HomeMy WebLinkAboutHIGHLAND MEADOWS FILING 2 LOT 3 LEGAL.pdfs
,-t
:
LOT
rrl F
=o
-{
F o
tt
LOT
LOT 3
SET BACKS
TEST BORING #2
i-
I
I
I
I
t
I
-1 rl
T oL, [,-ll
1L
L,-
I
t
I
I
I
I
PROPOSED
DUPLEX
ORING #1
TEST LOCATION
3,
PROPOSED DUPLEX
HIGHLAND MEADOI,IS FILING
VAIL, COLORADO
FTIR ROBIN ROBERTS
N0.LOT
PeoJEcr ero. V-2035G
Oervx 8r.Scatf'a{fE,r,Ar e *O.. I
tJ
i.
sFnr.R,
Description: Lot 3 Block
ZONE CIIECK
for
P/S ZoNE DISTRICTS
Fi'ling
Architect
R
t
a.
Legal
Ormer
Zone' District A i' proposad Use
Setbaclis : Front-Requ#L?-Z0r--ploiiose a
33
Sldes-Required'15. proposed
Rear -Required'.|5, proposed
l'laterccurse-requi red proposed
'GRFA: Al'lor.red
. GRFA: .Primary A1 I oned
' Secondary Al'lor.red
Site Coverage: Alloived
Landscaping:'Required
Parking:Required
Drive: Slope permitted
Envi ronmental /l"laza rds: ,Aval anche
Primary
Propo:''bd ' .IILJL
.\
Proposed f]l "J7o
Secondary Proposed ft) ,Urr- _
proposed 41€C
SJ.ope
Proposcd
Pmpc:.ed
ActuaL
Flood Piain
)lope
lvnw
.fuon
Corinents.:
__....N8a____4qy_uEe_._L4.Nv_s<.qz/&__+_WA___
7e:r :na : /1trp:.ovr.r,'3is.:p1rr.ir...::i.i
l+Vf'O P€r-t-lt|9toP
D.itg:
llt o c *oc / etr- ,w $ttu '
(
Inter-Mountaln F.nglneertngua
July 7, 1982
Mr. Steve Patterson
Bui'lding Official
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd. t,.|.Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Soils Investigation
Lot 3, Highland Meadows Filing No. 2
Dear Steve:
This letter should answer any questions you have concerning the soi'ls investigation of the above-referenced lot prepared for Robin Roberts.If you have any additional questions, I vrill be happy to meet with you
at your convenience to answer them.
As the surunary of test borings show the soils on this site consist of si'l ts underla'in by sand, gravel , and cobbled soils. These soils are suitab'le for backfi'l'l materia'| . Excessively organic topsoil and 'loose
dumped fill materials generally undergo high volume changes when sub-jected to loads. This is detrimental to the behavior of pavementsn floor slabs, structural fi'l1s and sha'llor,r foundations placed upon them.
Therefore, it is recorrnended that excessivel,v organic topsoils and loose
9umpgd fi]l materia'ls be stripped from these areas and wasted or stockpiled for 'later use.
The boring sumnaries a'lso show that dril'l ing refusa'l was reached at
depths of '15 and 19 feet. The materia] at this depth is a gravel and
cobble formation. Therefore, the cause of refusal can be assumed to be larger-sized boulders. Reference to "Indexes to Geo'logic l{apoing" Eagle
County, Co1orado" prepared by Charles S. Robinson and Associateso Inc.n in 1975 for the Co'lorado Geo'logical Survey and Eagle Countyn Co'lorado,
indicate that bedrock in this area could be as deep as 100 feet or more.
Site inspections do not show evjdence of slope instability on this lot. Moderate excavation cuts into the hil'lside should not severe'ly alter the slope stabjlity. If sheet pilingn shorinq or bracing is used, it
shou'ld be in accordance with the ru'les and regulations qoverning excava-tion work adopted by the Industria'l Corrnission of Co'lorado.
BOX t\to. C-100
AVON, CO 81620
9495o72 DENMR 893-1531
1420 VAIICE STREET
LAJG\/30D, @ 80215
Phone:232{158
(C
Mr. Steve Patterson
Page 2
July 7, 1982
Backfill operations should include the addition of water to the soil if needed to reach optimum moisture content to aid in obtaining proper
cc,mpaction. Proper compaction wil'l prevent sett'lement of backfilled soils
and make them relatively impervious. This wil'l prevent surface water from
saturating the potential'ly consolidating foundation soi'ls.
"BasJc Soils Engineering" by B.K. Hough states that silt mixed with
various amounts of sand wil'l exert an equiva'lent fluid unit weight of 3l to 45 pcf. Depending on whether the sojl is 'loose or compacted, an eguivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pcf should be used for design purposes.
If it is not feasible to have the buildjng foundations bear on the
sand and gravel fonnation, they may bear on the silty soi1s jf the maximum soil bearing pressure is reduced to 1000 psf. An inspection should be made of the open excavation by an engineer familiar w'ith the soi'l conditions to insure that the soils have the required bearing capacities and that no debris, soft spots, or areas of unusua'l ly 1ow density are 'located in the
foundation region. At that time, a representative sample of the excavated soils can be taken to perform Proctor testing. It is recommended that
ASTM Standard D-698 be used for this test.
The soils investigation showed no evidence that general concrete construction cannot be used. Therefore, Type I cement may be used in the concrete mix.
Figure No. L enclosed shows the proposed 'location of the dup'lex and the location of the exploratory dri'l'ling ho'les.
You have a'lso requested that information be presented on nnximum
span for unsupported grade beams. This is a function of the structural
design, not of the soi'ls investigation" and I cannot supply this information.
Again, if you have any questions concerning thjs soJ'ls jnvestiqation,
please contact me and I will be happy to meet with you at your convenience.
Sincerely., ,,9.fr*-
G..zThomas Al I en
Field Engineer
Reviewed and Approved By:
Spanel ,
GTA:cjn
cc: Robin Roberts
ident
P. E.
- FOX&ASSOCIATESOFCOLORADO'lNC.
CONSTJLTING ENGTNEEIS AND GEOLOGISTS
DENVEROFFICE 4T65INDEPENDENCESTREET
WHEAT RIDGE, COLORAOO A@33
(3O3) 424-5s74
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
l
I
I
il
I
F
il
A Fox coMPANY
PHASE II GEOTECHNICAL STUDY
LOTS 3 AND 26
HIGHLAND MEADOI.IS FILING NO. 2
l.lEST VAIL, C0LoRAD0
Prepared For
Mr. Richard Bullwinkle, Jr.
Job No. l.-1101-6086-01
September 10, 1984
{,
$i
il
{'
r
rl
I
I
I
il
il
il
I
1l
I
It
t
il
FOX & ASSOCIATES OF COLORADO,lNC.
OON{SULTINC ENG]NEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
OENVEF OFFICE 4765 INDEPENDENCE STREET
WHEAT RIOGE. COLORADO 8O(x}:I
(3031 424-5574
Mr. Richard Bu'llwi nkle, Jr.
3484 Interfirst One
Dal las, Texas 75202
Ronald F. Ho'lcombe, P.E.
Sr. Project Geotechnjca'l
RFH/ds
Copies: 5
September 11, 1984
Job No. 1-1101-6086-01
Subject: Phase II Geotechnical Study, Lots 3 and 26, Highland Meadows Filing
No. 2, Vail, Co'lorado
Reference: Report of Phase I Geotechnica'l Study, Lots 3 and 25, Highland
Meadows Filing No. 2, l,lest Vai'1, Colorado by Fox & Associates
of Colorado, Inc., dated Ju'ly 16, 1984
Dear Mr. Bul Iwink'le:
Fox & Associates of Colorado, Inc. has completed the Phase II geotechnical
study for the subJect lots in Vail, Colorado. This report, together w'ith
the above referenced Phase I report, provides a detailed geotechnica'l study of
the lots as required by Town of Vail Ordinance No. 29.
The field data obtained from the test borings indicate the subsoils have suf-
ficient shear strength to provide a reasonable degree of safety with respect to a major slope failure. This, together with the satisfactory performance
of the structures and their foundation systems to date, suggests that the
build'i ngs have been properly designed and constructed.
He recommend that your structura'l engineer review our reports to verify that
the design criteria that were employed are compatible with the recomnendations
contained herein. Please call us if you have any questions or if we may be
of further service.
FOX & ASSOCIATES OF COLORADO, INC.
f2,*r,t? /-4&
l
Donald R.
Pri nci pal
Clark, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer Engi n
stff%
4t';1,:lN
A FOX COMPANY
LETTER OF TMI{SI4ITTAL PA9C
INTRODUCTION
FIELD INVESTIGATION
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
StratigraPhY
Ground Hater
Soil Shear Strength
REGIONAL SLOPE STABILITY
LOCAL SLOPE STAEILITY
FOUNDATIONS
RETAINING bIALLS
Lot 3
Lot 26
UN DERDRAI NS
LIMITATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
1
I
3
3
3
3
4
5
5
6
6
6
5
7
TEST HOLE LOCATION PLAN
TEST HOLE LOGS
CRITICAL SLoPE CIRCLES, SECTIoN
CRITICAL SLOPE CIRCLES, SECTION
Fi gure I
2-6
7 A.A
B.B
l,
I
l
;
INTRODUCTION
This report is the continuation of a study of Lots 3 and 26 in Hlghland
Meadows Filing 2 Subdivision, llest Vail, Colorado. The lntial portion of
this study ls contained in our above referenced report on Phase I. The purpose
of this Phase II study was to explore the.subsurface conditions of the two
lots to confirm the assumptions of the initial study, In particular, soil
shear strength and its impact of regional slope stability were examined.
This report is organized in a format very similar to the Phase I report.
Since only additiona'l data and/or recommendations are discussed here'in, both
this report and the Phase I report are required to have complete documentat'ion
of our investigations on the site.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation consisted of drilling six test ho'les with a truck
mounted auger drill rig. The test ho'les were drilled at the approximate loca-
tions shown on Figure 1, Test Hole Location Plan. bJith the exception of Test
Hole 1A, a'l'l test holes consisted of dril'ling with continuous flight solid
augers to determine the subsurface stratigraphy, followed by continuous cone
penetrometer soundings. The cone penetrcrneter sounding locations were approx-
imately one foot from the auger holes. At Test Hole 1A, only a cone pene-
trometer sounding was made. This test hole was not originally planned, but
was added to supplement the shear strength data near Lot 3.
The auger holes were logged in the field by our so'ils technician who
co1 lected samples of each stratum for further identification in the laboratory.
In addition, the project engineer was present during drilling to coordinate the
dri'l ling program. Descriptions of the various subsurface strata encountered,
together with cone penetrcrneter readings and ground water observation data are
I
t t !I
i I
I
*--
-t-
I I
ll
i
a I
I
I
I
I
I
i
t
presented on Flgures 2 through 5, Test Hole Logs. The data presented on these
logs indicate the conditions at the test hole locations and variations should be
anticipated at other locations. The de] iniation of the strata encountered is
approximate as the actual transition may be gradual .
- The cone penetrometer test nas used in this field investigation for two
reasons. First, it provides a large quantity of data because lt js drjven
continuously. Second, it ls an in-place measure of the soils undrained shear
strength. Previous studies in the Highland lrleadows and surrounding areas
have encountered djfficu1ties evaluating soil shear strength because of sanp'fe
disturbance, sampling difficu'lties due to rock fragments and boulders, and
the slightly over-conso'lidated nature of the surficial colluvial stratum.
Since the col'luvium is generally somewhat over-conso'l idated due to dessjcation
and is usual ly less than 30 feet thick, typical consolidated shear strength
testing does not adequately portray its properties. The cone penetrdneter
measures undrained shear strengh, which we beljeve most accurately portrays the
shear strength properties of the colluvium, and does so continuously with
respect to depth.
The cone penetrometer used in this investigation rras a 1.9'inch djaneter
steel point. It was driven by blows fron a 140 pound hammer fa1 ling 30 inches.
The penetration resistance of the cone is the number of blows required to
advance it 12 inches. The penetratjon resistance measurements are plotted on
the right hand portion of the Test Hole Log.
By necesslty, the test holes rere drilled adjacent to the properties
in the roadway right-of-way. In general , they were located about 12 inches
beyond the pavement. As a resu'lt, the upper portion of each boring encountered
fi'l I used to construct the roadway enbankment.
-2-
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Stratigraphy
Three separate strata were encountered in the test holes. The upper-
tnost is I4AN-MADE FILL that comprises the roadway embankments. Thjs fill was
generally very noist to wet and had low penetration resistances. The fill
extends to depths of 2 to 13 feet.Be1ow the fill is a brown silty sandy \
CLAY to clayey SILT. This material is the colluvium and is generally stiff
to very stiff in consistency. In Test Hole 3, where the roadway fill was /
shallow, the upper portion of the colluvium was only firm in consistency and wasa
also very moist. The co1 luvium was found to extend to depths ranging from 23 to
30 feet below the ground surface. The deepest stratum encountered is a dense ,
to very dense clayey SAI{D and GRAVEL with shale fragments, cobb'les and boulOers.\
This stratum is believed to be a glacia'l till deposit and extends to the maximum \
depth exp'lored in each test hole. Because it is so dense, the penetrometer r
could not penetrate it.
Ground l.later
Ground water observations were made in the test holes at the conp'letion
of drilling and approximate'ly 24 hours later, where possible. The actual
observations are presented on the Test Hole Logs. Our observations indicate
the depth to ground water ranged frsn 17 to 2l feet. These observatjons are
for the dates indicated, and the depth to ground water nay vary due to seasonal
and climatic changes. Although free ground water was not encountered in the
roadway embankment fill, this fill ras very moist.
Soil Shear Strength
The results of this and previous studies, and observatjons of various
slope failures in the l{est Vail area indicate that the shear strength of the
colluvium is highly dependent on its moisture content. t.then dessicated, the
-3-
co] luvium has a relatively high shear strength, however, the relative]y we
molecu't ar bonds are broken upon saturation and shear strength is significant
reduced. The shear strength parameters used in the slope analyses for th
study are based on the cone penetration resistances measured in the fleld.
order for these values to rsnain applicable, good surface and subsurface drai
age must be maintained to prevent softening of the subsoils.
The selected paraneters are tabulated on Figure 7, Crltical Slope Circles,
section A-A and Figure 8, critical slope circles, section B-B for Lots 3 and
26 respectively. Two sets of parameters are presented, average cohesion de-
signated as AVERAGE in the tables, and minimum cohesion designated as MINIMUM.
Shear strength of the glacial till stratum is not tabulated because the failure
circles intersected only the colluvium. The glac'ia'l ti1l was mode'led using zero
cohesion and an lnterna'l friction angle of 45 degrees.
REGIONAL SLOPE STABILITY
Regional slope analyses were made for the two sections shown on Figure
1- section A-A pertains to Lot 3, and section B-B to Lot 26. Each section
was investigated for two cases: (1) average shear strength of the co1 'luvium;.
and (2) the minimum anticipated shear strength of the co'l luvium. These two
cases were investigated to aid in determining lf the slopes possess an adequate
factor of safety with respect to shear strength. Normally, factors of safety
of 2.0 with respect to average shear strength and 1.5 with respect to minimum
shear strength would indicate a relatively safe slope.
\For Lot 3, factors of safety of 3.06 for the average case and 1.92 for I
the minimum case rere computed. For Lot 26, the results
average case and 3.25 for the mjnimum case. Based on
we bel ieve the slopes possess a reasonable degree of safety.
since the critical circ'les for both lots intersect only colluvium, which
q
"r\lv)
ls
rn)
n-l
were 5.28 for the
these computations,
-4-
@
has no angle of lnterna] friction in the undrained case, the computed fac-
tors of safety would not be reduced due to a high ground water level. The
glacial till stratum, on the other hand rould be affected by high ground
rater. Therefore, the stability was checked for this case as we] l. The re-
sult was the critical clrcles for both'lots were still in the co]luvitm, and
hence, no reduction in the factor of safety. As discussed above, a h.igh ground
water level ln the colluvium,
could reduce the shear strength
DRAI NS.
LOCAL SLOPE STABILITY
additional seepage from runoff or snowmelt
the colluvium. Refer to the section UNDER-
or
of
The results of this study do not indicate any problerns with loca'l slope
stability on-site. hte do be'lieve the roadway ernbankments have lost strength
due to saturation as evidenced by their low penetration resistances. The
penetration resistances are cons'lderab1y below what would be expected for
an engineered fill. Local slope problans, such as have been experienced at
other locations in Highland l4eadows may occur in the future. lle do not believe
these wil'l affect the stability of the lots thenselves since any failures should
be confined to the embankments.
0n-sjte retaining wa1 ls should be checked for stability by your structural
engineer using the criteria presented in the section RETAINING WALLS.
FOUNDATIONS
The shear strength of the foundation bearing sojls are sufficient to
support the structural loads rith a factor of safety of at least 2.5 with
respect to a shear fajlure. Inspection of the structures indicates no notice-
able settlement has taken place to date and no significant settlement is ex-
pected. Typically 50 to 75 percent of the total expected setilement occurs
i-
-5-
Lot 3
-_ Inspection of the retaining walls on Lot 3 indicate they have performed
satisfactorily to date. l{e recommend their stab'ility be checked by your struc-
tural engineer using the fo'l lowing recommended lateral pressures.
Level Backfill Sloping Backfil'l
Active Pressure 85 pcf 100 pcf
At-Rest Pressure 100 pcf 125 pcf
l{ote: All pressures are in pcf of equivalent fluid pressure.
For passive resistance, an a'llowab'le f'l uid pressure of 200 psf is
Lot 26
Within one year after
are adequate for both
RETAINING I{ALLS
l{e understand that the crib wa] I on Lot
drain has been lnstalled. As on Lot 3, all
satisfactorily. hle recommend their su'itability
criteri a.
Level Backf i'll
construction. Therefore, we conclude that the foundations
structures.
recommended.
25 has been backfi'lled and the
wal1s appear to be perform'ing
be checked using the following
Sloping Backfjll
Active
At-Rest
Note:
Pressure
Pressure
A1 I pressures
res i st ance,
75 pcf
90 pcf
in pcf of equivalent fluid
equivalent fluid pressure
90 pcf
115 pcf
Pressure.
of 250 pcf is recqn-
are
an For passive
mended.
UNDERDRAINS
There is no indication that underdrajns are required to control ground
water on either lot. Underdrains were recqnmended for Vermont Road in front
of Lot 3 and for sequoia Drive in front of Lot 26 by the ,,claycomb Report,,
-6-
I
t
t
T
I
Sr. ProJect Geotechnical Engi
RFH/ds
Copies: 5
nald R.
i ncl pal
Clark, P.E.
Geotechni cal
i
which ls Reference 2 in our Phase I report. Instal'lation of these drains
wou'ld be helpful to the stabllity of the road ernbankments but are not considered
essentlal for stability on the lots themselves. l{e also believe significant
seePage of runoff and snownelt enters the subsoi1s from the drainage ditches
on the uphill side of the roads. Paving the ditches could help reduce this and
ald in preserving the shear strength of the embankment soils.
The drains behind the retaining wa1 'ls on both lots shou'ld mjnjmize shear
strength reduction on-site. Good positive surface drainage will also be valu-
able in this regard. trlater from runoff or snowmelt shou'td not be perm.itted to
pond anywhere on site, particularly near foundations or retaining walls.
LIMITATIONS
This report, together with the phase I report, were prepared exclus.ively
for providing a detailed geotechnical evaluation of Lots 3 and 26 in Highland
l4eadows Filing 2 subdivision. It has been based on widely spaced test borings,
geologic interpretation and our experience with other proJects in the vail,
Co'lorado area. It was performed in accordance with generally accepted soil
and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty, either expressed
or imp'lied is made.
It cannot be overemphasized that all mountain construction has inherent
risks. hle have tried to quantify these risks as much as possible. please refer
to the appendix of the phase I report for a discussion regarding risk.
Please call us if you have any questions regarding this report or if
ile may be of further service.
FOX & ASSOCIATES OF COLORADO,Q^u7tt&
Rona'ld F. Holcombe, p.E.
-7-
Engi neer
i I I
I
I
T
T
+-=org
50 -/n
a
107,//
7-/uo
--:/a7?s
aa7 3a /'/ ' /OO t
'4oce /
o
TEST HC.ILE LtrATIc.TN PLAN Job No: 1-1101-6086-01
Consulting Engineers and Geologisls
Dare: 8/29/84
Figure 1
L,levallon:
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
(Blows/Foot)
10 20 30 40 DESCRIPTION
Stiff to very stiff brown, siltv sandv CLAI 10,9]9I:{
SILT with rock fragments' moist t0 very nolsE (LL/l'rL/
Dense to very dense, dark brcvJn to dark gray' clayey
SAND and GRAVET ',,1i th shale fragnents, cobbles and
ooo-aers .-frffiT (GP/Gl.l/cc )
Eoring ter inated'-a 39.0 ' .
Note: Test Hole lA consisted of cone penetromefer
testing only. Readings are indicated as: A
P€nerration Resistance Legend li Sanrpl€ Int€rval Legend --9- Wster level
=
snd Date
2/12/44 O Standard splh barel
tr Modllled Calllornla barrel
A 1.9 lnch cone penetrometet
M Driv" ,amoler
| ,n",ou ,uo"
[J Rock core barrel
TEST HOLE LOG
Conrulting Inginecrs and 6eologists
Job No:1-1101-6086-01
8/29/84 Date:
Figure 2
DESCRIPTION
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
(Blows/Foot)
10 20 30 40
E/!5/E4
25
Stiff to very stiff, broNn, silty, sandy, CLAY to
clayey SILT with rock fragments, moist to very moist
(clll4L )
Dense to very dense, dark brown to dark grayr clayey
SAi'lD and GRAVEL with shale fragments ' cobbles and
56iTaers,-fr61iT (GP/GVcc )
Boring terminated 0 35.5'
Penetretlon Reslsiance Legend
O Standard spllt barrel
tr Modlfled Californla barrel
A t.9 Inch cone penetromerer
{t Sample Interval Legend
[l Drtve su -pt.r I sn.tuy ,,ru"
[ll Rock core barrel
--9- lvater level
=
and Date
2/t2/84
TEST HOLE LOG Jobl,lo: 1-1101-6086-0l
Consuhing Inginecrs and Gcologists
Dare: 8/29/84
. EPTH
(Feet)
*
,l
DESCRIPTION
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
(Blows/Foot)
10 20 tl 30 40 tl :l
-rl :l :l
-'o
I :l -l
I -t
f-l II Fzo I L -9J tFl r *r-l rl F,' I FI FI r30 |rl F]
f"r
Foo
T
F
Foo
F
F
rt
a
;!;
ilil ).7 $'*
i.'.
[1 ii1
?:;'o',)
i;:7
UJ
{#
8t
rr
$I
t'ai td;:
f,;|4't
J;(
MAN-MADE FILL
A
A
c
A Firm to stiff brown, sandy, silty
SILT with rock fragments, moist to
CLAY to c I ayev
very moi st (CLIML )
stiff to very stiff be'low 15'
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
z-l
A
A
L
Dense to very dense, brown, clayey SAND and GRAVEL
with cobblFt and boulders,.moisl ic weF(eplew/trC)-
Note scale change at 40'
sandy below 45'
Boring [enninated 0 54'
Penetratlon Reslstance Leg€nd
O Standard spllt barrel
E Modlfled Calllornla barrel
A 1.9 Inch cone penetrometer
tt Sample lnterval Legend I Water level
=
and Date
2/ tziE4
Drlve sampler
Shelby tube
Rock core barrel
TEST HOLE LOG Job No: 1'110r'6086-0r
Date' 8/29/84
4 Figure
DESCRIPTION
PENETRATION BESISTANCE
(Blows,zFoot)
10 20 30 40
Stiff to very stiff, brown, sandy, silty CLAY to clayey SILT with rock fragnents, moist to-tET (CL/i4L)
Dense to very dense, brotrn,
with cobbles and bou I ders,
clayey SAND and GRAVEL
very mo i sT-TdP,r cw/trCf-
O Standard split barrel
tr Modlfied Callfornla barret
A 1.9 lnch cone p€netrom€ter
tl Sample Interval Legend
[J Drlv. samnter I sn"ruu ,uu"
lll Bock core barrel
--9- Water level
=
and Date
2/t2/44
TEST HOLE LOG Job M, 1-1101'6086'01
Conrulling Enginecrs and Gcologists Dare: 8/29/84
!
DEPTH
(Feet)
*(,
o -t DESCRIPTION
PENETRATION RESISTANCE
(Blows/Foot)
10 20 30 40 lltl
5
10
l5
?n s-
i
8na/a4
L2
30
35
40
45
ab:
i3:
V*
H
rg
i:;
7d
&;:,
fe
gj
MAN-I4ADE FILL
Stiff to very stiff, brown sandy, silty CLAY to.clayey
SILT with rock fragrnents, medium moist to mist (CL/I4L)
Dense to very dense, brown, clayey 9AN0 and GRAVEL
with cobbles and boulders, moisi io wet (GP/GFfG-df
A
A
A
A.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
a->
Boring terminated 0 45'
Penetrallon Reslatance Legend * Sample Interval Legend I
=2/t2/84
Water level
and Date o
o
A
Standard spllt barrel
Modlfled Calllornla barrel
1.9 Inch cone penetrometer
Drlve aampler
Shelby tube
Rock cole barrel
TEST HOLE LOG Jobl*,lo: 1'1101-6086-01
Date: 8/29/84
6 Fipre
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
*i*:i;i i,.-.--R=122'
\ F.S.=3.06 :Qveraee)
ti
al
g,l
lt t,ti
r50
Dlstance,leet
SOIL PARAMETERS
LAYER
1
2
3
COHESION, psf
Average Mlnlmurn
900 550 1750 loo0 2500 1500
FBICTION ANGLE,
degrees
0
0
0
UNIT WEIGHT,
pcf
110 t20
125
CRITICAL SLOPE CIRCLES, SESTION A.A Job Ntr: l-1101-6086-0l
Date: 9/LO/84
7 t igure
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
B-124'
\. F-s.=528 (average)
- 1f-S-=325 (mlnlsum)
\\
o o
E
f, esso
)
Q)
!l
LAYER
I
2
3
SOIL PABAMETERS
COHESION, psf FRICTION ANGLE,
Average Mlnlmum degreeo
800 500 0
1750 1200 0
2500 1500 0
UNIT WEIGHT,
pcf
I l0
120
125
CRITICAL SLOPE CIRCLES, SECTION B.B -lcrb No: 1-1101t086-01
Consulling Ingineers .nd Geologisls
Date 9/lO/84
I Figure
(
t
a
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
P'lanning and Environmental Comnission
Department of Conmunity Deve'lopment
Apri'l 14,21982
Request for variances for lot 3 and \9t 26,-Highland
to'allow the construction of two dwe'lling un'its each
area,.on each lot instead of limiting the f'loor area
unit-on each 'tot 6 4A"/" of'the maximum GRFA allowable
by the hazard regulations of the zoning code; Section
Applicants: Tri-Mark, Lori and Robin Roberts
cRI:TERIA- AflD FINDINGS
The applicants request to build a duplex upon eachlot in which the f'loor areas
;i-e;[['fiii i"l-i[u-ia*e (sofso) raiher than a Primary/secondary (60/40) which
is requiiea bv ttre hazard iegirtaiions of the zoning code, The hazard regulations
state'init-ai-one-ot the reslrictions on lots where the average slope of the
site beneath the proposed structure and parking area. is in excess of thirty
perceni in i fwo Famity Residentjal Zone-District,.the secondary. unit. shall. ..irot exceed 40 percent.ot ttre a'llowable total GRFA and sha1l not be substantially
simi'l ar in design to the primary unit. Both of the subiect lots are in excess
of 30% and are iubiect to'this provision. The applicants request.a-variance
from this provision to enable them to build straight duplexes (50/50) upon each
si te.
The reasoning for the establjshment of Primary/Secondary Zoning was to encourage
one smiller iossible emp'loyee dwel'ting unit and eliminate "mirror iqgg'l duplexes
having-similir-designs fofeach unit.- The staff can find no real relationship
betweEn the slope oi a site and the ratio of floor areas between units. The
footprint of th! bui'ldiig would be the same regardless of the ratio between uniti. The designs of the proposed units are not "mirror image."
Meadows Fil ing 2
of equal floor
of the secondarY
as required
18.69.050. J.
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.0q0 !f the Municipa'l Code'
. EFe .tri1a rE-nqqe6-ffiii{Eda
varrNlcc_laled upon\'the fol.lQwrng Taclors: -
f on s i dgr.atj on_of . fac to fs
The reJg.gionshjp of the fequSs-tga varian€ go +her.$i$,uses and- structurgs in tle l:iig!q!f& ..--
There wil'l be no negative impacts upon adjacent properties' uses'.or structures'
.-:.
.1,.
Tfie degree to vtt,ich re'lief from the strict or 'literal inte _:_---i-_-i-_....t-_-_.of a sDecttled reaulatton ts necessarv to achieve comDat-ib _:_---.._-f-_-..t-i-_-.ot a sDeclrleu requraclon rs necessa
Lot33 & 26, Hish Mead -Z-
retation and enforcemen
acn I eve
-------__g11_tlgqLmen! a m on gr!!t e sjn cinity or to atta :1.-Y..--.;'IIE.Je W]tnOUD qrant Of SoeClal. orlvill rr.l I eqe.titJg wit,hogt .grant of_of_,special . pFi vfl
The- granting of the variance wou'ld not constitute a grant of a special privilege
or be contrary to any obiectives of the zoning ordinance. The staff cahnot find any c'lear objective in the provision in question and will be amending the
zoning code to eljminate this provision.
The eff,ect of the ested variance on 'l i and air distribution of I ation,
nsDorta l traTrlc acil ities
No impact.
Suth other f.qc3rrg..g,nsl criteria. as the gommisslon deems applicable to the proposed
r'FtNotues
nFkeJbeJo't l gwing f indi ngg peTore g.rantlng a varia3ce:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties clissified ih the sime district.
That.the granting of the variance wil] not be detrimental to the public health,
9gfety'-or welfare,-'or materially iniurious to properties br improbvemenis in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for the follow.ing reason:
The strict or 'litera'l-interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation nPY]d.result in.practical.difficulty or unnecessary physical harashi[ inioniiitent with the objectives of this tit'le.
.STSRF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approva'l of the requested variances. There appears to be no apparent reason to require a 60-4d_floor area split on ttre iiteper iots.Tte_design of the second unit upon each lot, however,'should r"main-ilUstaniially different in design from that of the first unit upon-each lot. If there is agreement on granting these variances, the staff wi] 'l amend the zoning code to renove the section.
eEu
.'li!*;..'.,'1,....,:a{'':;..;'!.':'.;i::.'t,.o..$.i.:.'.]'i*,'i."i=r:*..:r::"' -,, ''t'.. f + ",,i':.' i!; 1*[;i-:";"I:
*t",,. 1-: ^::.".,-1..,",,ril*n.:i f4..l: . -; ,.,.-" ,- . ; ,'..', ,;tiiO*#.'l{{,'.'i...,-]n'"iii=,.;.1;i-'::.*''.'i....',t':,,'.,.i+.i.,|:,.'''?-.,;..:-€'.'=..;l,lii;..',,;i'....:'.'....,':e#t-: ;-j-.1.," ,l:il{".;g1+;'3.{+*:',;r;i:.;' . i;41 ',:',,i;:!,i.'r' 't ,;', j' . ' -.,i'i.it1#df''ce+1f'S,ty ,ry,f4#;-rjt .;:t;.:':i:.:i.+i?-i;t*;titil::<.ii,': .' ,;,,:+*+.,,;il:i:::,-'!,i:' r,i','';'.ir ; j.:.
- . ' -'.,i'i*l$
1.+ge''+].;-:o-..:....i,....,i'';,'i.:.':;'''.,]:.]:;tri:,.,...:f:i,..4.;:9,"11.;i.,11,'';;;;'3;;*:'.1;l.:
+i'i*p:;...;:1i.ili:.:ii..*fr.;iitl*:i4}f;.-ii.11.;{ij.;.]:,.iii1r.'..:;:;::i'?r3:':...f'i
::''.+lf''3;'*-..*.j'..:-,'.i.:,-.,';,'j,'i.:!'1',:'-.'..
*jl , ,. ;,.
,
i
-ir,,*''""'
- r;-;' ','' .'',;t
. *i..,iui;*
i,-
, *:,,r,t,I:ffiffi+
"i&,#-#Fl-3{1;l-;r.'.li€iiffi:';: '+;' .,,siffi'I
lA'&.i"*,"-*nil.:"rr"*""..'qtS
,. :r'.J::.j,; :T .t,.rr-,; r-
.$.r:l |r*, "
l.**;':ii'Is:J
i:r,fl"aTi' - ";, -:1,- ;'..'pi
o;;;#i, 1;#;,#;,:h ;:ip;i'i::+.'l --'* : l.l'
":'r ._' - -:( , _ - 5;i'' 3',.:i:{X{i;ji&t*. "+.-.q',i .,'-1.;"''
.1..'L, '1", ',
'._ .'ti t ,,,-, .;': t;.:,,-;i;r'r; 3 ..,. -.:
.'io+'',.,+..-:".n#1r'.',l,.+.''.||ffi|E;.ffi
_:,,," 1. _.'
", , . .,' , r, :.iil,...r ;i ' ., *:,.. ..
i;+:.-,i 1",?, _. $;'', e.xi{.r^-fi:ff#.id-b',., ,-.:.I".;
'I .',.'''i.r -,.r.. : '-i: .l: .,..." +': 't;.,,- -,r;,i .;.i ..: -.1
fr: ';i- .l,l :.;, ,*;,'111*,{,{.,;:,'i"
'
. t .:'
;;ii-i,,:. :''- .r'-;i1i' ii;+$i;; .,, I ri='r,,';,''t ; ', .. . .-
",, :-11.".i: =,*4::;i.,.'= * i:'Stt'n
.;i .+.' 4,' t ;.r,. 1:i,--.:. .lfi . .. r: , 1t - '
-. .:t * :.r' ::. ','...'.''-.'..,.,'.,.
'. t- .-".t', -1.- t.,
.'-r1t---?..? ilgi .',l? ES ,
lt;- .Pal.. - .rF 'i".j. ,,:;e,$iilqi;i{ |r lII=H i;:1 1' t,*. t' r: *i.r ..:-lx
*',{lffil ....';.''=+'.:,".'"';=.4l:'.....'||@|
;i;,;i; .'1i+*,.1...-i;1':;-,r',..,;r ;."1.r+ - r-
..;' -.+ 1."1'1 ,.:,.--.
.'-.i:i:;.-. t, ''.. -..J, ';*.rl -'.'..
"'r *l-,-'.
;-* dE;,--,
l*F"'5ffi _-.#ff r**#HrH*
]--t 1 ('J+'"
i
-.)... ' 1..,t ,'-' i";i:,1.';:,:. r ril 1p,193,,. 3fff..$ir.lo,"nn,,"-. I _q[gkyg= "**ig .ffi
rEIEFTITNED F|'T'AsE CATT
CAII.ED TTI SEE YOU WtI- CATI- AGAIN
IIANIE TO 8EE tUJ IJFGENT
nm.muroroun cu I
GD hLo\\-,W
COMMITMENT
TO INSURE
This commitment was produced and
issued through the office of
GUARANTEE OOMPANY
3665 CHERRY CREEK NORTH DRIVE, DENVER, COLORADO 80209
Telephone (3031 321 -1 880
LAND TITLE
Representing:
-_bE_:.-_
SCHEDULE A
Apf'1 ication Ns. Vtl0CI3677
For Infqrnetion 0n1g
- Charges -
0wner Fal icg $3SS.00
L,=nder Pol i cg $50.00
Tax 0*rt if.65. 00 -*ToTAL*- 6443.U0
ldifh goun rernittance pl*ase refer to V000I672.
1. Effect ive Date: JANUARY ??, 1983 at E:00 A.tq.
2" Folicies to be issu*d, and FroFosed InsurerJ:
rrALTArr 0wners's Fol icg $11?1000.00
Fonar B-1970 (Amxndsd 1U-17-70)
FroposerJ Insuned;
TRI . ITARIT DEVELOPfIENT
"ALTA" Loan Fol icg (1970 R,rvieion)
Fropas*d Insuredl
TEITFY CHODOSH
$6S"S10"40
3. The *state or interest in t'h* lend descrihed or referned t,o in this
Coarq i 'brrrent and covqnr-rd here in i s I
A TEE
4' Title to the *st'ate or inter*st covered her*in is a{ the effective date irersof vested in;
TEFRY CHODOSH
5. The land referrgd to in this Conrrriirrr*nt is d*scnibed as follows:
LOT 3, i.IIGI.ILAI.ID FIEAOOIJS, FILlNF NO. I, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED
F'l AT f ijl RE0Fr C0UtlTY ltF IAGLE, STATE 0F C0L0RAD0.
-F L T{_tr v-rr-r.,_ r--r--rr_E_-r-'----O
SCIIEDULE B-1
(Requ iF*ntents) App,l icat ion No. Vtltl03677
The foltowin'3 ere 'bhe requiFerrrentg to he conpl ied r,riths t. Pagnent to or for. the account. of the grantors or nrontgagons of the
ful. 1 consideration for th,: eEtate or interest to be insuned.
2. Froper instrunent(s) creaiing thx estate or intenest to be insured
atust be executed and dulg filed for recordp to-wit:
3. EVIDEI'ICE SAT1SFACTORY TO THE CONFANY TI{AT TRI - NAFH DEVELCIFfIENT IS
AN ETITITY CAFABLE OF ACTIUIRINO TITLE TO SUBJECT FROPEFTY.
4. IJARRANTY DEED FROFI TERRY CHODOSH TO 1'RI . fJlARI( DEVELOPIIENT CONVEYING
$UEJECT FROFERTY.
5. DEED OF TRUST FFOIii TRI . f'IARK DEUELOFITIENT TO THE F'UP.LIC TRLISTEE OF
EAGLE COUNTY FOE THE UsE OF TERRY CHODOSH TO SECURE THE 5UI1 OF $6$,810.40.
NOTE: ,]'HI$ FROF.ERTY flAY P,E SUP.JECT TO THE REAL ESTATE TRAi'{SFER TAX
BY VINTUE OF IT$ INCLUSION IN THE TOIdN OF VAIL. FURCI{AsEE SHOULD
CONTACT TItE TOI.JI.I CIF VAIL AE6AftPII,IG SAID A55ES5fIENT.
Ih:-policg on policies to he issuerj wilr contain er:cept,ions to the following unless the saore ane dispos*d sf to the iatisfaction of the Cornpeng s
r' SiendariJ Fxceptisns r ihnough s pninted on the cover sheet.
6. Taxes and assessnents not get ,jue or pageble anrJ speciel essessorents not get centified to f,he Tneesurer's bflice.
7 . Ang unpa i ri taxeE or tsEsessrrrents aga i nst sa i d lancl .
B. Liens for unpaid weter end gearer charges, if ang.
'. RIE}IT OF FROPFIETOR OF A UEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REI'IOVE HIS ORE THEEEFF(Of.I SHOULD THE SAITIF F.E FOUI{T, TO PENE'RNiE ON INTERSECT TIJE FREIIISES AS RESERUED IN UNTTED srArEs FATENT RECoRDED JUNE 15, 191se II,I BOSI{ 93 AT FAGE 15,
10. R16HT OF LIAY FOR OITCI.IES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED FY THE AUTHOR]TY OF TIIE UilITED STATES AS RESERVED TI.t UNITED STATES FATENT RECO&DED JUNE 15, 1918, IH g00K 93 AT FA6E 15,
SCHEDULE B-?
( E;rcept i onE )Aprpl icet, ion No. V00tt3677
11.
t4' EASEI'IENT$ t! sH.0l,tN 0N THE RECoRDED FLAT 0F VAIL VILLAGE uEST, FTLTNC NO. 3.
RESTRICTIUE C0VENANTS' IdHICH D0 N0T C0NTAIN A F0RFEITUKE OR REUERTER CLAUSE' BUT OIYIITTIN6 fuESTRICTIONSI.-1I INY, EASED ON RACE, COLOR,lqf l[6roNp 0R NATToNAL,0nrGrN, A5 i0NTAINED IN ir,rSinufiENr RECoRDED JAilUARy 11, 1979, It{ BOOK 380 AT PAGE 7S1.
UTILITY EASEnENT As 0RANTED TO uFT,ER EAGLE uALLEY SANITATIoN t}ISTRICT II,t II.ISTRUITENT RECORDED JULY Or,_iSEdI-irI EOOK 305 AT FAGE 303.//.f , ( I3./ UTlLITY AI.ID DRATI.IA6E FASEI'IENTS TEN I]EET IN t,IIDTI"I ALONO EACH sIDE OF \/ Eugny BAcr{ LoT LINE 0F Evenv LoT rN rHe suenrursroN, 7.g FEET rN I,IIDTH ALOI.IG EACI-I SIDE OF EVERY SIDE LOr r.irIg OF EVERY LOT II,I THE SUBDIV,ISTON FRONTIN6 ON A DEDICATED STREEi OR ROAD, EXCir.r_WgENg 0TFlEFu,rsE I'torED oN THE FLAT oF HIGHLAND neeoows, FILIN6 i{0. t.
19. RESTRICTIONS FOR DE$ISI.TATED P.UILDIN6 AREA I,JITHII.t SA]D LOT AS CONTAINED ON TI-IE PLAr FOR HIEIILAND NTENOOUS,
-rir.rruE
NO. ?.
16- t)EEF tiF Tfiu$T-!fIED f'lARCil i:i, 1?78, l--Rsf{ l-ltGl.t uurJ,{l;ii i.riltF,0RATroN, A c0LoltAD{i E0RIrOltATt0N T0 rHE t-'ur,lrc-TRUsrEt-or Encr-E couNTy Forr TnE u5F,0F VArL 0ITy r:0RF,0rrATroN'io 5rcuftE THt SUfl sF $550r000.00 EECoRDED r'rAncil rr., rt178, ri{ B00lt r6E A'r- FnoE
- rzs.
SAID DEEO {,F TF{UST ilA5 ASSIGNFD TO UNIVERSITY I{ATIONAL FANH ]N AssrGNJrlENr REc0RDED .JAT.IUARY 04, l,FB0, rN B0ot( a?g AT F,AGE 836.
'A.L T
SCHEDULE S-?
{ Encept i ons )Appl icat ion No. V0083677
T7. DEED OF TIlUsT DATED FEBRUARY 15, 1.?7q, FF|OII P.ARP.ARA EUANS TO THE
PUP.LIC TRUSTEE OF EA6LE COUIITY FOR THE USE OF HI6H COUNTRY
C0RF0RATI0N, A C0L0RAD0 C0Rp0ftATION T0 SECURE THE suf'l 0F $49,00CI.ott
RECoADED flARCH 05, 1979, rN E00l( lS3 AT PA6E 575.
NOTE: THE FURCHASER SHOULD CONSULT I!'ITH
INDEP,TEOI'IESS SECUFED A5 TO T}{E TERF'IS ANO
ASSUMPTION OF SAID INDEBTEDNESs.
THE HOLDER OF THE
coNDrTIolls, IF Al,lY, FoR THE
w t
llf tl,l'lY l.OCAl'l0N Vl:lill:lCA'lloli
surrrr r v r s r 0N_ ))lcp upe-_file a povlJ--
lot NNtn -t i?, - r{laet As.o<, l{a-
ror_)--___ tt ocr FILr),lc y
ADDRESS
The location of utilities,
lines, nust be approved and
acconpanying site plan.
whether they
verified bY
be nain trunk
the following
lincs or proposed
utilities for the
Mountain Bell
Western Slope Gas
Public Service Conpany
Holy Cross Electric Assoc.
Vail Cable T.V.
Upper Eagle Valley Water
and Sanitation District
Date
vl t^a (24,7 ru; popsg/!H,,€
J'4' 8\Ttu
iJdre 3:ltz
NOTE: These verificat-ions do not relieve the contractor of his
responsibility to obtain a street cut Pernit from the
Town of Vail, Departnent of Public itlorks and to obtain
utility' locatiols before digging in any public right-
of-way or easenent in the Torm of Itail. A bui.lding pendt
is not a street cut pernit. A street cut pelnit nust be
obtained separateLy.
this fo:sr is to verify service avaiLablity and location.
This shouLd be used in conjunction with preparing your
utility plan anJ scheduling installations.
I Project Application
Date
Contact Person and Phone
Owner. Address and Phon€:
Architect, Address and Phone:
Legal Description: t-ot --3- Bloct<rurng Ht(.,rAM) Hwly$ * -
Design Review Board
lyzdtA
DISAPPROVAL
/ fl*Trz-
4As74t*t -r-o
Town E star Approval
box 100
vail, colorado 81657
{303} 47&5613
July 9, 1982
Robin Roberts
c/o Bridge St. Rea'lty
286 Bridge St.
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Robin:
0n July 7, 1982 the Design Rev'iew
Lot 3. The Board indicated that
and the dogwood 'locatjon present
Si ncene'ly,
t. ./'hW /,
Jini Sayre
Town P'lanner
JS:df
department of community development
DRB Submittal of 7-7-82
Board approved your duplex
the spruce and aspen shou'l d
to Staff for approval.
l arger
for
be
' 'No % c-Aflfrcilo.a/
R&44€/r?6il7
SOI LS AND FOUNDATION .TNVESTIGAT'ION
FOR
LOT 3, HtGt.tLAND MEADOVTS FtL|NG N0. 2 ' vAlL, COLORADO
PREPARED FOR:
ROBIN ROBERTS
PROJECT NUMBER V-2035G
t9B2 MAY
'cx l,to. c-1F
. \r;\. co 81620
\9.:072 Dtr,J\/t n 693.1531
1420 VAT{CE SINEF
LAI(E\^DOD. CO 8m',
Phono: 232{1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
coNcLUs l0Ns
SCOPE
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
S ITE INVEST IGAT ION
SUBSURFACE AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS 2
r . PROPOSED CONSTRUCT lol.t 2
. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 3
SLAB CONSTRUCT ION
GROUNDI,IATER AND DRAIN SYSTEM
RE INFORC ING
CRAWL SPACE COVER
BACKF I LL AND SURFAC:E DRA INAGE:
LAWN IRRIGATION 6
7 M I SCELLANEOUS
TEST LOCATION Drawing No. I .
SUMMARY OF TEST BORINGS Figures hto. I E z
PERIPHERAL DRAIN SYSTEM DETAIL Ftgure No. 3
ADDEIIDUM: LETTER T0 STEVE PATTERS0N
DATED JULY 7, 1982
coNcLUs l0l'ls
are fal rly
to a depth
and orave | .)"iJ.
2. The
on the
t lona I sp
mum so e_a,ri.lrg, PEes
SCOPE
. This report presents the results of a Soi ls and Foundation
lnvestigation for the propos.ed residence on Lot 5, Hlghland
Meadovrs Fi ling No. 2,' Ya i l, Colorado. The invesf igation was
prepared by means of *est bori ngs.
I . Subso i
over fhe s
feet under
conditions
te with silt
un i f orm
of n i ne
This investlgation presenis a description of sur
.und .rubsurf ace ionditions encountered at fhe site, re
foundation sy-stems, al lowable design pressures, and g
conditions'as well as design and construction criteri
by the subsoi ls. ;
f ace
c6mnre n de d
roundwater
a i nf I uenced
SITE LOCATION. AND DESCRIPTION
The site is located In part of the Southwest one-quarter
of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 12, Township 5 South,
Range Bl l,lest of the Sixth.Principal Meridian, Eagle Counl'y,
Colorado. The -lot is very steep, drai ning to the north. Vege-
tation consi sts of nati ve qrasses.
SITE INVESTIGATION
The field investrgation performed.on Apri l 23, rgg2,
consisted of drirring, rogging, and s.ampring fwo test borings...,
The locations of the test borings are shown on Drawing No. r.
summaries of the boring rogs are de+air9d on Figures No. I
and 2.
. The test borings vrere advanced with a six-inch diameter,
continuous-type, Power-f l'ight, auger drilt. Undisturbed labo-
ratopy samples lvere obtained by driving a two-inch diameter
t California-type sampler one foot into undisfurbed soils with
'a 140-pound hammer falring th.irty inches. Laboratory iesting
of these samples courd'not be performed due to the presence
of ta rge grave I i n the samp I es.
. suBsuRF4CE AND GROUNDWATER COI.JD I T IOl,rs
Refer to the summary of,boring fogs, Figures No. I and 2.
:. subsurface conditrons are fairry uniform, wrth sr rt, very moist,_-to a@ underlain by sand and gravel..
overrot grading has been done prior to fhis investlgation.
No ground'afer.was encountere.d in either of the test borings
at *he time of drillino.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
No specific design data nas leen provided, but for the
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - continued
purpose of this analysls, lt has been presumed 'that os ed
significantly from this understand
residence wi I I consist of .'three f loors includin a basemenf,
and that loads wi ll be lig_ht.lf the proposed project differs
i n_g,'u -t lieg__:hou I d be
made af ter the p I ans are more comp l.ete.
FOUNDAT I ON RECOMMENDATI ONS
Very low fo non-consolidating sands and gravels wi ll
be encountered i n the excavati on. The proposed res i dence shou ld
be founded on conventional type spread footings designed for
. At th i s pressure,
f oundation sef -l lemenf s w.i I I be *o lerab le. lt wou ld be adv.i sab le
'to p'roportion footings so as fo minimize dlfferential settlements.
The bottom of the fooflng should. be placed a {-i!-imu-!q-et:1g
S LAB CONSTRUCT ION
The upper natural soi ls vi ll provide adeguate support
for slab-on-grade construction. lf clean, granular.soils
are' imported to be used as select fi ll no problem with capi llary
rise of moisture wi I t occur. Holever, if l-he select fl ll
contains some clays or f Ine materi-als there is alrvays the
possibi lity of capillary rise of nroisture.
a maximum soi I bearin
i nches below f in rade for frost orotection.
SLAB COI'ISTRUCT tON - cont inued
lVe suggest that the plans and specifications be prepared
wil'h a specif ied minirnum of J rnctreS.ot cf earr. washed_grav_e_l_
l.mmediaiery under the froor srabs. The purpose of this crean,
washed materiar is to break capi ilary .,." of moisture to
avoid problems with bonding of asphalt ti les to froor srabs
and other probrems associated with minor amounts of.moisture.
l'le suggest densi fying the surf ace of f i lt or naturat
soi ls wiih a vibratory type compactor immediately prior to
placement of f loor srabs. srabs shour.d be consl-ructed .rn accor-
dance uith ACr recommendations to minimize fhe risk of shrinkage
prob lems. S labs shou ld be scored
foot areas io localize and confrol any crack i ng.
4
GROUNpT{ATER ANp DRAIN SYSTEM , , fl+et... :
While t/as .encountered at the
time the fierd rnvestigation was conducted, it is possible
that seasonal variafions wi ll cause f luctuations, or for a
water table to be present in the upper soirs ouring the spring
months' or after a prolonged' perrod of rain. A peripherai
dllin system as detailed on Figure No. j should be installed.
RE!l'tFORCll'lG
Foundati on walls shou ld be wel
2i
mi n i mi ze the effects of d i fferent i b
foundation designs for reinforcing
l-relnforced
I rnovcments.
deta i I s.
so as to
Refer to
CRAWL SPACE COVER
I'lhen molst soi ls are encountered in the excavation, the
ground surface in crawl space areas should be covered with
an imperv i ous mo i sfure barrier. sea led aga i nst the foot I ngs -
This wi ll help to reduce humidity in the crat'rl sPace area
and wl ll also prevent the moist foundation soils from drying
and shrinking, which'c.ould possibly cause fhe structure to
sett I e.
BACKF I I.L AND SURFACE DRA I NdGE
The potentially consolidating foundation soi ls encounl-ered
in porJ-ions of the site should be prevented from being wetted
after construction. General ly, this can be accomplished by
insuring that the backfi ll placed around l'he foundation walls
wi ll no'f settle. after compleilon of construction and that
the backf i ll rnaterial is relatlvely impervious. Water should
be odded to backf i lI material to allow proper -compactioqr --
do nol puddle.
Surface water running toward thc struc-lure from upslopc'
\
BACKF I LL AND SURFACE DRA INAGE - 'cont i nued
areas should be diverted around and away from the building
.t
by means of drainage swales or other simi lar measures.
The final grade should have ai positive sloPe ar'ray from
the foundation walls on all sides, A minimum of l2 inches
ln the first ten feet is recommended. Oownsp'outs and si lt
cocks should discharge into splash blocks that ex.tend beyond
the limits of the backf i ll. Splash blocks shoulci slope f rom
the foundation wal lsJ The use of long downspout extenslons
in place of splash blocks is advisable.
LAtiN IRRIGATION
Do not install sprinkler systems next fo foundaiion walls,
porches or patio slabs. lf sprinkler systems are installed,
the sprinkler heads should be'placed so fhat the spray from
the heads, under full p..rul.", does not fall within five
feet of f ounciation walls, porches or patio slabs. Lawn irri-
gat i on musf be contro I I ed.
lf the f.uture owners cie.s i re to p lanf next to foundat i on
walls, porches or patio slabs, and are wi lling to assume the
risk of sfructural damage, etc., then it is aOvisable to plant
only flowers and shrubbery (no lawn) of varieties that require
very I it+le moisture, These f lowers and shrubs should be
hand-watered on ly.
M ISCELLAI,IEOUS
Some of the soils a'1. the si'le are potentially consolidating
andiheownershou|o6ecautioneditrat.thereissomer|sk
ol future damage. tf" contractor .is directed to -lhose items
covered under BACKFILL AND suRFAOE DRAINAGE and LA|.IN lRRtGATloN.
our experience has shown that damage due to swelling or conso-
I idating soi ls usually results f rom saturatton of .f.he foundation
soi ls caused by improper drainage, excessive I rri'ga-f ion,.and
The elimination of the potenfial
sources of excessive vra.ter wi ll greatly rninimize the risks
of construction of this site.
. This report has been prepared for the excrusive use of
Robin Roberts for the specific application to the proposed
residence located on Lot 3, Highland Meadows Fi ling No. 2, Vai l,
colorado. No slope stabi lify analysis oi the sife was performed.
The f i nd i ngs and recommendaf ions of th i s report have
been obfained in accordance rwith accepted professional engi_
neering practices in the field of Foundation Engineering and
soi I Mechanics. Tlrere is no other warranty, either express
or implied.
I
S i nce re I y,
I NTER-MOUNTA I N ENG I NEER ]I.IG,t/%*,m-LTD.
G, Thonras Allen Field Enq i nee r 4:i;+ti%
li{rso4e,r!*
W;t*,#
Ch icl Soi l s.Enginecr
By:
, VA IL V ILLAGE WEST
--
ll tt
I Lor3 rl I Lorr I I Lor 4
| -BoRll'lG#l 6BoRlNG#2 I rl
I -lf tl
VERMONT ROAD
I
il
il
tl
(
FI dl ol
=l
.T.S.
TEST LOCATION
LOT 3,
PROPOSETJ RESIDENCE
H IGHLAI.ID I'II-ADOWs F I LING
vA I L, C0L0I{AD0
FOR ROBIN ROBERTS
NO.
pnortct No.t V-2035G
SCiLf.o4rE I DII'/Y ftt tnAw !. HO.' I
;.-(,oR tNG No. r (
DATE ORILLED:
ELEVATIOTI:
I orrrx
IIH F EE'
o
10
t5
20
FEEI {;4.ri .ft €'t ' DESCCITTTOE 'OC ' tiATEFtAL n€|^aRxs
*36/ t2
SILT, very moist T:
i.q
);.6.i
:'o-l st iit /."rr
'n.i 'a:.;
l8r
-'-o!px
t"^'
.6i
r?*
)."ej
:"...Q
Fi{
$.::
,P.-'l
i:8
t":":
SAttD (si l1'y) and GMVEL
j
I
I
I
Ref usa I l9r No groundwater
en cou n'l e red.
SUMMARY OF TEST BORINGS
PROPOSID RES IDENCE
HIGHLAt,'lD r.lEADOr{S Ft Llr,tG
VAIL, COLORADO.
FOR ROBIN IIOBIRTS
LOT
rfrorr.ct r*o.: \r_2015G
t I(;URr iao.: I
I
li
li
ll
tl
It
f'
Ii
lri
L:
lrl
t
t;
( onrNc No. z (
DATE DRII LED:
ELEVATION:
dErrx
IH f CEJ
0 ---r
rr&{"u";oEscRtPTtoit oF &ratfRlal AEUARKS
*56/t2
SILT, very moist
ffi
SAND, GRAVEL & COBBLES
Refusal. at l5l No groundwater
err cou nte re d .
SUMMARY OF TEST BORINGS
3,
PROPOSED RESIDENCE
HIGHLAND I.::ADCWS F I t.ING
VAIL, COLORADO.
FOR IIOBII'I ROBERTS
LOT NO.
F rorr,cr Aro.: V-i?035G
r rclrtf lio.: 2
Foundation Walt
Po I yethe lene l.tci sture tBarri
e glued to foundation wall
#15 Felt
Paper
Minimum of 6tr of 5/4 inch gravel
4rr Diameter perforated pipe
sfoped a minimum ol O-25$to sewer .l atera I subdrain,
sump pump or daylighted
Backf i | |
and well
rro i stened
compacted
DETA I LS OF PER I PHEML DRA I I,I SYSTEI.|, FOR FOOTING TYPE FOUNDATIOI.,I
r tcurrr 5
y :14,';5 C?
TJ
ADDTIJDUM
1,120 VANC€ $t?tET
tAKElt\)cD. co 8tr2.15
Phono: it.r'r O 1i>3
I er-Bllount:r.in Engineeringua-
: Nrc. c-lm
',1. co 816?0
)7? DINvi.nl 89:1-i531
.Ju]y
7, l9B2
l,lr. Steve Patterson
Building Official
Tor,ln of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd. ll.Vail, Colorado 8.|657
' Re: Soils Investigation
. Lot 3, Highland Headovrs Fi'ling No. 2
.Dear Steve:
This 'l etter should.answer any quest.ions you have concerning the soi'ls investiqation of the above-ieferenced l;t p;;p;r;d for RoEin Roberts.
]f,vou have aiy additional qr"tiloni, I vrill be happy to meet rvith you at your convenience to ansr,rer them.
As 'the'surunary_ of test borings show the soils on this site consist of silts underlain-by sand,-gravei, and cobblecl ioiil'. These-soils are suitabte for backfirl mateiiit. Eicessiv;it ;"s;i; iopsoir and loose dumped fi't't materiSr; seneral'rv unaerso hirii,' ;;iil;-";ins", when sub-'' jected to loads. This-is aet.iruniil-to t6e u"r,uvior"or pavements,floor-s'labs' structural fills and shaliour-iounJiiio"i pr"i"o-"ion-i1ur.Therefore, it is reconrnended that excessively o"gunit. lopso:ts and ]oose dumped fi'l'l materials be stripped irom ttresiu""ii uno wasted or stockpiled for 'later use.
The boring summarjes a'lso shol.that drilling refusal vras reached at depths of 15 aid'r9.feet. fte maieriir ai ih.i;;"i;h-is a qraver and cobb'le formation. Therefore, the cause or rurusui'ian'ue uirr*"d io-u"rarger-sized bou'rders. Refeience to "Indexei ;;-c";i;g;; u;;;;';;,"i"ii"county, colorjado" prepared by charles s. Robinson and-Associatesn Inc.,in .l975 for the col orido Geoi og'ica'l -survey ana rigi"-county, co.torado,indicate that bedrock in this irea could i,e as ieip-ui-too feet or more.site inspections do nbt show evidence of slope instability on this lot' l'loderate excavation cuts i ntJ the hi I'l side srlouia not severely a1 ter the slope stability. If sheet pitils, shoring o"-uri.ins -is used, it should be in accoriance rviih-ilrt ru]es and requlations qoverning excava_tion uork adopted by the Industria'l commission of co] oracto.
Hr. Steve Patterson
'Page 2
July 7' 1982
.Backfill operations shou'ld inc'lude the addition of r'rater to tbe soil if needed to reach optimum moisture content to ajd in obtaining proper
ccmpaction. Proper compaction wi'l 1 prevent sett'l ement of backfilled soi'ls"
and make them re1atively impervious. This will prevent surface vrater from
saturating the potentially consolidating foundation soi.ls.
"Basic Soils Engineering" by B.K- Hough states that si'lt mjxed rvith
varjous amounts of sand will exert an equivalent fluid unit weight of 3I to
45 pcf. Depending on vrhether the soil is 'loose or compacted, an equivalent fluid unit vreight of 45 pcf should be used for design purposes.
If it is not feasib'le to have the building foundations bear on the
sand and gravel formation, they may bear on the silty soils if the maxjmum sojl bearjng pressure is reduced to 1000 psf. An inspection should be made of the open excavation by an engineer fami'l iar with the soi'l condjtions to insure that the soi'l s have the requ'ired bearing capacities and that no
debrisn soft spots, or areas of unusually lor,l density are 'l ocated in the
foundation region. At that tirne, a representative sample of the excavated soils can be taken to perform Proctor testing. It is recommended that
ASTI'I Standard D-698 be used for.this test.
The soi'ls investi'gat'ion showed no evidence that genera'l concrete
construction cannot be used. Therefore, Type I cement may be used in the concrete mix.
-Figure No. l enclosed shows the proposed locatjon of the duplex and the'location of the exp'loratory drilling holes.
You have also requested that information be presented on maximum
span for unsupported grade beans. This is a function of the structural design' not of the soils investigation, and I cannot supply this information.
_ 'Again, if you have any,questions concerning this soi'l s investioation,please contact me and I will be happy to meet with you at your convinienci.
Sincerely, ,:,
/o,fl.o'--'
G.lThomas Al'len
Fie'ld Engincer
/%"-
and Approved By:
i Spanel n
i dent
GTA: cjn
cc: Robin Roberts
PF
LOT
<'
r!-l P
=o
-{
F o
tJ
LOT
I
I
I
LOT
SET BACKS
TEST
a
I I
I
I
I
I
I
TEbT -l
I
I L---
PROPOS ED
DUPL EX
0RII'lG #1
TEST LOCATIOAI
@
A5
PROPOS[D DUPLEX
l{IGHLAHD l{ffrD0l'lS FILING N0.
VAIL, COLOIIADO
F(;R Ri)BIN ROIJTRTS
Ptnrcr No., V-2035G
dRoulro
. covERs
\
s0D
AC NpeoeR-
l"+L f3F <EEaF.\ tU,fLJ tJtt:fl
SQUARE FOOTAGE
15
ED
SQUARE FOOTAGE
SEED SQUARE FOOTAGE
L i'E
lASta ns F )?a-:amttf murcrl
' fl'{tF&f,L
PrJF Ai1PttcAqiorJ oF 4 At.tK
TYPE OF
IRRIGATION
TYPE OR METHOD
OF EROSION CONTROL
C. Other Landscape Features (retaining wal 1s, fences, swimming pools, etc.) Please specify.
0
Ll.5l trti ,.'A IL]. r rrLJ
li.1i.li: itl
l,lltlAl. ltl.
ttl:.!d;li ll'l
l.._.Ae..,tts r i :,;i c'r' -- .ftrr(" l.e
Thc. fol lor.'ini; infornatiorr i:i
Doard bcl'rrre a finul :rllltrovaI
A. BUILNTi'{(; NIT'TERIA',S
Roof
Siding
Other lfall Materials
Fascia
Soffits
lfindor,rs
Window Trin
tbors
D'oor Trin
Hand or Deck Rails
Flues
Flashings
Chiureys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
Other
B. LANDSCAPING
Name of Designer:
Phone :
PIANT MATERIALS
Botanlcal Name
TREES SceA ?t^n&tqS
rurlti rctl for sulrnriLt:rl by t.hc u11rl i(::rrll- to thc Dcsi!:tr licvicw
c:rrr bc l:ivcn:
Tyfrc of trt:rt_crial Color
mr-/'f/L Dk fr?odiJ
rJbi,tt'-.
Corsnon Name
caW SPPUcE W: ffi,r;:
C08Fq5 S{abvnfSRA ?eafutS-DdatodD 6
fr Fqt mueo fiu,gat<Ir\u60 l,ils< rrtfiJ )pe Y
fo{e+fl\/J p etfcosfr GatA DtoP Pri-srt't/}4-H--
6ulaJur,antE I
A<aEn ry6
t!r!!- BiD
{aAt 7u tlE
Srlt
3E
It
l-lL,'
ll t:,t: iSr,," Ar,^ . A Z *\ z=--.2. -..,- ^ b >n s
SHRUBS sl?dhAt_*p'ta Corf.
*Project Application
*-Z 4rt-.b Project Description:
Contact Person and Phone
owner, Address and phone: fr .-"r, 4Afm's o / E, )ra a S, ?r*rr, -"'
Architect, Address and Phone:
Legal Description, t-ot ,=7 , g,o"*
Comments:
4 d
Design Review Board
Motion by:rkSY,a
Seconded by:
fa-EL/t)/p44/6fu \--DISAPPROVAL 'J^-c:
/
Summary:N
-t (.)N _?A_uCr totl , " t-Axl.a qt a,.af zeU4 N ,e S 44Jz,g,r-D-,,
:L-rVAJ-l o
w/a.
7 A((4;4,1At 6 S .ya) rlJ !,.,\..9 o qJ si,.-l- A*) /.L.
I "1 c,t 61 t.-
Date:
S A)I;E ulOn- t:.
E stalt Approval
fie,r*rev 43s.-a,.
_.-3
f -2
'l'hci fol l.rl'iini'. irrforn:rt io' i:;
lloa rd bcf'rrrr: a finul :rppr.ov;rI
A. lllrlt,lrlii(; i.t{ilitllAI.S
Roof
Siding
Othcr l'ial1 l"laterials
Fascia
Soffits
Windovrs
Windovr Trirn
Doors
Door Trirn
Hand or Deck Rails
Flues
Flashings
Chirnneys
. Trash Enclosures
Greenhous es
Other
B. LANDSCAPING
Name of Designer:
Phone :
PLANT MATERIALS
t'(:(ltr i r('al for l:rrltt'r i t t;r I by
c:r rr lrc l:ivcn:
-!)fg 1l-|-iLLt_(:''j!'I
thr-. appl irr;rnt t.o th6
(lolor
t',r" P'vptgoa ?1 Dr... a?aur{
?t:t ua Noqo il.t .Ja"'g_
/ 'Y -- i ,?.cr r-*ottt - Dk ii ee,4,<'L
Fr? Dk 'AAroL'"-
Cormon Name Size
./3;
Botanical Name
TREES hcra P4tn6r
(t a'fqs s-ilitoJt rere+
. (nr /3 r8
-fz*t.
7-ga-r3 r'8,
L{r-s"
32-t,,t 13.'8
/)rPctS tTlu tbr r{luAr-us
t?,.lAnnns cAoOUrir,O
llNr^t Po;taro'Fesa
P*fa,aTrLuL ffufigit_GlaD D?er (no Dloe)fttpfLtA tg _*At
SHRUBS SyR'uen ?r,astg_tl
-i 'r-/. D&e4. ffru$.. - l)k ,ir?rruH
Quanti ty
'rdrL-A
"6 )NE-J
?1-CrcgylaclsPg
P o t lEEEEriA,_HAtrA r rE e_B.t!E 3
(I 8u GslAe--Lufl.@ it a w!:.3r e.+t-ilru,pAr Qs.-3-3r; cela
a
/GR0UND
COVERS
C squn(e FoorAir
s0D SQUARE FOOTAGE
SQUARE FOOTAGE SEED TYPE
TYPE OF
IRRIGATION
TYPE OR METHOD . -,.. OF EROSION CONTROL.
' C. Other Landscape Features (retaining wa] ls, fences, swimming pools, etc.) Please specify.
t''
Dear Desigu Review Board Appli.cant:
EncLosed is your Design Beview Board. Project Application showing
the approvalTdisapproval of your project including cornments from
the Board
ff you received approval from the Design Review -B-oard, you must
mafl any correcti6-ns stipuLated by the-Board and bring the revi-sed
plans til tne Town PLanner before applying for a Buildlng Permit.
i{o site work may be commenced untiL the revisions are approved _by the Town Planner and two sets of working drawings are submi.tted
to the Building DePartment.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to cal-L: the
Town Planuer at .476-7000, ext. 102.
box 100
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 47650ttt z a,ro
DEPARTI,IENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPTMNT
department of community development
,rl ., rr){'rTLGr"
s0D SQUARE FOOTAGE Qco
Glr0uliD
TOVERS
SEED TYPE SQUARE FOOTAGE
TYPE OF
IRRIGATiON
t
i
s
,]
.
.j
5-
:":
;at
t';
,:j
TYPE OR METHOD
OF EROSION CONTROL
C. 0ther Landscape Features (retaining wa1ls, fences,'swimming poo'l s, etc.) Please specify.
t+dlZ HBAwr.rl bu
Tnd',:l*
_" l;;:: 0? t*
't'h c l'ollr,uin" inforrn:rt iott i:;
lloa rr.l br'l'rr:'r: ;r J'in:rl :rlrpro\tal
A. Bt,ll,trlii(; i'tA'll:RIALS
loof
Siding
Othcr t'iall I'laterials
Fascia
Soffits
l{indons
Window Triut
Doors
Door Trin
Hand or Dcck Rails
Flues
Flashings
Ghimreys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhous es
Other
lt.r1rr.i 1'1;il for ':rtbrr'ittttl by
c:r ri l)c 1;iv,,'tr:
'$Pe of {rt-,?'rxl
l.lrc irl;rt it':rrtt to tho Dc:;illr l:.'vi.r."l
UoIor
'Lbvb.{L
rL* lrL - - Dv, bPaM
t/+' P t-:!wP k'+) Dv, oPo t,.!t1
P>u* Heo PV,O4dt4
I
I v 4 - h?tctt gaau> ?b, btu+it{
t n*"*U ,ru,tO ._ *'r*^" _
4u 'LvL Fvur+ Vlt*.OPoa*
- .4al J-vt'"1!:J
Conmon Name
L l-
B. LANDSCAPING
Name of Designer:
Phone :
PLANT I,IATERIALS
TREES
Botanica'l Name Size
_a
0^_g-
Quanti ty
tr2
11 Md_4Was_
lz, b\bdl4
SHRUBS t\Jz.?-(:tLrrl, (carl lf flt\ lO h'- 4,1
ZE'
I I
I
.iid...', ,
r
C
ENG
(A) Topo MaP
(B) site Plan
(c) utility Plan
(D) Title RePort
tti irno:uis'ion Agreement ('if applicable)
2. tngineerjng Requf rements
h\ f,r'!rrari. (ize AJone fu<be'(A) Culvert Size
-
lvoNe f v€€r
iiti D;i veway GradE--(BZEalI-@Tuat-1;
t
Subdivision
Lot
B'lock
Filing
l. Submitta'l Items
3. Source of Utilities
,-.
INEERII{G CHEEK LIST
Noua Tttsz€ ---
(Acceptable) (llot AccePtable)
(,
u/--7-
-t/
f,
B
c
D
E
c
El ectri c
Gas
Sener
l,later
Tel eplrcrie
4. Con';nents
taz 3-
|1-14"u-^ <e S.ueer-
*iE. i7"*-+
Approved:
Di sapproved:
a
tl a////F2-
Bil l Arrdreus
r. fte tactiistc8 tast.llcrt tr rht tbor€-lrtcrlH 'e
8s!tr3 -'bt! !-!. -
: i:rf
lnarsl l6dr lalniatn C. ad opore:od ro .r to 9'rctt lartr.r :-t-:1^:l:TT: r ,lnatslladr .alotaLn {' arr oP.raEGc ro 'r ro r""'- -il] il-lii"*ii'ii-fr-'.i' ",aT:i
inu ",rtta". bt craotosr lt6 hslrr' autcorgor' bod itttg
necrarort to ssp.tr or rePlac. th€ trclllclo.. 6t'!t@ rblt tsetctc th€ utrce '1Ji!
of !h€ land cs osorlt ., *y-U" piectfcrUte t; ltc "$.codfttT-|-:-:?
grb
' j..tr [;Y
to such rogolf or rePlacgtron!. provfdod oo t'r!!"ncl tutldttrS' 'lruetqtct toptovcosni. lcnca or tt3€ sh6[l be Plae!' thtteoo Dt claolor'
srcnuD A.\D DSLTVBnSD cr|.J 22 . &l c3 A?ev l9EO.
CRiuamRr /
STATI OF ClLtFOAillA
COTI!{TY OF BIVERS IDE
)
)sa.)
Ttrts!|otart"altonlsforlhs-sttt!.luraoo.thl6toscSolnaEASeGmDaED h3s 22 A^, oa A@rL
-.-i---ackn,rsledB+d befJro l€ oD thla
il"l"""'Ie441 Wein:- l' p |':EFE'1..:" ::"Y..:y ca'e -_-._'--':=l- -'o=%a.i-til ioititrtS tostrito{G' ond duly oehaorradgcd t6dtvtdual Jcscrtb€d to arl{
ii"i'i. "."""tud tho 8.8e fos lh€ gurpole c€nllotcd tb'r!ro'
offlclal 9e.l
-/-
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
April 26,.1982
PRESENT
l,lil I Trout
Duane Piper
Dan Oorcoran
Jim Viele
Diana Donovan
ABSENT
,lim Morgan
Scott Edwards
Dan Corcoran, chairman, called the meeting to order.
l, Approval_of milules of Aprll 12 meeting.
Dan mentioned that he did not second to adjourn the meeting of 4/12.
else could remember just who djd, Duane moved and Jim V seconded to
tjre minutes, The vote was 5,0 in favor
ITAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Betsy Rosolack
No one
approve
lex with
Peter P, reviewed the memo and explained that the staff cou'ld find no real relationship
between the s1 ope of a site and the ratio of floor areas between units, Thereforen
since the design of the proposed units were not "mirror imager" the staff recommended
approva'l of the requested variances as long as the design of the second unit
upon each lot would remain substantia'l1y different in design from that of the first unit upon each 1ot.
llill Trout moved and Jim V seconded to approve the request with the design contingency
described by the memo and by Peter. The vote was 4"0 in lfavor with Dan abstaining.
2,est for 2 variances of the hazard u'lations to build a du
3,ues.t for two revisions to an a roved conditonal use rmit in a Publ ic
ail
Peter Patten described the memo and Steve Patterson answered questions of the
corrnission and audience, The concerns were sufficient drainage, and retaining
the teen center. Diana asked if any other sites had been cons'idered for the
teen center;zand Steve answered that temporarily, the teen center wou'ld be housed i4 the old toln shops. He added that knock-out panels which could change into additional windols,'and stubbed plumbing would bb inc1uded in the teen ienter area.of the library to make it easier and less expensive to convert this to employee
hous'ing when the teen center is relocated.
Pat Kenney, representing the 12 fami'lies in the Lionshead Lodge, expressed the
concern. over having the teen center on the west sideo the noise generated by
them;:'the nurnber of teens using the center, and the fact that he hadn't seen
raf,l o oT .T I oor area on ea an
a
any informatjon relating'to a teen center published
He felt that perhaps the Town should exp'lore moving
ie 4/26/82 -z-
prior to the bcnd election.
the center to anorher site.
ltli'l'l was concerned about the nofse on the west side, Duane questioned the cost to the Town to first make.the space into a teen centern and then itrJnge-6a.i--into-employee housing, steve said the Town hadn't figured ilre Cosi. "orun.-
asked if $rly. space outside were to be used by the teeis, and Steve insweiea tnat f,nere woul0 De sumner.use 0n a-patio about 60 square feet'large, and pam Hopkins,architectr-zstated that the patio was also desigried for counseling ,-
Duane asked if soundproofing would be added, and Steve replied it would be. Duane asked-if perhaps there could be an entrance'for the teens'ttrroudn ir,"'no"tt, rio"to hel.p reduce the noise on the west side, It was explained th;t this haa Oeen considered;but the mechanical room was in the way, ahd to have tfre entiince---
ll,"otrgl,the library would mean that the teen centLi would have to close when the 'library closed.
Wi1.l-pointed out that there have been some very good experiences with teen centers and libraries working together.n-but that thts iii not abpiv to the outiiae spi."s.He added that 3 surfaces were being created which made it litticutt to curb Lhe noise and fe] t that the teens shouTd enter on the north and not Ue-aiiowea-on'--the west side. He referred to opposition to the teen center in a letter from Frank Cicero dated April 2l , lgBZ to the town,
Peter Patten read from the information printed in the Vail Trail before the election in which the teen center i: mentioned.
Duane felt that the teen center and library could be a positive mix, but wished that the teens didn't have to enter on the-west side. ii* V, echoei Ouane inU-felt that it would be nice if the teens could enter at ihe main entry. oiani stated that in the nnny times she goes by the teen center each day. it aopeared to be one of the quietest buirdingi in t-own tecauie-ieens ieit ah;i ii;5!;;;-cool t0 use a teen center-'that it was mostly used by pre-teens, She expressed disappointment that the town was shiiking iti ouiv ii, pi.Juiaing'empiovee'|1ouiins,
Steve Patterson mentioned that the number of teens would be Iimited because of the occupancy load requirements, and it was his feellng thit there would be less noise with a teen center than with employee housing wlin iewer entrances and limited hours, Ron Byrne from the auiieirce agreed-with the combjnation of uses,but wanted to know if- the town had received,aiv-eitiriri[ei"6n moving tne Uuitaing.Steve answered that it.would cost from $40,000-to gOO,OOO to retocite the building,and that it could not be included in the cipital iirpr6vemenis ror ine neit-J-y".rr.
Duane moved and Diane seconded to approve the two revisions to the conditiona'l use. perm'it.for the proposed town of'Vai'l 'library as stated in the staff memo wtn tne addition of,a 3 year time-f imit place{ pn..!l,g use of the said space as a teen center. The vote was 3'l in favor with t'Jilt voiing againit anh oin abstaining,
PEC 4/26/82
4, lu!]=ic legring- and. cqns jderation of revisions to the view corridors and rocg-jpgints tn IaiIITTF!E;pp cant: Town d
Peter Patten read the proposed new wording. .Dan fe.lt that there was a direct contradiction in oaragiaptr r, Aii""-ars.ussion of-ihe'niw woroing,.it was fe.rt that the staff hai aniwei^ed ilre ioncernl or !!e pEC, but ihat tne pEC wanted
313r.l"alfr"town.attorneys to work on-tire wordin9,,un6 inun-lring the revisions
|{ill moved and Duane seconded to tab'le ilr9 ileq untir the staff could get written directions from the attoinJy. -if,"-udi.
uns 5-0 in favor.
More discussion for'rowed concerni.ng when it shourd be tabled ton.and it was decided to have a meetins o;-Mil;;;,';"iiy : at 3:00 p.m,5'#ffi;*jffi
Dan said that a letter.had been received-from.the applicant requesting postponement unti'l the May lOth meeting, r,lif i-ilr-i"U'and Oijna iElr,ij"i"to tabte until the meeting of May 10, the v6ie ii iuro"-*us 5e0.
Duane moved and l.lill setonded to adjourn the meeting.
t
4^-/-l s r <r <- --4,'--
/2= ,?Rpplicatlon Date-
I.
APPLICATION FORM FOR A VARIA}TCE
lhJ.s proced,ure is required for any project reguesting a variance.
The application will not be accepted until all information is submitted.
c.
Edwards. Colorado 8L632 926-3541
AUTHORIZATI
SIGIiIATURE
ADDRESS P.0. Box 3222 Co'l orado PHONE_476-22L2__
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAI-.
ADDRESS Hjqhland Meadows, tlest Vail
LEGAI DESCRIPTION lot 3 block FiLing
.q14 \ent-aj- fz-r/
FEE- $L00.00 plu-s an amount equar to the then current first-crass postage rate for each property ovmer to be notified hereunder.
A list of the nanes of owners of alt property ad,jacent to the Subject property and their addresses.
E.
F.
I I
d
t\ t "r' I tv!,'r,l?n
+15'Lot 2 - Michae] A. Rubin
420 South Dixie Highway
Suite 48
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Lot 4 - R.L. Reiner, R.S. Rodman, G.S. Klein
N.D. Cohen, G,R, Kramer
3821. Archer Place
Kensington, Maryland 20795
,James and Barbara Herkert
P.0. Box 3564
Vai'1, Co. 8L65?
Jerry and Carol Kokes
0203 Stone Creek Drive
Avon, Co. 81620
John Steiert
P.0. Box 953
Vail, Co. 81658
L( 7
/ t-?
t r:' 'O
Adjacent to Lot 3 Lot 8
Lot 9
1. NAl,lE OF NFLICANT Robjn & Lori Roberts
ADDRESS
NAI{E OF
ADDRESS
AFPLICA}IT!S REPRESBiITATIVE Dennis CoIe -
PEONE 476-22L2
$L'l'('rr\
Attorney
Lot 10
Torm of Vail
Planning Departnent
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Planning Departmenl:
:-.
Thls statenent will try to describe the precise nature of the
variance we request for Lot 3, and Lat 26, Highland Meadows,Filing 2.
The Town of Vail code states that any lot over 30% slope wlthin :the Town of Vail that is zoned duplex nould automaticaily revert to a primary/secondary zoning. The floor ratio on duplel zoning ls 50/50, whereas primary/secondary in this case unuld be 60/40.
Fron our understanding, the purpose of primary/secondary zonlng is Just to avoid a miror lmage structure. The GRFA is-stlll -
the same, therefor the mass of the structure could be the sarne
as a duplex.
l.le purchased our lots in Highland Meadows because they.were-.duptrex lots, not.primary/secondary lots. If you will take a-good lobk
and consideration of the plans submitted you can see un have no lntenslon of building a "mirror image" structure.
l'le don't know the reasonlng or the nesseclty for a primary/secondary
zoning when the nass of the building will be exactly the iame. The-only thing we can see this zoning does is cut dourn one unlts floor ratio and adds to the other.
..,,...'41!!9ugh the'slope of our lot is slightly over
l3;,&ip-qii4 our- duplex structure as planned.
30% we would perfer to
Tom of Vail
Planning Departnent
75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Planning Departrcnt:
This statenent will lry to describe the precise nature of the variance we request for Lot 3, and Lot, Zi5, Highland Mealowi,Filing 2.
The Tovm of vail code states that any lot over 30% slope within ,the Tovm of vail that is zoned duplex would automaticaily revert to a_primary/secondary zoning. .The floor-ratio on duplei zoning is 50/50' whereas primary/secondary in this case r,rouia ba aotqo.
Frqn our understandi!9, the purpose of primary/secondary zonlng is Just to avoid a mirror imlge structui"e. firl enrn is-siitt -
the sane, therefor the mass of the structure could be thi-same as.a duplex.
l^le purchased our lots-in Highland l.leadows because they were..duptrex lots, not primary/secondary-lots. If you will take a-qood look and consideratlon of the plans submittLd you can see wE-nive no intension of building a ,'inirror image', structure.
t.le don't know the reasonlng 9r-Ilg nesseclty for a primary/secondary
zoning when the mass of the building will bL exacily ttre i'ame. The only thlng w€ can see this zoning does is cut down 6ne units floor ratio and adds to the other.
lot
as
over 30% we would perfer to
.lbnnis Cole
Town of Vail
Plannlng Department
75 South Frontage Road Vall, Colorado 81657
Dear Planning Departnrenl:
This statement will lry to describe the preclse nature of the variance we request for Lot 3, and Lot 26, Highland tteadowi,Filing 2.
The Torm of vail code states that any lot over 302 slope within ,the Town of vail that is zoned duplei would autonaticaily revert to a-primary/secondary zonlng. The floor ratio on duplel zoning is 50/50, whereas primary/seiondary in this case wouil-Ol ObIAO]
From our understandir.rg, the purpose of primary/secondary zonlng ls Just to avoid a mirror imige-structui.e. firl enfA tJstif f -
the sane, therefor the mass of the structure could be thi-same as.a duplex r
He. purchased-our l-ots. in Highland Meadows because tbey..were'duptrex lots, not -primary/secbndary lots. If you will take a-qooa-look and conslderation of the plans subnitted you can see wc have no intension of bui'lding a "hlrror image,, stiucture.
hle don't know the reasonlng gr-_t!q nesseclty for a primary/secondary
zoning when the mass of the building will bL exacfly ttre iirme. The on'ly thing we can see thls zonlng does is cut down 6ne units floor ratlo and adds to the other.
Town of Vai'l
Planning DePartment
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Planning DePartment:
This statement will try to describe the preclse nature of the
variance we request for Lot 3, and Lot 26, Highland Meadows'
Filing 2.
The Town of Vail code states that any lot over 30% slope wlthin
the Town of Vai'l that is zoned duplex would automatically revert
to a primary/secondary zoning. The floor ratio on duplex 19t!!!S is 50750, whereas primary/seiondary in thls case would be 60/40.
From our understanding, the purpose of primary/secondary zoning
is just to avold a mimor image structure. The GRFA is stl'l'l
the same, therefor the nass of the structure could be the same
as a duplex.
bJe purchased our lots in Highland l'leadows because they.were-duplex
]oti, not primary/secondary lots. ff you will take a good look
and considbratloh of the plans submitted you can see we have no
intension of building a "mirror image" structure.
}le don't know the reasoning or.the nessecity for a primary/secondary
zoning when the mass of the building will be exactly the same. The
only ihing l{e can see this zoning does is cut down one units floor
ratio and adds to the other.
Al though
build our
the slope of our lot
duplex structure as
over 30% we would Perfer to is slightly
planned.
'- 1-: - '- ".fJ' r"'. -t_- - ' . -'
,Oennls Cole