums. He felt that since Mr. Cole's
house was already in place, in my direction, that my position would not
impact the Ridge at Vail units. I asked him if he were to design a house
for my lot, which road access would he prefer. His answer was that ei-
ther entry would work, but that he would prefer the entry from above.
Mr. Flaum \^/as not against my obtaining an SFR zoning, but questioned the
entry to ny lot from the road above-
I have enclosed some pictures of various views from the southeast cor-
ner unit of the Ridge at Vail, I have also included a schematic draw-
ing of the area to illustrate the camera positions from which the pic-
tures were taken. Per my pictures and drawings I feel that the Ridge
at Vail views of the Gore Range and the Vail Ski Area are not impacted
by my lot. In the direction of the already standing Cole house there
would be my entry way and the upper portion of a stz:ucture.
In surnmary I would appreciate being considered for a zoning change from
RC to SFR. I would also appreciate being allowed to enter my lot from
the access road above.
SincereLy yours,
Dary] R. Burns, D. D. S.
DRB: em
.A_i.g?e&
Department of Community Development
75 Souh Frcntage Road
Yail, Colorado 8|657
970-479-2138
nlx 970-479-2452
wwwci.vail.co.us
July 21, 2000
David L. Cole, Associate Broker
Re/Max Vail, Inc.
143 E. Meadow Drive, Suite 34S
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Lot 2, Ctiffside Subdivision
Dear Dave:
Pursuant lo.your reque,sj:Jfg loilo'vrring is a synopsis of the Town's records of grossresidential floor area (GRFA) tor ttre aiove_i6ferbnceO property:
Zone District: Single{amily Residential
Lot Size: p,977 square fe"i- --
Density Allowed: One Owetiing unii-
Aflowable GRFA: g,Sg7J square feel.
Existing GRFA: 9,099.0 s{uare teei..
' this figure does not incrude the potentiat 2s0 square foot bonus credit.
'l* based on digitized, froor nlan2 daAq Ma! 29, 1980 on fite in the Department ofComyulity Devetopment. llp to date iioor plans for the entire iiidence wiil bepquired with any design review submittat iiwlving tne aaiiiion ot GRFA.
lf you would like to discuss this matter in greater detail, please do not hesitate to contactme at (970) 479-2140.
Sincerely,
(z-*+- (
Brent Wilson, AlCp
Planner ll
$*r*,
ilrru'tr ^/,'io /"renN
t lrr lulM
WHEREAS, the owners of Lots 2 and 3, Cliffside Subdivision, Town of Vail,
County of Eagle, State of Colorado, have petitioned the Town of Vail to rezone
Lots 2 and 3 from Residential Cluster to Single Family Residential; and
WHEREAS' Single Family Residentja'l is a more appropriate zone district for the
development of these lots; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has
recomnended such rezoning:
NOl'l, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOI,JN OF VAIL, COLORADO,
THAT:
Section I
In accordance with Section .|8.66.160 of the Town of Vail Municipal'Code, the Town
Council hereby amends the zoning of Lots 2 and 3, Cliffside Subdivision, County
of Eagle' State of Colorado from Residentia'l Cluster to 5ingle Family Residential
Section 2
ORDINANCE NO. 2I
Series of 1984
AN ORDINANCE REZONING LOTS 2 AND 3, CLIFFSIDE
SUBDIVISION FROM RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER TO SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
In accordance with Section '18.08.030
zoning administrator is directed to
zone district amendment.
of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the
amend the official zoning map to reflect such
Secti on 3'.:
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is
for any reason he'ld to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it
wou]d have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence,
clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or nore parts,
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 4.
The Town Counci'l hereby finds, determines and dec'tares that this ordinance is
necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and
the inhabitants thereof.
Section 5.
The repeal or the repear and reenactment of any provisions of the vail Municipar
code as provided in this ordinance shail not affect any right wh.ich has accrued,
any duty imposed, any violatiion that occurred prior to the effective date hereof,
any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced underor by virtue of the provision repealed or repea.red and reenacted. The repeal of
any provision hereby shail not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING
1984, and a public hearing shal.l be he.ld on
THiS day of
A,F , 1984 at 7:30 p.m.
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
0rdered published in full this day of
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
this ordinance on the day
in the Council Chambers of the Vail
, 1984.
Rodney E.Slifer, Mayor
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED
this
ON SECOND
day
READING AND ORDERED
of'
PUBL ISHED
ATTEST:Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town C.lerk
or
(\TO:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commissjon
FR0M: Community Development Departmenr
DATE: December 8, 1983
SUBJECT: Rezoning request for Lots l-6, cliffside subdivision fromResidential Cluster (RC) to Single Family Residentiat (SFR).
fpplicants: Richard Brown, Chailes and fuargaret Rosenquist.,
David Co'le, Daryl Burns
BACKGROUND
As.some_of you know, this 'i s not the first time this item has come up. In fact,this will be the third time the-rezoning has come before the ptannlnb unJ enui"6n-mental Conrniss'ion. The only thj ng diff6rent this time around is thai Lot O is -
now included' which means we're talking about the entire subdivision of six lots.
Basically,_the rezoning means Lots l-5 receive the same number of units (l).but slightly more GRFA. Lot 6 would receive two tess uniii (stop.-liicuiiiio
on.a ve-ry approximate basis) and less GRFA under the rezoninj prbposal. Themain advantage to the_propeity owners is the lifting or ine iibpe'restrictiJnsby going from RC to SFR. -
The bottom line is that cliffside was a very poorly planned subdivision. Thelots are, for the most part, very small and'v!"v sielpl ine accesses to severallots are unworkable, and constrult'ion on the toi, pirt'6f tots 4 and 5 will intrudeupon the.ridgeline. The appiicants wish to rezbnb the subdivision to Sfn wiirroutrestriction, and this is whbre the controversy comes is. The iiinning-ina"iiuiron-mental Conrnission and staff, as you can see from the previous memos ind minutes,wish to inpose restrictions upon ini aeveiopr"ni on-lo[s-3,-+ and 5,
It is important that you read all of the attached information carefully so you're
:l:.f_g!.the.past occumences. Since nothing has really changed in teims oif,ne appllcants demonstrating that constructi6n can sensitively take place onlots 3,4, and 5, our staff-position remains bas.ically the same.
CRITERIA EVALUATION
The criteria for evaluating rezonings are found in the purpose section ofChapter .l8.02
General provisions.
Jh9 Rc zone was devised for a townhouse-type development and was neverintended to serve as the zone foi inJiviai.,ii rot deveiopmeni. The reasonRC-was-designated for cliffside-wai in"'original zoning'oi west Vail uponannexation didn't allow for thorough study 5r each pariel, ina ctiffsiiewas surrounded by RC zoning.
The slope restrictions of the RC zone basically make several lots in Cliffsideunbuildable--and this is not our intention. Tie existing ioning is notreally suited to the property.
l.Su i tab i'l
(
(
lOrrr,de -2- 1z/s/sa
2'
t/
Ili,f;lllffir: 'fi:'lffillr;ff,J1.ff";:l:o !l,s ..'e, as it. is a unirieddue-to-proii'i,ttv'and simi'tar-rbna'ur.ti; illt.n"]njured uv t[e-i"idiins
3.
Orderl and Viable Community?
The rezoning, with thesensible and sensitive
The elimination of two
condition recorrnended by staff,development of the remainCer oiuntEs on Lot 6 is a p.lus for the
will provide forthe subdivision,
community.
RECOMMENDATION
Iii'!3T[:']lil,?;l:lSirli'ofiE'ii'sifi,'"ffrHit',,i!f,'r*'rrl,:lid.:'il*,31,
No structure, imnrovement or increase grade whall occur at a height greaterthan the existint :tty:!ili^li"irv^iii;t 9r..it9 u.;i;;";;rty rine which isthe conrnon propeity rine with il,t"nijg" at vair subdivision.
(
(
--- -T
t
b
e
PETITIONERS/?ROPERTT OWNER S
The undersigned are petitioners of tfie record qnrers of the real property whichis the subject of, ttre witlrin petition.
EIIIIBII A
DAVID COI.E
Bridge street
val-I, CO 81657
FROM THE DESK OF
DARYL R. EURNS, D. D. S.
.TELEPHONE 75A-QA6-'
DENVER, COLORADO 80222
5OT5 EAST KENTUCKY AVENUE
hn-. rt- /.-.lL---(y't7sa
>-{-E
i --'t-L/
(
f, -,- t/s/84
DRAFT ONLY
3. RequeSt to rezone Lots 2 and 3, Cliffside Subdivision, from Residential
Burns.
Peter Patten stated that since .|98.| ,4 or 5 simi'l ar proposa'l s had been proposed
concerning this property, but for the entire subdjvision. Lots 3, 4, and 5 wereall restricted to access from the bottom. Patten showed a site plan and
explained that lot 3 didn't have the site conditions that 4 and 5 did, and lot
2 was a moot point because it was a1 ready built upon. The staff recormended
approva'l of rezoning lots 2 and 3.
Dr. Burns, owner of lot 3, showed slides with three main views and explainedthat hjs home would not impact the view corridors from the units on Vail Ridge.
He added that there were two problems: l) the zone RC made the lot unbui'ldable'because of the slope restrictions, and also cut down the GRFA, and 2) the use of
the upper entry was important to Dr. Burns.
Bi'l I Post, representing the Ridge at Vail, read from previous'Town of Vail corres-pondence to Eagle County that the structures must be kept back so they "peek over theridge." He stated that the Ridge owners did not mind the use of the upper
access to the'lot if the same restrjctions concerning the height of the structure
remained the same as recommended previously by the pEC.
Post also wanted to have a restriction that there would be no parking in thecul de sac. Jim Flaum, president of the Ridge Town House Association, wanted to
be sure the same access wou'ld not be g'iven to lots 4 and 5. Dave Cole, owner of
1ot 2, stated that at first it appeared that his home would impact Burns', but
found that Burns' view was over Co1e's chimney. Cole felt that if Burns wou1 d
have to access from below, it would be a tremendous infringement upon Burns'rights. Post reminded the board that this was a zone change request. Eskwith
stated that since this was a request for a zone change, the PEC could place
conditions upon its approval . He added that although the Town could not deprive
the applicant the use of his property, the owner of that property was not entitledto the best use of the property as Dave Cole presented.
Rapson was stil'l concerned with the view conidor impact, Donovan was concerned
about the narrowness of the road. Patten stated that this was a private drive
and was totally contro'l 1ed by 6 owners, but that the fire access would need to
be looked at. Edwards stated that he wou'l d Iike to see some sort of reasonable
limitation of height because of the restrictions that had been placed on the Ridgeunits. Pierce had no problems with the request, but was concerned about lots 4
and 5 using the drive to reach thejr homes. Patten reminded him that the ownersof lots 4 and 5 must come in to the PEC for a zone chanqe.
Pgnovgnloved and_Fapson secon{e{!o lecommend approval to the Town Council per
f,ne straTT memo. Ine vote was 5-0 ln favor.
5.uest for ex lior alteration to the Vail 2l Buildin in order to remodel
ent Gore erti es.nge ropert
Kristan Pritz presented theProperties, stated that he
needed in protection of the
glass met the paving, such
request. John Wheeler,
would like to have Duaneg'lass. Pierce suggested
as stone.
representing Gore Range
Piper work out the detai'ling
other details where the
.. t.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning and Environmental Commission
Comnunity Devel opment Department
July 2, 1984
SUBJECT: Request for a rezoning from Residential
Residential for Lots 2 and 3, CliffsideApplicants: Daryl Burns and David Cole
C'luster to Si ngl e Fami ly
Subdivision.
(
I. BACKGROUND
0n December .|2, 1983 the P'l anning and Env'ironmental Commission heard thethird request from the property owners of this subdivision to rezone theirsix lots from Residential Cluster to Single Fami'ly Residential. As you'llrecall, the dispute in this matter has been over'lots 4 and 5 as far astheir ability under SFR to impact the ridge line existing at the top of
these lots. After the Planning and Environmental Conrnission approved the
rezoning but with staff recorrnended restrictions on access for lots 4 and 5,the app'l ication was withdrawn by the app'l icant before Town Council appearance.
Although the enclosed minutes show that the Planning and Environmental
Commission restricted the access to lots 3,4, and 5 in the December 12decision, it appears that1ot 3 does not possess the same site pl anning
problems related to visual intrusion on the ridgeline as do lots 4 and-5. Evidence to support this wil1 be presented to you at the hearing on
Monday. The staff'will proceed to woi.k with the oiners of lots + aia Sto explore alternative site planning options for those parcels.
At this time, an access or design solution has not been found and the owners of2 and 3 wish to proceed. Lot Z-is owned by Dave Cole with an existing
residence on it. Under the rezoning, as you can see by the attached statistics,this lot can have an additional 325 square feet under Sing'le Fam'ily Residential.
Lot 3 is a steep vacant lot whjch, as expla'ined in the attached memorandum
dated December 8, 1983, is more suited to Single Family Residential zoning
than to Residential Cluster.
CRITERIA EVALUATIONII.
Please refer to the December 8, 'l 983 memo regarding evaluation of the threecriteria used for rezonings. These findings remain the same for the requestin front of us today. Basically, Res'idential C'l uster is not the most suitable
zoning for these lots, and Single Family Residential allows opportunityfor the sensitive site planning of lot 3.
I II. RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department reconmends approva'l of the rezoningof the lots 2 and 3, Cl'iffsiite Subdivision from Rc'to SfR. It appears -
that the site conditions on lots 4 and 5 which make access from above undesirable
are_not present on lot 3 (and lot 2 is already deve'l oped). The rezoningof lot 3 relieves the slope restrictions imposed by Residential Cluster
and this makes sense for the placement of a structure on this difficult
parcel .. Thus, we feel comfortable in a1 lowing the rezoning on these twoproperties and find that the rezoning criteria have been met.
1k- S-O :';r^ff KvcoMM€ilD&.ne(
-nfty l
h' f!' ')u -
PEc 12l124t-
McCall stated that except during Christmas week, there was no parking problem.l,r,- Paltgl reminded the commissioneis-that tfiey w;;; ;;;.iy ir.iiaE"irg"l
"eronins,r not the approval of the removal of parking. He added inii irl...'.iuio not be\,^.-/ any reduction of parking unless theie werd'"ri"ti spaces availab1e on site.
- 1l- a "-)
Viele moved and Pierce seconded to a rove ththe Town ncl e vote was
to recommend .rezoni
4.Request to
ries Rosenquist, Margaret
rezone Lots I throu
Rosenqur- st, Davi d
6{ C'liffside Subdt
ts:
Col e
on
h'ar
Da
from Residential
Burns.
uster to nqte Fam entt a rown,
ryl
(
stated that.devetopment on lot 't woutd not intruJe-on"it"'"iig""riil:"" 'r!'P
the staff memo. The motionurcu rur. rdcK or a second. After more discussion-,-T6u-T-fr6!E?l'id Donovan
1999999,t9 a?prove
Fhe, request vyiln the sigii'ioioTirffiitiontla! lgts:. q, ano s uE-aZceslEd-Tiom ttre lowEr-roao. ThEvote was 5.in favor
eo ror tack 0f a second.
I
/.vlsl
-Rl c
and
tz!rzlt3 lq,rynN+
Peter Patten presented the proposal ^explainins. lfa! the staff felt that sing.lefamilv zoning was more apprbpriate toi'ttrti iiilirisiJr uui onty with site restrictions.single Family zoning wouid airow more GRFA, tnd td.;.;;i; not be any sloperestrictions. He showed g l.itg ptan and elptainlo-in.i-ii,; road from tot 4to lot 5 was a 16% grade (ttre town allows q2l; irJ r,l-it"eiseo the concern thatthere not be any Uui)ding-a1ong the r.idge li;e.- -
George Rosenberg, representing the applicants, read the staff's recommendationin the December r98r memo, and added'lhat no igsiriciioni-i.r. praced at thattime' He. pointed out.that..the adjacent owners knew development could take placeon !h9 subject property. He mainlained that io'ieioni,-in'appitiint-aio'no['--need to bring in plans of how he might develop tfre-proieriv.
Bi'l I Post, representing the_Ridge at vail property owners stated that it wastrue that the staff originally ieconrnenaea'reioni"nsl'bri'thut at that time nonotice.was given to adiicent -property owners. He iiated that his clients didnot obiect to the rezoning as'1ohg ai t ) tne toii wouiJ-noi u" accessed fromthe top, and 2) as long ai there ias no'buiioing-viiibi""in tn. ridge line (sincethey themsetves had noi buirt on itre iiagetine,"as ieqri""i by the Town. He:13t9 ttt iI the property is zoned singie Firiiit ih;i "iir-"nuu.-..rilin rights,and now was the time to place restrictions that wLre nleaea. He felt ttrat UEiiAesthe restriction that the'staff rria reidr*nended, that oi-ili having any structure,improvement or increase grade occur.lng a! the ridge line, that the lots shouldnot be attowed access fr5m the iop ( it-i"iii iiii-s, ql'.iir sl. - '-
craig snowdon, architect for The Ridge, showed some studies that had beendone to see what the impact trorla'6"'li tniie were-iin6iu-iiorv buirdingsconstructed' including itre build-up of the road to travi iciess to lots 4 and5.
Pierce agreed with the opposition, that if the rezoning were approved, thatthere be restrictions. Larry Eskwitn iaaea irr.t-il'"r.".oiio be restrictionsto protect adjacent property owners as tong..ii-iniv-niri-.iisona6ie.' il;;;;felt the restrictions shoula be speciiic. -viete;;n;;";.d;
adding that withoutthe restrictions, this could be gi-ossty unrair to-[r,.-iljii"nt property owners.He felt that to restrict access io thai it came t"6m-ueii"-was entirely consistent.
::T::'_l:1.9^:!:l!_l!: ry.g to.Lot lr .n9 ,,ii-t.ia"'*,li"it ,,rt remain. Rapson
with Piper and Morqan-5sTaln.ina;
frt /VAP
'.jt,.7249'
?'ffiN
t
00
/tlJ|
S:a/e :,/"= 50'
A!:.9, sat'*-
\ <\Y/ 0''646 'lcrcs
d... .^, u4ffiffi* -/{nu-t
,5
I$
f'
th'\
q
\\
,t
-./
./
Vtcttul
/zcc sc Fr'
;.26162 lcrcs
lA
l?t
Gze.ens sa'Fr' I
7.-z+z 7,4cres
*#d,-f,')
,\,]
$Y
s)'''ql
tl
I
i
0
h/
U/,
J
//.-ai:' / 'r I
itVnr;,;;iG.ii)o,t"r':' ,'
,,;;fir"9fr
-'-\
I
MEI'lORAf.lDt M
TO: Planning and Environrnental Cornnission
FRoM: Department of Comnunity Development,/Peter Patten
DATE: Novenber 3, 1981
RE: Resubdivision of lots 2 ar.d 3, Cliffside Subdivision
Applicant: David Cole
BACKGROUND
On Septernber 28, 1981 the PEC voted 3-2 to deny a variance request for
this property. The building encroaches into setbacks on two sides.
The current application is to resubdivide the property to elininate
these setback violations.
The proposal is to create a new northern proPerty line so that the house
is 16.8r away fron the new property line (formerly 12.5') while naintaining
approxinately the same lot sizes.
The other part of the application is to expand the westerly ProPettyline in order to eliminate the 9' current setback problen in that area.
This entails encroaching into the private road easement and giving back
:rn access easenent over that new section of the lot. The new lot
configuation would allow a nininum setback of 15 feet, neeting Town
requirements.
The pertinent statistics on lot sizes are as follows:
Lot O-ld SS Ft New Sq Ft
2 |?,SOO L2,9773 L0,267 l0,27l
RECOI{MENDATION
The Departrnent of Corununity Development reconunends approval of the resub-
division request, Although we are not enthusiastic about the concept
of elininating setback violations via a resubdi.vision, we have no najor
probl.erns with this case. With the road being private, no objections
fron the surrounding property owners and no negative inPacts created
by the setback violation, we find no reason to reco mend denial.
.fu'E"A
PLANNINC AND ENVIRONII|N]AL COMIVIISSION
Monday, October 26, 1981
3:00 p.m.
l. Approval of ninutes of October LZd,798l .
2. Request for a variance from side and front setbacks for a resi.dence
at. L763 Shasta, Lot 12, Vail Village West Fil ing #2.
Applicant: Gottfried Angleitner.
3. Request for a conditional use permit to have a real estate office in
space #7 of the Vail Village Inn, Phase III. Applicant: P. Van Ewing III.
4, Request for a minor subdivision to vacate and resubdivide tots 2 and3 of Cliffside Subdivision. Applicant: David Cole,r
5. Request to amend the official zoning rnap of the Town of Vail in accordancewith Section 18 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to change the Ski
Museun, Tract B, Vail Village 2nd Filing frorn Public Acconnodation
(PA) to Public Use District (PUD) and change Tract C and D, Bighorn
Townhouse Subdivision from Residential (R) to Agricultural and 0pen
-,, Space (A) District, Applicant: Town of Vail .
6. Request for a conditional use pernit for a restaurant snack bar, trans-portation and tourist related office space, town offices, rental caroffice and ticket sales at the auxilliary buiding and space in theVail Lionshead Transportation Center. Applicant: Town of Vail
7. Request to review theview corridor map and design considerations for
Vail Village. Applicant: Town of Vail .
Published in the Vail Trail 0ctobcr 23, l98l .
o
,o/cr&,
(rzur'c€at€<t:
TnequesT F'r 7/# 7ff/*"c v Zr
/
%-o Qz,rc'Z a 77'3 n'*^l+=
@aLfa- bl 1 ccrffiz'ot
'8, ffica 6 rt'o atEelr,
l. Reguest
Cl uster
Burns.
Request to rezone
Cluster to Single
The applications and information rel ating to
zoning administrator,s office during regu.lar
inspect'ion by the public.
TOWN OF VAIL
COMMUNiTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
A. PETER PATTEN, JR.
ACTING DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
rezone Lots Z and 3, Ciiffside Subdivision, from Residentjal
Sinqle Fami'lv Rpcirlanr-irl ,!--1-. -- ,r.r_||Lirii.
^ppi_i
calLs: Davtd Liole and Dary.l
PUBLIC NOTICE
N'TI'E Is HEREB' GIVEN that the pranning and Environmental
Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with
of the municipal code of the Town of Vail on July 9, l9g4
in the Council chambers in the Vail municipal building.
Public hearing and consideration of:
Commission of the
Section 18.66.060
at 3:00 pm
the proposals are available in the
business hours for revievl or
to
to
2.
3.
Lots l, 6, 4,5, Cliffside Subdivision, from Residential
Fami ly Residential . Appl icant: Town of Vai l
4.
Request for revision to the Bonne vue earth-shertered housing project onlots Al, A2,43 Lionsridge Filing 2 and on Lot 6, Block.l, Lionsridge Filing4' to redesign the housing unit. Remainder of project was approved at the
Planning and Environmentar commission on June t, 1gg4. Applicant:
Reinforced Earth Company.
Revisions to the zoning code regarding outside vending which would allow
outside vending only under a special events permit with specific criteriafor its location. Applicant: Town of Vail
PublishedPublished in the Vait Trail June 22, 'l 984
ftry'tty3TN(
--:FFs
ioHe
-=€
(oo
+
F(n
t!
z, <.
=JorlJNd dt rJ)dt r.o
z.t-@
d, r,r1 <J
c)@Hts r\- <E '-- >
E
c,
ElL
-9o
oEE}9r..E
$sE
EsF
;E;g:g
psE
')-)
..L
i.--\\\ .-s \\\ \-\rl
i. \__/
,r(---\/rx:e\k.-; Il=\v) I t=-<-n-
:-o=
box 100
vail, colorado 81657
(3031 476-5613
department of community development
October 20, 1981
Dave Cole
Timber"l 'ine Properti es
286 Bridge St.
Vai l, Co lorado 81657
Dear Dave:
This letter is to clarify my letter to yotl dated September 22'
1981. In that letter t stateO that the concrete retaining wal 1
located on your property was to be reduced in height a distance
of 8' back ?rom ihe'corner. The genera'l intent was to reduce the
height of the wall back to the existing timber retaining. wa'l'l which
is 6etween 7-10 feet back frcrn the corner. Therefore, the distance
of exactly 8' is not irnportant as lr'lng as the wall is cut back to
the timber wa]l.
PJ:df
)
Jamar
P'lanner
o
P lann ing and Environmcntal Commi ss i on
Septenber 28, 1981
STAFFMEMBERS PRESENT
Gerry White
Scott Edwards
Will Trout
Dan Corcoran
Jim Morgan
I ater;
Roger Tilkeneier
Peter Patten
Peter Janar
Betsy Rosolack
Larry Eskwith
Dick Ryan
COUNCIL REP
Ron Todd
Gerry ltthite, chairnan, called the neeting to order at 3:00 p.m. He asked
for approval of the njnutes of the rneeting of September 14. Dan noved and
Jin seconded to appmve the ninutes. The vote was 4-0 in favor with Scott
abstaining.
1. Request to vacate a lot line between parcels 4 and 5,-.Stmdial-Pha-se I-,
part. of an unplatted parcel in Bighorn Subdivision. Applicant: Benchnarlc
Hones of Colorado.
Peter Patten explained that this lot was very flat with no vegetation to be
concerned about, that it was surrotrnded by nulti-farnily units. Without the
vacation, the owner could built two separate duplexes. The concensus of feeling
was that the owner was attemPting to fit the aPPearance of the structures
w'ith the rnulti-family units farther east.
Dan noved and Will seconded to aPprove the vacation of the lot line between
parcels 4 and 5, Sundial Phase I Per the staff memo dated September 28, 1981.
The vote was 5-0 in favor of approval .
2. Request for a side and rear setback variance for lot 2, Cliffside Subdivision,
part of Lionsr Ridge Filing No. 2. Applicant: David L. Cole.
Peter Janar explained the nemo. Craig Snowdon, architect folr the applicant,
showed 3 site plans and described the process that had transpired with Eagle
County. He stated that after subnitting the original site plan, the County
sent hirn a letter asking for rnodifications. These were nade, and the drawings
reissued. In the meantime, the suweyor had staked out the building accordi.ng
to the old drawings. The owner selected a new contractor and construction
was begun, but the building staking laid out by the surveyor v/as never rechecked
or changed, leaving the existing situation. He said that this was an unintentional
erroT on the part of the applicant. The applicant has received letters fron
the owners of the neighboring lots with favorable responses in every case.
Craig showed photos showing the areas where the setback variances were requested.
He added that if the building were to be moved forward, it would be nore proni-
nent. He stated that the hardship was the fact that the building was in Place.
,r-
PEc a/fft' -2-
Gerry Ithite had the copies of the letters fron the ncighbors (the originals
were in the Conmunity Development files.
Scott felt that there didntt seem to be an impact on the adjoining ProPerty
owners, but if the road were publi-c, he would feel differently. (The road
is a private road.) Wifl suppported Scott, and disagrecd with the County
as fai as the placing of the house. He favored the variance. Gerry stated
that while the present adjacent property owners do not object, future owners
nay. Jim agreed with Gerry in that a financial hardship oI self inflicted
hardship were not grounds for a variance.
Craig admitted the hardship was financial, but stated that as a mernber of
other boards in Town, he looks at each iten individually, and also ask whether
or not it is good for the Town.
Scott moved and lVil1 seconded to appr:ove the variance based on the following
findings: That the grant ing of the variance will not constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with the lirnitations on other ProPerties classi-
fied in the same district and that the granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or naterially injurious
to properties or i.mprovenents in the vi.cinity, and that the variance is warranted
because the strict or literal interpretation and enforcenent of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title, that there are exceptj.ons
or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicalbe to the site of the
variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the satne zone-
Craig added that the 19t was 32-33% slope and was also an odd shape, and that
the design tried to solve some of these problens.
The vote was 2 in favor (Scott and Will) and 3 against (Jin, Dan and Gerry).
The rnotion for approval of the variance was denied.
Reasons for voting for denial were given: Jin did not feel that there were
extraordinary circunstances, Dan stated that being a licensed surveyor, the
first thing the surveyor should have done was to check to see if the project
will fit within the setbacks and easements.
Gerry stated that without question, there was a nix-up in plans, and a change
in contractors, but he couldnrt accept this as reason for a variance.
Dave Cole stated that the lot isn't like the other lots in the vicinity, in
that is has a curve the others donrt have.
Gerry reninded Dave that he had 10 days in which to appeal the decision to
the Town Council. ,
PEc nf t -3-
3. Reques! fot S"gqiqr_4teration and rnodification t-o thc Casino
@ar-ea to ieCCi'minc the amount of office space
on deck. Applicants: Carlos Agostoni and Janes J. Sprowls
Gerry read a letter fron the applicant requesting that this item
be tabled. Dan moved and Jim seconded to accept the applicant's
request to be tabled to the meeting of October 12. The vote was 5-0 in
favor of tabling.
4. Request to arncnd the Parking (P) District to permit by conditional
relatcd and accessorY
type uses, In addition, to anend the Public Use District (PUD) to permj,t
by conditlonal use, public uses, office and connercial uses that are
transportation and tourist related and dwelling or dornitory type units
for enployees of the Town or special distrj.ct.
Dick Ryan explained the rneno. Dan suggested that one iten be considered
at a tine.
Dan noved and Siott seconded to reconnend the anendrnent of the Parking
(P) Distri.ct to permit by conditional use public uses that are transportation,
tourist or Town related accessory type uses. The vote was 5-0 in favor.
The second part of the request, arnending the Public Use District (PUD)
to perrnit by conditional use, office and comrnercial uses that are'tourist
related and dwelling or dormitory tyPe units for ernployees of the Toun
or special districts.
Gerry felt that the words, "1ong term" should be stated. Dick said that
the Town nay want employee housing at the Toun shops because of recent
vandal isrn occuring there. In each case, the conditional use teview
will have to cone before the PEC. Dan stated that the problern that
he had with this was that later on the agenda, nuch property was suggested
to be rezoned to PUD, and he didntt feel that some of those pieces of property
shoul.d have housing on then. He didn't feel that he could back this and
then proceed with the other parcels.
Dick stressed that the housing was to be used as an accesso v to a building
that is already there. Scott expressed concern abouE-EaVliflhousing in
the sarne zone as buses, Jirn suggested that when the other parcels were
considered, it would be possible to change the suggested zone to Agriculture
and Open Space (A) rather than to PUD.
Menbers of the audience who spoke were:
Alice Parsons who said that she agreed with Dan and Scott and would like
to see a nore reitrictive zoning such as Agricultural and Open Space.
Susan Hertzog stated that the definition of PUD was scary. It doesnrt
specify that the dwellings have to be in another structure.
PEC s/28/sr e
Florence Habenicht said that she saw this as a blank clreck--that it was
too all enconpass i-ng- - and that she felt a need for a more spccific zone.
Ann Charles was concerned with putting parks i-n the sane zone as parking
structure. She felt it could. be Agriculture and Open Space.
Jim reminded them that dwellings would be an accessory to the principal
use. Susan said that the possibility of having a zoning especially for
parks seemed good. She questioned the reason for the PUD zone.
Peter Patten suggested that when they get to specific properties in the
meeting, the zoning could be discussed individually, Property that is
zoned PUD at present are Ford Park, the parking structure, the ice area,
post office and municipal buildings, future library property.
Peter reninded the cornmission that as a conditional use, each request would
have to go through the PEC with a public hearing process, and would be
looked at individually with citizen input considered.
Jim rnoved and Will seconded to reconmend the arnendment of the Public Use
(PUD) District to pernit by conditional use, office and corrunercial uses
that are tourist related and dwelling or dornitory type units for enployees
of the Town or special districts as accessory uses to prinary structures.
the vote was 3 for and 2 against (Dan and
Scott said that he didnrt was against the
Ford Park was zoned PUD.
Roger Tilkemeier arrived.
Scott). The motion passed.
motion when he found out that
5. Rgq}est to a,rnen d the non-conforqing section of the zoning code ,to pernit
restoration of legal non-conforming structures that are destroyed by fire
or other calarnity or by an act of God. Appliant: Town of Vail
Dick Ryan explained the memo. Dan wondered if people would draw their
own plans. Dick explai.ned that unless people got their buildings registered,
the Town could run into rnajor problems. Photos as part of the registration
was discussed, as was the problem with concern with GRFA. Dan felt that
the building bulk was more inportant than GRFA. Dick emphasized that the
same number of units nust be al lowed to be built, even though they were
non conforming when brought into the Town, but the new constructi.on would
have to follow the most cu.rrent building codes.
Scott noved and Roger seconded to amend the non- conforrning section as stated
in the nemo, .and the anended restoration section should read as follows:
18,64.090 Restoration
A, Whenever a nonconforning use which does not confonn with the regulations
for the district in which it is located, or a nonconforning structure
or site irnprovenent which does not conform with requirenents for' setbacks, height, density control, building bulk control, or site
coverage, is destroyed by fire or other calanity, by act of God or
PEc n,e -s-
by the public enemy, the use may be resuned or the structure may
be restored, provided that restoration is cornmenced within one year
and diligently pursued to completion.
B. Registration of nonconforming uses, structures or sites is required
to be subnitted to the Connnunity Development Department. The owner
or representative nust submit sufficient information to insure if
the use, stTucture or site can be reconstructed to the original plan.
Mininum infornation submitted should be a site plan, floor plans,
use of structure, parking layout and landscaping.
The vote was 6-0, unanimous ly in favor.
6,. Request to anend the official zoning nap of the Town of Vall in accordance
t';ith Scction 18 of the Town of Vail I'tunicipal Code as follows:
At this Point, Peter Patten noted that the Ski Museum had been published
with the wrong lot number, so that iten was postponed until it could
be published correctly.
b, Change lot 10, Bighorn Subdivision from Two Farnily Residentiat (R)
to Green Belt and Natural Open Space (GNOS) District.
Dan moved and Roger seconded to change this zoning as listed. The
vote was 6-0, unanimously in favor.
c. Change Tract H, Vail Village lst Filing fron HDlt{F to Public UseDistrict (PUD).
After discussion it was decided to change this tract from HDMF to
Greenbelt and Natural Open Space ( (GNOS) .
Jim moved and Scott seconded to change Willow Circle Island, Tract
H, Block 6, Vail Village lst from HDMF to Greenbelt and Natural Open'
Space (GNOS). The vote was 6-0 unanirnously in favor.
d. Change lot 28, Lionsridge Filing 3 frorn Prinary/Secondary (P/S)
to Public Use (PUD) District.
After discussion, it was decided to change this.
Dan noved and Roger seconded to change lot 28, Lionsridge Filing
3 from Prinary/Secondary (P/S) to Greenbelt aad Natural Open Space
(GNOS) District. The vote was 6-0, unaninously in favor.
e. Change lot 40, Buffer Creek Subdivision from Comnercial Core III
(CCIII) to Public Use (PUD) District.
After discussion, it was decided to change this as listed.
Dan noved and Scott seconded to change 1ot 40, Buffer Creek Subdivision' from Conmercial Core III (CCIII) to Agriculture and Open Space (A)
District. The vote was 6-0 unanirnously in favor.
Pnc e8/81 -6-
f. Change lot 10, Vail Village 2nd Filing from Two Family Residential
(R) to Public Use (PUD) District.
Dick Ryan stated that the PUD zoni-ng was suggested because it was
possible to some day build a youth ccnt.er in thls area.
Roger rnoved and Dan seconded to change the zoning as indj.cated.
The vote was 6-0, unanimously in favor.
C. Change lot 3, Resub of lot 1, block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing
frorn High Density l'lulti-Family (l{DIi{F) to Public Use (PUD) District.
(This is the parking structure.)
The staff suggested that this be changed to Parking instead,
Dan moved and Scott seconded to change 1ot 3, Resub of lot 1, block1, Vail Lionslhead 2nd Filing fron High Density Multi-Family (HDIrf)
to Parking (P) District. The vote was 6-0, unanirnously in favor.
h. Change Tract E, Vail Lionshead lst Filing frorn Commercial Core II
(CCII) to Public Use District (PUD).
This was changeJto Parking.
Scott moved and Roger seconded to change Tract E, Vail Lionslhead
lst Filing fron Conmercial Core II to Parking (P) District.
The vote was 6-0.unaninously in favor.
i. Change Donovan Park, a parcel of land located in the NE 1/4 of the
$f f/4, and the NllI 1/4 of the SW I/4, Section 12 Townshi-p 5 South,
Rangc 8l West of the 6th P.M,, Town of Vail , State of Colorado, frorn
Resident j.al Cluster (RC) and Prinary,/Secondary (P/S) to Public Use
(PUD) District.
Dick Ryan suggested having.a different zoning for the upper parcel
than the zoning for the lower parcel. The upper parcel would probab'ly
never have a structure upon it, and could be zoned Agricultural and
Open Space (A). The lower parcel could be zoned Public Use District
(PUD) which would a11ow a swiruning pool and structure. He answered
a question fron the audience clarifying that no structure would be
placed on the upper parcel of the park, In aiEwer, part of the
conditonal uses was read aloud explai,ning that a pool would have
. to go through public hearing, since it could involve nore than 200
people in assembly.
Susan Hertzog was concerned that employee housing might be built
on the lower parcel . Dick explained that the employee housing would
have to be an accessory use to another structure. Ki.rsch Sanders
comrnented that they didntt want another Fal1 Line, but could accept
custodial units. Dan reminded the audience that PUD was Publ.ic
Use Di.strict, not planned unit developnent. Ann Charles felt that
a future PEC could nisinterpret the code. The definition was discussed
and Peter reninded then that thc property was purchased with the' Teal estate transfer tax which linited the use of the property to
recreation and open space.
PEc e/st -7-
Ella Knox spoke against thc custodial unit rnentioning that it
hadnrt worked at the church or at the Lodge.
Roger moved and Dan seconded to recomnend thc change of the upper
parcel from Prj.mary/Secondary (P/S) to Agricultural and Open Space
(A) and to change thc lower parcel from RC to Public Use Dj.strict
(PUD), The vote was 6-0, unanimously in favor.
j. Change King Arthurrs Court, a parcel of land situated in the SW 1/4
of Section 12, Township 5 S., Range 80 West of the 6th P.M,, Town
of Vail, State of Colorado from Low Density I'tulti-Fanily (LDMF) to
Agblcultural and Open Space (A) District.
Scott noved and Roger seconded to change the zoning as listed.
The vote was 6-0 unaninously in favor.
k. Change Parcel B of the Annexation Plat of Forest Service Property,
annexed by Ordinance #7, 1980 as recorded in Book 302, page 852
Eagle County records frorn Natural Greenbelt and Open Space (NGOS)
to Agrucultural and Open Space (A) District.
Dan noved and Will seconded to change the zoning as listed. The
vote was 6-.0 unanimously in favor.
l. Change Glen Lyon Strearn Tract, a parcel of land fo"ut"d in a portion
of the N I/2, NW 1/4 of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 Westof the 6th P,l\t., Town of Vail , County of Eagle, .State of Colorado
fron Special Developurent District (SDD) to Public Use (PUD) District.
Roger moved and Scott seconded to change this zoning from SDD to
Greenbelt and Natural Open Space (GNOS). ltre vote was 6-0 in favor.
n. Change Pitkin Creek Tract, a parcel of land lying within Section11, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th P.M., Town of Vail,
Eagl.e County, containing 19,566.40 square feet of 0.449 acres rnore
or less fron Special Development District (SDD) to Public Use District
(PuD).
Roger noved and Scott seconded to change the zoning as listed.
The vote was 6-0 unaniurously in favor.
7. Request for a rear setback vari-ance and for a variance for a setback
fron
Applicant: Heritage Cornpany.
Peter Patten explained that the commissioners had visited this site before
the neeting, He added that the staff felt the design was indeed better than
the last one, but that it was still not the best design in the staffts opinion.
Dick said that the site visit showed that the house could be moved further.
Prc o8/8r -8-
Will Trout, archiect for the project, exPlained that hc felt that the
design worked best with the sitc. lle adclcd that ,the code did not nention
rnaximun or miniurn cuts. Cerry felt that the part of the lot that was being
left open was the part that should be built upon and that the buildings could
also be smaller on that |ot. He added that sone fill would have to be given
for the drivelay, but that was better than cutting into the hillside. Jim
asked if it was in the best interests of the Town not to cut into the hillside.
Jin added that people nake cuts and fills and if they don't need a variance,
the Town does not deal with the situation, Itrill added that there was nothing
in the code that said one had to build on the flat portion.
Jirn: As I see it, the site fal1s into a hardship--the lot is unbuildable.
It is not necessarilv undesirable to the Town.
Dan: I am concerned with the proximity to the strean. The buildings could
be pulled alray fron the stream.
Scott: Is this hardship self afflicted? I am against stream setback encroachnents.
Roger: I havenrt seen the lot. If the only encroachnent is toward the highway
there are no serious problerns with the setback on the rear'
Gerry: I continue.to have problens because it looks as though the site is
being adapted to design rather than the reverse. They donrt have to cut
into the hillside so nuch. The inside courtyard is unnecessary.
John Nilsson, realtor, stated that the reason for the piazza was safety so
that the cars can turn around before driving out,
Jim noved and Roger seconded to approve the request based on the 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 same district, that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety, or welfare, or naterially injurious to ProPerties
or improvements in the vicinity, and that the variance is warranted because
the strict or literal interpretation and enforcenent of the specified regulation
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
with the objectives of the title.
The vote was 3 for and 2 against (Gerry and Dan).
The ureeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
PUBLIC NOTICE
NoTICE IS HEREBY GMN that the Planning and Environrnental Conmission
of the Town of Vail wilt hold a public hearing in accordance with Section
18.66.060 of the Zoning code of the Town of Vail on october 26, l98l at
3:00 p.n.. in the Town of Vail Council Chanbers'
Public hearing and consideration of:
1. Request to amend the official zoning nap of the Town of Vail in
accordance with Section 18 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to change
the ski Museum, Tract B, Vail Village 2nd Fj.ling from Public Accornrnodation
(PA)toPublicUseDistrict(PUD)andchangeTractCandD,Bighorn
TownHouse Subdivision fron Residential (R) to Agricultural and open
Space (A) District. Applicant: Town of VaiI'
Request for a conditional use'permit for a restaurant snack bar, transportation
and tourist related office sPace, town offices, rental car office and
licket sales at the auxilliary building and space j'n the Vail Lionshead
Transportation Center. Applicant: Town of Vail '
Request for a minor subdi-vision to vacate and ':esubdivide lots 2 and 3
of Cliffside Subdivision. Applicant: David Cole'
Rbquest to review
for Vail Vil1age.
the-,view corridor rnap and design consideratiolrs
Applicant: Town of Vail.
The applications and inforrnatj.on relating to the proposed changes are
available in the Zoning Administratorrs office during regular business
hours for review or inspection by the public.
TOWN OF VAIL
DEPARTMENT OF COMMTJNITY DEVELOPMENT
A. PETER PATTEN, JR
Zoning Administrator
aN
ll
t{J
-Jo(4
:ro
_(\lo-oo)
9^qixl();asrlJ
4
(9Itv
b
_\r
c\l
F's\}N*t{;o)s.I
V"
--ot-e$\*
i",t U
sn
a
t$
-G,o
-bs
rRFIE
=
$H$$-q\o()=
:osoNo
tl
!
tI
H
H
<3
H\H:
Ff,o
>
io
.9o)rf
o(o(o
v)
(\l
$$
tl\()
o$tsoe
rlt
t\C\\t\t
tl
J
-lo
3)$lf)
oro
tl
-ql
;to
(/)tr
trJlt)-
,ot'$
co^
I
H
(/)
8is
e H-setH
N
=
Qe
?
N
rl
tU
q
tn
\r)-t)
\t
oo
rls
uI
.<.
cco-
!
0l
o
a
L
tc
C
c
Li
0
a
f'-._i
c:
.L
cJ: oc f i'f o c c o cl r-r (J rr
! 4. i_ - rr L :-'lo.lJor.()cc) fd.cfalr-nlfrr-c c o c !.8 o >, o oOr C.-1 O, tr >-rL)!
|^\..d.\..1r o +J I C' l!-q ! o o>-- C'. f. C (l-
UiJU.{_FEU,O a ]- !- OF Qlt+ (tu > 3,c tt o ..r_rr F-rr-ECCcO C,4 O C rJ .- .0. C ..r. C.lr c.d.r, > '_ t_c- l--t+, > -rnF!Al C)--r +) CE !n C E >U, ._ (_ \ a at ._ al.r-r O CCCI,.!t-.tr(tio j c rd oc 6.- Qa tr u] 0i O r O O O --r Eo 3 ! ! -C .-l -"" +r .P -l -Q.-lr o crd(^f cco c
E -ui !, -l E O(]1Cq- o o r0 0 C) (-/) 'r- ci cJ
oE oo!!flJrf !cr o) .-l rd !r.'r C 0) CJ! CJ-C EnJ.. Ul l.r C,! O-C.! Q.!.{r I'a a -4 o E o o'-l o > c, o cl3 >4 .-t 0J X ! o C O'O l- Q_-co..ro cooordxoo!-l CO O( tt: X O l-r +r (]<-i.q ,co -o of] o. I
r--r O ,. !O-l(j C - C=r+r (r> O . Fl t, O]-ro '! ! > (J c\ (I] c 0r ..i Q.t-.4 A Ci C rd +,) lr! () 5,O : tr-
-cd.lJ .,1 O -|J-r (I ..1 Od+rC!c o(l ..t c,E or0 o oc o q-r >,.{r o) o o tr u..rrC .C (r C tr- ! -C C lr O':'-l -- -1'J.t ..4.), -.1 | = e- ..r q-r O OCj li -l cn .P +J C r0 .-i lr.-r O Ord !C'+'(nc: OO+r !ou tul croo!ac trc\c(- O r O U c'.1 C 1-r aJ.cr N \ X O O] CE OUE r-a !r O ql g'-l .-l C :C..1 > lr..t cJ .-1 .c o > r-r c .lr o>Jr OrC t.l;O..-.rO!O Clc lr j> +,- (c d.d (d -"-j .+r.-lQ cj t.r q.) c o d o Qr+r oroQ, I O C l.r C rd C-i!r O t+-r l.r i O >1 XO .-lorr Gorcoco(')t!.lr Oi ts Cr.q AJ d.-l rd d.-t .C
\(j
oc).+J lr
c0 rdt) a
tl-r l-.1'-r Q,
_Lt
o{g
ord
.+J Od()L, C',
-:
I
H
H$
\f
oi
\
o!o(o
so(o
(4
<E
$e
H:
F:
t{
a
-s\laro
ooto
a
fr$$ttr,*-rt6
!t_i
tJO(-
C, l-r
CJ -l.. >A
r.,r i OF; tr cJ
ul = 1)
H] H
a-i a'
!.^a\
; I di1
^tl,
lr CJIOi Of . f' rd
-z,
(d -e
-(Ji "C. Hi ! 5'
k i >,..r(JL q-r C)Oi '-i.C
Hl
Far
AL \J r.1
Ed i -{r:r >(gul !o
o; tr r__rE;OAri .q ()(.
Hi l'-l -]J
at,
|r)o
z
F
o
6
N
a
a
o
H
3
ooN
rl
n{u
\o
sqj
;o
o
1
t-
o
a
'5
o
at
.J
T
.irl|r)l
"l
$
8l*l
H
t{Jl-
3trtr
fr()
F
Eo
-J
t.-
E
so
s
oaI
Bx
$5rilJJ(J(l.sNt{
b
=P
F- -J3s
*
12
f,
s
(5
z
s
l{t
oaq
I
E
!
c
Fno
ut ;, rn
oqii
uOru0{J;Zn.i<F;>F'J
a:
:<)
!rlEU
E.E
ig4'$
.{
o
^$o9 6',o'.intl rr ,fro
AU;dz;
">x0. < :..i
l{/ Rwter;o"r**_h
q
d
"rfr
I
t;,
i,d
J
.f
.rp'
,t
.,1,
N
,q
€
,5oog'25"
:29'
)o''?o'1.il-l' "]
--'..
.{
UTIL ''
R = tgOOO' .';
CH = 37.53'
N O"07'22"E
c\
l--(t/
$-
A = !1"2O'O9"
L = 3759'
v/
REqA,I? IN
t'lo. 12488
co|;cn[.Tt:.
Jf:!,i.\:D 8Y,
B.Mc.
TV
Itr
/,rg
1O
t
-S.-R = 124.16,'
CH= 94.77'
-'2607'
g 61;51'ts"
Y1
(70 )
CREEK
-.---C-.#-
I t u p nov t,,, I NT-L9Y!2;:
---
nT 2' cLtt '
c^Gi twLyL--
DRIVE
CERTIFICATE
IDE,
.,IJNTY,
COLORADO
t{C XLo B r,
b
'
A = 44"52'20"
L = 97.24'
s 41" 25'25" w
PRoJ€ct ro v- llgs s
o a/tz/BI
SCALE I":2C'
6*)
SPLIT - LEVEL
cTt r/-af1 -
WOOO FRAME.,
lr3{rn-->---
iOw / eavp*4
r--------'-=--'z/ J,--.\-z'/' .) -/
€A5€$€\:::
J.L.W.
loFl
Snowdon and Hopkins o Architects
201 Gore Creek Drive 303 476-2201
P. O. Box 1998 Vail, Colorado 81657
Qanf omhor.' 1 fi 1 OR 1'vt
Mr. Peter Palten
Town of VaiI Planning Administrator
75 S. Fronlage Road
Vail , Colorado 81657
Dear Peter:
TheapplicantDavidL.Coleisrequestingasideandrearsetback
variance for his residence located on Lob 2, Ctiffside subdivision'
.. vail , colorado. As the applicant's representatj-ve and Arclritect for
the project we are requesting as folfows:
1. A side setback variance from 15r (as required by the Tovrn of
Vail Zoning Ordinance Section 1E.10.060) to 12'5r along the
northeast building line for approximately 7' '
2. A rear setback variance frorn 15' (as required by the Town of
VaiI Zoning Ordinance Section 18.10.060) to 8'9r along the
wesLern building line for 32.7'-
' The reason for tlre vari.alrce,request is due lo misplacement of the
UuifOingrcp @tlon. As far as can be deter-
mined aL thls stage, the reason for the error is as follows'
l.AnoriginalsiLeplanwassubrnittedtoEagleCoun|yBuilding
Department and the intended contractor at the lime of construc-
tion(acopywasalsosubmittedbobheSurveyorforstakingof
the building on the Property)
. 2. Eagle County requested modifications to the site plan be made.
3. Modifications to the site plan were made and the drawings rej'ssued.
4. The Oi,mer selecbed a new contraclor and consfruction was begun.'
5. Apparenfly in the process of changing contracbor and site plan
tirl UuifOlng sLaki.ng laid out by the surveyor was never rechecked
or cbanged, leaving the existing situation
-r
lt4r. Peter Patton
September 10, 1981
Page 2
CNS: rmg
Ehcl.
This matter is being reviewed by.the Town of Vail PbC, because part
vray through conslruction this properfy was annexed from Eagle CounLy into
fhe Town or v^i-t. It. is our hope the Town of Vail and the PEC vi.ew.this
as an unintentional error on the part of the applicanL and would cause un-'
due hardship on the part of the applicanL to try and relocate the buildi"ng
acCording to town stindards. The rear setback variance requested is bor-
dered by a prj-vate drive or,rned in common by the applicant and adjacent
property owners and would, lre feel not cause any bardships on adjacent
properties. The side setback variance is of minimal impact due to the
tuitaing being p1.aced non-para1le1 with the property and setback li-ne'
causing only Lhe corner of the buildlng to be within Lhe sebback. At
preseni there is no buiJ.ding on Lot 3 (the property adjacent to the apPli-
ianL being affected by the varlance), a single family residence zoned
property.
Enclosed you will find four (4) copies of an improvement survey showing
the existing "ituLatiotr. (This was when the error was dlscovered ) as you
reguire. ti you need further inforrnation or I can be of any he1p, please
Iet rne know.
o Applicati"" O
I.
APPLICATION
This procedure is required
The application will not be
FORM FOR A VARIANCE
for any project requesting a Variance.
accepted until all information is submitted.
A.NAIIIE OF APPLICAIIT David Cole
ADDRESS 286 B"ide" Str..t, HONS 476-2113
NAUE OF
ADDFCSS
B.APPIICANTTS REPRESENTATIVE Snowdon & Hopkins Architects
pHONE 476-2201
0,
1l''
201 Gore Creek Drive
c.r'AUTHORIZATION OF PROPERTY
SIGNATURE /
ADDRESS 286 Bridge Street, Vail , Colorado 81657 PHONE 476-2113
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAI
ADDRES S Buffer Creek Road. VaiI . Colorado
LEGAf, DESCRIPTION lot___-"_plockn,za Filing_cl:ff"19" vjlltgg
FEE. $r00.00 plus 18+ for each property owner to be notified.
A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to thesubject property and their addresses.
Lot G - Onfari-o West c,/o Jack Bishop, Drawer P, Edwards, co]orado f tL 5 "-
Lot 3 Dr. Daryl Burns, 649 S, Monroe Way, Denver, Colorado 80209
Lot 4 & 5 Mr. Charles Rosenquest, 1451 Buffer Creek Road, Vail , Co, 81657
Mr. Brown - 1780 S. Bellair Street, Suite 106, Denver, Cb. 80222
Lofs i - 7l4r. Charles Rosenquesf, 1451 Buffer Creek Drive, VaiI , Colorado 81657
E.
a.
7;
\
4-\r::
I
\
\
t\
\\
\,\
\
\
\\.\\
\
\\,-\s _ ta
-- a\
(4
lo
o)
dz
o
s
(\
o
o
ci\l
ll \o
t
sa;o
6
fr,
H
l-
i6
z
e
5
=Jj
o
xa
T
.lrlt0l
"l
!{;
I
(olol*l
5o
hJl.-
E
tL
l--
$
F
EoJ
t-a
lr.t
F
R
oaIq
E.x
H5f40$o\ l.u
-JJ()('.sN t{J
F-!3s
b
=P
49"19
oslN
rc)
o\s
$
tls
V"
$-v
i
tr)
sr
lc)N
o\t
(4
-o
trt\\t
O)
rlt.o
S-e
hs
tt-
Jll tt...
I
a
o
^l
H
s-a
(J
<3
$NH:
\
\
$E$$-t\ooa
b,
-9oNo
lls
\\
en trl
-E,o
vl
-J
,ot?j tI"W*
,T
E
H
=
bp
,RFIElo
t:
Il-f,
FOOulF,o
Fq;,oqii
ulO(u
?gH> x '-..,
ar!ii uJ!I)
,d
rl
Eb0./-.tE{EIe)?c).eE
=.15b0L-
r2 --aI-E.-EI\
oo^,
X:N
'.in
H:I;OX;?E
8is
RHB
ch
rrta
tl
'i,o
-$loooro(o
ll
<t t't,v%
o0)!!rorg
'-i O
'+-l ti C)
!1)
Ci r0 q-r
\
z
Ht
5o
=E;$;-N
HS
hq{4 -J
>
o
Jt)(os-:1
-Y.l \t:oj
. v).
rU
_c\b
ll^)
oorc)
a
Ff,a
=
.9o\t
o(o(o
v)
ql\t
\h
ll\(J
o\rNoe
tl
0(
NN\t
$
tl
J
-to
1r)\tlo
olf)
ltll<
o^
?
oN
ll
KJ
-Jq(J(/)
Nl')
ro\t
oo
tls
\$
.<.
cco-
i.
a,'
qJ
i:,t-ll(-)
.J
Ff
fi[)a
.Ft
fr
ddf;
@!rIt
l|{
o
.lf
cl+)
iloo
':
d
o
F{r{
rU
JJ
.Ft
p
o
()
o
o
.Fl
E
a. /\ r. rn..r o c o o cpE rr
O+rOmOC0)r0.CJa rrt..0E oC.oc(dc+roo>, ooC.-l () l.t >.+ O lrE@Eraocc,o
0J .l-l l: (J d-e l.| O(J).-t 0J ).c 4. q-r
O}'J,.O.lJtrEo.Q. .lJ ! OH 0J rL: or0> oc t')0lr-r+.Etrouo c
0J o fJ ..r r0 tr.'r a! c).C lrsl '.1 .CtrCErr.'{ {J >i.OE-i I O 0))) -Q.r5 o O, E >Ctr. oO ,qOC0iCtr!lr.got{. ! 0j (! u€ rd,.t oo O O o O (, OFr.E.lJ lr .cl .i -'r .lJ tJ F-{ -Q '.1c f0 o Ero 6 o .60J o c o q ! +r.trE.otr'-l E OoqO O ld Q, O O'r{ 0J O>c o(^fo qoo+ro(6r0'oorug..l c', 0J o+r o.c E
9.. ! O.Q ! Q.. h {J lrE O O'.1 QrlrO 6 q,).-l 0) X lr 0) C () O'lt 9lcooodxooq, q c X O tr q{ O.C O ..O O tt-t o] l{+r O'-rO O r CAO - Fr O O]r.lr )r() 0J O C O.'l O'5rd +J tr -C O U'Q tq{-q'Fl t! ! o.d ! q)
+J ,-l or .d U! {U ]J 'lJ tl'A trE Q{.d O O)r+J 0 O Q l.t O''-1 5tt-l 5.C c{g O 'o..lFl +J..r ..rJ t A ...t r...t O O+J tJ 0J rd .,{ !!orrfll')r''(-)t4, t{
0J O O.lr Ci C trOOO O C.-l O tl.{ (J -Cx o 0) tro ou! O cJ E.d.'r O o(l) ..1 -co>+rtr!o.c.lrO.rr{)kO tru Ft td {! 11 rd ..t +J .-tH O '(J O 6 0 A,.lr O €t U C lr C rd q,-lqr H t u > >o idta,\.!.rr^rrl..\rl1n
H Or.q 0) O ''r fg Fl .rl .Q
$E$
"t'*Jq6
q-r
3o
o.o.-t dol1..1 0> r-l.-t O
(/) >
1J
..r OOU
t{-rqrO
.r-t Ft
U(!
C{r
11
rJ .-lo(!Fl>
U)
3
-.1
It-.]
It
rd
'71o
t{
t<.
fto
or
tr
t&.
C..
.-t ! co
-rJ O c-.(o ().ioo
}fo
!oo,
c,!<a: ru
O-.lr|-]>A O
lrc)>
F !.r1
H
.A
]J Q)no]J .d ..1
4Ju|.
11 G>..r oq-t o--t n OtJ r{!cooou
(-) ..{
>|u'.r'!u>oor!- 1r -{ A.o'g o rr,' .co
i4t .+J tl-.|
.U
D^KTL.& BURNS, D.D.'
Left g.nt ftrcfesrtonol Bulldhg I
sOSs Eo.L K€rrtuckq Avenue IDenvet Cotorddo eO222 |
Tetephone 7s7 -0s67 |
Septenber 25, 1981
Planning and EnvLrorxoentaL
Comission
Town of Vail
VaLl, Co].orado A1657
Dear Sirs:
I see no problem with.the request for a side and
rear setback variance in accordance wl-th Section
18.14.060 for lot 2, Cl.tffslile subdivision, p:rrt
of Ll.onsridge Filing #2 by Appticant, David L.
Cole.
Sincerely your6,
bF4-<&,'q
Daryl R, Burns, D.D. S,
Owner of adj acent 1ot
3 to the north.
DRB:en
Prqctice Limited to Orthodontics
Dtplornote Amerlcatr Boord ot Orthgdohtlcs
I
oo oo
TIMBERTINE PROPERTIES GAIIERY OF HOMES
286 Bridge Street, Vail, Colorado 81657
ln Vail Village: Corner of Bridge Street I Gore Creek Drive, above the "Deli" .476-2113
110 East Beaver Creek Boulevard. Avon. Colorado 81620 . 949-6686
Beneath the Liouor Store
230 Ten Mile Circle, P.O. Box 3357, Copper Mountain, Colorado 80443 .668-2114
Coooer Junction Buildino at the base of "F" Lift
September ll, l98l
Mr. Dick Brown.|780 So. BE] 'lai re St.
Suite .|06
Denver, C0 80222
Dear Dick:
I find myself in an embarrassing predicament at the moment as my home nears
completion. Through some miscoord'ination between my architect, surveyor and
builder, the north side of the house (Lot 3) and the west side of the house,
(toward our private road) did not get located as I and the Town of Vai'l in-
tended which would have been with'in the setbacks of 15 feet on both sides.
An improvement survey of my home, completed for the purposes of a permanent
loan, has disclosed that the home has encroached 2% feet'into the sjde set-
back and 6 feet into the rear setback.
I cannot see that the setbacks will provide any damag'ing consequences to the
neighboring property owners and they have applied to the Vail Planning and
Environmental Commission for a hearing on September 28th at 3:00 PM for the
purpose of obtaining a variance in this matter.
I be'lieve that your favorable opinions v{ould weigh heavily'in favor of my
request. If you will support me in this matter, I would very much appreciateit and would ask you to s'i gn be'low on the line above your name ind'icating that
you favor the approval of this variance and return 'it to me at once.
I hope to have you over for a drink and tour in the very near future.
Cole, C.R.B.
lY'
tB
neALtono
f3t
oo oo
TIMBERTINE PROPERTIES GAII.ERY OF HOMES
286 Bridge Street, Vail, Colorado 81657
ln Vail Village: Corner of Bridge Street I Gore Creek Drive, above the "Deli" o 476-2113
110 East Beaver Creek Boulevard, Avon, Colorado 81620 o 949-6686
Beneath the Liquor Store
230 Ten Mile Circle, P.O. Box 3357, Copper Mountain, Colorado 80443. 668-2114
Coooer Junction Buildino at the base of "F" Lift
September l1 , .|98'l
Mr. Jack Bishop
0ntario West
Drawer P
Edwards, C0 81632
Dear Jack:
I find myself in an embarrassing predicament at the moment as my home nears
completion. Through some mi scoordination between my architect, surveyor and
builder, the north side of the house (Lot 3) and the west side of the house,
(toward our private road) did not get located as I and the Town of Vail in-
tended wh'ich would have been within the setbacks of 15 feet on both sides.
An improverent survey of my home completed for the purposes of a permanent loan
has disclosed that the honre has encroached24 feet into the side setback and 6
feet into the rear setback.
I cannot see that the setbacks will provide any damaging consequences to the
neighboring property owners and they have applied to the Vail Planning and
Environnental Conrnission for a hearing on September 28th at 3:00 PM for the
purpose of obtaining a variance in this matter.
I believe that your favorab'le opinions would weigh heavily in favor of my
request. If you wilI support me in this matter, I wou'ld very much apprec'iateit and would ask you to sign below on the'l ine above your name'indicating that
you favor the approva'l of this variance and return it to rne at once.
I hope to have you over for a drink and tour in the very near future.
vl
nEALtoRo
oo .o
TIMBERLINE PROPERTIES GALTERY OF HOMES
286 Bridge Street, Vail, Colorado 81657
fn Vail Village: Corner of Bridge Street S Gore Creek Drive, above the "Deli" .476-2113
110 East Beaver Creek Boulevard, Avon, Colorado 81620.949-6686
Beneath the Liquor Store
230 Ten Mile Circle, P.O. Box 3357, Copper Mountain, Colorado $Q{{f, o 668-2114
Copper Junction Building at the base of "F" Lift
September ll,'198.|
Mr. Chuck Rosenquist.|93 East Gore Creek Dr.
Vai'l , C0. 8.l657
Dear Chuck:
I find myself in an embarrassing predicarent at the moment as my home nears
completion. Through some miscoordination between my architect, surveyor and
builder, the north side of the house (Lot 3) and the b,est side of the house,
(toward our private road) did not get located as I and the Town of Vail in-
tended which would have been within the setbacks of 15 feet on both sides.
An improverent survey of my home, completed for the purposes of a permanent
loan, has disclosed that the home has encroached 2% feet into the side set-
back and 6 feet into the rear setback.
I cannot see that the setbacks will provide any damaging consequences to the
neighboring property owners and they have app'lied to the Vail Planning and
Environmental Commission for a hearing on September 28th at 3:00 PM for the
purpose of obtain'ing a variance in this matter.
I believe that your favorable opin'ions would weigh heavily in favor of my
request. If you wi'l'l support me in th'is matter, I would very much appneciatejt and would ask you to sign below on the line above your name indicating that
you favor the approval of this variance and return jt to me at once.
I hope to have you over for a drink and tour in the very near future.
IB
nEaLTono
T1
( David L. Cole, C.R.B.
3
PUBLIC NOI'ICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GMN that the Planning and Environrnental Comnission
of the Town of vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with
Section 18.66.060 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Vail on September
28, 1981 at 3:00 p.n. in the Town Council Chambers in the Vai-1 l{uni-cipal
Buil ding.
Public Hearing and consideration of:
1. Request for a rninor subdivision of parcels 4 and 5, Sundial , Phase I.,
i part of an unplatted parcel in Bighorn subdivision. The request is
to vacate a lot line betu/een parcels 4 and 5, in accordance with
Section 18.16.060' Appli.cant: Benchnark Homes of Colorado'
Z. Request for a side and rear setback variance in accordance with Section
i8.14.060 for Lot 2. Cliffside subdivision, part of Lionsridge Filing #2.
Applicant: David L. Cole. ,
Request to amend the Parking (P) District to pernit by conditional
use publ ic uses, private office and cornrnercial uses that are transpor-tation, tourist or town related and accessory type uses. rn addition,to arnend the Public Use (PUD) District to pernit by conditional usepublic uses, office and conrnercial uses that are transportation andtourist related and dwell ing or dormitory type units fbr ernployeesof the Town or special district. Applicant: Town of Vail .
Request to anend the non-conforrning section of the zoning code topernit restoration of legal non-conforming structures that are destroyedby fire or other calamity or by an act of God. Applicant: Townof Vail.
5' Request to arnend the official zoning map of the Town of Vail in accordancewith Section l8 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code as follows:
Change the Ski Museurn, lot 6, Vail Village 2nd Fiiin! frorn public
Acconmodation (PA) to Public Use (pUD) Dj.strict,
Change tot 10, Bighorn Subdivision from Two Farnily Residential (R)to Green Belt and Open Space (GBOS) District,
Change Tract H, Vail Village First Fiting from High Densj-ty MultipleFamily (HDMF) to Public Use (pUD) District,
change 7ot 28, Lionsridge Filing i fron Primary/secondary Residential(P/S) to Public Use (pUD) District,
Change lot 40, Buffer Creek Subdivision from Corurercial Core III(CCIII) to Public Use (pUD).
Ch;tngc lot 10, Vail villagc Sccond Firing from Two Family Rcsidential (R)1o I'ubl ic t.tse (l'tJDJ Disrrict,
.+.
:ff1';,1i"3fi'ff lll:;:l,ii lfil#;::TLifr: t;33i'i:::"i::,"""'
Chinge Tract E, Vail Lionshead Ist Filing fron Cornmercial Core II (CCII)to Public Use District (PUD),
Change Donovan Park, a parcel of land located in the NE l/4 of the Swl/4,
and the NW f/4 of the SW I/4, Section 12 T.SS., R 81 W of the 6th P.M.,
Town of Vail, State of Colorado, from Residential Cluster (RC) and Prinary
Secondary Residential (P/S) to Public Use (PUD) District,
Change King Arthurrs Court, a parcel
Section 12, T. 55, R. 80ll of the 6th
frorn Low Density l{ulti-Fanily (LDMF)
of land situated in the SE 1/4 of
P,M., Town of Vail, State of Coloradoto Public Use (PUD) District,
f.
Parcel B of the Annexation Plat of Forest Service Property, annexed by
Ordinance #7, 1980 as recorded in Book 302, page 852, Eagle County recordsfron Green Belt and 0pen Space (GB0S) to Agriculture and Open Space (A)District,
change Pitkin creek rract , a parcel of land lying within section tI, Township
5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th P.M., Eagle County, containing 19,566.40
square feet of 0,449 acres more or less from Special Developrnent District
(SDD) to Public Use (PUD) District.
Change Glen Lyon Strean Tract, a parcel of land located in a portion ofthe N 1/2 NW l/4 of Section 12, T.55, R, 8iW of the 6th P.M., Town ofvail, county of Eagle, state of colorado from special Developrnent Dj.strict
(SDD) to Public Use District (PUD).
The applications and infornation relating to the proposed changes are
available in the Zoning Administrator's office during regular business
hours for review or insp^ction by the public.
TOWN OF VAIL
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
A. PETER PATTEN, JR.
Zoning Adnin istrator
Published in the Vail Trail September 1I, 1981
Tn.I'lanning and
FP.0I1: l)cPartncnt of
DATE: SePtember 22'
llE : Rcque st f or a
Subdivi s ion
1,,1L|'10ltANI)Ui''1
linvi rc,lrncntu I Conutiss iort
Conr:rrrrnity Dcvei opmcitt
1 981
side and rear setback variance on 1ot 2, Cliffside
APPLIC,\NT: David L. Cole
DESCRI P',f IoN or vABr4Igr I'Eq!!sfE-D-
The applicant is requesting a side and rear: setback variance for his r:esidence
located on Lot 2, Cliffsid. srbdiuirion. A side setback variance frour the Ie-
quired 15'to 12.3' along t:he northeast builCi'ng line is requested and a rear
setback variance fron the requi.red lst to a minimurn of 8.9' is requested for
the western edge of -.-he structure (see attached j-npl.ovement survey).
,lhe str:ucture was approved by Eagle county and designed.under Eagle county
regulations. The colnty's side ind::ear letbacks ale sinilar to the Totvnrs'
The county requires settacks in the rear and on the sides of a structurc to
be 12.5 feet or half the height of the building on the 1ot' In this case'
half of the height of the UuifAing or L5' t{as used as a rear and side setback
requircncnt.TheplanapprovedbyEagrecountyforthebui.ldingshowstlrese
15' setbacks and the tocaiion of the building as being within these setbacks'
Apparently, the building was misplaced on the property during construction'
How this misplacenent occurred i-s explained by the apPlicantrs represeutative
in the attached l etter '
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Consideration of Factors
T-he rctqtionship of lhe Jcqugs!e4-variance to other existinS or potential
ises and structures in thc vicjnity.
;r""t *a*.- *t*"." r*r**a is bor<lered by a private drive ownccl in
connon by thc applicant and adlacent propcI.ty ownels and would not negatively
affect any existing or potential uses ur,i ttir"t,rles in the vi.cinity. 'Il]"
side sctback variance lcquested, vcry slightly inpacts the adjacent lot 3'
one corncr of the structure sits 2.7r into the required side setback adjaccnt
to this lot which is currcntly vacant. Thc lot is zoned for a single t' tuily
residencc,
(loJc -2- 9/2?./tt,l
'Ihc dc11t't:t-' tr-, rr'lriclt rcl ic.f' l'r'r:rn the st I'ict or litcr..rl iirLcr.rrr.ct;rtion llttl-.^''--.'''cnfor:co;rrcrrt of ''i-.J,,:i:'l t'i'';i-';; ,,,;l;;;Tii,''-"ii-i-'i.,'.,.-.-".i-t-,-;.,,.:1,-i;
!111_-t;-1 .lgrllJll!. !_i_:,-_ltltl. i[.it:tl rr,r,rr]atiorr is rr1-:q JJtlt!llill,l_olL -i :- ll-g_( (::):r__r)_ t_\,__-r,-!_1,_i-!,!'!t_ qgilp-i*lqll LrIar_d urrifo_r'ruity_rr_f _1_t-!i,_t_r,l!',rlt ;rr,rong sir.s in tlrc rrrJl.nia.t i;i to-rir;in thc- -:- , ...:.'l.ly- rI ll _!l_1.|'li_"r_y__gf -_l:r--r_,:l_r _l lL'n L itlirong sltcs 1I1 rnc vlcl.ltlty !)t'oilljclj!,.iJlllj_l',.:_1 ,_i_t::y_i_il,t,,L,__Sr"'ilj,_i f_idfltLprivit,.1,,,)l SI)CC I il I l)l tVLl(')'.(:.
'fltc zoning codc st.tt() s that in order to prcvcltt or to lcsscn such pr:acti"culdiff icult.ic:; and ttntreccs.sul'y physical. hardships incorrsistcnt t;ith the objcctivcsof the zonitrg codt: :rs wotllrl lcsult frotrr strict or litcrirl intcrpretation irnt]cnl'ofcerncnt, vari.anccs fron certain regulations., such as -setback requirenrents,
may be gt.anted.
Thc zoning code states that a practical. ciifficutty or unlleccssary physicalhalclship may result from the sizc, shapc, or <linensions of a site or the locationof existing structures theleon; from t.opographic or physi-cal conditions opthc site or in the irunedizrtc vicinity. Cost br inconviencc to the applicantof -strict or- literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason forg.ranting a variancc,
Thcre is no unnecessary physical hardship evident. in thi-s case which warrantsthc granting of a variancc.
lt9_"lE*-.!3Lc-g.quel--=-t"dr"@tributionof popg-
-€t-r9fLj3fi-:!g!e!ion and traffic fr"iliti"u, p,rbli. .,r,and public sa6tv.-
No inpact.
Srrch other factors and cri-teria as the conmission deens a licable to the
llgpegs9 vadilrg:
FINDlNGS
The Llannirlg and Elvironrrental commission shall nrake the followin findinssbefore granting a vai i a rrce.
That the grantillg of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privi.-lege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in thesane district.
That the granting of
safety, or rr'elf are,
the vicinity.
]'hat the variance is warranted for one or more of the followitrg reasons:
The strj-ct or literal interprctation and enforcement of the specified regulation
wortf d -result in practical difficr.rlty or unnecessary physical irardship inJonsistentwith the objcctives of this title.
the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,or materj-ally injurious to properties or irnprovenents in
tr*
Cole -3- 9/2)./E)
Therc are cxccPtions or cxtraordi-nary circurnstances or conditions apPlicable
to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other Properticsin the same zone.
Tile strict or literal inte-rprctation and enforcement of thc spccified rcgu-
lation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of othcr
properties in the sarne district,
STAFF REC0III|ENDATI0NS r
The Departrnent of Connunity Development Staff recornmends deni-al of the reqtrested
variance. Although apparently the rnisplacement of the building was an uninten-
tional error and undoubtedly requiring the applicant to abi-de by the setback
r'eguhtions will cause the applicant financial hardship, the variance requested
is not supported by any unneccessary physical hardship as outlined by the zoning
ordinance.
Oa
Snowdon and Hopkins o Architects
201 Gore Creek Drive g0g 476-2201
P. O. Box'1998 Vail, Colorado 81657
Septennber 10, i9B1
1,1r. Peter Patten
Town of Vail Planning Administrator
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail , Colorado 81657
Dear Peter:
The applicant David L. Cole is requesting a side and rear setback
varj.ance for hi-s residence located on Lot 2, Cliffside Subdivision,
Vai-1 , Colorado. As the applicant's representative and Architect for
the project we are requeslj-ng as follows:
'1 . A side setback vari-ance from 15f (as required by Lhe Town of
Vail Zoning Ordinance Section 18.10,060) Eo 12.5t along the
northeasl buildlng line for approximateLy 7' .
2. A rear setback variance from 15' (as required by the Town of
Vail Zoning Ordinance Section 18.10.060) to 8.9' along the
western building line for 32.7'.
The reason for fhe variance requesl is due lo misplacement of lhe
building on the property during construclion. As far as can be deter-
mined at this stage, fhe reason for the error is as follows,
1. An original site plan was submitted to Eagle County Building
Departrnent and the intended contractor at the time of construc-
tion (a copy was also submitted to the surveyor for staking of
the building on the property).
2. Eagle County requesfed modificafions lo fhe sife plan be made.
3. Modi-fications to the site plan were made and the drawings reissued.
4. The Owner selected a new contractor and construction was begun.
5. Apparently in the process of changing contractor and site plan
the building staking laid out by the surveyor was never rechecked
or changed, leaving the existlng situation.
Mr. Peter Palton
September 10, 1981
Page 2
Thls matter is being reviewed by the Town of Vail PEC, because part
way through construction this property was annexed from Eagle CounLy into
the Town of Vail. Il i-s our hope the Town of Vail and lhe PEC view this
as an unintentional error on the part of the applicant and would cause un+
due hardship on the part of the applicant to try and relocate the building
according fo tol'rn standards. The rear setback variance requested is bor-
dered by a private drive owned in common by the applicant and adjacenL
property owners and would, we feel not cause any hardships on adjacent
properties. The side setback variance i-s of minj.mal impact due to the
building being placed non-parallel with the property and setback 1ine,
causing only the corner of fhe building to be within the setback. At
present there is no building on Lot 3 (the property adjacent to the appli-
cant being affected by the variance), a single family residence zoned
property.
Enclosed you will find four (4) copies of an improvement survey showing
the existing situtation. (This was when the error was discovered) as you
require. If you need further information or I can be of any he1p, please
1et me know.
CNS:rmg
Encl .
",TrW,
Snowdon
O
p1s;t iir l'imited to Orthod.:;1tics
Diploirr',ii;,- ;ri1€ricqn Boord of C}l ;r;.d.)lltics
Septernber 25, 1981
Planhing and Environmental
Conunission
Torvn of Vail
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Sirs:
I see no problem with the request for a si.le a.nC.
rear setback variance in accorclance with Section
18-1.4.O60 for Lot 2, Cliffside subCivisionr pcitit
of Lionsridge Filing #2 by Applicant, David L..
Cole.
Sincerely yolrrs,
naF\r] Er Prrrhc rr n q
Owner of adjacent lot.
3 to the north.
DRB: em
Best
copy
Available
DARYL R- l;Uiii.l5, D.D.5-
Left Bdnk Profcss:oncl Euildi^g
5Qi5 eott Kc!'.iirl(q Aveiu2
Denver, q..,q,1, ;clqr FO22l
Tele rri rone 757 '0657
r\.(2'4*4(--.-r /
.'|!4?
:'I
'$ [ES GAi't.::. ;Y C.iF frl0i,';E$
286 Briri'y: Slreet, Vail, ColoraCo 81657
ln Vail Village; Corner of Lirirjqc Strcct I Gore Crrxrk Drivr;, above thc "t)r:li" .476-2113
110 East Bcaver Crcek Boulevard, Avon, Coloraclo 81620 r 949 6686
Benealh tlre l-irlrror Slore
230
September 11
Ten lViile Circle, P.O. Box 3357, Coppcr Mountairr, Colorado 80443. 668-2114
Copper Junction fJuilcJing at the base of "F'i Lift
, l9Bl
Mr. Dick Brovrn
l7B0 So. BEllaire St.
Sui te 105
Denver, C0 80222
Dear Dick:
I fjncl myself in an embarrassing predicament at the moment as nU home nears
completjon. Through some miscoordination between my architect, surveyor and
builder, the north side of the house (Lot 3) and the uJest sjde of the house,
(toward our private road) did not get located as I and the Town of Vail in-
tended wltich would have been within the setbacks of 15 feet on both sides.
An improvement survey of my home, completed for the purposes of a permanent
loan, has d'isclosed that the home has encroached 2r2 feel into the side set-
back and 6 feet into the rear setback.
I cannot see that the setbacks will provide any damaging consequences to the
neighboring property owners and they have applied to the Vail Planning and
Environnrcntal Cornmission for a hearing on September 28th at 3:00 PM for the
purpose of obtaining a variance in this matter.
I beljeve that your favorable opinions would vJeigh heav'i 1y in favor of my
request. If you will support me in this matter, I urould very much appreciateit and urould ask you'to sign below on the l'ine above your name indicating thatyou favor thc approva'l of this varjance and return it to me at cnce.
I hope to have you over for a drink and tour in the very near future.
Since.l€1y,
1-..t'
----f /*.4
i.
DaVid L. Co1e, C.R.B.
DLC: mb
REAt.'t off''
fPt
I) t, t , ... , ttt,-> :, i, .. i i ; ,,".,(i -' i
-.-,,llt
-, J i'1-'.: J ! i.:r;i {l'1,'.j,., " .'il ffi.:,
(
28rj Ur,d,.t,., I'lrur;t, Varl, C,r titt ark.i {j1i'jltJ
ln V;rl Vril;rrlo; Corncr ol Errdi;r; Slrr;rt O O^'a 6rcok l)rrvi:, .rirr,ive thr-' "l)clr" . 47a ?.11',)'
'l 1() [:ast []eavc; (irr:ck Eoulcvarrl, Avlir, Colc,rado i.i1(i:10. li1f] tlC:i(i
Ll enca lh llrr: I ir;rror Stcrc
2lJ0 lort Mile Circl,-:, P.O. Ucx l3llli7. Coppcr Mourrt;rin, ColorarJo 804,13 . 60t\ 2114
Copper Junctrt.rn L'lrriiciinQ al the l)atje of "F" litt
September ll, l9Bl
Itir. Chuck Roscnqui st.l93 East Gore Creek Dr.
Vail, C0. B.l657
Dear Chuck:
I find myself in an embamassing predicament at the mornent as my hone nears
colnpletion. Through some miscoordination bet\^reen my arch'i tect, surveyor and
builder, thc north side of the house (Lot 3) and the west side of the house,
(tcl"rard oui'private road) did nct get located as i and the -Iovrn of \taii in-
l.ended whiclr would have been wi[hin the setbacks of 15 feet on both sides.
An'inrprovenrent survey of my hoine, compieted for the purposes of a permanent
1oan, has djsclosed that the home has encroached zr' feet'into the side set-
back and 6 feet into the rear setback.
I cannot see that the setbacks rvill provide any damaging consequences to the
neighbori ng property ov{ners and they have applied to the Vail Pianning and
Envjronment.rl Comnission for a hearing on September z8th at 3:00 PM for the
purpose of obtaininE a variance in this matter.
I believe that your favorable opinions would weigh heavi1y in favor of my
request. If you vri11 support rne in this matter, I wou'ld very much appreciateit and vrould ask you to sign belolv on the line above your name 'indicating that
you favor lhc approval of this variance and return'it to nrc at once.
I hope to have you over for a drjnk and tour in the very near future.
Si nceyt 1y,
.- ' t/. ,r-
''tdd'i
David L. Cole, C.R.B.
RLALl0ltr)
DLC: ntb
0sen(lu
"ri-(-
')t)t:) i) | tr; t)t, ii 1 rcnt, Va i l, C ola r t' r )' t'4 i l.''l-t /
lrr Vltil Vrll;r11t;: Corncr of Brid'le Sirccl I Gorr: Crr:ck Driv(i, ;rir.j\/il ilte "Dir t'' c 4la ?113
110 Ea:;t Bca,.,cr' Cteek Bottlcyi:rrj, Avt:tr, Cr:lcrad6 8162t'J ' 94il'{jl'jil6
Llgrreatlr ther L.rclur.lr S1<irt:
230 l-cn Mile Cirr:le, P.O. Box 11357, Coppet l"'lountiritt, Coloracio B044li c 66i','?114
Coppcr .Jurrction [1u lrjrn(i at lfre blsc ol ''F" Li{t
September 1.l, l9Bl
Mr. Jack Bishop
0ntario West
Drawer P
Edlards, C0 8.l632
Dear Jack:
I find nryself in an embarrassing predjcament at the monent as my honle nears
completion. Through sorne miscoordination betvreen r;y architect, surveyor and
builcler, the north side of the house (Lot 3) and the west side of the house,
(toward our private road) did not get located as I and the Town of Vai'l in-
tended vrh'i ch r^rould have been r,rithin the setbacks of l5 feet on both sides.
An improvement survey of my home completed for the purposes of a pennanent loan
has disclosed that the lrome has encroached 2r, feet into the sjcie setback and 6
feet into the rear setback.
Cole,
/{}. ir-tii. u"
I cannot see that the setbacks vrill provjde any damaqinE cnirequences to the
r'oiqhboring property owners and they have appfied t.'"ire Vail Planning and
LnvironnxJntal Commission for a hearing on Seprcnrirer Z8th at 3:00 PM for the
purpoSe 0t obtaining a Variance i,, tlr lS illi:tter.
I believe that your fovorable opinions would vteigh heavily in favor of myrequest. Ir 1'er..l will support nrc in this nratter, I would very nuch appreciateir- -''1 wttuld ask you to sign be'l ow on the line above your nante indicating thatyou favor the approva'l of this variance and return it to me ar once.
I hope to irave you over for a drink and tour in the ver,y near future.
f
Si ncirely,
"1.1, "- ..t
----;t ,,: /,..' <1
REALI OR!
75 Soath Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 816J7
t 0t -479-21 3 I / 479-21 19
Department of Commanity Det elopmcnt
March 15, 1993
David Cole
P.O. Box 5555
Vail, CO 81658
RE: A request for a conditional use to allow a bed and breakfast to be conducted at 1450
Buffer Creek Road/Lot 2, Cliffside.
Dear Mr. Cole:
Enclosed is a copy of the minutes of the November 9, 1992 Planning and Environmental
(PEC) meeting at which your variance request was approved. The attached copy of the
meeting minutes will serve as your record of this approval.
Please note that the approval of this variance shall lapse and become void if a building permit
is not obtained and construction is not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion,
or il the use for which the permit is granted has not commenced within two years from
approval (November 9, 1992). lf approval of this variance lapses, an application must be
resubmitted lor reconsideration by the Community Development Department staff and the
PEC.
lf you have any questions or comments regarding this information, please do not hesitate to
contact me at 303/479-2138.
Sincerely,/---A ' . ,(Yrt$lpW\..\_l-/,(\Jtl-r-,.'----
Leslie Hagerman v
Planning Assistant
Enclosure
FILE COPV
PLANNING AND ENVTRONMENTAL COMMISSION
November 9, 1992
Present
Diana Donovan
Jeff Bowen
Dalton Williams
Greg Amsden
Chuck Crist
Kathy Langenwalter
Staff Present
Tim Devlin
Mike Mollica
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Jim Curnutle
Russ Forrest
Susan Scanlan
1. At approximately 2:10 P.M., the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting was
held to discuss a request for a conditional use to allow a bed and breakfast to be
conducted at 1450 Buffer Creek Roacl/Lot 2, Cliffside.
Applicant: David ColePlanner: Shelly Mello
The general consensus of the Planning and Environmental Commission was that there
were no issues and a motion by Jeff Bowen to approve the request was made and
seconded by Chuck Crist with a unanimous vote 5-0 approving the request per the
staff memo.
Dalton Williams abstained from this item as he was not present for the beginning of the
meeting.
2. A request for a variance from Section 18.58.32 lo allow two satellite dishes that exceed
the number and the height limits to be located at the Sonnenalp/Swiss Haus/82 E.
Meadow Drive/Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Johannes FaesslerPlanner: Jim Curnutte
Jlm Curnutte reviewed the request with the PEC. In attendance was Greg Stutz, an
attorney who represented the Talisman, Edelweiss, and Summers Lodges. Greg
pointed out that the Edelweiss, Summers Lodge, and Crossroads were not notified
about the request. Further, the representatives from these areas would like the
request denled.
After PEC discussion, Diana Donovan suggested that the request be tabled until actuat
size mock ups of the satellite dish antennas were placed on site.
PI.ANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING 11.9.92 1
FILE COPY
Present
Diana Donovan
Jeff Bowen
Dalton Williams
Greg Amsden
Chuck Crist
Kathy Langenwalter
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
PLANNING AND ENVTRONMENTAL COMMISSION
November9, 1992
David Cole
Shelly Mello
Johannes Faessler
Jim Curnutte
Staff Present
Tim Devlin
Mike Mollica
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Jim Curnutte
Russ Forrest
Susan Scanlan
1.At approximately 2:10 P.M., the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting was
held to discuss a request for a conditional use to allow a bed and breakfast to be
conducted at 1450 Buffer Creek Road/Lot 2, Cliffside.
2.
The general consensus of the Planning and Environmental Commission was that there
were no issues and a motion by Jeff Bowen to approve the request was made and
seconded by Chuck Crist with a unanimous vote 5-0 approving the request per the
staff memo.
Dalton Williams abstained from this item as he was not present for the beginning of the
meeting.
A request for a variance from Section 18.58.32 to allow two satellite dishes that exceed
the number and the height limits to be located at the Sonnenalp/Swiss Haus/82 E.
Meadow Drive/Lot K, Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing.
Jim Curnutte reviewed the request with the PEC. ln attendance was Greg Stutz, an
attorney who represented the Talisman, Edelweiss, and Summers Lodges. Greg
pointed out that the Edelweiss, Summers Lodge, and Crossroads were not notified
about the request. Further, the representatives from these areas would like the
request denied.
After PEC discussion, Diana Donovan suggested that the request be tabled until actual
size mock ups of the satellite dish antennas were placed on sile.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING 11.9.92
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SU&JECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
November 9, 1992
A request for a conditional use lo allow a bed and breakfast to be
conducted at 1450 Buffer Creek Road/Lot 2, Clitfside.
Applicant:
Planner:
David Cole
Shelly Mello
il.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE
In December of 1989, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1989
to allow bed and breakfasts in the Town of Vail. The definition in that ordinance
states:
"A bed and breakfast means a business which accommodates guests in a
dwelling unit in which the Bed and Breakfast proprietor lives on the premises
and is in residence during the Bed and Breakfast use.*
Mr. Cole has applied for a condilional use permit to allow him to use 2 bedrooms in his
home, which is located in the Single Family Residential zone district, for a bed and
breakfast rental. The area to be used for a bed and breakfast contains a total of 300
square feet. Two guests could stay in each bedroom for a total of 4 guests.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review ol Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends
approval of the conditional use permit based upon the folloring tactors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. Relationshio and impact of the use on the develooment obiectives of the
Town.
The Town Council encourages bed and breakfasb in the Town of Vail
2.
as a favorable type ot lodging for tourists.
The effect of the use on lioht and air. distribution of pooulation,
transoortation facilities. utilities. schools. parks and recreation facilities.
and other oublic facilities needs.
4 guests can be accommodated at one time, and it is unlikely that there
would be more than 2 guest vehicles. There is no Town of Vail bus
stop in the vicinity. lt is felt that the impact on the use of parks and
recreation facilities and on transportation facilities would be minimal.
Effect uoon traffic with oarticular reference to conoestion. automotive
and oedestrian safetv and convenience. traffic llow and control. access.
maneuverabilitv, and removal of snow from the street and oarkino areas.
It is likely that there would be 2 additional vehicles driving to the Cole
residence. Staff feels that this would be an insignificant impact upon
traffic.
Etfect upon the character ol the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, includino the scale and bulk of the orooosed use in relation to
surroundino uses.
The stafl feels that the character of the area will not be negatively
impac'ted by the addition of a bed and breakfast in this area. No
exterior changes to the residence are proposed to accommodate the
bed and breakfast.
Bed and breaklast operations mav be allowed as a conditional use in
those zone districts as soecilied in Title 18 of the Vail Municioal Code
for Ordinance No. 31. Series of 1989. Bed and Breakfast Ooerations
shall be subiect to the followino requirements:
a. Offstreet desionated parkinq shall be required as follows:
One soace lor the owner/proprietor plus one soace for the first
bedroom rented olus 1/2 space for each additional bedroom
rented.
The Cole propery contains 2 enclosed and 34 exterior parking
spaoes. lt is a single-family residence with a parking
requirement of 3 spaces. With the B & B, a total of 5 spaces will
be required. The parking requirement can be handled on site.
b. Enclosed trash facililies and reoular oarbaoe removal service
shall be orovided.
The trash containers will be housed in the garage with regular
trash pick-up.
3.
4.
5.
c. Removal of landscaoino for the provision of additional oarkinq is
There willbe no removal of landscaping.
d. Each bed and breakfast shall be allowed one residendalllarnq
oiltg ;
Code.
A name plate has not been applied for at this time.
e. lf a bed and breakfast operation shall use prooertv or facilities
oarkino soaces or a drivewav in duplex suMivisions bv wav of
example and not limitation. the written approval of the other
oroDertv owner. owners. or apolicable owners' association shall
be reouired to be submitted with the aoolication for a conditional
use oermit.
Approval from the neighbors has been received lor the use of the
common driveway.
IV. FINDINGS
The Plannino and Environmental Commission shall make the followinq findinos before
oranting a conditional use permit for a bed and breakfast ooeration:
A. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this
Ordinance and the purposes of the districi in which he site is located.
B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would
be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of
this Ordinance.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this
application for a bed and breakfast operation. Staft finds that all applicable review
criteria and findings have been satisfactorily met.
revisqd 9/4/9L I
Date of Applicdtion
Date of PEC Meeting
CONDUIONAI. T'SE PERMIT
October 7 ,1992
TPPLICATIOTI
'OR
7 r92
I.
B.
ADDRESS Po Box 55
Vail, CO PHONE-fr6'T0'Tr
NAI.{E OF
ADDRESS
APPLICANT' S REPRESENTATI\IE SAME As ABovE
tffiuocl
This procedure is required for any project required to obtainconditional use permit.
The application wirl not be accepted until all information issubnitted.
A. NAME OF AppLICANT DAVID L. coLE
HONE-
c.NAI'{E OF
olrNER(s,
ADDRESS
owNER (S)(print
SI )
) pAVrp L. coLE
co 816
HONE
IOCATION OF PROPOSAL : LEGAL : LOT_I_BLOCK_FILING_C1ffi
ADDRES S---1 4-5 O-E:r ffc-r-.1]ree k Road,-V" i 1
rEE $200.00 PA]D cK#
THE FEE MUSI BE PAID BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT WILL ACCEPT YOUR PROPOSAL.
F. A list of the names of owners of arr property adjacent toThE SUbJECT PTOPETIY INCLUDING PROPERTY BEHIND AND ACROSSsrREETs' and their mailing addresses. THr AppLrcANT t{rLL BERESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT OWNERS AND CORRECT ADDRESSES.
I1. PRE-APPLICATION CONFEF€NCE:
A pre-apprication conference with a planning staff member isstrongly suggested to determine if any addiiionaL information isneeded. No application will be accepled unless it complete (mustinclude a].I items required by the zoning administrator). rt i.sthe_applicant's responsibility to make in appointment with thestaff to fi.nd out about additional submittal- requirements.
II]. PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION WI],L STREAMLINE THEAPPROVAL PROCESS TOFT]JRTNOJECT BY DECREASING THE NUMBER OFCONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMISSION (PEC) MAY STIPULATE. AI.L CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUSTBE COMPI]ED WITH BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED.
Four (4) copies of the following information must besubmitted I
BY
1. A description of the precise nature ofand its operating characteristics andto make the use cornpatible with othervicinity.
the proposed usemeasures proposedproperties in the
The description must. al.so address:
a. Relationship and impact of the use on developmentobjectives of the Town.
H"Davtd L. Cole,oR@
o
REALT
October 7 r J-992
ADDENDUI\,I TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY DAVID L. COLE
Dauld.L Cole, CRS, CRB, CCIM
P.O. Box 5555, Vall, CO 81658
Offlcc (303) 949'4252
Home (3O3) 949-1469
FAX (3031 949-9303
1. Neighbors:
Chuck and Peg Rosenquist
PO Box 686
Vail, CO 8f658
Arch and Jeanne McGiIl
1425 Buffer Creek Rd.
Vai1, CO 8I657
2. Proposed use:bed and breakfast lodging
a. Relationship and i'mpact on devel-opment objectives of the Town-none.
b. Effect on light and air...-possible addition of up to 2 automobiles
in the parking structure on certain days and up to 4 additional skiers
on Vail/Beaver creek mountains on certain days.
c. Effect on traffic. . . . etc. -negligibte.
d. Effect upon the character of the area-ne9fIigib1e.
3. Site plan-since this property has been constructed and in place since
1980, the applicant believes that this paragraph is not applicable.
No additional improvements are planned. The Town has a survey of this
property in its files.
4. Preliminary building elevations- not applicable. See #3 above.
5. Not applicable-see *3 above. The applicant has been the sole owner
of this property since 1978.
6. Condominiumization-not appLicable.
7. The neighborsr approval for use of our common driveway is attached.
The application requires 2.5 parkinq spaces. To satisfy this requirement
there is a 2 car garage, room for at least 2 additional cars in the
driveway which can not be seen from the street and room for many
additional cars in the paved cul-de-sac west o,f, the subject property.
The dri-veway and the cu1-de-sac are private roads maintained by the
Rosenquists and the applicant.
Davld L. Cole,oR@
o
REALT H.
September 2L,1992
Chuck and Peg Rosenquist
37?7 Mount Veeder
Napa, CA 94558
Dear Chuck and Peg:
I was disappointed that I
yesterday. From the looks
you were home or not.
Dautd.L Cole, CRS, CRB, CCM
P.O. Box5555, vdl, CO 81658
e$ee{e€S}9{#25'}
rlene{€e3}9+g-1.rce"ffor€o8fcaffi3or
didnrt get to see
of your d r iveway
you during your
I had been unable
hasty exit
to te11 if
In order to make my bigger necessary home a
to offer my 2 downstairs bedrooms as bed and
This requires a conditional use permit from
formality and your written approvaL since we
1ittle Iess 1one1y I would l ike
breakf ast lodging.
the Town of Vail which is a
share a common d.riveway.
.i ^i"^^+^ r-l^-r-r .rru4ery . this activity would generate I Eo 2 cars to park from
time to time. The parking would be in my driveway and/or the little paved
spur that goes to the cul-de-sac.
If this nieets with your approval, would you please sign in the space
indicated below and return an original to me as soon as possible.
If you would li.ke to discuss the matter further, my phone number is 476-3OO0.
BES$ REGARDS,
APPROVED BY:
ril^.2'/7t //4-<
Rosenquist
=fu-
THts trEM MAy AFFEcT youn pRopERw
'fq
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Gommission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail on November 9, 1992, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
1. A request for a variance from Section 18.58.32 to allow two satellite dishes to
be located at the Sonnenalp/Swiss Haus/82 E. Meadow Drive/Lot K, Block 5E,
Vail Village First Filing.
2. A request for a setback variance to allow a residence and a garage to be
constructed in the front setback located at Lot 2, Block 3, Lions Ridge
Subdivision, Filing Number Three/1873 Lions Ridge Loop.
3.
${
4. A request for variances for wall height and site coverage to allow the
development of three single lamily residences located on Lotrs 7,8, and 9, Block
B, Vail Ridge12662, 2672, 2082 Cortina Lane.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Johannes Faessler
Jim Curnutte
Ned Harley
Andy Knudtsen
David Cole
Shelly Mello
Hans Weimann
Tim Devlin
A request for a conditional use to allow a bed and breakfast to be conducted at
1450 Bufler Creek RoacULot 2, Gliffside.
H,fu
*$t
iF$*Rt
ao
i$F
$!i
*€EslsiiGq
<ts>ar 5rlF. leoF(J|t
ttF
oF|o
ocr@4 |D
D
IrH F{o oo,r<n,dcloP.
F
<rdc)
P.FPt!oe o7fxct FrOortcoa@o\|'!o\otJr 0q@
o
€
P.
ri
l:00 p.n. Continuation of review of the view corridor nap and design
considerations for Vail Village. Applicant: Town of Vail .
3:00 .p_.-lt. l. Approval of minutes of October 26 nee_ting.
2. Request for a ninor subdivision to vacate and resubdivide lots
2 and 3 of Cliffside Subdivision' Applicant: David CoIe'
3, Request for conditional use permit to oPerate a Pet-shop on the
"o.tf, tia" of the Vail das Sihone shopping center, lot 3, Block 1'
Filing 3, Vail das Schone . Applicant: Catherine G' Street'
1. Request for a variance from side and rear setbacks to allow the
construction of a duplex on part of the Pulis Ranch, an unplatted
parcel. located between lot 3, Sunburst Drive. APPlicant:
Shapiro Construction Co. (Requested to be tabled')
S. Request to amend the zoning code so that it includes definitions
Of AmUsenent Arcaderr, "A,nusenent Centerrr and A.rnuS enent Device".
Also a request for new ordinance to regulate Anusenent Arcades
and Anusement Center. Applicant: Tovrn of Vail .
PIAI'INING AI,ID ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
November 9, 1981 ...
Published in the Vail Trail Novenber 6' 1981.
ail* r*," AN, lNVrRoNi\'riNr'Ar, c'r,{Mtt
November: 9, 1981
STAFF PRISENT
Peter Patten
Peter Janar
Jin Sayrc
Bet-sy }iosc,lack
COUIICILIL\N
the viel collidors and of the focal points
the pictures defined the lirnits of thethc photos wele taken .flon a pedestrian
cornntcnts were as follows:
t,
Bob Ruder
Jin Morgan
Gerry llhite, cliai.rrnan, ca1led the neeting to order at i:15.
Contirrrration of review of the vicw cor-riclor na and <iesign corr s idelzrt iolr s1i,i age .
PNESENT
Roger Tilkemeier
Scott lldvrards
Will Trout
Gerry ltll:ite
Duane Piper
Dan Corcoran
ABSENT
Peter: P. sho"'ed the pictures of
and explai:red that the lines on
vicw corr:idors, and added thatpoint of view. The photos anci
Pete:: I)atten went over: tire format of the presentation, explaining thatthe staff wanted to first review the proposcd wording and get approvalof that, show photos of the view corridor-s, existing arrd new, go tlrroughthe existing vicw corridor map, showing whj.ch views wer.e Irroposed to be
rernoved, and then consi<iering wliat, reconirrrendat ion to nake to'the Council .
scott wanted to knorv the number of people involved in the original studyand why it was being revier,.'ed. pete:: itated that this was part of theoriginal Urban Dcsign Guide Plan nhcn many people werc invoivccl, and tha.tthe staff and Jeff winston of the Gage Davii firm had been reviewing theview corridors and became aware of the importance of the corridors ind thepossibl e need for changes.
There were very few people in the aucli-ence, and it was suggested that thcneeting be advertised more fu1ly so that nore people coulcl becorne ar{areof the issue. Gerry explained that it was advertisecl in the Vail Trail ,and people were encoutraged to cone in and give their input.
Peter asked if thc board had any problen with the 2 1cvel systen--najor
and minor corridors. Jack Curtin stated that he felt a1l of the viewcorridors should be major, and the board rt'oul <i have lror.e clout. Ed Dragerstated that he understood .iack Cur.tirr rrrecipitated the reassessnrent <;fthe view corriclors. Jack stated that ic ,u"s .on.etncd about the Red Lion
ma),be adding another story.
llglo_1, #7 - concern about irrher:e linc was, ,lB, sky space on left importantto vieir's, lll0, should include focal point fol Clocktoh'er-, #I2 shoulci be ninor.
Mlt, fi1, sonre objection of change fr-onr trlajor, #2.1 Probably should be naioraftcr thc lled Lion expansion:-takcs placc, Ii2,2 movc l j-nc orr ::ight to -incluclcTivo-li Loclgc'., i/3 (;crry fclt shotrl<l lrc rrr;r jor, /15 Ccr-r)' rrnrl liogt-.r' fclt shoulrl br. r:i:r.ior,fo Ro!,r:r, Dan, [)uanc cnd Cer.'ry fcLL sfroirld'be nruj<.rr., 'i 7 l',rtiy"waslit photo tlrf,en
from thc uriddlc of the strect?, lllt) and {i 21 , Gerry fclt shoulcl be major.
Iu. .z- Lr/n/sr
Discussion followed concerning neeting with the council for final dccision
about the view corridors.
Dan moved and Roger seconded to table the discussion r-rntil the next rcgular
neeting, at which tine they could decidc whether or not to nect with the council
The vote was 6-0 in favor.
Dan moved and Duane seconded to approve thc mintes.
and the vote was 5.0,
Roger abstained from voti-ng
a rninor subdivision to vacate and resubdivide lots 2 and' 3
Su6division- Appricant: David Co1e.
Peter Patten explained the change in this request which would climinate setback
violations. Craig Snorvdon, representing lr1r, Cole explained that they had obtained
approval fron the adjacent property owners, they had obtained a right-of-way
deed, and had investigated other possibilities. Dan stated that if this had
been a nornal 1y platted road, he would be opposed., but that si-nce it was a
private road he was not, but the road would not rneet the Tolrmts specifications.
He felt that the developnent was rnore like a PUD. He added that there seened
to be a technical problem with the title.
Gerry felt that it was a paper solution to a real problem, that it flies in
the face of everything to do with zoning, He added that the subdivision was
approved with the road at a certain width,
After rnore discussion, Roger rnoved and t{il1 and Dan seconded to approve the
request. The vote was 4 to 2 in favor, Gcrry and Duane voting against.
Duane stated that he felt sinilar to Gerry, and th.et the intent of the setbacks
is to create dj-stance between buildings, and he felt that the true intention
of the setbacks yasntt, served. Dan wanted the ownership of the road cleared
up before the Town signed the p1at.'
Request for a conditional use perrnit to oper-ate a pct shop on the north sidc
of the Vail das Schone shopping center, lot 3o Block 1, Filing 3, Vail das
Schone. Applicant: Catherine G, Street.
Peter Jamar presented the information. NIs Street ersked if she could itrclude
other aquatic animal s. She was told she could, but would have to cone back
again to get permission to have bi::ds or aninals, ar-r d would have to have airproval
of the shopping center olner and tl're shops on all sidcs and condo owtrcrs above.
Dan moved and Scott seconded to applove the request including other aquatic
aninals based upon the findings, The rrote was 6-0 j.n favor.
Requcst for a variance frorn side and rear setbacks to al1ow the constrttction
--F-_i.-+-:-of a duplex on part of the Pulis Ranch, an unplatted parcel located betlrcen
lot 3, Sttnburst Drive. Applicant: Shapiro Constnrction Co.
Gerry stated that the applicant had asked to have thc issue tabled until
Dccembcr 14. Darr noved and Will and liogcrr secondcd to approve tl)c lcqucst
for tabl i.ng.
Request for
of Cliffside
TL/ LOJsL
Request to anend the zoning code so that it includes dclinitions of I'Arnuserlent
Arcadert, ttAnusenent Center" and "Atnusement Device". Also a request for ncw
ordinance to regulate Anrusencnt Arcadcs and Anusenent Center, Applicant:
Town of Vai1.
Jin
Part
the
etc .
Sayre stated that although there were two parts to arcade regulation, this
was pri-narily concerned with anendments to the zoning code. He explained
potential problens concerni-ng nixed uses, nixed ages, noise, vandalism,
i
The discussion that followed concerned the problem of liquor with arcades.
Will added a concern about some electronic games being violent. Scott was
concerned that the arcades did not open onto a streat, Roger was concerned
lrith the people who would be handling the arcades.
Roger rnoved and Will seconded to table the issue to another neeting when the
owners of known establishrnents could be invited specifically. The vote was 6-0.
to table.
Peter asked which rnenbers were going to attend the NWCOG
on Saturday, Nov 14, and stated that the Town would pay
fee. Scott and Will were to attend.
Peter stated that there would be a meeting on Dccenber 8
on view corri-dors, probably at 1:30.
The rneeti-ng adjourned at 4:56.
planning session
the $18.00 registration
wibh the Council
oo ol
TIMBERTINE PROPERTIES GALTERY OF HOMES
286 Bridse street, vair, cororado ttuF:.:13331
|oi|1?l,ir1
DAVID L. COtE, C.R.B.
Presidenl
November 6, .|98]
Mr. Peter Patten
Mr. Peter Jamar
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Va'il , C0 8.|657
Gentl emen:
Attached are signed copies of the revised surveys as requested
by the Town Counci'l to affect a minor subdivision in C'l iffside
which will make my home on Lot 2 conform with current pianning
and zoning regulations pertaining to setbacks.
I have also attached the latest revised survey indicating the
additional jnformation that you requested of Craig Snowdon at
our last meeting.
To finalize this saga, we would suggest the fo1'lowing:
i. That all of the owners sign one copy of the survey
as attached so that a1'l signatures are on one copyfor 1ega1 and recording purposes.
2. That the fo'l1owing Deeds be executed: a) the Deed
from Lot 3 to Lot 2 conveying the property that
Dr. Burns is g'iving to me; b) a Deed from Lot 2
to Lot 3 convey'ing to Dr. Burns the property thatI am giving him; -c) a Deed from Rosenqu'ist, Brown,
and Burns to me conveying the property jn the road
pathway; d) an easement Deed from me to the other
owners providing a prepetual access easement over
the back edge of my 1ot which would majntain the
roadbed 'i n i t's current 'l ocati on.
Mr.Peter Patten
Mr. Peter Jamar
November 6, l98l
Page 2
0n Monday, November 9th, we will ask the PEC to approve this
minor subdivision as submitted.
Assuming this is approved, I would then like the Building De-
partment to be given the okay to issue a temporary certificateof occupancy for the property as it relates to this specific
problem which can be changed to a permanent certificate of
occupancy when the Deeds have been effected.
I will also ask for a temporary certificate of occupancy from
the Bujlding Department which wjll become a permanent certificateof occupancy when we are able to modify the front retainjng walI
which probably will not be until the Spring of1982 and the same
process to take place concerning the few remain'i ng details we haveto clean up with the Building Inspector concerning the final in-
spection of the property.
I appreciate your he'l p and patience in thjs matter and hope that
we can satisfy all parties concerned on Monday.
i ncerely,
L. Col e
\i ".\''tti ;' ';\\ r{'!1\t! -
'.\'r\ ^i
(
shs
xAfittrs\+ m
crl
\J
V
J
[$
$$r(
\\-l
t\a
\\4N
N}
\5shrb
$c)\L
\s
0\
-I
itvlroltr\ il', I
I
5"sT
$N{$
ss
N
O'^o\\$S?ta$\QL
o
$o
N
SB'*s
NN
c Rbo
\
o c
\,)
\$
$\
)
I<\i\
**$
s a,*
NI'N{q';
\o
s
\....
VN
\S
\
r\S
N\0
r.0
.N
R
\oN
...S
$.
s\
R$
o o 0 o
Nt
\ ,q'-{\J
\4
-r\+
$
op
nt
N$N
s-
p
Vls\s-t)
\r
Nv)
k
9-:l \\.o IY\
\-l l'\n. '
t.- J
$rsNs$i
h\
httr
".-ii. -\J
I
ttfu.
$. -r- t/s/s4
from Residential3.uest to rezo
uster to S Fam Res ent
Peter Patten stated
cants:e and DarY Burns.
concerning this propeity, buf t9r thf.entjre subdivjsion. Lots 3, 4, and 5 were
all restricted tb atieii from the bottom. Patten showed a site plan.and
explained that]ot:-JiAn;t have the site conditions that 4 and 5 did, and l.ot
2 ilas a moot point Ueiiuie it was already built upon. The staff recommended
approval of rezoning lots 2 and 3.
Dr. Burns, owner of'lot 3, showed slides with three majn views and explained
ttrat nii home would not impact the view corridors from the units on Vail Ridge'
He added that there *"i" tiro problems:. ]) ttre zone RC.made_the lot unbui1dab1e
Uecause of the slope restrictions, and a1 io cut down the GRFA, and 2) the use of
the upper entry was 'important to Dr. Burns'
Bill Post, representing the Ridge at Va'il, read from Ridge at Vail covenants
that stated tirat the siructures-must be kept back so that they "peek over the
ijdie:'i He stated that the Ridge owners did not mind the use of the upper
u.c6is to the lot if the same r6strjct'ions concerning the he'ight of the structure
remained the same as those for the Ridge units.
post also wanted to have a restriction that there wou'l d be no parking in the.
cui-A. iic. Jim Flaum, president of the Ridge Town House Association, wanted to
be sure the same u.."ii would not be given t5 tots 4 and 5. Dave Cole, owner of
1ot i, stated that at first it appeared that his home would.itPugl Burns', but
found that Burns' view was over Cole's chimney. Cole felt that if Burns would
have to access from below, it would be a tremendous infringement upon Burns'..
"iglti. Fosi rerinded the board that this was a zone change request.. Eskwith
stitea that since this was a request for a zone change, the PEC'cou'l d place
conditions upon its approval . lie added that although the Town cou'l d not deprive
itr..ppiicani the use of h'is property, the owner of that property was not entitled
to the best use of the ProPertY.
Rapson was still concerned with the view corridor jtPugl: Donovan was concerned
about the narrowness of the road. Patten stated that thjs was a private drive
and was totally controlled by 6 owners, but that the fire access wou'ld need to
Ue-fool.ea at. -Edwards statei that he would'l ike to see some sort of reasonab'le
limjtation of height because of the restrictions that had been p1 aced on the Ridge
unjts. Pierce hai no p"oOt"tt wjth the request, but was concerned about'lots 4
;il-5 using ihe drive to reach their homes. Patten reminded hjm that the owners
of 'l ots 4 and 5 must come in for rev'i ew.
Donovan moved and Rqpspn seconded to recommend approval to the Town Courrcil per
or.
5. Request for exterior alteration to the Vall-!l-!-Uj-l!jng-in order to remodel
iffi-Entry of-Gore Range Propertjes.
Kristan Pritz presented the request. John Whee'l er' representing Gore Range.-.
i;.op.iii.t, itit"a that he wouid like to have Duane Piper work out the detailjng
needed in irotection of the 91ass. Pjerce suggested other detai'ls where the
glass met the paving, such as stone.
n statedlraU.sinqe l98l-r I -o$--si+ridproposals had been proposed
ir.lii-p'"p"ity, bui f9r thi,gltjre subdivi:.t91' -Lgl: 1;-1'-and 5 wer
6ts 2 and 3, cliffsjae subdiv
i
and En
I
Tb:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ ECT:
Pl anni ng vironmental Commission
Conmunity Development Department
July 2, 1984
Request for a rezoning from Residentia'l
Residential for Lots 2 and 3, CliffsideApplicants: Daryl Burns and David Cole
Cluster to Single Family
Subdivision.
I.BACKGROUND
0n December .|2, .|983 the Planning and Environmental Commission heard thethird request from the property owners of this subdivision to rezone theirsix lots from Residential Cluster to Single Family Residential. As you'11recall, the dispute in this matter has been over lots 4 and 5 as far astheir ability under SFR to impact the ridge line existing at the top of
these Iots. After the Planning and Environmental Commission approved the
rezoning but with staff recommended restrjctions on access for lots 4 and 5,the application was withdrawn by the applicant before Town Council appearance.
A'lthough the enc1 osed minutes show that the P'lanning and Environmental
Commission restricted the access to lots 3,4, and 5 in the December 12
decision, it appears that lot 3 does not possess the same site p'lanning
problems related to visual intrusion on the ridgeline as do lots 4 and
l. .Evidence to support this wi'l 1 be presented to you at the hearing on
Monday. The staff will proceed to work with the owners of lots 4 and 5to explore alternative s'ite !,1 anning options for those parcels.
At this time, an access or desiqn solution has not been found and the owners of2 and 3 wish to proceed. Lot 2- is owned by Dave Cole with an existing
residence on it. Under the rezoning, as you can see by the attached statjstics,this lot can have an additional 325 square feet under Single Family Residential.
Lot 3 is a steep vacant lot which, as explained in the attached memorandum
dated December 8, .|983, is more suited to single Family Residential zoning
than to Residential Cluster.
CRITERIA EVALUATION
Please refer to the December 8, 'l 983 memo regarding evaluation of the threecriteria used for rezonings. These findings remain the same for the requestin front of us today. Basica'l 1y, Res'idential Cluster is not the most suitable
zoning for these lots, and Single Family Residential allows opportunityfor the sensitive site planning of lot 3.
I II. RECOMMENDATION
II.
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the rezoningof the lots 2 and 3, Cliffside Subdivision from RC to SFR. It appears -
that the site conditions on lots 4 and 5 which make access from above undesirableare not present on lot 3 (and lot 2 is a1 ready developed). The rezoningof lot 3 relieves the slope restrictions imposed by Residential Cluster
and this makes sense for the placement of a structure on th'i s difficultparcel. Thus, we feel comfortable in allowing the rezonjng on these twoproperties and find that the rezoning criteriJ have been met.
' ^ f zvz
-a\rt
| |
, rl. rrLll I'r
PEc 12/12/81
' ,"5 '---
-,(i ll (./{
- \a- a\-
:,
Mccall stated that except during christmas week, there was no parking problem.Patten reminded the commissioneis that they weie meieiy ionsiat"lng;;;;;;;;;,not the approval of the rem_oval of parking. He added ihat tt""u c6uta not ue"'any reduction of parking unless theie were excess spaces available on slie.--
Viele moved and Pierce seconded to a rove thee Town Counc e vote was vor.
4.Request to rezone Lots I through 6{ Cljffside Subd iuster to Sinole amr l.y Res'ldentiarles Rosenquist,Margaret RosenquTElllav i d (.
to
\I
V1
K
a
s:
ole
l:::i.,P:l::l^p:::.!!ud the proposal ^explainins t!a! the staff fett that sinsler'rml ly zonlng was more appropriate for this subdiv'ision but on'ly with site iestrictions.
_singlq Family zoning wou'id ajrow more GRFA, and th";";o;T; not be any s.roperestrictions. He showed a site pian and explained ttrat-lne road from- lot'4to lot 5 was a i6?6 grade (ttre town al'lows aL), una r'"-itr"iseo the concern thatthere not be any tuitains';t;n;-;h.-riiie une.
!eo19e Rosenberg,,representing the applicants, read the staff's recommendationln the December l98l memo, and added that no restrjctions were placed ut itaitimgt He. po'inted out.that..the adjacent owners knew deve'lopment could take placegl-ih: tybject.property. He mainiained that to rezone, an'ippHiant aio'no['---neeo !0 brtng in pJans of how he might develop the property.
Bill Post, representing the Ridge at vail property owners stated that it wastrue that the staff originally iecorrnended'reloniirg, uut thit at that time nonotice.was given to adjacent irroperty owners. He itated that his clients didnot object to the rezoning as'1ohg ai t ) tne lots would not be ..c.rr.d-iror-!l'" tgP'and 2) as long ai there ias no'building visibte on tire ridge line-('sincethey themselves had noi buirt on the ridgeline,"as r"quireJ by the iown. -Hi-' -
stated that if the property is zoned Sinlle Fariiy tney wiu "have certain riohtsand now was the time to p'llce restrictiois that wire nieded. ue-reit ihut uitiiitthe restriction that the'staif rria reiommended, that of not traving-any-;t;r;i;;;,improvement or increase grade occuring at the iidge line, that the'lots shouldnot be allowed access fr6m the top ( it least loti S,4,-and 5). - ---
craig snowdon, architect for The Ridge, showed some studies that had beendone to see what the impact woria le'l?' there were singie siory builJings-"constructed' including the build-up of the road to hav6 access to lots 4 and5.
Pierce agreed with the opposition, that if the rezoning were approved, thatthere be restrictions. Lirry Eskwith added that there couto Oe restrictionsto_protect adjacent propertyowners as long..as they were ieasonable. fira;;felt the restrictions s'trouli be specific. -Viele iiniu""ea, adding that without'the-restrictions, this could be gi^ossly unfair to it'.-iajii.nt prop""ty owners.He felt that to restrict access io thai it came rrom uet6w-was bntirel! consistent.Donovan asked about the road to Lot l, and was toia tiJi-it must remai'n. iapson
:.1i:9 that,development on tot I woutd not intrude on if,. rtage tine.
I?Ps-01 moYed to approve the request to rezone per the staff m6mo. The motiondlect tor lack of a secon d Donovan!vr., rl
iE;t9n999 tg a?p'gug lhg ""qrertnriln tne ttgri ionaffiitionr ioaF. ttri vote wasS-'jn favorwrtn Ptper and Morgan abst
lur
O3
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: December 8, '1983
SUBJECT: Rezoning request for Lots l-6, cliffside Subdivis.ion fromResidential cluster.(RC) to single Famity Res'identiar (sFR).
{pplicants: _Richard Brown, Chailes and fuargaret Rosen{uisi,David Cole, Daryl Burns
BACKGROUND
CRITERIA EVALUATION
The criteria for evaruating rezonings are found in the purpose section ofChapter .|8.02 General provisions.
As.some-of you know, this is not the first time this item has come up. In fact,this wjll be the third time the rezoning has come before tne ptanninb ana rnviirin-mental Conrnission. The only thing different this time arouna is thai Lot O is -
now included, which means we're tilking about the entire subdivision of six lots.
Basically,-the rezoning means Lots l-5 receive the same number of units (l).but slightly more GRFA. Lot 6 woutd receive two tesi ,niil-1irop.-liiiriitio0n.a very approximate basis) and less GRFA under the rezoning prbposal . Themain advantage to the_propeity owners is the lifti;a oi-ine iibpe'reitrictionsby going from RC to SFR. -
The bottom line is that cliffside was a very poorly planned subdivision. Thelots are, for the most part, very small and'vb"y sieip, ine uc..sses to severallots are unworkable, ani construition on the to'p' pait'6t tots 4 and 5 will intrudeupon the.ridgefine. The appijcants wish to rezonb the subdivision to Sfn wiifroutrestriction, and this is whbre the controversy comes is. irre piinning-u;a"in;i"on-
mental Comnission and.staff, as you can see from the previous memos and minutes,wish to impose restrictions upon ihe developmeni on iois-s,-+ and 5.
It is important that you read all of the attached information careful'ly so you'reclear on.the past occurrences. since nothing has really changed in te-rms o? -
the applicants demonstrati!9 that consiructi6n can sensitiveti tat<e pi.l. onlots 3,4, and 5, our start-poiition remains basical 1y the same.
l.Suitabit it of Existin Zonin
lh9 nc zone was devised for a townhouse-type development and was neverintended to serve as the zone for inJiviouai lot development. The reasonRC_was.designated ror cr ifrside-wai in. ..isirii ;;;;;;ff"r;est vail uponannexation didn't allow for thorough study 6f eacn pariei, and cliffsiiewas surrounded by RC zoning.
The slope restrictions of the RC zone basically make several lots jn Cliffsideunbuildable--and this is not our inlenlron. r-ne eiisiing'ioning is notreally suited to the property.
dI-__=._-_ _
2.
The cliffside subdivision.shourd be zoned the same, as it is a unifiedneighborhood. No surrounding-p"op.rties wiii u""i,lir".i by the rezoningdue to proximity and similu""flni'ur" in the area.
3.an Orderl and Viable Communit
The rezoning, with thesensible.and sensitiveIne eIlmination of two
condition recommended by staff,oevetopment of the remainder oiunits on Lot 6 is a plus tor ihe
will provide forthe subdivision.
community.
RECOMMENDAT ION
Ili'i3T[:']lil,?;y:l8i';lj,',ofig"ij'3i1, .ff
i'3;1,.'',i1f, .!x:'
13f, lli,i.::il ii, 31,
No structure, imorovement or increase grade whail occur at a height greaterthan the existinb eievulioi'.i'i"v"pJirt 9n..tl9 back property rine which isthe common propeity tin. "i'*,-'r.'nTid. at vair subdivision.
l,r . \.
t
I ii : ' i
Nlq:
l"t t\"i
lci0l\4ts
x r.].
loQt"5t$ p
s\+ r'1
('q
Nvl
f,
Iv)
I
$$
$r
\--\
t\r\
VN
N}
\)shfb
$c)\L
..S
0\
:-.-(\.r
to
\)
5.sY
$N{$
ss
\{
xY- Q\\$s?$a$-'-S
o
$o
N
$g'Q$
$R$
c R
Oo
\
o o c
\
\$
$\
)l<\R
,d$
N\r{S';
\D
*q.-r
\^N
\)
\
f..\S
Nt0
rT)
,Ng
\oNs$.
s\
ft$
o o 0 c
Nt
\Q,
\nr\+
$
op
h
$
\.t$N
s-
r.n
f.{
\ns\
\r
Nv)
s-
kIrl do N\:J..-'\^
VJR.-**
h
*s
R$t
$w
,.N
j
r1
2:00 pm
3:00 pm
't.
2.
e;
Planning and Environmental Commission
JuIy 9, 1984
Site Inspections
Pub'lic Hearing
Approval of minutes of meeting of June 25, .|994.
Request for revision to the Bonne vue earth-sheltered housing projecton_Lots Al' A2, A3 Lionsridge.Filing 2 and on Lot 6, B]ock tl LionsiiogeFiling 4 to redesign the housing unit. Applicant: -Reinforced
Earth c6.
lgeuest to rezone Lots 2 and 3, cliffside Subdivision, from Residentia'lcluster-to single Family Residential. Applicants: oivid-cole andDaryl Burns.
Request to_rezone Lots .|,4,5, and 6, Cliffside Subdivision, fromResident'ial cluster to single Family Residential. Appllcanti Town of vail
Request for exterior alteration to the vail zl building in order to remodelthe entry of Gore Range properties. Applicant: eore f,ange-properties.
Request for revisions to.the zoning code regarding outside vending whichwould allow outside vending only inder a siecial events permit withspecific criteria for its l-ocation. Applicbnt: Town of Vail
J.
WITHDRAWN 4.
TABLED
6.
ry s C2;#t--^e
tl--L ,
a
0,'( r,/tf ,/r*,', ,^t, , -
t& 1"*' ,-! ,,3 c/' F'+ tr'')-'"- -_rf '
I't '
I l= eC, tt;'fv ' '*' d^ , /
(----*-*-.,./,
"f il' ,, a^et- .' e/a-e--'2/vo%tQ/'-'
I tc"I-"1 r-t'<
2 s-'tu '/ /',,;C{49
| 4 261
- / ? /6
\rl
f , o"o //
=..----
- Str ,'tu"'t'--)/ :
( tr , /*" L -i64
. r y( to',211
.,2h / 4" l-J /; '/ '
zu /
tu?
/ u't,t^K 6'"-x-4. a s^ L- 6 1
box l(X)
vail, colorado 81657
(3031 476-5613
September 22, L98l
David L. Cole
% Timber'l ine Properties
286 Bridge St.
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Dave:
At the September 16 meeting
addition of a retaining wal'l
height 8' back from corner -
wa]'l to be bush-hammered.
department of community development
RE: Lot 2, Cliffside
of the Design
was approved
evergreen to
Review Board, your
as modiified:- reduce
screen corner of wal I -t.
d^^^
Peter Jamar
Town Planner
PJ:df
Prolect Appllcation
Proiect Name:
Project Description:
Contacl Person and
owner, Address and Phone: D+le cuz
Archirecr, Addressand phone: (znt^ tsNuny
O(&.trPstELegal Description: L
Comments:
Lr'/N+
'/l/6
fuE eaou-w ,4//e76 /414
8*aus T*2. b),+/+
seconded ,r, /htWrQ'a)S
Design Review Board
fitu<
orJ^ouo.
./b -o
Date
Motion by:
DISAPPROVAL
/ reSE/vnaN
( ' [?f lhootr/ft k &*J?/tnCI -Summary:
Staff ApprovEl
o
201 Gore Creek Driw
P. O. Box 1998 Vail, Colorado
Septenber 10, 1981
303 47&2201
81657
ltlr . PeLer Patten
Town of Vail Planning Administrafor
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail , Colorado 81657
Dear Peter:
The applicant David L. Cole is requesting a side and rear setback
variance for his residence located on Lot 2, Cliffside Subdlvision,
Vai.l , Colorado. As the applicant's representative and Architecl for
the project we are requesting as follows:
1. A side setback variance from 15' (as required by the Town of
Vail Zoning Ordinance Section 18.10.060) Lo 12.5' along the
northeast bui.tding line for approximately ?' .
2. A rear setback variance from 15' (as required by the Town of
Vail Zoning Ordj.nance Section 18.10.060) to 8.9' along the
western building line for 32.7' .
The reason for the variance request is due to misplacement of the
building on the property during construction. As far as can be deLer-
mined af this stage, the reason for the error is as follows.
1. An original site plan was subnibted to Eagle County Building
Department and the intended contractor at the tj.me of construc-
tion (a copy was also submitted to the surveyor for sLaking of
the building on the property).
2. Eagle County requested modifications to the site plan be made.
3. Modifications to the site plan were made and the drawings reissued.
4. The Owner selected a new confractor and construcbion was begun.'
5. Apparently in the process of changing contractor and site plan
the building staking laid out by the surveyor was never rechecked
or changed, leaving the existing situation
l.)
!lr. Peter Patton
September 10, 198'l
Page 2
This matter is being reviewed by.the Town of Valt fbC, because part
way through construction this properby was annexed from Eagle County into
the Town of Vail . It is our hope the Town of Vail and the PEC view.this
as an unintentional error on the part of the applicant and would cause un+'
due hardship on the part of the applicant Lo try and relocate the buildlng
according to town standards. The rear setback variance requested is bor-
dered by a private drive owned in common by the applicant and adjacent
. property owners and would, we feel not cause any hardships on.adjacent
properti.es. The side setback variance is of minimal impact due to the
building being placed non-paralLel with the property and setback 1i.ne,
causi.ng only the corner of the building to be within the setback. At
present there is no building on Lot 3 (the property adjacent to the appli-
cant being affected by the variance), a single family residence zoned
property.
Enclosed
the existing
require. If
let me know.
CNS:rmg
Enc1.
you wi.ll find four (4) copies of an improvement survey showing
situtation. (This was when the eror was discovered ) as you
you need further information or f can be of any he1p, please
a(\l
rl
nJ{()
(r)
-to
sro-ooP^\ixlf);asI
-J
?
Rr
lf)
s\ltl)N
o\t
(/)
bsrNp\
SN;o
.=lo
e-N
NT;o
F+
i; )'
Pr
--o
Fv
d
8no
^l
H
$
E()
RS
H\
Hg
t$
-tro
(')
.J
F-
Ej:r
>
$Fil$
-qroua
b,poc\lo
tls bF
IEFIE
'ot'd
co^
il
H
Ff,a
>
ro
_oo\t
o(o
(o
u)
N
$\t
tlI(J
osf
Fi
c')e
rlq
t\N\t
$
rl
J
-lo
_nrt
ro
orf)
|ll<
s\
tolo
8is
RHB
&*t
N
=
Q^?
c\l
ll
rrlJ
co
Nrq
ro\f
oo
lls
ul
.<.
0cs-
'c
CT CC U', :..rocooft !-c -rr!-C L'- c C(_)-lr0ro(,ccJ(i.c
rL._l.C"Ivioc|-0tr+r.ic,>cloo 1j..r c I >-r u l-
E .C(c-.lJ:OCCa! o.p ! c rcl tr c c)).-r (. > "c Q q
\-r'A\-,+*LU'O -C l- l-. O F--r CJa (n
rc > Q.c {| o f\r rir-IC:aC :-{ c] C rt .-r (5 C..-l I r-r 3
A. ! .! .-r -:. ! ri c_c 1r.- ! > -tnF 5 AJ ClF-r .lr .Qtj o O E >a- a- \ ar a\.t-J C C C C L,I -rtr l . C o: !i
a ; C 6 O= rd -i l-a c o c- o cn o o o-r
=Un 3 .lr L -al .-r ..i -|r !.--r a..r-la-:(-(1.rh--('l
c\u,_._rr_9Utt_t+r (-) o .0 a o o '.r r c c)o co >c orrd tro.o o o.r-r'3 fd d ccrG
r0 .. r, tr C, lJ C_): .lJ 3. l-.p I13 (n ..r O E O 0.-r O > C o Cr3 >.+ .-r QJX!OCO.Cl-C-<O '-1 O COOOTdXc) O
+J -l rciO Or C c X 0, Ltr Q)<,_t .le -CO -0O+r C tr
'-l O 5..r.lO-rrf O r t:=.r+-.r (J)> C) . .-.t n O !,iio '.+J +r >, (J Cj o C c.d O 5 AJ.-t 14 oq 16{rlr_ccEj.U 5 q,] -.1-q rd .U A E'.1 r0 ! O '.1 ! 0J --rlJ ..1 O +J -r O, ..-l O tl !J (3 tr (d
'U tnU '-i C,E Q-TdCJO!CQJ q >!clOCJ! O'-l -a {nO.c q.rCj qr 5-c C l..r OC..r-l .rr C-.1 -.1 -l '-l .P :: q .-1 rr-r () O.-lo) l{ .-l fn +J +J c_) r! ..r !--J O O fd l.t C. ,r (, O O rrD .1-r tr |]Oo Fl OOCTJt'E lrC\OOo c \ o o c.-t o '+-r o-c e
rJ -r L CJ O E.-l .-l O o AJ..1 > +J ',t o) .;.qo >+J a+r o.rr>! OrC J'\trO.r-iO!O (CrC lr Fl> f- O drj 16.-r 1r --r iO Ai ir 0,r C O d O 4,.! O"Jo 5 u c tr c .d c_ r0lrO qrrrSO>, >O .Ac
c I |! o c c a c a a =..4q-r o H 9..q o rd.f .d Ff '-l c a-
.rC
o\ q)
+J t-.1(|6
OC'.1 0,+ l-.1,_t c
I,t(JcdI O}U
H
H()
=E$\
Hg
i:o
]f,(os-:-
i'.i $
s;.o'
F:
tU
o
s\talr)
oolo
=
HB$Ur,*-rq6
a\o!-.1 !+JO(dL)
L\ O't a'
' ,1
q]
.+J C
!-
!) -lr
EIU
OFr
.t .2 lL,
r.': i o
c: 'l
H
l. ('
*1 i O O
a;i -c crli lJ 0)l"l *,H
-Zi
rO -ea_\ - ('
. Frl .lJ o.lL=(< t >r'-lUi q'r C)Oi '.1 -Q
Ff t 'lJ
trr ! \r/ \J
AL
Fl I -lJ>l >rdcrl Q o
O. ! -r&;Oa, .c c.J
F-
H: H.!
q
to
o)
I
dz
F
oE
6
RI
a
o
tt
o
ct(\
ll
n{
l{o
2
F
*
sa;o
7
t
t-
;
|D
zII
6
l!x|J
T
.l
8l
H
-l
*l
g
trl
t.-
$tr
E
F
EoJ
l-
=
E
R
=
oa
Eo
dx
a'5
Eg*JJ()(D-sNr{
I
=P
l-{3s
ti
lslo
t=ts
ol Sll L(
"al l'
',l d
Etx
E+l
Eb0.rl -lfl.=EiLIO
5g+'$
.u fi-
.[{
FtnouJr,n
:iit! tr'"
<i5;>h-i
.'I
<'- Ya<tJ
^SoXE^YOO'.inOY,
AU$6zenOX
;?U
Projecl Appllcation
Project Name:
Project Description:
Contact Person and
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot Block i itui:('if)f-Filino L=t tt t 'tt- t'' t.n"
Comments:
Design Review Board
Motion by:
Seconded by:
APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL
Staff Approval
-t
:l
,
Project Appllcation
Proiect Name:
proiect Descrip,'"", RE Ul5\oN9 lN P€Jlr \,:&t-c-
I
Contact Person and Phone
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot Block Filing Zone
-
Comments:
Design Review Board I
,^" 1< I 11
I
OISAPPROVAL
Motion by:
Seconded by:
APPROVAL
E statt Approval
Oate:
Town Planner
.i'p,
f,l
liJ I.fijt 'ri
,'.>t
r1wf,
L
l,i,
,7. llo2O',
L = 3759'
i't - , -' )L'U
' ' : 4757'
it o"07'22'€
SET REEAR II:",'tcREiE
y.g 11o. tZa9)
,
\\fr\--.\.,_ t, --IV\
,r/
\t
rj/
I
I
I
-1 "5541',. 35.2--'
75.OC'
ei.77'
I
l!I
.-.-.-...
/!!/ fl.,.,, / i I'-: / il7>-r{-'/6q'
i:T iL,'i i
o'
,-. r... It f '1
Li'::-l, [. '.
---.i , t.r! .'E' ./".i:I l'. r:'r u' i'-t
DftMg
LOC,NTTiI CERTiF|CATE
2, Ci-IFFSIDE,
EAGL€ CQIJ |ITY, COLORADO
a'--
| ,'\r
/,i/...////
A = 44o52'2c"
i.. 9724''..,' 3'!,:'t i6'
7H= g4.77'
s 41" 25'25" Vl
t7
;qoJ€tr sd v- ll95 S**t/rr/s,
l" = 2o.o'
toFl
Project Name:
J Project Application
Project Description:
Conlact Person and Phone
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and Phone:
Legal Description: t-ot A , etoct
Comments:
Zone
-
Design Review Board
"^" /o\f'Motion by:
Seconded by:
APPROVAL 2-- 'al--''
Date:
1
,,!
lnwn l|al.0
box 100
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-5613
department of community development
July 10, 1981
David L. Cole
% Timerline Propert ies
286 Bridge Street
Vai1, Colorado 81657
Re: Lot 2,
Dear Mr. Cole,
This letter is to inform you that the changes nlade to your residence
under construction on lot 2, Cl iffside are in violation of the Town
of Vail l'tunicipal Code, specifically Section 18.58'o20, paragraph C-
(See attachment, )
The retaining walls which have been constructed are not as shown on
the specifications and plans approved by Eagle County on August 13,
1980 (Building Permit #1775). Specifically, the two retaining wal1s
which have been constructed to the north of the structure were not shown
on the approved plans. These walls will need the approval of our depart-
nent. The wall which was constructed to the east of the building differs
quite substantially from the r^ral1 which was approved by the County.
The plan for which the County issued a building perrnit designates a
tinber retaining wall 34' in length.-4'*6' in height and 4raway fron
the building. Upon investigating the wall which has been bui^lt, I
have found a concrete wa1 1 of approxinately 42t in length, from 6r to
13r high and located I2t away frorn the building. The location and height
of this wall are in violation of both Eagle County and Town of Vail
Zon ing regulations. Our attorneys state that any inprovements to the
property beyond what was approved by the County must conply with Toun
of Vail regulations,
Thus, the construction of this wall violates Section 18.58.020 of the
Zoning Regulations. I think you would agree that this wall is highly
visible from most of the Gore Valley and is not acsthetical ly appealing.
As a person involved in the real estate business, I'n sure you rcalize
what Lffect the unattract iv ene s s of such construction has on thc value
of surrounding property ,
ta',
Cole -2- ,trLtr, )
I certainly hope that re can arrive at a solution to this problen which
would be mucfr more agteeable than the renoval of the walls and/or a
fine. Zoning violations can be punishable by a jail sentence of up
to 90 days and/or $300.00 per day of violation.
I urge your PromPt resPonse regarding this natter and look forward to
working with you on a solution to correct this problen.
a,.,6wrrt orVA5nnuNt ct?re *W).ri -il-
18.s8.270
r 8.58.2S0
r s.58.290
18.s8.300
Ilolse-gra z-itrg perrlli{ - Revocr: i ioll or discon-
(irrttlrttce.
Horsc-grazirrg Pern;it-APPcal'
P, ollc ri 1' orvlrcr rl;ti;ltcna nce respcnsibili f 1''
Sgt lr:rcll fLotu u'l l ercort rse'
SUI'I'LI]Nl ENTA L I{ECULNI'IONS
463
18.5S.010 APliiic:li>ilitY''"":n;i .".,,",'iii"i .r.tliis chapt'"r slrall be effeclive in all
disiricts trr, rvltcrc t;tt"'tA, in pcrticrr!ar-distric'ts' and shell be
it"r,i,iirio't lo tlre rcgrilaiions pittttit'ed for caclr district' (Ord'
8( l9?3) Art. I ? (Part)')
| 8.5S.020 Fctrces' lred'':es' rvatls :rnd scr(-crlixg' -
A. All rccessor)r lts3s uiJ *tt"ttrrts except fctrces' hcdgcs'
s'al!s :ttrd l:rndscaptng, or grot:trd lcvcl -silc dci'ctoirrnenl such
as s':tll.'s, dri"c'tt'ays' a'id itt'raccs shall b-c located rvithin the
;;,1,,;;.i' ;ninirr'rrrn. i''-quirctt s!'{blck litres on caclt sile'
Recl.'a|ional alr'.n,tics. trta1, lre cxert:ptcd' by llrc ricsign
rclicrv lroard if il tlrlclnrlncs that 1hcir. locatiorl is not
dctrinrcnt:rletlvirt-ltttrt';ttlrlly:tnd/oracstlretically'
B. i;";;;;;i,. r'nrni-.ita''a'<ls at strcet ' inrelseclions bv
"' i,;p,;,;;;; visibitit-r' for drivcrs of corn'erging vehiclcs in atrv
distlicl rvltcre scttracks are t'cquirctl' no fctlce or slrtlclute
ovcr tlttce fccl in
-ir'-ight
slralt L'" pelnrilled r"'ilhin llte
triarigrtrllrt' l'ortiotl oi'e iorncr lot tnc:rsrrrcd frorn thc point
of intcrscction of tlre iot linc's abrrtlirlg llte streets a disl airct'
of thirtl' fcct ato;rg cach lol linc'
c. ;:.#; h;;;;' f i'|nd rindscalii: ::l'...-'.':':,":l::i, ::l
)'"1i'li *
" I u','i'' i;;;;;i'uh ". .
n """i1)', ::. -:::::: "ll::::];l;:;iili ;il;." t.' il. r"it''o .*i',' o' cl cctric;rllv clr :rrgc d
i."." trttir lic crt:t:lctl <'rr mainl aincd'
(Or<1. 8( 1973) S I ?' l0C')
= = = -=:l
:i
.:'
a
c>:
=5
=
4,;;.
:.:->
;=.G3
:! 9
=:4, ' c ^-9c=':==-i5of-i
aoc=x -=-:.'.:.^n.- -> _='
=:;:i-g
c:'ln'--
=
>L
= -;:z:. "=
/\
0
E
)
.0
&
J7
6
N
(zo
0(J
B
*
\J\
G;
3
$
J
z
3
=
cz
:t
x
-
F
t
3
z-
!.r7
i*F.<:
ni <r;^2;.2;3<
i2-
c><aLrlF
z
zz
$
I(n
LIJ
UJu-
=
tJJ
ut
z
tr
IJJg.
E)
3g
uJEz
6
uJ
tr
=luo
z
o4l
d)
E
=g.
IU
J
FoFNOrrvntvA
z)
llJ
F
FIo
2
(ts
ulF
=
g]
f
?g.zz
F=:<s;not/roo-
,rr2-.g?=s;6E9i F6R|lFIFX33EoZ
,^ rl, zYd<!rz
= i EUffo0()24^
J<=+GG*r6g5Eooorz<)
Fz:z
tr
o
=o
z
tr)
az
-l
ao-
uJ
n_
:
z
Eoo
:
2
tr
g
F
=uJz
zz
io- 4Xfd.9 0
<hoz>-
()zrL<
o-y
i(\i
:<
=>
-.u
;(F
$or
6E'
HE
4v,
z
LU
zo
F
lJ
F
l
uJzY
-
F
I
r.-,1
t(c
c:
oz
==E
uJ
t/l#/
").. q>
oz.
.Jz
z
zz
coo>z
JO
.-i5
=
Et<
6d>
oE
c!o
{t
oE
.E
9-:>
=.vo;i();
ou-
tr r'ro;E>rF
ts
=E,
UJ
o-zo
F()
E,Fazo(J
t_lLr!
too
a
=
tltllltl
III tll3ltcltoltoll<lailEl <ltrl =l
rltltltllltttllll,iI ua,I Url
1<l
=lJldt <ltrl =l
lrqlql'tlql
=lrJlqlt4 lctldt(.ll
tltrlqt
=lJfl.r-l ElqRlt<
=l --,1El <ltrl =l
v,oe
c)
oL'
q)
(do
ui
z
--)
I
I
I
Il+
I
I
I
I
al
utl
<l
4=E(J
I
I(\tl
aolqlsl
g-lg
olI
z
=Il-
d)
F-
FtI
t-FOZ
Iz
I
Lr.l
E
FO
Fz
O
Fo
z
.J
tr
(J
)ul
<FEQt!<zEurF
O
tlJF_r
O
tulz
=
J<c)an:o
6
I
NET
, =: -.:
= E / Fi-
-<:- -r-il.:i
< - /-F
'2- ?;
i,-Filnil
.^3: i--l<.::-., <:
2-, i.;=i.?<e:
?.alz:
":i1;:t3;;;<i/
:i-<d3>*c< a:-.-'3 g<c<-..:
uJF
z
zz
g.
F
e
Iz
=o
=
LU
LUu-
L
=E,
TU
o-tl,
l
2
uJ
U)
uJ
tl.lIL
:
uJ
F
F.
(J
z
(_)
EF(J
co
)
o-
(J
=
riJ
z
tr
Li,lc()
E
o
cc
B
t
L]J
-v,
o
tr5(r
o-o
o
=l
@
(Jza
=fJ
9z
x(J
=
(J
o
r(D
NO[VntVA
F
FI
I
Eul
3
r/t
t-
z
(J
zz
F=tr; *qtod
^2-.eP=E;EEE S = 963SE"9Co(r@z)
6la-: uJ! r?3zdE iE
=gLLO!!Oorz
Ez
f,z
F
o
(J()
F-z
oz
:
zo
f
U)z.
ao-
UJt
z
E
o
z
tr
E
t
z
=;$>=@(\
:<c
=Zzu-
f,. 9=Yl>Yd a oh-
ut(5czt>Ooo9.ozXt!<oq iul-!-xuJ-Xz
uJd<\to
zo
F
l
ro-
=
tltltltllltltltqltalI urllEltoltoll<l>{ -J,dalu--l >l
alujlclolol
:l
al>l
u"l
!{(rI
L-I
C]<l
Ial
>l
z
J
U-
]JF
?l+l'
^lFo
UJ
z
-.rfvsr\
I
=(_)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)@lrqEI
<lJag
r\)
I
..9vI
F6
u)l*l:l:t
Jal
>]
F
cFz
o
z
Io
LU
E i'\gx
t-Oz
E.('Oz*!;O=<zu:]F.JZo-O
<o(JF
t<
XF;o
--.r O<F
t!<ZE,t! l'-
uJz
E
F(J
uJtToe.
)<O
E3
I
c..l
tn.cl
r- |,..1
-
I
I
I
..2
L
E
LU
J
z
I
LU
-z
FZE ,n9E =Fo. =<o cooE =<3..- --,;
-\aE!-
--
r'r:
)
9
F(J
[!J
uJ
z
oJ
:)
=t-F=
oi'i;
orL.,obtrl
c>-t-F
ilail"
z.
Fottl--')
(L
UJF
o
F
EE
ttJo-zotro
EFozoo
BUILDING DIVISION OF
EAGLE COUNTY, P. O. SOXI79
couRTHoUSE, EAGLE CO. - PH. (303)328-6339
BUILDING
PERMIT
DEPT. FIIE COPY
>0"
AppLrcANr Craig Snowden
DArE 13 August rs 80
^""-.* z0T Go-re O'eek
{NO.'I coNTR'S LTCENSE)
IpERMrr ro Construct Sinqle Fami tf_Dwgl&lU 9ryELLTNG uNrrs
(TYPE OF IMPROVEMEIiIT}(PROPOSfD US€)NO.
Cl iffside #2, Eaq]e County ZON I NG
AT ( LOCAT ION )
lNo.)(STREET)
SETIVEEN AND(cRoss STREET)(CROSS STREET)3
IL
!l
oz
tlot-
suaolvtstoN
BUILDING IS
C'liffside #2
TO BE
-
FT. I\IIDE BY
-
FT.LONG BY
USE GROUP
(CUBIC/SOUARE FE ET'
Lor ---2- BLo.*
-
5lJ.
FT. IN HEIGHT AND SHALL CONFORM IN COTISTRUCTION
TO TYPE BASE MENT VYALLS OR FOUNOATION
REMARKS:
AREA OR
VOLUME
to be infiltrabduith'in gravel beds adjacent to structure. - Erik Edeen
Environmental Hea'l th
EsrrMArEo cosr $ 225.000.00 FEE"'' $ 745.55
Plan Check - $37
asees55 2R6 Rridge Sfreef, Vail, CO 81667 Ey
51
(Affidovif on reveisc ride of opplicotion to be compleied by oulhorized ogent of ovner)
ipt
FIEL; COPY
BUILDING DIVISION OF
EAGLE COUNIY, P. O. BOXI79
couRTHousE, EAGTE CO. - PH. (3O3)328-6339 BUILDING I
OATE
PERMIT
13 August rq 80------;;;70f GdFC-T-reek
PERM IT NO. -Drive, VaAPPL I CATIT Cralq Snor*den
( NO.){STR EET)LICENSE)
(TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT)(PROPOSED USE)
Cllffslde #2, Easle County ZON I NG
AT (LOCATION)- o tsTR tcT
( NO.)
B ET W EEI{ANO(cRoss StREET)(CRO5S ST REET)
ILo
oo
dz
co
suBD rv rs toN Cliffslde #2 4 Lor
LOT __-_--4.- ALOCK
-
S I ZE
AUILOII{G IS TO 8E
-
FT. WIOE BY
-
FT. LO}IG BY FT. IN HEIGHT ANO SHALL CONFORM IN COI{STRUCTION
TO TYPE USE GROUP BASEMENT WALLS OR FOUNOAT IO}
REMARKs: Approved,based on conversatlon rith architect 8-8-80. All roof dralnage
to be InftltlaGdfthln gravel beds adjacent to Structure. - Erlk Edeen
Envlronmental Health
AREA OR
VOLUME ESTTMATED cost $ 2251000.00 FEE"'t $ 745.55
{CUBIC/sOUARE
'EET)Plan Check - $37
aesqs55 286 Rnldge Straei, Vall, C0 8165? sy
lpt 51
I
roN
o
CAT
a
. BUILDING PERMIT APPLI
Jurisdiction .
Awlicant to complete numbered spaces only.
/r.-ffrno a4 eePe C-Q4,v-'1
4/1 7'Pr4iz72c-=1f]s:t rrrrcxto sx::v1
.22 l.
MArL ^O9l E3S
ZAz: bz //?4{G.l'*L <Z-zBa
ffit -Pu,"H'ia*f thllP AttTan At 4u -h14
W 2))"V*AsdJr;;flni!E"lll4
EI'GIN€ER t4{u50, /illnqap fu4 sar il.ra 47a:"ai7o
6 & rrert
vatt aoorE 5 s ./I,4 ae k€?tz t ?a4 fi/y'zpa+.4".
ILDING
8 Ctassotwork: X rueW O AgOlTl6N O ALTE6ATION D REPAIR D MOyE fl REMgVE
I 06cribe work:-St r w*e f-A n vt-7 F/61a6nae
l0 Chrnge ol use from N/r+
PERMTT FE€ 715.5XPLAN CHECK FEEll Valuation of work: $,@
Type of
Conrt.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
Size ol Bldg.
lTotal) Sq. Ft.
Firo Spfinkler5
Required DV.! ENoAPFIICATIOI{ ACCEPTEO BY
OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES:
NOT ICE
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REOUIRED FOR ELECTFICAL, PLUMA.
ING. HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING,
THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WOFIK OR CONSTFIUC.
TION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 120 DAYS, OR
IF CONSTBUCTION.OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED
FOR A PERIOD OF 120 OAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS
COMMENCEO.
FIRE OEPT.
WHEN PROPERLY VALIDATED IIN THIS SPACEI THIS IS YOUR PERMIT
PLAN CHECK
-Al\<ceLF,ll
Form 10O.1 1.77
VALIDATION CX.
nol5l
M.O. CASH PERMIT VALIDATION
INSPECTOR
,t
Ns " 0es8
CONSIfuCT|oN PERMIT APfiCATION 'lof3,t
RM WHEN APPLYIN
Jurisdistion of EAGLE COUNTY
gl Plu tcl
L OF THE FOLLOWIN PE RMITS:USE THIS F
crRcLE THosE rnlr rppr-v - [A]
t E 1 Road Cut/Right of Way
Build
tF1 nd
Electrical t
System t G 1
D I Mechanical
Grading IH] SignDisposal
SITE PLANIVUST BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION: exceptions are listed in
Eagle CountyEagle County Building Resolution. For site plan preparation instructions refer to
publication "Graphic & Submittal Requirements for Site Plans"
Q.;,nt#rerc
PLANS CHECKEO SV -d""O;k
White Coov-INSPECTOR Blue Coov-APPLICANT Green Coov- ENVI RONMENTA L HEAfTHCopy-INSPECTOR Blue
Canary Copy -ASSESSOR
Copy-APPLICANT Green Copy- ENVI RONMENTA L H
Pink Copy-ENGINEERI NG Goldenrod CoDy-EXTFIA
Applicant to complete numbered spaces only.
JOA AOOF€SS
6toa /u,*,f 4 t?7 f
. t-EGALI oEscff.ct,lF sde 4z BLK
( ISEE ATTACH€O SHEET )
OWNER MAIL ADDFESS ZIP
2 6PlF, f,ur'ut/uU 4L Gop-e (Eeer eE. (/l,L C,-t"..,
PHONE
3 Ile /aurnE,y.6o, s{4 tvc*t,iltYle C oto
PHONE
Qxl-z6gs-
LICENS€ NO
otz32
AFCHITECT OR DESIGN€F fiAIL AOORESS PHONE LICENSE NO.
4
ENGINEER PHON€LICENSE NO
5
6
I
I Classof work: pnew ! ADDIT|0N E ALTERATTON tr REPATR tr MoVE tr REMOVE
9 oescribe uork: IfuS /ld 4eo ftu^,p,u,t lle,+r
l0 Change of use from
Change of use to
ll Valuation of work: $ 7?t0Oe 14 Totallloor area of structure:
l2 Acreage or sq. footage of lot:15 Hsight of structure above finish grade:
13 Sq. lootage of lot coverage:
16 Special conditions and Additional Information:
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINEO THIS
APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT.ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND OROINANCES GOVERNING THISTYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIEDHEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT OOES NOT
PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE
PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING
CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORM,ANCE OF CONSTRUCTION.SIGNATLJfTE OF OVI/NEF ( F OWNER AUILOERI
F'
- _-i
^-rY?TONSTbCTON PERMIT AilCATION s Dof 3c.
Jurisdiction of EAGLE COUNTY
USE THIS FORM WHEN APPLYING FOR F THE FOLLOWIN PERMITS:
q RcLE rHosE rHAr AppLy - [A ] Building IB]
t E1 RoadCut/RightofWay I F] Individual
Applicant to complete numbered spaces only.
Plumbi lCl Electrical ID] Mechanical
SewageDisposal System IGl Grading IH] SiSn
SITE PLAN MUST BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION: exceptions are listed in
Eagle County
.iI
Eagle Cou nty Building Resolution.
publication "Graphic & Submittal
For site plan preparation instructions refer to
Requ irements f or Site Plans".
JOB ADOBESS
r 5Eti"'
LOT NO ALK
{ !SEE ATTACHED SsEET I
OWNER MAIL ADORESS ZlP
,, '. .,}
PHONE
CONTFACTON
3 41
PHONE LICENSE NO.
k
AFCHITEC] OF OESIGNER fua L AoDREss PHONE LI CENSE NO
4
ENG NE EFI MAI! ADORESS L CENS€ NO.
5
I.ENOEF MAIT ADDFESS
b
7
8 Classofwork: E NEW tr AOD|T|0N D ALTERATI0N tr REPAIR tr MOVE tr REM0VE
9 Oescribe uork:
10 Change of use from
Change of use to
1l Valuation of work: $14 Total floor area of structure:
l2 Acreage or sq. footage of lot:15 Height of structure above finish grade:
l3 Sq. footage of lot coverage:
16 Special conditions and Additional Information:
17 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS
APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT.ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THISTYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIEDHEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT
PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE
PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING
CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION.
src(jAtuRE oF coNrRAcToF oR aurHoRrzEo aGENT OATE
S]GNATUR6 OF OWNE6 (IF OWNER BUILDERI
APPLICATION ACCEPTEO AY PLANS CHCCKEO AY APPAOVEOFOF ISSUANCE BY
-..4'r' t /-/-/' /-J" .' Y'-
White Copy-INSPECTOR Blue Copy-APPLICANT Green Copy- ENVIRON MENTA L HEALTH
Canary Copy-ASSESSOR Pink Copy -ENGIN EERING Goldenrod Copy-EXTRA
ts' - '0
3of ioe
t
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FEES
Permit Fee
Buildinq Total Fee
Permit FeeETECTRICAT
Electrical Total Fee
Permit FeeSEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
ROAD CUT/RIGHT OF WAY
Roadcut Total Fee
Fuel: Olt E Nat. Gas E LPG E
of Fixturr or ltm
WATER CLOSET (TOILET}
Air Gond. Units - H.P. Ea.
LAVATORY (WASH BASIN}
G8s FirBd A.C. Units - TKITCHEN SINK & DISP.
Forced Air Systems - B.T.U. M. Ea.
Gra/itv Svstems - B.T.U. M. Ea.
Floor Furnacss - B.T.U.
Wall l.leaters - B.T.U.WATER HEATER
Unit l-lesters - B.T.U.
DBINKING FOUNTAIN
FLOOR - SINK OR DRAIN
GAS SYSTEMS| NO. OUTLETS
WATEF PIPING & TREATING EOUIP.Air Handlinc Unit- C.F.M.
VACUUM BREAKERS
LAWN SPRINKLER SYSTEM
PLUMBING MECHANICAT
l,lhite Copy-INSPECTOR Blue Copy-APPLICANT Green Copy-€NVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Canary Copy-ASSESSOR Pink Copy-ENGINEERING Goldenrod Copy-EXTRA
E AGLE COUNTY BUI rr.rr.:
FINAL: C/O lNSPEOllON,
Review Roprting Form ( )
",-ffi'J#='',iA'J 3 |r o^o *,
Primary Routing lgf Rerouting
l'7't {
ate Ref erred
Clr;.fr
Location Plannirrg Commission File No.
Review and return to the county Building official within 6 working days
Permit No,
P lanning: Complies with:
Subdivision Regul ations
Zoning Regulations
Comments:
No
Hn
n
Yes
trntr
ts
Reviewed by:
Site Plan (Landscaping)
Recommend Approval :
County Engineer: Roads
Grading
. Drainage
County Health: Water
Sanitation
Perc. test
Comments:
Recommend ApProval :
nnn
D
n
D!n
Dntr
tr
Comments:
trn
E,mmendfpprova
o.ro/' I
Final I nspection: C/O
Recommend Approval
Co;rements:
Firral Inspection: Landscapi
Recommend Approvar
Commerrts:
ng!n
C,/O lssued
Final Filing Date
by Date
F'tXi:?r"Jll#til:.'-1T,TJffJ='"i,:'JEL,o,e*'
Review Rogting form (!4 Prirnary Routing ( ) Rerouting
Locat io
return to the County Building Official within 6 working days
Permit No.
Review and
ApplicantDate Ref erred
P lanning: Complies with:
Subdivi sion Regul ations
Zoning Regulations
Site Pl an (Landscaping)
Cornmerrts:
Reviewed
Recommend APP:'o'ral :
No
w
ts
Yes
trnn
n
County Engineer: Roads
Grading
Drainage
nnn
n
ntrn
tr Recom:'nend Approval :
Comments:
County Healthl Water
S an itat ion
Perc . test
Comments:^";tY-
d?/4Final Inspection: C/O
Recom,.nend Approva
Corrments:
nn
ntrnn
trtrntr rurr" *
rrd Approyal :
'0 -7
Firral lnspect ion: Landscapi
Recommend Approval
Commerrts:
ngntr
C/O lssued
F inal Fi I ing Date
by Date
EAGI.E COI'NTY
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & PLANNING
EAGLE, COLORADO 81631
TELEPHONE 303/328-73 | I
'oi5'IF,l8l?53)'
Basalt - 927-3823
31 July 1980
BOARO OF COUNTY
coMMl5sloNERS
Ext 241
AOMINISTRATION
Ext 24 |
ANIMAL SHELTER
949-4292
45SE55O R
Ext 202
BUILDING IN
I NSPECT IO N
Ext 226 or 229
CLER K &
RECORDER
Ext ?l 7
COUNTY
ATTORNEY
Exl242
ENGINEER
Ext 236
ENVI RONMENTAL
HEALTH
Ext 238
EXTENSION
AGENTe*247
LIBRARY
Ext 255
PUBLIC HEALTH
Eagle Ext 252
Vail 476.5844
PLANN ING
Ext 226 or 229
PURCHASING/
PERSON NEL
Exl245
ROAO & BR IDG E
Exl 257
SHERIFF
Eaole Ext 2l'l
Ba;all 927 -3244
Gilman 827'575 |
SOCIAL SERV ICES
328-6328
TREASURER
Ext 201
-0r".,1 ?4"*-v1,r\, - '{-}t{ - Zz6tr
'' {-tb - )ttzI
RE: Apnlication for Bui lding Permit in Eagle County
Lbt 2, cliffside #2 - Denied.
The Eagle County Building Dept. requires that applications for Building
permiii in Eagli Couniy 6e-rbuted do the Eagle County Planning, Engineering'
and Envjronmeital Healih Departments for their c9ry[9n!l prior to issuance
oi ttre permits. Your applibation was routed on7/22/80
L.i sted below are the comments and recommendatjons whjch were made by the
ibove departments auring the routing procedure. If you have any quest'ions
oi wist' to get further 6xplanation,"pi ease contact the appropriate dept.
David L. Cole
286 Bridge Street
Va'i I , Col orado 81657
Envi ronmenta I
Plann'ing Department - Not
Does
1)
2)
3)
Approved.
not meet
Setbacks
Building
Curb cut
zoninq requirements for:
-Tar*..Hpl
.
height
e t<1)
Health -
storage
4
Not Approved.
Drainage plan to include roof and site
drainage with erosjon control:---,l'later should
It would be to Your
requirements as soon
building permit anY
advantage if You begin
as possible so as not
longer than necessarY.
resolve anY Problems and/or
del ay the issuance of Your
to
to
Building Inspector
r1 K Eoeen
Environmental Health 0fficer
LD/adj
Eagle CountY Building 0fficial
286 BEIOGE S]REET
vArL. co 8r657
BUS (303) 476-2113
TIMBERLINE
PROPERTIES
REAL ESTATE. INC.
March 20, 1984
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage RoadVail, C0 81657
Attn : Gary Mumai n
Dear Gary:
Dick Ryan agreed that
on the concrete deck.
summer of 1984.
I will get this done
the only item leftI agreed that we
and report back to
Building Permit
Cole Residence
Lionsridge #2
outstanding is
can handle this
you.
#0647
Lot 2, Cliffside
the railing
during the
Re:
mg
S'inc,ere1y,
/z
avid L. Co'l e, CRB,CRS
Presi dent
An Independently 0wned and Operated Member 0f Coldwell Banker Residentral Alliliates. Inc
75 south lronlage road
uail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000 ottlce ot qommunlty doYclopmenl
March 7, .|984
Dave Cole
286 Bridgq StreetVail, Color.ado, 81.657
RE: Building Permit #0647
Cole Residence - Lot 2 - Cliffside
Lionsridge #2
Dear Mr. Cole,
we have checked our bui'l ding permits and we find that your temporarycertificate.of occupancy is expired. tJe have enclosed-a copy bfthe inspection request listing the items that needed to be i6mpleted.
Please contact thts office immediately to have these items inspected.
Failure to comply with this request will result in further action.
Si ncerely,
GM/rme
(4/'14,
Gary I'luma'in
Building Inspector
BUIL
o
DIN G PERMIT APPLI
I
CAT
I
rol Best
coPY
AvailableJurisdiction.
Applicant to complete numbered spaces only.
7
{!s:t rrrec*eo sneerl
iCHITECT OI D ES IGN Ei ltcEIsE No.
usE ol llJrlolnc
8 CIAS OI WOrK: D NEU/ O.AODITIOI'I D ALTERATION tr REPAIR D MOVE D REMOVE
I Describe work:
l0 Change of use lrom
Change ol uie to
PER M IT FEEPLAN CHECK FEE11 Valuation of work: $
Occupancy
Group
SPECIAL CONOITIONS:
No, of
stor ie9
Saze of Bldg.
lTotal) 5q. Ft.
Fire Sprinklers
Required D\.,es flNoAPPROV€O FOR ISSUANCE 8YAPPLICAf ION ACC€PT€O 8Y P!ANS CHECKEO AY
OFFST REET PARKING SPACES:No. ol
Owelling Unit!
NOTICE
SEPARATE PEBMITS ARE REOUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUME-
ING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONOITIONING.
THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTFUC-
TION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 120 DAYS, OR
IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OF ABANDONED
FOR A PERIOD OF 120 OAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS
COMM ENCED.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REAO ANO EXAMINED THIS
APPLICATION ANO KNOW TH€ SAME TO BE TRUE AND COR RECT.
ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS ANO ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS
TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIEOHEREIN OR NOT. TH€ GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT
PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE
PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING
CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION.
stcN^.rriE or coN-i^c-oi oaLurHoirzEo ^6eNr
'rDAtEl
ZON I NG
HEALTH OEPT.
FIRE OEPT.
SOI L R€PORT
OTHER (Spoclly)
WHEN PROPERLY VALIDATED (IN THIS SPACE} THIS IS YOUR PERMIT
Form 100.1 1-77 ofinA
PERMIT VALIDATION M.O.PLAN CHECK VALIDATION cK. M.O. CASH