Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEleni Zneimer Subdivisiona It Planning and Environmental Commission ACTION FORM Department of Community Development TOWN "VAIL 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail.co.us Project Name: Eleni Zneimer Sub. Exemption PEC Number: PECO50084 Project Description: Participants: EXEMPTION PLAT REVIEW -FINAL APPROVAL FOR A MODIFICATION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING ENVELOPE (LOT 1); AND A GRFA INCREASE (LOTS 1 -6) OWNER BUFFEHR CREEK PARTNERS 10/17/2005 PO BOX 305 MINTURN CO 81645 APPLICANT FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS 10/17/2005 Phone: 970 - 476 -6342 1650 EAST VAIL VALLEY DR, #C -1 VAIL CO 81657 License: C000001402 ARCHITECT FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS 10/17/2005 Phone: 970 - 476 -6342 1650 EAST VAIL VALLEY DR, #C -1 VAIL CO 81657 License: C000001402 Project Address: 1701 BUFFEHR CREEK RD VAIL 1701 -A BUFFEHR CREEK RD Location: Legal Description: Lot: 1 -6 Block: Subdivision: ELENI ZNIEMER Parcel Number: 2103 -122- 1500 -1 Comments: SEE CONDITIONS BOARD /STAFF ACTION Motion By: Rollie Kjesbo Second By: Bill Jewitt Vote: 5 -0 -2 Conditions: Action: APPROVED Date of Approval: 11/14/2005 Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and /or the appropriate review committee(s). Planner: Warren Campbell PEC Fee Paid: $100.00 .-` Planning and Environmental Commission ACTION FORM Department of Community Development TOWN O WAIL 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail.co.us Project Name: Eleni Zneimer Sub, Amend. PEC Number: PECO50083 Project Description: Participants: REQUEST TO AMEND THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE ELENI ZNEIMER SUBDIVISION. INCLUDING MODIFICATION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING ENVELOPE (LOT 1); SITE ACCESS AMENDMENT (LOT 1); GRFA INCREASE (LOTS 1 -6) OWNER BUFFEHR CREEK PARTNERS PO BOX 305 MINTURN CO 81645 APPLICANT FRIIZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS 1650 EAST VAIL VALLEY DR, #C -1 VAIL CO 81657 License: C000001402 ARCHITECT FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS 1650 EAST VAIL VALLEY DR, #C -1 VAIL CO 81657 License: C000001402 Project Address: 1701 BUFFEHR CREEK RD VAIL 1701 -A BUFFEHR CREEK RD Location: Legal Description: Lot: 1 -6 Block: Subdivision: ELENI ZNIEMER Parcel Number: 2103 - 122- 1500 -1 Comments: See Conditions BOARD /STAFF ACTION Motion By: Rollie Kjesbo Second By: Bill Jewitt Vote: 5 -0 -2 Conditions: Action: APPROVED Date of Approval: 11/14/2005 Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and /or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond:300 PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval. 10/17/2005 10/17/2005 Phone: 970-476-6342 10/17/2005 Phone: 970-476-6342 .t Planner: Warren Campbell PEC Fee Paid: $250.00 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 14, 2005 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of an amendment to an Approved Development Plan, to allow for modifications to the existing platted building envelope (Lot 1), site access (Lot 1), an increase in Gross Residential Floor Area (Lots 1 -6); and a request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area and platted building envelope (Lot 1), within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1701A -F Buffehr Creek Road /Lots 1 -6, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Buffehr Creek Partners, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects Planner: Warren Campbell SUMMARY The applicants, Buffehr Creek Partners, the Ranallos, and the Brandts, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects, is requesting final review of an amendment to an Approved Development Plan, to allow for modifications to the existing platted building envelope (Lot 1), site access (Lot 1), an increase in Gross Residential Floor Area (Lots 1 -6); and a request for a final review of the Amended Final Plat, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, A Re- subdivision of a Part of Tract A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2 pursuant to Chapter 13 -12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area and platted building envelope (Lot 1), within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1701A -F Buffehr Creek Road /Lots 1 -6, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision. If approved, this request would result in the plat being amended to show a 10% increase in GRFA for each lot, the building envelope for Lot 1 being amended, and the access for Lot 1 being taken off of Buffehr Creek Road verse the existing shared driveway. Staff is recommending approval of this application subject to the findings and criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicants, Buffehr Creek Partners, the Ranallos, and th Brandts, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects, is requesting final review of an amendment to an Approved Development Plan, to allow for modifications to the existing platted building envelope (Lot 1), site access (Lot 1), an increase in Gross Residential Floor Area (Lots 1 -6); and a request for a final review of the Amended Final Plat, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, A Re- subdivision of a Part of Tract A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2 pursuant to Chapter 13 -12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area and platted building envelope (Lot 1), within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1701A -F Buffehr Creek Road /Lots 1 -6, t Eleni Zniemer Subdivision. The applicants' request is comprised two applications to accomplish three goals. The applications and accompanying goals include: An application to amend an approved development plan in order to increase the allowable GRFA on the Lots 1 -6, obtain a new building envelope on Lot 1, and new vehicular access to Lot 1; and An exemption plat to adjust the platted building envelope on Lot 1 and amend the plat restrictions on GRFA for the Lots 1 -6. A description of the request from the applicants' is attached for reference (Attachment A). A vicinity map of the area affected by these applications is attached for reference (Attachment B). A reduced copy of the site plan and proposed amended plat is attached for reference (Attachment C). BACKGROUND The area currently platted under the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision was annexed into the Town Of Vail from Eagle County by Ordinance 9, Series of 1987 which became effective on April 29, 1987. It was previously identified as Phase VI of The Valley Subdivision. The Valley Phase VI was approved as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) under Eagle County jurisdiction in the fall of 1980. That plan included 42 townhouses with a total GRFA of 77,150 square feet. When the plan was annexed into the Town of Vail, a provision of the annexation ordinance required that any major modification to the County approved plan would require PEC approval. In that same ordinance residential Cluster Zoning was applied to the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. On October 22, 1990, the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved an amendment to the approved PUD from Eagle County. The amended development plan included the ability to construct 13 single - family dwelling units with the ability to construct a caretaker /employee housing unit in conjunction with each single - family dwelling unit. A total of 55,500 square feet of GRFA was approved for the 13 single - family dwelling units and an additional 10,400 square feet was approved for the 13 potential caretaker /employee housing units. On August 30, 1990, March 31, 1994, and June 6, 1996, the plats establishing Lots 1 -7 of the Lia Zneimer Subdivision were recorded. The Lia Zneimer Subdivision is located on the south side of Buffehr Creek Road. On February 19, 2003, the plat establishing Lots 1 -6 of the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision was recorded. The seven lots created in the Lia Zneimer Subdivision and the six lots created by the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision completed the platting of the 13 single - family lots approved under the October 22, 1990, approved development plan. On October 19, 2005 the Design Review Board reviewed the proposed new building envelope and curb -cut access proposal on a conceptual basis and unanimously agreed that the proposed relocation of access was a better site design solution than taking access on the existing driveway through the retaining walls. They believed the proposed design would have less impact on the site. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BOARDS Development Plan Ordinance 9, Series of 1987, included a provision that the PEC review any major changes to the approved development plan for the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. The PEC shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny the requested amendment to the approved development plan. Exemption Plat Planning and Environmental Commission: Action: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approve with modifications, or disapprove the plat. Specifically the code states in Section 13- 12 -3C, Review and Action on Plat: The planning and environmental commission shall review the plat and associated materials and shall approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the plat within twenty one (21) days of the first public hearing on the exemption plat application or the exemption plat application will be deemed approved. A longer time period for rendering a decision may be granted subject to mutual agreement between the planning and environmental commission and the applicant. The criteria for reviewing the plat shall be as contained in section 13 -3 -4 of this title. Design Review Board: Action: The Design Review Board has NO review authority on an exemption plat, but must review any accompanying Design Review Board application. Town Council: The Town Council is the appeals authority for an exemption plat review procedure in accordance with Section 13 -3 -5C, Vail Town Code, which reads as follows: Within ten (10) days the decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission on the final plat shall be transmitted to the Council by the staff. The Council may appeal the decision of the Planning and Environmental Commission within seventeen (17) days of the Planning and Environmental Commission's action. If Council appeals the Planning and Environmental Commission's decision, the Council shall hear substantially the same presentation by the applicant as was heard at the Planning and Environmental Commission hearing(s). The Council shall have thirty (30) days to affirm, reverse, or affirm with modifications the Planning and Environmental Commission decision, and the Council shall conduct the appeal at a regularly scheduled Council meeting. Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS TOWN OF VAIL ZONING CODE TITLE 13: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (in part) 13 -2 -2 DEFINITIONS EXEMPTION PLAT: The platting of a portion of land or property that does not fall within the definition of a "subdivision ", as contained in this section. 13 -12 EXEMPTION PLAT REVIEW PROCEDURES 13 -12 -1: PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of this chapter is to establish criteria and an appropriate review process whereby the planning and environmental commission may grant exemptions from the definition of the term "subdivision" for properties that are determined to fall outside the purpose, purview and intent of chapters 3 and 4 of this title. This process is intended to allow for the platting of property where no additional parcels are created and conformance with applicable provisions of this code has been demonstrated. (Ord. 2(2001) § 1) 13 -12 -2: EXEMPTIONS IN PROCEDURE AND SUBMITTALS: "Exemption Plats ", as defined in section 13 -2 -2 of this title, shall be exempt from requirements related to preliminary plan procedures and submittals. Exemption plat applicants may be required to submit an environmental impact report if required by title 12, chapter 12 of this code. 13 -12 -3: PLAT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA FOR REVIEW: The procedure for an exemption plat review shall be as follows: A. Submission Of Proposal; Waiver Of Requirements: The applicant shall submit two (2) copies of the proposal following the requirements for a final plat in subsection 13- 3-613 of this title, with the provision that certain of these requirements may be waived by the administrator and/or the planning and environmental commission if determined not applicable to the project. B. Public Hearing: The administrator will schedule a public hearing before the planning and environmental commission and follow notification requirements for adjacent property owners and public notice for the hearing as found in subsection 13 -3 -6131 of this title. C. Review And Action On Plat: The planning and environmental commission shall review the plat and associated materials and shall approve, approve with modifications or disapprove the plat within twenty one (21) days of the first public hearing on the exemption plat application or the exemption plat application will be deemed approved. A 4 f longer time period for rendering a decision may be granted subject to mutual agreement between the planning and environmental commission and the applicant. The criteria for reviewing the plat shall be as contained in section 13 -3 -4 of this title. VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: Forest Service NA East: Residential Residential Cluster West: Forest Service NA South: Residential Residential Cluster VII. SITE ANALYSIS Development Standard Lot Area Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Tract A Allowed /Required Existing Proposed 15,000 sq. ft. 218,235 sq. ft. No Change 15,000 sq. ft. 92,957 sq. ft. No Change 15,000 sq. ft. 95,788 sq. ft. No Change 15,000 sq. ft. 83,286 sq. ft. No Change 15,000 sq. ft. 28,357 sq. ft. No Change 15,000 sq. ft. 22,476 sq. ft. No Change 15,000 sq. ft. 393,303 sq. ft. No Change Frontage Per the approved development plan the six lots included within the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision were to gain access off the extended driveway which has been constructed per the approved plans. This proposal would amend the access to Lot 1 to be directly off of Buffehr Creek Road. Lot 1 460 feet along Buffehr Creek Drive Site Dimensions Per the approved development plan each lot was platted with a building envelope. The platted building envelopes are permitted to take on new dimensions under the approved development plan. However, the new proposed envelope cannot shift more that 15 feet from is platted location and it must contain the same amount of square footage of buildable area as the platted envelope. This proposal proposes to shift the building envelope on Lot 1 in one area approximately 31 feet to the east. The existing building envelope on Lot 1 measures 5,462 square feet and the proposed revised (shifted) building envelope would measure 5,462 square feet. Side Setbacks Per the approved development plan the platted building envelopes were located as to maintain desired spacing between the structures. All physical improvements to the sites other than grading and landscaping must occur within the building envelope. In addition, there is a 15 -foot setback off of the perimeter of the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. GRFA Allowed Lot Existin Proposed Lot 1 4,788.5 sq. ft. 5,267.4 sq. ft. Lot 2 4,788.5 sq. ft. 5,267.4 sq. ft. Lot 3 4,788.5 sq. ft. 5,267.4 sq. ft. Lot 4 4,788.5 sq. ft. 5,267.4 sq. ft. Lot 5 5,000 sq. ft. 5,500 sq. ft. Lot 6 3,800 sq. ft. 4,180 sq. ft. Tract A No development Potential No Change Vlll. APPLICATION CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Development Plan Amendment: As stated previously, when the Eagle County approved development plan was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1987, a provision of the annexation ordinance required that any major modification to the County approved plan would require PEC approval. On October 22, 1990, the Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved an amendment to the approved PUD from Eagle County. The amended development plan included the ability to construct 13 single - family dwelling units with the ability to construct a caretaker /employee housing unit in conjunction with each single - family dwelling unit. A total of 55,500 square feet of GRFA was approved for the 13 single - family dwelling units and an additional 10,400 square feet was approved for the 13 potential caretaker /employee housing units. As Planning and Environmental Commission review of this application is required by annexation agreement and not Code, the only evaluation criteria to be used is to compare the existing, approved plan, to the proposed plan and determine that the intent and goals of the currently approved plan are being maintained. The proposal includes three changes to the approved plan. The proposed changes are as follows: Change to GRFA limitations: Staff believes that the proposed amendment to increase the maximum allowable GRFA on the six lots within the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision is reasonable and appropriate as the proposed amendment will maintain the intent of the October 22, 1990, approval. The amendments to the GRFA regulations enacted by Ordinance 14, Series of 2004, affected the method by which GRFA within the Residential Cluster zone district is measured. Because the GRFA for the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision is limited by the plat the lots within the subdivision were negatively affected by Ordinance 14 as the GRFA amendments require wall thickness to be counted as GRFA (within Ordinance 14 a 10% increase in GRFA was included to compensate for the thickness of walls). The proposal is to increase the maximum GRFA permitted on each lot by 10% to recapture the GRFA "lost" when wall thickness was changed to count as GRFA. This proposal will not change the intended size, bulk, and mass of structures within the subdivision. Conversely, if this amendment is not approved the effect of Ordinance 14, Series of 2004, will be a reduction in size, bulk, and mass of the structures within the subdivision by 10 %. The proposed GRFA changes for each lot are detailed in Section VII of this memorandum. Change to platted building envelope for Lot 1: The approved development plan from October 22, 1990, included provisions for platted building envelopes on each of the six lots located within the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. The following is the text from that approved development plan discussing the platted building envelopes: "Building envelopes indicated upon the approved site plan may be modified with approval of the DRB based upon detailed review of an individual dwelling unit. The DRB shall find that the modification to any building envelope does not substantially result in any negative impacts upon the site, adjoining property, or have any adverse impact upon required geologic hazard considerations. If an association of homeowners within the project is formed, any modification of a building envelope shall also conform to the rules and regulations adopted by the association. Any modification shall not exceed 15 feet and in no case shall any structure be built in the 20 foot setbacks shown on the approved development plan. " Staff has made the interpretation that the modification of an envelope of 15 feet or less can be made if the DRB makes the findings stated in the above paragraph. However, the resulting modified building envelope must be no more square footage than that of the platted building envelope. The structures currently constructed and under construction on Lots 5 and 6 of the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision went through the process described in the paragraph above. This proposal includes a request to shift a portion of the platted building envelope on Lot 1 on the northeast corner of the platted envelope approximately 31 feet to the east. The existing building envelope on Lot 1 measures 5,462 square feet and the proposed revised (shifted) building envelope would measure 5,462 square feet. The proposed building envelope change is attached for reference (Attachment C). On October 19, 2005 the Design Review Board reviewed the proposed new building envelope proposal on a conceptual basis and unanimously agreed that the proposed new envelope was appropriate and did not negatively affect the adjoining properties. It was expressed that the proposed new building envelope in conjunction with the proposed new driveway access would have less impact on the site. Staff believes the intent of the approved development plan and the platted building envelopes is being met. The existing and proposed building envelopes are identical in area. Staff agrees with the DRB that the proposed envelope will allow for adequate protection of the existing aspen grove on the lot. Change to access location for Lot 1: This proposal includes a request to relocate the driveway access to the structure proposed to be built on Lot 1 of the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. It was the intent of the October 22, 1990, PEC approval that all six lots within the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision would gain access through a shared common driveway, which is currently constructed. This proposal would relocate the access for Lot 1 approximately 250 feet further to the east (uphill) from the existing access. The applicant has proposed the movement of the driveway access, as taking access off the existing driveway through the retaining walls will result in the construction of multiple retaining walls to hold the slope back, whereas the proposed driveway relocation will result in less disturbance to the hillside. On October 19, 2005, the DRB conceptually reviewed this application. Initially they were very concerned about relocating the access, however, after performing a site visit they unanimously agreed that gaining access to Lot 1 was accomplished with less negative impact to the site by relocating the access 250 feet to the east. Staff has reviewed this application and determined that the standards of site distance for locating the driveway in its proposed location have been satisfied. The standard for sight distance of a curb -cut on Buffehr Creek Road (25 mph) is 150 feet. The proposed location provides a sight distance in excess of 250 feet which is the standard required on a road in which traffic travels at 35 mph. Several neighboring residences have expressed concern with vehicles exceeding the speed limit and safety dangers of locating this driveway in the proposed location. Two letters form neighbors are attached for PEC review (Attachment D). Staff believes that the proposed driveway relocation does not violate the initial intent of the October 22, 1990, PEC approval. Staff agrees with the DRB that a structure built on Lot 1 which gains access at the new location will allow for a better site and architectural design which does not incorporate numerous retaining walls. Exemption Plat (Defers to Section 13 -3 -4, which is as follows). The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13 -3 -3C above. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the Town. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval, of the request for a final review of an amendment to an Approved Development Plan, to allow for modifications to the existing platted building envelope (Lot 1), site access (Lot 1), an increase in Gross Residential Floor Area (Lots 1 -6); and a request for a final review of the Amended Final Plat, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, A Re- subdivision of a Part of Tract A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2 pursuant to Chapter 13 -12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area and platted building envelope (Lot 1), within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1701A -F Buffehr Creek Road /Lots 1 -6, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Amendment to the Approved Development Plan Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this amendment to the approved development plan, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the amendment to the approved development plan, to allow for an increase to the maximum permit Gross Residential Floor Area for Lots 1 -6 of the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision, an amendment to the building envelope, and access on Lot 1 of the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision located at 1701A -F Buffehr Creek Road e /Lots 1 -6, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this amendment to the approved development plan, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following finding: 1. That the proposed amendments to the approved development plan for the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision are in keeping with the intent and goals of the development plan approved on October 22, 1990, and complies with all Town of Vail technical requirements. Amended Final Plat Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this exemption plat, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the Amended Final Plat, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, A Re- subdivision of a Part of Tract A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2, pursuant to Chapter 13 -12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to amend the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area, and building envelope on Lot 1 within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1701A -F Buffehr Creek Road /Lots 1 -6, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this plat amendment request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: That the application is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision Regulations, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. 2. That the application is appropriate in regard to Town policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, and effects on the aesthetics of the Town. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Applicant's Request B. Vicinity Map C. Reduced Copies of Site Plan and Amended Final Plat D. Letters from Neighboring Property Owners 10 I Vim Villia tit'e`r' (?, rc hi , t le FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS t�alliarrt F k'I� Icz�:�, �I� fdtr�t;t Kathy fieslinga, Business MaraR ,,; r VAII, COLORADO The intent of this project is for the development of a new single family residence on Lot 1 of the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. Access to the site was initially planned to be from the private road to the Southwest of the lot. The elevation difference between the private road and the center of the site is greater than 30 feet. The reason for the driveway location change is to reduce the amount of site retaining walls substantially. With this submittal we are requesting to access the site from Buffehr Creek Road, approximately 250 feet east of the intersection of Lions Ridge Loop Road and Buffehr Creek Road. With the proposed plan, the impact will be more aesthetically pleasing to the owners and their neighbors. In addition to the access request, we are also submitting to request the modification of the existing building envelope. It is our intent to have the building limits in the same relative location. The proposed limits have been modified to take advantage of the views from the site. The proposed building limits have the same total area as the existing limits, a total of 5462 square feet, as defined in the survey. The total allowed GRFA for this Lot has been defined in the plat. When the Town of Vail amended the definitions, and revised the method by which GRFA is calculated; the plat for this Subdivision was not amended. The previous definition of calculating GRFA uses square foot totals to the interior of the framed walls. The current definition takes the total square footage to the exterior of framed walls. With this change having not affected the total allowed for lots 1 -6 of the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, we are requesting a 10% increase in allowed GRFA as shown in the new plat proposal. The GRFA allowed per the existing plat totals 4788.5 square feet. With a 10% increase the total GRFA would allow for 5267.35 square feet for buildable area. FRITZLEN PIERCE f " Attachment: A Eleni Zneimer Subdivision Development Plan Amendment and Exemption Plat Planning and Environmental Commission - November 14, 2005 - Attachment: B ® This map was created by the Town of Vail GIS Department. Use of this map should be for general purposes only. 100 0 100 Feet The Town of Vail does not warrant the accuracy of the IMOrmation contained herein. 1 „ = 200 , ( parcel line worts Is approximate) ssareu (Me1 X" • 26"" IOL6) MY m l � ..30 :)ii'SUTAanJnS aSuea aiog 7 w IDI 2 1 w Z � AO'Ct a u I I M n / n ' Z I / c d W .ZS'KS - M.69" .LOS 1-4 1 - - - - -- . < 2 V � i < a U \ a \ \ $t�; \ A 1, o I ' Attachment: C OCIV'do - lo3 , Al.Nno3 310V3 IIVA 40NLMOI NOISIAlaflflS 213WI3XZ IK3'13 '1101,40 IUVd V dVW DIHdVdDOd01 Os i r 1, r I \ \ Yxr \I �n I 1 r j a s g o' 1 66 -S - G Lv ooaJ66Z s0 .Law.nr JS 0 b € z yy E �g 7 U3 e 4 � aYi \ Wo \ \ "A. 0 1 Q � d a s a 5 ` p 1 R3 8 O� a A i a $ i as •Sl =k S J ill t 9 a� t eas et< q I;1 i f A b 2 Z Z J 00 (n 0 z m s O LL A a m a � a °3 Lli 1 s f S' r Q��� ; 21 E O ICI O U w Q LL O z z> OO n� 0 ED UI CL/ _ 99qq99 ggqq S n HIM if. al IMI S g g � J # Ad e ao r oa �� II J November 9, 2005 Mr. Warren Campbell Planner Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Campbell, As a resident of 1718 Buffehr Creek Road in Vail I have been notified of a request to amend the Approved Development Plan for the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1701 A -F Buffeter Creek Road/Lots 1 -6. This letter is to express my concerns regarding the site access request. Having lived across from the building site (Lot 1) and along Buffeter Creek Road for six plus years I have personally observed 8 vehicular accidents (2 motorcycle and six automobile) resulting from excess speed while traveling down Buffeter Creek Road in this specific location. Despite the best efforts of the Vail Police to enforce the 25 mph speed limit, traffic generally drives between 35 and 45 mph on this section of road. It is my understanding that the Town of Vail public works group has reviewed this access request and based on the 25 mph speed limit has approved this site access request. I would recommend before the PEC grants approval of this site access request that this specific access point be reevaluated based on the actual speed of traffic on this section of Buffeter Creek Road versus the posted speed limit. I also request that an evaluation of this requested access point be done under winter conditions (greatly increased stopping distances) with its limited line of sight. The safety of the eventual residents of this property potentially is at issue here and I believe every precaution should be considered prior to approval of this request. Sincerely, Bill Jensen 1718 Buffeter Creek Road Vail, CO 81657 Attachment: D To: Warren Campbell, TOV Community Development Subject: Response To Request For Three Amendment Items To An Approved Development Plan, 11/14/05 hearing by PEC, regarding Lot 1, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision This letter is expressing opposition to one of the three amendment items. This involves relocating the access from the approved, existing, common subdivision road to a newly- conceived, direct access from Buffehr Creek Road. It is our understanding this request was submitted based on convenience for access to the building envelope. We are opposed to the request for the following reasons: (1) SAFETY: The proposed access point is too close to the blind curve uphill. Consider four factors. First, the reality is cars come downhill considerably faster than the posted 25 MPH speed limit -- possibly negating the standard guidelines for visibility. Second, in the four years we have owned our property, six cars coming downhill have failed to make the blind curve where it resulted in either a head -on collision or ending up in the meadow opposite the proposed access point. Thirdly, consider Buffehr Creek Road is used heavily by hikers and bikers. Lastly, the Approved Development Plan strategically laid out the common drive to intersect Buffehr Creek Road. This affords good visibility and helping large trucks backing in /out by utilizing our facing Lia Zneimer S-D common drive. (2) RATIONALE FOR REQUEST: The site plan available during the week of 10/31/05 indicated the proposed new access road would have a three tier retaining wall with an elevation differential of 16 feet. we understand the intent of the request was to lessen the elevation differential for access to the building envelope. But, according to a visual inspection, the constructed elevation differential is approximately 17 feet at the approved access point. Hence, there is a marginal reduction of approximately one foot in the elevation differential in the proposed amendment. (3) GEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS: The subject property is in a designated rock -fall zone. An open question is whether rocks could be projected with additional velocity and /or deflected further eastward by the proposed access road. This could pose additional risk to the public on Buffehr Creek Road or further down the "fall- line" to residents on the common drive for the lots in our Lia Zneimer subdivision. Note: the northern portion of our Lots 1 -5 are in the hazard zone. (4) AESTHETICS: The existing retaining wall above the common roadway for the subject subdivision is constructed using blocks that don't blend in with the natural environment. They are generally depicted in landscape architectural magazines for an urban settings (ask for example). Approving the amendment would likely allow a repetition of this or other urban -type block. Or, an approved amendment might stipulate a more natural looking retaining wall, but at the 11th hour, a contractor could find out this requirement would not be acceptable from an engineering standpoint and request a hardship waiver. In any case "one wall is OK, two is a highway." (5) PRECIDENT: Could approving this amendment request have cascading effects on other developments? (6) NEIGHBORHOOD: Anecdotally, surrounding homeowners have purchased their properties with certain understandings concerning the development. The proposed access amendment destroys the enclave concept for the potential of six homes pulled together with commonality of infrastructure, design theme and neighborhood. We are sensitive to the desires to optimize utilization of the subject property, but we feel the preceding points should be seriously considered in our opposition to the access portion in the three part amendment request. Sincerely, ,� f� � Paul s Nancy Rondeau, Lot 2 Lia Zneimer S -D, 1710 Buffehr Creek Road, Vail 81657 November 9, 2005 Warren Campbell, Town Planner Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Final review on November 14, 2005 to amend an approved development plan by Buffehr Creek Partners, for Lot 1 site access. Fritzlen, Pierce Architects. Dear Mr. Campbell, As new owners of 1706 Buffehr Creek Road, we are writing to express our concerns about the proposed new driveway opposite our property. Before purchasing our house, which is reached via an access road off Buffehr Creek Road along with three other houses, we inquired about the real estate being developed across the street. At that time, we were told that the properties across the street from ours would also be reached via an existing access road, as opposed to individual driveways. It now appears that the developers, Buffehr Creek Partners, are requesting a change to their development plan which will include a driveway with direct access to Buffehr Creek Road, and will involve a three -tier, 16 foot retaining wall. We believe that this additional driveway, and the large retaining wall it requires, will negatively impact the appearance, and significantly alter the intent of the originally approved development plan. Additionally, the proposed retaining wall is close, in height and elevation change, to the existing retaining wall for the common roadway. Therefore, instead of the natural mountain view out the front windows of our house, we would view a mountain of walls. We respectfully request that the originally approved development plan be left in place. Thank you for your attention to our concerns. Sincerely, Mark D. Stevens On behalf of. Caroline and Mark Stevens Pam and Mark Kalkus 1706 Buffehr Creek Road Vail, CO 81657 I ynn illia ce `` FRITZLEN PIERCE ARCHITECTS William F. L'i4 r��:e, ���� liitr� Kathy Business Mann,.;, : VAIL, COLORADO Paul J. Rondeau and Nancy M 1710 Buffehr Creek Road Vail, CO 81657 Andretta V. James PO Box 1608 Kingston, NY 12402 Crack of Noon LP 1505 Rim Road El Paso, TX 79902 Scott A. & Claudine S. Brandt 1200 Lafayette Street Denver, CO 80218 Patrick J. & Patricia A Ranallo 400 E. North Ave. Streamwood, IL 60107 Rondeau Jensen, William A. — Armstrong — Jensen, Cheryl S. — Vail Assoc. Inc. 1718 Buffehr Creek Road Vail, CO 81657 FRITZLEN i 16 \ Hc, J )m' P I E R C E t Y .. Application for Review by the Planning and Environmental Commission „. 9 TOM OF VAIL Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail.co.us General Information: All projects requiring Planning and Environmental Commission review must receive approval prior to submitting a building permit application. Please refer to the submittal requirements for the particular approval that is requested. An application for Planning and Environmental Commission review cannot be accepted until all required information is received by the Community Development Department. The project may also need to be reviewed by the Town Council and /or the Design Review Board. Type of Application and Fee: ❑ Variance • Sign Variance • Rezoning • Major Subdivision • Minor Subdivision • New Special Development District • Major Amendment to an SDD • Major Amendment to an SDD (no exterior modifications) Description of the Request: —� A r• r •c- G c A Mr J 1n M �_ �.F r/ L $500 ❑ Conditional Use Permit $650 $200 ❑ Floodplain Modification $200 $1300 ❑ Minor Exterior Alteration $650 $1500 ❑ Major Exterior Alteration $800 $650 ❑ Development Plan $1500 $6000 X Amendment to a Development Plan $250 $6000 ❑ Zoning Code Amendment $1300 $1250 Lb( F—.UVEL L or Location of the Proposal: Lot: I Block: Subdivision: I ST F - W f , Physical Address: 1 70 I A R,-D- UhiL Go $I65�- Parcel No.: Z•1 150(0 ( (Contact Eagle Co. Assessor at 970 - 328 -8640 for parcel no.) Zoning: r r %V r-_u -T%XL. GL_ u F DISTrQC.7r - Name(s) of Owner(s): T3k� --vt►N; Grp Mailing Address: - F3 ox 3O , A I AJTt.r Owners) Signature(s): Name of Applicant: E Mailing Address: l6 0 F_ - D F OA, I 165 Phone: 1 176 , 63- E -mail Address: qp.' "e d a: Fax For Office Use Onl Fee Paid: heck No ` By: Applicatio Date: f �- cS PEC No.: cgs Planner: Project No.: Page 1 of 7- 03/27/02 TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO Statement Statement Number: R050001744 Amount: $250.00 10/17/200503:45 PM Payment Method: Check Init: JS PRILL Notation: 993 /PAIGE ------------------------------------------------------------- Permit No: PECO50083 Type: PEC - Amend to Dev Plan Parcel No: 2103 - 122 - 1500 -1 Site Address: 1701 BUFFEHR CREEK RD VAIL Location: 1701 -A BUFFEHR CREEK RD Total Fees: $250.00 This Payment: $250.00 Total ALL Pmts: $250.00 Balance: $0.00 ACCOUNT ITEM LIST: Account Code Description Current Pmts -------- - - - - -- ------------------------ - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- PV 00100003112500 PEC APPLICATION FEES 250.00 Oc4-07 -05 08 32a From -T)'AN OF VAI'. COWLNITY DEVELONENT 9704792492 T -851 P.00' /008 F -047 Application for Review by the , kr Planning and Environmental Commission TOU OF WL Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 61657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.vailgov.00m General information: All projects requiring Planning and Environmental Commission review must receive approval prior to submitting a building permit application. Please refer to the submittal requirements ror the particular approval that is requested. An application for Planning and Environmental Commission review cannot be accepted until all required information is received by the Community Development Department. The project may also need to be reviewed by the Town Council and /or the Design Review Board. Type of Application and Fee: O Rezoning $1300 © Conditional Use Permit $650 ❑ Major Subdivision $1500 ❑ Floodplain Modification $400 ❑ Minor Subdivision $650 ❑ Minor Exterior Alteration $650 Exemption Plat $650 C1 Major Exterior Alteration $800 ❑ Minor Amendment to an SDD $1000 ❑ Development Plan $1500 Q New Special Development District $6000 ❑ Amendment to a Development Plan $250 ❑ Major Amendment to an SDD $6000 ❑ Zoning Code Amendment $1300 ❑ Major Amendment to an SDD $1250 ❑ Variance $500 (no exterior modifications) ❑ Sign Variance $200 Description of the Request: o AJ '`o KFX tiuMfliz7 i Fof 'EL —F F./J1 =1MG1L 5u3T-) \y►S%aAJ , Location of the Proposal Lot: I _ Block: Subdivision L 1 -1 L IA) Physical Address: 1701 -A 'a kf -Fr wz, G���� P—� V / Co 3165; Parcel No.: ZI OZI'LI 15 00 I (Contact Eagle Co. Assessor at 970- 328 -8640 for parcel no.) Zoning: CL��TC -►� Name(s) of Owner(s): Mailing Address: �10ct 7 � ING , G�'�1�'2! Owner(s) Signature(s)- _Plou Name of Applicant: r-7-- Mailing Address: /6 -6<0 Phone: E -mail Address: /a .�-��•- -� t�l�✓ /a� Y�li , Fax For Off Fee Paid::' �( ..No ` By: Meeting pate: PEC No.: Planner: _ Proje No.. 03!31/04 Application for Review by the Planning and Environmental Commission (�T�]�� r VA IL TO VI'�V Of VAIL Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 tel: 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web: www.ci.vail.co.us General Information: All projects requiring Planning and Environmental Commission review must receive approval prior to submitting a building permit application. Please refer to the submittal requirements for the particular approval that is requested. An application for Planning and Environmental Commission review cannot be accepted until all required information is received by the Community Development Department. The project may also need to be reviewed by the Town Council and /or the Design Review Board. Type of Application and Fee: ❑ Variance $500 ❑ Conditional Use Permit $650 ❑ Sign Variance $200 ❑ Floodplain Modification $200 ❑ Rezoning $1300 ❑ Minor Exterior Alteration $650 ❑ Major Subdivision $1500 ❑ Major Exterior Alteration $800 ❑ Minor Subdivision $650 ❑ Development Plan $1500 ❑ New Special Development District $6000 X Amendment to a Development Plan $250 ❑ Major Amendment to an SDD $6000 ❑ Zoning Code Amendment $1300 ❑ Major Amendment to an SDD $1250 (no exterior modifications) Description of the Request: Location of the Proposal: Lot: I Block: Subdivision: L ioiJSYL%b(,F i ST FIL -Iu1, Physical Address: 1 A 13Kg G fLE - -1� fZo. UR,x G o 8165 Parcel No.: Z103) 2 - Z 150o 1 (Contact Eagle Co. Assessor at 970 - 328 -8640 for parcel no.) Zoning: s Name(s) of Owner(s): Mailing Address: o ..:a1c., c, /o F.p F—Ay ox 30 AlAi ru N 8 Ahone: 39( — Owner(s) Signature(s): Name of Applicant: Fr, Mailing Address: 1 6- , ';o i=-. UA, � � 17Rk� V , Gd 816$ Phone: 1 / 76 6 3 Z E -mail Address: p�.Y u -i' Lxmc , . a¢ c {s .,o— Fax 1/176 . 1 / 90) For Office Use Only: Fee Paid: Check No.: By: Application Date: PEC No.: Planner: Project No.: Page I of 7- 03/27/02 CCT - 2C -07 THU Sent F.y: ; 01 FM INTEGRATED RESOURCES FAX TIC �,C Q ? �F4a D CCT•20 -CS IRU ! 830; Oc *•20.05 B :04 page Ili 48 Pk ?NTFGRATED RfiSOGACES FAX NO. 970 627 5644 p I Application for Review by the Planning and Environmental Commission D e par}mrt or Comnwn$y Development 75 South Fratitape Rod, Vail, Colorado 81657 ttl' 970,479.2139 fix: 970.479.2452 WO www.d.voil,co.ut General Infotmatiorl, aN Ptojeds roquinno Pfan*sg and Eymitnmerlgl Coromissk�n review nwst racelve apprtrraf prior to svbrnittina e t n 8 permit appilcal9on. Y} Er raftr to the atrdlU W requbtmtrsC5 for the pa r Wfov d that Is regxsted ` An apPlkaton for Planning ind ErvirorxnterU Commission rt%jWs cannot be eecepted uro. all regrrirred infamat'an ;S rv*e 'td by tha Canmurdy Development DtRftimt. The prfl }act may also need to un be relte�n�ed by fie Torun Cocil andfar the Design Rrvlew hoard. rYt0 of Applicatlon and Fes: t D Variance T •:hl i Sfgra Vwib to 0 Retuniro D MWor Subwision G Minor SubdMsiorn LJ New Spcciel Deve}opment Dlsria 0 M43or Nnerrdment to an SDD Amendment to on SOo (nC exre w enoo cabontJ $500 $200 O D CondIlorW use Permit ;6% $1300 IJ Roodp}sh 1400Cation 0" BV.r" clearer m $200 $1500 ❑ Ma* e4criar Nberation yC50 $6Q0 66400 ❑ De P.an $1500 _ eat Fian Zoning $2S0 X00 $125o 00% Amendment $1300 Description of the Requests LWAfJon of the Proposal: Lo. J Block.__ $ubdivW6n _Loa -A PhYsW Address: i al 1pwxl IVo.: 7 �D i i . (Contact Eagle Co. Ass"sar at 970 328 Sf,40 for parcel no.� Zoning: r:� r.. ,�-. �� t. �l.usns -. L�ss,ru� -�- N bn►e(S) of OWner(i): M8111hgAddrtlrs: ...��,_G� , _43oX 30� tip �., _ ifhvner 3 q ' Owner(s) Signsture (s): NMe of A#rplicant: -s " Mating Addre": E Addres>i:� A � ►.,o a.: 4 � PhoAe: _..,. ,._ ....__..... Far tlif rf u` a ilsc ANY Fee Pala: Check No.: _ _ rPprlGHtlon Dalr ey' PEG No.; _ - , °^ ^- •.w.._.. - onp I of 7- o9n7/03 +i TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO Statement Statement Number: R050001747 Amount: $650.00 10/17/200504:32 PM Payment Method: Check Init: JS Notation: 992 /PAIGE PRILL Permit No: PECO50084 Type: PEC - Condo /T.H. Plat Re Parcel No: 2103- 122 - 1500 -1 Site Address: 1701 BUFFEHR CREEK RD VAIL Location: 1701 -A BUFFEHR CREEK RD Total Fees: $650.00 This Payment: $650.00 Total ALL Pmts: $650.00 Balance: $0.00 ACCOUNT ITEM LIST: Account Code Description Current Pmts -------------- - - - - -- ------------------------ - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- PV 00100003112500 PEC APPLICATION FEES 650.00 From Land Title Thu Oct 13 10:51:01 2005 Page 1 of 11 Land Title Guarantee Company CUSTOMER DISTRIBUTION Land ! GUARANTEE CUMPANV Date: 10 -13 -2005 Our Order Number: V50011238 Property Address: 1701 BUFFEHR CREEK RD I TNIT A I ELENI ZNELNIER SUB LOT:1 If you have any inquiries or require further assistance, please contact one of the nuunbers below: For Title Assistance: Vail Title Dept. 108 S FRONTAGE RD W #203 PO BOX 357 VAIL, CO 81657 Phone: 970-476-2251 Fax: 970 - 476 -4732 For Closing Assistance- Aimee Dupont 108 S FRONTAGE RD W #203 PO BOX 357 VAIL, CO 81657 Phone: 970 -477 -4529 Fax: 970 - 476 -4534 EMail: adupont@ltge.com SONNENALP REAL ESTATE 242 E MEADOW DR UNIT D VAIL, CO 81657 Attn: JOHN NILSSON Phone. 970 -477 -5300 Fax: 970- 477 -5301 Sent Via US Postal Service BUFFEHI2 CREEK PARTNERS P.O. BOX 305 MLVTURN, CO 81645 Attn: EDWARD ZNELNIER Phone: 970 - 827 -4101 Sent Via US Postal Service LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY 108 S FRONTAGE RD W 11303 PO BOX 357 VAIL, CO 81657 Attn: Aimee Dupont Phone: 970- 476 -3251 Fax: 970 - 4764534 EMail: adupont @itgc.com SLIFER SMITH & FRAMPTON - HYATT 148 BEAVER CREEK PLAZA PO DRAWER 2820 AVON, CO 81620 Attn: RICK PIROG Phone: 970 - 845 -9400 Fax: 970. 845.7635 El b l: rpirog(dslifennet Sent Via ENUB CHARLES S. ACKERMAN 1040 CROWN POINT Pk`W'Y. SUITE 200 ATLANTA, GA 30338 Phone: 770 - 913 -3900 Fax: 770 -91-3 -3935 EMall: eackerTmn@ockermamo.net Sent Via United Parcel Service SLIFER SMITH & FRAMPTON -AVON 0030 BENCIEMARK RD 11107 PO DRAWER 3820 AVON, CO 81620 Arm: RAYMA ROSE Phone: 970- 845.2025 Fax: 970. 845 -2050 EMai1: rro5e @slifer.net Sent Via Courier* ** 01.1606 From Land Title Thu Oct 13 10:51:01 2005 Page 2 of 11 Land Title Guarantee Company � �,.�d -7-;tI Date: 10 -13 -2005 4� NIEE��MI:.e Our Order Number: V50011238 Property Address: 1701 BUFFEHR CREEK RD 1JNTf A / ELENI ZNE51M SUB LOT:1 Buyer /Borrower: CHARLES S. ACKERNIAN Seller /Owner: BUFFEHR CREEK PARTNERS, A COLORADO LINUTED PARTNERSHIP wre Infomla6on: Bank: FIRSTBANK OF COLORADO 10403 W COLFAX AVENUE I ,kKE WOOD, C080215 Phone: 303- 237 -5000 Credit: LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY ABA No.: 107005047 Account: 2160521825 Attention: Aimee Dupont Need , a map or directions for your upcoming closing? Check out Land Title's web site at www_ftaarnm — wacc6xgn w killy Erl Mir 04 otIlee locations. ESTIMATE OF TITLE FEES Alta Owners Policy 10 -17 -92 $1,238.00 Deletion of Exceptions 1 -3 towner) $30.00 Deletion of General Exception 4 (Owner) $10.00 Tax Report #11054465 $15.00 Ir Sand Title Guarantee Compary will be closing this transaction, above roes will be colloctod at that time. TOTAL $1,293.00 rorm MNTW7 06 /0E THANK YOU FOR YOUR ORDERi From Land Title Thu Oct 13 10:51:01 2005 Page 3 of 11 Chicago Tide Insurance Company ALTA COXIMITMENT Schedtde A Property Address: 1701 BUFFEHR CRF1;K RD UNIT A / ELENI ZNEIMER SUB LOTH 1. Effective Date: August 09, 2005 at 5:00 P.NL 2. Policy to be Issued, and Proposed Insured: "ALTA" Owner's Policy 10.17 -92 Proposed Insured: CHARLES S. ACKKERMAN Our Order No. V50011238 Cust. Ref.: $1,100,000.00 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to In this Commitment and covered herein is: A Fee Simple 4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested In: BUFFEHR CREEK PARTNERS, A COLORADO ILL PARTNERSHIP 5. The land referred to in this Conunitment is described as follows: LOT 1, ELENI ZNEIMER SUBDMSION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED FEBRUARY 24, 2003 RECEPTION NO. 824582, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO. From Land Title Thu Oct 13 10:51:01 2005 Page 4 of 11 ALTA CONINIITNIENT Schedule B - Section 1 (Requirements) The following are the requirements to be complied with: 1. 2. Our Order No. V50011238 Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or Interest to be insured. Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be Insured must be executed and duly Illed for record, to -wit: Item (c) Payment of all taxes, charges or assessments levied and assessed against the subject premises which are due and payable. Item (d) Additional requirements, if any disclosed below: EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERNIS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE TOWN OF VAII. TRANSFER TAX HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. WARRANTY DEED FROM BUFFE•HR CREEK PARTNERS, A COLORADO LINUTED PARTNERSHIP TO CHARLES S. ACKERINIAN CONVEYING SUBJECT PROPERTY. NOTE: CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP RECORDED OCTOBER 01, 1990 IN BOOK 539 AT PAGE 120 DISCLOSES 7NTFI IER COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION TO BE THE GENERAL PARTNER(S) OF BLiFFEHR CREEK PARTNERS, A COLORADO LINIITED PARTNERSHIP. NOTE: SAID DOCU3IENT CAN BE EXECUTED BY THE PRESIDENT, NICE-PRESIDENT OR CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD (CEO) OF THE CORPORATION. IF ANT OTHER OFFICER OF THE CORPORATION OR AGENT EXECU TES SAID DOCUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION, A POKIER OF ATTORNEYIRESOLU110N MUST BE PROVIDED TO LAND TITLE GRANTING SAID AUTHORIZATION. TBE FOLLOWING DELETIONS /MODIFICATIONS ARE FOR THE• OWNER'S POLICY. NOTE: ITEMS 1 -3 OF THE GENERAL EXCEPTIONS ARE HEREBY DELETED. NOTE: DUE TO THE PROPERTY INSURED HEREIN CONTAINING NEW CONSTRUCTION, IN ORDER FOR GENERAL EXCEPTION #4 TO BE DELETED, A SATISFACTORY PERSONAL UNDERTAKING AND A TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY '"'ILL BE REQUIRED. NOTE: ITEM 5 OF THE GENERAL EXCEPTIONS WILL BE DELETED IF LAND TTTLE From Land Title Thu Oct 13 10:51:01 2005 Page 5 of 11 ALTA COViMITMENT Schedule B - Section 1 (Requlrements) Continued: Our Order No. V50011238 GUARANTEE COMPANY CONDUCTS THE CLOSING OF THE CONTEMPLATED TRANSACTION(S) AND RECORDS THE DOCUMENTS IN' CONNECTION THEREWMI. NOTE: UPON PROOF OF PAYMENT OF ALL 'TAXES, 1TEiVI 6 WILL BE ANIENDED TO READ: TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS FOR TIIE YEAR 2005, AND SUBSEQUENT FEARS, NOT YET DUE OR PAYABLE. ITEM 7 UNDER SCHEDL B -2 WH-L BE DELETED UPON PROOF THAT THE WATER AND SEWER CHARGES ARE PAID UP TO DATE. * * * * * * * * ** NOTTCE OF FEE CHANGE, EFFECITVF, SEPTEMBER 1, 2002 Pumant to Colorado Re Statute 30 -10 -421, "Ihe county clerk and recorder shall collect a surcharge of $1.00 for each document received for recording or filing In his or her office. The surcharge shall be in addition to any other fees pernttted by statute." From Land Title Thu Oct 13 10:51:01 2005 Page 6 of 11 ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B - Section 2 kExceptfonsj Our Order No. V50011238 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: I. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. S. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsecuient to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by tills Commitment 6. Taxes or special assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the public records. 7. Liens for tmpuld water and sewer charges, if any. S. In addition, the owner's policy will be sutlect to the mortgage, if any, noted in Section 1 of Schedule B hereof. 9. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LADE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED AUGUST 16, 1909, IN BOOK 48 AT PAGE 542. 10. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE, AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED AUGUST 16, 1909, IN BOOK 48 AT PAGE 542. 11. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS RECORDED MARCH 27, 1980 IN BOOK 300 AT PAGE 758 AND RE- RECORDED APRIL 10, 1980 IN BOOK 301 AT PAGE 415. 12. EASEMENT AS GRANTED I'O LION'S RIDGE WATER DISTRICT AND VAIL VILLAGE WEST WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED MAY 22 1981 IN BOOK 323 AT PAGE 505. 13. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, BUT ONIITTING ANY COVENANT OR RESTRICTION BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, HANDICAP, FAMILIAL STATUS OR NATIONAL ORIGIN UNLESS AND ONLY TO THE From Land Title Thu Oct 13 10:51:01 2005 Page 7 of 11 ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B - Section 2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. V50011238 The policy or policies to be Issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT (A) ISS EXEMPT UNDER CHAPTER 42, SECTION 3607 OF THE UNTIED STATES CODE OR (B) RELATES TO HANDICAP BUT DOES NOT DISCRUVIINATE AGAINST HANDICAP PERSONS, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED S'EPTEM1BER 20, 1972, IN' BOOK 225 AT PAGE 443 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1972, IN BOOK 225 AT PAGE 565 AND AS AMENDED IN ]NSTRUMIENT RECORDED JANUARY 22, 1974, IN BOOK 233 AT PAGE 53 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JULY 1, 1983, IN BOOK 362 AT PAGE 804. 14. AGREEMENT BETWEEN TAYVEL F LAND C'ON[PANY AND MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND 'TELEGRAPH CONIPANY PROVIDLNG FOR'TIU,EPHONE INSTALLATION AND SERVICE THROUGHOUI' LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION, NILING NO. 2, RECORDED SEPTEIVI WR 27, 1973 IN BOOB 231 AT PAGE 291. 1S. EASEMENTS, COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS AND NOTES AS SHOWN OR RESERVED ON THE RECORDED PLAT OF LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION, FILING NO. 2. 16. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANT OR RESTRICTION BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, HANDICAP, FAMILIAL STATUS OR NATIONAL ORIGIN UNLESS AND ONLY TO' EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT (A) LSSE15PT' UNDER CHAPTER 42, SECTION 3607 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE OR (B) RELATES TO HANDICAP BUT DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HANDICAP PERSONS, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 05, 1992, IN BOOK 590 AT PAGE 722, AND FIRST AMENDMENT AND SUPPLEIVIENT RECORDED JUNE 6, 1994 IN BOOK 642 AT PAGE 116, AND SECOND AMENDMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 6, 1995 IN BOOK 677 AT PAGE 744, AND THIRD AMENDMENT RECORDED JUNE 17, 1996 IN BOOK 697 AT PAGE 497 AND RECORDED JULY 12 1996 IN BOOK 699 AT PAGE 586, AND FOURTH AMENDMENT RECORDED JULY 30, 1999 RECEPTION NO. 704151, AND FIFTH AIVIENDVTENT RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1999 AT RECEPTION NO. 713020. 17. EASEIVIENTS, COVENAN'T'S, CONDITIONS AND RES'1`RIC'I7ONS, RESERVATIONS AND NO'FF_N AS SHOWN OR RESERVED ON THE ELENI ZNMj ER SUBDIVISION PLA T RECORDED FEBRUARY 24, 2003 RECEPTION NO. 824582. 18. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, BUT 01WITING ANY COVENANT OR RESTRICTION BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, HANDICAP, FAMILIAL STATUS OR NATIONAL ORIGIN UNLESS AND ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT (A) IS EXENIPT UNDER CHAPTER 42, SECTION 3607 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE OR (B) RELATES TO HANDICAP BUT DOES From Land Title Thu Oct 13 10:51:01 2005 Page 8 of 11 ALTA COMMITVIENT Schedule B - Section 2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. V50011238 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: NOT DISCRINUNA`IE AGAINST HANDICAPPED PERSONS, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 24, 2003 RECEPTION NO. 824581 AND AS AbIENDED IN INSTRUl1IIENT RECORDED DECEMBER 10, 2003 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 861486 AND AS ANIENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 26, 2004 UNDER RFCEPTION NO. 89.609. 19. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF APPLICATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY RECORDED MAY 28, 2003 AT RECEPTION NO. 834852. From rand Title Thu Oct 13 10:51:01 2005 Page 0 of 11 LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY DISCLOSURE STATENiF,NTS Note: Pursuant to CRS 10 -11 -122, notice is hereby given that: A) The subject real property may be located in a special taxing district. B) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing judsdiction may be obtained from the County Treasurer's authorized agent. The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. Note: Effective September 1, 1947, CRS 30 -10 -406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing In the clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one half of an inch. The clerk: and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform, except that, the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms on which space Is provided for recording or filing Information at the top margin of the document. Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3 -5 -1, Paragraph C of Article VII requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed ". Provided that Land Ititie Guarantee Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lenders Policy when issued. Note: AMrmative mechanic's Ilen protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of die ('onuniunent from the Owner's Policy to be Issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: A) The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must he a single family residence which Includes a condomniium or townhouse unit. B) No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material -men for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Cominihnent within the past 6 months. C) The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un -filed mechanic's and material -men's liens. D) The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium. E) If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within six months prior to The Date of the Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will Include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium fully executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company, and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. No coverage will be given raider any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. Note: Pursuant to CRS 10 -11 -123, notice is hereby given: This notice applies to owner's policy commitments containing a mineral severance instrument exception, or exceptions, hi Schedule B, Section 2. A i That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, ]eased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there Is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oll, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and B) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission Nothing herein contained will be deemed to obligate the company to provide any of the coverages referred to herein unless the above conditions are fully satisfied. F'orn CIS'. -OSCRE 09iC1/02 From Land Title Thu Oct 13 10:51:01 2005 Page 10 of 11 JOINT NOTICE OF PRIVACY POLICY Fidelity National Financial Group of Companies /Chicago Title Insurance Company and Land Title Guarantee Company July 1, 2001 We recognize and res ct the privacy expectations of today's consun►ers and the regdrements of applicable federal and state privacy laws. We that maki you aware of liow we use your non-public personal information ('Personal Infomhat!4" , and to whom it Is disclose will fomh the basis for a relationship of trust between us and the public that we serve. This Pdvaev Statement provides that explanation. We reserve the right to change this Privacy Statement from time to time consistent with applicable privacy laws. In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information about you from the following sources: From * From your transactions with, o from the servi being pyour omebyZ our affil ates, or others; * From our Internet web sites; * From the public records maintained by governmental entitles that we either obtain directly from those * entities, or from our affiliates or others; and From consumer or other reporting agencies. Our Policies Regarding the Protection of the Confidentiality and Security of Your Personal Information We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards to protect your Personal Information from uhauthotized access or intrusion. We limit access to the Personal Information only to those empplIogees wto need such access in connection with providing products or services to you or for other legitimate business purposes. Our Policies and Practices Regarding the Sharing of Your Personal Information We may share your Personal Information with our affiliates, such as insurance companies, agents, and other real estate settlement service providers. We also may disclose your Personal Information: * to agents, brokers or representatives to provide you with services you have requested; * to third-party contractors or service providers who provide services or perform marketing or other functions on our behalf; and * to others with whom we enter into Joint marketing agreements for products or services that we believe you may find of interest. In addition, we will disclose your Personal Information when you direct or give us permission, when we are required by law to do so, or when we suspect fraudulent or criminal activities. We also may disclose your Personal Information when otherwise permitted by applicable privacy laws such as for example, when disclosure is needed to enforce our lights arising out of any agreement, transaction or relationship with you. One of the important responsibilities of some of our affiliated companies is to record documents in the public domain Such documents may contain your Personal Information. Right to Access Your Personal Information and Ability to Correct Errors Or Request Changes Or Deletion Certain states afford you the light to access your Personal information to whom your Personal Information has been disclosed. Also, certain sta s afford you ut the right to�requesto Mid out correction, amendment or deletion of your Personal Information. We reserve the right, where permitted by law, to charge a reasonable fee to cover the costs incurred in responding to such requests. All requests submitted to the Fidelity National Financial Group of Companies /Chicago Title Insurance Company shall be in writing, and delivered to the following address: Privacy Compliance Officer Fidelittyy National Financial, hie. 4050 Calle Real, Suite 220 Sanwa Barbara, CA 93110 Multiple Products or Services If we provide you with more than one firranclal product or service, you may receive more than one pxivacv notice from us. We apologize for any Inconvenience this may cause you Forr, FR1V.FCL.CHI , rem Land Title �• Thu Oct 13 1 0:51:01 2005 Page ll of 11 Report Date: 0 8/24/2005 03:06PIW EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER CERTIFICATE OF TAXFS rw rr Page: 1 CERT #: 4993 SCHLzR5I ` nrn• o­ _ ASSESSED TO: BUFFEHR CREEK. PAF<TPJERS ORDER NO: 0011238 F'O BOX 305 VENDOR N0: 105 LAND TITLE WNTURN, CO 81645 ATTN; LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PO BGX 357 VAIL, CO A1r,.�;7 ��rirr GrvtIMER SUBDIVISION LOT:1 R824581 DEC 02 -24-03 8824582 MAP 02 -24 p3 8861486 DEC 12 -10 -03 R863775 EAS 12 -31 -03 R895609 DEC 1C -26-04 PARCEL: 210312215001 TAX YEAR 5 ADD: CHARGE 001701 A SUFFEHR CREEK RD VAIL TAX 2004 TAX,gMpvNT INTEREST FEES 0.00 _ TOTA TAX ES 2:919,92 PAID TOTAL, DUE 0.00 2,919.92 GRAND TOTAL DUE GOOD THROUGH 06/24/2005 Authorit -VAIL ORIGINAL TAX BILLING FOR 2004 TAX DISTRICT SCI (TOWN) 0.00 EAGLE CO +JNTY, 001 - 011 Mill Levy Amount CMC 012 3.499 values Actual RE50J SCHOOL, 016 3,997 520.04 LAND Assessed 244.58 IMPS 211,0000 61,190 MINTURN CEM 21.080 1 ,289,89 0 VAIL P&R 0,450 27, ...... - . -..._ ..._.__---_- CRWC 2,760 168.88 TOTAL 2'11,000 61,19__--0 ER W S 0.252 15.42 ERW&SAN 1,330 8 ECHSD 2.630 160.93 TOWN OF VAIL, 036 2.013 123.18 4.708 288 -08 TAXES FOR 2004 AE _ 47,719 ^- — 2,919.92 E FOR THIS CERTIFICATE — - - - -- ALL TAX LIEN SALE 4M 10.00 `------------------_--_ — OUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO ENDORSEMENT OF CURRENT TAXES By THE LIENHOLDER OR TO ADVERTISING AND DISTRAINT WARRANT FEES. CHANGES MAY CONTACTED PRIOR TO REMITTANCE AFTER THE FOLLOWING DATES. PERSONAL PROPERTY AND MOBILE HOMES - SEPTEMBER OCCUR AND THE TREASURER'S OFFICE WILL NEED TG R REAL PROPERTY - SEPTE 118ER 1. TAX LIEN SALE REDEMPTION AMOUNTS MUST BE PAID BY CASH OR CASHIERS CHECK. SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICTS AND 8ER 1, C"IMISSIONERS, TI-E COUNTY THE BOUNDARIES OF SUCH DISTRICTS MAY 8_ CLERK, OR THE COUNTYASSESSOR, ' ON F+LE WITH THE EOARD CF This Certificate does not include land or improvements a$sessed under a separate aC�ur COUNTY transfer tax or mile. tax Collected on Behalf of other entities, special or local improvement d strict assess ments ar mobile homes, unless specifically mentioned, t somber personal property t2xe3, 1, the unders;gnad, do hereby certify that the enure amount of axes cue u outstanding sales for unpa d taxes as shown by the �ecords in m required for r pen the above described parcels of real propsrfy and al edemption are as noted herein, In witness whereof. I have fr w h i set m y hand and 6fll he Zee day o t, the �aDS r TREASURER, EAGLE COUNTY, KAREN SHEAFFER, BY: P.O. Box 479 Eagle, CO 81631.0479 (970) 32 &8860° S y� . o TOWN OF VAfLl7 Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970 - 479 -2138 FAX 970 - 479 -2452 October 24, 2005 www. vailgov.com Fritzlen- Pierce Architects c/o Patrick Fortner 1650 E. Vail valley Drive Vail, CO 81657 Re: 1701A Buffehr Creek Road /Lot 1, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision Mr. Fortner, This letter is being sent to inform you of my findings regarding the proposed construction of a new single - family residence at the above referenced property. The following comments will need to be addressed prior be scheduled on an agenda for the Planning and Environmental Commission. The comments are as followed: • Please submit the signatures of the Brandts and the Ranallos on the application or have them submit letters stating that they are in favor of the proposal and are co- signing the applications. • As we are amend the allowable GRFA table for all the lots within the subdivision the proposed plat needs to show all the lots, not just Lot 1. The following is a summary of the Design Review Board's comments from the October 19, 2005, public hearing and staff comments. These comments need to be addressed prior to submitting a final Design Review application. • Reduce the amount of pavement which encroaches into the existing groove of trees and utilize the car port as the turn around area. • Include landscaping to help mitigate the existing retaining walls on the lot in future landscape plans. • Look at tying the upper most existing retaining wall into the corner of the proposed structure. • The proposed retaining wall for the new driveway will need to be a minimum distance of 10 feet from the edge of the Buffehr Creek Road asphalt. • Professional Engineer drawings will be required for the double and triple tier walls. • A survey and complete site plan at a scale of 1:10 will be needed in conjunction with a complete Design Review application. • The structure will be required to fire sprinklered and have a monitored fire alarm system. Please review these comments and if you have any questions regarding this letter please contact me at 970 - 479 -2148. In order to remain on the November 14, 2005, Planning and Environmental .� RECYCLED PAPER Commission agenda satisfactory responses to the above items must be addressed on a set of revised plans by November 1, 2005. With regards, Warren Campbell Senior Planner Cc: File MEMORANDUM To: File 1701 A through 1701F Buffehr Creek Road/Lots 1 -6, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision From: Warren Campbell, Planner II� Date: February 19, 2003 RE: GRFA Distribution for 1701A through 1701F Buffehr Creek Road/Lots 1 -6 Eleni Zniemer Subdivion The purpose of this memorandum is to designate for zoning reasons the distribution of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) on the six lots established by the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision plat on February 19, 2003. The total GRFA for the six lots is NOT to exceed 27,954 square feet. This total does NOT include the 600 square foot credit for a garage or the 800 square feet which can be used for an Employee Housing Unit (EHU). The maximum size of an EHU is restricted to 1,200 square feet. If a proposed EHU is greater than 800 square feet the difference in size must be subtracted from the permitted GRFA of the proposed house. The plat recorded on February 19, 2003 listed the maximum GRFA permitted on each lot as follows: Lot 1 4,788.5 sq. ft. Lot 2 4,788.5 sq. ft. Lot 3 4,788.5 sq. ft. Lot 4 4,788.5 sq. ft. Lot 5 5,000 sq. ft. Lot 6 3,800 sq. ft. The covenants and declarations governing the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision contain a provision in Section 2.5 which allows unused GRFA from one lot to be shifted to another lot. As of February 19, 2003 the maximum GRFA for each lot is as listed above, however, if a proposed home is constructed with a GRFA less than its maximum that remainder can be moved to another unbuilt lot. Lots 1 -5 are not permitted to exceed 5,000 square feet of GRFA under this program of shifting unused GRFA with Lot 6 restricted to a maximum of 3,800 square feet. Every time a home is proposed on a lot with less GRFA than that listed on the February 19, 2003 plat (or the subsequent dated plat as a result of this process) a revised plat must be submitted by the declarant of the covenants prior to issuance of a building permit in order to keep track of the GRFA used within the subdivision. For example Lot 1 builds 4,500 square feet of GRFA leaving a remainder of 288.5 square feet of GRFA. A maximum of 211.5 square feet of GRFA can be shifted to Lot 2 as it would bring it up to the maximum permitted GRFA of 5,000 square feet. After all the lots are developed any remaining GRFA can not be utilized and will be considered forfeit. ( "L 3 q o `j Z l j Date Received by the Community Development Department: Parcel # (call 328 - 8640) O , � '3 l 2Z 0 APPLICATION FOR SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION�� CHAPTER 17.25 VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE rD (PLEASE PRINT QRTYPE) + ki n fJ If- �� ( A.APPLICANT / D _ � 1 � "'1, MAILING ADDRESS ` r1 r 3035 Wliu co 2� I � PHONE 1` � 1 B.PROPERTY OWNER OWNER'S SIGNATURE PHONE MAILING ADDRESS C.LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: STREET ADDRESS I_ ' LOT BLOCK SUBDIVISION FILING4" A D.APPLICATION FEE $100.00 PA D CHECK # 2.q1 E.MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED: Q .ArLfi 0-F Puv,& ' L7 ppsalDLt f Le� Z 1.Two mylar copies and one paper copy, of the subdivision plat shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. The plat shall include the following: a.The final plat shall be drawn by a registered surveyor in India ink, or other substantial solution, on a reproducible medium (preferably mylar) with dimension of twenty -four by thirty -six inches and shall be at a scale of one hundred feet to one inch or larger with margins of one and one -half to two inches on the left and one -half inch on all other sides. b.Accurate dimensions to the nearest one - hundredth of a foot for all lines, angles and curves used to describe boundaries, streets, setbacks, alleys, easements, structures, areas to be reserved or dedicated for public or common uses and other important features. All curves shall be circular arcs and shall be defined by the radius, central angle, are scored distances and bearing. All dimensions, both linear and angular, are to be determined by an accurate control survey in the field which must balance and close within a limit of one in ten thousand. c.North arrow and graphic scale. d.A systematic identification of all existing and proposed buildings, units, lots, blocks, and names for all streets. e.An identification of the streets, alleys, parks, and other public areas or facilities as shown on the plat, and a dedication thereof to the public use. An identification of the easements as shown on the plat and a grant thereof to the public use. Areas reserved for future public acquisition shall also be shown on the plat. f.A written survey description of the area including the total acreage to the nearest appropriate significant figure. The acreage of each lot or parcel shall be shown in this manner as well. g.A description of all survey monuments, both found and set, which mark the boundaries of the subdivision, and a description of all monuments used in conducting the survey. Monument perimeter per Colorado statutes. Two perimeter monuments shall be established as major control monuments, the materials which shall be determined by the town engineer. h.A statement by the land surveyor explaining how bearing base was determined. i.A certificate by the registered land surveyor as outlined in Chapter 17.32 of this title as to the accuracy of the survey and plat, and that the survey was performed by him in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, Title 38, Article 51. • • j.A certificate by an attorney admitted to practice in the State of Colorado, or corporate title insurer, that the owner(s) of record dedicating to the public the public right -of -way, areas or facilities as shown thereon are the owners thereof in fee simple,,free and clear of all liens and encumbrances except as noted. k.The proper form for filing of the plat with the Eagle County clerk and recorder. l.Certificate of dedication and ownership. Should the certificate of dedication and ownership provide for a dedication of land or improvements to the public, all beneficiaries of deeds of trust and mortgage holders on said real property will be required to sign the certificate of dedication and ownership in addition to the fee simple owner thereof. m. Signature of owner. The plat must contain the following statement: "For zoning purposes, the lots created by this subdivision are to be treated as one lot with no more than two dwelling units allowed on the combined area of the two lots." The statement shall be modified to indicate the number of units and lots proposed. 2.A copy of the declarations and /or covenants relating to the subdivision, which shall assure the maintenance of any common areas which may be created. The covenants shall run with the land and shall be in a form suitable for recording with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. 3.Schedules A and B of a title report. F.APPROVAL PROCESS, REVIEW CRITERIA The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the subdivision complies with the zoning ordinance with respect to building location and other aspects of the structure and ground, with the original plat as approved by the Design Review Board of the Town and the accurateness and integrity of the survey data found on the plat. Upon receiving two copies of a complete submittal along with payment of the appropriate fee, the zoning administrator shall route one copy of the site map to the town engineer for his review. The zoning administrator shall then conduct this review concurrently. The town engineer shall review the submittal and return comments and notifications to the zoning administrator who shall transmit the approval, disapproval or approval with modifications of the plat within fourteen days to the applicant. The zoning administrator shall sign the plat if approved or require modifications on the plat for approval or deny approval due to inconsistencies with the originally approved plan or failure to make other required modifications of the plat. G.FILING AND RECORDING The Department of community Development will record the plat and any related covenants with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. Fees for recording shall be paid by the applicant. The Community Development Department will retain one mylar copy of the plat for their records and will record the remaining mylar copy. 0 Chicago Title Insurance Company ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule A Property Address: ELENI ZNEIMER SUBDIVISION 1. Effective Date: January 24, 2003 at 5:00 P.M. 2. Policy to be Issued, and Proposed Insured: "ALTA" Owner's Policy 10 -17 -92 Proposed Insured: $0.00 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: A Fee Simple 4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in: BUFFEHR CREEK PARTNERS, A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: ELENI ZNEIMER SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED , AT RECEPTION NO. , COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO. NOTE: SAID LEGAL DESCRIPTION WILL CHANGE UPON COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SCHEDULE B - SECTION 1 HEREIN. Our Order No. V278729.1 Cust. Ref.: .t ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B - Section 1 (Requirements) Our Order No. V278729.1 The following are the requirements to be complied with: Item (a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insures: Item (b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to -wit: Item (c) Payment of all taxes, charges or assessments levied and assessed against the subject premises which are due and payable. Item (d) Additional requirements, if any disclosed below: 1. SUBDIVISION PLAT AND DECLARATIONS, ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMPANY, TO BE RECORDED IN EAGLE COUNTY. 2. EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TRANSFER TAX HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. 3. WARRANTY DEED FROM BUFFEHR CREEK PARTNERS, A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TO CONVEYING SUBJECT PROPERTY. NOTE: CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP RECORDED OCTOBER O1, 1990 IN BOOK 539 AT PAGE 120 DISCLOSES ZNEIMER COMPANY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION TO BE THE GENERAL PARTNER(S) OF BUFFEHR CREEK PARTNERS, A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. NOTE: SAID DOCUMENT CAN BE EXECUTED BY THE PRESIDENT, VICE - PRESIDENT OR SECRETARY OF THE CORPORATION. IF ANY OTHER OFFICER OF THE CORPORATION OR AGENT EXECUTES SAID DOCUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CORPORATION, A POWER OF ATTORNEY MUST BE PROVIDED TO LAND TITLE GIVING SAID AUTHORIZATION. THE FOLLOWING DELETIONS /MODIFICATIONS ARE FOR THE OWNER'S POLICY. NOTE: ITEMS 1 -3 OF THE GENERAL EXCEPTIONS ARE HEREBY DELETED. UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPANY AND THE RECEIPT OF A NOTARIZED FINAL LIEN AFFIDAVIT, ITEM NO. 4 OF THE GENERAL EXCEPTIONS WILL BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: I �- Ew E ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B - Section 1 (Requirements) Our Order No. V278729.1 Continued: ITEM NO. 4 OF THE GENERAL EXCEPTIONS IS DELETED AS TO ANY LIENS OR FUTURE LIENS RESULT NO FROM WORK OR MATERIAL FURNISHED AT THE REQUEST OF BUFFEHR CREEK PARTNERS, A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANY LIENS ARISING FROM WORK OR MATERIAL FURNISHED AT THE REQUEST OF. NOTE: ITEM 5 OF THE GENERAL EXCEPTIONS WILL BE DELETED IF LAND TITLE RECORDS THE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED UNDER SCHEDULE B -1. NOTE: UPON PROOF OF PAYMENT OF ALL TAXES, ITEM 6 WILL BE AMENDED TO READ: TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE YEAR 2002 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS. ITEM 7 UNDER SCHEDULE B -2 WILL BE DELETED UPON PROOF THAT THE WATER AND SEWER CHARGES ARE PAID UP TO DATE. * * * * * * * * ** NOTICE OF FEE CHANGE, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1, 2002 * * * * * * * * ** Pursuant to Colorado Revised Statute 30 -10 -421, "The county clerk and recorder shall collect a surcharge of $1.00 for each document received for recording or filing in his or her office. The surcharge shall be in addition to any other fees permitted by statute." m ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B - Section 2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. V278729.1 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. ..1, — 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material theretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. Taxes or special assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the public records. 7. Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any. 8. In addition, the owner's policy will be subject to the mortgage, if any, noted in Section 1 of Schedule B hereof. 9. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED AUGUST 16, 1909, IN BOOK 48 AT PAGE 542. 10. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED AUGUST 16, 1909, IN BOOK 48 AT PAGE 542. 11. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS RECORDED MARCH 27, 1980 IN BOOK 300 AT PAGE 758 AND RE- RECORDED APRIL 10, 1980 IN BOOK 301 AT PAGE 415. 12. EASEMENT AS GRANTED TO LION'S RIDGE WATER DISTRICT AND VAIL VILLAGE WEST WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED MAY 22, 1981 IN BOOK 323 AT PAGE 505. 13. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANT OR RESTRICTION BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, HANDICAP, FAMILIAL STATUS OR NATIONAL ORIGIN UNLESS AND ONLY TO THE z ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B - Section 2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. V278729.1 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT (A) IS EXEMPT UNDER CHAPTER 42, SECTION 3607 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE OR (B) RELATES TO HANDICAP BUT DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HANDICAP PERSONS, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 20, 1972, IN BOOK 225 AT PAGE 443 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1972, IN BOOK 225 AT PAGE 565 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 22, 1974, IN BOOK 233 AT PAGE 53 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JULY 1, 1983, IN BOOK 362 AT PAGE 804. 14. UTILITY EASEMENTS TWENTY FEET IN WIDTH, TEN FEET ON EACH SIDE OF ALL INTERIOR LOT LINES AS RESERVED ON THE PLAT OF LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION FILING NO. 2. 15. AGREEMENT BETWEEN TAYVEL ENVIRONMENTAL LAND COMPANY AND MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY PROVIDING FOR TELEPHONE INSTALLATION AND SERVICE THROUGHOUT LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION, FILING NO. 2, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1973 IN BOOK 231 AT PAGE 291. 16. EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AS SHOWN OR RESERVED ON THE RECORDED PLAT OF LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION, FILING NO. 2. 17. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANT OR RESTRICTION BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, HANDICAP, FAMILIAL STATUS OR NATIONAL ORIGIN UNLESS AND ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT (A) IS EXEMPT UNDER CHAPTER 42, SECTION 3607 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE OR (B) RELATES TO HANDICAP BUT DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HANDICAP PERSONS, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 05, 1992, IN BOOK 590 AT PAGE 722, AND FIRST AMENDMENT AND SUPPLEMENT RECORDED JUNE 6, 1994 IN BOOK 642 AT PAGE 116, AND SECOND AMENDMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 6, 1995 IN BOOK 677 AT PAGE 744, AND THIRD AMENDMENT RECORDED JUNE 17, 1996 IN BOOK 697 AT PAGE 497 AND RECORDED JULY 12, 1996 IN BOOK 699 AT PAGE 586, AND FOURTH AMENDMENT RECORDED JULY 30, 1999 RECEPTION NO. 704151, AND FIFTH AMENDMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 27, 1999 AT RECEPTION NO. 713020. 18. EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS AS SHOWN OR RESERVED ON THE ELENI ZNEIMER SUBDIVISION PLAT RECORDED UNDER RECEPTION NO. 19. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANT OR RESTRICTION BASED ON RACE, COLOR, 1� ALTA COMMITMENT Schedule B - Section 2 (Exceptions) Our Order No. V278729.1 The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: RELIGION, SEX, HANDICAP, FAMILIAL STATUS OR NATIONAL ORIGIN UNLESS AND ONLY TO THE l:XTENT THAT SAID COVENANT (A) IS EXEMPT UNDER CHAPTER 42, SECTION 3607 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE OR (B) RELATES TO HANDICAP BUT DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HANDICAPPED PERSONS, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED , UNDER RECEPTION NO. • 1 TOWN OF VAIL COLORADO Statement Statement Number: R030003628 Amount: $100.00 01/24/200304:30 PM Payment Method: Check Init: JAR Notation: 2810 Buffehr Creek Partners ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Permit No: ADM030001 Type: Administrative Parcel No: 210312200007 Site Address: 1726 BUFFEHR CREEK RD VAIL Location: 1701 Buffehr Creek Road Total Fees: $100.00 This Payment: $100.00 Total ALL Pmts: $100.00 Balance: $0.00 ACCOUNT ITEM LIST: Account Code Description Current Pmts -------------- - - - - -- ------------------------- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- PV 00100003112500 Administrative Fee 100.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- M TOWN OF WR V Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970 - 479 -2138 FAX 970 - 479 -2452 www.vailgov.com VAg, Inc. c/o David Baum P.O. Box 1734 Vail, CO 81658 -1734 April 16, 2004 Re: Eleni Zniemer Subdivision located at 1701 A thru 1701 F /Lots 1 -6, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision Mr. Baum, This letter is to inform you that staff has reviewed your letter, dated April 12, 2004, proposing several options regarding potential changes to the Eleni Zniemer approved development plan. Your letter correctly identifies the fact that Lot 4 is plat restricted to 4,788.5 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) which does not include the 600 square feet of GRFA for a garage and 800 square feet of GRFA which can be used towards a caretaker /employee housing unit. Any garage associated with a caretaker /employee housing unit would come out of the 800 square feet allocated to the unit. Caretaker units can be up to 1200 square feet of GRFA, however, all GRFA above 800 square feet would be deducted from the 4,788.5 square feet allowed for the lot. Your letter is also correct in that it describes the intricate history of this project since is annexation into the Town of Vail. The October 22, 1990, staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission accurately reflects this history. On October 22, 1990, Ed Zniemer, was granted approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission to alter the previously approved development plans and in its place construct 13 single - family homes with the potential for a caretaker unit for each home for a total of 26 dwelling units. The approved development plan established the allowable GRFA for the 13 lots to be 65,900 square feet of GRFA including caretaker units. In your letter you identify design issues which will cause you to utilize a great deal of the allowable GRFA for the Lot in order to "step" the building up the site in order to respond to the steep topography. Your client desires to build a home which responds to the topography while meeting the zoning requirements of the Code. However, a design which steps up the slope while allocate a large portion of the allowable GRFA to stairs and elevators. Your letter identifies three potential alternatives to obtaining additional GRFA on the Lot. Option 1: "Consider re- visiting the original agreement between the owner and the Town from a perspective of the intent of the agreement' Staff response Staff would be in opposition to this request as the intent of the 1990 approval was clear. In 1990, the developer made a proposal which was granted approval based upon a reduction in the number of units and GRFA on the site per a previous Eagle County approval. Option 2: "Pursue a change in the zoning of the individual lot, Lot 4, from Residential Cluster to Single - Family, Two - Family, or Primary/Secondary zone district." RECYCLED PAPER Staff response: Staff would not support the rezoning of an individual lot in this development. Option 3: "Encourage the developer to pursue a change in zoning for Lots 1 -4 and 6 from Residential Cluster to Single - Family, Two - Family, or Primary/Secondary zone district." Staff response: This option would require the applicant to develop an argument for rezoning the lots to either Single - Family, Two - Family, or Primary /Secondary zone district which do not currently exist in the immediate vicinity to the Eleni Zniemer subdivision. Staff would not be in support of the large increase in GRFA which would be realized under one of the proposed zone districts. Your letter does not mention the need to expand the building envelopes if a design which steps up the slope was proposed or if the GRFA for the lots was increased by one of the above options. Staff believes that the envelope may become an issue if the GRFA were to be increased to allow for a design which steps up the slope. With any proposal staff would be looking for a request which maintains the initial intent of the 1990 approval to limit the size of homes and protect open space. In 1990 the applicant was granted approval of a development which is treated very differently than most projects in Town in return for the reduction in development potential granted in a previous approval prior to annexation. At the end of the day this mutually beneficial approval shall be maintained. In summary, staff would not be in support of any of the options presented in your letter dated April 12, 2004. I have attached a memo to the file which elaborates in greater detail the issues of the usage of GRFA within the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision. Excerpts were taken from the covenants that were recorded with the plat. Please review these comments and if you have any questions regarding this letter please contact me at 970 - 479 -2148. With regards, �06wvl� 6 Warren Campbel Planner II Cc: File t %/ , r DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS FOR ELENI ZNEIMER SUBDIVISION By this instrument, Buffehr Creek Partners, a Colorado limited partnership, as the owner of certain real property located in Eagle County, Colorado described on Exhibit A attached to this instrument and incorporated into this paragraph by reference, which property consists of a tract of land subdivided into six (6) individual lots and one (1) individual "open space" tract as set forth on the plat recorded or to be recorded in the records of the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado, makes the following grants, submissions and declarations with respect to such property. DECLARATION Buffehr Creek Partners declares that the property is and shall be held, transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the uniform covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, charges and liens contained in this Declaration, which covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, charges and liens shall run with the real property and be binding on all persons having or acquiring any right, title or interest in and to any lot or tract in or on the property or any part thereof, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and which shall inure to the benefit of, be binding upon, and be enforceable by Buffehr Creek Partners, its successors in interest and assigns, and each owner of a lot or tract within the property and his/her /its successors in interest and assigns. ARTICLE I: DEFINITIONS Section 1.1 Declarant "Declarant" means Buffehr Creek Partners, a Colorado limited partnership and any of its successors in interest and assigns. Section 1.2 GRFA "GRFA" means the gross residential floor area, as defined by the Town of Vail, permitted for a structure on a Lot. The total GRFA for the Property has been determined by the Declarant and the Town of Vail to be 27,954 square feet, and is allocated as follows: Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 = 4,788.5 square feet; Lot 5 = 5,000 square feet; and Lot 6 = 3,800 square feet. Section 1.3 Lot. "Lot" means a parcel of land identified as a lot on the Plat Map. There are six (6) Lots on the Property, numbered 1 through 6 on the Plat Map, and where necessary in this Declaration may be referred to by lot number. Section 1.4 Owner "Owner" means any person, corporation or other legal entity acquiring any interest in a Lot or Tract A. If any Lot or if Tract A is owned by more than one person, corporation and/or other legal entity, then all such persons, corporations or other legal entities owning any Lot or Tract A shall be considered as an Owner. 824581 I Page: 1 of 7 02/24/2003 03"30P Teak J Simonton Eagle, CO X35 R 36.00 D 0.00 7/1�4 Section 1.5 Plat Map. "Plat Map" means the Final Plat, ELENI ZNEIMER SUBDIVISION, a Resubdivision of Part of Tract A, Lions Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, as recorded or to be recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder for Eagle County, Colorado, as supplemented or amended from time to time. Section 1.6 Pro pert . "Property" means the property described on Exhibit A to this Declaration and depicted on the Plat Map. The Property consists of Lots 1 through 6 and Tract A. Section 1.7 Tract "Tract" means a parcel of land identified as a tract on the Plat Map. There is one Tract on the Property, lettered "A" on the Plat Map, and where necessary in this Declaration may be referred to as Tract A. ARTICLE II: LOTS AND TRACT A Section 2.1 Separate Ownership Each Lot and Tract A shall be held in separate fee simple ownership, and shall be separately assessed for taxation by the Eagle County Assessor. Section 2.2 No Development of Tract A . Tract A is designated as "open space" and shall not be developed or used except as permitted by the Town of Vail for open space zoning. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Declarant reserves for itself and any successor in interest to Tract A the right to create utility easements and install utilities in, on and under Tract A for the use and enjoyment of the Owners, the Lots or for any other purpose. Section 2.3 Buildine Envelope Each Lot shall have the building envelope as designated on the Plat Map, and all improvements to the Lot must be located within such building envelope, except for such improvements as are permitted by the Town of Vail ordinances to be constructed outside the building envelope. No Owner of a Lot shall construct any improvement on a Lot that is outside the building envelope for such Lot as shown on the Plat Map, unless permitted to do so by the Town of Vail. Section 2.4 No Subdivision No Lot shall be further subdivided from that shown on the Plat Map. Section 2.5 GRFA The GRFA assigned to each Lot represents the maximum square footage, but not the minimum square footage, of gross residential floor area that may be constructed on such Lot. No Owner shall exceed the GRFA assigned to his/her /its Lot. The plans for a structure on a Lot may include unfinished areas where unused GRFA may be added in the future, but in the absence of such designations, any unused GRFA upon completion of a structure on a Lot shall revert to the Declarant, who may then reallocate such unused GRFA to any other Lot upon which a structure has not been built or completed; provided however that no GRFA may be reallocated that will result in Lots 1 through 5 in the project being allocated in excess of 5,000 sq. ft. of total GRFA with Lot 6 limited to a maximum GRFA of 3,800 sq. ft., and provided further that upon each ! I 1111 Jil Page: 2 of 7 02/24/2003 03:30P Teak J Simonton Eagle, CO 135 R 36.00 D 0.00 O • reallocation of GRFA, an amended Plat Map shall be prepared and submitted to the Town of Vail for its review and approval of Declarant's compliance with this section, which amended Plat Map shall thereafter be filed of public record with the Clerk and Recorder for Eagle County, Colorado. The total square footage of GRFA on the six Lots shall not exceed 27,954. The approval or signature of Owners in the project shall not be necessary for the reallocation of GRFA under this section or on an amended Plat Map prepared and filed of public record under this section. If unused GRFA for any Lot has reverted to the Declarant pursuant to this section, the total GRFA of the completed structure on such Lot shall become the maximum GRFA allocated to such Lot (to be shown on the amended Plat Map), regardless of what may be allocated or shown on the initial Plat Map, any other documents or instruments, or elsewhere in this Declaration. Upon completion of residential structures on all Lots in the project, any remaining unused GRFA allocated to the project shall expire, and no Owner shall be permitted to apply to the Town of Vail for a permit to use such unused GRFA to enlarge their residence. Section 2.5.1 Garage Credit In addition to the GRFA on each Lot, each Owner of a Lot is entitled to a maximum credit of six hundred (600) square feet for a garage on such Owner's Lot. So long as any garage designed and built by an Owner on his/her /its Lot does not exceed the maximum allotted square footage credit provided in this paragraph, such square footage shall not count toward and/or be charged against the GRFA allotted to such Owner's Lot in this Declaration. As used in this paragraph, "garage" means an uninhabited space used for the parking of vehicles and the incidental storage of personal property of the Owner. Section 2.5.2 Elective Employee Housing Unit In addition to the GRFA on each Lot, each Owner is entitled to one (1) employee housing unit (EHU), with a maximum credit of eight hundred (800) square feet, to be constructed as an appurtenance to his/her /its home on his/her /its Lot. So long as the EHU does not exceed the allotted square footage provided in this paragraph, such square footage shall not count toward and/or be charged against the GRFA allotted to such Owner's Lot in this Declaration. Section 2.6 Building Plans All building plans are subject to approval by the Declarant and the Town of Vail. Approval of building plans by the Declarant shall not be unreasonably withheld, but Declarant may require an Owner to abide by certain architectural styles and may require that any structure constructed on a Lot use certain exterior materials and finishes to provide a consistent appearance of all structures to be built on the Property. Section 2.7 Landscaping Except as stated in Section 2.7.1, an Owner may landscape the area within fifty (50) feet of the building envelope on such Owner's lot, but shall not landscape outside such area. The remaining area of the Lot shall be left in its natural state and condition, except that an Owner may remove dead flora and plant new flora of the same kind, and may otherwise deal with the flora on such Owner's Lot in an ecologically sound manner so as to preserve its natural state and condition. 11111 111� Jill 1124581 Page: 3 of 7 02/24/2003 03:30P Teak J Simonton Eagle; Co 135 R 36.00 D 0.00 Section 2.7.1 Required Landscaping by Declarant and Owners Declarant shall complete at its own cost and expense the landscaping along and adjacent to the Roadway (as defined below), as depicted on that certain Preliminary Landscaping Plan prepared by J. N. Houston, dated October 5, 1999, which plan has been approved by the Town of Vail. A true copy of the Preliminary Landscaping Plan is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit B and incorporated into this paragraph by reference. All other landscaping that appears or is depicted on the Preliminary Landscaping Plan shall be completed by the Owner on whose Lot the landscaping appears and is depicted at such Owner's sole cost and expense. Each Owner shall complete such landscaping at the conclusion of construction of a home on such Owner's Lot prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy on the home from the Town of Vail. Section 2.8 Fences No fences of any kind shall be constructed on any Lot, except that small enclosures for domestic pets and animals shall be permitted within fifty (50) feet of the building envelope on each Lot. SECTION III: ROADWAY AND UTILITIES Section 3.1 Location Declarant shall construct a roadway on the Property substantially as depicted on Exhibit B, which exhibit is incorporated into this section by reference (the "Roadway "). Section 3.2 Easement An irrevocable, non - exclusive and perpetual easement is created by this Declaration in favor of (a) Declarant, (b) each Owner of a Lot, their families, guests and invitees, (c) emergency personnel (including without limitation police, fire and ambulance services), and (d) other public and private persons conducting business at, on or to any Lot (including without limitation postal service personnel, delivery personnel, construction personnel and moving company personnel), and their vehicles, domestic animals and pets, for ingress and egress to and from each Lot, and for the provision, maintenance and repair of utilities and other conveniences and necessities to each Lot. Each Owner shall take title to his/her /its Lot subject to such easement, and shall not interfere with the use and/or the enjoyment of the easement by any other authorized person or entity. Section 3.3 Standard of Construction The Roadway shall be constructed in accordance with the standards required by the Town of Vail for a private road, and shall be paved with asphalt. Upon inspection and approval of the Roadway by the Town of Vail, Declarant shall have no further responsibility or obligation with respect to the Roadway, and all maintenance and repair of the Roadway after such time shall be the responsibility of the Lot Owners as provided below. Section 3.4 Initial Utilities Declarant shall construct and provide in the Roadway easement, at its own cost and expense, the infrastructure and stub outs for the provision of water, electricity, natural gas, telephone and cable TV utilities to each Lot. Declarant shall further construct and provide in the Roadway easement, at its own cost and expense, the infrastructure and stub outs for a sewer line from Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the main sewer 824581 II 02 03:30P Teak J Simonton Eagle, CO 135 R 36.00 D 0.00 • 0 I> line at Buffehr Creek Road. In the event that Lots 5 and 6 do not connect directly to the sewer line at Buffehr Creek Road from each property, Declarant shall provide stub outs to such Lots to connect into the sewer line at Buffehr Creek Road. The cost of any tap fees, sewer permits or other costs required by the Town of Vail or the provider of any utility service in order to connect into or use the utilities shall be the sole responsibility, cost and expense of the Owner of the Lot utilizing such utilities. Upon inspection and approval of the infrastructure and stub outs for the utilities and sewer by the Town of Vail, Declarant shall have no further responsibility or obligation with respect such infrastructure and stub outs, and all maintenance and repair of the infrastructure and stub outs after such time shall be the responsibility of the Lot Owners as provided below. Section 3.5 Additional Utilities Any other utilities desired by one or more Owners of a Lot or Lots may be constructed and placed in the Roadway easement, but shall be so constructed and placed in the easement at the sole cost and expense of the Lot Owner or Lot Owners benefiting from such utilities. Section 3.6 Maintenance and Repair of Roadway The Roadway shall be maintained by the Lot Owners in a good and clean condition, and shall be repaired as necessary so as not to cause unreasonable damage or wear to vehicles using such Roadway. During winter months, the Roadway shall be kept reasonably free of snow and ice. All maintenance and repair work done to or on the Roadway shall be done by a qualified contractor with experience in constructing, maintaining and repairing roads. Snow removal shall be done by a qualified snow removal contractor. All costs and expenses to maintain and repair the Roadway shall be borne by the Lot Owners as follows: Lot 1 = 1/17; Lot 2 = 2/17; Lot 3 = 3/17; Lot 4 = 4/17; Lot 5 = 4/17; and Lot 6 = 3/17, or in some other equitable manner to which all Lot Owners consent in writing. Section 3.6.1 Schedule of Maintenance and Repair The Lot Owners shall determine what maintenance and repair work shall be done to the Roadway, and when such maintenance and repair is necessary or advisable. The vote or written consent of a majority of the Lot Owners (at one vote or written consent per Lot, regardless of the number of Owners of any particular Lot) shall be binding on all the Lot Owners as to any maintenance schedule or particular maintenance or repair work to be done to the Roadway. Section 3.6.2 Timing of Maintenance and Repair Upon the vote or written consent of a majority of the Lot Owners as provided for above, a qualified contractor shall be selected by the majority vote or written consent of the Lot Owners, and a date or dates shall be set for the maintenance or repair. All Lot Owners shall be notified of such date or dates, and no Owner shall unreasonably interfere with the maintenance or repair operations of the contractor. Section 3.6.3 Failure to Pay Share of Maintenance or Repair If any Lot Owner fails or refuses to timely pay his/her /its share of any maintenance or repair to the Roadway, one or more of the other Lot Owners may, but shall not be required to, pay the share of the defaulting Lot Owner. Upon such payment, the Lot Owner or Lot Owners ��I�NIYIYIAIYN�A4I��Np n'4�8 7 a3.. :.. 1 who have paid all or some of the share of a defaulting Lot Owner shall have a lien against the defaulting Lot Owner's Lot (together with any improvements on such Lot), and may foreclose upon such lien by judicial action. Any such payment shall earn interest at the rate of eighteen percent (18 %) on the unpaid balance from and after the date paid until repaid in full. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prevent any other legal action at law or in equity to enforce a defaulting Lot Owner's obligation to pay his/her /its share of maintenance or repair to the Roadway. In any action against a Lot Owner who has failed or refused to timely pay his/her /its share of any maintenance or repair to the Roadway, the Owner or Owners bringing the action shall be entitled to an award of their costs, reasonable expenses and reasonable attorney's fees incurred or expended in prosecuting the action and in collecting on any judgment. Section 3.7 Damage to Roadway Notwithstanding anything else to the contrary contained above or elsewhere in this Declaration, if any damage to the Roadway is caused by any one or more of the Lot Owners, but less than all the Lot Owners, such as by heavy construction vehicles or moving vans, the Lot Owner(s) responsible for or causing the damage shall be solely responsible for repair and restoration of the Roadway to its condition immediately before such damage. The purpose and intent of this section is that regular maintenance and repair of the roadway necessitated by ordinary wear and tear of the Roadway resulting from its normal use as ingress and egress by the Lot Owners shall be a joint expense of all Lot Owners, while any extraordinary wear, tear or damage caused by the activities of one or more Lot Owners, but less than all the Lot Owners, shall be paid by the Lot Owner(s) responsible for or causing such extraordinary wear, tear or damage. Section 3.8 Parking in the Roadway The Lot Owners and their guests and invitees may park, temporarily or daily, in the Roadway while attending a function at a Lot Owner's residence, provided that reasonable ingress and egress to the Lots are not impeded. There shall be no overnight parking in the Roadway by any Lot Owner or such Lot Owner's guest or invitee. Any Lot Owner may enforce the prohibition provided in this section, after notice to the appropriate Lot Owner and opportunity for the Lot Owner to have the vehicle removed, by having any offending vehicle towed from the Roadway. Any Lot Owner exercising his/her /its rights under this section shall not be liable to any other Lot Owner, or such Lot Owner's guest or invitee, for the cost of the tow or any resulting damage to a towed vehicle. The Lot Owner whose offending car, or whose guest's or invitee's offending car, is towed from the Roadway pursuant to this section shall be liable to the Lot Owner who had the car towed for all costs and reasonable expenses incurred by such Lot Owner. In any legal action under this section, the prevailing party shall be entitled to his/her /its costs, expenses and reasonable attorney's fees incurred or expended in prosecuting or defending against such action. Section 3.9 Parking or Obstruction of Emergency Turnaround Parking in or obstruction of the emergency turnaround in the Roadway, located on Lot 6 and indicated on Exhibit B, is strictly prohibited and must be kept clear at all times. Any Lot Owner who parks or permits a vehicle to be parked in the emergency turnaround, or otherwise intentionally or unintentionally causes the emergency turnaround to be blocked or �I�I II�OI IIIVIIIN�IIY � �Y� �II 824581 Teak J Simonton Eagle, CO 135 R 36, 00 D 0.00 impeded by vehicles or otherwise shall be liable for all costs, expenses and damages occasioned thereby. ARTICLE IV: DURATION, AMENDMENT AND TERMINATION Section 4.1 Duration This Declaration shall endure and be a binding obligation on the Lots and Tract A for a period of twenty -one years from the date this Declaration is placed of public record with the Clerk and Recorder for Eagle County, Colorado. After such time, unless this Declaration is amended or terminated by a vote of five (5) of the six (6) Lot Owners and the Owner of Tract A, this Declaration shall automatically renew for periods of ten (10) years each. Section 4.2 Amendment During the time that Declarant owns any interest in the Property, this Declaration may not be amended without Declarant's written consent. After such time, this Declaration may be amended only by a writing filed of public record with the Clerk and Recorder for Eagle County, Colorado, signed by five (5) of the six (6) Lot Owners and the Owner of Tract A. Section 4.3 Termination Except as provided above, this Declaration may not be terminated during the time that Declarant owns any interest in the Property. After such time, this Declaration may be terminated only by a writing filed of public record with the Clerk and Recorder for Eagle County, Colorado, signed by five (5) of the six (6) Lot Owners and the Owner of Tract A, and any other person or entity owning any interest in the Property by way of being a beneficiary or assignee of a deed of trust, a mortgagee, a lien holder or otherwise. ARTICLE V: ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS In the event of any legal action brought by any Owner of a Lot or Tract A to interpret this Declaration or enforce any of its terms, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to an award of his/her /its costs, reasonable expenses and reasonable attorney's fees expended or incurred in prosecuting or defending against such legal action. WITNESS the hand of Declarant this /� h � day of �L 2003. G , BUFFEHR CREEK PARTNERS, a Colorado limited partnership t3 `j e £ By: Z eimer Company, Inc., its Generl�; Part �pe By Edward 824581 Page: 7 of 7 2/24 3:30P Teak J Simonton Eagle, CO 135 R 36.00 0 0.00 I - 1. .:. MEMORANDUM To: File 1701A through 1701F Buffehr Creek Road/Lots 1 -6, Eleni Zniemer Subdivision From: Warren Campbell, Planner IIV Date: February 19, 2003 RE: GRFA Distribution for 1701 A through 1701F Buffehr Creek Road/Lots 1 -6 , Eleni Zniemer Subdivion The purpose of this memorandum is to designate for zoning reasons the distribution of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) on the six lots established by the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision plat on February 19, 2003. The total GRFA for the six lots is NOT to exceed 27,954 square feet. This total does NOT include the 600 square foot credit for a garage or the 800 square feet which can be used for an Employee Housing Unit (EHU). The maximum size of an EHU is restricted to 1,200 square feet. If a proposed EHU is greater than 800 square feet the difference in size must be subtracted from the permitted GRFA of the proposed house. The plat recorded on February 19, 2003 listed the maximum GRFA permitted on each lot as follows: Lot 1 4,788.5 sq. ft. Lot 2 4,788.5 sq. ft. Lot 3 4,788.5 sq. ft. Lot 4 4,788.5 sq. ft. Lot 5 5,000 sq. ft. I,ot 6 3,800 sq. ft. The covenants and declarations governing the Eleni Zniemer Subdivision contain a provision in Section 2.5 which allows unused GRFA from one lot to be shifted to another lot. As of February 19, 2003 the maximum GRFA for each lot is as listed above, however, if a proposed home is constructed with a GRFA less than its maximum that remainder can be moved to another unbuilt lot. Lots 1 -5 are not permitted to exceed 5,000 square feet of GRFA under this program of shifting unused GRFA with Lot 6 restricted to a maximum of 3,800 square feet. Every time a home is proposed on a lot with less GRFA than that listed on the February 19, 2003 plat (or the subsequent dated plat as a result of this process) a revised plat must be submitted by the declarant of the covenants prior to issuance of a building permit in order to keep track of the GRFA used within the subdivision. For example Lot 1 builds 4,500 square feet of GRFA leaving a remainder of 288.5 square feet of GRFA. A maximum of 211.5 square feet of GRFA can be shifted to Lot 2 as it would bring it up to the maximum permitted GRFA of 5,000 square feet. After all the lots are developed any remaining GRFA can not be utilized and will be considered forfeit. LJ v p VAg, Inc. Architects & Planners Monday, April 12, 2004 Warren Campbell, AICP Planner II Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Parks Residence, Lot 4, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision, Buffehr Creek, Vail, Colorado Dear Warren: Thank you for taking the time to discuss cur project on the afternon.n of April 10. We feel that meeting was very informative and look forward to continuing our efforts together towards the completion of this project. As discussed in that meeting, several issues require further clarification. The most pressing issue for our design team is that of the allowable GRFA for this site, Lot 4. Our goal is not to simply "shove a box" into the side of the hill, rather, we prefer a home that moves up the hillside in steps, creating a series of levels, working with the natural topography. To sensitively construct a home in this manner, taking the steepness of the site into consideration, we believe that a sizable portion, approximately one - quarter of our allowable GRFA, will be consumed by stairs and elevators alone. Additionally, we recognize the need to provide 5 off -street parking spaces. In order to provide adequate area for the vehicles, the home will be moved further off the street to accommodate a motor court. Providing such necessitates the mass of the home moving up hill, gaining more elevation, in order to engage the natural topography in a sensitive manner. However, this further exacerbates our need for stairs and elevators that deplete our allowable GRFA. The site history indicates that the intended use of this property has been modified numerous times. The property was originally planned for 42 units, we now have a development of 26 units, 13 of which are now restricted 800 s.f. EHU's. Originally this property was planned and approved for Townhomes, revised and approved again for Townhomes, again revised and approved for Primary /Secondary residences, to arrive at this point. Although this property is zoned Residential Cluster, it is clear the intention and preference for any development on this site to consist of single family or primary /secondary residential construction. The current agreement that governs this property, made between the developer and the Town of Vail in 1990 ensuring low density, single family scale development, stipulates that a maximum of 4,788.5 s.f. GRFA be allowed on our 1.91 Acre site. It is our belief that this restriction is a burden to our owner as he is making a concerted effort to design the house and site sensitively and within the RC guidelines. By comparison, a two family residential (R) or primary/secondary (PS) on a 1.91 acre site would both permit in excess of 8764 s.f. of GRFA. Likewise, a single family (SFR) zoning would yield in excess of 10,500 s.f. of GRFA for a comparable site. We believe that the current restriction of our GRFA, established by the 1990 Owner -Town agreement, may prevent us from designing a home that fully achieves the potential of this property. Our goal is not to maximize the GRFA on site, but is to provide a design that meets the intent of the TOV regulations with regard to density, height, bulk and mass. To do so, the Owner is looking for ways to add some GRFA to the project. We have considered the following: Consider re- visiting the original agreement between The Owner and The Town from a perspective of the intent of the agreement. 2. Pursue a change in the Zoning of the individual lot, Lot 4, from RC to SFR, R or PS. Physical Address: (970) 949 -7034 Mailing Address: 90 Benchmark Rd., Suite 202 fax: (970) 949 -8134 P.O. Box 1734 Avon, CO 81620 email: general @vagarchitects.com Vail, CO 81658 -1734 3. Encourage the Developer to pursue a change in Zoning for Lots 1 -4 and 6, from RC to SFR, R or PS. Our request to the Town Staff is simple; please advise us of your opinions of the potential for success of the argument we have illustrated. Also, we ask that the Town Staff provide any insight and/or opinion as to any other possible options that may exist in order that this property may be able to realize additional GRFA. We appreciate your efforts and look forward to further conversation on this topic. Thank you. Sincerely, D VAg, Inc., Architects & Planners David Baum, Senior Project Architect Encl.: Cc. Tim Parks file: R:\2411 Parks Residence\PAR letter to TOV 04 09 04.doc Monday, April 12, 2004 Confirmation Report— Memory Send Page : 001 Date & Time: Feb -18 -03 04:24pm Line 1 9704792452 E -mail Machine ID TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Job number Date To Number of pages Start time End time Pages sent Status Job number 504 504 Feb -18 04:22pm $98275644 002 Feb -18 04:22pm Feb -18 04:24pm 002 OK * ** SEND SUCC ESSFUL * * * TOWN OF VAIL 75 Souzh vvc3. rage Road Vail, CO 81657 - 9 FAX 97o- 479 -2452 COMMUNTTZ' DEVELOPMENT FAX T][ZANSMITT S COMPANY NAME• I V 1 G FAX TELEPHO ( N S � - 7 — FROM: � v - 1 9 DA'L'E: Q ' — O� # OF PAGTLS Il�T DOCTJ1VrENT (NOT INCLUDING COVER SH.TLET3 12Ti.SPONST REQ TT�T=T'' D? _AJ6) bei SENT BY l TOWN OF VAIL. COMM`jj l e , DEVELOPMENT FAX # X70 a7g -z+sa TOWN OF VAIL CO DEVELOP1vlENT TELEPHONE.# ��u- a79 -2i3s SPECIAL CO AND NOTES: F_BV SxYOrrE�FOB.x.as�Fassno�t Section 2.5 GRFA The GRFA assigned to each Lot represents the maximum square footage, but not the minimum square footage, of gross residential floor area that may be constructed on such Lot. No Owner shall exceed the GRFA assigned to his/her /its Lot. The plans for a structure on a Lot may include unfinished areas where unused GRFA may be added in the future, but in the absence of such designations, any unused GRFA upon completion of a structure on a Lot shall revert to the Declarant, who may then reallocate such unused GRFA to any other Lot upon which a structure has not been built or completed; provided however that no GRFA may be reallocated that will result in Lots 1 through 5 in the project being allocated in excess of 5,000 sq. ft. of total GRFA with Lot 6 limited to a maximum GRFA of 3,800 sq. ft., and provided further that upon each reallocation of GRFA, an amended Plat Map shall be prepared and submitted to the Town of Vail for its review and approval of Declarant's compliance with this section, which amended Plat Map shall thereafter be filed of public record with the Clerk and Recorder for Eagle County, Colorado. The total square footage of GRFA on these 6 lots shall not exceed 29,954. The approval or signature of Owners in the project shall not be necessary for the reallocation of GRFA under this section or on an amended Plat Map prepared and filed of public record under this section. If unused GRFA for any Lot has reverted to the Declarant pursuant to this section, the total GRFA of the completed structure on such Lot shall become the maximum GRFA allocated to such Lot (to be shown on the amended Plat Map), regardless of what may be allocated or shown on the initial Plat Map, any other documents or instruments, or elsewhere in this Declaration. Upon completion of residential structures on all Lots in the project, any remaining unused GRFA allocated to the project shall expire, and no Owner shall be permitted to apply to the Town of Vail for a permit to use such unused GRFA to enlarge their residence. A ; TOWN OF VAIL [y Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970 - 479 -2138 FAX 970 - 479 -2452 www. ci. vail. co. us ,e„ The Zneimer Company c/o Ed Zneimer P.O. Box 305 Minturn, CO 81645 February 28, 2003 Re: Building envelopes and driveway construction for 1701 A through 1701 F Buffehr Creek Road /Lots 1 -6, Eleni Zneimer Subdivision Mr. Zneimer: This letter is to inform you of staff's determinations regarding building envelopes and the construction of the driveway for the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision. In regards to the driveway staff has determined that the Design Review Board approved a plan for the driveway which is to service the six homes within the Eleni Zneimer Subdivision on December 15, 1999. The plan included landscaping and retaining walls. The retaining walls were approved to be constructed with a sandstone T -block material (similar to the existing walls along Potato Patch Drive). Prior to staff performing a framing inspection of the first house to be built, there must be a minimum of one lift of asphalt in place. Staff will not require a bond for the completion of the road. However, the road must be completed and accepted by the Town of Vail prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the last house to be constructed within the subdivision. In regards to the question of patios, decks, eaves, ect. extending outside the boundaries of the platted building envelope staff has determined that the October 22, 1990 Planning and Environmental Commission approval required all elements to be contained within the envelope. However, the envelope can be shifted and take a different shape than that which is platted if it meets the requirements required by the 1990 approval. The Design Review Board was given the authority to review and approve the new building enveloped based on specific criteria. The resulting envelope must not be any larger in terms of � RECYCLED PAPER F square footage than that which is platted. Please see the attachment for the text that discusses the review process. Please review these comments and if you have any questions regarding this letter please contact me at 479 -2148. With regards, Warren Campbell Planner II Attachment: Page 4 of staff report from October 22, 1999 Cc: File •� w G have fewer impacts since the design has been changed from attached dwelling units to single family homes. The land previously devoted for guest parking, tennis courts, and a swimming pool for the condominium complex will now be left in its natural state. Lastly, the current proposal has 21650 sq. ft. less GRFA than the previous plan. 1. Building envelopes: Y .> The proposal uses building envelopes to identify the location of each house. The envelopes are not proposed to be platted. There will be approximately 40 to 80 feet between each building envelope. Since the PEC work session, the applicant has enlarged the envelopes to approximately 50 by 90 and has decided that each envelope will be adequate for all of the future construction without developing standards for encroachments into the open space. All roof eaves, porches, decks, etc. will be contained within the building envelope. Though the envelopes have been designed to accommodate all of the future construction, the applicant would like to set up d process which will allow changes, if needed. The applicant has proposed the following language which will allow some flexibility for the siting of the houses. The criteria listed below will be used by the DRB to approve any modifications to the envelopes. "Building envelopes indicated upon the approved site plan may be modified with approval of the DRB based upon detailed review of an individual architectural and site plan for an individual dwelling unit. The DRB shall find that the modification to any building envelope does not substantially result in any negative impacts upon the site, adjoining property, or have any adverse impact upon required geologic hazard considerations. If an association of home owners within the project is formed, any modification of a building envelope shall also conform to the rules and regulations adopted by t he association. Any modification shall not exceed 15 feet and in no case shall any structure be built in the 20 foot setbacks shown on the approved development plan." 4 besign Review AcTfon Form Z kEt"K, I- TO OF YA1_L_ V" V1 iN OF V AIL '2 � WN K , _ at Ay 3 �� Project Name: Lia Zneimer Subdivision Project Description: Site Plan Review (north of Buffer Creek Road) Owner, Address and Phone: Edward J. Zneimer, P.O. Box 305, Minturn, CO 81645 Architect/Contact, Address and Phone: same Project Street Address: n/a Legal Description: Tract A, Lion's F dge Filing 2 Parcel Number: 2103-122-00-007 Building Name: Comments: . i Project#: DEV99-0002 Board / Staff Action Motion by: Bill Pierce Action: Consent Approved (with condition) Seconded by: Melissa Greenauer Vote: 4-0 Conditions: 1) The landscaping along the access drive/retainincy walls will be planted within 12 months of the construction of the access drive (other landscaping to be phased in at a later date per the to, approved landscape plan). DRB Fee Pre-Paid: $20.00 �y TOWN OF VAIL Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970 - 479 -2138 FAX 970 - 479 -2452 October 7, 1999 Edward J. Zneimer, President The Zneimer Company P.O. Box 305 Min= , CO 81645 Re: Parcel #2103 - 122 -00- 007 /Tract A, Lion's Ridge Filing 2 Dear Ed: At their October 6` meeting, the Town's Design Review Board (DRB) conceptually reviewed the above - referenced application. Following is a synopsis of the DRB's comments and direction from the initial site plan review: ■ "The landscaping along the retaining walls would function better on the downhill side of each wall." ■ "When the individual houses are developed, we suggest the use of a wall from each structure to help retain the slope." It was agreed that the retaining walls would be constructed with a sandstone T -block material (similar to the existing walls along Potato Patch Drive). Additionally, an area showing "the approximate location of vegetation to phased in at a later date, subject to design review" would be shown on the plan between envelopes 5 & 6 and Buffehr Creek Road prior to final approval. Following are revisions requested by the Town's Public Works Department prior to final site plan approval: ■ Please show all proposed grading and drainage on the final site plan. The area adjacent to the driveway /road intersection is of particular concern. ■ Please show the required 5' distance between retaining walls and the access drive on the plan. ■ A culvert and 4' concrete pan will be required where the access drive meets Buffehr Creek Road. Please show these on your plan. IL 0) RECYCLED PAPER Mike McGee (TOV Fire Marshall) informed me that a turnaround will be required somewhere along the access drive for emergency vehicles. Although Mike is aware of your plans to equip each residence with fire sprinklers, he insists a turnaround is still necessary for medical emergencies. You can reach Mike at 479 -2135 to discuss this issue in detail. If you would like to discuss any of these items in greater detail, please do not hesitate to contact me at 479 -2140. Sincerely, Brent Wilson Planner II t TOWN OF PAIL 0 0 Design Review Action Form TOWN OF VAIL Project Name: The Zneimer Company Project Description: Temporary Site Development Sign Owner, Address and Phone: John Nilsson, 288 Bridge Street, Vail, CO 81657 Architect/Contact, Address and Phone: same Project Street Address: Lots 1 -6, Leni Zneimer Subdivision, Buffehr Creek Road Legal Description: Lots 1 -6, Leni Zneimer Subdivision, Buffehr Creek Road Parcel Number: Building Name: Comments: Approved as submitted (18 square feet) Project #: DEV99 -0001 Board / Staff Action Motion by: Seconded by: Vote: Conditions: Town Planner: Brent Wilson Date: January 7, 2000 Action: Staff Approved DRB Fee Pre -Paid: $38.00 FAEVERYONE\DRB\APPROVAU97 \1 DRBAPPR.FRM Ji',N -04 -00 09 :32 FROM:TOV— COM —DEV —DEPT. ID :9704792452 PAGE 1/2 Questions? Call the planning Desk 4VAMRL SIGN/A WNII G APPLICATION at 479 -2128 TOW OF C. D. E. This application is for any sign that is located within the Town of Vail. Specific requirements are available from the Department of Community Development. A. Name of B- BuiJding Name O f —Phone: 8 Z - 7 -1 -00 I Mailing addre� Signature of owner: Name of person subinittin6tg (If different than owner) Address: F. Type of sign (see back for definitions): I Frcc standing ❑ Hang s ❑ Wall sign �g s ❑ Awning ❑ Other, specify: & Sign - Z5 H. / Size of sip and size of lettering for each sign gn proposed: .55 1• Length of business fioontage: Ed O1 d- NQ,W lc g J. Height of sign above e: m grad IC Number of signs proposed: J Number and size of existing signs 1 -- Location of each sign (attach a site plan Aq d an clevation drawing or a photograph clearly indicating the Proposed location): M- Materials and colors of sign (attach samples). 150e & Cpl N. Describe lighting of sign (existing or proposed): e Q W Business license and/or sales tax license verification is REQUIRED prior to planning review: Sales Tax Administrator's signature (Sally Lorton 479- 2I25): FEE. 520.00, PIU S1 - 00 PER SQUARE FOOT OF SIGN AREA. Post -it® Fax Note 7671 Daze # 01 0 , pages 70 From Co-/Dept. Co. Phone n Phone # JAN-04-00 09:33 FROM :TOV— COM —DEV —DEPT. ID= 9704792452 PACE 2/2 SUBMITTAI . REQUIREMENT : El Complete Application. 0 A site plan showing the exact location where the sign is to be located_ 4 Elevation drawings or photos showing proposed location of the sign or awning. ❑ Colored scaled (1/4 " =1') drawing, including specific lettering and dimensions and a photo, if available. CI Sample of proposed materials. 0 Drawings showing how and where sign or awning will attach to the building and bow the awning will be constructed. Q Condominium Association or Landlord approval - attach a letter. UGN CATS ;QpjXS Freestanding -A single or mini -faced sign affixed to a supporting structure, or imbedded in and extendin from the ground and detached froth the building. g Awnine or ' — la ,g n _Any sign attached to a building and extending in whole or in part more than 9" beyond the building line. Wall - A sign attached to, painted on, or erected against the wall of a building or structure with the exposed face of the sign in a plane parallel to the face of the wall and not projecting more than 9" from the face of the wall. 4. DiMlAv Box _ A freestanding or wall sign enclosed in glass for the express purpose of displayin menus, current entertainment or real estate listings. g 5_ Joint directory o - A fr sanding, hanging or wall sign that lists all the tenants within a multi - tenant building_ 6. $ ubdivision entraK S i an - A sign to identify a Major subdivision, a condominium complex, or group of apartment buildings having at least 100 linear feet of frontage along a vehicular or pedestrian way in any RC, LDMF. MDM)✓. HDMF, or SDD zone district. SUGGESTIONS 1 • Copies of the Sign Code are available from the Department of Community Development_ You may wish to check the Code to verify the type and size of sign you are allowed. z• Be specific. Vagueness in the description of design, size, construction may delay the approval of your sign. I Measure the frontage of your business to determine the size (area) of the sign you are allowed_ 4 . Lighting for awnings may spotlight only the sign lettering on the awning. Lighting may not shine into pedestrian or vehicular ways. 5- All individual business signs will be reviewed by the Department of Community Development. New sign programs or amendments to sign programs will be reviewed by the Design Review Board_ F: evc ryone/fomas/sigos/signapp. R 13 six Luxury "C31 - 11esites Incomparable sun & Views developer: THE ZNEIM ER COMPANY MINTURN, CO contractor: INTEGRATED RESOURCES, INC. M CO contact: JOHN NILSSON, BROKER frail- I.ionshead Real Estate 970.476.2525 U.S.F.S (UNPLATTEO) el ..... . , \ V , VIA all, It ZI s v li Z rn M LI) c CD 0 z (Will" If 'vc- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — w ­0 v \0 0 V W fop*. 0 It It. (Will" If Me — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — w ­0 v \0 0 V W fop*. 0 It It. P A V. t. Y . 10 , V % It* V 1 t. NIN t 1' 11 It t Vt If 1'1 !,' t : + � 1 �t •' it . `� Vu I -0 r g Ist ------------ MELWOM LANR5M FLM PAM 10/ 05/ 99 a CONCEPT SITE PLAN A PART OF PARCEL A, LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION, FILING NO. 2 TOWN OF VAIL. EAGLE COUNTY- C01 nOAM Me fop*. . 10 , a CONCEPT SITE PLAN A PART OF PARCEL A, LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION, FILING NO. 2 TOWN OF VAIL. EAGLE COUNTY- C01 nOAM TOWN OF VAIL i • 0 Design Review Action Form TOWN OF VAIL Project Name: Lia Zneimer Subdivision Project Description: Site Plan Review (north of Buffer Creek Road) Owner, Address and Phone: Edward J. Zneimer, P.O. Box 305, Minturn, CO 81645 Architect/Contact, Address and Phone: same Project Street Address: n/a Legal Description: Tract A, Lion's Ridge Filing 2 Parcel Number: 2103 - 122 -00 -007 Building Name: Comments: Project #: DEV99 -0002 Board / Staff Action Motion by: Bill Pierce Action: Consent Approved (with condition) Seconded by: Melissa Greenauer Vote: 4 -0 Conditions: 1) The landscaping along the access drive /retaining walls will be planted within 12 months of the construction of the access drive (other landscaping to be phased in at a later date per the approved landscape plan). Town Planner: Brent Wilson Date: 12 -15 -99 DRB Fee Pre -Paid: $20.00 0" P v TOWN OF VAIL Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970 - 479 -2138 FAX 970 - 479 -2452 October 7, 1999 Edward J. Zneimer, President The Zneimer Company P.O. Box 305 Minturn, CO 81645 Re: Parcel #2103 - 122 -00 -007 / Tract A, Lion's Ridge Filing 2 Dear Ed: At their October 6` meeting, the Town's Design Review Board (DRB) conceptually reviewed the above - referenced application. Following is a synopsis of the DRB's comments and direction from the initial site plan review: "The landscaping along the retaining walls would function better on the downhill side of each wall." "When the individual houses are developed, we suggest the use of a wall from each structure to help retain the slope." It was agreed that the retaining walls would be constructed with a sandstone T -block material (similar to the existing walls along Potato Patch Drive). Additionally, an area showing "the approximate location of vegetation to phased in at a later date, subject to design review" would be shown on the plan between envelopes 5 & 6 and Buffehr Creek Road prior to final approval. Following are revisions requested by the Town's Public Works Department prior to final site plan approval: ■ Please show all proposed grading and drainage on the final site plan. The area adjacent to the driveway /road intersection is of particular concern. ■ Please show the required 5' distance between retaining walls and the access drive on the plan. A culvert and 4' concrete pan will be required where the access drive meets Buffehr Creek Road. Please show these on your plan. % RECYCLEDPAPER I., 0 Lia Zneimer Subdivision / Valley Phase VI Design Review Considerations — October 6 1999 • Landscaping shall be consistent with existing native vegetation. • Driveways should have the shortest, simplest access routes possible. • Retaining walls (texture, shape and color) subject to DRB review. • Landscaping should mitigate (soften) the appearance of retaining walls. • Retaining walls within front setbacks are to be terraced. ■ A densely vegetated slope of landscaping between envelopes 5 & 6 and Buffehr Creek Road will be required — this will extend all the way from the construction area for these lots east to the access road intersection. �1- Qucstion ail the Planning Stai a, APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TOWN OF YAIL 4 GENERAL INFORMATION P M � � � V - 06 This application is for any project requiring Design Review approval. Any project requiring design review must receive Design Review approval prior to submitting for a building permit. For specific information, see the submittal requirements for the particular approval that is requested. The application cannot be accepted until all the required information is submitted. The project may also need to be reviewed by the Town Council and/or the Planning and Environmental Commission. Design Review Board approval expires one year after final approval unless a building permit is issued and construction is started. A. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST: 1) " CQ.'V64VJr Q.c_ �- �Sc'c,��u� As q' B. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: �L -8q gam A FILING: PHYSICAL ADDRESS; 02 " 1 C. PARCEL #: (Contact Eagle Co. Assessors Office at 970 - 328 -8640 for parcel #)) D. ZONING: E. NAME OF OWNER(S): 'V A 12_ e t �� � MAILING ADDRESS: '3rp WrLl� e Ca PHONE. F. OWNER(S) SIGNATURE(S): R� G. NAME OF APPLICANT: MAILING ADDRESS; H. TYPE OF REVIEW AND FEE: PHONE: ❑ New Construction - $200 Constriction of a new building. ❑ Addition - $50 Includes any addition where square footage is added to any residential or building. ❑ Minor Alteration - (�� conuncrcial eludes minor changes to buildings and site improvements, such as, reroofing, painting, window additions, Ian scaping, ences and retaining walls, etc. DRB fees are to be paid at the time of submittal. Later, when applying for a building pennit, please identify the accurate valuation of the project. The Town of Vail will adjust the fee according to the project valuation. PLEASE SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION, ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND THE FEE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD. VAIL, COLORADO 81657. SA v BRUCE W&LARD 1726 BuFFMR CREEK ROAD VAII , COLORADO 81657 Phone: (970) 477 -2650 Pax: (970) 477 -2651 entail: quikfeat@west.net To: Dail Design Review Board From: Bruce Willard Date: October S, 1999 Subjecl Plan review far Zneimer development on North side Of 8uf ehr Creek Road Dear Review Board, I understand you will be reviewing Ed Zneimer's plans for the development of 6 -home project on the North side of Buffehr Creels Road later dug week at one of yo across from the proposed development, I wanted to ass al meets a property owner d Passed these same comments onto Ed Zneimer p along thoughts and comments on the project. I by mail a couple e of weeks ago_ As a 6 -home development, I am very concerned that the density of structures, to Buffeter Creels Road and to each other, the steep roximity of such structures vegetation threaten to eep grade of the Property and the lack of natural scxeening permanently change the low - density, rural feet of the neighborhood. As I mentioned to Ed, I was drawn to Buffehr Creek am because of its more open, less dense r home there for this reason. I genuinely respect Ed's right to develop the parcel but I w like t $ th development respect the spirit of the neighborhood and work within the limitations of the that he'l developing. Despite past approvals for up to 6 homes, it is steep slope parcel mach more ifn1 and responsible given the my opinion that 4 homes would be the negative visas( im act that co of actual piece. Not only would this mitigate Piece of p P construction of 6 'Imphy" homes would have on such a steep and exposed Property but it would mitigate the extra burden on roads, services, utilities and other that such a large and challenging development would cause. I recognize that these comments may come a tittle late and I am not sure what, if anything, can be done but I wanted to let you know my ughts. tho Perhaps there's a way to address the density issue or some appropriate development compromise that can be put forth. Thanks fOr listening, Sincerely, 5 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: October 22, 1990 SUBJECT: A request for approval of a major change to the existing development approval for the Valley, Phase VI. Applicant: Edward Zneimer I. INTRODUCTION The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) reviewed the development proposal for The Valley, Phase VI in a work session on September 10, 1990. From that meeting, it was apparent that the reduction in dwelling units (from 42 to 26) and the reduction in GRFA (from 77,150 to 65,900 sq. ft.) made the project much better than the previous approval. The PEC did have significant concerns, including preservation of the meadow and the impact of the retaining walls. Those items, among others, are discussed below. Staff wanted to point out that this review process is unique from most projects which the PEC reviews. The review is a requirement of the annexation ordinance, which did not include any specific criteria or standards which the project must meet. Because this is not a Special Development District (SDD), the only evaluation criteria to be used is to compare the existing, approved plan to the proposed one. The ordinance has been attached to this memo as Exhibit A. The two major changes since the work session are that the applicant reconfigured the road plan so that there is a single intersection on Buffehr Creek Road and the applicant proposed to delete all secondary units from the development. Staff encouraged the applicant to maintain the option for caretaker units in the development with the intent of creating some employee housing. At this time, the applicant will consider allowing the units as long as the GRFA for the caretaker is not deducted from the available GRFA for each envelope presented at the work session. By allowing 800 square feet of GRFA to be used strictly for a caretaker unit, the total GRFA for the project becomes 65,900 square feet, still 11,255 square feet less than the existing approval. Additional GRFA may be added to the caretaker from the amount allocated to the primary dwelling unit if it is not used for the primary unit; however, no caretaker unit shall exceed 1200 square feet. With this approval, no caretaker units will be 1 required and none may be built. The reason the Town is not requiring the applicant to build a certain number of these units is because the applicant is not requesting an SDD, variance, or another review which the Town could condition the approval with a requirement to build units. II. BACKGROUND This review is a request for approval of a modification to the existing development plan for Phase VI of The Valley. The original plan was approved as a PUD by Eagle County in the fall of 1980. That plan included 42 townhouses with a total GRFA of 77,150 sq. ft. The plan called for three clusters of units with a group of recreation amenities (tennis courts, swimming pool, trails, etc.). When the property was annexed by the Town of Vail, a provision of the annexation ordinance required that any major modification to the County approved plan would require PEC approval. In that same ordinance, Residential Cluster (RC) zoning was applied to this property. Under the annexation ordinance, all standards not addressed by the Eagle County approved plan must meet RC zoning requirements. In 1981, a developer proposed a revised site plan which the PEC approved. The amended plan maintained all 42 dwelling units as well as the GRFA approved by the County and the scheme of attached, clustered townhouses. Though that plan was never built, it is still valid and could be built today after the applicant received updated Design Review Board (DRB) approvals. Both the 1980 and 1981 plans are attached at the end of this memo as Exhibits B and C so the board can compare the 1981 plan, which is buildable, to the proposed one. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION At this time, the applicant is proposing 13 detached single family homes, each which may have a secondary unit. This creates a total of 26 units. The caretaker units will be deed restricted so that they cannot be sold separately from the primary residences. In addition, they must meet all the requirements for an employee unit listed in the Primary /Secondary section of the Zoning Code (Section 18.13.080 (B)). Of the 13 buildings, six will be located north of Buffehr Creek Road on the south facing slope; and seven will be located across Buffehr Creek Road in the meadow at the base of the forested slope (see attached site plan) . The development has been divided into three phases. The first two phases are the east and west clusters (respectively) on the south side of Buffehr Creek Road. The third and last will be the six homes on the north side of the road. The structures in phase 2 one (Lots 11 -13) will each have approximately 3500 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA). Each house in phase two (Lots 7 -10) and phase three (Lots 1 -6) will have approximately 4500 square feet of GRFA. This results in a total GRFA of 55,500 square feet. In addition to this amount, 10,400 square feet of GRFA (800 x 13) may be used for caretaker units. Combining the GRFA from the primary units with any caretaker units results in a Possible total of 65,900 square feet. The developer is proposing a Tyrolean style of architecture, but has the option to vary that in the future. No subdivision plat is proposed at this time as the PEC approval is only for the revisions in the development plan - -a requirement of annexation. The owner would most likely proceed with a single family subdivision following development plan approval. IV. ZONING ANALYSIS The analysis compares the proposal to the most recent PEC approval and the RC Zone District. The RC standards apply for other development standards per the annexation ordinance. 1981 PEC Approval Current Proposal RC Zoning Site Area: height: GRFA: DUs: Density: 21.45 acres 21.45 acres typical unit 32 ft. 33 ft. maximum 77,150 sq. ft. 42 2 DUs /acre *Includes 13 caretaker units 55,500 sq. ft. 65,900 sq. ft.* 26* 1.2 DUs /acre* V. STAFF COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS A. Site Plan: 21.45 acres 33 ft. maximum 59,895 sq. ft. 29.9 6 DUs /acre maximum The proposed site plan is a major improvement to the previously approved plan as the impacts have been significantly reduced. The biggest difference is the change in the number of dwelling units and decrease of GRFA. This plan has 16 fewer units than the previous plan. The development will appear less dense and will 3 have fewer impacts since the design has been changed from attached dwelling units to single family homes. The land previously devoted for guest parking, tennis courts, and a swimming pool for the condominium complex will now be left in its natural state. Lastly, the current proposal has 21650 sq. ft. less GRFA than the previous plan. 1. Building envelopes: The proposal uses building envelopes to identify the location of each house. The envelopes are not proposed to be platted. There will be approximately 40 to 80 feet between each building envelope. Since the PEC work session, the applicant has enlarged the envelopes to approximately 50 by 90 and has decided that each envelope will be adequate for all of the future construction without developing standards for encroachments into the open space. All roof eaves, porches, decks, etc. will be contained within the building envelope. Though the envelopes have been designed to accommodate all of the future construction, the applicant would like to set up d process which will allow changes, if needed. The applicant has proposed the following language which will allow some flexibility for the siting of the houses. The criteria listed below will be used by the DRB to approve any modifications to the envelopes. "Building envelopes indicated upon the approved site plan may be modified with approval of the DRB based upon detailed review of an individual architectural and site plan for an individual dwelling unit. The DRB shall find that the modification to any building envelope does not substantially result in any negative impacts upon the site, adjoining property, or have any adverse impact upon required geologic hazard considerations. If an association of home owners within the project is formed, any modification of a building envelope shall also conform to the rules and regulations adopted by t he association. Any modification shall not exceed 15 feet and in no case shall any structure be built in the 20 foot setbacks shown on the approved development plan." 4 2. open space: The applicant has committed to preserving all the areas outside the building envelopes as open space. The area between the private roads and Buffehr Creek Road will be further restricted with this approval so that no fences or domestic -style landscaping will be allowed. The areas will be preserved in the natural state that exists today. The developer will be responsible for maintaining this area until the development is subdivided and, through that process, a home owners association or other body is created to take over the responsibility. The spaces immediately around the building envelopes may be "improved" with sod lawns and fences, but no structures. 3. Trails: The hiking /mountain bike trail, located on the northwest portion of the site, runs through building envelopes 1 and 5. It goes from Buffehr Creek Road north to Red and White Mountain. The Forest Service agrees that the current alignment has not been established long enough to be recognized legally and will take responsibility to relocate it along the creek. The new alignment will be on public land. The Forest Service plans to do the construction in the summer of 1991, which is prior to the time which the applicant plans to construct this phase of the development. B. Comparison to Elk Meadows The PEC commented that this project should be designed more along the lines of Elk Meadows, the SDD adjacent to the site to the east. Staff believes there are several reasons why the two sites are different and deserve different solutions. 1- -There is a dedicated utility easement that runs through the valley, located approximately parallel to Buffehr Creek Road. The area between the road and this Utility easement varies. In Phase VI, Buffehr Creek Road winds in and out, leaving only one building envelope between the road and the easement. In Elk Meadows, the road cuts to the north, leaving adequate room for four of the five buildings. 5 V P rI 2 - -The slope from the road to the meadow is much steeper in Elk Meadows. The approved design works much better on a steep slope because the houses can be tucked into the slope. Even if the Elk Meadows style of site planning could be done for Phase VI, the end result may not be an improvement because the houses would stick up higher and be more visible. 3 - -The rock fall hazard is more severe on the Elk Meadows site requiring more mitigation. By placing the houses in the slope, internal mitigation was all that was needed. 4 -- Through the SDD process, the Elk Meadows site plan was approved with a three foot setback from Buffehr Creek Road right -of -way. By allowing the setback encroachment, enough room for the construction was created. 5 - -By placing the homes on the far side of the meadow, the meadow that is preserved will be visible to the public. The conditions of approval for this request require that it be preserved in a natural state. C. Roads Walls and Drainag The road configuration has been revised since the work session so that both access roads intersect Buffehr Creek Road at the same location. The roads will be private roads. The slopes range from 7.0 percent to 8.6 percent, with the driveway to lot 4 at 10 percent. The Town's subdivision regulations allow private roads to reach 9.0 percent slope without requiring a variance. The driveway to lot four will require an approval from the Town Engineer (with a possible heating requirement), but does not require a variance. The walls needed for the upper road do not exceed 6 feet in height. A five foot high cut wall is proposed from the intersection approximately Half the distance up the access road. From that point, a five foot high fill wall will be installed for the rest of the distance. Near the end of the road, in addition to the fill wall, another six foot high cut wall will be needed. See plans and sections attached to this memo. The walls will be constructed with interlocking precast concrete blocks, similar to those approved for Spraddle Creek. Texture, shape, and color will be determined by the DRB. Landscaping will be required to soften the appearance of the walls. The planting plan should 0 f include frequent groupings above and below the walls that breakup the mass. DRB will give final approval to the planting plan. On the lower portion of the development, no walls will be needed. Fill will be added to the meadow, ranging from two feet at the east end to eight feet at the west end. The applicants originally proposed a typical road section of 18 feet with two 2 foot wide shoulders or gutters. In order to proceed with this development approval, the applicants have expanded the section to 22 feet with 2 foot gutters or shoulders. Planning staff generally supports less asphalt. If Fire Department and Public Works concerns can be addressed, the applicant may apply for a variance to the subdivision standards for a reduced road width. In that case, staff will bring the variance request to the PEC for their review at a later date. Drainage will be accommodated with curb the upper road. Swales will handle the lower road. One drainage easement will convey the drainage off site to Buffehr detention pond will be built, since it i recommended in the drainage study. and gutter for drainage on the be required to Creek. No ,gas not Staff believes that the proposed infrastructure is reasonable. The walls do not require variances since no portion of the walls will exceed six feet in height. Staff supports the road grades and widths, since they meet the code requirements. D. Hazards The only hazard shown on the Town maps is high severity rock fall. A final report by Arthur Mears states that the houses below Buffehr Creek Road will be adequately protected with the new road and drainage swales which will be constructed for phase one. The preliminary rock fall study used for the work session indicated that a berm would be required in the meadow to protect the lower houses. This is no longer the case. Mears recommended an optional berm, but also said the swale for the road would be adequate protection. There are only two houses above Buffehr Creek Road which need mitigation (building envelopes 3 and 4). The Mears report states that these structures can be protected with a six foot high rock fall fence or by 7 internal mitigation within the north facing walls. Staff believes that the internal mitigation will preserve the natural character of The Valley much better than a fence located on the slope above the homes. The applicant has pointed out that the drawing from the Mears report showing the internal mitigation precludes north facing windows for the first two and possibly the third floors (See exhibit D). One possible solution is to zig zag the floor plans, installing east and west facing windows which will allow light into the rooms on the north side of the two houses. Staff believes that this architectural constraint is reasonable, given the alternative of an unsightly, 330 foot long fence. E. Density The proposed density, assuming every secondary unit would be built, is approximately two thirds of the previous approval and less than what RC zoning would allow. The GRFA will be approximately two thirds of the previous approval (a change from 77,150 sq. ft. to 65,900 sq. ft.) and is also under the RC maximum. Staff's opinion is that the proposal is clearly a reduction in impacts from the previous approval and is a much better solution for the development of the site. F. Architectural guideline The applicant plans to build Tyrolean style homes, but would like to leave the architectural decisions to the DRB and does not intend to draw up any guidelines at this time. The Town typically requires specific plans, like architectural guidelines, in SDD reviews. But since this review is a fulfillment of an annexation requirement and is not an SDD, staff can support the position of the applicant. G. Phasing plans Staff believes that the longer portions of this site remain as meadow, the better. To achieve that goal, staff recommends that one phase be completed before another is begun. The improvements that will be constructed in each phase include the houses, drainage facilities, roads, utilities, and landscaping. These improvements must be completed in each phase prior to construction starting in another phase. The improvements must be built from Buffehr Creek Road to any unit under construction prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy or Temporary Certificate E3 of Occupancy. If occupancy is requested prior to the installation of any improvements, the applicant must escrow 125% of the construction costs prior to the Town issuing a T.C.O. The applicant may adhere to the plan described above for phasing and financial guarantees or may, through a subdivision process, choose to comply with the stricter regulations on financial guarantees. At a minimum, the requirements of this approval must be followed. H. Fire De artment concerns Fire department concerns include the turn around area in the cul -de -sacs and the access to lot 4. The turn around areas appear to be adequate, but as a condition of approval, the Fire Department will need to see engineering drawings of the cul -de -sacs showing that each meet the minimum turning distances. The concerns regarding lot 4 are that the driveway is too steep for a fire truck to climb, resulting in excessive distance from the fire truck location to all points on the perimeter of the building. The applicant has options, including sprinkling the building, to meet the fire code. Ensuring adequate fire protection for lot four will be another condition of approval. VI. CONCLUSION Staff supports the development plan because it results in less density and a better site plan than the 1981 approval. Though there will be a significant loss of meadow from what exists today, staff believes that there will be more meadow when this development is built out than what would have been left with the previous approval. Therefore, planning staff recommends approval of this development plan with the following conditions: (Bold type is changes made by PEC at meeting) 1) Prior to the Town approving any building permits for this development, the applicant shall provide to the Fire Department: a -- engineering drawings showing adequate turning distances for each of the cul -de -sacs, and b -- a mitigation plan for lot 4, which may include sprinkling, which meets the Fire Department requirements. 9 . t w 2) Except for the area within building envelopes 5 and 6, the applicant shall restrict the open spaces between the access roads and Buffehr Creek Road so that no structures (including fences, sheds, or accessory buildings) shall be built in this area. In addition, no landscaping shall be planted in the area that is inconsistent with the existing native landscaping. 3) The applicant shall design all driveways so that the simplest, most direct means of access to the site is provided. Driveways that wind up the hillside to gain elevation shall not be approved. 4) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall dedicate a drainage easement, final drainage report, and final road engineering to the Town of Vail which meets the standards of the Public Works department. 5) Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancies or temporary certificate of occupancies for building envelopes 1 through 6, the applicant shall install the proposed landscaping to mitigate the appearance of the walls. In addition, the applicant must provide a financial guarantee to the Town for the period of two winters to be used for landscape replacement. 6) Prior to issuance of building permits for building envelopes 3 or 4, the applicant shall submit plans showing that the proposed building meets the internal mitigation requirements of the Mear's report dated September, 1990. 7) The applicant has the option of including a caretaker unit within each structure using an additional 800 sq. ft. of GRFA to the amount allocated to each building envelope for the caretaker unit. The units must comply with Section 18.13.080 (B). Up to 400 square feet of unused GRFA from the primary unit may be transferred to the caretaker unit, however, no caretaker unit shall exceed 1200 sq. ft. 8) The applicant shall design all retaining walls located in the front yard setback with terracing so that none exceed three feet in height. 9) Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or a temporary certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct all improvements from Buffer Creek Road to the unit under construction. If occupancy is requested prior to the installation of any improvements, the applicant must escrow 125% of the construction cost prior to the Town issuing a C.O. or T.C.O. Improvements in this case shall include landscaping, wall construction, roads, drainage, and utilities. 10 10) Prior to the issuance of any building permits for this development, the applicant shall provide a letter from the Forest Service guaranteeing the reconstruction of the trail that crosses this property. 11) Prior to the issuance of C- or T.C.O. for building envelopes 5 and 6 the applicant shall plant a densely vegetated slope of landscaping between those construction sites and Buffer Creek Road. This landscaping shall extend from the construction area all the way east to the intersection. 12) The applicant has the option to reduce the length of the upper road and locate the cul de sac further to the east. 11 U) z 0 H E-i U W cn i i a e EXHIBIT A • ORDINANCE NO. 13 (Series of 1981) 75 S . fiontace road vail, colGrDca sIS57 office o; cws n c: AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING ZONING DISTRICTS ON CERTAIN DEVELOPMENTS AND PARCELS OF PROPERTY IN THE RECENTLY ANNEXED WEST VAIL AREA; ACCEPTING PRIOR APPROVALS OF THE EAGLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RELATING THERETO; SPECIFYING AIIENDMENT PROCEDURES; SETTING FORTH CONDITIONS RELATING THERETO; AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL: AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO. WHEREAS the town of Vail, Colorado, recently annexed the West Vail area, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, effective on December 31, 1980; and WHEREAS Chapter 18.68 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail sets forth procedures for the imposition of zoning districts on recently annexed areas; and WHEREAS, Section 31 -12 -115 (s) C.R.S, 1973, as amended, requires the Town to bring the newly annexed West Vail area under its zoning ordinance within ninety (90) days after the effective date of said annexation; and WHEREAS, because of certain actions taken by and approvals of the Eagle County Commissioners relating to the within specified properties the Town Council is of the opinion that the zoning designation for these areas should recognize said approvals and conditions; and WHEREAS the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has considered the zoning to be imposed on the newly annexed West Vail area at a public hearing and has made a recommendation relating thereto, to the Town Council; and '., WHEREAS the Town Council considers that it is in the interest �. of the public health, safety and welfare to so zone said property; "�- NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN , OF VAIL, THAT: xr , Section 1 Procedures Fulfilled The procedures for the determination of the zoning districts to be imposed on the newly annexed West Vail area as set forth in Chapter 18.68 of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled. • rvl l.lUllJ Vi Llle 11 ClY l\ , 1.11 CXCSU n�r5 t, x :111 LL1CU. Pursuant to Chapter 18.68 of the Vail Municipal Code, the properties described in subsections e, f, g, h & i below are a portion of the West Vail area annexed to the Town through the enactment of Ordinance No. 43, Series of 1980, of the Town of Vail, Colorado, effective on the thirty -first day of December, 1980, and hereby zoned as follows: a. The developments and parcels of property specified below in Subsections e, f, g, h & i shall be developed in accordance with the i prior agreement approvals and actions of the Eagle County Commissioners r as the agreements, approvals and actions relate to each development or I parcel of property. b. The documents and instruments relating to the prior county' approvals, actions and agreements are presently on file in the [ Department of Community Development of the Town of Vail and said approvals, actions and agreements are hereby accepted and approved t by the Town of Vail. c. All buildings for which a building permit has not been issued, on the effective date of the annexation of West Vail shall comply with Design Review Criteria of the.Vail Municipal Code prior to the issuance of a building permit. d. The Community Development Department may issue staff approvals for minor changes in site design or other minor aspects of the plan for any of the specified developments or parcels. These proposed changes ! may be approved as presented, approved with conditions or denied by the Staff with an appeal within 10 days of the Staff decision to the Planning and Environmental Commission. For major changes, such as s E a re- design of a major part of the site, changes as use, density control, height or other development standards, a Planning and Environmental Commission review should be required. The procedure t for changes shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.66 of the Vail Municipal Code. e. The following developments and parcels of property shall be subject to the terms of this ordinance: (1) The Valley, Phases 1 through 6. (2) Spruce Creek Townhouses. (3) Meadow Creek Condominiums. ■ 0 0 (4) Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club. (5) Briar Patch, Lots G -2, G -5 and G -6 Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 2. (6) Casa Del Sol Condominiums. For any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County Commissioners' approvals, agreements or actions, the developments and parcels of property specified in this subsection (e) shall be zoned Residential Cluster (RC). f. Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing No. 4, shall be subject to the terms of this ordinance. For any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County Commissioners' approval, agreement or action, this parcel of property shall be zoned Single Family Zone District (SFR) with a special pro- vision that an employee unit (as defined and restricted in Section 18.13.08C, of the Vail Municipal Code) will be subject to approvals as per Section 18.13.080. The secondary unit may not exceed one third of the total { Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) allowed on the lot as per the Single Family Zone District Density Control (Section 18.10.090 of the Vail Municipal Code) and Greenbelt & Natural Open Space (GNOS). g. Lot G-4, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2, has been the subject of litigation in the District Court of Eagle County, and a Court order has been issued regarding the development of this property. The Town has further approved Resolution #5 of 1981 in regard to a subse- ner. The Residential Cluster (RC) Zone quent agreement with the ow } District will be the applicable zone on this property to guide the i future development of the parcel, working within the bounds set by f the Court Order and Resolution No. 5, Series of 1981. h. Block 10, Vail Intermountain Subdivision and the Elliott Ranch Subdivision, shall be subject to the terms of this ordinance. For any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County Commissioners' approval, agree- ment or action, Block 10 and the Elliott Ranch, shall be zoned Primary/ Secondary District. Lots 8, 15_& 16 of Block 10, Vail Intermountain, shall be zoned Greenbelt & Natural Open Space (GNOS). i. Vail Commons, Vail Das Shone Filing No. 4, shall be subject to the terms of this ordinance. For any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County Commissioners' agreement, approval or action, Vail Commons shall be zoned Commercial Core III (CCIII). - e IL o � Section 3. As provided in Section 1 8.08.030 of the Vail Municipal Code, the zoning administrator is hereby directed to promptly modify and amend the Official Zoning Map to indicate the zoning specified herein. Section 4 If any part, section subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance, and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, sub - section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 5 The Council hereby states that this ordinance is necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 3rd day of March, 1981, and a public hearing on this ordinance shall be held at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the 17th day of March, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Building of the Town of Vail. U r ATTEST: Town Clerk INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY March 17, 1981. ;i 1 i t i _ lr ayor ATTESTS /J Eft X 1 va pq i t t IQ Au x 1 - 3 1 Cx ZL (' in I t I r ,, ,.\ \ � I • cif �'� =• 1/ s ! r' i� a l+ i J \1 L . l a Y I i� U H H pq H x w th Ln 0 W W xxi 000 vfoo � N N sf avv r; C; �. EXHIBIT D Rock - Trajectory Energy- absorbing Barrier House Requiring Protection c FIGURE 7. Rockfall protection at uphill walls of houses on Lots , 3 and 4. Rockfall protection barrier should consist of unconsolidated, coarse - grained, well- drained gravel and small rocks that will absorb rock momentum. Design height (6.5 ft) is based on 1O,°o exceedence probability at location plus design rock radius. I p p, 0 � +•, a +Q Oro: Flexible � Frame or' • °P `p:0 Wire Mesh 04Qobbd0 V 00 °� °� i Gravel, :0 b_e: r• °� 10 0 ? Small rocks �QA00: (well draine Ob 6. ft iAo ° 5 Q °�o0�: r do : , �0 0 o$ � 0 c). °� e 2.Oft FIGURE 7. Rockfall protection at uphill walls of houses on Lots , 3 and 4. Rockfall protection barrier should consist of unconsolidated, coarse - grained, well- drained gravel and small rocks that will absorb rock momentum. Design height (6.5 ft) is based on 1O,°o exceedence probability at location plus design rock radius. I OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS This analysis of rockfall mitigation techniques and performance specifications of mitigation design was requested by Mr. Ed Zneimer and has the following objectives: a. Calculation of design rockfall bounce heights, velocities, and momentum at three locations requiring rockfall mitigation design; b. Calculations of the failure probabilities of rock- fall defenses at various locations, and C. Specification of the locations, sizes, and possible forms of rockfall protection. The conclusions and recommendations of this report are site specific, therefore they may not apply at other sites. Further- more, any substantial changes to building positions from those shown on Figure 5 of this report may invalidate the recommenda- tions of this study. Some of the conclusions of this study and the application of the Colorado Rockfall Simulation Program (CRSP) depend on observa- tions and field measurements made on June 21, 1990. These observations were reported in the "Rockfall Hazard Analysis, The Valley, Phase VI, Vail, Colorado,' submitted to Mr. Ed Zneimer on June 25, 1990. 2 APPLICATION OF "CRSP" AND ROCRFALL DESIGN PARAMETERS Rockfall mitigation design requires information about rock size and mass, rockfall velocity, and rockfall bounce heights at the Position of the mitigation device. These design parameters are determined by field observations and through application of the CRSP computer model, a stocastic model that outputs a statistical distribution of rock behavior at positions along the rockfall path. Design rock size, rockfall source location, slope inclina- tion, and ground hardness and roughness must be measured and estimated in order to apply CRSP. Design rock size was deter- mined to be a 2 -foot diameter rock during the field inspection of June 21. During the field work the rockfall source locations were located, the slopes of the most likely rockfall paths were surveyed, and the ground roughness and hardness were estimated. Historic (and pre historic) rockfall runout distances were also mapped and used to calibrate roughness and hardness.. Three analysis positions were considered for mitigation and used in the CRSP application: (A) a possible catching -fence location 60 feet above building envelopes 3 and 4, (B) the uphill walls of buildings 3 and 4, and (C) a possible berm location near the bottom of the valley. These positions are shown in Figure 5. Definitions of rockfall bounce heights and velocities are defined diagrammatically in Figure I. The statistical distribution of rockfall bounce heights and velocities at each of the three mitigation positions are summarized on Figures 2, 3, and 4. The t ROCRFALL MITIGATIO] THE VALLEY, PHAS Prepared For Mr. Ed Zneimer Prepared By Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc. Gunnison, Colorado September, 1990 bounce height and velocity distributions are given as "excee- dence" probabilities, therefore the probability that a random rockfall event will exceed a given value has been shown on these graphs. For example, the bounce - height graph on Figure 2 indi- cates a 25% probability that bounce height will exceed 4 feet at the fence location but only a 10% probability that it will exceed 6.5 feet. Velocity probabilities have been similarly determined and graphed. The distributions shown result from 100 simulated 2 -foot diameter rockfall events along the paths determined in the field survey. The computer printouts for the 100 rockfall simulations at each analysis position are given in appendices A - C, at the end of this report. It must be emphasized that the probabilities given in Figures 2, 3, and 4 apply to the 2 -foot diameter "design" rock only. Smaller rocks will also roll down the slope, but will attain lesser velocities and bounce heights; many small rockfalls will stop on the upper slopes and not reach the proposed building locations. Rockfall design specifications are based on the 10% exceedance probabilities shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4. This means that there exists one chance in ten that the design rockfall event will exceed mitigation design capacity. This is a reasonably conservative approach because the design rockfall event is expected only once in several decades and when this rare event does occur there is a 90% chance the mitigation will work. Of course, an even greater level of protection can be achieved by insisting on a smaller exceedence probability. 3 ROCRFALL MITIGATION FOR BUILDINGS 3 AND 4 Two forms of external rockfall defenses have been considered for protection of these two building sites: (A) a "flexible- post" fence, and (B) rockfall -wall barriers. (A) FLEXIBLE -POST FENCE The flexible -post fence could be located as shown by line A - A on Figure 5, approximately 60 feet north of the buildings. Fence design parameters, based on the loo exceedance probability are: bounce height = 6.5 feet; velocity = 37 ft /sec. Fence height, therefore, must be 7.5 feet (measured vertically), and is equal to the bounce height (6.5 feet) plus the rock radius (1.0 feet). The fence will stop 2 -foot diameter rocks or will reduce their speed so they will not cause damage. The fence posts (at approximately 30 -foot intervals) consist of a bundle of cables (similar to 3/8" or 1/2" guy wires) encased in 4" diameter galvanized steel tubing (Figure 6). A section of the cable bundle approximately 12" to 18" long is open and allowed to flex upon impact. The rock momentum, therefore, is dissipated gradually as the fence bends downslope at impact, instantaneous impact forces are reduced, and massive, expensive structures are avoided. f!L L ✓ � i �wL�. Although these fences are not in widespread use, prototypes have .- been tested extensively by the Colorado Highway Department and have been very successful in stopping rockfall. Estimated costs for a 7.5 -high fence is $60 - $100 per foot of fence length. A 330 -foot long fence as shown in Figure 5 would cost approximately +.` $20,000 to $33,000. The fences are not mass produced at the present time. Raw materials would need to be purchased and assembled at the site. (B) ROCKFALL WALL BARRIERS Rockfall -wall barriers would eliminate structural damage from the design (10 %- probability) rockfall event if built on the uphill sides of buildings 3 and 4 (Figures 5 and 7). These barriers must be 6.5 feet high (5.5 -foot bounce height plus 1.0 -foot rock radius). They should consist of steel frames covered with coarse wire mesh and filled with unconsolidated gravel and small rocks. The structures should be approximately 2 -feet thick. Pre- fabri- cated "Gabion" baskets, in common use along highways, could be substituted. Similar to the flexible -post fences discussed above, the rock momentum will be dissipated by the barrier and damage to the wall eliminated. Construction and installation of the rockfall -wall barriers could be done locally. Protection of buildings 3 and 4 would require an estimated 70 feet of length and a volume of 45 yd per build- ing. Costs would depend upon local construction costs and the cost and transportation of the unconsolidated gravel fill materi- al. As noted above, Gabion rock - filled baskets could be substi- tuted. Local cost for these baskets, which should maintain the height requirements, have not been determined. BUILDING -WALL REINFORCEMENT A third alternative form of protection for buildings 3 and 4 is to allow rockfall impact with the uphill building walls and design internal wall structural members to resist rock impact. As in the above systems " A " and "B," the major construction elements in the building (beams, cross - bracing, etc), must absorb rockfall momentum. For flexible construction, structural deflec- tion must be considered in computing the impact force, P. Equating the boulder kinetic energy with work expended in bending deflection yields the relationship P = (M V K) . - 5 , (1) where M is boulder mass (691/32.2 = 21.5 lbs -ft /sec V is velocity (36 ft /sec at 10% probability level [Figure 3]), and K is a stiffness factors. For a simple beam, K = 48 EI /L ( 2) • 1 where EI is beam stiffness and L is beam length. The relation- ships expressed (1) and (2) indicate that flexible structural members are more efficient in resisting impact than stiff ones. The actual expression for stiffness, K, will probably be differ- ent than (2), depending on structural- engineering details. In general, rockfall protection at buildings 3 and 4 must a. avoid windows within the lower 6.5 feet; b. assure structural elements can resist P; and C. assure rocks will not penetrate walls between the beams. The additional cost for reinforcing the building walls will depend on structural engineering and architectural details which will become known in final design. Of the 3 structural - mitigation options discussed in this section, only the flexible -post fence will prevent rocks from reaching the buildings. The other two options (rockfall -wall barriers and building -wall reinforcement) obviously allow rockfall impact with the building and would also allow rocks to roll between the buildings and across Lions Ridge Loop. The residual risk to persons in the area, therefore, is larger with the latter two Mitigation options. Even this residual risk is small, however, because major rockfalls are expected to occur only once every few years or less, thus the probability of encounter with a person who may be outside and exposed just when the rockfall occurs is very small. 4 ROCKFALL MITIGATION FOR BUILDINGS 9 - 13 Buildings 9 - 13 are located across the flat valley floor, near the southern limit of rockfall potential (Figure 5). No rocks which could be clearly identified with the source outcrop on the hill could be found at the proposed building locations, and the CRSP simulation indicated that only 35% of the rocks rolled as far as the buildings. The simulated rocks that did reach the buildings were rolling (not bouncing above the ground), with typical rolling velocities of approximately 20 ft /sec or less (Appendix C). Rockfall events of this character could dent the lower part of building siding, but would not endanger the struc- ture or its occupants. Furthermore, such major events are expected only once every decade or longer. Because rockfall energies will be small at the mid - valley loca- tion, therefore the fill bank on the north side of the proposed subdivision road, located directly north of Lots 9 - 13, will stop almost all rocks. In my opinion, this road is sufficient mitigation. *1 Additional structural mitigation for these rare, relatively low - energy rockfall events is not recommended unless occupants of these buildings demand complete protection from rockfall. If such complete protection is desired, it can be attained by building a 3 -foot high rockfall barrier near the center of the valley, as located on Figure 5 and diagrammed on Figure 8. The rockfall barrier shown on Figure 8 consists of a retaining wall with a vertical face toward the rockfall direction consisting of railroad ties or similar weather - treated timber of large cross section. These ties should be braced on the uphill side with steel fence posts driven into the ground at approximately 4 -foot intervals, and should be filled on the downhill side. This will stop the 10 %- probability rockfall event (Figure 4), which has a bounce height of 1.2 feet and a velocity of 26 ft /sec. 5 SCALING: REMOVAL OF ROCKFALL SOURCE This type of rockfall mitigation is sometimes used where obvious, active rockfall source areas can be identified and removal of rocks can clearly reduce the hazard. Removal of all the loose rocks could be completed above the proposed subdivision, probably within 10 - 15 man -days of work. Field observations of the bedrock outcroppings and lower slopes indicate that most of the loose rock could probably be removed by blasting and /or prying rocks loose and forcing them to roll down the slope. Traffic control on the Lions Ridge Loop road would obviously be required during scaling. Although scaling would reduce rockfall risk to an acceptable level immediately after the work is completed, it is not a permanent solution at this location. In time, the normal weath- ering process will produce additional source material and the rockfall hazard will gradually increase with time. With the houses in place, additional scaling to reduce the rockfall hazard could not be completed. Report submitted by, Arthur I. Mears, P.E. WUJUA W W W W W W XXX VI N V) coo N O O N '-NV vva r C; N N N Rock trajectory soon* P" -- . - Local Velocity Bounce Height Analysis 'o Ground � Surface Point FIGURE 1 . Definitions of velocity and bounce height at the analysis point. The statistical distribution of these values are competed by the GRSP rockfall model and are shown for 100 simulated rockfalls of 2 -foot diameter rocks at 3 different slope positions in Figures 2, 3, and 4. i N N N r . W W W W W sxs N in to coo In 00 — N r N V Q V at rrri t`1CN . 40 a� U r, O cCI x U O x . U2 U Q 10' 5 50f t/ s 40 U1 CH 0 30 a� x U O 20 N Q 10 0 25 5 Z5 Probability of exceeding velocity .iuo70 FIGURE 2 . Exceedance probabilities for bounce heights and velocities _r ., -- _� -,4- --4. -- ---T, + , ncci - hi a fant.p location. aUproximately 60 I 0 25 5 75 100% Probability of exceeding bounce height N N N W W W W W W N N N O O O coo N �Na r c� Cr cvNC4 �F lof t x a� U 5 MM r.q U O 0 N U Q 50f t/ 40 1 30 U O N 20 x U O h0 ri 10 - Q C Z5 50 75 100% Probability of exceeding bounce height 0 25 50 75 l00% Probability of exceeding velocity FIGURE 3 Exceedance probabilities for bounce heights and velocities of 2 -foot diameter rock at possible house locations at Lnt.n A an& L. W W 1 W W ioo goo kn 4A �N NO INN INN A ° n t CH x U 0 va U U 0 a h0 Q 5 ft 4 3 2 1 0 40f t/s 30 20 U O r-I N x O 10 x O Q 0 25 50 75 100/ Probability of exceeding bounce height 0 25 50 -- 75 100% Probability of exceeding velocity FIGURE 4 . Exceedance probabilities for bounce heights and velocities at berm location in valley bottom to protect Lots 9 - 13. Ro P On V .sir ice►...— VIA a 9 FIGURE = Recommended locations of flexible -post fence uphill rockfall- barrier wall (B), and North railroac_i >arthen barrier (C). Building envelopes are from September 18, 1990 site plan. Scale: 1 " =50' 7o� ' � es qjtr /J � b -a 00 W L 6 C7 4000 F C tea �y,� - -- E �. r ,, n U I L.1 n EASEMENT �x►�m 16 Pitoo, FIGURE 6 . Flexible -post rockfall fence located 60 feet uphill of buildings 3 and 4. Exposed cable near base of fence posts enable fence to flex upon rock impact and reduce forces on structure members and foundations. Design fence height (7.5 ft) is based on 1Q% exceedence Probability at lnca.t;nn plus design rock radius (1.0 ft). H U1 n HNF- W W W W W W Z n n 61 coo noo �- N '-Nv v vv cacir N N N �a a ® 4" diameter galvanized steel tube of 3/8" or 1/2" ,able, t . 1 N N N us LU W W W xxx IAN N O O O IA 0 0 N N R atva CIN N rrn . � Rock \ Trajectory '•'* Energy- absorbing Barrier • �i House Requiring Protection i Flexible Frame or Wire Mesh Gravel, Small rocks (well draine I I 0 0 0 0 �oa o�0.O ° : .o v _o•�,••o on 0 0 , 0 ,Oo � 0 00 6 . f t p.o0 oDo 5 0 0 () 0 0 0 6 0 0. , Q00000 0 0 0 o0 4-2.Oft —� FIGURE 7. Rockfall protection at uphill walls of houses on Lots 3 and 4. Rockfall protection barrier should consist of unconsolidated, coarse - grained, well- drained gravel and small rocks that will absorb rock momentum. Design height (6.5 ft) is based on 10% exceedence probability at location plus design rock radius. W I WWW W W W N N N coo N O O r N Na N N N N N N ® F 1.0 1 FIGURE 8 . Optional rockfall barrier to protect units 9 - 13• Vertical uphill face is made of railroad ties or similar material and is braced with vertical fence posts at a spacing of 4 feet. 4 Appendix A CG output for design of flexibl, -t roAfall fence , located 60 feet above buildings 3 and 4. COLORADO ROC }FALL SIMULATION PROGRAM FILE NAME \rcck:site \zneimer. ROCK STATISTICS 691 LB SPHERICAL ROCK 1 FT RADIUS NUMBER OF CELLS 11 NUMBER OF ROCKS 100 w ANALYSIS POSITION 20o INITIAL Y ZONE 475 TO 485 INITIAL X VELOCITY 1 FT /SEC INITIAL Y VELOCITY —1 FT /SEC TANGENTIAL COEFFICIENT NORMAL COEFFICIENT BEGINNING ENDING SURFACE RESTITUTION X,Y X,Y CELL # ROUGHNESS S .3 �� , 470 76 , 410 1 1.5 . 3 76 410 SB 4o8 88 408 118 , 385 ti 1. 5 . 8 .3 118 385 199 a 332 4 1.5 • 8 .3 199 , 332 288 , 285 5 1 .8 .3 3 288 , 285 377 , 252 6 •5 .8 , .35 377 , , 252 392 , 244 7 .42 392 244 426 , 244 8 .1 . 95 .35 426 , 244 446 , 236 9 . .3 .85 35 446 , 2 36 546 , 233 11 •3 .85 • . 546 , 233 587 , 234 11 .3 .85 4 FILE NAME: \rocE:site \zneimer.3 ANALYSIS POINT AVERAGE VELOCITY MINIMUM VELOCITY STANDARD DEVIATION (VELOCITY) MAXI BOUNCE HEIGHT MAXIMUM KINETIC ENERGY 0 X= 200 Y= 331 52 FT /SEC ^4 FT /SEC 4 FT /SEC -10.54 FEET 29198 FT LB BOUNCE ANALYSIS POINT BOUNCE HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION HEIGHT 9 " 4 —z 6 4 3 5 3 4 7 .3 4 --- -- 4 2 4 s 1 4 . (j C7 Roll��� i8 10 FREQUENCY 0 10 40 J0 60 FREQUENCY ANALYSIS POINT VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION 3 1£££ £££CCCCCC£CC£CCCC£££CCC£C££CC £ £££ 4 VELOCITY 28 � 15 • FILE NAME: BOUNCE \rock:site \ BOUNCE r H 3. GRAPH HEIGHT 11 q 4 4 f£ rrc rr rC C 8 4 ££ rrcc££rrc r£rC££ 7 4 rrrr r rrrrr££Cr£rrrr£r£C b 4 rCr££r£crr£r£r££Crr £ r£C£Crrr C 5 4 CCCC£C£CrrCCCCC£CCCCCC£C £ f£C r£ rrrrr rC£C£r£C£C££££££C££C£CCrr £ rrr £r CC 4 4 4 £r££r£ rr £ £r£rrrrrrr£r££Cc£rrrrrrrr££r£r r£ 4rCCC££C££frCCC£££rC£Cr £ rC££rCC££rC££££C£ £CCC rrrrrrrcrr 1 4r rCCC£CCC CC£rrrrrrrr£Cr£rr£r£r£CCCC£r£r£ U 9HORIZONTAL9D 293 391 489 DISTANCE VELOCITY GRAPH VELO 61 4 5 ££ £r�r rr£f£ £ ££C rrr£££r f� W 587 45 4 r£ £r£C££rrrrCC££££C£££rrr££Crrrr C£ 41 4 r ££ r££ r£r££rCr£r££C££rC££C £ rC£C £ r £ r£ r££rr 37 4 C C£££C r£C££ r ££CCr£CCr£CC£r£r£Crrrrrrr£rr r£ r£CC r££C£C££££ £££C£CCr£r£C£CrCCrrr£rCCCrC£C££ ^9 4 CCC rrCCCrC£C£££ CECC£C£££rrr£C£C£££r£ 25 4C£ CC r£C r£C£ C£££CC r£ £ C C£rCCrCCCCrr££C££C£C 2 4rC£r£CrCCC£ C£Cr CCrCC£C£rC r Cr £ rC£C £ r£r££Cr££rC£CCCC£C 17 4£ C£ CC CCCCC CC£ CC£ r CC£ CCCCCC££CC£CCC£CrC£r 13 4r rr C£ rr£ C £ r££ rr r££ rrr££ rrrrrrrr£r£Cr££CCC C ^93 391 489 587 0 9 HORIZONTAL 9 D DISTANCE i FILE NAME- \ypbksite \zneimer.:3 CELL # VELOCITY VELOCITY 9.88 7.92 (FT /SEC) (FT /SEC) 1 ^`• 48 27 8.45 4 6.69 49B 6.98 0 52 �? 5 6 59 . 53 �z ^`• 6 8 50 2 9 11 44 e ^ 13 78 X INTERVAL ROCKS STOPPED 0 TO 1 0 11 FEET J� � FEET 15 20 30 TO TO 4i i FEET 1 60 70 TO TO 70 FEET 80 FEET I 1 ' 8c_i TO 90 FEET 1 12 0 140 TO TO 130 FEET 1 0 170 TO 1 60 180 FEET FEET 1 2 200 240 TO 2 10 FEET I 260 TO TO 250 270 FEET FEET 270 280 TO TO 280 290 FEET FEET 1 1 48c i 490 TO TO 490 FEET 500 FEET 1 5 500 510 TO TO 510 i FEET 520 FEET 5 7 520 530 TO TO 530 FEET 540 FEET 12 540 550 TO TO 550 FEET 560 FEET 1 560 TO 570 FEET 8 570 580 TO TO 580 FEET 590 FEET 1 STANDARD AVERAGE VELOCITY HE (FT) 9.88 7.92 ii 9. 62 10.47 ^`• 11.5: 1 8.45 1 6.69 1 6.98 0 6.95 j 0 E MAXIMUM BOUNCE HEIGHT (FT) I 1 ci 9 1 6 cj Appendix B Can output for design of rock , L- barrier wall at buildings 3 and 4. COLORADO ROCKFALL SIMULATION PROGRAM FILE NAME \rocksite \zneimer.2 ROCK STATISTICS 691 LB SPHERICAL ROCS'. 1 FT RADIUS NUMBER OF CELLS 11 NUMBER OF ROCKS 100 ANALYSIS POSITION 260 INITIAL Y ZONE 475 TO 465 INITIAL X VELOCITY 1 FT /SEC INITIAL Y VELOCITY -1 FT /SEC TANGENTIAL SURFACE COEFFICIENT CELL # 1 •.J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ROUGHNESS 1.5 .5 1.5 1.5 1 5 .3 .1 .3 .3 . 8 .8 .B . e .8 .8 .85 .92 . e5 .85 .85 NORMAL COEFFICIENT RESTITUTION a •J .3 .? .35 .42 .T5 .35 .35 BEGINNING X,Y 0 , 470 76 , 410 88 , 4t a8 118 385 199 , 33 288 , 285 377 252 392 , 244 426 , 244 446 , 236 546 233 ENDING X,Y 76 , 41 6S 40 118 199 , 288 , 2 177 39• , 426 , 446 2 546 2 587 2 a FILE NAME: \rocksito \zneimer.2. ANALYSIS POINT ... X -._ 260 Y= . 300... . MAXIMUM VELOCITY . z AVERAGE VELOCITY 52 FT/SEC MINIMUM VELOCITY 23 FT /SEC STANDARD DEVIATION (VELOCITY) 4 FT /SEC AVERAGE BOUNCE HEIGHT 10.45 MAXIMUM BOUNCE HEIGHT 2 FEET MAXIMUM KINETIC ENERGY 9 FEET 29198 FT LB BOUNCE ANALYSIS POINT BOUNCE HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION HEIGHT 9 4_f N =72 8 4 4 7 4 -3 6 4_ 5 4 4 3 T 4 - - 3 2 4 1 4 OG tollive) zz 0 10 ..20 40 50 60 FREQUENCY FREQUENCY ANALYSIS POINT VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION 7 4 £ 6 4 £ £ 5 4 £ £ £ £ 4 4 £ £ t £ £ U 4 £££ ££ £ £ ' £ £ 2 4 £ £££ £££ £ ££ ££££ ££ £ £ 1 4£ £££££ ££££££££££££ £££££f££..££ ££ £ £ £ 4 VELOCITY 28 52 0 FILE NAME: \rccksite \zneimer.2 a BOUNCE • ..BOUNCE'.HEIGHT -GRAPH HEIGHT 12 4 11 4 10 4 £f 9 4 r£ rct £C. rc r . e 4 ric rrrc£rrc£ rrrrrc 7 4 c££c r cr£rcr£rcr£crcrc £ c 6 4 £r£r£CCrCcrrc£cccc£rrC.rrrrcr 5 4 r£rcrrc£.rcrrrcccrccr£rrr£r££.. rr 4 4 £CCr£r££££rr£££££c££r £ crrr £ rrcrrcr cr 3 4 £ crr£ r££ r £ccc£rrcccrrrrc.£rrrrcc£rcrcc£r 4cr£cC£ rcccr £rccr£rcccrrrrr£crrrrccrr£crC 1 4rr rc£c£ Cr rrrrrrr££crrrrrcrcccr£crcccc£cr 0 97 195 293 391 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE r £c rr rccr r£rrc££rr£ 489 .587 VELOCITY GRAPH VELOCITY 65 4 61 4 r 57 4 cc c 53 4 rr rrrr c rcr r 49 4 r ££rrrrrc £C£££ c rc£ 45 4 Cc rf£r£c£rcrc£r££rrrrrrrrC£rrrrr ££ 41 4 c r rrrrrc£ rrcrcrc rcr£crrrcrrccrcrrcr£ 37 4 c£ crc rr rc C££ rc£rrcr££crrrccr££c££ccr££ 33 4 £ rc r£££ rr£ rcccr£ £££rc££r£cccccrrr£r£r£ 29 4 c c£r c£c£ Crc rrcCrc rrr rrrrcrc££rC£c£rcrrr 5 4C£cccr£crcrccrrcrrc£crrrrr £ rCC £ crrrrcr £ rrrcr 1 4£CC r£££ rr£ C££cc£ c£r£ C£ C££ c££rcr 17 4£c rc r£rr Crr cCr£ r£ r£c rrr r££ rrC£rcCCCCC£cc££CC 13 4cc£ rc cc rrrrrc£ r£ r£ cr£ r£ rrr rr £££££r£rc£rrrr££r£crrrCCCCr£CCr 0 97 195 293 391 489 587 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE f FILE NAME: \rocksite \zneimer.2 m, STANDARD DEVIATION VELOCITY 9.88 7.92 9.62 10.47 11.5 8.45 6.69 6.98 6.5 6. _3 AVERAGE BOUNCE HEIGHT (FT) 0 2 1 1 1 i) i) t) 0 MAXIMUM BOUNCE HEIGHT (FT) 10 7 10 4 5 1 6 1 0 MAXIMUM AVERAGE CELL # VELOCITY VELOCITY (FT /SEC) (FT /SEC) 1 48 27 2 44 18 L 49 2:1, 4 52 2- 5 59 2: 6 5? 26 7 50 31 8 41 2 9 46 28 10 24 1ci 11 1.? 7 X INTERVAL ROCKS STOP'P'ED 0 TO 10 FEET 15 10 TO 20 FEET 1 2� i TO 30 FEET 1 30 TO 40 FEET 1 60 TO 70 FEET 1 70 TO BO FEET 1 80 TO 90 FEET 1 120 TO 130 FEET 1 140 TO 150 FEET 1 150 TO 160 FEET 1 170 TO 18(J FEET 2 200 TO 210 FEET 1 40 TO 250 FEET 1 260 TO 270 FEET 1 270 TO 2SO FEET 1 30 TO 290 FEET 1 480 TO 4V i FEET 5 490 TO 500 FEET 5 200 TO 510 FEET 7 510 TO 520 FEET 12 520 TO 530 FEET 8 530 TO 540 FEET 11 540 TO 550 FEET 4 550 i TO 560 FEET 8 560 TO 570 FEET 570 TO 590 FEET 1 580 TO 590 FEET 1 STANDARD DEVIATION VELOCITY 9.88 7.92 9.62 10.47 11.5 8.45 6.69 6.98 6.5 6. _3 AVERAGE BOUNCE HEIGHT (FT) 0 2 1 1 1 i) i) t) 0 MAXIMUM BOUNCE HEIGHT (FT) 10 7 10 4 5 1 6 1 0 AE ..ndix C . CRSP gut for design of rockfall b; 'r for protection of , bui_nings 9 - 13 COLORADO ROCKFALL SIMULATION PROGRAM FILE NAME \rc = ::site \�neimer. 1 ROCk:: 691 ST AT I ST I ; .3 LLB SPHER CAL ROC} ::: 1 FT RADIUS NUMBER OF CELLS NUMBER OF FFOC }':S 1' 0 10 ANALYSIS FCSITION 540 O INITIAL X �?LOCITY INITIAL Y = LOCITY 1 FT/SEC�� —1 FT /SEC '. ACE TANGENTIAL COEFFICIENT NORMAL COEFFICIENT BEGINNING ENDING CELL S�: # ROC i'HESS RESTITUTION X,Y a 1 8 t, , 545 44' 51 44 , 99 512 473 i 1.- . . 8 _ , 99 , 1 ?1 47? 448 1 •_ 1 -�i �c y 448 ?99 1 . - ^i�c? , .'99 ?47 85 7 .�4 J ' b 1 . r' . 8 . _ - X 85 T58 '1E 3 58 4T? 31., 8� 7 g � . 5 -; .8 � .8J T •, 4.,? 448 ^8'? 68 448 481 268 , 68 1 i) 11 .1 . 9 .85 . 4� T5 481 519 268 ^ 51 519 , ^57 1 ^ "' 85 :3 . 586 644 ; c1 ' 52 1:J , i . .J , FILE NAME: \rocksite \zneimer.1 ANALYSIS POINT MAXIMUM VELOCITY X= 540 Y= 255 AVERAGE VELOCITY 35 FT /SEC .J FT /SEC MINIMUM VELOCITY STANDARD DEVIATION (VELOCITY) 18 FT /SEC AVERAGE BOUNCE HEIGHT 0 FEET MAXIMUM BOUNCE HEIGHT ? FEET MAXIMUM KINETIC ENERGY 12228 FT LB BOUNCE ANALYSIS POINT HEIGHT BOUNCE HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION 4 — � 1 U 10 20 :30 40 54 FREQUENCY FREQUENCY ANALYSIS POINT VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION 2 Q CC EL CL CL L 1 4C £C CEECECE £ £ 18 VELOCITY ?J Y FILE NAME: \rccksite \aneimer.1 BOUNCE BOUNCE HEIGHT GRAPH HEIGHT 13 4 12 4 Ell 1 4 CCC£ C£££ CI Cr 9 4 CC CCCCCCC£C£C£ C CCCC CC s 4 CCCCCCCCCCC£CCC CCC£C££ CC C 7 4 CCCCCC£CCCCCCCCCC£C£CCCCCC CCC 6 4 CCCCCC£CCCCCCCCCCC££CC£££CC£ CCC 5 4 £ CC£CCCCCCC£CC£CCCCCCCC£C£CCC EEC 4 4 C£C£CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC£CCCCCCCC C CCC ECC C£C£CCCCCCCCC££CCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCC C 4CCCC CCCCCCCC £CCCC££CC£CCCCCCCCCCC£CCCCCCCCC CC[ 1 4C CCC CC CCC C CCC CCC£C££CC£CCC£CCCCCCCL'CCCCCCCC CCCC CC 0 107 2 14 4?9 5T6 644 VELOCITY GRAPH VELOCITY 62 4 54 4 CCCC £ C CC £ 50 4 CCCIECE CCCC££ C£C 46 4 £CC£CC£C£CCC£C££C£CCC CC CC£ 4 4 C£CC££CCCC£££CCCCCC£CCCC CC £ £ CCC 38 4 fC£CCCCCCCCCCCCC£CC£C££CCCC£ CCCCCCC£CC C 34 4 CCCCCCCC£C CCC£ C £££C££C£CC£CCC££C£££CCC££CCCCCC C 30 4 CCCCC£f£CC£CCC CCCC£ CCC CCC£CCCCCCC£CCCCCCCCCCCC££££CC£ �6 4CCCCCCCCCCC££CCCCCCC CCCC£ CCCCCC££CC£CC££CCC£CCC£CCC£CCCC CCCCC£CCCCCC17CC£CCC£ CCCC££ CC C£CCCCCCCCCCC£C£C£CC£C££C££C£CC 14 4CCCCCCCCCC CCCCC CCC CCC CCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCC 0 107 2-'14 322 429 5 36 644 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FILE NAME: \rock:si.te \zneimer.1 DEVIATION BOUNCE VELOCITY MAXIMUM AVERAGE 1 CELL 4 VELOCITY VELOCITY 11.01 11.59 (FT /SEC) (FT /SEC) 1 j 37 2 0 5.43 4 4.37 4 4 5 24 L 58 28 4. 48 29 6 4 6 21 7 36 18 8 40 27 9 48 ?6 lo 34 26 12 32 21 1? ^C 9 X INTERVAL ROCKS STOPPED 0 TO 10 FEET 1? 10 TO 20 FEET 4 20 TO 0 FEET 0 TO 40 FEET 1 40 TO 50 FEET 5 � � TO 60 FEET 140 TO 150 FEET 1 150 TO 160 FEET 1 170 TO 1 EQ FEET 1 190 TO 200 FEET 1 2 23 0 TO TO 230 ^40 FEET FEET 4 1 240 TO 0 50 FEET 1 250 TO 160 FEET 260 TO 270 FEET 270 TO 280 FEET 280 TO 290 FEET 290 TO 300 FEET 300 TO 310 FEET 4 310 TO 3 20 FEET 320 TO 3 30 FEET 6 =0 TO 340 FEET 6 3 40 TO QQ FEET 4, 610 TO 120 FEET 1 620 TO 63 0 FEET 1 630 TO 640 FEET 6 640 TO 650 FEET - STANDARD AVERAGE DEVIATION BOUNCE VELOCITY HEIGHT 8.41 1 10.37 10.97 11.01 11.59 13. 22 1 9.1 6. OB 1 5.43 4 4.37 U 61 4.28 4.95 BOUNCE (FT) HEIGHT (FT) 5 8 1() 11 6 12 PEC Minutes 10/22/90 Meeting Diana also felt that native vegetation should be required on the upside of the Valley Road. A motion to approve the request for a major change to the existing development approval for the Valley Phase VI. with the following conditions was made bv Kathy Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist Conditions•(The items in bold were changes or additions made by the board to the staff memo) 1. Prior to the Town approving any building permits for this development, the applicant shall provide to the Fire Department a -- engineering drawings showing adequate turning distances for each of the cul -de -sacs and b -- a mitigation plan for lot 4 which may include sprinkling, which meets the Fire Department requirements 2. Except for the area within building envelopes 5 and 6 the applicant shall restrict the open spaces between the access roads and Buffehr Creek Road so that no structures (including fences sheds or accessory buildings) shall be built in this area..., In addition no landscaping shall be planted in the area that is inconsistent with the existing native landscaping. 3. The applicant shall design all driveways so that the simplest most direct means of access to the site is P rovided. Driveways that wind u the hillside to gain elevation shall not be approved 4. Prior to the issuance of buildin ermits the applicant shall dedicate a drainage easement final drainage report, and final road engineering to the Town of Vail which meets the standards of the Public Works department 5. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancies or temporary certificate of occupancies for building envelopes 1 through 6 the applicant shall install the Propose d landscaping to mitigate the appearance of the walls. In addition the applicant must provide a financial guarantee to the Town for the period of two winters to be used for landscape replacement. m PEC Minutes 10/22/90 Meeting LJ 6. Prior to issuance of building permits for building envelopes 3 or 4, the applicant shall submit plans showing that the proposed building meets the internal mitigation requirements of the Mears report dated September, 1990. 7. The applicant has the option of including a caretaker unit within each structure using an additional 800 sq ft. of GRFA to the amount allocated to each building envelope for the caretaker unit. The units must comply with Section 18.13.080 (B). Up to 400 square feet of unused GRFA from the primary unit may be transferred to the caretaker unit, however, no caretaker unit shall exceed 1200 sq. ft. 8. The applicant shall design all retaining walls located in the front yard setback with terracing so that none exceed three feet in height. 9. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or a temporary certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct all improvements from Buffer Creek Road to the unit under construction. If occupancy is requested prior to the installation of any improvements, the applicant must escrow 1250 of the construction cost prior to the Town issuing a C.O. or T.C.O. Improvements in this case shall include landscaping, wall construction, roads, drainage, and utilities. 10. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for this development, the applicant shall provide a letter from the Forest Service quaranteeing the reconstruction of the trail that crosses this property. 11. P to the issuance of C.O.'s or T.C.O.'s for building envelopes 5 and 6, the applicant shall plant a densely vegetated slope of landscaping between those construction sites and Buffer Creek Road. This landscaping shall extend from the construction area all the way east to the intersection of the upper service road and Bueffer Creek Road. Jim Shearer felt that there should be flexibility to shorten the cul de sac on the upper road, to show less asphalt. Kathy Warren amended her motion to include Jim's suggestion as follows and Chuck Crist seconded the amended motion. 19 PEC Minutes 10/22/90 Meeting Amended condition; 12. east. — VOTE: 7 -0 IN FAVOR Item No, 6: Vail Villa 'Hansen Ranct A licant: e 1st Filin Paul R. Johnston Item No. 7: A Lrecluest for off - "Ho Cross street S11. Applicant arcel.�� V ail Ass Item ociates No. 8. A ro-- „- - u aualtion 3 A licant: Ron Oelbaum - .,� l lnitel Jim Shearer VOTE: 7 -0 IN FAVOR 20