HomeMy WebLinkAboutCLIFFSIDE LOT 3 LEGALt
'a
ORDINANCE NO.2I
Series of 1984
AN ORDINANCE REZONING LOTS 2 AND 3, CLIFFSIDE
iugorvtstor,r FRoM RESIDENTIAL clusrER T0 SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
- HHEREAS, the owners of Lots 2 and 3, Cliffside Subdivision, Town of Vail'
County of Eagle, State of Colorado, have petitioned the Town of Vail to rezone
Lots Z and 3 from Residential Cluster to Single Family Residential; and
WHEREAS, Single Family Residential is a more appropriate zone district for the
develoPment of these 'lots; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has
recormended such rezoning:
Notlt, THEREFoRE, BE IT oRDAINED By rHE Tot^tN couNciL 0F THE TohlN 0F VAIL' C0L0MD0'
THAT:
Sect'ion 'l
In accordance wjth Section 18.66.]60 of the Town of Vajl Mun'icipal Code' the Town
Council hereby amends the zon'ing of Lots 2 and 3, C'liffside Subdivision' County
of Eagle, State of Colorado from Residentia'l C'luster to S'in91e Fami'ly Residential
Section 2
In accordance with Section '18.08.030 of the Town of Vail l4unicipal Code' the
zoning administrator is djrected to amend the official zoning map to reflect such
zone district amendment.
Section 3.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid, such decision sha'l 'l not affect the va'l idity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it
wou'l d have passed this ordinance, and each part, sect'ion, subsection, 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 4.
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is
necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and
the inhabitants thereof.
_)
L
Section 5.
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any prov'isions of the vail Municipal
code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued,
any duty inposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof,
any prosecution comrnenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under
or by virtue of the provision repealed or repea)ed and reenacted. The repeal of
any provision hereby shail not revive any provision or any ordinance previousry
repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS rztrr day of Julv ,
1984, and a pubric hearing shail be held on this ordinance on the zth dayof Argrst , rgg4 at 7:30 p.m. in the counci'r chambers of the vail
Municipal Bui'lding, Vail, Co.lorado.
Ordered published in ful] this lZttr day of Julv , 19g4.
L
Sl i fer,
Brandmeyer,
INTRODUCED, READ AND
in fuIl
ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED
7th 46y
Rodney E.Sl i fer,
APPROVED
thi s
PUBL ISHED
I 1984.
Brandrneyer,
box lil)
vail, colorado 81657
13031 47S5613
department of communlty development
March 13, 1981
T0: Dick Ryan, Peter and Larry
FR0M: Peter Patten
r/'
RE:/ --:--
. Lot
5
4
3
t 8@6 | 5t1le
I
KL'
Bui'ldable ALuut' Al lowable G.R.F.A.
Site Area UPtTl Under RC
Ev.
LN0S
o
o
o
l,;\,.*,'!,4!l
o
G.R.F.A.
Under SF
6625
8523
5267
46?5
9865
22150
)
I
165672a'a
Zlso zzao
]3T6 KV?
1156
?466 za-ao
5537
2381
2643
2566
3125
3l l6
4770
I
I
3z"-a> .7 Vh 6 J, 11. L;-\ c",,1'4
Determined very roughly on 1-100 scale - very approximate.
Under RC, all lots would receive a rnaxirnum of oneof Lot 6, r'rhere Rosenquistsr house is. This lot,
have 3 units, or an additional 2 units.
dwelling unit. with
according to these
the exception
figures, could
'l\rr\tr
ORDINANCE NO. L2
(Series of 1981)
of Vail has considered the zoning to be imposed on the
IYest Va.il area at a public hearing and has recorunended
parcels and portions.of said area be zoned as set forth
MEREAS. the Town Council considers that it is in
', i
tr.
7- :.. ir:t:-r':agc rc-'l
',.ril. ac: riiralc L .;7
oi. i::c ci ta:'..'jn.'AN ORDINANCE IIIPOSING ZONING DISTRICT ON
CERTAIN PARCELS AND PORTIONS OF THE RECENTLY
ANNEXED WEST VAIL AREA, BUT EXCLUDING THOSE
PARCELS AND PORTIONS ZONED IN ORDINANCES 11,
13 and 14 (SERIES OF 1981); AMENDING THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE TO\[N OF VAIL;
AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION T}IERETO.
IfHEREAS, the Town of Vai1, Colorado' recently annexed the
west vail ares., county of Eagle, State of colorado, effective on
December 31 , 1980; and
I,YHEREAS, Chapter 18.68 of the l,tunicipal Code of the Town of
Vail sets forth procedures for the imposition of zoning districts
on recently annexed areas; and
I,YHEREAS, Section 31-12-115 ( 2) C. R. S. , t973, as amended,
requires the Town to bring the newly annexed West Vail area under
its zoning ordinance with ninety (90) days after the'effective date
of said annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmetal Commission
of the public health,
NOIY, THEREFORE,
OF VAIL, THAT:
of the Town
newly annexed
that certain
herein; and
the interest
safety and welfare to so zone said property;
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
the Vail llunicipal Code have been fulfilled'
Section 1. Procedures Fu1fil1ed.
The procedures for the determination of the zoning districts to be
imposed on the newly annexed lYest Vail area as set forth in Chapter
18.68 of
Sect ion 2.Imoosition of Zoning District on Certain Parcels and
(A) pursuant to Chapter 18.68 of the Vail lrlunicipal Code, certain parcels
and portions of the lYest Vail area annexed to the Torvn through tbe
enactment of Ordinance No. 43, Serj,es of 1980, of the Town of Vail,
colorado, effective on the thirty-first day of December, 1980, are
hereby divided into zoning districts as set forth on the map attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference which amends and shall
bccome an addition to the Official Zoning llap.
Port ions the newly annexed llest Vail an^sa.:
r, ,)Rd f2-81 pg ')
'"o ro, in Cliffsidlubdivisio,r shall be so rfricted tl.,JJ a residence
of at least 2,000 square feet of GRFA may be bui1t.
Section 3. Change In Official Zoning Map.
The addition to the officiar Zoning Map adopted by the Town council
in section 3 hereof sha1l be entered on the officiar Zoning Map
promptly by the zoning administrator in accordance with Section 1g.6g.O3b,
the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 4.
rf any part, seetion, 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 hereof,'
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 rN 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 1?th day of March, 1gg1 , at z:30 p.m.
in the Municipal Buildi_ng of the Town of Vail.
Introdueed, read approved on secondfull this lTth day of tr{arch, tggl.reading and ordered
I
/
/
ATTEST:
0'il/^-7/ufu
TOVJN CLERK
published
a
PetitionJ
Box 1881, Vail, Colorado 81658428 East l-lth Aveqgg:, Denver, Colorado 80203
I gs November 3, 1981
PIIONE
PETITION FORM FOR AMDNDVTENT TO TltE ZOI'IING ORDINANCE
.oR
NEQUEST FORA CIIANGE TN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
I. This procedure is reguired for any anrcndment to the zoning ordinanceor for a reguest for a district boundary change
A. NA,'E oF p'rrrroNE*_iffiiLffi$,_*r:;::l"i: ;ilH":;!i"
ooo o" r r__era_arro"arS"ilLf i_r"X'" "
phitlip OrdwayPE'fITIONERTS REPRESENTATM Artie lrt. Owen-B.NA.I4E OF
ADDRESS
926-3550
PHONE 851-4435
C. AUTHORIZATIOT.I OF
SIGNA'IURE
PROPERTY OWNER
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBTT B
ADDRESS PHONE
D.LOCATION OF PROPOSAT
ADDRESS Cliffside Subdivision
LEGAT DEScRrprroN 1ot "
fS',2 tf o",<
le Count Colorado
filin cliffside
6
,i "\'lt] FEE
4, and 5+ Lc
$fOO.C0 plus 181 for each property owner to be notified.
F. A list of the naioes of orvners ofsubject property , and their rnailing
. Doyle Hopkins
7500 Free FeeryFort Smith, Arkans as '/ Z,Q /.3
Briar Patch Ontario Westc,/o Jack Bishop
Draw P
Edwards, Colorado 81632
Ramond and Joyce Brennarc/o Robby Robinson'Box7
Vail , Colorado 81658
F
all property
addresses.
adjacent to the
i\
c/o
.Q.O,rlor
'charles Ros
ies, Inc.
Jersey 07932
-.t4-J) ._ L.- l
Pro
ru k:\
,.-.\f-"*d- Wh\
EXHIBIT A
&iffioP. Peterson Ranch
O.di/fA\'+ Box 335- \ Edwards, Colorado 81632
Richard Brown
1780 South BellaireSuite 105
Denver, CoLorado 80222
DaryJ- R. Burns
5055 E, Kentucky
Denver, Colorado 80222
926-3230
926-3550
758-5270
757 -0867
Box)l€81tir, cd
EXHTBIT B
1780 South BellaireSuite 106
Denver, Colorado 80222
758-s270
5055 E. Kentucky
Denver, CoLorado 80222
757-0867
Date
,,y'/e'.
Date
Richard Brown
t.
Philip E. Ordlay
President
November 15, 1981
Messrs. Peter Patten and Peter Jamar
Town of Vaj,1 Community Development Department
P.0. Box 100
Val1, CO 81658
RE: Request for Change in Dlstrict Boundaries of Cliffside, a Resubdl-vislon
of Lots G-7 and G-8, Llonrs Ridge Sudivislon Filing llo. 2, to Rezone the
Subject Property from Residential Cluster (nC) to Single Family (SFR)
Resldential Zoning
Gent lemen:
Enclosed please find the followlng information on the above matter:
l) Seven fully signed copies of the Request for A Change j-n District
Boundaries, together with names and addresses of adjacent property
o$rners and signatures of all (100%) of the property orrners within
the Cl-lffside subdlvision;
2) A check for $100 payable to the Town of Vail as required for the filing
fee;
Five 20Q stamps for maillng of notices to adjacent property o\dners;
Seven copies of the plat map of Cliffside, showing the property to
be rezoned; and
5) A memorandum describing the reasons for this request.
It is ny understanding from our conversatl-ons to date that this package
of material meets the Townf s requirements for this application, and that this
matter has been official-ly included on the agendas for the Planning and Environ-
mental Conrmission on December 14, 1981, and for the Town Council on December 15,
1981, Al-so, I understand that your office will be responslble for i,nsuring that
all legal notices are published correctly and on time and that all other prepara-
tions for these two hearlngs will be completed in a tinely manner. If any of these
understandings are inaccurate, please let me know at once so that we can make
other arrangements. (As you know, it is very important to one of the current
oatners that this matter can be considered in t irne to pemit a sale before year-
end, lf the rezoning is approved,)
Finally, I should disclose that, al"though I an the intended purchaser of
Real Estate Development - Consulting - Development Management - Sales
3)
4)
Box 1881 - Vail, Colorado 81657 - (303) 926-3550
>-
Messrs. Peter Patten and Peter Jamar
November 16, 1981
Page Troo
Lot 4, Cliffside, if this zone change is approved, and further intend to
build rny primary residence on that lot, I do not have the authority to comrlt
any of the current ouners to any conditlons beyond those called for in the
Single Faurily (SFR) Resldential zoning ordinaoces. Based on your support of
this proposed zone change to date, I trust that no special conditions to
approval of thls request w111 be necessary and' therefore' that this issue
of representatlor will not be a problern. (You wilL note in the application
that all current owlers have approved the requested change in zoning')
Thanks very much for your prompt attentl-on to the request and for the
asslstance you have provided to date on this subject. Please let me knov
right away if you have any questions or problems or need any addltlonal in-
formation.
Best regards.
4&5)
1& 6)
"lOJ---
E. ordway
IEnclosures
cc: Mr. Richard N. Brown (Lots
Dr. Daryl- R. Burns (Lot 3)
Mr. Dave Col-e (Lot 2 )
Mr. Chuck Rosenquist (Lots
Mr. Chlp Owen ' Bsq.
Mr. Davld Smetana
Ph11-ip
I{E!TORANDU}T
TO: Feter Patten, Feter Jamar Novenber 16, lggl
REI Reasons for Requesting Cliffside Zone Change from Residential Cluster (RC)
to Single Fanily (SFR) Residenrlal
As required by the appllcatlon for a change in zoning, this neuo seeks tobriefLy describe the reasons for the request. First of a11,. the l_and area to
be affected ls exactly that lncluded ln the CLiffside subdivision plat of
record, seven coples of whlch have been submitted tp you with the requestor applicatlon. At present, all of the eubject land is zoned Resldentlal Cl"uster
and includes six honeeites, two of whlch have been improved with constructionof luxury, slng!.e-fanily, owner-occupied residences.
A1.l of the regralnlng l.ots tq be developed (except Lot 1) are qulte steep,wlth slopes sl.ight1y in excess of.and/or s1-ightLy Less than 40%. Access ro allof the steep lots ls fron above, via an easement and a conrnon drlveway, only aportion of which hae been bullt to date. T'l1e sir lots ln CLtffside average
.32. acresr op approxinately 14,000 square feet ln size. Current access from abovels via Buffer Creek Road. through The \xalLey, and the cornnon driveway is virtual-J-yflat. 411 six l.ots eq]oy spectacuLar vlews of the Vail- Val-ley, vall- Mounr.aln,
and fhe Gore Range.
Ihe current Residential Cl_uster zoning, apparently lntended for townhousetype of developurent, generates the followi.og problens for the devel_opnent ofsingLe-family resldences in Cllffside:
1) It Prohiblts garages in the front setback area, reguiring that garages
be located a good way down frorn the top of the lot. this location will
be almost lnaccessible by automobile due to steep drl-veway grades.
2) It aLso prohibits parktng in the front setback area, again alnost pre-
cludiag parking on the l.ot because of iupossibly steep drlveways.
3) Because RC zoning prohibtts Land over 40"/" to be lncluded in cal-culationqf a4owabl.e Gross Residential Floor Area, it is possibl-e that some ofthe Lots, even thqugh they nay be onl"y slightly over 402 slope on some
Potlons gf the lOt, to be unbu1Ldab1e.. Itepeoding upon the technique usedto ueasure sl.ope, lt is LikeLy thrt most of the other lots coul_d not
suPPort a slngle-farnlly residence *9f rdaqur.te size, even though the
slopes night be onl-y 12 greater then 4Ot.
4) Flnall-y, I bel-ieve RC zoning prohlbits construction on slopes greater
than 402. Given the uneven nature of the slopes on the l-ots, we wouLd
have great difficulty deslgning a house uhich woul-d conply with theletter of thls requirement.
Memorandum to Peter Patten, Peter Jamar
November 16, 1981
A shift ln zonJ-ng to Slngle-Family (SFR) Residential w111 pernit a much
improved use of these lots by, for example, permittLng the garage to be buil,t
on the front property f-ine and by permltting parking in the front setback area.
In thls way the houses can be located at the top of the l-ot nith excellent
vehicular access and minLnral dlsturbance of the exlsting slte compared to
attempted developnent under current RC zoning. Furthermore, the SFR zone
does not require that land over 407. be excluded frorn the GRFA calculatlon,
thus penoitting prudentl-y-sized homes to be developed wlthin Cllffside.
Final-l-y, the structures can be positioned optlma1-1-y on the lot under the SFR
zone, because we would not have to be worried about sma1l portions of the
lot which are just slightly over 4O%.
The current onners in Cliffside have all joined me and David Smetana 'the prospective purchaser of Lot 5, in supporting thls request. Per your
desire, ve have included the two existing resldences with this requeat so
that all lots nithln Cliffside will carry the same SFR zoning if approved
bv the Town.
PLease 1et me know if you need further explanatlon of or information on
the reasons why this request makes good sense and lmproves upon 1-and use.
ery rmrch,
@l*,
0rdway
/
Philip E.
oo
ROSENQUIST & ASSOCIATES
Ve*lg*fuea@C*a
P. O. E'OX et86 VAIL. COLORAOO 41657
0-*- ?, /7F/
ta"^-q \M{'ryT%h
U"fre
C r.-- J-! ,t / -u /"fk* '\/'"N tf 1./ 4 /
.fu4Mflur' 2'u4
'r* fr lL ^ry ''' "'"-
fu T/*tu ,f-zilq /'il^*r+4
U
!'lEl'CIMNDUll
TO: Planning and Environmental Cornmission
.FROM: Departrnent of Conmunity Developnent/Peter Patten
\(
DATE: Decenber 9, 1981
The lots are smal'l '
K:.i1"?":? Ill"ltH3""l'ilii"t"*i"4'ii' t':1:^"*';*:o':l[i ;i::tt::$:li::'::"1; ;il:.'ilJ#ffi'";'L "i- crirl:l1l;.^Tniil:l::I'ffi: :;
il:';;ilffi:l.'l^ili.i";;#:;ii:.;i;,;";-R;:'g:::::1.!1i'lil;..]1","!,*:,T*^::'lni"l.xii":';:';i;,i;;;' "i;;;;;a-n"iia*ti:i :::':i:'.T1""lll'.1'inl'ulii"Fli;;i'"i""t (on rots.o. ;, .9-;':1-l"l), ?13.:1;":-odue to tne brlar raLUl y'LvJvev \v'r ^--- iut"'*ust, across Li.onsridgeioi (ro""a for 30 units): . To.th:.lTl1:^ + ^ A 1.,r nrimarv/seconda
l,::o
tfil":^' ::o':r"ti:'i i-uri"""i r*c::F:i:" :.u-::l :::ffi""""ondar-vllllu'il"l'] ';il"; ;;;"-;;; over 30'000 square reet each'
SUBJECT:RezoningrequcstforCliffsideSubdivision'lotslthrough5'
from Resia!t";;i ei;t;;;- 6ncl
-to sitter" Familv llesidential
(SFR). Applicants:- Richard-Brout' iaryf R' Burns' David L'
iole, anilCharles H' Rosenqulst''
BACKGROIJND
GliffsideSubdivisionwasannexedintotheTownwiththeltestVailAnnexa.
tion of Decenber sf','-f980' It consists'oi i-iott and is located in the
Lionsridge area. * i;;;: loit-c-i ana c-e of Lionsridge Filing No'
;-;;;;-;;"uaiu ia"a i"i'-*r''i i', 1:* .
tt tif:'r*" t* d iv i s ion'
lat olttr / t - ') ^^----^ €aar c1 iffsi de
p''.ri ,
o
ToallowCliffsideto't.bletrdin,.witlrthesurroundingproperties'rte
zonccl it RC, rsith "'tini*t't of 2000 sqt'ur"-f""t of GRFA for each l'ot'
This speciat provi-sion
-was
included because' rvith slcpc-rcstrictions'
some of the lots utooil tulu" becn al lot'te;-;;iy 1100 or 1200-square fcct
of GRFA. It was reii ana expressecl at thar iinre that cliffside was an
areaforfttrtlrerstudyastotlrenostappropriatczoncdistrict.
TI.IE REQUEST
The rczoning request includes only lots I through 5' cxcluding lot 6'
w.hcre Chtrck Roscnquistrs housc exists. i,";--a is thiJnF one-ffiICh couttt
have nore tlrsn onc unit (it possibly "ouiJ-rtlru"
3' accordittg to rott$h
slope cclcttlations).
Lots I through 5 are tron- conf o rrrring in tclms
R;;-"; th,-'y iiil I b,-' in Singlc l::rmil.y (but to
lfti"i-"o*f'"rirrg RC to st;lt, combinc'tl .wit'h thc
irit r,:,1,i, lrnrl 5 rrill hclp to urldctstantl
di f l'ercnc c's ltrc tlrrcc:
of nirtintunt lot size for
i-r"i."t criturt). Tltc trrtclosed
tabIc on stlrtistics for
thLr sittlitiioll . '[hc ml jn
!y7
in Glll:A of-6*7 s<1l. SltF lrl lows itpproxirl:rtcly cll ovcrilgc incrclt:re
ft Pcr lot.
't Griffsiilc -2- LLlrlsL
IYr)r\,\.!
r.'
I t'SFR allows flcribility in thc siting of the houscs on the lots
because thcro arc no slope rcstrictions'
t. sFR allows, on lots where the houso is located on an average slopc
of 30t or rnore, ;he garage to be located without a flont setback
requirenent.
/.t
PP.ESINT
Scott lldrr'ards
Ifill Trout
Ge: ry Mrite
Dan Colcoran
Drrane P j_pcr
J irn ltlorgarr
AdSI]NT
tl,oger Tilkemcier
Thc lneeti.ng was'ca1led. to
folIor+ing a work session
1. Approval of the nitruies of the Novr-;nller 23, 1981 rnceli.rrg. lr/ill rrovecland lluane scconded tc approvc thtnfiurcs. Tfrc votc lr'a s 5-d; unaninous.
2. P.equcst for a rninor subCivision of lots 10. 11.Patch. App.l.icant: CDS [nterirriscs, lnc.
l(cslclcntlal cluster. l)jstrict to Single li0mily District-. r\pplicants: IlichardB'.otur, Drrryl R. Burns, David L. cole, and charlcs u. nosc'eui.st.
and 12 Blocl< l P o tato
Peter Patten showed site plans shor,ring rrerr' linc:s r.rith tl:e olcl pro.1;erty lincsin rtrd. Ile t:xplaincd rvhy the staff r:cc c;rrinended approval and Ken i{i-l.soa 1'opresentin:
-the propcrty ouners explaincd that a clr j.rreilay encroac.hroent on lot 11 rva.:; tobe eliminirtcd rsith the rcsubcli.vision.
Dan explained that no allorvabl e GRFA changes ruould occur. Duane voi-ced ccnce::;r aboutlot Iines rcgardi.ng the distance betwcen the buildings. Peter assuaged theircollcerns. Scott noved and l{ill secondcd to approved t.lre t-e(luest for a nrinorsub<livisinn. l'he vote rt'as S-0 in favor. rvith Dln abstaining.
lreSt for a rezonjng of lots I throu Cliffsirlc Subdivision fron
Pctcr Pattcn cxplaincd thc memo -showing thc. sitc pl.an and discussccl the gr-aplsiu tltc rncmo. Phil 0 r'drr'ly cxplaine'd thet hc ancl l)irvc Snlcn t:ura each hatl a coitractto bttl' a lot jf t.l-re zon-ing wiis changecl, irnd that tl'rcy lrere instnmcntal inr'cqtlosting thc rczonirtg. Jirn rc-.call cr cl thlt rvhcn this sr,rbtlivision was atrnexcditntl zottctl Iltrsidcntia.l Clustcl j-t rvrrs tlrc intcntion to rccorlsi.cler the zouingat r latcrr (lirte. Ilc r'l:r:; i.n f'e.vor ol. thLr churgc. l)an staccd that ho fcltthrt lot (r should bc jnclr.rdcd. Ordrvtrl, c\l)lirincd thrt Iioscnquist (orrner oflot 6) tias in favor of clrrrngilrg his Iot to drrplcx (prcscnt ly he coulcl brri ldit.I)ossil.tlc 3) or l),/S. 0r(ll,/cy strtc.d tlt:r1 hc diclrrrt lurvc tinrc to stutly thoaitclnrtives in ftrl I ltttrl s:o tlccidt'd not tc) includc lot 6.lrt tJrc.l;rst ruinuL(r,:r(lilrng t:llo:-,cll(ltti.st tolcl hi.nr t lrrrt )rc (l{rrsr.n<lrristJ rvorrltl not .insist rtrr btriltlirirl .i urlii..'*()t'tll*:r) hrcllt oll Lo stillc tllitt hc rli.ci ncrt l'cr-rl tli:rt. tiris wirs sPot zon.iii.q i'or' lot bsirrcc it rr'a s atl.j lrccnt to l{C :.:orrinS.
li [,O
I)I,ANNING AND LNVIIIOIJI,II:IiTAL COIIiiISSION
f)cccnrbcr 14, l98l
STAFF
Dicr. Ryan
Pctcr Patten
Petcr Jamar
Jim Sayre
Betsy Rosolack
order at 3:00 p.n. by chairrnan, Gerry h'hite,
orr CC4 zoning and revised .Recl Lj-on plans.
\
o{ tJ O 1 #, -r- L2/r4/Br
r'
scott agfced with ordr.rrry adding that lot 6 rrr;rs so diffcront, thcre rrras nonccd to considcr it rvith the othcr lots. Scott adrlcd that hc was conccrncdthat thc houscs not bc built high on thc rirlge and wontlcrcd if a tradc-of'fcould be made in this rcspect. orrlr+ay assured scott tlEt the houses wouldbe dortn thc hill far.enough so.that they woul{nrt intcrfere with othersr views.ordrvay addcd that siting was the main i'caion-iijr-till-iiqilit. Jim voiceclcorrccrn over the visual inpact, also, then sai.d he was jure DRB uould takethat into consideration.
It'ill noved and Duanc seconded to rezone lots 1 thru 5 to single Fanily. Thevotc was 6- 0, unanimous.
Dan voiced his concern that the hone owners show concerrr as to how high theybuild, because the owners of the Ridge were purposely not building on thchigh point. Gerry felt this was the correct-.zoi,ring Lecause otherwise theor{ners Frould be coming in with a scries of :requests for variances since theRC zone in this devclopment nade it virtually trnbuildable.
Prel irnin leview scssion for Fxterior Alteratiotrs and Modifications.
This sbssi.on h'as to decide whether or not thebe considered major--requiring a 90 day study,
study.
submitted projects would
or rninor--requiring a 60 day
A11 of the follorving lr'ere. considered to be najor revisions:
Gallery BuildingSlifer Building
Lodge at Vail - Harryrs Bar (new location)
Red Liorr Inn -Deck EncLosure
Tlre neeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.rn.
oo
q -$l-\'tt\N
I_\.-bf
---s
(,n
t"t'(\
:St\
d
_a\
Nt-.\
\
(,\
s'o
l\
-f.
G\
U\
s\
iN
c o o o **
s$
s\(-.
N
c,\
uN(N
CA
Ns\
--l
s
Nq
..$
Rq N
\$
NR
o o o
h
c'q
B c $\N
/-\
$+$ (.r'OS.
Nt^s
R-._st^
,3 i G.:Rq
\d-\*
Nstr.\FhBc.I
i \llut
| ' '.t,i -\
\J
6r
''{-_
bs
h
(.t\ts
W
Ntn
qN
Y:\\
\$ii
t-;t; \
I'
:i
$isI
ir\lRl'1N'r!
i-\tx
I
t'
11sle
Ii.ti.,i:i''.i ri
lh-ri\| .r .'ll
| 1'-
Itr
N
l$
It
r. .i.l
,',2 .ooc ?,,1 c
orrrrRuncE rn oevrmPm:N'r srmoruios
BETI{EEN RESIDENTI,AL CLUSTER AI'ID
SINGLE FAI'IILY RESIDUNTIAL
n,L
.l5,OO0 sq ft area
E,000 sq ft nin. buildable
Front-20 ft,
Sides and Rear, 15 ft
Flat roof-Sgt, sloPed-S31
25t of buildable area
25t of slte
Mininur 60t of site
2 spaees/unit, no front
setback parking, I covered sPace
per rmit if required bY DRB
No building on 40t or uore
slopes, 40t or rnore sloPe
ereas subtracted fron allowableuits and GRFA
Cliffside -3-
i.
.t..'l!r
.l
:j
r /:i' (Y:.:J \.;.:r' ;-:.
12r50O buildable area
Front-20 ft,
Sides and Rear, 15 ft
Flet roof-SOr,sloPed- 35
25t of, lst 12,500 sq ft
3ite area,+10? over 12,5
20t of site
Mininrn 60t of site
2 spaces/unit
No slope restrictions
relatinS to GRFA or unit
siting
Min. Lot Size
Setbacks
Heigh!
D,ensity Control
Site Coverage
Landscaping
Parking
Slopc restrictions
a
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
December 14, 1981
L:30 Study Session to review revisions to previously approved
plans for Red Lion located at 304 Bridge Street.
Review of a new zone district for the area west ofVail Lionshead, by the V.A. shop area, Texaco, Voliter Nursery,
Chevron, the old Town shops and the West day parking lot.
3:00 Public Hearing
1. Approval of the minutes of the November 23, 1981 neeting.
2. Request for a ninor subdivision of lots 10, 11, and IZ,
Block 1, Potato Patch. Applicant: CDS Enterprises, Inc.
3. Request for a rezoning of lots 1 through .5. Cliffside Subdivision
from Residential Cluster District to Single Fanily.District.
Applicants: Charles Rosenquist, David Cole, Daryl R. Burns,Phillip 0rdway, Richard Brown.
Preliminary Review Session for Exterior Aiterations andModifications:
A. Ga1 lery Building
B. Slifer Building
C. Lodge at Vail - Harryrs Bar
D. Red Lion Inn - Deck Enclosure
a
\
Grant,or hereby perpetually reserves for himself,
as the Owner of Lot 2, Ctiffside, Town of Vail, Eagle County,
Colorado, and to the successor owners of such Lot 2 the right
to use the access easement for alJ. purposes which do not
naterialry interfere with the use of the access easement by
the Owners.
Each Owner and his or her successor ovrner of a Lot
in the cliffside subdivision shall use the access easement on]-y
for the purposes set forth above and only in a manner which
does not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of
the remainder of Lot 2.
The costs and expenses of maintaining, repairing,
reconstructing or repracing the roadway constructed on the
roadway easement shall be borne by the owners of Lots in
Cliffside in the same manner as the costs and expenses
pertaining to the remainder of the private road of which it
is a part.
This instru;nent contains the entire agreement of
the parties relating to the matters set forth herein. It
may not be amended, mofidifed, or supplemented nor may any
provision hereof be waived, verbally or by any course of
dealing, but only by an instrument in writing executed by
Grantor and the Owners or by their respective successor
ouners of Lots in Cliffsi-de, Town of Vail, Eagle County,
Colorad.o
dL.Co
STATE OF
COT]NTY OF
COLORADO )) ss.EAGLE )
The foregoing Conveyance of Roadway Easement was
acknowledged before me this 9e:> day of-November, 1981, by
#.t..zt/'4.-."'
o'!- / |
i f.tf commission expires , y'/Ua.a.Zi, ,f-rt/tr2--i,lr: -
Notary Public
-2-
' 'Book 334
IJa-a.a64
day of ttovernber' ,
and State of Colol
L. cole
whose legal address is 28 6 Bridqe Street, Vail 'Colorado 81657 'of the
Countyof Eagle
part;
and State of Colorado, of the second
of
A11 party of
Town of Vail,
Resubdivision
Eagle County,
airocbo*v*rasstreetsn* nxrocbqx
STATE OF COLORADO,
CountY of Eagle
The foregoing instrument $'as acknowledged before me this
1981 ,bY DARYL BURNS.
rrycommissione *oir." ACTV/€/- 7
WITNESSETH, That the said PartY of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum
Ten Dollars,
and State of Colorado, to wit:
Together with all and singulnr thc he rt,<lit:rnrt'r'rts rrttrl trl)t)tlrt('lllrtlcls tltlrttrrrto ht'lottging. or in
""i*i=" appertaining, and the reversion attd revtrsions, rt'ttririrtrlcr irntl rctttrritrrtcrs, rt'ntl'
issues and profits tfru.eoi; a"A all the estate, right, title, intercst, c.laim and denl:rnd *'hats.evt'r'
of the said party "iiillfittipart, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained
premises, with the hereditamenis and appurtenanc"*; tO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said
i.emises'above bargained and described, with the appurtenances' unto
the said party of the second part, his
heirs and assigns forever.
And the said
part y ofthe first part, forhimself ' Iti= heirs' executors and
administrators, does "o.,r"rr.rt,
grant, bargain and agree to and with the said part y of the
second part, his r,ei.sl.rd .""igi., the above bargaiied premises in the quiet and peaceable
possession of said party oflfi"l."o"a p"tt, hlsheiri and assigns, against all and every
person or persons larvfrllly claiming or to ciaim the whole or any part thereof' by' through or
under the said part y -- "
"itn" fiist part to WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND.
INwlTNEssWHEREOF,Thesaidpartyofthefirstparthashereuntosethis
hand and seal the day and year first above nrttt"hoA \-^-nA 76-,^---t---=/ '.
Signed,SealedandDeliveredinthePresenceof.|ffi5r'A-'-l
-l sEALI
II tsEALl
l
.".IJF€etu4A0
/&fn daYor 3lo:r€rRber- -
Fee $3.00pd
Eagl e County
r-orrty Publrc.
to the said party ofthe first part, in hand paid by the said party ofthe second part, the
receipt *h"1eof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and con-
.,/"y"i, and by these pre-sents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto the said
p;;;t' of the second part, hiJ heirs and assigns forever, all the following described
iJ 'o" p."""1 ofland, situate, lying and being in the Countyof Eagle
THIS DEED, Made this tB*
19 81 ,between DarYl Burns
ofthe CountYof Eagle
rado, ofthe first part, and David
RECORDER'S STAUP
STAIT t;tiiirtl'liliii F[i
JAN 6 41gBZ
s /e*:"(d -
K EP-'asbrr-1
fir the first part's interest in Lot 2' Cliffside,
Eagle County, Colorado' as set forth in the
of Lots Z ana 3, Cliffside, Town of Vail'
Colorado
L/J7
..^rl,\r
l fl., r ,,,,ir..o. l6
,p6{..
'Book .J5+
l5a
THIS DEED, Made this 5af7,t dav of
1981 ,between David L. Cole
/€c-q.4
++orrember ,
and State of Colo-
Burns
Monroe Way, Denver,
t
ofthe CitY and
Paqe
@
RECORDER'S STAMP
SiAIt titiii;iiii;hii tu
j,Lirt g 11i,gz
$ /oe: (.$ ___
County of Denver and State ofColorado, ofthe second
part;
WITNESSETH, That the said PartY
of
of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum
Ten Doll ars,
of the County of Eagle
rado, ofthe first part, and DarYl
whose legal address is 649 South
Colorado 80209
and State of Colorado, to wit:
to the said party of the first part, in hand paid by the said party ofthe second part, the
receipt *h"""oii. hereby cirnfessed and acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and con-
.'nay"i, and by these pre-sents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto the said
partv of the second part, his heirs and assigns forever, all the following described
iJ 'i. pu.."t of land, situate, lying and being in the County of Eagle
ut-
A11 party of the first part's interest in Lot 3, Cliffside,
Town of Vai1, Eagle County, Colorado' as set forth in the
nesuua:-vision of Lots z ana 3, cliffside, Town of VaiI' Eagle
County, Colorado.
I
ll
ai ro<b:ownoonrt rect n n d n x ns$*x
Together with all and singulsr the here<litarrte nts nn<t [l)l]u r tt'lr rrrlct'n tllrrt'unto lx'longittg' or in
anyrvise appertaining, .iJ tf," reversion and revcrsions' remuindcr lnd rtrlruirrrlcrr' r.tttr'
issues and profits there;;;"i all the estate, right, title, interest., c.laim and demand ,n'huts.cvtr,
of the said part y "ii,;;fi.; p;rt, "ith." li t.* o. equity, of, in and to the above bargained
nrcmises^ with the hereditaments and uppu"i"tt"r,"".; t<j HAVE AND TO HOLD the said
r'-'------'
i."-ir".'uUove bargained and described, with the appurtenances' unto"'tft'e-"tlJptrt y '
of the second part' his
heirs and assigns forever'
And the said his heirs, executors andpartY ofthe first Part, forhimself
administrato.:,T;""= ":;:;;;;';;;, i""'r" '"a i"'": t",11.1:'11 :1"^'::ii1'i;-.":t"t*:3ffit"n.lil:f,i"=' fi"='.";;';""'F:' ;;;;;: t?rElit193'^":"-""""1:i"t"":;"::':l,i ffi".?ii;
possession of said Partlz ;iif,; 3;;;;;;;'- hi= heirs and assigns' against all.and everv
il:::1":X"':llll'1ii*}"'"' .{i;i'ili;;;:F.til::1,*"^"^Tf}'^iT#T;T'#',,#lrough or
under the said Part Y ;;fi" ffi=l part to WARRANT AND FoBEvER DEFEND'
IN WITNESS WHEREOfl The said PartY of the first Part ha s hereunto set his
hand and seal the day and Year first above writte7
SEAL]
sEALI
SEALI
STATE OF COLORADO'
CountY of Eagle 1,,p-r.=-:lr.-
day of .e+€€EbEif
The foregoing instrument was acknov"ledged before me this
rg 81 ,bv DAVID L. COLE
'*'r4
,s fZ
No. l6 st,]:(.lAt.nrtatir\ll lrt:]:tr. -8,n.tt.,r.ll'ubn.h.ns.t8:1$.,thA!...Ial.uood.(()lt0ll4-1101)!1ll-6900-6-tl
r7/2,-r'' r
:
Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the presence
w7
'Book 334
Page 233
I r"tt DEED, Made this 1z
19 81 ,between Charles
I Rosenquist, Richard
I ofthe County of
mffirjt Fee 93. 00pd
Eagle County
I ofthe CountY
'i rado, ofthe firstPart, and
<h.aH64
day of *Jevereber ,
and Margaret R.
Brown and Daryl Burns
Eagle and State ofColo-
David L. Cole
286 Bridge Street, Vai1,
of the
and State of Colorado, of the second
RECORDER'S STAMP
Siliit t;i;ii;iiiiiii,:T rEE
Jlii\l n 4 1eR2v _ rvvt-
$1o.?: (4
SEAL]
EALI
r4
H.p)\..,il1i,/i)'
whose legal address is
Colorado 81657
Countyof Eagle
part;' WI1NpSSETH, That the said part ies of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum
of Ten Dollars.
to the said partie s of the first part, in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the
receipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and con-
,r.y"d, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto the said
p"rty of the second part, his heirs and assigns forever, all the following described
iot -or parcel ofland, situate, lying and being in the County of Eagle
and State of Colorado, to wit:1
l\ nri\\0" 'nl
-..4U
\"
A11 parties of the first partsr interest in that portion of
LoE 2, Cliffside, Town of Vai1, Ea91e County, Colorado
shown as an "access easement" on the plat of the Resub-
division of Lots 2 and 3, Cliffside, Town of Vail' Eagle
County, Colorado
I
aixq hxorvrxrrrl rsr:t x* dlxHilxn
Togctlrt.r *,ith g1 1n1 singutar tlrt he rrdirrrlr.rrlr rn,l tlrp\lttctlrrtrr'cr lltctcultlo hcLrnllrr;. ur ln
any*,ise 'ppertaining, ;;;ii; rctur"ion arrd !cvcrrloir..'nrrlrr'lcl rtr rrHllln'lorr' tr"tr'
issues and profits trruruoi; ""i allthe ertate, rlsht, title. interr:rt, c.lnltrr nrltl df nrlnd t'ltrtr{,crct'
of the said part ies "ii'h;fi;t part, either in tt* o" .quity, of,-in nnd t. the rbovc trnrsrlrr.d
premises, with the hereditamenis and appurtenanco"; ro ItAvE AND TO IIOLD the rsid
ii"-i"""'"l"ve bargained and described, with the appurtenances' unlo- -tfte taid part y ofthe second part, his
heirs and assigns forever.
And the said thenselves . , - ., -partiesofthefirstpa"t,ro"'fiii""-';" their heirs'executorsand
administrators, do
-
.orr"rrrrrt,'g.ant, bargairand agree to and rvith the said party of the
second part, n1s n.i""lnJ ,""igi., ilr. "ro""-l".fri"""g premises in the quiet and peaceable
possession of said p"rt"y oitfr" ,""otta pr.t,tti"t heirs and assigns' against all and every
person or persons t.*titty ";ilia;;";i.1- trt" whole or any part thereof, bv, through or
under the said part ,.;"' ;f1h" fi-rst part to WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND.
INwlTNEsswHEREo4Thesaidpartiesofthefirstparthavehereuntosettheir
hand s and seals the day and year first above written'
Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the presence ofl
STATEOFCOLORADO, f"".
CountYof Eagle J
DARYL BqRNS
.*pire" frffi/el /
afooe" /6-tuica '4'*6'
N.B
strument $'as acknowledged befJre methis *day of November
RLES H. ROSENQUIST, MARGARET R. ROSENOUIST, RICHARD N.
,B ar
r-o!rry Public.
Ez4*"/'^l 4ffi-X:ir*;1;2Fkz/'*'t-;#*^/tr;; fu"6-a7-{tz- 4 / rt/ iz rA,
RA\TYl)f:ED -BradfordPubtirhioS.Slt2Jw 6rhAvc Lakc$ood'co80214-ll0l)233-6900-6'81 wr .*1.\
1i...r.,,,3
Book 334
Paqe 234
;..2- a--,- tz)
\/
230589 ReocrdedRell er
at 10:00 A.M. JanuarY
Johnnette Phi 11 i Ps
t982rfle countv
Fee $6.00pd
CONVEYANCE OF ROADWAY EASEMENT
,2
1 Conveyance of Roadway Easement dated ay13 )'d)14
bfu€*t4f4&t-_aay ot5tZri6hffiir'*Ii81-ftom David L. CoIe ("Gr4ntor"), as the
owner of Lot 2, Cliffside, Town of Vai1, Eagle County,
colorado as set forth in the Resubdivision of Lots 2 and 3'
Cliffside, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, to the
present and future owners of Lots Ir 3, 4t 5 and 6, Cliffside,
Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado (the "owners"), the
present owners of such lots being as follows:
Names Lots Address
.J
/J.:i
E-f
<<'
t4
Charles H. and Margaret 1&6
R. Rosencruist
Richard N. Brown
Daryl Burns
193 East Gore Creek Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
Suite 106
1780 South Bellaire Street
Denver, Colorado 80222
649 South Monroe i{aY
Denver, Colorado 80209
4&5
Grantor,forvaluableconsiderationthereccilltarrd
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowlcdgcd, hereby sclls alrd
conveys to the Owners, as Owners of the properLy dcscribcd
above and to their guests and invitees ' and their successor
ovrners of such property ' a perpetual nonexclusive roadway
easement and right-of-way over, undert across and through
the portion of Lor- 2, Cliffside' Town of Vail' Eagle County'
Colorado designated as an access easement on the Plat of the
ResubdivisionofLots2and3',Cliffside,TownofVail'Eag1e
County, Colorado, fot the purpose of (a) ingress to and egress
from their Lots in the Cliffside Subdivision' Town of Vail'
Eagle County, Colorado, and (b) maintaining' repairingr r€-
constructing and replacing a private roadway substantially
of the kind and nature presently existing on such access
easement. Such easement shall be for the benefit of the
Owners, as owners of Lots in the Cliffside Subdivision' and
shall run with and be a benefit to the ownership of such
Lots.
d'(s
1.r,.., i,trJF
(I
t
box 100
vail, colorado 81657
{3031 476.5613
March 13, 1981
T0: Dick Ryan, Peter and Larry
FR0M: Peter Patten
at-- '
RE: .r'"--_.---=7-
department of commu n ity development
Al lowable c.R.F.A.
Under RC
1556
2t30
1316
1156
2466
5537
(-
Lot
5
4
3
2
1
6
Bu i 'l dab'l e
Site Area
6625
8523
5267
4625
9865
221s0
G. R. F.A.
Under SF
2381
2643
2566
Jlz5
31 16
4770
Determined very roughly on 1-100 sca'l e - very approximate.
Under RC, all lots would receive a rnaxinum of oneof Lot 6, where Rosenquists r house is. This lot,
have 3 units, or an additional 2 units.
dwelling unit with
according to these
the exception
figures, could
,4 o na
T4/"/v Dr
1. F/.,t r17o. ..
z)tte )
1_--1
',r,'
q'
.b.iiD,'i'ti
N
ouf{t,'_lrr*Pa. t
/
FREDERICK 5. OTTO
.JAY K. PETERSON
WILLIAM J. POST
Orro, PnrensoN & Posr
ATTOBNEYS AT IAW
POST OFFICE BOX 3149
vArL, cotoRADo 4t667
January L9, L982
VAIL NATIONAL BAN K BUILDING
(3O31 47e-OOS2
EA6LE-VAIL PRO FESSIONAL BUILDING
(3O3) 949-53AO
Rich Caplan
Town Manager
Town of Vail
Post Office Box 100Vail, Colorado 81658
RE: Ordinance /11 , Series of 1982,Cliffside Subdivision Rezoning
Dear Mr. Caplan:
Please be advised that its is my understanding that the
following record owners of property adjacent to the Property, which
is Ehe subject of the above capEioned rezoning, did noE receive
notice of iuch rezoning as reqirired pursuant io the Tor^n of Vail
ZonLng Title:
Valley Associates, Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership,
86 Maple Avenue
Morristown, N.J. 07960
Snowram Associate.s; a New York general partnership,
c/o Ron Artinian,
48 Pheasant Rsa, Nortsh Hills,
Roslyn, New.York, LL576
John Horton Sadler and Theresa Elizabeth Sadler
3LL2 27xh Avenue
l{oLy{e, Ill-inois 6L265
The purpose of this letter is to request that the Town
Council of the- Town of Vail postpone the second reading of Ordinance
{fL, Series of L982, in order to give the above named property o\^,ners
and the sEaff of the Town of Vail time to physically inspect the
properties in question to determine if more precise,language_ - -toncerning interference with scenic views existing from The Ridge
at Vail Townhomes is required to avoid conflicts in the future.
Rich Caplan
January L9, L982
Page 2
At this time my client, Valley Associates, Ltd., is
looking for an amenable solution for all parties coneerned. If
such a solution is attainable, my client will make a dilligent
effort to assist the Town of Vail in obtaining waivers of any notice
requirements from Ehe above named parties to expedite the rezoning
process.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Very truly yours,"62/AY
Willian J. Post
WJP/c1g
\
ffi
LATID TITLE
GUARAIITEC
OOMPAT{Y
BOX 3t
vAtr, cotoRADo 81657
o6225l
NEPNESENTINA
TITLE IITSUNA CE @IAANV
OF N'NNEgTA
Febuary 2, 1982
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vai'1, Colorado 81557
Dear Sirs:
This is to verify that according to a search of the Eagle County Records,
Val'ley Associates, Ltd., A Colorado Limited Partnership is the record
owner of Lot 5G, First Amendnent to the Ridge at Vail. If further documentationis necessary, please fee'l free to contact us.
Sincere'ly,
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY
nnc:'J"f-
Ar1een L. MontagTitle 0fficer
Al M/rcm
copies to: t,li'lliam Post
a
!
(l(,1,'lil L L ill.,lr'l' I l'jri
i1;1litll.,\ii! !, 1{lij:l
I
l.'l I i; | ;i''i .:i
\'./i I 1, :i (Ji';ii
'.1'1 Illli i) irr" ,
7 : llO I). l,l .
dt4) s-
On 'l'ut.sda1', I'r.lrrunrl' 2, l1)[i2, a rr,rJ;uJ ar lrc{'t. jng of the Va.i1 .].crn,n Counci.l
rvas; hr:ld in i. lrc Vail trlr.rn.i<rill:r1 Uui lcljng Cr.,urrcii Chiimbcls.
iI]tiil_Ji-i1s i, t ilisitN? :l\ir.yor Rodrrr:y Ii. S] i J crliill Iti.l to, triaycir I)t'o-Tcm
I>:r u I J ohns;lon
Chu<:k ln derson
H e rm:Ln n St :nrIe r
Ron ToddGaiI ifahrlich
OTIIL;IS PRi.,SIJ{T:Ilj cirard Caplarr, 'Io,,',.it f,lanltger
Larry Eskwith , Asst . 'Iorvn Art ctrn ev
The fi-rst jtem on the agenda was the seconcl reiding of Or-dinnnce #1 , Seriesof 19E2, an ordinance amending the officinl zoning map of Lhe Town of Vaitby placing,!liJrq j,cte $gb-SlivLs_i.on. .!,ots ! thrr;rrgh 5, in the single f ami. 1yresiclential zone distriCtl*Fhi-r oi?.vav Tirii.ri-t.[6-Counci 1 ir tfri" ordinancecould be tabled once again due to a lack.qi 4g::eeuept^y-i1.h 1.he Rictge of \/ai1propercy ol'tners on question of possiblevff S'lf f c'5[if1fiBfE,1 o'taO" a motion totab1e Ordinance #1 untiL the next regular meeting and Hermann Stauferseconced it- A11 voted i.n favor and tbe mot.ion passed unaninously.
The next j-tem on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #2, Seriesof 1982, an ordinance appl'oving the supplerrent to the Vai1, lrlunicipal Code.Mr. Caplan stated that this was a I'house]<eeping" ordlnance tha.t i-s doneannually to approve the supplements to the Code. Gail l{ahrlich asked howthe fees of $175.00 for the Code and $25.00 for the Supplement were esta-blished. Nr. Caplan expla.ined that this was the agreement with Book publishing
Company. Ilerrnatrn Staufer made a motion to approve Ordinan ce #2 on firstreading and Bill \{ilto seconded it. All voted in favor anri the motlonwas passed unanimously and the ordinance ordered published j.n full onfirst reading.
The tle>:t iten on the agenda was the first rcading of Ordinance #3, Series of
7-982 , an ordi-nance relat ing to the Commerci a-l Core I I I sig_! code. peter Jamar,Town Planner, save a presentation TT-TI6liof,ZEEE ;rdfi;il-e. --lFe stated thata letter had been sent to alL business owlters in Commercial Core III and apublic hearing had been held on January 20, 1982. Jamar stated that thet-ewas a differenc.e of opinion between the Staff and the Design Review Boardrelating to freestanding signs. Jamar stated that there is a slgn programstated for each building. The Staff is proposing that all signs be turned.off iu any busi'ess rvhich is not open for business. He stated that approxirirately11 businesses out of 40 do not cornply with the ordinanee at.the present time.Jamar stated that in Section 16.22.O25, #8, shoulcl be changed frbm twent-fjvesqual'e feet to "2'5 square feet". 'fhere rvas discussion relating to the si.gncode ordinance. Hermann Staufer questioned the point of turning off signs ipbusinesses that. were not open, stating that he felt this rvould hurt the otherbusinesses in the surrounding area. Jamar st.ated that the parking lot andsireet lighrs gave off enough f.ighting. Statrfer stated he thought it was alsoa safety f elrture to leave these lights on for a reasonable anount of time intot'lte brtsiness c'r'ening. He also stated that it, would take additional policetinle to palr'ol and enforc(} thjs issue. Gajl \l:alrrlich qr,restioned the ordinanceas jl. r'e.l ates to the Saf eru'ay sign, Jamar stated that tlie]' nlrulcl be allon.ed a2t) srltiare f orrl S j.gn. Thr-r.r: \\'AS soittCr cljscus;sjr.,n bettr.cen tlrc. Cou11gi1 at n c.l Cre.-gSnouclc'n, a ::lt'triirt)r of t-ht' DIIB, 1'6.gat'tii ng m:rxirnrinr number o1 signs, sizc., etc.SnOttden sl ated thaI. the dccision ()n tlre co<le \\'as not i1 unar) jtnorrs otre rviththe DIIB' lle stated that a rc''presentative fr<-rm l\lcDonald's harl attended the
me-e't i ng and did not seem t() have a yrrob) crn uith his allorlable size. Ron Toddaskecl it the 20 square f t>ot I jmit incluclr:cl both s jdes of thc si.gn, and Jemars;tatcd that I'c's it djd. Jamar also statecl thu.t the orclinilr)cc'should also bechlnllt'd to Ioatl "8 feet f r'om the <:xistin1l gra<le" on f reest.anrl ing signs.Af tt'r cons; jdt'rlllle rtiscuss;ion, Paul Jolrni.:t.i,rr ntacie a m()tr()n I () ill)J)ro\re olcii.:rncc,#3 <'n t i rs1 t't':tding rl'i tlr t hc <:lr:trrgcs and lrrrt,rrtlllr{)nt.q trirrrlc l,\, I,,-,t.,'i. Jilrrrar- :rnctlri' ('r'rrnci.l , rrrrcl ller.nrlnn S1.auJ.cr- sc,t:orrdt.<l i 1.. All \,(it(,d irr l. lrlr>r and thctttol iotl \\'as ill)lll'()r;c'd attd t.lr<l oldirranr-:c t>1.<lcr-t.tl ltrrbl ished in ltt lI on f it.stt't'rr rl i rr 11 .
On Tuesda5,, Janu:rry 19, 7-982, a regular Iot-'r:t j ng of tl.rc Vrti
rvrrs helcl ln the Vaj I lJuni<:ipaJ Rui)ding (.lr'ittrtc j I Clran:bers;.
\: rr.I r';;,'i;
\iAl I, 'l'(;iilJ i.()LllrilI I, :'1i,1;'l'IliG
f ili:i:l)AY, ,liil',iUAltY l9' l.{)E2
?:30 P.l'i.
ABSIINT:
OTHIRS I'RESJJNT :
'j'own Counc.i l
Llllf,lllllllS pRllSiiNT : [1.]yor ltodney li ' Sl j f cr
Bil I \t j 1to, IrlaYor Pro-Tem
Paul J<.rhnston
Il ermatru St au f er
Ron Tocld
Gai l'l{ahrlich
Cl.ruck An derson
Ricl.rard Caplan, Toltn l'lanager
Larry R j.der, Town AttorneY
Colleen Kline, Town Clerk
The f irst ltem on the agenda was the second reading of or'!-!t1vn9-e;#tla--
Series of 1981, an ordinance imposing a one-half of_919-!-e{:cent-ULI-p4
the total valuation of all constructlon rvork for whiZh a building permlt
is issued for. the purpose of street repaj.rs. There rvas ntuch discussion
that follorred, r.n,o-trg ih" Cor1n.ilmemberi and citizens who felt that they
rvere being penalized for the clestruction caused by the comnlunity as a
rvhole. After discussions as to how the communi-ty felt the tax could be
more equally distributed, Ron Todd made a motiou to approve ordinance #44
on second readjng and Paul Johnston seconded 1t. There was some discussicn'
Gail. wahrllch restated her concern about the amouut of the tax, felt it
should be reduced to one fourth of one percent, and also made to be an
ongoingtax'notforasixyearperiod.\\ralrrlichmadeamotionto
amend Todd's motion to impose a one fou::th of one percent tax for,an
ongoing per'1od time, but ttre motion died for lack of a second' After
some discussion a vote was taken and the motion passed five to one -
li,ahrlich opposing ancl tbe Ordinance was'ordered published by title
only.
The next item on the agenda was the second
Series of 1982, an ordinanc.e amending the
readi.ng of O::dinance #1,
offical zonlng maP of the Town
of Vail by Placifamily resi-d6-ntia1 zone dj-strlc
be tabled until the next meeting because
had not been notified on the meeting or
motion to table Ordinance #1, Series of
February 2, L982, for second reading and
A11 voted j"n favor and the motion passed
idwav ast<ed that this ordinance
some of the Parties concerned
the change. Bill lYilto made a
1982, to the next meeting on
Hermann Staufer seconded it.
unanimously.
de Subdivision Lots 1 th in the sjngle
The next item on the agenda lvas the reading of-Resolution #3, Series of
tg12, a resolut j on extending the iitU"" ftf ."3 ttettSBatt"t'ion Administration
Grant contract date. After some discussion, Paul Johnston made a motion
to approve Resol.ution #3, series of 1982, and Gail wahrlich seconded it'
a1f vbteO in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
The next ltem on the agenda u'as the reading of Resoluti-on #4, Series of
tg82, a resolution dupport ing the estabLishmentrcfTh-e-Itgl" County
Emergency Services Hospital District. )\lr. caplan stated that the council
had revie$.ed the-p1an *'ith .up"esentativcs f :'om the vail \'al1ey lrledical
Center at r.ts rvoLk session that afterno()n. I\layor Slifer stated that t'here
.needed to Is some di" r'ec1 icrn givern to t]'rc Iil'e Depal'trn€'nt f or charges tltel-
incur.red.rvhen resp"naing t.o calls initil1ted \\'ith the Ambulenc:e Distrjct'
After sone di".ui'iion nirn Todd made a motion to approve Resolution #4,
series of 1982, ^"a Gail \|'a}rrlicb seconded it. All voted in favor and
the notiotr passed unanintousLy.
During citizen Participation, Irlr. c;rp1an stated that he had received
repot.ts of botul ism in 4 oz. canned musltrooms f rom Saf c$'ay StoreS '
J)ilul .T()ht.tst rln nr;kc'cl rvhat. mr.rlrsurcs had bt'r'tl t.alicn to asli l trt' brts dri l't'I's
Lr()tlr f rorn t.he Ci 1.1' :rnd C()nl ill('nt.ial Tt'lli)sa5's, to shut o1'f 1'ltCir busolj
\r,.h(.n st()l)Pcd f or i,,u1;"t 1.hart 1l-r tni nttt t':;. lrlr, Cn|) an sl :il'cd t ltat it lt;tcl
l,1r,gn cl j si'irssed irnd the nlatt.cr 1'lrs trgi plI I ()ol(('d i ttttl .
on .Ir.ii;s;day, ,)atruary 5, 7982, a I'cflill ar: rn<'trt.i Irg ol tire; V:rj l 'l'ol{n cortnci l
was )rel cl in 1.)rc l\tun i c j pzrl !,1ui lclinJJ corrnr: i I (llr;rrrbers,
1,1 l:iL'll l;
VA I j. l ( )\,;ii (.( /r ';( I I
'fur:::rltry, Jilllltltt'1' 5, 19E2
7 a'."0 P.1,1 ,
}.liiT1BERS PIIIlSENT :
OTHI]RS PIIESENT:
Itliryor Itndnt:Y Ii. Sl i f cr
llil I \1'jlto, lrlaYor lj:'o.-'lem
Chu<;k Andet'son
Pau.l Joltns;ton
llerrnan n St trul er
R<.rn Todd
Gai. 1 \!ahrlich
R j c:barcl Cap3 an, Tortt.t irlanager
Lalr5 Ri der , 'Iot'n lttol'neY
Colleen Kline, Torlu Clerk
The first item on the agenda lvas Resofution #1, Seri'es of 7982' an honorary
resolution acknowledgin! tne lVeek of January 1'7 - 23 as National Jaycces
Week. After some di;cuIsion, Bill i{ilto macle a motjon to approve Resolution
#1 and Paul Johnston seconded it. A11 voted in f.avor and the motlon passed
unanimouslY.
seeond j-tem on the agenda" was the second reading of ordinaice #44, Series
of 1981 , an ordinance irnposjng a one-ha.lf crf one pere.entl's{-bn tota'l
valuation of all construction rvork for which e--F6imit j'i' issued to be
usedforStleetrepairs.lvlr.Caplanstatedthatthelehadbeenno
major changes to this ordinance sj-nce first reading. There rvere several
local- contl'actors in the audience that expressed their oppositon to the
proposed ordinance, stating that they lvere being penalized for the
destruction of the roads by all vehitles, There was some discussion
as to how there could be exemptions granted to contractors rvho were
building their places for permanent iesidences. After a lengthy discussion
bettveen the council and th-e citizens, Paul Johnston made a motion to table
ordinance #44 until the next regular meeting and to take it back to the
woik session for further study. chuck Anderson seconded the motion'
A rrote was taken and tbe motion passed - s1x to one - Ron Todd opposing'
The next item on the agenda was the first reading of ordinance #1 , Serles
of 1e82, an ordin"n.. i*."dinc th.@l !-!9=1?1no?LY.1ttoI LY6Z, all ur (r-LudLtr\rs .Llt,Errurrrb rre singG f ;mj-ryby pl "ciog Cl if f side Subdil'l€ron '-I.,e!E-
I t hrougt-t :
residential- -Th-iCoinmunity Development
Department explained the reason for the ordjnance. He stated that the
staff recomnrended_'approval of the change and.the PEC bad ""::9.i1-1"::Ion the change G - 0:- Craig Snorvden exfressed his-concern about the setback
areas. Hermann Staufer made.a motion to approve Ordinance #1 on first
readj-ng and paut iofrnston seconded it. Bill lgilto requested that the
staff modify the ordinance to pl'otect the views on the srtrrounding lots'
Avotewastakenonthemotionanditrvaspassedunanimouslyandthe
ordi-nance rvas ordered published in fu11 on first reading'
The next item on the agenda was the reading of Resolut ]_on #2, Series of
19g2, a resolution-oetichi'g tbe vail Library from the Cour.rty Library
tri-ptogt".. Af ter some cliicussion, Bi. 1l \\'ilto-ntade a motion to approve
Re-solu1 ion:Z and Chuck Anderson secondecl it. A11 voted in favor and the
motion passed utranimousl5" Larry Ri'cter stated that he had not had a
cbanc.e to re\'reN the Resirlrrt j on u'j th the Cotrnty Attornel" llnd that he
\r()uld be cljscussing- ii-itlth her, but felt 1: hat the l'esolution convel'ed
the intenl ol' f he 6ounty '.ncl the 'Iorvn of \ra j I 1n :'c'gards 1't> double t:rliat j
"tl
uncler citizen Participation, Barbara lrlasoner 'f rom the Nature center asked
for tbe Courrci:'s-iupir"rt in the ullcominll Rottle Bill for the State of
Ccrlorado. Iliryor SiliLt said the Council rtould revieN the bi 11'
Panr Ilopkins :rnd Craig $porvden, architecl s Ior the pr'o1'losc'ci Vail Library '
fliuur-r :1 l)1.()l:1.(.ss ,:or1r,rrt on the nert' I ibrnr'1' si 1e. 11a1'or Sl i f elr stated thnt
t. llr. C(rllnci I r|orrld Lt, r,lrl I i n1; f or a bontl t'l('ction to Ittttrl 1]tcr I ibt'a15' itt
Ilrr. r'r'11' n('ll l' l u1.tl l-c.
ORDINANCE #](Series of 1982)
AN ORDINANCI AIIIENDING TIIE OTFICIAL
MAP OF TIIE TOI4IN OF VAIL BY PLACING
SUBDIVISION, LOTS 1 TIIROUGH 5, IN
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT.
ZONING
CLIFIISIDE
TTII] SINGLU
WIIEREAS, Cliffside Subdivision was annexed to the Town of
vai1, December 31, 1980, and subsequently zoned Residential cluster,
but designated as an area for further study for the most appropriate
zone district; and
IYHEREAS,ttreTownCouncilisoftheopinionthatSingleFamily
Residential is the most appropriate zone district for Lots 1 through
5, Cliffside Subdivision; and
WHEREAS,thePlanningandEnvironmentalCommissionoftbeTown
has recommended, unanimously, rezoning from Residential Cluster to
Single FarnilY Residential .
NOtt, TIIEREFoRE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOIIN COUNCIL OF TIIE TOWN
oF vArL, coLoRADO, THAT:
Section 1.
TheofficialZoningMapoftheTownofVailisherebyamendedas
set forth below:
Lotsl,2,S,4and5,CliffsideSubdivision'berezonedfromBesidential 6luster Zone District to Single tr'amily Residential
Zone District, with the follorving condition:
1. That development on Lots 1 through 5 sha1l not
significantiyinterferewithscenicviewsexisting
from The Bidge at Vail townhomes'
Section 2.
Ifanypart,sestion,subsection,sentence,clauseorphraseof
this ordinance is for any reason held to be inval"id, such decision
sha1l not effect the validity of the remaining porti-ons of this
ordinance; and the Town council hereby deelares it would have passed
this ordlnsnce, 'and each part, section, subsecti,ott, sentence, eleuse
or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that, any one or more p&rts,
sections, subsections, sentences, clauseis or phrases be decLared
inval id.
Section 3.
Thc Town Ccluncil hereby finds, detcrmines and doclrres that tltis
orclinance is necessry and proper for thc heatth, safety and welfare of
the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
Section 4.
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the
Vail Municlpal Code is provided in this ordinance shal1 not affect any
right which has accrued, any duty imposed, dW vioLation that occurred
prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced' nor any
other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the pro-
vision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision
hereby sha1l not revive any provision or any ordlnance pleviously re-
pealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein
INTRODUCED, BEAD ON FIRST BEADING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISIIED
ONCE IN FULL TIIIS 5th day of January, t982, and a public hearing on
this ordinance shall be he1d. at the regular meeting of the Town Councll
of the Town of Vai1, Colorado, on the 19th day of January, L982, at
7:30 p.m. in the Municlpal Bullding of the Town of Vai1.
ATTEST:
Colleen Kline, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED,
L982, and ordered
READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED TIIIS 19th day of January,
publlshed
ATTEST:
Colleen Kline, Town Clcrk
-2-
'i'0:
Iii;l l li{.\\i)UM
i)larrning and llrrvilonrnent;rl Cor;rrnjssion
FROM:, Dcpartlnent of Conmunity Dcvcl optncnt/Petcr Pattcn
DATE: Dcccnrber 9, I 981
SUBJECT:Rczoning reqrrcst for Clif I'side Subdj.vision, iot-s I through 5,
from Residential Cluster (ltC) to Single Fa;nily Rcsidential
(SFR). ApPl icants: Rich:rld BroM, Dalyl R. IlrrLrrs, David L.
Cole, and Charlcs H. Rosenquist.
BACKGROUND
Cliffside Subdivision was annexed into the Tor+n rvith thc l{est VaiI Anncxa-tion of Deccrnber 31, 1930. It consists of 6lots and is located in theLionsridge area. In 1975, lots G-7 and G-8 of Lj.onsrirlge Filing No.
2 were resubdivided into r+hat is now Cliffside Subdivisiorr.
The lots are small. Only 1ot 6 is ovcr 15,000 square feet. Cliffside
was an arca which was difficult to fit into thc most sppl-opriate zonedistrict at the tinre of zoning l{est Vail. There r{cre no other .siFilar
subdivisions in the surrounding area of Cliffside. Thc Valley lies tothe northwest and was appropriately zoned Residcntial clu_ster. The "G"lots 1ie to the southea.st and rvere al so zoned Resj.rlential Cluster, rnostly
due to the Briar Patch project (on lots G-2, G-5 and G-6) and the G-4lot (zoned for 30 units). To the itruncdiate lr'est, across Lionsridge
Loop and on top of the ridge is Ridgecrest, a 6 lot prinrary/secondary
zoned area. These lots are over 30,000 square feet cach.
To allow Cliffside to 'rblend in" with the surrounding pr-operties, we
zoned it RC, with a ninirnun of 2000 square feet of GRFA for each lot.This special provision was included because, with slope restrictions,
sone of the lots would have been allowed only 1100 or 1200 square feetof GRFA. rt was felt and expressed at that tine that cliffside was anarea for further study as to the rnost appropriate zone district.
THE REQUEST
The rezoning request includes onLy lots 1 through 5, exclutlirrg lot 6,
where chuck Rosenquist!s house exists. Lot 6 is the only one which could
have rnore than one unit (it possibly could have S, according to roughslope calcul ations) .
Lots 1 through 5 are non-conforrning in terms of rnin inrun lot size for
RC, as they will be in Single Farnily (but to a lesser cxtcnt). The enclosedchart cornparing RC to sF1t,. coinbined wit-h the tabl e on stiltistics forlots 1,2,3,4, and 5 r+i11 help to understand the situation. The rnaindifferences are three:
SRF allorvs approxi:::ately an arrcrage i-ncrcase in GIIFA of 647 sq
ft per lot.
1.
!!t
...-
2.
3.
SFR allows flexibility in the siting of the houscs
because thcrc are no slope rcstrictions.
SFR allows. on lots where the house is located on
of 30% or nore, the Saragc to be located without
Tequircment.
on the lots
an average slope
a front setbaok
RECOTftIENDATTON
The Department of Comrnunity Development recorunends approval of the
rezoning requcst for Cliffside Subdivision. After studying the situation,
we feel SFR is the correct zone district for this subdivision. Residcntial
Cluster is neant for nulti-family develoPnent such as townhones and
condominiuns. ltle are dealing wit.h single farnily developmcnt on these
lots,, not condominiuns. The flexibility in.siting for the houses
and the garages is a necessity for thcse small, steep, difficult-to-
build-on lots. The SFR District is a more appropriate one for the
developnent of these lots.
| \,t
D I l;I: l :Ir rl,r.cil N lll i y-tj l.-oi !\' r jNlf F!l|p4!!q
lJIlTl{J:liN Rl:si I l)l:N]'IAl, Cl,U:;l'liR /\ND
.qlM!-_F4t[r!Y__B!g!q'_1!rM!
iriC
12,5OO buildablc area
Front-2O ft,
Sides and Rcar, 15 ft
Flat roof-30r,sloped- 33t
25eo of lst 12,500 sq ft
3ite area,+1Oeo over 12j500
20% of site
l.finimurn 60t of site
2 spaces/unit
No slope rcstrict.ions
relating to GRFA or unit
siting
^rt
Min. Lot Size
Setbacks
Height
Density Control
Slte Coverage
Landscaping
Parking
Slope restrictions
15,000 sq ft arca
8,000 sq ft min. buildable
Front-20 ft,
Sides and Rear, 15 ft
Flat roof-3Or, sloped-33 I
25% of buildable area
25% of site
Minimum 60t of site
2 spaces/unit, no front
setback parking, I covered space
per unit if required by DRB
No building on 4O% or nore
slopes, 4O% or rnore slope
areas subtracted fron allowable
units'and GRFA
.. _l l.-...| 'll
h'i
l'1t.'
ftt,
f;irIit
it,
ti
i! i\I ifi__\,- lt.\ n{ lp \i\ ll $\r\ iUSItt
\ '.\
\-}\r
(4
o
a\
Jr\
't1.\n.\-.\
--n
t----
.-.---
.._s
(A
Nl\)
.-'.-'b
ul
N
(A
oo o +*
s$
c
xL^
N(\)
(\
(\
N
CN
\
t\
N$--l
T-t\(.--
Nq
.-S
Rq
{$i
I$
o \J O
Noa
\b
C\r\J s}N,
R=.-$S\S0'g \..
N
CN
o
Q-t-$tNo-\g$s$
N
N
\r-
$N
NRFq
t\
u\)$
U
s\
N
q-\
tt\
R...(\..
tN
Nq
[N
\
NN
N$
$N
NU
NNN
; [', $'
N\tN$$ I $
t\
(\
$
t\
N
L\)
tr
\
'.ii:lrl
Ir.i;lp'\i
3Nl
+*i\ sl
ilsl s
-a\\
\it'
R
\r
N
t".r
\
>\\r\
\
}
., 1
',; ]ii
$:\t
ft.
U
\s'
t',
t\c
tt,
t{,.J
o\
F.\
\tt
q
Ito
7\
t^{l
N
\)
I\
\
-t$
ss
$^
s
f-
\
s
N
TN
N
\\
N
\
\
\
I
h$
*
\
*
h
\
\-\\\l
\
u
a\I
\
t oo oo
department of community development
February 12, 7982
75 soulh lronlage rd.
vail. coloredo 81657
(303) 476-7000
Bil Post
otto, Peterson and Post
P.0, Box 3149
Vai1, Colorado 81657
Re: Cliffside
Dear 8i11,
The purpose of this correspondence is to re-track the past occurrences andthe current situation regarding the cliffside subdivision rezoning andthe resultant opposition fron the people involved with The Ridge it vait
Townhornes, The following are the events which have taken place in chrono-
l ogical order :
t' The Planning and Environnental conmission, with a positive recommenda-tion frorn the planning staff, recorrnended to Town council the approvalof the request frorn cliffside subdivision (represented by phil biaway)to rezone lots I through 5 fron Residential cluster to single FanilyResidential on Decernber 14, lgSl . The only concern expressed by pEC
was that of protecting the views frorn the Ridge at Vail units. This
was deterrnined to be a Design Review Board consideration, and the pEC
felt comfortable addressing the view issue at the DRB level.
2. On January 5. 1982 the Town Council considered on first' reading Ordinance#I, Series of 1982 to rezone Cliffside fron Residential Cluster toSingle Family Residential . It was unanimously approved with the directionto the staff to include language in the ordinance addressing the protectionof views fron the Ridge at VaiI . Townhones.
3. Following the January 5 neeting, I was inforned by you that you feltinsufficient notification had occurred with respect to the Ridge atVail property. You wrote a letter dated Januaty t9, 19g2 to Rich caplan,
Town Manager stating so and requesting tabling of the second reading
scheduled for January 19, lg82 so that scenic views could be furtherstudied. You stated that you were concerned that the new languager had- put into the ordinance addressing the view question was nor srrong
enough to assure the quality of the views, Mr. ordway agreed to thistabling and requested the same at the rneeting that evening.
2-oob
Bill Po 2/ 12/82oo
On Wednesday, January 22" a site investigation was conducted in which
Craig Snowdon, Jin Flaun, yourselfn Phil Ordway and nyself participated.
At the site it appeared that views would not be impaired because of
the sharp grade change on the south side of the ridge, After the sj-te
visit, Craig Snowdon, Jirn F1aun and nyself rnet and detennined that
due to an 8% driveway grade restriction, garages for lots 4 and 5 would
require rnuch fill which would substantially raise their elevation and
inpair views fron the Townhornes. It was decided that Craig Snowdon
and others would conduct a more detailed study, producing sone cross-
sections, to determine nore exactly these desigr/view problems.
On Tuesday, February 9, 1982 I met with Craig and exanined hi-s drawings
and the photographic analysis which was done to show potential inpacts
- on the views fron the townhomes frorn constructi-on of garages on the
northern boundaries of lots 4 and 5, It was apparent fron this study
that. potential for very servious view inpacts were guite real and that
rellrcsentat ives from The Ridge would object strongly to the rezoning
as it was currently written, Mr, Snowdon expressed that representatives
fron The Ridge would agree with the zone change only j,f access to lots
4 and 5 were from the lower s j,de of the lots, off of Lionsridge Loop.
I had a conversation with I'tr. Ordway on Friday, February 12 in which
he prelininarily suggested that access from below would not be acceptable
to Richard Brown, current owner of lots 4 and 5. This indicates that
there would be a rnajor disagreement between the two parties and that
no waiver of notice would be supplied by yourself. You had indicated
on January 19 that the waiver would cone only if an agreenent was subsequent.ly
reached regarding language in the ordinance addressing views.
It appears at this moment, that this matter wi.ll go back to PEC for
their consideration at a later date and that essentially we will start
over with the zone change, now taking into consideration the view and
access issues. I would like to rnake it clear that the planning staffrs
position on these issues wj.ll be presented in nernorandum form to the
PEC several days previous to that public hearing. The staffrs current
position is one of the desire to further study the view and access
issue,
4.
5.
6.
7.
I sincerely hope all
at a solution which
Sincere 1y-1
parties can work together on this matter to arrive
is the optimurn for the Town, The Ridge and Cliffside.
,a-/ / /r( ,' ,('u^ t
:A,. PETER PAT'fEN,
Senior Pl anner,
JR
Town of Vai 1
APP:bpr
cc: Craig Snowdon
Jin Flaun
Phi-l Ordway
Richard Brown
a
A tt i> t J,rl Z - /6 -82--6,. /rc{ ckptflAl
R,;[- n
#r tL rru** g A/ E'*"-''- J A
f:,&/"*'L 4h !Z*'yrk;,n & /-€,
"1"
t*'* /'-'-/""L"- t
rl2 Fft rffi f/ o?fr*,
/ T *fl-P04@ ha-"fftM,/ 8/ /(8"
fuu*7**/AM
/
lI
n3 476-12201
81657
Snowdon and Hopkins o Architects
201 Gore Creek Drive
P. O. Box'1998 Vait, Colorado
I',Ir. Feter Patton
Tor,m of VaiI Plaryring Departnent
75 Souttr Frontage RoadVail, Colorado 81657
February 24, 1982
Dear Peter:
Enclosed is a pa.cket of infornration on my investigation of the request
for rezoning by the prcpertlz cr^/ners within ttre Cliffside Subdivision (Iots L
ttu:u 5) .
I\.ty first hnodedge of the rezoning request was at its first reading of
the To,tn of Vail cor.rrcil neeting of January 5, 1982. Being present on another
rnatter, I stated my crcncerns about any develc4nent along the western portionof the Cliffside lots roculd be disastrous to the project ]arovsn as "The Ridge
at Vail" of which our firm was involved as Project Architects. As you statedin your letter of Febnrarry 12. L982 it was r:nanimously atrrprorzed by the Tcrirn
cq:ncil on first r^eadirry wittr jnvestigation of the inpa.cts to be included for
any DRB application.
Orr concern at the tfue was c /er access to the prcperty and wtrat ralouLd
happen if ttre cr^mer alproached frcrn the r-phill side of the properQr (using an
established but r:nprorzen access easenrent) versus approachirg frcrn the oristing
Buffer Creek Drive on ttp dc,/nhill side of the properties. TIIis rryrculd reqr:ire
plaoanent of the drivacays and possjJcle garages alorg tlre top of tlre ridge indirect line with existing views of "The Ridge at Vailu.
lttis tryould be done after the cnmer and developer of "ltre Ridge at VaiI"
had specifically (at the request of the Town staff to Eagle County) prlled his
units off the ridge so as to provide a rninintal visual ifipact frcrn the walley
belcnr. (See the attached letter of Januarlz 15, 1980.)
After the council ueetJng I inforned the 'Ihe Ridge at Vail" cnmers of
the rnatter, and was ilstnreted to pursue firrdhg out what ingncts suctr a
pncposal r,rculd cause. Erclosed are serreral drar,rings shrcffing site plans and
sections of possiJrle buildinq locations on Lots 4 and 5 of Cliffside and its
:relationstr:ip to ttre Ridge units. ltris was dore after or:r site visit and
subsequent neeting of January 22, 1982 when it was discovered tlrat it may noL.
be feasible for the c,trners of LoEs 4 ard 5 to acocnplish their desired goal of
tucking ttre buildings into ttre hillside w"j-th access frcrn the rpper private
drive and cul de sac.
As ttrc draoings slrcn'r, Lobs 4 ard 5 sit easterly of "ll?re Ridge at VaiI"
units D, E ard F. On the drawings a:re possiJole locations of a 20r x 20'
ganlge with the present zoning (wiUr diagornl nrarking) and with the proposed
zoning (witttout diagonals) with access frcm both uphill and dcl*rrhill rroadways.
Ete plan stror'us probable garage slab elevations (with T.O.V. 8t drive slope
requirerent) in relation to existing grades at ttte perineters of the buitding
ervelcges. As can be seen this requires anlnvtrele frcm 11 ' to 30t of vertical
)..
fill to be used in order to achieve acc€ss to the site. Ttris infornation is
also shcr^n in the enclosed sections dravring and represents those sections
indicated on ttre site plan. Also strown qr ttre seqtion dratings are nru<im.m
enrzelopes (height as established in the zoning ordinance) wttidt relate to
oristing grade that ould be cbtained by the ohlners of Lots 4 and 5 and "llhe
Ridge at Vailr' (again with er<istilg zoning and prc4nsed zoning).
AIso enclosed a:e xero< copies of photographs tal<en Februarlz 5, L982
strcwing 8r high walls at crcrners of tlre possible garage envelotrns. 13ris was
done wittr the help of a survey crqp fron Eagle Valley Engineering ard
Surveying. IIIe properQr qcrrrers of bottr "1ltre Ridge" and Cliffside Ircrts 4 and
5 rere established; frcm the established propenty oor:ners and the enclosed
site plan a surveyorrs narket was placed at eight locations on Lqts 4 and 5
(indicating the corners of prcbable envelq>es) at 8' above garage slab. Ihe
tq of ttre rnarker relates to ttre top of an 8' wall. the pLotographs are noted
as to wtrich building cerner as seen frcrn a person standing at living rocnt
level frcrn ttre o<isting foundatiqrs of units D, E and F of "ltre nidgetr
pnoject. As you can see this all but elimi.nates the o<isting wienrrs of tlte
Tcwn and Core Range frcrn an already establistred project, and r,vould project
well above tbe ridge line (as viened frcm the valley belcnrr) that the Tcrralr
staff tried so hard to protect and I feel zuceeded in protecting during ttre
develogrent of "The Ridge at Vail" project. Not only tlre possible garages but
even the access drives uould be well above ttre ecisting ridge line. My
opinion that any appmral vdttput stipu.lation to access frqn Buffer Creek
Drive (wtrich as shown on the dralvings is not inpracticaU utculd be a disaster
for the Tcern and ttp crlrprs of "The Ridge at Vail".
orr office has been involved with nrany projects with equally demanding
site considerations, and harre acccnplished ttre task w:ithout placirg sucfi a
hardship on an adjacent property o,lner. I would be nrrre than willing to show
these projects to you at anytine.
I hope you will reviq,r these findings and keep them jn nind as this items
is reviewed by the PEtr at future neetilgs. ff I can be of an1' fi:rther
assistancre please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Sncrrdcn and Hopkins A:rchitects
Encl osures
cc: l,lr. Bill Post
Mr. Phil Ordway
Mr. Dave Neer
lmn
75 soulh fronltge rd.
vall, colotado 81657
(303) 476-7000
department of community danelopment
To Adjacent Property Owners:
Please be advised that the rezoning request concerning Cliffside
subdivision will come before the Planning and Environmental Comission
on ltarch 22, 1982 at 5:00 p.ur. instead of l,larch 8 as listed in the
enclosed public notice.
1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
BACKGROIJND
SUBJECT:
ICMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Departm\ent of C ouunun ity Development,/Peter Patten
March 16, 1982
Request to
Cluster to
David Co1e,
rezone cli.ffside subdivision, Lots 1-5, fron existing Residential'
St;;i; Farnily Residential . Applicants: Charles Rosenquist'
Daryl R. Burns, Richard N. Brown
on Decernber 14, 1981 the Planning and Environmental Conrnission recou[uended unani-
nously to Town Council that clifiside subdivision, Lots 1-5, be rezoned to single
Farnily Residential . -rture was concern frorn several corunissioners that views fron
The Ridge at vail Townhornes not be urocked by developrnent on lots 4 and 5 of cliff-
side. However, the Planning commission generally felt that this view question
could be handled at the Design Review Board level '
On January 5, 1982 the Toun Council considered on first reading ordinance #1' Series
of1982--theordinancetorezoneCliffside.CraigSnowdon,oroiectarchitectfor
The Ridge at VaiI townhones spoke at the-meeting Ibout his t^ont"tn that the developnent
on lots 4 and 5 of Cfiffsiae iake place down th; hill enough so that views fron
thetownhonreswouldnotbeaffected,especiallysj-lgg.thesinglefanilydistrict
al lowed the structutes to be sited wi-th- more fiexibility. The Co*ncil passed the
ordinance 'naninousl|-*iitt-ift. direction to staff to include language regarding
the protection of views frorn the tor'mhones '
After the January 5 meeting of council , it was discovered that the aPplicants had
gi""" i""o.rect inforrntiioi t"g"tding ihe owner and address of the adjacent ProPerty'
thus insufficient p.rbti" notic! had iaken place. Public notice was going to be
waived by The Ridge at Vail representative; if a mutually agreeable solution to
the view. issue could be arrived at.
craig snowdon then conducted a view analysis using possible sites for structures
under both RC and SFR zoning. It was discovered at this point that very little
thought went into th; e;;ig" of the ,uuai','itiott with regard to access for both lots
4andS.ThestudyshowedthattoneetS%drivewayglade.restrictionsthatthe
garage structures *orrtd b" very high on the ridge and seriously affect almost every
view from the townhorne units. At this point it-was decided that the tltattel' should
go back through the process so that aor^t""t public notice.could be given and so
that the view questitn could be more cotpf"t"fy considered by the Planning Comrnission'
Enclosed is the previous rnemorandum with the reconmendation deleted' the new re-
corornendation is as follows:
Clifft Rczone _z_ 3/16/s2
I!q0$EU4]I9{
E:i::i'f"lT.:":::::il :;:;'ff:":":l:-""r anarvsis conp,eted by Mr. snowdon.access to tots I ""-j"d,ii,,:.":::.::::rts-of
that study dictare an alternative
1r,f e;i.r,'ini;;;, ; ;::.:, ::,"J";:;;r'r::,i. ill3; i::* ;:::#Hji
n:. t:,
rli'it!".1"1#u.:;:1."*"* nl.;i:;" ridge so *''i-.r,"v."p:"f" over the ridge,the structu."'. iio,,ra_"";l;p;;-";; i#fi:i:n:rs".,il5.ruiti;.:i:.1;]i:r*.#::illiil;. :'ii j-{:fff i;'df.:::m*. I
ji.j:, ::1.,i ii,iii'i" -a"."i
rpi,'etor The Ridge, and the'fian';;; .;;;r;ingly adjusted. rcluded in the approvars
In a sinilar light. we would not want structures constructed on lots 4 and 5 toprotrude upon this very sar'e riagerine.. Due to-th;-';;i;;;"g etevation of thec-ut-de-sac bv which access to lois 4 and 5 ,";; ;;;"-;ii"ia, the protusion uponliio;]ot"ttne by garage structures is alrnost inevitabre, according to the vilw
secondly, the views,f1op Jhu units at The Ridge,shourd be protected. These areexlsting units sited-solely ao i"i"*ra""rra"g"-Jr"trr'J-."p"ial.rrar views of theffii:fl.:li."l: f;ii'Range.. ,h.;;;;;;ol upgn thu,e vi",u, by the sarase structuresu. in"ui."r-," "ii.,l"l*"li:lii ;i,i::; ifl+l+i *:;;i.::";;ffi*"i;:i:,,.i:t::.l;r"i::: t"tn degradation oi-ii,u"ui.,us which tr," p.o;""t has tried to hard
fiH'J:i:ii:f#':ffi1:;J1". the rezoning ror crirrside, rots r-s be approved
fil"i^fi:1iffi":; :il"tiji,o.3"fnj be rinited to Iocatins on the
the "iL*.-"i'rhe Ridge at vair ;ilff:::"ture Protrua.. i"io-
t
:
I
i
9(
o
h
t\
5
\
_t\!!\
\)
t.
1t
I,
PEc -r-Gr,r,
Jim Rea, lessee of the Texaco station at the site, expressed his concern that tire
costs per square foot not be too expensive for potential businesses to iease.
D'ick Ryan again emphasjzed that the surrounding buildings, i.e. sewer treatment plant,
Glen Lyon office building and others vrere I or 2 stories, Peter P, quoted from the
Heavy Service purpose sect'i on of the code relating to the fact that Council and pEC
may prescribe more restrictive development standards than the standards prescribedfor the district in order to protect adjoining uses from adverse inf1 uences. Postfelt that all related questions had been answered. Dick ansrvered that the board
had to decide what was best for Vail.
Eric Monson and Andy Norris supported the building, with Andy suggesting that there
be caution to insure that the sumounding properties did not automatical'ly feel that
they could also have the same density. Elliot Alport felt that the 1,04 FAR was
common in the core areas and could be handled sens'itive1y.
Duane moved and Jim V seconded to approve the
struct an office building in a Heavy Servicesite on the South Frontage Road per the staff
The vote wds 4"2 in favor with Dan and Diane
Peter Jamar explained the memo and added
not being changed, but that the increase
After discussion, Scott moved and t.ljl'l
the al'l owable gross floor area within the
6-0 with Jim V abstaining,
request for a conditional use to con-
Zone District at the existing Texaco
memo dated l''larch 15, 1982.
voting against it, and Jim M abstaining.
increase the al I owabl e
Appl icant' Andy Norr
that the percentage of site coverage vvas
was within the existing bui'lding,
seconded to approve the request to increase
Glen Lyon office building, The vote was
4. Request for an amedment to Special Development Distrjct 4 to@r4Tf fi n -i6e-GT eE- @ss_En E rd.
This itern was to go to the Council April 6.
5r Reqgest for a.rezoning of lots'l throuqh 5, Cliffside subdivision from Residential,15f T'avla-eole;uaryI Surns, Rtcnard Brown.
Peter Patten exp)ained the prev'ious action leading up to this request. The applicantswerenotat the meeting, and Peter described various efforts to get in touch withtheir attorley to no avail. Since there were in the audience several people interestedin the outcbme of the proposal , it was decided to go ahead with the heiriirg,
Peter P. explained that the staff was in favor of the request oniy if the condition
on the memo were included. The staff's reasons were the steepness of the sites,the size of the lots, and the fact that when The Ridge was being developed, onerestriction placed on The Ridge was that the homes be pulled baik from the ridge
so that they did not sit on t6p of it,
The djscussion that followed concerned access problems and what restrictions could
be p'laced on the developnrent of lots 4 and 5. Craig Snoldon, architect representing
.'
the Ridge at Vai'l owners,llqyqa a survey study and sections which showed variousgrades and expiained the difficul.ty w-ith keepins niihi,; ihu to,un raqri;r;;;;ian 8% grade on the roads, He addei that the'o*i."i-oi"tnu-nioge were not concernedwith square footage requested, but were very concerned with access,
various solutions were discussed. l,ii1l-questioned whether the planning comnissioncould jmpose restrict.ions on someone;t tl"a-irl-;-;";;ffi: uicr iniwJi.d'ir,ui"tn"vwould have to amend the ioning-in-oiaer to add i"siriiiidns.
OC
Duane moved to approve the request to rezonefrom existing Residential Cluster to Singlerestriction:
frec('r-3/22/82
height greater than
which is the common
.l
_Cliffside Subdivision, lots l-5Family Residential with the following
That no structurer..improvement or increased grade occur at arne exls['rng etevation gl.any polnt_on t!9 back property ]ineproperty line with The Ridge-at Vai1 subsrvrsron.
|.Jill seconded and the vote was 5-0 in favor with Dan and Jim Morgan abstaining.
I
P
a
LANNING At'lD ENVIRONIVTENTAL COMMISSION
Nlatch 22, L982
* 2:00 p,n. Site visits
3:00 p,n.
l" Approval of ninutes of neeting of l'larch 8, 1982.
2. Rbquest for a rezoning of Lot 2, block 5, Internountain, to tezone fron
Residential Cluster to Low Density Multi-Fanily to allow the construction
of two writs. Applicant: Richard Torrisi'
3, Request for a conditional use perurit to constluct an office building on the
existing Texaco Station site at 953 South Frontage Road West in a Heavy
Service Zone dj.strict. Applicant: M € W Venture.
4, Request for an anendrnent to Special Development District 4 to increase
thC allowable gross floor area within professional and business offices.
Applicant: Andrew Norris.
5. Request for a rezoning of lots 1 through 5, Cliffside subdivision from
ReCidential Cluster District to Single Family District. Applicants:
Charles Rosenquist, David Cole, Daryl R. Burns, Richard Brown.
)
trlIc'EABD N. Bnwr
6|r1111 1OO
lTto BortzlE llll,t arar C|dRlrE
D!rv!E, Oor,oBADo Eorgg
(aoa) 764-627()
April 5, 1982
Mr. Richard Caol in
Town Manage r
75 South Frontage Road
Vai l, Colorado 81657
Re: 0rdinance #l of 1982
Cl iffside Re-Zoning
Lots4E5
Dear Mr. Caol in:
I request that the appl ication for re-zoning my Cl iffside lots
be withdrawn.
Because of the problems that would be caused by re-zoning according
to the Planning Departmentts recorrnendat ions, I rnould like to study the
problems with the Cliffside Lots and try to find a situable solution for
all concerned.
When I have a workable solution to these problems, lwill reappl y
for the appropriate zoning changes through the Planning Department.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
S incere ly you rs ,""ru';84
R icha rd N. Brown
RNB/j sc
GpoRce RossNsgnc
ATTORNEY.AT.LAV
, '.
April 5, Lg82
':
HAND DELIVERED
Town ofAttn:
Apptication - CHffside Subdlvision
Dear Mr. Caplan:
This office represents Richard N. Brown the applicant in
above referenced mattbr. It is our understanding thismatter is set for consid.eration by the Vail Town Councilits meetinE of April 6, L982: Pursuant to our telephone
the
at
ECPY
f,or Rezoning
conversqtion Last week, we hereby reguest the sgbject matter
be t'abled to lhe May ISth meeting of the Town Council.
As I explained to you in;our telephone convereation, myclientr;Hr. Brown, is j-n'the'process of retaining an archl,tect
who will.:need .some time t'o prepare hie presentation.
Thank you for your cooperation and agsistance in this
eter Patten, Jr.
Richard M. Brown
I
RICIIARI' N. BAO\fN
SUITE IOE
r?AO €|o[IfE BTI.I,AIRE ETNEST
I)EN.IrER, Cor,oEADo 40222
(soa) t5a-63?o
September 7, L982
Mr. Peter Patten
Department of Community Developrent
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Roadvail, Colorado 81657
Dear Peter:
I have reviewed the conditions under which the
Toirn of VaiI wants to rezone my Lots No.4 and 5 in the
Cliffside Subdivision. The restrictions that the Town
has placed on the rezoning of these lots is totally
unacceptable both to myself and Chuck Rosenguist, and I
an sure it would be to Daryl Burns.
I dontt know of any other lots that have those
requirements and I think that ite are being put in apoJition where we are being treated most unfairly in
that no one else has had to live with such stringent
requirements.
I would be glad to discuss this situation further
but, if this is the position that the Town of Vail
feels they rnust take, r will do everything that r can
to make sure we can use these lots as everyone else in
vail has been able to use their lots.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,r)
(lrZ b'*-
Richard N. Brown
RNB,/es
o ),
Rrosrno NI. Bnorvx
Bsrlr l(Xt
r'rao EkrErrE llrr,r.allt gamrr
Drrvrt.. Oor.oreoo 8oll8
(toa, 76&6!?()
January 5, 1983
Mr. Peter Patten
Comunity Plannlng Department
Town of VallVail, Colorado 8L657
Dear Peter:
Thls letter will confirm my phone request to you thet I
wish to withdraw my application- fbr chang6 of zoning of the
Cltffside Llonsrldge Subdlvision.
Thank you.
e1y yoirs,
Richard N. Br
RNB/es
h
own
Orro, Pnrnnsox & Posr
AT LA'w
FREDERICK S. OTTO
JAY K. PETE RSO N
WILLIAM J. POST
POST OFFTCE BOX 3 t49
vaIL, cor-oEADo ar65a - 3t49
August 5, 1983
(303) 475 - O O92
EAGLE VAIL PROFESSIONAL BUILOING
(303) 949-53AO
OENVER OIREc:T IINE
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETIJRN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Town of Vail
Department Of Comunity Development
75 South Frontage RoadVail, Colorado 81657
Dear Gentlemen:
This lecter is 'rriEten as confirmation of my
previous telephone conversations with your office whereini have requesied and directed that Ehe- address of Valley
Associates, Ltd., a Colorado limited partnership, and
record owner of real property in the Tovrn of Vail, CounlY
of Eagle, State of Colorldo,-be changed in your office forall purposes including, but noE limited to, the receiving
of any notices from the Town of Vail pursuant to its zoning
or subdivision notices, to the follovring:
Valley Associates, Ltd.
c/o William J. Post
Post Office Box 3149Vail, Colorado 81558-3149
If you have any quesLions concerning this matter'
please contact Ee.
Willian J. Post
WJP/ sj c
,'l_.r.
.,,
A. NAI.[E. OF PETITIONER
NAME OF PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATIVI|
ADDRESS P.O. Box 5190, Avon, CO. 81620
George Rosenberg, Esq.
PHONE 949-4200-.__:-
c.NAME 0F 0I.JNER (prin r type)See Paragraph
/SIGNATURE'
A 1ist.
subj ect
above
ADDRESS PHONE
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAI
trrnnEqq Lots 1 through 6, Cliffslde Subdivlslon, County of Eagle, State of'*-'*"" -+J'at-ther€8f.-_._
LEGAI DESCRIPTION lot block --SAME-- fi.linq
#'3v
fZs.
E.
Vf
,F
ypt-t
Ia
$100.O0 plus an alnount equal to the then cu1'sn1 fi:.st.-class postagerate for each property owner ts be notj-fied hereunder,
of the names of owners of all property adjacent to Lheproperty, and their nailing addrcsses.
--See attached Exhibit B--
Peri riop,ot_ 2 tA!/-4/3
PETITION FORI,I FOR ru"ltr}.IDMIjNT TO TIIN ZOT,IING ORDII,IANCE
oIi
ITEOUtrST iTOR
A CITANGE IN DISTRICT I]OUNDARIES
f. This procedure is reguired for any arnendmc-:nt to the zoning ordinance' or for a reguest for a district bounclary change
Richard N. Brown, et aI 6- s(Y
ADDRESS Sbe attached Exhibit A ? s-f, '.{72 oPHoun
EXHIBIT A
PETITIONERS /PROPERTY OWNERS
The underslgned are the petltioners and all of the record owners of the
real property whlch ls the subject of the withln Petltlon. Further, George
Rosenberg, attorney at 1aw, is hereby authorized to represent us 1n connectlon
with all matters and proceedlngs reJ-atlng to the vithln Petition.
Richard N. Brown
1780 South Belaire Street,
Suite l-06
Denver, CO. 80222
Date Charles Rosenouist
P.O. Box 686
Val1, C0.81658
Margaret Rosenquist
P.0. Box 686
Vail, C0. 81658
Date
Date David Cole
286 Bridge Street
Vail, CO.81657
649 South Monroe Way
Denver, C0. 80209
Date
EXHIBIT A
PETITIONERS /PROPERTY OWNERS
The underslgned are the petitioners and all of Ehe record owners of the
real properEy which is the subject of che within petition. FurEher, George
Rosenberg, aEtorney at law, is hereby authorized to represent us ln connection
wlEh all maLters and proceedlngs relating to the wichin petition.
Dat e Brown
Belaire Street,
?/p/r 'Date' /
W
Date
Marga
P.O.
Vail,
Rosenquis t
686
81658
David Cole
286 Bridge Street
Vail, C0.81657
Dar e Daryl Burns
649 South Monroe l^/ay
Denver, C0. 80209 ,i
Richard N.
l7B0 South
Suite 106
, co. 80222
Charles Rosenqu
P.O. Box 686
ox
EXHIBIT A
PETITIONERS /PROPERTY OWNERS
The underslgned are the petitioners and all of che record owners of Ehe
real property which ls the subject of the rrithin pcLition. l'urLher, George
Rosenberg, aEtorney at 1aw, is hereby auEhorized to represent us 1n connecti.on
wlth all matters and proceedlngs relating to the within Petition.
Date Richard N. Brown
1780 South Belaire Street.
Suite 106
Denver. CO. 80222
Dac e Charles Rosenquist
P.O. Box 686
Vail, CO.81658
DaEe Margaret Rosenquist
P.0. Box 686
,a/f /h
Date
(_./ za6 Erldqe st ree t'./VaII, C0.81657
Dat e Daryl Bu rns
649 South Monroe l,/ay
Denver, CO. 80209
EXHIBIT A
PETITIONERS /PROPERTY OWNERS
The underslgned are Ehe petitioners and all of the record owners of thereal property which is the subJect of the within petltion. Further, George
Rosenberg, attorney at Law, ls hereby authorized to represent us in connecttonwlth all natEers and proceedlngs relatlng to the wlthin Petitlon.
Date Rlchard N. Brown
1780 South Belaire Street,
Suite 105
Denver, CO. 80222
Date Charles Rosenquist
P.O. Box 686
Vai1, C0.81658
Date Margaret Rosenqui-st
P.O. Box 685
Vail, C0, 81658
Date
/o/= /Cz
-
David Cole
286 Brldge Street
Vai1, C0.81557
649 South Monroe liay
Denver, CO. 80209
G-1, Lionsridge
No. 2
EXIIIBIT B
LIST OF ADJACEM PROPERTY OI^TNERS
OI4INERI S NA}IE
Doyle Hopkins
ADDRESS
3667
smith, AR. 72913
Box
Ft.
G-2, Lionsrldge
No. 2
G-6, Lionsridge
No. 2
C.V.A.S. Development Edwards Business
Center, Suite C-7
Edwards, CO. 81532
Ridge At Vail
Townhouses
ELLENIAL, N.V.
Snowram Associates
John Ilorton and
Theresa Elizabeth
Sadler
c/o Jirn Flaum
Box 1027
Vail, C0.81558
c/o Ron Artinian
48 Pheasant Run,
North Hills
Roslyn, N.Y. 11576
3LL2 27th Avenue
Moline, lL. 61.265
c/o Bl11 Post
P.0. Box 3149
Vail , CO. 81658
Val-ley Assocl-ates / Lf/ -
Lot 1, Block 4,
Lionsridge No. 3
Ravmond E. Brenner l-001 U.S. Highway
Jupiter, Florida
2.oy
erle
33548
-AL.+T J/J-s i-tZ;"W
1-.8 f q K'' [>,- "'f r'6/
L-u r t-6 K"l'- n k^;
', i"t'/: r,/z t/rs
l>4t
I :00
2:00
Planning and Environmental Commission
December i2, 'l 983
Site Inspections
Public Hearing
Appointment of member to the Design Review Board for January,February and March.
Approval of minutes of November r4 and November 2g meet.ings.
Request for a rezoning of Lot l, glock.9, Bighorn 3rd Addition,Vaii East rownhomes,. irom Low o"nsiiv"Nuiti-F.iii'y"iJ iirii.*.Applicant: VaiI Eait Lodsirg niioiiitlon, rnc.
Request to rezone Lots. I through 6, cliffside subdivision from Residentialcluster to sinore Family nesiJintiirl"nppticanis, ni.i,u"o N. Brown,char]es Rosenqiist, ltarluiei'n"i..6rirt, David co.re and Daryr Burns.
Request for modification to the floodprain in order to re-align East l4iilcreek in order to build-a new-ski-uu!e ru.ility at Gordenpeak and stiilpreserve the creek. App'l icant: Vail -Associatei, ini. --"'
Request for an exterior arteration to One vail prace in order to encrose?n gfea to be used as a radio head_set rental outlet.Applicants: Vair Associatesuiiepnei-dommunications
Pref iminary review of exterior arterations of the fo.l lowing buildings:
a. Landmark Condomiums., Unit 70.| , to increase loft area.Applicant: Lonnje Wittiimi-
b' concert Hat praza, to add 4 condominium units which wourd add athird floor to the building. -nppil.untr
Ser'by-Tofet Assoc.iates
c. Treetops condomiums, new retair plaza above the parkinqstructure. Applicant: rre"iopr'iorJori"irr;;rili;;i;,
d' 600 Lionshead Mail - bottom of cha'i r #8, temporary ticket officeApp'licant: Vail Associates,-ini.-"
e' Red Lion Inn, to instail_portable ptexiglas windows for the west wail.App'l i cant: Joseph L. Ke'l imen .- r '
f. Cyrano's, greenhouse enclosure over south deck,Appiicant:- Bud parks
g' valbntino's Restaurant, plaza Bui lding, greenhouse enclosurepart of west deck area- Appricant: airdg"-st.""i i.iiurrunth. Village Center, new retail additionAppl icant: Fred Hibberd
pm
pm
2.
J.
4.
6
6.
7.
over
As soc .
(e
TO:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Envjronmental Commission
FR0M: CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
DATE:
1v-
December 8, i983
SUBJECT: Rezoning request for Lots l-6, Cliffside Subdivision from
Residential Cluster (RC) to Single Family Residential (SFR).
Applicants: Richard Brown, Charles and Margaret Rosenquist,
David Cole, Daryl Burns
BACKGROUND
As some of you know, this is not the first time this item has come up. In fact,this will be the third time the rezoning has come before the Planning and Environ-mental Conmission. The only thing different this time around is thai Lot 6 is
now inc'luded' which means we're talking about the entire subdivision of six lots.
Basically' the rezoning means Lots l-5 receive the same number of units (l),
but sl'ightly more GRFA. Lot 6 would receive two less units (slope calcuiated
on-a very approximate basis) and less GRFA under the rezonjng proposal. Themain advantage to the property owners is the lifting of the ilbpe restrictions
by going from RC to SFR.
The bottom line is that cliffside was a very poor'ly p'lanned subdivision. Thelots are, for the most part, very smal1 and-vbry siebp, the accesses to severallots are unworkable, and construltion on the to-p part'6t lots 4 and 5 w'ill intrude
uPon the ridgeline. The applicants wish to rezone the subdivision to SFR withoutrestriction, and this is where the controversy comes is. The Plannjng and Environ-mental Conrn'i ssion and staff, as you can see irom the previous memos and minutes,wish to impose restrictions upon the development on Lois 3,4 and 5.
It is important that you read a1 I of the attached information carefully so you're
clear on.the past occurrences. since nothing has real ly changed in terms oithe applicants demonstrating that constructi6n can sens-r-'t'ive1! take place on'lots 3,4, and 5, our staff position remains basically the same.
CRITERIA EVALUATION
The criteria for evaluating rezonings are found in the purpose section ofChapter .l8.02 General provis'ions.
l. Suitabil ity of Existing Zoninq
The RC zone was devised for a townhouse-type development and was neverintended to serve as the zone for individuil 1ot development. The reason
RC was designated for Cliffside was the original zoning'of West Vail uponannexation didn't allow for thorough study of each pariel , and cliffside
was surrounded by RC zoning.
The s]ope restrictions of the RC zone basjcally make several lots jn Cliffside
unbut ldable--and this is not our intention. The existing zoning js notreally suited to the property.
ftiffside -z- tz/B/83 r
2.
The cliffside subdivision should be zoned the same, as it is a unifiedneighborhood. No surrounding_properties witi u. i,iiu".i-by-the rezon.ingdue to proximity and similar-lbnd'use in the area.
3. Does the Rezoni Provide for the Growth of an 0rderly and Viable Comnunitv?
The rezoning, with thesensible and sensitive
The elimination of two
cond_ition recormended by staff,
development of the remar-'nder oiunits on Lot 6 is a plus for the
will provide forthe subdivision.
cormunity.
RECOMMENDATION
The-cornnunity Development Department recomnends approvar of the rezoning ofcliffside Subdivisioir from Rb to SFR, uut onty-wiif, iil'tiitowing condition:
No structure, improvement or increase gradefhall occur at a height greaterthan the existing e'levation gt lny point on ttre laii-prop."ty tine which isthe corrnon property rine with the-Ridge at vair iuuiivisiJn.
_i.r , Y
i
/rri\
I
l
a
\N \\
s
^tq
lL--t
\
\
___s
Nd\
\
N
$o
,b\
iN
.r-$
(n
Nt\
o
:S
(A
N
o c 0
*$
uNN
(\
$Nq
C\
N
S\
-tJ
-N
S--
Nq
-$
Rq N
\$l
NN
o 0 o
Noa
B a $\N$'
R.:
R01
\d -o-
Ns$
\Ni\F N
U.\s
R-.__t t$n-\,5 $
Us
n--${
qr
01
R.
(\.
W
Nq
AA
Y-.'.\
\
\N
$R
q
S.
t^)
x \tRqb\b
$LX
I i). '\r.$i
i s. ll)UI u\ |h.ilsI a !i', lu
I , ..'
1-O.*-t,l^- :.
,r , f z,.t '\<tw | 4,"-J
;,r, Tl'"Y*
McCall stated that except during Chrjstmas week, there t,las no parking problem.
it^"^- Patten reminded the commissioneis-that they were merely considbiing i i"ezoning,not the approval of the removal of parking. He added that there c6uld not be-(\,,nr) any reduction of parking unless theie werj excess spaces available on site.
PEC 12/12/83 J
A-1L- a "Viele moved and Pierce seconded to a rove t
The vo
son moved to approve the st to rezone Derr
to recorrnend onl n
IZ IZ ffi MErnN?
on the ridge line.
the staff memo. The motion
4.est to rezone Lots I th h6 ision from esi denti al
S:cnar rown,
senqu t s rgaret Rosenqu , David Cole and Daryl Burns.
stated that deve'lopment on lot I would not intrude
Peter Patten presented the proposal explaining that the staff felt that singlefami-ly _zoning was.more appropriate for'this sibdivision but only with site iestrictions.single Fami]y zoning would allow more GRFA, and there would not-be inv-iiope---restrjctions. He showed a site plan and explained that the road from- lot'4to lot 5 was a 16% grade (ttre town al]ows 8%), and he stressed the concern thatthere not be any building along the ridge 1in6.
George Rosenberg, representing the applicants, read the staff's recommendationin the December 1981 memo, and added'that no restrictions were placed at thattime. He. pointed out that the adjacent owners knew development could take placeon the subiect,property. He maintained that to rezone, an'app1 icant did notneed to bring in plans of how he might develop the property.
Bi'|1 Post, representing the Ridge at vail property owners stated that it wastrue that the staff originally reconmended reioning, but that at that time nonotice-was given to adjacent property owners. He itated that his clients didnot object to the rezoning as long a! t) ttre lots would not be accessed from
ll. tgP'and 2) as long ai there ias no-bui1ding visible on the ridge line (s.incethey themselves had not built on the ridge'line,-as requ'ired by the iown. H;-stated that if the property is zoned Sin!1e famity thdy wil1 -have certain rights,and nov., was the time to place restrictions that were needed. He felt that besidesthe restriction that the'staff had recommended, that of not having any iiiuiiu"",
improvement or increase grade occuring at the iidge line, that th; lois shouldnot be allowed access from the top (it least lot! 3,4, and 5).
craig Snowdon, architect for The Ridqe. showed some studies that had beendone to see what the impact would be-ii there were single story buildingsconstructed, including the buitd-up of the road to havi access- to 'lots 4 and
5.
Pierce. agreed with the opposition, that if the rezoning were approved, thatthere be restrictions. Larry Eskwith added that there could bi'restrictionst0_protect adjacent propertyowners as long as they were reasonable. Morganfelt the restrictions shouli be specific. -Viele cincurred, adding that withoutthe restrictions, this could be gi^oss1y unfair to tfre-aajiient pr6perty owneri.
He felt that to restrict access io that it came from bel6w was bntirely consistent.Donovan asked about the road to Lot l, and was told that it must remai'n. iapioir
o a seco
nded approve the
that lots 3
r more dlscusston, Trout morr and Donovan
uest with the staff condTF6i-6rxl also the condition
e accessed from the lower roail The
Cl iffside Su
with Piper and Morgan absGJnJiEl
vote t/{as 5 ln tavor
'I anning and Environmental Cornmission
December .|2,
1993
PRESENT
Diana Donovan
Jim Morgan
Gordon Pierce
Duane Piper
Howard Rapson
l.Ji I I Trout
Jim Viele
STAFF PRESENT
Dick Ryan
Peter Patten
Tom Braun
Larry Eskwith
Betsy Rosolack
The meeting was called to order by Duane Piper, chaiyman, at Z:.|5 pm.
Februal. fupointment of member to the Design Review Board for Janua
Diana Donovan volunteered for these months.
3.
2.
qeqt for a rezonins of Lot I
roval of minutes of November ]4 a4d November 2g meeti
Block 9 Biqhorn 3rd Add i ti on
Approved.
Vail Eastownnomes, trom Low Dens -Fam ex.p I i cant:ail Eastodg'i ng Association- Inc.
and March.
Dick Ryal presented the request. Ken Wentworth, representins Vail East LodqinoAssociation, showed site arid topo maps ana expiiin;a ah;;-;;igirijry-hi ;il'"''wanted to ask for a variance, but after talkjhg with the stafi, AeciaeO iJ-askfor the rezoning. _He pointed out the tabte thit sno*eJ-t[ii the GRFA with therezoning would be less than with LDMF zoning. I'lentwoiih-iiateA that the iwoadjoining units did.not have ownership of tie d;ki;;;;.;;r. He added thatthere were 20* parking spaces in an aijacent ai^ea which'couta nanate overiiowparki ng.
Much of the discussion fol l.owing concerned finding a solution to the parkinqproblem in.the neighborhood, or-possibty accessin! inrough ih"-Flitin'c;;;k'ParK .development. Dale McCall, President of the Vail Eist Lodging Association,stated that his.company.had not policed this lot as far is who pai[.a-i[..;.'-"'wentworth stated that the applicant was willing to rent spaces io people onthe lower 1ot. Lany Eskwith volunteered ttre iniormilion'it'ii ii 5n""iin-i"".p..,for.l8 years' the property becomes his, calleo iaveise posiession, uut-ine-poi!.srionmust be proven by the trespasser.
McCall felt-that problem of parking-for the two adjacent units was not the applicant,sto solve. Donovan felt that'it woulu become the T6wnii prooi-mi-inJ-rqo.gin-""fe'lt that the Town could not qakg a private land owner s6lve the iown,i i"fur"r.A letter from Dan Lacy, one of the aijacent property owners, opposing th! zonechange was read. Tim-Jones, another adjacent propeity owner, siot<e in oppoiii:onstating that the applicant was simplifying ilre'piiiini piourer. He stated thathe did park in the'street, not on ttre vali east'ioi. "H! iaaeo that there were6 or 7 cars each nite.parked i.n the subject rot because of the ;i;;.. -H ;;i;that jf the lot were diveroped, those 6 or 7 a;r;-il;iJ ue parting-in rroni-'-of.f,il.home.. _Rapson felt that the owner of these iwo tots inouta"nol u"-i'"rtwith the problem owned by. vail. East Lodging. - w"nt*6itt'-iiaiea-ilral-ih.-ruiv"house was part way onto ihe subject lotl
tI|iil:11I _lI!t!f
! rh!!
| ]i!; I
iit[
-- f;-|;i:,\'ij'
r$Jlfl
ui!h$
i ,|i," ;fill
ir *b$lld ; lilt*,li { nr"l
tIf:!
ii N
iiN
:!;ttl
ilil!!
tt:
lii!;,1
i:iiili
iiiilii
tiiilii
'.'lilri
t;;fii!!liiii:'li!ili
I.,!l!lla
iit;it
1ili
!:
:;
ti
;r
it
:grIi;rtili! \i
ri! :l!!'i
:!; t-::i -.1lll 'iIr! .
iii ti..,9 :!:;ii
ti;!r
t t rifl-
!'!l{tJl
iiiii*
i*rir'$filllll
iil[ii i'rllt '*i$
jitrii
i\i$ i$'t"lili '' B illlii
>*iii i'l,li lil lii!'ilIg-lfriq i t\i lr't r l; !: _!r-\rlii.t, I l'.lll' !r,!:l
ill"'i';i,lili; iiiiil
, jl.:i;d.Xjii :r,iiiii
ii,il':l , i,
ii;ihll i:
$, ;i $, il I
ii .!ii ii $i itil $!iili'iiii
:1'1ii, iii 3j11,
'
,,'
-\
I"l!rii:i;rl:iJ!lllieiiirii
iriiiiirrifl:;!iilii';iii:!ii!!r,r'ir!ii;il:l;ill
ll!it!li:\tirl
ati::2
il r!
i.: i;:r iE
r:. Jr;t11li,
:Jr i:lIl ilr;'r
il i.i:lr:l I li;r;qii: 15!
d;:i
H
Pq
,f;
d
!4
otU
<Q
e
qIdr()8
it
:t,.oroo
!*t
i!i"$
!r
tl It
\ *r-,,.,,,.y-+.--'Ji-
--r
o.rli
Irt)
*l
<"/
rst/-q
/ o-"+' -I.-
-l
$
#
$
it:lir
:-. \h::l Itl I.!.t .l
l*.1
iI+!ri r.i: I
lli:1Ih! ''l:iliI It
A\
ra. \
\t'-
\s-\\d
\2
t o;l.. \l\\il\g
t-
-.1
ol
I
I
.t
F
c.'
.J
!
1
1t
t
I
I
I
z
IItt:
t
II
I,\
l:::!:llltlli,riiirrirttr::::: :::: l:
trttttatrl:llr:iirr.rrrr
lalt!itli!rl
Ir" rri r'r:::
ltitrrllllrlt! itatrtiir
!rrtr!ttta!a
lrr!r!r$rri
"o '#,,n'n',,ior,ra
t(
?%o
,iifiiiii't!irrtlllrrlltl'iiiliiriiri
l.'.'.$.,1r
I
-*-:*-_.aa_-
o
aq
t
!J
s
R
R
(4\d
S9\
CJ1(
<(
t{
Jo
\t
F-o-t
\o
q
c-
-l
z
l!r!irl!rrt:tiir
tfti!rlrlr!rl!11
t "'::':
::=:--
l,L4-.
,.
..2
J
._.__,)
(-
!:p
;,:
t\
Itrl_
B
I
aI
i
-l\
\l-,t'.
trj l ,
"*,
Ii
I
!v]
L,J.+
-l:t
1t;f
'|I
I
L'-
*\
.{1--)
ae
o
<-.--:t?
a
a\5
d9(f-
I
t
f
cI
{/?;,\d
l-,-L/,+
{-"(
:-
C
(.
--F
f'O
I-t-r
Ir\nvtlI-
t
ri:\
tfi
iff
:)l
't I I
t/ /,,
.l
,rt
O
U
I
)r
t,.
'rl
t
t
t-
if
"t
$
I;
'r1
'li
''.
t
lr
:,,'
it
t""
,*,fl.
cp
l)-
JtI'4
.)
\-
;
-9
d-
-+-r
.\
rre
t
I.
{..
rl{.,.1,
l'w
0r{
{'i
(s*
b,
,x
.1
{
I
Ar{
_-P
vl
+(
nflt\vtlIT
\
HN'.,v I \
' 11..- I
i,-iq
1
'i
,l
\
Il.Itl\l\
"l \
\\t'\t \ra
11
o
-.-
I -t
t
J"-+d*.J
t-
t-J
1,--\
rttIJ'
*v-
{.S
t l\J
tI\
I' ii
itr'fr]j'
,'-l{r
-5
I
__-}
i'
o
:d)
u,,
-k,:
ta.
II
I
;!
r:.
.t
i,n
t"
ute
i.:$'
1i ^lr\it
,
l'.\
,i ,tItr*
ct
-\
\s
\
J,t\s
S-
\s
(-.,.s
\:{
ii
\
\
\s
N,\c,\d:,
\}
\\
s
\_
s')
i
I
r i'
'I ,.i;tjr
1
fl,\ta i
t
(,
f':
t
!;
$
{u
.,
,a
I
..J
-t
'a
tl-
tI
t,
ir,i
i'i,
!
,
t,
L_l..
--+r
1.
l/')
l!
t;,
*1",'. '
l.1\
I
\i{.,i
trillI q,,
I',1I-I
rl
df,&
-+-)'
rr\ v
i-\--i
t
. . i'
'l \
I
1
i'l
F-
\ri
Y
I-"*It-J
c
0t'--t,
w+-.>
p9
t
I
t,
,lrt'
t
\
'1.
I
'C,$
t^-6"_vt'
E
,L.
{n
-t
r-f.II
*.
dJ'
lr
{k
$r'q
t-
s-d.a .A
.9 "y,*6
,-rJ
2t',i'trt7)
N
rY\L\
rfl
o
{
.-, ''
< 1t7'
-r 'l rl--"-'U.l
,il
1.'i p'l.t .I| (.i
.'
',i
\;
"'l
,.).j.
': j
.:
!
,+
t
I
iir
\
,,I
l
,ttl
ilf
I
t
I
lrl
i
Jr'
t
,til"t
i
./)
rj
{
-- -)
!i
I
I
\-j(d
\t_
rf "!
L.1
\,.-j r::
G"\ f'l
-, -{
Cr-}:. .. _€.Y
Ii*,
ij,
/l
;
ei
r1
,\
1
\
I
I
li
'l
t,t
:l
*.
l
l t
{,fiI
;\
.. --rrl
t' ,
I *l
I
'ft
iltl
T
[,,
t
i,,
I
I
d I\
l.i*f*
Best
copy
Available
.oqa.a *'Eo'"roofu
,,*,.j44-,lqtt"/L
8PICIAL HARIAI{II DI'D
t|ll rrrl& m
JNt t4r'4
#5d'/
201
Tcnrr Corporatlon a Color'do corlor'tlon vhoa!
rddrarr la I560 Llncoln 8!rs't, gurt' l5O2' D''nvtjr' colorrdo
8026a, tor th. con.rdi'r.t,lon o! 1\,o Xilllon tlvd Sundr'd
Thourrnd Doltor. (S2.5oO,0oO.0O) rn h.nd Pard, tec€rp! of
uhlch ir hcr.by .!-knorLddgGd. hercby aells dnd conv€ya Lo
Ltd. I t',u tql
Valldy Arrccr4:eu/a Colorodo/P'rtnership uliotu addrcas rl
c/o Rob.rt ttccr, ?20 Equ.rt.bl. SurIdrrrg, Denv€r' Cololado
80202, th. rell ProPcrty loc.t"d rn Engl€ County' Colorado
da.crib.d in Exhibit A rltachld lrcreto and incorPor'tt,d
h6ratn, tith all lts.Ppurten.ncet, and v'rrantr the tltl€
agrlntt tlr peraonr cldr&ill9 r'I^dcr Grantor' sublect to
thore Ltters lBt forlh rn Exhrbrt R attached hcleto nnd
incorportted here r n.
-** ^e
\*"
Executed thrs 2)laay of JJnu.ry, 1979'
'Or'COLORADo )
) Bs.
)DENVER
lly c()mEltlron 6rP!rca t
cxI!-pJ'T--d
Ths follov,na d..crlb.d Proporly rlGurt' ln !h' courty ol
iii t., -st.t.-n! coloredo, to'vlc:
PAlrcSL l: PAtcEL A. LIOI'S '{lmu .suBDlvts loN ' !FILINC llo' 2' ac-
cordlna ,o tnt 'oiiiild-plrt thoroof '-c:Ptv of EaSlc'
st.tr of co rorrill-iicgPt thrt portlon of 'rrd P'rcal
A rr .lroln on tii"'' cli6li'iii-xlp of THrl v^LLIY coNtr-
ot{tlrtns ,."o,ali ilfi:'i;il i;'-mqf-?14 et Prge 6lI'
r. d.tln.d .na'il-Jiilli in thr Condornlnlu! DocIrr'tlon
lor rll! v^rEr ;;;;ilfiiirnij il"oia'a rrv e' le74 ln
lool 234 rt t.t' 630'
A,(;EL 2: i:ifi:iil H:iil iriii i,iii i'il' i'ii 'llii:t;::ril" VALLEY ccr 66iri rilri. - eicir dtnp co lh' condomlnl'ur
Hrp rpP"rtnt #';'i:;:";i;-oi t6r 'co'o'tv clcrk 'nd
R.cordcr "t atiit'iJdivl'ii r"itid ln Dooh 234 rt Pra'
631' rnd tt o'l iiti-lii"l"ii iiu ta tn'-t'hrt condoolnlo
D.cl.rrt lon rtt'tll iiluii-cotmutNrl'l'ls rDDG'rlnB 1n
!uch .cord' t'i iiir'il'fit-il';--' 30; coririv of Ersrr'
Sl.t. of Colorrdo '
EXIIIBIT B
PerotE t 'd gxccot lon8
I, G.neral lrxcr for t9t9 'nd theEeeflcr'
2. Rertrlctlva covenanta !'hlch do not conraln a forfeicur€
or reverter clause, tt "onitin"i ln lnstrunenE recorJed Septenber
20. Lg72 in Eook 225 .. riil'iii '
-linJ' iecordcd Septeober 29'
1972 rn book 225.c Prte jB;,';;e anenaaa by tnatir'oent recordcd
j;L; zz.'-:gil i" ro61 233'rt Prsc 53'
3. Utllity ol3€oanta 20 fe't In Uldth' tO,fee! on elch
rlda af rll lntcrlor-lot ti"""-t"a r-I5 foot utrli-t-y csseeent
ii:r'.?'hililg"i'i'*i;ii*')*'llm'-r' r"crved on'!h'
4. Rlrht of vay tot ditchet 'nd clnl!a constructod by
eutLorii .i-Eiil u.rii'lt scrt" tr rercrvcd ln thc Prcent'
5. UctIlty .raaGnt lt shoun on El&lldo Entineerlng
Coopeny-."r"ii &Lcd Junr 13' 1973'
5. Arreeoenc b3te.an fryv'l EnvlronBencsl Lrnd CoBPrny
"na notiierf,'siiiiii rlrrpriiii.-lio-i"r"sltph co4rnv rccordrd
ilit'iili-ii,-iiii-rn rolr 231 ec Prsr 2el'
,. Tsrut, condlttont rnd Provl' lon' --c-ont'lned ln condo-
ornrur 6ic liiriii"-iit txi"ier,iir' colgortulllls' r'cordsd H'v
;:"ffi4-i;';;;i-Iir-ii i.lr'b5o' (Attrch Prrmr 2)
NoGatThotcprovlllon3.cov'oltltl'condttloot'crtccntr'ndi.ii ir'"i io"i vnrirr -iii"i bt'idtn cc tht. condocln ltl
[Ti#*tf 3:i'il.ii*1] t*!',ffi '33$'3ld!fo .."'ilffi'ilrr;-iiif-ii-i"ir-lii-ri-'iirr ct0' (Afr'ctr
Frrcrl 2)
8. thq rlghtr of t'n'nt' und'r lrr"t /'r tenlnci"
vhfch rii ciinci iontrr to Dnth t3rrlnlblt on not-Dre thln
i'iiiit-i lo i - &vr iotlc. o.-tti rot I tlr'd t'rr Gndlns no
l.t.r th.n Aprll 10, 1979.
'./
DARYL R. BUts. D.D.s.
Left Bonk Protessiondl Building
5055 Edst Kentuckq Avenue
D€nver. Colorodo 80222
lelephone 7s7 -0867
Proctice Limited to Orthodontics
Diplomote Americon Boord of Orthodontica
July 27, 1983
Mr. Peter Patten
Town of Vail
?5 s. Frontage Rd.
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mr. Patten:
It was good to talk with you recently concerning my predicarnent in getting
lot #3 in the Ctiffside Subdivision rezoned from Residential Cluster (RC)
to Single Farnily Residential (SFR). I am really between a rock and a haril
spot on this. since Irm no further along ny path than when I first talked
with you in June 1982, I a.n truthfutly a bit frustrated.
Presently, I anl comtenplating going ttrru the lengthy rezoning process on my
own, but before I do that, I wanted to try and reason with you-
I have reread all the memoranduns regarding this matter. It appears that
the Cliffside Subdivision was annexed into the Town of Vail on December 31,
1980 and was zoned RC on December 14, L982. Since then, the Planning and
Envirorurental Comrnission has recornmended unanimously to the Town Council
for rezoning to sFR. The Tqrtn Council was considering the same when the
problems occurred on lots #4 and #5 (re: views frosr the Ridge at Vail Con-
dos). And, I'm truly sorry about the problems of lots #4 and #5' but I
don't have that situation with lot #3. Why then canrt the Town of Vail
just go ahead and give my lot the SFR zoning. I rea11y would appreciate
your considering my request. This would save me a lot of time and effort
to get it rezoned.
Thank you much......
p
DRB:em
D. D. S.