HomeMy WebLinkAboutELK MEADOWS SUBDIVISION COMMON 2o
design guidelines and rockfall mitigation that the Town of Vail shall have the
right to enforce the coyenant and that the covenant may not be amended or deleted
without Town of Vajl approval .
The protect'ive covenants shal'l be approved by the Town of Vaii Attorney,
prior to major subdivjsion final plat approva'l .
Section 5. Amendments
Amendments to the approved development plan which do not change its substance may
be approved by the P'lanning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled
public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 18.66.060. Amendnents
which do change the substance of the deve'l opment plan sha11 be required to be
approved by Town Councjl after the above procedure has been followed. The
Community Development Department shall determine what constitutes a change in the
substance of the development p1an.
Section 6. Expjration
The applicant must begin construction of the Special 0evelopment 0istrict within 18
months from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward
completjon of the project. If the applicant does not begin and diligently work
toward the compietion of the Specia'l Development District or any stage of the
Special Development 0istrict within the time limits imposed by the preceding
subsection, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall review the Special
Development District. They shal 1 recommend to the Town Council that either the
approval of the Special Development District be extended, that the approval of the
Special Development District be revoked, or that the Specjal Development District
be amended.
Section 7.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shalI not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it
would have passed this ordjnance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence,
c'l ause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts,
sections, subsectjons, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 8.
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the VaiI Municipal
Code as provided in this ordjnance shall not affect any right which has accrued,
any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof"
any prosecution connenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or
by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any
provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
repealed or superseded unless expnessly stated herein.
INTRODUCEO, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS !q!!day of June
1.987, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 16th day of
Municipal0qne__, 1987 at 7:30 p"m. in the Councjl Chambers of the Vaj'l
Building, Vai1, Colorado.
Ordered publ ished in ful1 this 16th
INTROOUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON
in full this 7th
SECOND
day of
READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
lglv , te87 -
Kent
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Towf Clerk
,fune 16, 1987 E}ANNEFl
Mr. Peter Patton
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage RoadVail, CO 8L657
Re: Elk Meadows Subdivi-sion (The Valley)r
Filing #2r Phase rrr BAI #8095-05
Dear Peter,
I am writingl as you regueeted, to clarify our opinion regarding
the anticipated inpact of this development on the storm flow into
the adjacent property to the west.
The peak design flow through the meadow area for a storm of I0-year recurrencer is only 8 cfs for a total basin area of some 178
acres. The total surfaced area of road is approximately 0.9 acre
with an area of about 0.5 acre established for the building
envelopes giving a total of approximately 1.4 acres of the total
178 in wbich the drainage characteristics will be altered by this
development. It is our opinion that any change in peak flow
generated by this development 16 beyond the accuracy of the
methods uEed to calculate flows such as this and therefore can
not be accuratel-y evaLuated.
The transnission of flows through the site will be altered byproviding a more clearLy defined drainage path although slightly
more circuitous. We believe the two wiLl offset and the travel
time through the site will remain virtually the eame as current.
the quantity and point of discharge from this property will not
change from existing conditions and as a result should have no
adverse. impact on the adjacent parce3..
Should you have any further guestionsr please do not hesitate to
call.
SincerelyT
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
Donald G. Pettygrovef P.E.
DGP/x]'g
cc: Mike Lauterbach
BANNER ASSOCI,ATES. INC.
CONST'LTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS
2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD
GRAND JI.JNCTION, CO 81506 . 13031 2tL3-2U2
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ln.t hC\\,utno
The Town Council
Community Development Department
A request for the rezoning of the Valley phase Threefron Residential Cluster to Special DevelopnentDistrict with underlying Residential Cluster zoning.Applicants Lamar Capital Corporation.
June l-6 , L987DATE:
The applicant,s request actually involved two planning
commission actions:
1. The review of a preliminary plan for the major subdivisionrequest.
2. The review of the special development district zoningrequest.
The Town Council is not required to review the najorsubdivision request unless the Council wishes to call up theplanning commissionrs decision. However, due to the fact thatthe rnajor subdivision request is so closely tied. to the specialdevelopment district, the staff feels that it would be helpfulto review both requests at the same tirne.
The Community Development Department recomrnended approval ofboth the major subdivision and SDD with conditions. Theapplicant is proposing a rnajor subdivision and sDD on phase 3of the Valley. The parcel is 3.6 acres and would be dividedinto seven building sites or envelopes. Five of the envelopeswourd arlow the construction of single farnily dwerlings and twoenvelopes would al1ow construction of duplex residences. Atotal of nine dwelling units is proposed for this phase.
This project was originally developed under Eagle County atwhich time Phase 3 !'/as allowed L6,ooo sq ft of GRFA and a totalof LO dwelling units for the entire development. When theproject was annexed into the Town of Vail in L99O, the GRFA andnumber of units were accepted by the Town. In L9g1_, the Townapplied Residential Cluster zoning as the underlying zonedistrict guide for the parcel. The Valley was deannexed fromthe Town of Vail in l-985 and subsequentty reannexed in May
l_986.
The Plannin Commission revi
approva
an . A motion to approve
987 ,trict
rnajor subdivision was rnade by Ms. pam Hopkins and leconded byMr. Sid Schultz. The motion for approval included the staffconditions and was predicated upon the approvar of the specialDevelopment District. The vote was 3 to L with Mr. J.J.corlins voting against the request. The speciar Developrnent
District was reconmended for approval in a motion by Mrr SidSchultz which was seconded by Ms. Pam Hopkins. The vote was 3to L with Mr. Collins voting against the project. I{r. J.J.Collins felt that more specific information was needed on therocl< fall nitigation that each owner would be required tocomplete. In general , his opinion was that the developershould be responsible for the nitigation. He was alsoconcerned about the rock fall hazard between the buildingtenvelopes. He felt that the rock fall could effect the privateaccess road and parking areas. Please see the enclosed letterfrom Mr. J.J. Collins which clearly explains his position onthe project.
The Comnunity Developrnent staff, Town Attorney, and applicantshad a meeting after the Planning Cornmission review in order toclarj-fy sone requirements on compliance with the rock fallnitigation.requirements. It was agreed that the development ofeach building envelope will conply with the environmentalinpact report, especially the design recommend.ations cited byMr. Dan Pettigrove, and Mr. Nick Lampiris in revised tettersconcerning design nitigataion for rock fall hazards which willbe submitted to the staff on June 15, lgg7. The revised. letterwi.ll-be presented to the Council at the evening meeting. Theapplicant has also agreed to include in the covenants ior theElk Meadows subdivision the reguirement that each ohrner shallcornplete the design rnitigation work for rock falL hazards.
The staff is also,willing to waive the condition that a g'asline be.provJ-ded in the subdivision. The major subdivisi5nregulations in section L7.L6.150 state that a naturar gas rineis required unless otherwise waived by either ttre ZoniigAdninistrator, Director of public works, planning cornrnj-ision orCouncil. Due to the fact that electrical is available, stafffelt the gas line could be waived for the subdivision.
-
BANNEFl
Jurne 15, L9AT
Flichael J. Lar-rterbachP.0. Bo:r 3451Vail, trO. Sl6Eg
RE: El k l'leadows Subdi vi si on Roch:f at I
Dear l,lr. Lauterbach:
I have re'i ewed the reports prepared the week ending June 12,1987, by Don Pettygrove, crur structural engineer., concerningthe roc[,:{al 1 mitig.rtion {or the El!: r'teadowi sr-rodivision. AsprevioLrsly rnentit]ned, potential rockfalI into this sitrl r.li I Ibe very i nf requrent over the years, but this type ofnitigation is sti I I prudent
I{ the engineered design criteris presented by Don F,ettygrovein his abpve re{eFenced report is {oI lor,led, tire rocF;{al Iharard to ccc*pantg within structureE to be located withinEIk Meador'ls subdivision l.li r r be minimired. Further, i* therecommencled engineering is accompl ished dutring theconstretcti on of structltres Lrpon the propoged buri lclingenvelop{!s r there should be no increased ha:ard to otherproperty or strlrcturEsf or to pr_rbI ic br-ri IrJings, r-oads,streets, right-of-wayr easements, r-rtilities or facilities.If yor-r have any further questions, please do not hesi tate tocontact ursi.
5i ncerel y,
dnNNEn AsgocIATEs, INc.
ni -/t'4 -/ lU.,/,aft,t
- i.-ga"j'0
Nicholas Lampiris, FhD.Froject 6eologist
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONST'IXING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS
SUNE 6, 605 EAST MAIN
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 .{303) 92S-58S7
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSTILTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS
2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD
GRAND JUNCnON, CO 81506 . (303t 243-2242
t 1
.t
June 12, L987
Drainaqe Plan
EANNER
t'lr. l,tike LauterbachP.O. Box 3451Vai1, CO 81658
Re: Preliminary Drainage plan,/Geologic Hazard MitigationElk Meadows Subdivision - tion'i nl,dge Subdivilion(The Valley), Filin9 #2, phase rrI - BAI #g095-05
Dear Mike,
-
r have reviewed the revised roadway drawings deveroped by JohnMacKcwn as r.rell as the preliminary plan deveioped by iagle-valleyEngineering with respect to the existing and -prop6sed- drainag3conditions. we have developed"the encJosea prltiiinary orainaiePlan from the grading contouis provided by John MacXown.
The existing drai-nage path through this valley carries the runoffof approximately 1?8 acres. ine peak flow from this area (aspreviously submitted) is calculated at g cubic feet per second.The. flow through the drainage path is generally wide and shalrowwj-th velocities of less than five feet per sec6na.
The construction of this subdivision wirl separate an area ofapproxirnately 0.84 acres north of the access ioad from the mainIJgt pattern and recombines the flow from thes" iro areas at the18, CMP culvert located at Station 1+65. Any i"""=" walks to thebuildings on the north side shourd have an t6,, cMp or equivalentin order to a11ow for the passage of flow to the west.
The maximum flow from the smaller area is 2.0 cubic feet persecond for which the mini-mum 1g" culvert is more than adeguale.The maximum flow (8 cfs) along the sout.h side of the roads willbe adequate'ry translni-tted by the typical- ditch section in allareas except the small, four car parking area at the extreme hrestend- rt will be necessary to instalr-approximaiery 55 linealfeet of 18" cMp at this lblation in ordei-to -onvey tne surfaceetaters beneath the parking area and avoid forcing them onto theadjacent property. The 1g" cMp will carrv tire-irhl g cfs with aneao$rater,/diameter ratio of less than I.5.
It is my understanding that aI1 areas of t,he site, except thesgYel building locations, will be dedicated to open space useswhich will include use for surface d.rainage. ghis'will eliminatethe need for any specific drainage easement.
BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC.
CONSULTING ENGTNEERS & ARCHTTECTS
2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD
GRAND JUNCIION. CO 8l5OG . t313t 243-2242
Mr. Mike Lauterbach
ilune 12, 1987
Page Two
Natural Sprinqg
BANNER
During ,the geological trazard investigation, the site wasthoroughly inspected with no signs of -naturar water springsappearing on the ground surface. Any marked increaie invegetation in isolated areas would indicite the likelihood ofnatural springs. None of these indicators were observed.
Ground Water
Tlt" Preliminary subsoil and Geologic rnvestigation prepared byChen and Associates, Inc. in llai Lg72, indicated that no freewater was observed- in any of the lo test pits excavated. Theprimary drainage channer is an intermitt"rri "it..-course withoutsignificant year round flow.
Geologic Eazards_ Mitigation
with regard to the recommendations_ made in my letter of February23, 1987 for the rniti.gation of the geologii rockfarl hazard, ioffer the following claiifications.
My recommendation for a six foot vertical height of wall exposureon the north side is a minimum and refers to the rein-forced.concrete wa1l with timber impact absorption. rf watls on theloTtlt (uphill) side are to be taller than the minimum 6 feetheight, then they. shourd be capabre of withst.tai.rg a 2000 poorrd
Ipr"?: _although the structure ibove the six foot level and belowthe 10-12 foot level, recommended by ur. r,ampi;i;,-;;;; ;;; il-;;concrete or have the timber impact absorptiin. The differencebei-ng the freqrgncy. of anticipated rock hits and subsequentdamage. Below the-six-foot heilht, more f.el"""t stri.kes can beexpected for which damage should be minimal. 'Abov" six-foot tothe l2-foot ievel, roik strikes can be anticipated but need beprotected against significant structural damage only.
rf a roof area wirl be constructed with uphilr exposure, thatportion below the 1o-r2 foot height and ablve irr" e- foot heightshould be designed to withst,and the zooo pouna--impact force -as'we11- Reference is rnade to the attached sketches for the areasof consideration.
The heights discussed above are rerative to the naturar groundelevation at the uphi11 extreme of the structure and projectedalong the slope , not at the edge of ,""ar"iy.----
Mr. Mike Lauterbach
June 12, 1987
Page Three
cc:
BANNEtr
The terraced floors to which I made reference in my earliercorrespondenee was intended to alrow for offset floor elevationsin order to provide buildings which better fit the natural slopesof nearly 2:1 in places.
Should you have any questions please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
BANNER ASSOCTATES, INC.\\ (-\\ (\r /'\") ^,\o-.^-,\6tJ=s .\ t+FEv=-.-
Donald G. Pettygrove, P.E.Colo. P.E. #16543
DGP/rIg
Encl: 14 copies - Preliminary Drainage plan & Geologic HazardMitigation
Kri-stan Pritz - Tortrn of Vai,l
t ct4t
fu-r$
trsz
t'
4
0
t
m
N'l
1
r *;
nr(
Er?
ila dy
hivz
/
e
s\
fh
F+)
)
;,
w
m
Nil all\ -'l
ot'
F-
L
x
\
d
tt'
,0d'
gd
qi
-t
\L
hu
V
/
Tt\# rF fitil,Y",h ?o \
[enFq , h$ Yi
ni9[ yi, tb[d b'tu L
fh" /
a\i
/;f4,
.---J\/i$$
I
ilp
1
?
vIt
IJ\
dr
- ---------t" l$J\Iv []\
.t
n\
t{H
tbIe
cnd.
Ia4t{
nK
X
n,rlu
R>t)7
l-'T
v-t'rnI'J-Y
)
g.
L
tP't
J
.t/\
11 June 1987
Kristan Pritz
Comnun ity Developnent Department
Town of Vail
P.O. Box 100
Vail, CO 81658
Dear Kr istan:
After reconsidering the June 8th PEC hearing regarding the Elk Meadows
application, I would like to reitelate and expand on some of my concerns.
The principal fact regarding this property is that it is affected by a
high rock fall hazard in a geologically sensitive area. 'rAs indicated by
the Town of Vail Rockfall Study the site is located within a high severity
rock fall area." (Ufn p. ff)
The applicant has elected to implernent a development s cheme which
substantially reduces his responsibility for having to deal with and
provide for mitigative structural considerations since he is developing
sites only, not residences. The majority of responsibility would thus
fall on each individual owner for both assessment of the hazard and
mitigative work to protect against the hazard. I think this is
/ /\ inappropriate. The developer should continue to bear the maj or.ily of_
hi resir;-"iurttv tuG-E!'rn E-Eis -puriEs€r -s regarding the i-azefr-nd-rhe- means by which it caq anrl uust be rniti.gale{.
- .-=-____:_ _-
In my opinion, prudent consideration of the hazard should require the
developer to more thoroughly assess the hazard risks and provide each
homes ite purchaser with detailed recolunendations from competent
engineering consultants regarding the hazard and the means necessary to
mitigate against it. I believe the developer of a subdivision such as
this would not be providing for the health, safety and well being of the
subdivisionsrs residents if the responsibility for this action were sirnply
passed on to each individual resident. A more cohesive and controlled
approach is necessary.
There is at least the implicatio_n in The
approvals that a single developer would
and construction of improvements in Theevident in the SDD regulation. The rock
requirement, not an implication.
some general comments regarding nitigation. However, the developersgraphic examples of those recomrnendations are inconsistent and nisleading.(EIR, Figures 7 & 8) I believe it should be the develooertsresponsibiliLy' not option, in this sDD application to provide purchasersDwith qpec_ific- dgg-ign rejomn-e-4det ions .
to proVide purchasers
r believe this to be the intent of several sections of the Special
@S!q"-ttq-D1=ltictlTovision. of the zoning ordin"n"", -ir,"rr.raing
Sections18.40.0_40 (c) qnd_.!!/!,9:0_(I)-:- Aw tla^.lt@. l<41r
Va1 ley ! 5 o=i.giaal-zoaiug
be rqsonslb,le loq the su!d-i,v_!g.r-9nValley. Thls s4rne -iqpJfgglr_en isfall hazard makes this almost a
The developer has provided some general direction in this regard which, inmy opinion, is insufficient to the hazard involved. The February 23, 19g6retter from Mr, Pettigrove confirms the existence of the hazard and nakes
The ErR is too limited and therefore flawed and unsuitable to supoprt theappJ-ication. The information presented by the applicantts engineersbegins to address these issues but does not provide the level ofinformation required by a purchaser to make a reasonably informed decisionto purchase, nor does it provide enough information for the constructionof a safe residence. The applicantrs elamp 1es canlqilqg_d _1J! lbc_EIB_Argtotally inappgopriate. This.indicales _to rag a ll_rqq!L!__qhlgggb,' gp-p.oach.This approach has caused considerable qonfusjon .aod_ misund;rstanainE*E5-
evidenced by the last minute changes requested aq{ subui.tted@r-
app l_i_cant .
In srmnary, I believe that because of the rock fa1l hazard, the
developerr s responsibility to both the Town and the subdivisionrs futureresidents should be increased and remain more in his control with respectto arlowable residential design and the requirement to mitigate againstthe rock fa11 hazard. This responsibility should not be lessened ordecentralized to individual owners.
Please consider the following suggestions:
If this application is submitted to the Town Council,the Council should refer it back to PEC for additionalreview. The application and EIR are too substantiallv
flawed and call into question the circumsEances
surrounding the PECrs reconunendation for approval,
T.,ast rninute changes to the application in the form ofthe E lk Mead ows C on d it i o n s' bT AD p roval:-nrem6i-arultun
subm i t t ed t o the PEC mom€nt5-SefoEe'-Eliri-5-pp 1-i-EFi on
was reviewed created confusion. Even l-ariv-nitwiEtr
adnitted he was confused about what mitigalion
measures the applicant r./as going to insta1l. I believeLarry thought the applicant was going to maintain that
uat r.,tda.i-
of.\s,The EIR should be revised to include a more definitedescription of the hazard, and its effect on the
subd ivis ion .
,._ The applicant should provide several typical plans of
\$y suitable structures which could be built in such a high
hazard area. These sample plans should be clearlyrelevant to the consulting engineerrs reporr.
, The applicant should provide detailed plans ofmitigation structures which purchasers may thenincorporate in plans for their residences.
The detail plans should focus on uphill wall structures,
strengthened roof structures, building materials,
construction techniques, excavati.on desi.gns and anyother appropriate design and construction methods
currently available to mitigate the rock fall hazard.
)n'
1^n6 ,,6!A11 the above information should be incorporated in",Ct "Structural Design Guidelinesl separate from(u' rrArchitectural Design Guidelines. "
\^Al These Structural Design Guidelines should be included\\'' in either the project declaration or in another
convenant to run with the land.
Perhaps the applicant should undertake a detailed hazatd
assessment for each site, a detailed reconmendation asto mitigation measures for each site and rnake both anintegral part of any sale to a subsequent homebuilder.
This would further increase the developerrs
responsibility to both the Town and each homesite
purchaser .
1r'\ The applicant should be required to identify and
-1r'
'' J mitigate against the hazards in the subdivisionts conmonu area, i.e. spaces between the envelopes, the open spacetract and the roadway.
The Design Guidelines (pp. 16 & 17) area totally
^nq' inappropriate to the surrounding environment. Bluesteel roofs, white clad windows and 2 X 12 railings are- not conducive to providi.ng "both existing and futureresidents of the Va11ey with a pleasing visual
experience. t'
-, The applicant should be required to install a guard rail'. along Lionsridge Loop for the protection of homesite
owners from vehicles sliding off that road.
The applicant should reconsider the construction of
residences rather than the creation of a subdivisionof homesites to facilitate maximum control of hazard
mitigation.
'},\t
-3-
Once again, the concern of rushing the application through the process
rather than thoroughly studying it becomes evident. The applicant is
siroply not prepared to ask for the PECrs consideration nor has the pEC
been provided with sufficient inforrnation upon which to make a
recomrendation - favorable or unfavorable - to the Council.
The application has merit but is insufficient in its present condition.
Just as important, we are now told that a similar approach nay be utilize
on the Phase VI portion of The Valley. Itrs time to more thoroughly
assess our responsibility with respect to development in hazard areas andthe developerr s role ln such subdivisions.
Thank you for your cons ideration.
JC61lb
-4-
oo
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS IIEREBY GMN that the Planning and Environmental
Cornmission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the municipal code of the
Town of Vail on June I, L987 at 33OO PM in the Town of Vail
Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
l-. Application for a special de.velopment distri_ct and for a
7 najor subdivision review for Lionsridge Filing 2, The Valley,
K Phase -IIf, to be known as Elk Meadows Subdivision.
- Applicant: Lamar Capital Corporation
2. Request to extend an approvat for SDD No. J_4, Doubletree
Hote1 , for an additional 18 months.
Applicant: Vail Holdings
3. A request for a density control variance in order to enclose
a balcony on the second floor of Unit 2, Capstone
Towntrouses on Lot 2l_, a Resubdivision of Buffer Creek
Subdivision.
Applicant: Mr. Lee C. Rimel
a
oO
4' A request for a side setback variance and a density variance
in order to enlarge an entry on IJot 6, Block 5, Vail Villaqe
lst Filing.
Appli_cant: Bud and Greta parks
5. A request for a conditionaL use perrnit in order to have a
retait shop in the Mountain Haus r-ocated on part of Tract B,
BLock 5, Vail Vit3-age First rilingr.
Applicant: Daniel Allard
The apprications and infonnation about the proposals are available
in the zoning administratorrs office during regurar office hours
for public inspection.
TOWN OF VAIL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
THOMAS A. BRAUN
Zoning Administrator
Published in the Vail Trail on May 22, Lsaz
TO:
FROM:
Larry and Peter
Kristan
d^ji .^ A /t O l&N\
^ Wl.uft. lIl I'-^,J1,, side of the building envelopes. However, this wa11
Lif fntttqnT\rr"cr.WX' would have been tocated in public right-of-way as
n ^n./.,irn !'{ \^ t V opposed to the applicantrs property. This
[tL luo ',
dAi\$d a', p\\
r r.ru\\qoC\d^!q$
SUBJECT: J.J. ColLins' Ietter June 11, L987
DATE: June L6, 1,987
trThe developer should continue to bear the rnajority
of responsibility to the Town and his purchasers
regarding the hazard and the means by which it can
and must be mitigated.rl
OriginalJ-y, when the property was still in the
County, the applicant was proposing to locatebuilding envelopes that were l-ocated in the neadow
and on the wooded hillside. A six foot high wallnitigation design that would extend in front of allthe building envelopes on the north side wasproposed. This nitigation would have been conpleted
by the developer. The Town of Vail staff preferred
to see the building envelopes located on the northside of the site to protect the meadow and woodedhillside. In order to a1low for the new design
approach preferred by staff, it was necessary to lookat nitigation for each individual structure. It istrue that a wall could have been built on the north
'rThere is at Least the impJ.ication in The VaIIeyrsoriginal zoning approvals that a single developerwould be responsible for the subdivision andconstruction of improvements in the Val1ey. This
\^f U opposed to the applicant's property. This
rY){..' information was confirmed by Peter Patten on June 15,
U\';r- l-987 h/hen he talked to Don Pettigrove, engineer for
m\0 : the project.
DoNval\{4mx
' . \\ _ ^.^)^,r HOWeVer, E,ne qeveJ.oper nas provJ-qeq a nrclgaElon pJ_an
It)to*\grr. \,rtt^Lqntll\ and it wirr be required thrlush the speciai
-d'.io,nn1*pq N :il:*:i:l'.fi1;':::;',lii;I"::1":;i:l"l;-il$ with rhe
O rnO.i{iC AfuiOn.g61fitn-The major subdivision regs, environmental irnpact"- *'al'\- regts, and hazard ordinanee overlap somewhat in
0 nLlXqSd,^hq iil:':il:ll'l;= .'iH',3:'*;T";:?',ilui;r:i:i: ill'
FQ4 N\\i9dj0u\. responsibie for all the subdiriision's rnitisition.
r l\i .pnAlr,^nr. However, that was the original intent.
jf \\ r\-] \-YvvX
w\developer would be responsible for mitigation.
However, the deveLoper has provided a nitigation plan
- \Vf FbC\f\p}Jti rnitisation as proposed in_Don eettisto.r"i-" ietter
'.r,,Rooonq$qnQ ;3:1ff ::;: i: l:i Xl5;,,;'::ili,:nl"i:l"i:n:l't"'i:'
2
sane inplication is evident in the SDD regulation.'1
f an not sure wlrat J.J. is getting at here. TheValley's orig:inal zoning nerely applied the allotnentof L0 units and 16,000 sguare feet of GRFA. TheValley was also aLl,owed to divide up into phases andsell off each phase to different orrrners, so I do not
understand why he is saying that a single developer
would be responsible for all the irnprovernents.Certainly within each phase it is clear through the
rnajor subdivision regulations, that the developer is
responsible for doing the general inprovements asfisted in Section L7.L6.15O of the sub regs.
rrl believe it should be the developerrsreponsibility, not option, in this SDD application toprovide purchasers with specific design
recomrnendations. rl
The applicant has provided specific design
recommendations for the units. These have been
designed by a competent engineer \rho has stamped the
drawS.ngs and letter.
trThe applicantrs exarnples contained in the EIR aretotally inappropriate for rnitigation. This indicatesto me a rush-it-through approach. This approach has
caused considerable confusion and nisunderstanding asevidenced by the last mLnute changes requested andsubnitted by the applicant.rl
It is true that the Pettigrove letter had attached toit a graphic that did not match the letter. Staff
had noticed this and had asked for a revised graphicfron Nick Lampiris, Ttris reguest \iras made a weekbefore the date of the rneeting. llor,irever, staff didnot feel that it was necessary to hold up the reviewof the proposal due to not having the graphic. Ouropinion is that Pettigrovers letter is very cl-ear asto what the mitigation reguirements are. The letter
does not calL for any wal}s or structures beyond theindividual unit which would have design inpacts.Since the rneeting, \ce have received. a revised sketch
from Don Pettigrove, engineer, which shows thegeologic hazard rnitigation schematic section.
rrlast minute changes to the application in the fornof the EIk Meadows conditions of approval memerandurn
submitted to the PEc monents before the application
was reviewed created confusion. t,
Originally the applicant had agreed to do thenitigation. About an hour before the neeting, theapplicant questioned whether it was really required
4.
5.
that the nitigation be conpleted by the applicant.Larry Eskwith was asked to support the staffrsposition that nitigation was absolutely required. It
l'ras decided that it would be best to leave theconditions of approval- as they were and appeal the
requirement if they decided to do so at Town Council.
The revised conditions of approval Iisted clearly
what else was needed for the subrnittal , change thedate on when general improvements had to be
completed, and clarified the wording in nunber I. It
should be noted that the Town Engineer was consultedto detennine if the additional information required
was significant enough to prevent the project frongoing to Planning Commission. His opinion was thatit was not necessary to hold up the project. Forthis reason, staff felt cornfortable going ahead withthe revien, as rnost of the inforrnation that waslacking or needed clarification related to eiIl
Andrewst end of the review. It should also be notedthat the applicant has really four years to conpletegeneral improvernents on the subdivision, and ttre
applicant agreed to conplete them by Septenber L989.
The point is that the revised conditions were not allthat different fron the previous listed conditions.
They only offered clarification and sl-ight changes tothe original- conditions. Staff also added a clauseto #t that allowed an owner to choose anotherengineer as long as the rock fall nitigation had nonegative irnpacts visuatly and was approved by the Vai
Cornrnunity Development Departrnent and Town Engineer.It was felt that it was not falr to each individual-building owner if they were able to find an engineer
whom they preferred to do design for rockfallnitigation.
5. rrThe EIR should be revised to include a rnore definitedescription of the hazard and its effect on thesubdivision.,'
Nick Lanpiris has stated twice in a letter that rras
previously nentioned, potential rock fall into thissite will be very infrequent over the years. Butthis type of mitigation is still prudent.rl
rrThe applicant shall provide several typical plans ofsuitabLe structures which couLd be built in such ahigh hazard area. These sample plans should beclearly relevant to the consulting engineerrsreport..r
The appJ.icant has provided a general section which
shows how the nitigation should occur.
ItThe applicant should provide detailed plans of
6.
8.
9.
nitigation structures which purchasers may then
incorporate in plans for their residences.ll
lhe section by Pettigrove rneets this concern.
rrThese structural design guidelines should be
included in either the project declaration or in
another covenant to run with the land.rt
The structural design guidelines are included in theSpecial Development District wording and covenants.
"The applicant should be required to identify andrnitigate against the hazards in the subdivisionrs
conmon area, i.e. spaces between the envelopes, the
open space tract and the roadway.rl
Nick Laurpiris has provided in his fetter a statementthat is used in the rockfalL hazard area to ensurethat adjacent properties are not affected by thestructures. He states, rlFurther, if the recornmended
engineering is acconplished during the constructionof structures upon tbe proposed building envelopes,there should be no increased hazard to other propertyor structures, or to public buildings, roads,streets, right-of-way, easements, utilities orfacilities.I'
rrThe design guidelines are totally inappropriate tothe surrounding environrnent. rl
The applicant agreed at the neeting that blue steelroofs could be excluded from the reguirements. Tnaddition, the guidelines are being reviewed by the
Design Review Board on June 17, 1987. Staff feelsthat the board will be abfe to revise the guidelinesif necessary.
'lThe applicant should be reguired to install a guardrail along Lionsridge Loop.rt
Our Town engineer did not require this. However,staff has no problen if it is rnade a requirement.
rrThe applicant should reconsider the construction ofnulti-fanily residences rather than creation of asubdivision of homesites to facilitate maximurncontrol of hazard nitigation.tt
The problero with this recommendation is that you
cannot force a developer to do nulti-fanily
development when the zone district does not requireit.
10.
lL.
l2
L3. "The applicant is sinply not prepared to ask for the
PEc I s consideration. rl
rhree other mernbers of the PJ.anning Commission feltthat tlre application was sufficient enough to act on.
!ue^O{.r{B\ +chnica\\
Planning antl Environmental Cornmissron
Comrnunity Developnent Departrnent
June 8, L987
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SURfECT: A request for a major subdivision and rezoning of TheValley Phase III from Residential Cluster to SpecialDevelopment District with underlying ResidentialCluster.Applicants: Lamar Capitat Corporation
I. THE REQUESTS
reguests involve two Planning Cornmission reviews:
O Ou^s^
@4 \nd,,f d -tni\
$D
I Aaum- $Ka,+(
I 5\dA.E\ue!Too'
S-. l\{*([!: 0u\Ad.q D U. I
ll}}e Pf{tur.f.
The
f*Qiw Y\or"' p
t\
o
The
The reviewsubdivision
The review
request.
applicant I s
of a prelirninary plan for the majorreguest
of the Special Devel_opment District zoning
request is surnmarized below:
rrThe current proposal being rnade by Lamar CapitalCorporation, the ohrners of phase III, is thesubdivision of the 3.6 acre parce] into sevenbuilding .it"= or-iEnffiGli- rive of these@tow coniEruction of single familydwellings and two (envelopes 5 and e) would allowconstruction of duplex residences. Therefore, atotal number of nine dwelling units would beconstructed on the site....
The total Gross Residential Floor area (GRFA)desiqnated for Phase-.=Ilf in The Valley pUD agreementrs @ This will allow each dwellincrunit within the project to be a maximum of L,777square feet.
^Lccess to the site is off of Lionsridge Loop via a 22f6ETiae common access drive. rhis ioad i'scurrently under construction and was given buildingpennit approval previously by Eagle county.
ihe owner of the property has chosen to create thebuilding envelopes rather than construct one singleL0 uni-t developrnent for various reasons:...Thecreation of the building sites a1lows the developmenEof the parcel to be phased and at the same time -
provides an overall plan to guide the placement ofdwelling units, access, and common open space withinthe parcel over tirne.
0Mv\\0f\
t\I,ftg
The development of 9 individual free standingdwelling units and duplex units will be noreconpatible with the adjacent developments than wouldone single structure containing L0 dwelling units.
The creation of the building envelopes allows for avariation in residential product type in Vail . Apurchaser will be able to enjoy amenities such as
common open space, guest parking, and a common accessdrive which are typically found in a rnultiple farnilydevelopment and also enjoy the opportunity toconstruct his/her own home much like the owner of asingle fanily or duplex lot.tl
II. BACKGROUND ON THE PROPOSAL
The Valley project was originally designed as a planneddevelopment of lso_units.on 61-: ^- , fg3g,tl'e Eagle Couritf-eommissioners approved a prelilninary pr-anwith a Planned Development zone designation. the approvalof the preliminary plan was valid for three years. InJuly of L976 the original prelininary plan approvalexpired. However, the Planned Developrnent zonedesignation remained on The Va11ey. The zone designationfor Phase III allowed for l_0 dwelling units and a total
GRFA of 16,000 square feet.
fuQu il,'413
f,rIK Qloi,\1 K-t\l\ \. I wu 'l
lvr\^q.tWW^d'
{-dr{qUI$P
lsQun'\'/Ll
61hoar:
rwo
k-ryd
The developer was required to resubmit a sketch plan andprelininary plan once the approval had expired. Frorn theplanning files, it appears that several requests to extendthe approvals from the prelirninary plan were granted bythe Conmissioners. fn March of j_980, the pUD plan andprotective covenants were filed with the County. Onceagain, this document indicates that j-o units aira a -GEFA of
In l-98o, the West Vail area was annexed to the Town ofVail. The Town accepted the GRFA asthe allowed devE f The vallE
o Y,The Valley wE
ay of 1987.(Please see the encLosed summary of eventG relatinq to Thedantlfalley Phase III attached to this rnerno.)
The following inforrnation indicates that it is very clearthat Phase lff is allowed 10 units and a GRFA of 16,000square feet. Any sketch plan and preliminary planapprovals have lapsed since the tirne of their review bvthe.County. The rnost recent sketch plan review for thisproject occurred in April of 1980. Even after this reviewof the sketch plan by the County, the developer still
o
needed to return with a preliminary plan for phase III.prelirninary plan for this project v/as never finalizedthrough the County and considered to be a part of theapproval when the project v/as accepted into the Town ofVail in l-980.
for the property. Ordinance of l-981- acknffions of 10 units and 1_6,000 squaie feetof GRFA but states that, rrfor any zoning purpose beyondthe Eagle County Commissionersr approvals, aglreements, oractions, the developments of parcels of propertiesspecified in this subsection (E) shall be zonedResidential Cluster.rr For this reason, the Special
Developrnent Distrj-ct is compared to the underlying zonedistrict of Residential Cluster which serves as a guidefor the development standards of this phase.
III. MAJOR SUBDIVISION EVALUATION CRITERIA
The PEC review criteriain Section l-7 . 1-6. 1l-O offollows:
major subdivisions are foundregulations and are as
for
the
qiffidations made by public agencies,utility companies, and other agencies consulted underL7.L6.090. The PEC shall review the application andconsider its approPriateness in regard Lo Town ofvail policies relating to subdivision control ,density proposed, regulations, ordinances andresolutions and other applicable documents,environmental integrity and compatibility withsurrounding land uses.
The burden of proof shall rest th the a
UTDOSES this cha onL
oEner that thele. Due consideration s
The following comments were made by each agency:
1". Upper Eagle Va11ey Water and SanitationDistrict: We have no problems with thisproject. Water and sewer are available in thearea. We recommend approval .
A.
Public Service Company: The originalprelininary plan did not show gas as a utilitybeing provided by the developer. The developerhas agreed to include gas as a utility for theproj ect.
Holy Cross Electric: No problem.
0\o\b
1ono-&,D\
\l\F-.
utilit Reviews:
3.
B.
4. Mountain Be1l: No problern. Mountain Betlrequested that the developer fiII out one oftheir land development agreernents as soon aspossible.
5. Heritage Cable: No problem.
6. National Forest Service: At this time, the
adeguacy of water and fire protection service isguestioned. The need for adequate response tofire emergency suppression and availability of
adequate fire hydrants should be considered inthe review for approval . Evaluations shouldinclude concerns of the Vail Fire Departmentabout water pressure, emergency fire call
response time, location of hydrants, etc. interms of both structural and wild ]and fireprotection, suppression and control .
These issues have been addressed by the VailFire Department and Upper Eagle Valley Water andSanitation District.
7. Western Slope Gas: No problem
Relation of Proposal to Torr/n of Vail policies:
create a pro
vision controls.
r^qo* i&^d e{
5y5: 6rQ,ti&, "
E#,u
XqirqM'
-Iess Enan wnac was orrg].nal.lyby one unit.
The density is actually
approved for the site
- eo''q/".')4+, lo[^/523
lQJ,lt
The EIR states that the potential negative impacts ofthe proposal include the rrvisual inpacts and irnpactsassociated with the location of the site within arockfall hazard area.rr Staffrs opinion is that thedeveloper has designed a plan that protects the
meadow area as much as possible, given the highseverity rockfall hazard and slope constraints on thenorthern portion of the Iot. fn addition, designguidelines are incorpoarated into the SDD zoningwhich will lrensure architectural and visualcontinuity with regard to building design andmateriaLs.rr (EIR p.4)
The Public Works and Fire Departments have alsoiEvI6eA Ene requesffi meecs E,nerrstandards as far as road design, drainage, fireprotection service and adeguate fire turn-around
areas.
staff believes that the design of the subdivision and
0.ug.rdml6 i vrnrof,
The staff finds thatsubdivision criteria
A. Design Standards
Section L8.40.080 lists a
SDD development plan mustreview is to show how the
SETAEE
th
an
or
e proposal
actually meet the majordoesisa
improvement from
vta s
inprovement is the preservat!
siqnificant
se
of
Countv last summer.The rnain area of
l.tVY->\'"'*\-f )l been accomplished by proposi
A&l^M, VDtWt L\ tn" north siae or the access
to Dsit0llng Yg'
6ndict*t'
rimary
This has
ng the
road.
Oing sites on
standards that a proposedwith. Thejglpsse_of__Qe
ment
E
set of
comply
develo
PMENT DISTRICT REVIEW
ap practical solu
n achieved.
sEandards, along w]-cn Ene applrcant,, s
The design
and staffrs
with
Loop.
Staffrs
l-.
responses are listed below:
A buffer zone shal-l be rovided in a ecial
vel-opment dis a l.owresidential u The buffer zoneree of buildinos i:or structures, and
rnust be anctsca screened or rotected bv naturalfeatures so that adverse effects on the surroundi-nareas are minirnized. This may re re a buffer zoneof suffic ent size to adequatel rate theuse from the surround ronerties in termsof visual rl_va noise, adequate Iiqht an aIr, a]-rutionsand other com rable all
ncompat 1e factors.
Applicant I s Statement:
The trbuffering'r provided by the project isappropriate for the type of project proposed and. thenature of the existing and proposed surrounding landuses. Landscaped areas will serve to strengthen thisbuffer.
Staffrs Statement:
Phase III is ad acent to Lionsrid e LooD on theeotheroject, The ValIey
and The Vallev
P south and west. Thel
Phase III is approxirnately
from
Most
the edge ofof the trees
the pavernent of Lionsridgein this area will remain.
IJDKT
fqra On the east side of Phase Iff, the.-neatest buildingfrom The V
easternmost building envelope. In addition, an open
opinion is that this area provides an adguate bufferon the northern portion of the project. phase I tothe east provides access to units directly off ofLionsridge Loop. SJaff s rnaintaining the publice, ashavin
onsridge Loop. It be not t theaI development that no'the
area ranging frorn approxirnately 1_5 feet at thenarrowest point to 60 feet fro
rn
should alsodistrict wilIIess than 3
requirefeet from
easEern
envelope. The rest ofportion of the project the site on theis designated as open
ilffi
space.
On the west ertv lines for Phase Iff,
app|rox:rmaE,e 25 fee
area. Staff woul_d recommend that the four westernparking spaces in this area be removed from the planPhase Vf proposes to rnaintain as open space theportion of their project that meets the southernproperty line of Phase III. Therefore, the slightirnpacts of the pavement should be minimized.
In qeneral , the staff finds that the proposalmaintains adeguate buffer spaces on a1l sides of theproject. We would recommend that additionallandscaping be located by the west fire turn aroundand the 4 guest parking spaces be removed.
2.esiqned for the e of trafficeneratedconsideration safe separa-tion from livincr areas conventence, access, noiseand exhaust control . Pr vate internal stieets ma bermitted if they can be used b lice and firedertment vehicles for eme enc urposes.c shall be considered and
tion svstem
traf s to be used for res dent
rovided when
Applicant t s Statement:
The access drive has been designed soadequately serve the traffic needs ofdeveloprnent. Due to the size of theneed for a separate bicycle path does
Staffts Statement:
as to
theproject, thenot exist.
The project has been designed to meet Fire Departnentand Public Worksr design standards. Staff agieeswith the applicant that a project of this siie doesnot requi-re a separate bicycle path. There is apossibility that the road could be continued westinto Phase Vf at a future date if desirable.
in Terms of:Optimumreservacon of natural features ncludin trees anddrainacreareasrecreaE.on, vlews conven ence andfunction.
Applicant t s Statement:
Approxj-nately 70? of the site
space use in order to preserveof the site.
is devoted to opensignificant features
l0'/or€
Staff I s Statement:
The applicant has made a str
anct w
to
that the access could have been directly off ofLionsridge Loop to the structures built into thehillside. Hor,reverf staff did not prefer this siteplanning approach, as it would have required. very
ligh retaining walls which would have negative visual
,impacts on adjacent properties. Secondly, direct'access to the units off of Lionsridge toop encouragesparking problerns along the Lionsridge Loop right-of-way as well as snow plowing problems. The st;ffprefers to see parking and access removed from theLionsridge Loop areas.
Once again, the staff would also recomrnend that thewestern four parking spaces on the access road berenoved from the proposal to free up more open space.our opinion is that the L0 guest spaces on Lheeastern portion of the site provide ad.equate overflowparking for the 9 units. Even with the removal ofthe four spaces, each unit would have one enclosed
ariet4.
space, one space in front of the garage, and oneguest parking space. Staff believes that threespaces are adequate for each unit.
Variety in terns of: housins, facil-ities and open space:
Staff supports the
p ine units thatwilll-s hase. If anaff would ue units are
Applicant t s Statement:
Desj-gn guidelines will be adopted to govern thecharacter of the buildings. While these guidelineswill resul-t in a certain uniforrnity among buildingdesign, a certain amount of ftexibility in buildingdesign will exist.
Staffrs Statement:
to
so that there doesterms of design.
developed
not become
re manner
varr.eEy tn
Lna
too
compa
much
5.terms of the needs individuals
ne hbors:
Applicantt s Statement:
Building envelopes are adequately separated in orderto.provide spaces between residences and provideprr-vacy.
Staffrs Statement:
affic in Terms of: Safet arationaccess to oints of dest on, andattractveness:
Nd5
The building envelopes are separated from each otherfrorn a distance varying from approximately l-8 feet to27 feet. This separation provides a reasonablE--
ffio-u-nE-Ef privacy between Lhe residences.
6.
Applicant I s Statement:
Due to the srnall size of
separated pedestrian q/ays
the proposed project,are not needed.
Pedestrian
Staff agrees with the applicant.
Staffts Statement:
ildin in Terms of:riateness todensity, site relationship and bul
Applicantr s Staternent:
The building bulk requirements as established areappropriate for the scale of the site and itssurroundings.
Staff's Statement:
Staff agrees with the applicant.
orientation spaclnor an scorage, s slighting, and soLar blockage.
) Applicantrs Statement:
hL- rbrl
.",iAW' \ The buildings will be oriented to take advantage ofgU,; views into the open space and southern exposures.'^nK
WI^ The spacing between buildings is indicated upon the
n].|1O' site plan and provides areas for landscapingl lightULXY/ and air.
Materials have been specified within the designguidelines for the project.
Landscaping will be strictly controlled by the
Homeownersr Association as wel_1 as the Vai_l DesignReview Board. Landscape provisions have beenincluded in the proposed covenants and are asfollows:
8.
The concerns of the Cornmittee shall be to improve theappearance of the subdivision and the rnainte-nance ofsuch appearance. Owners and their representatives orbuilders will be recruired to:
Minj-mize disruption from grading.
Revegetate and restore ground cover for erosionand appearance reasons.
Use indigenous species of plant materials asestablished by the Cornrnittee.Select the man-made elements that blend and arecompatible with the land.
Use existing or natural drainage paths wheneverpossible.
a.
b.
d.
Conserve and protect top soil, rock forrnations
and unique landscape features.
Sod such areas as determined by the Committee.
V. SDD ZONTNG CONSIDERATIONS
The a order to a1lowforreater d
a at would not orSzonins. Below-fE ummary of theistrict standards which have beenwritten to correspond to the Residential Cluster zonedistrict. Following the narrative for the specialdevelopment district is a comparison of the SDD standardsto straight Residential Cluster zoning.
Proposed Special Development District:
Purpose: The purpose of the establishrnent of the EIk
Meadows Special Developrnent District is to aLlow greaterflexibility in the development of the land. than would bepossible under the current zoning of the property. Inorder to help preserve the natural and scenic features ofthe site, building envelopes will be established whichdesj-gnate the areas upon the site in which developmentwill occur. The establishment of these buildi_ncr envelooeswill also perrnit the phasing of the development to procledaccording to each individual owner's ability to constructa residence.
,rt/wu,v
f
s-
A.-(r\/h (\-/
I \\-./t) r^)I l)vtt'
fU$g-
Acreage: The total acreage of the site is 3.G acres.
Permitted Uses: The perrnitted uses for the site are--.-----.-----.-proposed Eo be:l-. Single family residential dwellj_ngs2. Two-farnily residential dwellings3. Open space4. Public and private roads
Conditional Uses:mtility and pubric service uses2. Publ-ic buildings, grounds and facilities3. Public or private schools4. Public park and recreation facilities5. Ski lifts and tows6. Private clubs7. Dog kennel
n
- n M\J-Acc,essorv Uses :
JU- 1. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses,attached garages or carports, swimrning poo1s,patios, or recreation facilities customarilyincidental to single-farnily or two-farnilyresidential uses.
ential Clust
ary/Secondary
Home occupations, subject to issuance of a horneoccupation permit in accordance with theprovis j-ons of Sections l-B . 58 . 13 O through
18.58.1-90;
Other uses customarily incidental and accessoryto permitted or conditional uses, and necessaryfor the operation thereof;
Horse grazing, subject to the issuance of ahorse grazl-,ng permit in accordance with theprovisions of Chapter L8.58.
Development Standards: Proposed development standards areas follows:
1.Lot Area - Not applicable; building envelopesgovern.
-...---..-------,.sfillainq EnvelopE]\\.- '. -,,
1. . 07 acres2. .07 acres3. .06 acres4. .05 acres5. . l-0 acres6. .08 acres
7 . .05 acresTract 1: 2.53 acres open spaceTract 2: .61 acres roadaway and parking
* Tracts l- and 2 acreages should be adjusted ifthe west guest parking is rernoved.
Minimum setbacks for the location ofwith relations to building envelopeperimeter lines shalt be as follows:
6\ No structure sha11 be tocated on the\--'/ utility easement as so designated on the
A final plat of the subdivision.
tb.) No structure shall be located 1ess than twofeet from either the east or the westperinetg
2.
2.
/>\ l,:z-+--+!!v ev!(C.)\ No structure sha11 be located less thanx
(d. \ Notwrthstanding anything contained\--./ hereinabove to the contrary, roof overhangsand decks may encroach into the setbackareas described in b and c so long as suchroof overhangs and decks are totalty wj.thinthe perirneter lines of the building
envelope.
A buildingbuilding
Residential
/n\\ 4.1
^\v,
C)
envelope sha1l not contain more t|.an L,777
square feet of GRFA; a building situated on atwo unit residential bui-Iding envelope shaLl notcontain more than 3,554 square feet of GRFA.
Building Height: Building height shatl be 33feet for a sloping roof.
Parking: Two parking spaces shall be providedper unit with one of the two spaces being
enclosed.
Landscaping: The entire portion of the building
envelope not covered by pavernent or buildingsshall be landscaped as well as any areas outsidethe building envelope disturbed duringconstruction.
Design Guidelines: Design Guidelines to be
adopted for the site are as follows:
Roof pitch shall be 4 feet in l-2 feet.
Roof material shall be metal and be eithercharcoal grey or marina blue in color.Siding material shall be either cedar or
redwood and shall be applied horizontallyas indicated on the prototypicat buildingelevations. Only tight colored stain shallbe applied to siding.Either stucco or siding shall be applied to
exposed concrete foundation walls. Ifstucco is utilized, it shall be light in
co1or.
A11 windows shall be white metal_ clad
windows.AII decks and balconies shall beconstructed utilizinq 2 x 12 railings andposts that are at least 4n x 4rr.
A11 roofs shall have overhangs of at leastI foot in order to protect walls and wa1Iopenings from rain and snow and tocontribute to the buildingrs character.
Recreation Arnenities Tax: The recreation
@square foot.
7.
R PROPOSED SDD IN COMPARISON WITH RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER ZONE
,.r-o
PROPOSED SDD RES CLUSTER
LOT STZE:1-. .07 ac single unit2. .07 ac single3. . 06 ac singJ-e4. .O5 ac single5. .10 ac duplex6. .08 ac duplex
7 . .05 ac singJ-e
unitunitunitunitsunitsunit
15,000 sf,
containing
no less than
8,OO0 sf ofbuildable
area
front 201side, l-5 |
rear, L5 |
33 | slope30r flat roof
.48 total bldg envelopes or
20,9O9 sf.
SETBACKS: Sides, 2 ft from bldg envelope lineRear, 3 ft from bldg envelope line
1,8 1-27 1 between bldg envelopes exists
HEIGHT:331 sloping roof30r for flat roof does not applyas design guidelines requj_ressloping roof
SfTE COVERAGE: no standard for bl_dg envelopes 25? of site
GRFA: l_5 , OOO 1,6 , OOO per
annexaElon agree.
DENSITY: 9 units l0 units per
annexation agree.
LANDSCAPING: Tract 1! 2.53 acres 60? of site
Open Space or 7OZ of the shall besite is open space landscaped
PARKING: Requires l- enclosed space, also Recruires l_will have L open space within enilosed spc,
,. bldg envelope + 1 guest space 2 spaces
!6rrrdi'orf The.proposed SDD varies only slightLy from the underlyingResidential Cluster zone district. Due to the fact thatbuilding envelopes are being used, it is difficult cocompare the SDD to Residential Cluster zoning in respectto lot size. The density is actually one unit less thanwould be allowed without the SDD approach. Site coveraqe
ACQ i" also difficult to compare in that the building-.'envelopes will.be covered by buildings, but to wiat degreethe coverage will occur is impossibl-e to deternine untilthe units are constructed. However, staff believes that
iXtJn*) there is adequate open space around the buildj.ng envelopesr\r \\t/u\t i.o maintain an aestheti_ca11y pleasing amount of open spacebQi\!a0ib\
ruri"+tn.s\^dr telD dro- ri'o+ *tr JDO '[
t^fJ' p(
and separation among: the units. Setbacks also vary fromthose that are required in a Residential Cluster zonedistrict. The separation among'the building envelopesvaries from L8 feet to 27 feel . Staff believes that thisseparation provides adequate space among the units. A11other development standards meet the underlying zonedistrict requirements for the Residential Cluster zonedistrict.
VT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Community Development recommendsapproval of this proposal. Staff beli_eves that therequest meets the intent of the major subdivj_sionregulations and special developrnent districtrs zoning.
The proposil_lgsjge4ffellows the underlying ResidentialcluSoning and Planne
er Eao
due to the ne
eas
qle Countv.
at are appro
the mead
T,t 4anarts fromriate to revise
U
$uftld
ELK MEADOWS CONDTTIONS OF APPROVAL
The deveropment of.each buirding envelope will conply withthe environmental . irnpact report, especillly the ae-silnrecornmendations cited by Mr. Dan pettigrove in a letterconcerning design rnitigations for rock fall_ hazard.s. Eachindividual owner.will be responsible for completing therockfall nitigation neasure per the pettigroire letter.Studies will meet the standards outlined in Sectionl-8.69.O52 of the Town of Vail zoning code. An owner maychoose to have another.gualified engineer/geologist aeiiqnappropriate rockfall mitigation rneasures, is long as themitigation solution does not have negative visuai impactsand is approved by the Town of vair iornmunity DevelopnentDepartment and Town Engineer.
The-proposed.prelirninary landscape plan and design reviewguidelines will be reviewed by the besign Review Board fortheir approval before final plat subrnitial.
The applicant agrees to revegetate the access road if thegeneral subdivision improvements are not completed byseptember 1' r-989. Generar subdivision irnprovements aredef ined in Section l-7. l-6.150 of the town of vailSubdivision Regulations.
The declaration of protective covenants for the Elk Meadowsubdivision states that design guidelines rnay be adopted.The staff would require that the word.ing be Lhanged tostate that design guidelines shall be ad.opted. Tfre futlparagraph would read:
o
rrGuidelines for the development of the buildingenvelopes and tracts shall be adopted by theCommittee, which shall, amonqt other things, interpretand/or implernent the provisions of these protectivecovenants. Guidelines may be amended from time totine with the najority vote of approval from the
Comrnittee and approval of the Town of Vait Design
Revi-ew Board. The guidelines will be available fromthe chair of the Design Committee and Town of Vail
Comrnunity Development Department. rl
The following engineering information will be subnitted tostaff by June L5, L9A7.
a. The revised master drainage p1an.b. The preliminary plan will be revised to show the newturn-around dimension on the west end of the't'rrnrro r.F rr
c. The road plan will have an engineerrs stamp. Theprelimi-nary pl-an will- be adjusted for square footagetotals due to the removal of the four guest parking
spaces on the west end of the project.d. A letter from Nick Lampiris will be subrnitted toaddress the rock fall design requirements. Agraphic is suggested.e. Gas line and fire hydrants will be indicated on theutility plan in the appropriate areas.
For information purposes, the staff would like to notethat the major subdivision requlations require thecompletion of general improvements for the subdivision asoutlined i-n Section l-7.1-5.150 to be installed within fouryears of the date of PEC approval or the plat shall becomeinstantly invalid. A11 right to irnprove or develop theproperty on the part of the owner or subdivider shallthereby be relinquished. This requirement is stated inSection a7.L6.33O of the Vail Subdivision Regulations.
It shall also be noted that in respect to SDD approvals,the applicant must begin construction of the specialdeveloprnent district within l-B months from the tirne of theprojectrs final approval according to Section l_8.40.100 ofthe Town of Vail zoning Code.
#^^P
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS CONCERNING THE VALLEY PHASE III
April 25, L973r Conditional approval of the preliminaryplan by Eagle County which zoned The ValleyPlanned Developnent (PD)
July 26, L9'73: County Comraissioners approve The Valleyprelirninary plan and PUD. This approval isgood for three years. The approvalincludes L50 units on 61.2 acres.
July 30, L973: Eagle County Corornissionersr special neetingto confirm Valley approval .
JuIy 26, L976: The Valley prelininary plan and pUD
approval of July 26. L973 expires. Sorne ofthe units are under construction, The I20units that have not been built will recruirea new subroittal starting with a sketch pfan
and prelirninary plan review (letter fromMs. Susan Vaughn, L977).
l{ay 20, L977. The VaiI Town council_ sends a letter to theEagle County Conmissioners in favor ofextending the Valley,s approval as long asdeveloprnent is carried out according to tfrepreliminary plan and recreation amenitiesare provided,
ytay 24, L978: The Eagle County Commissioners grant anextension of the Val1ey prelininary plan
approval . This approval would expire onJune 1-, L979. If the approval expires, itwould be reguired that sketch plan andpreliminary plan revier,tr inforrnltion besubnitted. Also, if any change is rnade tothe present plan, it would have to bereviewed by the County Cornmissioners.
Novenber L3, L979. Eagrle county cornmissioners review a sketchplan and have several concerns.
March 26, 1-980: A puD pran and protective covenants d.ocu-ment is filed with the County which indi-cates that Phase fff is subject to the landuse restrictions of L0 uni.ts and a total
GRFA of L6,000 square feet.
March 27, L980: Resolution No. gO-20 allowed the phases ofThe Valley to be sold separately withoutany further compliance with the subdivisionregulations.
aal
April 15, L980: ?he Eagle County planning Commissionreviews a sketch plan for phase III. ThePlanning Commission suggests that the unitsbe tucked into the hillside on thenortheast side of the project and that thedeveloper use berming and }andscaping tobuffer the project. Staff recommends
approvaL of the sketch plan.
April l-6, L980: Tohrn of Vail staff sends letter to theEagle County Planning Commission which
recommends more tighter, clustered layoutof the buildings toward the hillside. Vailstaff also recognizes the steep hillsideand sensitivity of the meadow area. Letterfrom Peter Patten and Dick Ryan.
April 30, l-980: The Eagle County Cornmissioners reviews thesketch plan that the Planning Comrnission
saw on April L6, 1-980. The sketch plan
shows L0 townhomes on phase III.
May 5, l-9803 A resolution is passed by the Countyallowing three years for the developers tofile preliminary plans from the March 26,1980 PUD plan approval date.
December l-98o: ordinance No. 43 annexes the west vail areaincluding Phase fff of The Valley.
March 1-7, L98l-: The Town of Vail Council applies zoning to?he Valley which was recently annexed. Theordinance was No. L3, Series of L98L.
March l-5, L983: Resolution No. 5, Series of 1993, the TownCouncil approves rezoning of The Valley.
Sept. 11, l-985: The Valley is de-annexed fron the Town.
Sunmer L986 A developrnent proposal is subrnitted toEagle County by Lamar Capital Corporation.
The proposal begins with a sketchplan/preliminary plan review.
Nov. 5, 1-986 The Lamar Capital Corporation phase IfIproposal is withdrawn from the county dueto cornpli-cations with the time lines forreview and how they will relate to theproperty being re-annexed to the Town ofvail.
NIay L6 |L986 A grading perroit is released by the Countyfor an access road into Phase III. Theapplicant is Lamar Capital Corporation.
The road work on Phase III is red-tagged byEagle County.
Red tag. is removed by Eag1e County.
The VaIIey is re-annexed into the Town.
The Road is red-tagged by the Town of Vail
The Road is red-tagged by Eagle County.
Lamar Capital Corporation submits a majorsubdivision and special developrnentdistrict zoning request for Phase III .
May 6,
May 7,
May 11,
May 11,
May 11 ,
May 1I,
19A7
L987 |
1987
L9A7 i
l_987:
l_987:
LlsS+
ELK MEADOWS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The development of each building envelope will cornply with
, -!.the environmental impact report, especially the design
d /jglltrecommendations cited by Mr. Dan Pettiqrove j-n a letter
;kW[ concerning design rnitigations for- rock fall hazards... Eacht\o)._,-fi /)_6|/'recommendatlons crtect by Ivlr. Dan Petclqrove 1n a reEEer
^ry\qfiJl;f"d9fl concerning design rnitigations for rock fall hazards. Each
%!^Ury.iJqlt \|\ individual owner will be responsible for cornpleting the'11"*t!u'" rra! A rockfall mitigation measure per the Pettigrove letter.
"Y'0,v{\"1.dY{ studies will- meet the standards outlined in section'10t:,.llu!t" 18.69.052 of the Town of vail zoning code.
"^ lViunn I Y{-14 'll'nr$l:. The proposed prelirninary landscape plan and design review
l$til.^( l, guidelines will be reviewed by the Design Review Board for
,f ?Vl,&t their approval before f inal plat subrnittal .ilQly,r,Pt i;;i. approval before final- piat subrnitiar.
il)v'"l | 3. The applicant ag'rees to revegetate the access road if a
building permit is not received and acted upon to completethe general subdivisi-on i-mprovements by September l,
7^*'
1Wq'
The declaration of protective covenants for the E1k Meadow
Subdivision states that design guidelines may be adopted.
The staff would require that the wordi-ng be changed tostate that design guidelines shall be adopted. The fu11
paragraph would read:
trGuidelines for the development of the building
envelopes and tracts sha11 be adopted by the
Committee, which sha1l, amongf other things, interpret
and/or implement the provisions of these protective
covenants. cuidetines may be arnended from tirne to
tine with the rnajority vote of approval from the
Comrnittee and approval of the Town of Vail Design
Review Board. The guidelines will be available frornthe chair of the Design Conmittee and Town of VaiI
Community Development Department. rr
The foJ-lowing engineering inforrnation will be subrnitted tostaff by June l-5, 1987.
a. The revised rnaster drainage p1an.
b. The preliminary plan wiJ-1 be revj-sed to show the new
turn-around dimension on the west end of the
propercy.
c. The road plan will have an engineerrs stamp, Thepreliminary plan will be adjusted for square footagetotals due to the removal of the four guest
parking spaces on the west end of the project.
d. A letter frorn Nick Larnpiris will be subrnitted to
address the rock fall design requirements. Agraphic is suggested.
e. Gas line and fire hydrants wj-11 be indicated on the
utility plan in the appropriate areas.
5.
* For information purposes, the staff would like to notethat the najor subdivision requlations require thecompletion of general irnprovernents for the subdivision asoutlined in Section 17.L6.l-50 to be installed within fouryears of the date of PEC approval or the plat sha1l becomeinstantly invalid. A11 right to improve or develop theproperty on the part of the owner or subdivider shallthereby be relinquished. This reguirement is stated inSection 17.L6.330 of the Vail Subdivision Regulations.
ft sha11 also be noted that in respect to SDD approvals,the applicant must begin construction of the special
development district within L8 rnonths from the time of theproject's final approval according to Section l-8.40.1-OO ofthe Town of Vail zoning Code.
75 south lronlage road
Yail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
{t6 B'
c.
s{,r
l,,\. ,.*l-Od,t-$cr, \ \^r'./ .,.oe*ffi\S^ml.-
^lr'\
{o"d in{on* ' Dr
,
^frcr,r,"rgl fu1ru ,tt
r tU-'t\d-\UL i' r)
l4ay 27 , L98'7
Mr. Michael LauterbachP.O. Box 3451Vail , Colorado 81658
Re: Elk Meadows: Lionsridge Subdivision (The Valley) , nilingNo. 2, Phase III
Dear Mike:
After reviewing the proposal for rnajor subdivision and specialdevelopment district requirernents, the following information isneeded:
I. Ma'ior Subdivision Information
A topographic survey that is certified by a Coloradoregistered land surveyor. The survey should alsoindicate total acreage for the entire parcel , thesize of each buiLding envelope, the width ofeasements, and edge of pavement for Lionsridge Road.
Proposed streets should show approxirnate grades inpercentage and areas with cuts and fills exceedingsix feet.
Util-ities are indicated on the plan. However, thesize and invert elevations of sanitary sewers, storrndrainage facilities and water mains rnust beindicated. The Fire Departrnent has also requestedthat nain sizes for fire hydrants be provided.
Drainage conditions on and adjacent to the tract
*including locatj-on and extent of water courses,
fPerpetual drainage easements, and location of natural' springs and ground water should be indicated on the
*\oA /.JidlAp
tt*
ili
qt,ffi
site plan. Essentially, you need to develop a nasterdrainage plan for the project. Bannerrs letter isdated September L8, 1986. At that time, this plan
was not even developed. My opinion is that you needto update the Banner inforrnation and provide arevised master drainage plan for the project.
Pettygrove makes some statenents about drainage inhis letter dated February L987, however none of thisinformation is on the site p1an.
Existj-ng conditions on adjacent land need to beindicated. fn most cases, open space exists aroundthe project. However, to the east The ValleyCondoniniuns should be shown on your site plan. Asstated in the Subdivision Regulations, the objectiveis to show how the preliminary plan interfaces withall adjoining properties and uses. probably theeasiest way to show these relationships wou1d. be touse the original PUD nap showing The Val1ey
Condominiuns to the east and the proposed phase tothe southwest of Phase III.
ALI areas of 40? slope or greater and rock fall areasshould be indicated on the site plan. Even thoughthe zoning for the property is Residential Cluster,due to the fact that you are creating single farnilyand duplex structures, you are meeting the intent ofSection 18.69.O40 of the zoning code which allowsconstruction on 40? slopes only in primary/Secondary,
Duplex and Single Fanily zone districts. We havereviewed this decision with Larry Eskwith and heagrees that it should be noted in the SpecialDevelopment District that you are meetiirg the intentof this section of the code.
Also, I would like to know how Nick Lampiris' letterd1t9d Novernber 1-, L9g6 relates to your new site p).an.Nick seemed very concerned about locating the unitsbelow Lionsridge Loop road. He states that a LO to12 foot structural protection would be necessary.Don Pettygrove states in his letter that 6 feet ofvertical wal"l is necessary. I would 1ike to see anorth elevation showing the structures along
I-,ionsridge Loop road.
Letters from alL applicable utility agenciesverifying service should be subrnitled-at the time yousubrnit for final plat review.
A soils stability analysis must be subrnitted.. Onpage 1-0 of the Environmental Inpact Report, you referto a Chen and Associates, Inc. study. -This stuOyshoul-d be submitted for our review.
g\\K-GJ'
!.41.J,
\.\;
^\(H)
The Town Engineer has requested that you subrnitSchedule B of a title report for the property tocheck easements.
\J. In the Declaration of protective Covenants for the
[!- i Elk Meadows Subdivj.sion, you rnention on page 2 that
l\,\,n^.d the Design Guidelines may be adopted. The staff'rrr{l{ wouLd prefer to change the wording in this section in'n\\ the following way:
.\":i '.'-{),,N:\ 'rGuidelines for the development of the build.ing
\1.' \J envelopes and tracts shall be adopted by thecommittee, which sha1l, among other things,interpret andr/or implernent the provisioni ofthese protective covenants. Guidelines may beamended frorn tirne to time with the najoritlr voteof approval frorn the conrnittee and approval ofthe Town of VaiI Design Review Board. Theguidelines will be avaiLable from the Chair ofthe Design Comnittee and Town of Vait ComrnunityDevelopment Department. rt
II
I also suggest that you subnit the infornation thatwas provided for the road permit frorn Eagle County.Bj.ll Andrews will want to review this permit. IwouLd al.so call hirn to find out if theie is anvadditionaL information concerning the roads ttrit neneeds at this time. It is ny understanding that theEagle County road permit only covers a portion of theroad.
Special Developnent District Information:A.\!Aj, An open space and recreational plan rnust besubmitted. you may choose to slate that the site isnot conducive to adding recreational amenities and.that the scale of the project does not trarrant arecreation plan. Open space is naintained bypreserving the meadow and hillside areas. you mavalso want to rnention the recreati.onal arnenities tiat.are in the other phases of The Va1ley project and howthey will relate to your developnent. -
t't\Existing and proposed contours should be indicated onthe- srte pLan after grading and site developmentwork for the road. I understand that it witl beimpossible to show proposed contours in the buildingenvelopes, as you are not able to determine exactlyhow each owner will develop.
A prelirni.nary landscape plan should be subrnitted that
shows existing landscape features to be retained or
rernoved and proposed landscaping for the overaLlsite. I strongly reconnend that you use landscapingto buffer your project from The Va1ley Condorniniurnsto the east and tbe proposed Phase VI to thesouthwest. f wouLd also emphasize in particular theentry for the project, parking areas, and screeningof the development along Lionsridge Loop. If at allpossible, I would suggest that you try to pu)-I backthe guest parking out of the meado\^/ area. perhaps
you could provide parallel parking and also decrease
some of the guest parking. As the parking isdesigned right now, it does irnpact the meadow area toa great degree.
A prelirninary special development district narrativeshould be provided which would List:
1. The purpose of the special development district
2. A section that addresses the total acreage ofthe site and the fact that a special developrnentdistrict is being created to handle developrnenton the parcel of land.
3. Pennitted uses
4. Conditional uses
5. Accessory uses
6. Development standards that will include Lotarea, setbacks, height, density control , sitecoveraqe, Iandscaping, and parking.
7. Design standards which would incorporate theDesign cuidelines that you are rec6nnrending inthe Environrnental Inpact Report on page 1.6 thatrelate to the design of the building and perhapslandscaping if you choose.
You should provide a written statement respond.j-ng toeach of the points outlined in Section lB.aO.oeO-Design.standards for the development plan.Essentially, these address a buffer zone, circulatj.onsystem, functional open space, variety in terms ofdevelopment, privacy, pedestrian traffic, buildingtype, building design, and landscaping
o
In general, the staff feels that this proposal is an irnprove-ment in respect to what was originarly proposed several monthsago.. We also appreciate the fact that you are decreasing thenumber of units frorn the allowabLe by one unit.
Below is a schedule for the review of this project assurningthat you get approvals at each review:
The Special Development District zoning also statesthat the recreation arnenties tax shouLd be stipulatedin the Special Developrnent District ordinance. Iwill recorunend that we use the Residential Clusterrecreation fee per square foot of $.30.
Planning and Environrnental Cornmission: Review ofthe Special Developnent District and Majorsubdivision requests.
Subrnit for final plat contingent upon approvalof the SDD ordinance at Town Council selondreading.
Tovrn Council neeting: First reading of the SDDordinance and approval of the Major SubdivisionPreliminary Plan
Town Council meeting: Second reading of the SDDordinance
Planning Cornmi.ssion final plat review
June I
June L5
June 16
July 7
JuIy l-3
KP: br
cc: Peter Jamar
I would appreciate it if you would subrnitWednesday, June 3, 1987 at 9:OO A.M. ffguestions, please feel free to call rne.
Sincerely,
i/ l 0,1
I\rtlnn {{ff1-Kristan Prfr.z
Town Planner
this inforrnation byyou have any further
ET
EIJ( MEADOI,VS SUBDIVISTON
Our agency has reviewed the Elk Meadows Subdivision
Environmental Impact Report and has no concerns with the Elk
Meadows Subdivision reguest.
Yes, our agency has the following concerns with the ELk MeadowsSubdivision request:
---9^-; i t
EIJK MEADOWS SUBDIVISTON
Our agency has revievred the Elk Meadows SubdivisionEnvironrnental Impact Report and has no concerns with the Elk
Me ad ows S ubd ivi s i on reque s t . gfree rq Tfr4er{teo/)
Yes, our agency has the following concerns with the Elk MeadowsSubdivision request:
/-D,n, /i,a 4-44 er"/"/. ! tU *'-'/
fu4//1/ r./'qv v -te C'4.t-' fr.r*1, ' .r-,'tt4r12l- -f,,/ ,bgfuL;A, -A-?/f**n4raeL * I
h q//,,rr*. 'EarW-.^ltfu -dtt';'-. {,, -afr"4 e-*r-, -d*o ,PL"4r2"-'(t zAa-" ) -4-l gh zhl4,2-
Representing:
etY
'$ol
StrN\ lu
1cF /
/ (REs)
I.A}ID DEVELOPXENT AGREEI{8NT
THIS AGREEME'IT entered lnto thls
-
day
llouatslo StateB Telephooe aod Telegraph
(herelaafter referred to as "The Coopaoy')
referred to aa 'The DeveloPer')i
Coopeoy, a Colorado
and llood Craft Eoues
19_' by The
C orporatloo
(herelnafter
IIITT{BSSEn|
RICITALS:
The Developer hag plaonetl to uodertake cooatructloo of a developneot kuown as
efiendafe 'SUD flk 6rl.t 4-6'Lt 16-28 whlch le'oore fully deecrlbed as belog
located io Sectroo 'i, Toiahlp 5 llortb, Raoge 68 llegt, Sl-xtb P-rlnclple
iuiiar.", Lovelaad Exchange, Larlner couoty, state of colorado' The
Conpaoy bas beeo r"q,t"st"d- by The leveloper to provlde telecoonuolcatlon
facllltles, Dore apecfffcaffy: burled dlstrlbutlon facllltlea (as ehoiD on
the attached Ethlblt A) atiached hereto aod locolPorated hereln by thls
reference shlch fac11ltles slll be adequate to Eerve {9 accese lloee 1o the
above neotlooed area, and on or befoie flve yeare fron, the date of thls
agreenent, there rlll be 49 acceas 1loee !-o gervlce 1o the developoeot.
The propoaed area ls guch that pursuaot. to the tarlffe of Tbe conpany on fl1e
wtth' the public Utllltles Connisaloo of Colorado (herelnafter referred to ae
;iir" C"Lf "sioa') , -The Coopany ls wll1log to undertake provlsloo of auch
facllltles ooly upon payoeDt of the faclllty charge herelnafter epectfled'
COVENA}TTS:
Io cooalderatloo of the nutual coveBaot6 aod condltloos here 8et fortht Lt 18
r'".uuyagreedbyandbet$eeoTheCoopanyandTheDeveJ'operasfollor'e:
1. ThlB Agreeoeor l8 eatered loto aubJect to the tarlffs of the conpaoy
pi"r"otiy 1o effect ao<l oo fl1e wlth The Connlssi.oo. Io the eveot that
ih""" tarlffs are changed, supereeded or auspeoded prlor to aDy
perfornaoce by The Coopaay-, itt"o ittt " agree.ent shall -becooe vold and the
partle. Bay enter toto su;h ,,ew agree'e'ts as wlll cooforn to euch tarlffa
," ,.y be iu effect after the afoiesald chaoge, auepeoelon or eupersedute.
2. The Developer ehall Pay to The CooPaoy a facl.ll-ty charge egual to the
earlnared cost ;i i.i tboueand tro- huodred forty-nlne dollara aod
el.gbtftflo ceots (310249.82). Salct total thall be pa1'd to The Coopany
as ahowo oo nttfUii B, attached hereto ancl locorporateil hereln by thls
reference.
3. Upoo payneot of the auns enunelated ln paragraph 2 aod Erhlblt B' The
conpaoy shall undertake 1o8ta11at1oo of the facllltlee 1o the developoeot
as atated 1n the RICITALS and as showtr oo Che attached Erhlblt A.
Cortrol Nunber 1251100450
Job Nuaber 6IF645
4. The Coupaoy :agaeeg that lglLtal' faclllttea rtll be avellable by 60 daye
after erecutloo of cortract. Aoy addltlooal facllltlee locl,uded hereloytll be avatlable prlor to cuatooer deoand therefore. Iu oo eveot shall
The Coopauyra fallure to cooplete the work by the above-apeclfled date be
coaaldered a breacb of thlg agreeueot by The Coupaoy, oor ahall lt relleve
The Developer of aoy of 1te obllgatlooe bereuader, lf eald delay la cauged
by acta of, God, labor dleputea, uoavallabtUtt of equlpnent or uaterlal,
delaye lu reeelvlng equlpoeot or naterlal, delaya LD obtalol.og eaaeoeota
or rtghta-of-ray, uouaual norklng coodltlooa, uousual terraiu, delay
ceused by the Developer or aoy other cLrcuoBtaocea beyood the reaaooable
cootrol of The Coopany. The partlea aha1l, laeofar as po8s1b1e,
coordloate thelr coBstructlo[ nork.
5, Aoy eaaeneoto, rlghta-of-rray or property regulred by The Conpany 1o the
above developneot ahall be furalahed by The Developer wlthout coat or
restrlctloo to The Conpany and ehal1 be cleared aod wlthlo glr lnches of
flual grade by the conatructioo Btar! work date. A11 aurvey propertygtakee 1111 be placed by The Developer as required to ldentlfy thephyelcal locatlou of aald eaBeneota .aod rlghta-of-way rllthlu the
developoent. The Developer ehall be requlred to relnburae The Coopaoy for
unugual private and governDeot rlght-of-nay co6tE pursuaDt to thlB
agreeoent, tbat are Dot covered by the faclllty charge. Io the eveot. of
replattlog, rezoniog, or ehaoge of uae durlng the tero of thle agreeDeot,
The Developer or the pernltted asslgoee ehall bear the full erpeoae of
relocatloo or replaceoeut of al1 affected telecoonuulcatloo facfitlee.
Thl,g anouot i8 not refundable.
6. I{lthlu Birty days after tbe aaoual aaulveraary date of the erecutlon of
thls agreeueot for each of the aert flve yeara, The Coopaay ehall refund
to Tbe Developer ae folloea:
a. The euD of tro buailred oloc dollere and elghtee! certr, (1209.18)
for each acceas ll.se ln aervlce ln the above developoeDt.
b. Sald refuod ehall not apply to thoae accees lloee for whlch a refund
hae beeo prevloualy glveo by The Coupany to The Developer, and a refund
shall oot be glveo unleag there la a total aet atrnual lncrease 1o
acce8o 1loea frou the precedhg Perlod l,u whlch 8 refutrd waa glven.
c. Ir oo case n111 tbe refund be greater tbaa the total f8clllty charge
aeeeseed by The Coopaoy (110249.82) or erceed the euo of (1209.f8)
per acceso l1ue ln 8ervlce, and lf after the ftfth anolversary there 1e
aoy reoalolng balance whlch has oot been refunded to The Developer
because of lack of accees llne developuent, that sun ehall be retaloed
by The Coopaoy aud oo furttrer refunila rlll be oade.
d. No lnterest shall be payable to The Developer uPor the anounta aubJect
to refuod uader thle agreenent.
e. the refuqds conteoplated hereln are based oo coopleted lostallatloo
costB per access llne for the teLecoonunicatlon facllltles cootracted
for herelo.
It le the Developerte reapooelblllty to lotlfy the Coopauy of oay
chaoge of addreae for purpoeee of refuoda bereuoder Ln eccordauce rlth
paragrapb 15, belor. fhe Conpaoy ahal1 have oo reepoaalblllty for
fallure to Dake refuoda tf the Developer baa ehaoged lts addreea aud
haa falled to DotlfY the CooPaoY.
0n the flftb eoil flaal aoolversary date, a refuud s111 be nade for all
acceaa llses that bave not ptevlouely beea tefuniled for lf they have
beea lo aervlce st eBy tlue durlog tbe ltfe oJ tbe egreeoeat.
7. It ls noilersqood atril agrced thst the conalderatloo pald by The Developer
la a charge for the cost of, provldlag teleconmunlcatloa fscllltles to thla
type of area aod 18 oot e ilepoalt for securltYr oor are auch payoeata
appllcabte to hatallatloa chargea or the regular Doathly charSes for such
eervl.ce as provtded lu the ftled tarlffe of The Coopaoy, aod the charge
doee oog vest owoershtp of the fectltttea 1o The Developer or eubsctlber
aor does the charge treaerve aoy central offlce equlpneot Dor lat feeder
fecllttlas.
8. fbe faclllty cbarge aod refugd Procedure'provided for purauaot to thls
agreeDeot does aot sstlsfy the tooe conoectloa aud coostructl.oo chargea
vhlch oay be payable by the lndlvldual custooele ae requlred by tarlff.
The Developer ahall not repreBeot that the payneut of, the faclllty charge
by The Developer allevletee the lodlvtdual custooerr e reepoostbtltty to
pay other approprlate chargea wheu tegulred by tarlff.
9. Aay type of coratructloo requesteil by lbe Developer other thao nornal
coBatructloo propoeed by The Coopaay ahall be aubJect to addltlonal
cbargea as grovlded la fhe Coopany'e tarlffa, aud auch cberges ehall aot
be aubJect to refuod.
10. In the evelt acceaa llte developoeot does Dot reeeh 49 acceaa llnee
rtthlo flve yeara frou the date of thls agreeoeot, The Coupaoy ehall heve
oo obllgatloo !o contlBue to provlde the fabtlttles lot in uee nhl.ch were
placetl or tegerveil purBuant to th18 agleeBeot. In the eveot of a lacL of
acceaa llae developneot, The Coopany Day renove or otherrl8e utlllze aoy
facllltlea rhlcb are ls erceea of the aoount ls aervl.ce oo the flfth
aontvereary date, aod The Conpany ehall have oo obllgatloa to serve
aubeequent cuatooera 10 the developoent other than pursuaot to appllcable
tarif,fs thea on flle aotl !a effectr rlth The Cooolee{oo.
11. Thle agreeDent 6ay oot be aaelgaed- by The Developer wtthout the Prlor
urltten coDaelt of lbe C ornPaaY.
12. Thta agreerent ahal1 lnure to the beueflt of and be blndlng uPoo the
guccesaora lD LDtere6t soal Per8ltted asalgaees of the Partles bereto.
13. The Conpaay reaervea the rlght to cotrstruct etce36 capaclty lnto the
facllltlea belag coaatructed pursuatrt to thls sgreeEent. The addltlonal
coats of the erce6B faclll.tles are rot locluded 1n the chargea set forth
above, aorl the Developer s111 not be llable for euch edilttlooal costs. Io
the eveat that addltlooal Per8oos apply for servlce aubeequeot to the
coBetructlog of faclutlee purauant hereto, Ihe Coopaoy thall charge to
euch aubsequeot appllcante, feee aod coostructloo cbargee a8 Eey be
appllcable under the tarlffe lhen oE flle and lo effect ltlth The
Comnleglor. The Developet shall oot be eotltled to aoy refund or
reductloo 1o charges by teason of the Provl8lod of auch servlce to such
sddltlooal appllcante.
f.
E.
!
FI
I
i
i14. Iu tbe eyeDt any legal actlou 1a requlredthl,8 agreeoert, tbe prevaillng party ahall
to enforce the provlalona ofbe entltled to recover sll
feea.
the feeder
coete of ault, lncludlng reaaooable attorueyre
15. Aay aotlce betweeo the partleo and peyoeot of faclllty charge aod refuod,pur8uaot to thl8 agreeDeut, ehal1 be glveo la trrltl.Dg, hand deuvered otualled by unlteal states nalll poEtate prepald, addreaaed, tf. to TheCoEpaBy to:
The Mouotala States felephone aod Telegraph CoopaoyMr. too Gtbaoa, Asoi8taot MaoagerP. 0. Bor 1976, 1005 17th Street
Deuver, Colorado 80202
aod lf to The Developer to:
Tood Creft EoocsAttar GarT Eerger
1588 9uaaer Ct.
Lovclaod, Colorado 80537
anil aball be effectlve wheo traod dellvered or poetoatked, whlchever leearller. changee by eltber party io the dealgnatione uuat cooply sltb theabove.
DBTUITIONSS
16. The follorlog defloltloos are appllcable to tbl.e agreeoent:
Acceag Llne. The teleconnuolcatlor clrcult that etteods froo thecuatoDerrB terDloatloo potDt to s ceotral offlcer
ceatral Office. A awltchlng unit lo a telephotre aysceo, provldlng aervtceto the geoeral publlc, havlug the neceaoary equlpneat and operatlng
arraogeoeste for ternloatlog and lotercoanectlog access 1ioee.
Dlstrlbutlon Facllltlee. A11 telephone plant betreenfacllltles aod the custooerrs terBloattoo polot.
Feeder Facllltles: The telephooe plant betreeo tbe ceDtral offlce aodd!.etrlbutloo f acllltlea.
Tarlff; A docuneot flled by The coopaay rlth the publtc uriutteBcoonlgeloo rtrlch ueta the coonuolcatloo aervLcee aod producte offered byThe conpaoy aud glvee a schedule of ratee for thoee eervlcee and producta.
Acceaa Llne lo servLce: A telecoonunlcatloo cl.rcult for whlch a cuatoue!la paylug the uoathly rate aB called for ln the tarlff.
IN llllt{8ss UAER8oF, tbe pertles hsvc erecutcd thlr rtrreDeot tbc doy eotl ycor
rggearlug os tbc fl.ret page of tbla rgreeaeot.
TIIE IIOI'ilTAIN STATES TEIXPBONB AIID
TELECEAPII collPA{Y,
a Colorailo Corporotlon
Tlrlc
d*
fltle
ArrBsT/rfITr{8ss
l
BNIEII E
s. tr--..--- -^, - '*-f$fifttffi'dugF.
l
a
Our agency has reviewed the
,Environmental Impact Report
Meadows Subdivision request.
EIJ( MEADOWS SUBDIVTSION
Elk Meadows
and has no
Subdivision
concerns with the Elk
Yes' our aqtency has the following concerns with the Elk MeadowsSubdivision request:
Representing:
X
tf
ELK MEADOWS SUBDIVISION
Our agency has revievled the EIk Meadows SubdivisionEnvironmental fnpact Report and has no concerns with the El_k
Meadows Subdivision reguest.
Yes, our agency has the following concerns with the E1k MeadowsSubdivision request:
Liru
Name
Representing: West Gas
Date: 5-29-8
r.* * * N E l.l O R A N D Uf.l * *.t.i
TOr KRIETIN PRITa
FRot'fr lllqE HcBEE/iy'
DATE| MAY zEr t4977REr ELK l,lEADOt{g
*********t'**
Having revi€r'frd thtr E. I.R. for Elk Meedowe r I hevo nrdr the
f ol I owi ng coJnmints!
1. UFC lO.zo7(d, requlrm an rl1 wcether driving gurfece
eccording to Town of Veil ltlunicipal Codr.
2. t.lert turnrround dspr not mcct uFC 1o.2o7(s) or (h,. T[Yr#.ttK
3. Fire hydrente do not meet UFc ro.3ol (c). t rtv"/,"&dtt1.t
4. l'lovr hydrrnte to withln gix feet o{ roedway.
/
a(!
R-;s:Al
I
LBN
,.f
gr
Sr
t
I
I
I
I
1\.ll IJt- - -'--1-- - --Ad
.+' ,l- tn/t S h
4to Rst( Srcp
----ao: ---+L
f - --r,o'-
lto kolft 6 o^F<
Ar'gle hn,AloB rs 65o
SfARr
Ausle lo"^ I lo D ts g8o
ffi
o
tt,.1*(,,r.
"$0$i''' i-e:"
ii
-, r\n"l. i._.
i !l
1. rgJ'r'" I
if,]i r: i- '
8ox No. 978
Avon, Colorado 81620
9495072 Oenver 893,1 531
IInter-ilIountain
lErulfneering:rra-
May 27, 1987
Michael J. Lauterbach
Lamar Capital Corp.
Box 3451
Vai l, C0 81658
Re: Phase 3, The Valley
Project No. V-7077G
GTA; cjn
Dear Mike:
, As requested, compaction testing was performed on gravelly cobblefill for a road at the above referenced site. The resuits of these testsare enclosed.
_The soils report you provided me did not have any informat.ionsupp'lying Proctor values. A standard proctor test (AST}4 D-699) was performed
and the results were as follows:
l,laximum dry density 135.0 pcf
0ptimum moisture content 7.5%
This Proctor will be referred to as Curve llo. 1.
If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to call.
'l120 Vanc€ Slreel
Lakewood. oolorado 8021 5
Phoner 232{158
Si ncerely
G."Thomas Allen, P.E.
Project Engineer
ctE-t
I{l 6q ->.1!O<.J'oo oozt.-' n Don{o!ooxor>I oroll "I .Joo o.rrr!roooo>oo
\-EO
DI
--- IFF
Eg
EE
3.Int
trE
r!
R
TIto^otoo'OO|.-Ol oDTDCoooHD. {I D <ttoo>FDZFUr.OOoDrtD
o
zo
(J! (Jl (tt ('l'\ \ -\ '\
o) (.lJ (, u)-\.\..\..\coco@co\ \\.1 !
U
B{rrl
l.r)
r|,
o
(tI-to
(D
ao
ooqq
(Dvl
tl
o)(t
It
:(tl
'ct 'o -E rc,!38!-:-rJ-tooooxxxx
u, at1 an u1ct cf ct a+oJl)r0ro,
Frr{oo++++OTOc'tJ>OO('r(-'l
-1 -55-:oooor|, q, 0, o,ao-oo_
(,)oool(D(D(Doi
ctc+cfc+l(D(D.D(I'l
T-r5-tl
I
I
==:J5l(D.D'D(Dl
5o
{6z
(Doo(Dxxxx
vt <n ln urc+ i+ ct cf
ut ln tA vt
T-t'J-t-t -rr -b -tl
@
E rtref,-f
trt {o6z
Ot (tl ! \r
(, u) Fr lJ
Ae
3o6
c-Jf,,m
-DT'T-oia tn;q-.ti
(^)
-{
rrt
rt-rn
ac33
'D-7ta<{o
-nvlllo70E=dBo
6z
Fr !J Fr t-rcd q, (, t\)ts+o)cD
OHOO
(o(oo\oN(OO+
o(r@
oFj{r)orrP
(n
-l
oo
_t't ^r5s
-l6z
(o r.o (o (o(.'t ('t (tr (tl
Bt
FE9i
gE ,-i (n g\-:
6
!
c,-{
<JrE
O=\.t :\c,
HHHFI
c)c
{fn
zI
iili
75 3oulh lronlage road
Yail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000 olflce ot communlty development
May 27, L987
Mr. Michael LauterbachP.O. Box 3451Vail, Colorado 81658
Re: Elk Meadows: Lionsridge Subdivision (The va1ley), FilingNo. 2, Phase III
Dear Mike:
After reviewing the proposal for urajor subdivision and specialdevelopment district reguirements, the folrowing infornation isneeded:
I. Maior Subdivision Information
A. A topographic survey that is certified by a Coloradoregistered land surveyor. Ttre survey should alsoindicate total acreage for the entire parcel , thesize of each building envelope, the width ofeasenents, and edge of pavement for Lionsridge Road.
B. Proposed streets should show approximate grades inpercentage and areas with cuts and fil1s exceedingsix feet.
C. Utilities are indicated on the p1an. However, thesize and invert elevations of sanitary sewers, storndrainage facilities and water mains must beindicated. The Fire Department has also reguestedthat rnain sizes for firl hydrants be provid6d.
D. Drainage conditions on and adjacent to the tractincluding location and extent of water courses,perpetual drainage easenents, and Location of naturalsprings and ground water should be indicated on the
site plan. Essentially, you need to develop a masterdrainage plan for the project. Bannerrs letter isdated September L8, L986. At that time, this plan
vras not even developed. My opinion i_s that you needto update the Banner information and provide arevj-sed master drainage plan for the project.
Pettygrove nakes sorne statements about drainage inhis letter dated February LgB7, however none of thisinforrnation is on the site plan.
Existing conditions on adjacent l-and need to beindicated. In most cases, open space exists aroundthe project. However, to the east The Va1tey
Condominiums should be shown on your site plan. Asstated in the Subdivision Regulations, the objectiveis to show how the prelininary plan interfaces withatl adjoining properties and uses. probably theeasiest way to show these relationships would be touse the original PUD nap showing The ValleyCondoniniuns to the east and the proposed phase tothe southwest of Phase III.
A11 areas of 40? sJ-ope or greater and rock falI areasshould be indicated on the site p1an. Even thoughthe zoning for the property is Residentiat Cluster,due to the fact that you are creating single familyand duplex structures, you are meeting the intent ofSection 18.59. O4O of the zoning code whj.ch allowsconstruction on 4Ot slopes only in primary/Secondary,
Duplex and Single Fanily zone districts. we haverevj.ewed this decision with Larry Eskr.rith and heagrees that i.t should be noted in the SpecialDeveloprnent District that you are rneeting the intentof this section of the code.
A1so, I would like to know how Nick Larnpirisr letterdltgd November 3., i.986 relates to your new site plan.Nick seemed very concerned about locating the unitsbelow Lionsridge Loop road. He states that a j-0 to12 foot structural protect.ion would be necessary.Don Pettygrove states in his letter that 6 feet ofverticaL wall is necessary. I would like to see anorth elevation showing the structures alongLionsridge Loop road.
Letters from all applicable utility agenciesverifying service should be subnitted. at the time vousubmit for final plat review.
A soils stability analysis rnust be subnitted. Onpage 1-0 of the Environmental Impact Report, you referto a Chen and Associates, Inc. study. -This -=tuAy
shouLd be subrnitted for our review.
r.
H.
The Town Engj.neer has reguested that you subrnitSchedule B of a title report for the property tocheck easements.
In the Declaration of Protective covenants for theElk Meadows Subdivision, you mention on page 2 thatthe Design cuidelines may be adopted. The staffwould prefer to change the wording in this section inthe fol-lowing way:
"Guidelines for the development of the buildingenvelopes and tracts sha11 be adopted by thecommittee, which shal1, among other things,interpret and/or implenent the provision! ofthese protective covenants. Guidelines may be
amended from time to tirne with the najority voteof approva] fron the cornrnittee and approval ofthe Town of VaiI Design Review Board. Theguidelines wiII be available fron the Chair ofthe Design Comnittee and Town of Vail Conmunity
Developrnent Departnent. 1l
I also suggest that you subrnit the inforrnation thatwas provided for the road perrnit fron Eagle County.Bill- Andrews will want to review this perrnit. Iwould also call hin to find out if thele is anyadditional inforrnation concerning the roads that heneeds at this tirne. ft is my understanding that theEagle County road perrnit only covers a portion of theroad.
II. Special Development District fnformation:
A. An open space and recreational plan must besubnitted. you nay choose to slate that the site isnot conducive to adding recreational amenitles andthat the scale of the project does not lrarrant arecreation p1an. Open space is naintained bypreserving the meadow and hillside areas. you mayalso want to mention the recreationar arnenities tiratare in the other phases of The Va11ey project and howthey will relate to your developnent. -
B. Existing and proposed contours should be indicated onthe site plan afte=-rading and site developmentwork for the road. I understand that it wiit Ueinpossible to show proposed contours in the buiLdincrenvelopes, as you are not able to determine exactlyhow each owner will develop.
I.
J.
K.
c.A preliminary landscape plan should be submitted that
shows existing landscape features to be retained or
removed and proposed landscaping for the overallsite. I strongly recomnend that you use landscapingto buffer your project, from The Val1ey Condoniniurnsto the east and tbe proposed Phase VI to thesouthwest. f would also ernphasize in particular theentry for the project, parking areas, and screeningof the development along Lionsridge Loop. If at allpossible, I would suggest that you try to pull backthe guest parking out of the meadow area. perhaps
you could provide parallel parking and also decrease
some of the guest parking. As the parking isdesigned right now, it does inpact the rneadow area toa great degree.
A preliminary special developrnent district narrativeshould be provided which would list:
1. The purpose of the special developrnent district
2. A section that addresses the total acreage ofthe site and the fact that a special developmentdistrict is being created to handle developrnenton the parcel of Land.
3. Permitted uses
4. Conditional uses
5. Accessory uses
6. Developrnent standards that will include lotarea, setbacks, height, density control, sitecoverag:e, landscaping, and parking.
7. Design standards which would incorporate theDesign Guidelines that you are rec-ornrnending inthe Environnental Inpact Report on page l_G thatrelate to the design of the buitding and perhapslandscaping if you choose.
You- should provide a written statement respondj-ng toeach of the points outlined in Section t8.aO.OeO-Design.Standards for the development plan.8ssentially, these address a buifer z-one, circulationsystern, functional open space, variety in terms ofdevelopnelt, privagyr pedestrian trafiic, buildingtype, building design, and landscaping.
D.
a
F. The Special Developnent District zoning also statesthat the recreation anenties tax should be stipulatedin the $pecial DeveJ.oprnent District ordinance. Iwill recornrnend that we use the Residentia] Clusterrecreation fee per square foot of 9.3o.
In general-, the staff feeLs that this proposaL is an improve-nent in respect to what was originaLly proposed several roonthsago,. We also appreciate the fact that you are decreasing thenurnber of units fron the allowable by one unit.
BeLow is a Echedule for the review of this project assumingthat you get approvals at each review:
June 8
June 1"5
June L6
JuLy 7
JuIy l-3
KP:br
cci Peter Jamar
Planning and Envl-ronrnentaL Cornrnission: Review ofthe Specia] Development District and MajorSubdivision reguests.
Submit for final- plat contingent upon approvalof the SDD ordinance at Town Council secondreading.
Town Council neeting: First reading of the SDDordinance and approval of the Major-subdivisionPreliminary Plan
Town Council neeting: Second reading of, the SDDordinance
Planning Comnission final. plat review
_r_ would appreciate it if you would subnit this inforrnation bywednesday, June 3, l9B7 at 9!oo A.M. rf you have any furthlrguestions, please feel free to call me.
SincereLy,
il I 0l
Xnrfnn YdLKristan Prftz
Town Planner
EI,K MEADOWS SUBDIVISTON
Our agency has reviewed the E1k Meadows Subdivision
Envj.ronrnental Irnpact Report and has no concerns with the Elk
Meadovrs Subdivision request.
Yes, our agfency has the following concerns with the Elk MeadowsSubdivision request:
Representing:
Date:
75 soulh fronlage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) {76-7000 ottlce ot communlty developmenl
DATE:
?o:
ATTENTION:
FROM:
SU&fECT:
May 26, L987
Holy Cross Electric
Mr. Howard Scarboro
Conrnunity Development Department/Kristan pritz
Review of Elk Meadows Subdivision: phase Iff ofthe Valley, a portion of parcet A, LionsridgeSubdivision, Filing No. z
.A,ttaehed is a.copy of the Elk ltteadows Subd.ivision proposal .The.request will be reviewed by the Town of vail nlanning and,En*vironmental Comrnission on June 8, 1997. The Town stafi isinterested in any eohments you may have on the proposaL. Weare_asking that you submit your conments no later than June 3,1987 at 5:00 PM.
Ehclosed is a Comment sheet and self-addressed, starnpedenvelope. You may indicate that you have no comments oreoncerns on the projeCt by merely checking the rrno furthereommentrr box. If you have eoneerns wj_th the proposal , pleasea:Ireck the commeht box and list your concerns in the spaceprovided.
_Thank you.for y6Ur Cooperation 6n thj-s project. If you have
31V Oiestj-Ohs, please fee.l free to eall Kristan prit;, TownPlanner, at 476-7000, ext l_II.
\
75 soulh fronlage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
DATE:
TO:
ATTENTTON:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
olflce of communlty development
Ylay 26, 7987
Public Service Conpany
Mr. Gary Ha11
Cornmunity Development Department/Kristan Pritz
Review of Elk Meadows Subdivision: Phase III ofthe Valley, a portion of Parcel A, LionsridgeSubdivision, Filing No. 2
Attached is a copy of the Elk Meadows Subdivision proposal .
The reguest will be reviewed by the Town of Vail pJ-anning and.Environmental Comrnission on June 8, L987 . The Town staff isinterested in any cornments you may have on the proposal . Weare asking that you submit your comments no later than June 3,
1987 at 5:00 PM.
Enclosed is a comment sheet and self-addressed, starnpedenvelope. You may indicate that you have no comments orconcerns on the project by rnerely checking the rrno further
commentrr box. If you have concerns with the proposal , pJ_ease
check the conrnent box and list your concerns in the spaceprovided.
Thank you for your cooperation on this project. ff you haveany questions, please feel free to caII Kristan pritZ, TownPlanner, at 476-'7000, ext 111 .
\
75 soulh trontage road
vail, colorado 81557
(303) 476-7000
DATEs
TO:
ATTENTION:
FROM!
SUBJECT:
olllce ol communlty developmenl
Nlay 26, L987
National Forest Service
Mr. Bob Poole
Conmunity Development Department/Kristan pritz
Review of Elk Meadows Subdivision: phase flf ofthe Valley, a portion of Parcel A, Lionsridgresubdivisionr Filinq No. 2
Attached is a copy of the Elk Meadows Subdivision proposal .The.request wil1.be reviewed by the Town of Vait pLanning andEnvironmental Commission on June 8, L7AT . The To\^rn staf i isinterested in any conments you may have on the proposal. Weare, asking that you submit. your conments no later than June 3,1987 at 5:00 PM.
Enclosed is a comrnent sheet and self-addressedr'stampedenvel-ope, You may indicate that you have no comments orconcerns on the project by merely checking the ilno further
commentrt box. ff you have concerns with the proposal , pleasebheck the, cornment box and list your concerns in the space
Provided.
fhahk..you for your cooperation
any. questions, please feel- freePlanner, at 476-7000, ext l1I.
on this project.-to caL1 Kristan If you havePri|-z, Town
75 soulh trontage road
vell, colorado 81657
(3o3r 476-7000
May 26, ]-98'I
TO:
ATTENTION:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Thank you for your cooperation
any questions, please fee] freePlanner, aE 476-7000, ext I11.
ottfce of communlty development
Upper Eagle VaIIey Consolidated Water District
Fred Haslee
Conmunity Developnent Department/Kristan pritz
Review of Elk Meadows Subdivision: phase III ofthe Valley, a porlion of. Parcel A, Lionsridge
_ _ Subdivisionr. Filing. No. 2
Attiched is-a copy'of ttre Elk Meadows Subdivision proposal .The.reguest will be reviewed by the Town of Vail planning andEnvironmental Commission on June I, 1987. The Town stafi isinterested in any cornments you may have on the proposal . Iveare asking that you submit your comments no later Lhan June 3,1987 at 5:00 PM. -
is a comment sheet and setf-addressed, stamped
You may indicate that you have no comments oron the project by merely checking the ilno furtherboI. If ypU have.concerns with the proposaL, please
go4mept pox 4n{ list your concerns in the space
on this project. If you haveto call Kristan Pritz, Town
x
75 south tronlage road
Yaal. coloredo 81657
(303) 476-7000
DATE:
TO:
AfTENTTON:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
oftlce of communlly developm€nl
Vlay 26, L9A7
Mountain BeII
lfr. cale Loesch
Cornrnunity Development Department/Kristan Pritz
Review of Elk lleadoh/s Subdivision: Phase III ofthe Valley, a portion of Parcel A, LionsridgeSubdivision, Filing No. 2
Attaehed is a eopy of the Etrk Meadows Subdivision proposal-.
The requeSt uill be f6Viewed by the Town of Vail planning and
Ehvirbnrnent,aL eotnmiSsj-on on June 8, 1987. The Town stafi is:lnterested in any comments you may have on the proposal . Weare asking that you gubrnit your conments no later than June 3,L987 at 5:00 PM.
Enclosed is a comment sheet and self-addressed, stampedenveLope. You may indicate that you have no comments oreoncerns On the project by urerely ehecking the rrno further
eommentrt bax. If you have eoheerns with the proposal, please
6heek the doffineht box and list y6ur Concerns 1n the spaceprovided.
Thank you for your cooperation on this project. If you haveany questions, please feel free to call Kristan Pritzf TownPlanner, aE 476-70OO, ext IlJ..
X
75 soulh fronlage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
DATE:
TO:
ATTENTION:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ottlco of communlty development
May 26, 1987
Heritage Cablevision
Mr, Gene Larson
Comrnunity Developnent Departnent/Kristan pritz
Review of E1k Meado!,rs Subdivision: phase III ofthe Valley, a portion of Parcel A, LionsridgeSubdivision, Filing No. 2
Attached is a.copy of the Elk Meadows Subdivision proposal.The.request will be reviewed by the Town of Vail planning andEnvironmental Commission on June g, I9g'7. The Town stafi isinterested in any comments you may have on the proposal . Weare asking that you subrnit your comments no latEr Lhan June 3,1987 at 5:oO Pll.
Enclosed is a comment sheet and self-addressed, stanpedenvelope. You may indicate that you have no comments orconcerns on the project by nerely checking the rrno furthercommentr box. If you have concerns with the proposal , pleasecheclt the comrnent box and list your concerns in Lhe spaceprovided.
Thank you.for your cooperation on this project. If you have
llY guestions, please feel free to call Kristan pritl , TownPlanner, at 476-7000, ext 111.
75 south tronlage road
Yail, colorado 8'1657
(303) 475-7000
DATE:
TO:
ATTENTION:
FROM:
SUB.]ECT:
oftlce ol oommunlty developmenl
May 26, L987
Pub1ic Works Department
Mr. Stan Berrynan, Mr. BilI Andrews
Cornrnunity Development Departnent/Kristan pritz
Review of EIk Meadows Subdivision: phase ffl ofthe Va1ley, a portion of Parcel A, LionsridgeSubdivision, Filing No. 2
Attached is a.copy of the Elk Meadows Subdivision proposal.The.request will be reviewed by the Town of Vail planning andEnvironmental Commission on June B, 1987. The ?own stafi isi-nterested in any cornments you may have on the proposal. Weire asking that you submit your comments no later than June 3,1987 at 5:OO Pl,I.
Enclosed is a cominent sheet and self-addressed, stanpedenvelope. You may indicate that you have no commenti orconcerns on the project by merely checking the rno furthereomnentrr box. If you have concerns with the proposal, pleasecheck the courment box and list your concerns in Lhe spaceprovided.
Thank you.for your cooperation on this project. ff you have
3lY guestions, please feel free to call Kristan priti, TownPlanner, at 476-7000, ext 111.
75 south lroniage road
yall, colorado 81657
(303) 475-7000
DATE:
TO:
ATTENTTON:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
olflco of communlty deyelopment
Ylay 26, L987
Vail Fire Department
llr. Dick Duran, Mr. Mike McGee
Corununity Developrnent Departrnent/Kristan pritz
Review of Elk Meadows Subdivision: phase III ofthe V:lley, a portion of parcel A, LionsridgeSubdivision, Filing No. 2
Attached is a.copy of the Elk Meadows Subdivision proposal .The.request wilr be reviewed by the Town of vail nlanning andEnvironmental Cornmission on June g, IgA7. The Town stafi isinterested in any corqments you may have on the proposal . Weare asking that you subrnit your conments no later Lhan June 3,1987 at 5:00 PM.
Enclosed is a comrnent sheet and self-addressed, stampedenvelope. You nay indicate that you have no comments orconcerns on the project by merely checking the nno furthercommentrr box. ff you have concerns with the proposal , pleasecheck the cornment box and list your concerns in the spaceprovided.
Thank you.for your cooperation on this project. ff you have
3lY guestions, please feel free to call Kristan prit;, TownPlanher, at 476-7O0O, ext 111.
75 soulh troniage road
vall, colorado 81657
(303) 476-70C0
DATE 3
TO:
ATTENTION:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
offlce of communltt developmenl
May 26, L9a7
Vail Police Department
Mr. Ken Hughey
Cornnunity Development Departrnent/Kristan pritz
Review of Elk Meadows Subdivision: phase III ofthe Valley, a portion of parcel A, LionsridgeSubdivision, Filingr No. 2
Attached is a-copy of the Elk Meadows Subdivision proposal.The.request will be reviewed by the Town of Vair elanning andEnvironrnentar commission on June g, 1997. The Town stafi isinterested in any eornrnents you may have on the proposal. We
?l?_"sl(ilg that you submit your comments no later Lhan June 3,1987 at 5:0O PM.
Enclosed is a conment sheet and self-addressed, stamped.envelope. You may indicate that you have no comments orconcerns on the project by merely checking the nno furthercommentrr box. If you have concerns with the proposal , pleasecheck the compent box and list your _cgncerns in Lhe spaceprovi{ed.
Thank you.for your cooperation on this project. If you haveany qqestions, plegse feel free to call Krlstan prit2, TownPl-anner, at 476-7O0Q, eXt 11I.
?., .,/
EIJK MEADOVIS SUBDIVISION
our agency has revieued the Elk Meadows Subdivision
Environrnental Impact Report and has no concerns with the EIk
tleador'rs Subdivision request.
Yes, our agency has the following concerns with the Elk Meadows
Subdivision request:
Nane
Representing:
Date:
fdc illL.| , {zur't4 o
PROJECT:
DATE SUBI'IITTED:
COI",I4ENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
INTEP.-OEPARTMENTAL REVI Etll
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Revieried by:
Coninenis:
Date
FI RE DEPARTI,IENT
Reviewed by:
Conments:
Date
||lradA^,1 {'\00
POLICE DEPARTI4ENT
Reviewed by:
Conments:
Date
REC IEATi ON DEPARTI,IINT
Reviewed by:
Co;;ents:
tE,-
Date
l I
I I'ITER- DE PARTI-4ENTAL REV I Elt|
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
o
//z({ Zercil
PROJECT:
DATE SUBI'IITTED:
COI".I4INTS NEEDED B
BRI EF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
Date
,No S.tler=u.e- B auTt
f Aa- ,1e17/zr c 7za'.J
/r-e,"s /l* fi*.+- tftfr.rt*-
oate Fzz-a2
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by: .zVt6tos
Conments: .
1^zZc-4.-24
POLICE DEPARTI4ENT
.{2.€45<>2('--/t
(b /h,a 7,4e-
22*,.a€I()'tt-l t v
{\.1
Reviewed by:
Cornments:
Date
Reviewed by:
Com:nts:
PUELIC I{OR
P,eviewed by:
Ccn:i,ents:
Date
o
o
dJ.
f,p 5m,tY i1'^'*{ ''*:c M'
6;,ilh 1, ,..pr^t '*tull'''e i i lir't@\ 6'
rll gf'^ \\i*+t
i,r.1 .Inur{'fbu o{. 9A !'r'tr
lV^,$t""t# fnoA'lw {tufu*Jor*'
$,;r^.f *od^t t 4' $k l@'
rflj!
ilTr't*p$ w,:#ffi,#,
u7.
,u'tl'.,lf'
:fl [.
1\. ].
,t ('
,r1.
lo
ll,
{0}o t\,+e.
l*;T,,',r "nt "f*"wtfrffiffil.l
W|XW -'1't cnwld ffi\,i;^
,n ,*rlrrr^r rqvi€^ t t n'Jffi{A?M:
'ifu*?
$.
it an^btr"-'T't
:Pry1 $\*r +D r tr*
ilhI {ilrB cf f+tc*gr+'
','4fu*'
/l-')l\,/
/t)lv
A}\_/
5s'
6rd&fu 4'S rul ttdorrr*^tff&h*ffi\,urs"\^r {\u,' aflSupQ !4. l\q.r n&
\q\l.i ,d{&*"fvo,XffiU
,i ^A ft' \ n' dffi,o \ n^U;\0 {rc'&)
rAGLE G@UNTY
NfiTM] @RANDUNN
T0: Susan Vauqhn
FR0M: Aercy Assl€&-
RE: update on Lions Ridge Drive (Lamar capitar corp., Mike Lauterbach) Bp#30r5
DATE: May 11 , L987
After investiqation requests from the Town.of vair and people from The valIey,it was reveal6d that-work "ir t"ing"ione without proper testing and an
fil}tff.i$$rreport. A stop work orier was priceo ;r-;;; proi..i on-weJnesoay,
I talked to Mr. Lauterbach on Thursday, May 7, 19g7, about the stop work order.He told me that he wou'rd have John lruiiorn surveying and iesting at the projectsite on Friday, May g, 19g7.
lJ'ith this promise, the Building Department removed the stop work order. JohnMacKown called me on Friday, niy-aih, -ina
asteo ir rre-couii wait unt.i .l Monday,due to the tim'ing for him ina nis cr6w. I tord trim it-wii-oray.
llol9uyl May 11' 1.987, a^meeting was held with a representative from the Town ofVa'it, county ptanneri, county Ergi;e;;;; p"opt" fr;m-ih;-v;itey ano mysetf. Itwas discovered that the work-and"the
"n6iheeiins i"ing ion" did not per:tain toan approved set of ptans from either th6 rown oi viii'or-Eisre-counti: -' '--
Consequently, a stop work order was again placed on the project.
cc: Susanna Struble
Jim Fritze
Files
rt
\o'May 11 , 1987
'\
A.APPL ICANT
APPLICATION FOR
MJOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW
(more than 4 lots)
Lamar Capital Corp.
ADDRESS P.O. Box 3451 Vai1. Colo
PHONE 476-6944
81658
a
c.
NAME OF
MA IL ING
NAME OF
MAILING
NME OF
OWNER'S
MAILING
APPL ICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE Michael Lauterbach
ADDRESS P.o. Box 3451 Vai1, Colo 81658
PROPERTY OI,INER int or tvnp'l Lamar CapiEal Corp.VJ Y9 I
S IGNATURE Vice-President
PH0NE 476-6e44
PHONE 476-6e44
ADDRESS P.o. Box 3451 Va1l. Colo 81658
D.LOCATION OF
LOTS BLOC KS
BLOCKS
SUBDIVISION
LOTS SUBDIVISION
INCLUDE a ljst of all adjacent property owners and their mailing addresses.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, APPROVAL PROCESS, REVIEW CRITERIA
Submittal requirements, review criteria and the approva'l process for maior
subdjvisions can be found in Chapter 17.'l 6 of the Subdivision Regulations.
PROPOSAL tio"'" niag" S"tal r
E. FEE $t oo.oo PArD t/,, /f ,----T----7--6*f,-lt^-( # ial/
F. CONSULTATION REQUIRED
The first step is to request a meeting with the zoning administrator to assistin meeting submjtta'l requirements and give the proposal a preliminary review.
G.
H.
1,
! t.Application folrpecial Developrnent pistrl Development PLan
D.Existing contours having contourfeet if the average slope of theor with contour intervals of notslope of the site is greater than
intervals of not more thansite is twenty percent or
more than ten feet if thetwenty percent.
five
1ess,
average
III. Time Requi_rements
The Planning and Environmental Coruo.rission meets
Mondays of each month. An application with thematerial must be su,bmitted four weeks prior to
\J.
A.proposed site p1an, at a scale not smaller than one inch egualsfifty feet, showing the approxi-mate locations and dimensions ofarl buildings and. structures, uses therein, and all principar sitedeveropment features, such as landscaped areas, recreationar faciri-ti.es, pedestrian plazas and walkways, service entries, driveways,and off-street parking and loading: areas with proposed contouriafter grading and site development;
A preriminary land.scape plan, at a scale nol srnaller than one i.nchequals fifty feet, showing existing landscape features to be retainedor removed, and showing proposed randscaping and landscaped sitedevelopment features, such as outd.oor recreitional facilities,bicycle paths, trails, pedestrian plazas and warkways, water ieatures,and other eJ-ements;
Preliminary building elevations, sections, and floor p1ans, ata scale not smaller than one-eighth equals one foot, -in suificientdetail to determine floor area, gross residential floor area, interiorcirculation, locations of uses within buildings, and the generalscale and appearance of the proposed development.
on the 2nd, and 4th
necessary accompanyingthe date of the meeting.
NOTE: It is reconmended that before a special developnentis subnitted, a review and conrnent meeting shoutd be
Departmen t of Conmunity Developnent.
district application
set up with the
'lv
/.-: l- i
t,r
on May 1l, 1987Date of Appli
APPLICATION FORM FOR SPECIAT, DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
r. This procedure is required for any project that would 90 throughthe Special Development District procedure.
The applicatj-on will not be accepted until all information is submitted,.
A. NAI{E OF APPLICANT Lamar Capital Coro.
ADDmSS p-o- 8." 34 81658 pHoNE 476_6944
NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE
ADDRESS P.O. Box 3451 Vai1. Co
Michael Lauterbach
8r 658 pHONE 476-6944
C. AUTHORIZATION
SIGNATURE
ADDRESS P.O. Box 3451
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAI
Lamar Ca ital Corp. Vice-President
pHONE 476-6944
ADDRESS Lion's Ridge Subdivision The Val1e
LEGAI DESCRfPTIOS See Above
), Filing //2, phase III
E. FEE $1oo.oo PArD </,,/tr1 tat./,n"----7---r pret/t)6 4.1
A List of the name of owners ofSubject property and their naili.ne
II. Four (4) copies of the following information:. A, Detailed writ t en/graptr ic description of proposal.B- An environmenraf impacr re'pbil ;hJir'!;'iubmitted toadministrator in accordance with Chapter 18.56 hereofby Section 18.56.030, exempt projecti;
c. An open space and recreational plan sufficient to meet the demandsgenerated lv tl9 deveropment without undue boia"n on avairabreor proposed public facilities;
all property adjacent to the
addres s es .
the zoningunless waived
( 0vER )
A
SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERACE, THE EXCEPTIONS CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE E AND
THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONDITIONS AND STIPUI..ATTON$ HEREOF,
TITLE INSURATICE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA,hercin cdlcd the Comprny, insurer, es of Drte of Pdicy rhown ia
Schedule A, against loss or drmagF, not excceding thc rmount of innrrance stated in Schedule A, rnd c$tr, rttorncyr' fecs
and expenses which the Company rnay bccome obligrted to pey hereunder, sustained or incuned by the innrred by rcason of:
l. Title to the estate or interest describcd in Schcdtile A being rarted otherwiro thm er rtatcd therein;
2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on such titlel
3. lack of a right of accecs to and from thc lmd; or
4. Unmarketabilily of such title.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Title Insurrncc Cornpuy of Minncrotr hrr caused its ctrporrtc mtm nl6$d to
be hereunto affixed by its duly ruthorizcd officerr rr of the drte Crown in Sclrcdule A, the policy to bc vdid T'fi€n
couniersigred by an authorizcd officcr or sgent of tho Comprny.
FORiI B - 197O {Arnrnd.d t0-U-70}
Jrrr.r lHsunaxce flomenruv or [[frrvucsorA
e Stock Comprny of Minncrpolit Minnapta
Jrr-r lxsunexce floryrraxv or [ffrnr*EsorA
-El."Y*:R-=*
Officer or Agent Secretary
EXCLTXITOI{S FROi{ COYERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from tlrc cowrrge of thii policy:
l. Any law, ordinance or Bovernnrentel rcgulation (including but not limit€d to building and zoning ordinanccl)
restricting or regulating or prohibiting tlrc occuplncy, urc or enjoyment of the tand, or regulating thc chanctcr'
dimensions or location of any improrrment now or hererfter erected on the land, or prohibiting a sParation in. ownership or a reduction in the dinrnrion$ or erea of the land, or the effect of aoy violation of rny ruch law,
ordinance or governmental regulation.
2. Rights of eminent domain or governnentrl righh of policc power unless notice of the cxcrci* ol srrch rightr
appears in the public records al Drte of Policy.
PoLrcYNo. AZ 382958
ATERICAI{ LA}IO TITLE ASSOCIATION OITI{ER'S POLICY
3. Defecls, Iiens, encumbranceg, adwrse claimr, or other mNtters (a) created, suffercd, essurncd or tgrecd to by the
insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company and not shovn by thc public recordr but lnown to the inrured
claimant either at Date of Policy or at the date such cl.imrnt ecquired.rn estrte or inter$t intured by thic pdicy
and not djsclosed in writing by the inrucd clrimrnt to the Company prior to the date such insured cl.itnml
became an insured hereunder; (c) resulting in no lors or damage to the inrured claimrnt; (d) attrching or crertcd
subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resultin! in los or damage which would not hrve becn ructrined if the insurcd
clainunt had paid value for thc estrtc or interest inared by this policy.
...? Form 130 2,/73 3OM
l"-it Copvright 1969 Amcrlcrn Land Titt. Atroci!rion
as msureor an
damagvf or which the Company
or (iii) if title to
.l
TII'1 truner's Form 2312
use loss of
by virtue of
File No, VOS$I6
GCHEDULE A
(i) the actual loss of the insured claitnant; or
stated in Schedule A;or
Pol icv Na. AZSB:P. A
Anount !t3?O, C)oC,. DC)
A'Jdr.ess
the
1.
?.
Policv Date.' April Ol' l?€6 at glOO A.H.
Nane of I nsr.rred:
T-AT.IAR CAPTTAL CNRP$RATION, A NET.I JE.RSEY LORPC'RATIt]N
The estate or interest in the lan"l degcribed irr this $chedule
and uhich is covered bv this ',olLcy is!
A Fee
4. 'iitle to the estate or inter.est covered b.r this pc, I icr, at
3.
datc her.eof is v€Fted int
.LAHAR CAPITAL I]TIRPTIRATION, A NEh, .IERSEV L1ORPOFATIflN
5. The I arrd referred to in this pal icy is gituated in EALII-E t]-ount'y,
.Cc, l or.adr-,, and is described as fol I <ru,s:
PARCEL I!
A PfiRTION OF PARCEL A, I. ION."g RIEISE SUBNIVISION, FILING NO. 3
ACCORDING TO THE RECCIREIEII PLAT THERECIF, I:TILIN'IY fIF EAI{LE, STATE
OF COLORAIIO, I.IORE PARTICULARLY BESI:RIBEE A:3 FIfLLI]I.'S:
EEGINi\ING AT A P'JTNT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT_CIF-WAY LINE OF.I..ION'S RITIGE LAAP, WHENCE TI'IF NORTH I1UARTER CSRNER LIF $HI::TII:IN
'2,
TOT,'NSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 81 T.IEST CtF THE SIXTH FRINCIFAL.I.IFRIDIAN EEARS N$RTH 6C' TIEGREES 5:. HIhILITE.S 31? sE|]FNNs EAST
1259.53 FEET, THENCE THE FOLLCII",ING THREE COURSES ALCTNG SAIII
SOUTHERLY RI6HT-OF-WAY LINE!(l) S 49 nEGREE$ 45 I,|INUTES 56 SECONITS 1.,50.77 FEETi (3) :40.ij1
FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE ICI THE RIGHT HAVINIi A RAII]LIS I]F
112:3.71 FEET, AN INTERIOR ANGLE OF 1? ['E6REF'5 1T f,IJ,NUIE$ ::::
SECCINIIS, AND A trHORD WHICH BEARS S 55 NEGREES 5? I"IINUIEII I:
SECONnS H ?4O.{tA FEET' (3) S 61 BEGREE$ $r3 ]'IINUTE:3 lil iqFr:fiNn$ LJ
456.74 FEET' THENflE NEFARTINCi SAID RICHT*CIF_I"JAV LINE SOLJ.TI I 11.
DEGREE-:i 5? I4INUTES 06 SECilNnS F 63.01 FEET" THENCE N 7? OFI:RFEF?6 I.IINUTES 4? SECONNS E 35.OO FEET, THENC:E N 76 TIETiREES 47
I'IINUTES S? SECCINn.5 E j.j?.54 FEET' THENCE S 44 LTEfiRFF':i 3'?
I.IINUTES T€ $ETONES E *(t.(ICt FEET TCI A POINT ON THE SOI.ITIJET(L.Y
BOUNDARY AF SAIN PARCFL A" IHENI:E 'IHF FtrIt-I:lHINT-i TWI] TIfLIR"1F6
ALON6 SAITI SOUTHFRLY BOUNIIARY! ( 1) N 68 NEGRF,ES 15 I'IINUTFq; OI)
SEf,nNnE E 3?O.OO r:EET; (?) N 5Ct nEGRFES Cr5 MINI"ITFS (10 f,f:f:nNn$ F
'(,O.O{,
FEE.I.' THENT-:E NEPARTIN6 SAITI S|ILIIHERI.Y FTJIINNAEV N 37'nFGREFS ? f4INt.lTF:5 5? SEf,fiNES tl tCrB.3{., FEEI , lllFN|:E fi 6? nEr:jRFF$-
,57 f'1INUIES r-,1 $ECCTNITS W t?l,scr FEEr, TIIENCE N 3 fiEr:iRl.:Es 5;
Pase I This Pol icy val id only if Schedrrle F is attarhed,
TII'| Olrlners Forn 2312
File No. VO8516
$CHEDULE A
Policv No, AZSA?9Sri
Amo u rr t tf ?2O ' O(]Ct. o0
. Address
.lI
T.IINUTES 59 SECONDS }I 9I.61 FEET TO THE POINT GF BEGINNING.
PARCEL ?:
CONDOT.'INIUI,I UNITS I-A AI{B 4-A SROJSE GI-EN AT VAIL CSNNNHINIUHS,
ACCORDING TG TI€ RECORE€B }.TAP TIIERECIF AND AS DEFINED IN THE
COT.IDOI4INIUI.I DECLARATIOIiI TI{ERETO RECOFDET.I JULY T4, IPSI IN B|]CJF|
325 AT PAGE 925, COIJNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORANC'.
Pase This Pol icv val id onlv if Schedu le B is attached.
a
ELK II{EADOWS
SPECIAL DEVELOPI4ENT DISTRICT
9URPOS.E: :=--
The purpose of the establishment of the EIk Meadows Speeial
Developnent District is to al1ow greater fLexibility in the
development of the land than would be possible under the current
zoning of the property. fn order to help preserve the natural
and scenic features of the siter building envelopes will be
established which designate the areas upon t.he site in which
developnent will occur. Ehe establishrnent of these building
envelopes will also perrnit the phasing of the developnent to
proceed according to each individual ownerrs ability to construct
a residence.
ACREAGE:
The total acreage of the site is 3.6 acres.
PERilITTED USES!
The pernitted uses for the site are proposed to be:
t. Single FaniJ-y Residential Dwellings.
2. Two-Fanily ResiclentiaL Dwellings.
3. Open Space.
4. Public and Private Roads.
COMITTONAL USES:
Conditional uses upon the site are proposed to be in accordance
with Section 18.14.030 of the Vail Municipal Code, Conditional
Uses, ResiclentiaL Cluster Zone District.
ACCESSORY USES:
Accessory uses shal1 be
Cluster Zone District.
4."
those permitted the Resiclential1n
DEVETOPMENT STANDARDS i
Proposed Development Standards are as follows:
1. Lot Area - Not applicable; Building Envelopes govern.
2. Setbacks - llinimun setbacks for the location of
structures with relations to Building Envelope
perineter lines shall be as follows:
a.No structure shal1 be located on the Utility
Easenent as so designated on the final plat of the
Subdivision.
No structure shall be located less than two feet
fron either the east or the west perimeter line.
No structure shall be located less than three feel
from the north perirneter line.
Notwithstanding anything contained hereinabove to
the contrary, roof overhangs and decks may
encroach into the setback areas described in b and
c so l-ong as such roof overhangs and decks are
totally within the perineter lines of the Building
Envelope.
G_ross Residential FLoor Area (GRFA)a building
Building
1".
c.
d.
3.
situated on a Sinqle Unit Residential
Envelope shall. not contain more than 11777 square feet
of GRFA; a building situated on a Two Unit Residential
Building Envelope shall not contain *or",, than _ 3,r554
square feet of GRFA.
Buildinq Feiqht - Building height shall be as governed
by the ResidentiaL Cluster Zone District.
Parkinq - Parking shall be provided in accordance with
the standards of the Vail Municipal Code.
Landscapinq - The entire portion of the Building
Envelope not covered by pavenent or buildings shal1 be
landscaped as well as any areas outside the Building
Envelope disturbed during construction.
Desiqn Guidelines - Design Guidelines to be adopted for
the site are as follows:
4.
5.
6.
a-
b.
Roof pitch shall be 4 feet in 12 feet.
Roof naterial shal1 be netal and be
charcoal grey or marina blue in color.
either
Siding material shal1 be either cedar or redwood
and shaLL be applied horizontally as indicated on
the prototypical building elevations. Only light
colored stain shall be applied to siding.
Either stucco or siding shall be applied to
exposed concrete foundation walli. If stucco is
utilized it shall be light in color.
A11 windows shall be white metal clad windows.
All decks and balconies shall be constructed
utilizing 2 X 12 railings and posts that are at
c.
d.
e.
9.
least 4n
All roofs
in order
x 4tt.
shall have
to protect
overhangs of at
walls and waIl
least I foot
openings from
rain and snow and to contribute to the building's
character.
.RESPONSE TO DESIGN STANDARDS
Buffer Zone:
The nbuffering" provided
type of project proposed
proposed surrounding land
strengthen this buffer.
by the project is appropriate for the
and the nature of the existing and
uses. Landscaped areas will serve to
1n
Circulation Systen:
The access drive has been designed so as to adequately serve the
traffic needs of the developnent. Due to the size of the
project, the need for a separate bicycle path does not exist.
Open Spaces
Approximately 708 of the site is devoted to open space use
order to preserve significant features of the site.
Varietv:
Design guidelines will be adopted to govern the character of the
buildings. While these guidelines will resuLt in a certain
uniformity anong building design, a certain amount of flexibility
Due to the srnall size of the proposed project, separated
pedestrian lrays are not needed.
Buildinq Tvpe:
The building bu!.k reguirenents as established are appropriate for
the size and scate of the site and its surroundinqs.
BUITDING DESIGN
Orientation:
The buiLdings will be oriented to take advantage of views into
the open space and southern exposures.
Spacinq:
The spacing between buildings is indicated upon the site plan and
provides areas for Landscaping, light, and air.
. Materials:
Materials have been specified within the design guidelines for
the project.
in building deslgn will exist.
Privacv:
Building Envelopes are adequately separated in order to provide
spaces between residences and provide privacy.
Pedqqtrieu - Traffie:
Landscapinq:
Landscaping wiLl be strictly controlLed by the goneowners
Association as well as the Vail Design Review Board. Landscape
provisions have been included in the proposed covenants ancl aie
as follows:
LANDSCAPING: The concerns of the Comrnittee sha1l be to
inprove the natural appearance of the Subdivision and the
maintenance of such appearance. owners and their
representatives or builders will be required to:
a. Mininize disruption from grading.
b. Revegetate and restore ground cover for erosion
and appearance reasons.
c. Use indigenous species of plant materials as
estabLished by the Connittee.
d. SeLect the man-made elements that blend and are
compatible with the }and.
e. Use existing or natural. drainage paths whenever
possible.
f. Conserve and protect topsoil, rock formations and
unigue landscape features.
g. Sod such areas as determined by the Connittee.
I
Michael tauterbach
tanar Capital- Corporatton
P.O. Box 3451
Val1, Colorado 8L658
ltuy 6, 1987
Larry Metternick
Eagle County Englneer
Eagle, Col-orado 8f631
Dear Larry:
Pursuant co my phone call today with Gerald Best whlch was precipLtated
by the stop work order lssued in conj unctlon wlth butlding pernit nuurber
3015 for Lionsridge Drive, Lot IV, Block A, please consider our requestfor an extension of the above referenced pernit, Enclosed to.r yov.r
review is the revised road proftle and the specificatlons. Due to the
Jostling of the final plat approval process between the county and the
Town of Vail, we have been unwilling to expend funds for the appropriatetesting. llowever, the moment our plaa ls approved by the Town or
County we will lnmediateLy conmence the requislte tests.
In reference to our inrmediate lntentions, we are stockpiling structural
f111 fron various sources around Vail on the basis of availablllty.
Therefore, the current road alignoent may dlffer somewhat fron the
engineered profLle.
Please contact me 1f you bave any questlons or desire further iaformatlonto lift the Stop l,lo rk Order. Tbank you ln advaace for your coosideration.
Michael Lauterbach
rds ,
Eoclosures
ROAD CONSTRUCTION
TARI,E OF CONTIINTS
l.0l Cctrcrnl
A. Iingincore d and Approved Plans
R. l,it'r'rlst.r; rtnrl I'crnt it lit'qrrl r('(l ..
C. Inspect ion . . ..tr......
D. Ifarranty and Accept;rnce .. ...\_r.r..
E. Speci fications .. .r\i..
F. Utilicy Taps . ,......rr
C. Norr-Act:t:Ptan('e ll()ld Stgn. ........\
I .02 Clear ing ancl (lrrrbbinti . . . .
A. Scope . ....:.
B, Li.mi ts o f tlork Arcas .
. C. Clearing and GrubblnS ....
D. Dispos;a1
n. Restorat ion . .
A, Gener:al
B. MaEerials
C. ExecuEion
1 .04 Pavemenc Base Course
1 .05 Asphaltic Pavement
1.06 Culverts and
1.03 Excavat ion and [mbankncn! .. ... 4-L7
l&2
1
1
I
I
1
2
2-4
l
2
2&3
4
4
4-6
6&7
7-L7
17&18
18&r9
19-21
t'\ICINEERING
Z
s'IANI)AR!) S l'ti(iI Ir I cAl't.oNS I,'OR RoAt) (x)Ns'fRUcTIoN
l ot (;iiNRuAL {
All. roitd consLrur.L io11 slr,irlI be rlorre :rccorrl ing Co thls speclflcation.The contractor shal1 also adhere to the following general condlcions:
A. ENGTNEEREI) AND AppltovED PLANS - Road construetlon shal1 bedone in accordanc. rviIlr enginc-c'red construcrion plans for the work,prepardd under Llrr.. d irttc tit'rrr of a Prof ess i-ona.L engi.neer and approved byEhe owner.
IJ. I,ICIN5I'S AND PEI{.I'lITS REOUIRED T'he contrac tor shall beresponsible for obtairrirrg any necessary licenses and permlts and forcomplying wich an'"* appricabre federal , stace, county and municipal 1aws,codes, and regulations in connection witl'r the prosecution of the work,Johnson, KunkeL & AssociaLes, rnc. consulEi.ng cnl]ineers, shall be notlfied24 hours before the planrred construction is Eo cormence and also beforestarting up whenc'ver c()nstruction is delayed for any reason.
c. TNSPECTTON - Ar1 work shal1 be inspected by the engineer whoshall have the authority to halt construction when, in hls oplnlon, Ehesespeclf icat.lons or s Landard conscruction practices are nor being adheredto. I'lhenever any portion of Ehese specifica Lions 1s vlolated, theengineer, by written notice, shall order furt-her constructlon Eo ceaseuntil alI deficiencies are correc[ed. rf deficiencies are not corrected,performance shall be required of che contracLorrs surecy.
D. t^IARRfu\ ly AND ACCEPTANCI] - The conrrac rot shal1 warrant allwork to be free of defecEs in worknanship or maEerials for a perlod of oneyear from the dare of t:ompl etion of a1l construction. rf work meeEs Ehesespeclflcatlons, a lctrer of acceptance shall be glven at the tlrne ofcompleti.n. A finar acceptance lctter sha1l be glven upon finallnspec Eion at the cnd of che narrant.y period provlded the work stilrcomplles with Ehese speclfications. rn the even! deflclencles arediscovered during Lhe \',arranEy period, they shal1 be corrected by checonEractor before final acccpEance. The determinatlon of the necessiryduring the NarrarlLy lrr-rriod for the contr;r(i tor to repair or reprace Lhework itr whole or in I)rrt shall rcst errtirr:ly rviLIr the ou'ner whose decisionin thc matt.er shal1 be final and obligatory upon the contractor.
E. SpECTFICATTONS - All srandard specificarlons, (AASHo, AST11,ecc.) made a po!tion of these specifications shal1 be Ehe latest edicionand revision Ehereof _
F. Prior ro a.y asph:rl tic operario., .all. uClllCy taps nust. havebeen provided t.o caclr Io t .
I.O2 CLEARING AND (;RUIJI}IN(]
A, SCOPU - 'GcneraI Conditiolrsr, tsupplementary Condltlonst and
tDlvislon l-General Requiremr,tnt.s I form pilrt'. of section. Sectlon coverS
work necessary for rrfln()vJl and satisfacttlry disl>osal Of all Ereegr brush,
strxnps, fences, debris, and rniscellaneous strttctures 11of covered under
other conEracC iccrns, which are witlrin work lirnirs or otherwise indLcaEed.
ll . l,imits of lJorli Arcas - llnginccr ui ll e'stablish llmiCs of areas to
be cl-earecl and grrrl>br-,d, Lo l)c cltitred btrL ll()L grubbed, areas r obJeCts or
feaCures designatecl to rL:main und-isLurbed, atld fencesr strucEures, debris,
trees and brush to lrc cleared *ltere grubbing is not requlred. In general ,
work areas shal I include roatl sections, stream channels, dlEches,
temporzrry approachcs to bridgcs, d{rtours, fill and borrow areas, and oLher
areas speclflclrllv itrrlicaEr:tl ol' speclfied, or as dlrected by Englneer.
Clearing bcyorrrl .r f t.lls of c()n:; Lruc L irrn slr;t.l I bc done onl-y rthere lndlcated
or d irec ted .
CI,EARtN(l,\rr*D (il{UlJl}lNC
'l'rces rviElr i n work limi L whictr are dead or in a
1r:rzardous condicion, slral1 he cleared and removed if
approved by [ng,ineer.
2. Oont.ractor slraLl propt:rIy prune all branches of t.rees
less Lhan 16 ft, above any part of a road\^ray and all
branches wh j,r:h have veen broken or lnJured during
(:r)llsEruc t.ic)n. I"resh scars and wounds shall be palnted
w i t ir illl ill)l)rov(rd tree Pa j trt.
\.J1r,"" r'rcvr.r r Lrc(.s ilre felled or Lrinmed on, or adJacenE Co
lLiglrwrrys, or work are:ls, ;r I I wood shall be lmnedlaEely
rcmovcd from roadwav or itny area that r{ould presenE a
Irrr;rirrd to Lral'Iir:. Crrrhbccl stumPs shall be moved
inuri,'tl jaLclv Jf leasL 3t) l'e oc from edge -of pavement.
No trces, trcc Lrunks, stumPs or oEher debrls shall be
i'r,I I cil , .s idt:c'a.st or Placod outside 1ln1ts of 9tork.
No grtrbbing wjll bc required beneath embankment where
t-.i.uislrt:d gradc wii I be four (4) feec or more above
Lrriginal ground surface rrnl css otherwlse lndlcated.
\{irclu crccs arc cLearecl :rnd grubblng ls not. requlred'
Lree trunk shall be cul off noc nore than slx (6)
inclirrs abovc original grourrd surface unless others/lse
irpl)r()vcd. lixpOst'd stUml)s noL requlred to be removed
l:rrt wlrich rc wirlrin 30 f eet ot edge of a PavemenE or
n
II
t.
t.
b)
DISPOSAL
are in a builr-up area sha1l be chipped out to a depth
ol' rro t less Lhan 6 inches bel-ow f inlsh grade and holes
backfilled. This work shall be complet.ed within one
wcek afLer start <rf work on tree.
ExcepE rs otherwise indicacd, all cleared and grubbed
mil !eI ial shul l bc rc-moved f rom cont.rac E slte or
o therwise disposed of.
I1c thods of d i sposal
c:(]rnlrusLible naterial.s :
of wood, brush and o ther
a.
b.
Ilurning - oc permicced
Chipping * Wood may be reduced to chips by use of
rrrr accepLablc chipping rnachine or stump grlnder.(lhips = 1/2 inch rnaximum thlckness. Chips
resul Eing cherefrom may be dlsposed of by being
stockpi,lcd ;rnd used as mulch for planting, by
cliscribution on ground surface in wooded areas
wit-hin work limits as approved by Englneer, or by
cl.i.sposal at a location off site.
Burying - Tree trunks, stumps or other debrissha11 not be buried on or off site wiEhout
approval of Engi neer .
Aftcr removal of free sEumps, miscellaneous structures
and other embedded items, fill holes \.rith earEh asrcqtrirecl to res tore original ground elevaLions ancor)Lorrrs. Fill Ni terial sha1l. be obtained only from
borrorv areas approved by lingineer.
t.
ruisT0IlAl'I r)N
1.03 EXCAVATION ANI) tr}{BANKMENT
A. GINEIIAL
1 . sc0l'E
'Ccneral Conditions r, rsupplementary Condj.tj.ons I andI)ivislon I- rCeneral Requiremcntsr form part of section.
Dcscription - This work shall conslst of excavation,disposal, placemenc. and compaction of a1l materialsthat are not provided for under anoEher sectlon ofthcse specificaEions, and shall be executed in
r:trn[ormance witli paymcnt .1.-ines, grades, thlckness andtvpical sections. specified in tlre contract documents.
L) Unclassified excavation - Unclasslfied excavation
shall consist of che excavation and disposal of all
nru0r"t", o, any clescriprion, lounaurud ln Ehe
course of consEruction, uoless otherwise
thc contrac E-
4)
speclfled 1n
2) [mbankmenc - The embankment is deflned as Eheportlou of a flll secf lon situated between Ehe
embankmenE foundation and the subgrade surface,excludlng :ny mat.erial placed under anoEher
sec tion of tlrese specificacions.
3) Embankment f'oundation - The embankmencI'ourrdation is defined as he surface upon
whir.lr an embankment is consEructed after all
work required under 3.9 has been compleced.
Subgradc Surface - Tlie subgrade surface isdefined as rlre surface of the strucruresectlon upon which the subbase or aggregare
b;rst: r:ou::se is pl.;rr:ed.
Subgrade Area - The subgrade area ls deflnedas thaC portion of an earEh embankment
siEuaEed above cither of the following, butexcluding any material placed under another
sec cion of Ehese specificatllons:
a) A line located two feet below thesubgradc surface- and extended to theinLr'rsccLion with rhe embankment side slopes
ofr
b)l'he embanlcmenc foundation, whichever ish.igher. ln cut seccion, the subgrade area isllot defined cxcept wher:e undercuE andbackfill wirh a select naterial ltem isspecified or ordered. In such cases, the
payment lines for undercut work sha11 definether subgrade area. Where Ehe subgrad,e
surf ;lce cons;is[s of .rnd is underlain by arocli cnbankrncnt the subgrade area ls notdcfinetl
EnbankmenL Side Slope Area - The embankments-ide slope arcas shall be deflned as Ehose
cross-sc'c tional ilrcas of an embanknentsituated outsjdc of lines projected downwardand outward on it olle on one slope from the
ol
I
I
o
edges of Ehe subgrade surface to theirintersection with Ehe cmbankmenE foundatlon, buEe,xcluding any portion lying $richin a subgradeilrca.
7) Sui tal)l c Material - A materlal whosecomposlLlon 1s sirtisfacEory for use 1n
embankmenE construct.ion 1s designaEed as a
su j.Eable matcrial . The molsture contenEhas no bearing upon such designaEion. Ingeneral, any mineral (lnorganlc) soil ,blasted or broken rock and similar materialsof nacural or manmade orlgin, includingmixtures thereof, are considered as sultable
B)
ma teria1.s.Determinations of whether aspccific macerial :is a suitable materialshal,l be made by che Engineer on the above
bas is .
UnsuiLable Material - Any materlal contalningvegctable or or€ianic xoatcer, such as muck,pcat, organic silC, copsoil or sod, that is
no c saEisfac tory for use in embankmenEconscruction under 7 above is deslgnated asan unsuiEable maCerial. Certaln man-madedeposits of industrial water, sludge orlandfj I I may also be deterrnlned to beunsui[:rble ma lerials -
Borrow - Borrow is defined as maEerlalrequired for earthwork constructlon in excesst:rf the quantity of sultable materlalavailable from tlre rcquired grading, cuts andexcilvations. Borrow may be necessary evenLlrtluglr no t slrown on the plans .
()\
I0) Frrrnlshing WaEel: llqulpment - Under Ehis workrlre conLractor shall furnish all equlpmentfor supplying and dlstributing \rater.
11) Apply j-ng I{arer - Under thls work, thecontractor shaIl furnish and supply wat.er fordrrst conLrol, for compaction purposes and forsuch other purposes (not provlded for inotlrer sec ti.ons) as called for on the plans,in Lhe itenrized proposal or as dlrected byLhc r'ngi ncer.
ITI|OUIRI.I}Ii,;N1'S OF RIiC(II,ATORY AGENCIES - ThEcontritc tor shall be responsible for obEainlng anyllecessary licenses ancl permits, and for cornplyingwith any applicarble federal, staEe, county andrnunicipa t laws, codes and regulations inconnection witlr perforrning the work. He shall at
I
I
all times comply with .said ordlnances, laws andrcgularions, and protect. alrd indemnify the olrner andits officers arld agenEs against any clalm or llabiliry:rr is i n;', f ronr ()r bascd on ther vlolaEion of any ".rahla,,vs, ordinanccs or regula!_lons. 41I permlts, l.lcensesand inspection fees liecessary for prosecuElon and('()url)L('t ion of lltc work slrall hc secured andaid l-or by tlrc conLractor ulllcss other$rlse speclf1ed.
I. TESTS AND CONTROL I',IETI{OI)S - Materials Eests andcontrol methods pertaini.ng to the item requirenents andworh of Llrjs scrt:Lion will be performed in conformancewitlr thc hcre irr refcrcncc(l spccificaElons.
MATERIALS
't. SELnCT SUIT BI-E I'IATERIAL.S REQUIREMENTS _ Setec rsuifable materials covered by Ehis sectlon aredescribed and rhe basis for accepEance glven inthc fol lowing subparagraphs . AccepEance wlllnormzrl.ly bc based on a visual lnspection by fhecng,lneer and a material approved if satisfacLorv
f o r Lhe in t ended us r: . I^lhere the englneer elec rst() conduct tests, a materlal mays be rejected if
I t fai1s Lo mee! tllc sLaLed crlt.erla.
SelecL Subgradc - Select Subgrade shallconsisE of any suitable naterial having noparticles grcaLer rhan slx (6) lnches ingrea Ces t d ime nslon.
Se]ecE Borrow ;rnd Solcct Fl1I * All rnaterialsfurnished under tltese iEems shall be of cheportj,on passing rhe four (4) inch squaresieve, conEain no more than l0 percent, by
wr:iglr t, i)ass j ng Ilrtr Nr>. 200 mesh sleve. For
undcr..waEcr p1ir.: Ltmr:nL, material shall have noparticles greater than Ehree (3) feet ingreatest d imens io rr.
c)Se l ec C Cranu.l irr f il.l - I'laterlals f urnishedfor use under thi.s i,tem shaI1 conform to thefollowing requ ircnre nt.s:
l) The 50 percent passlng size of the whol-enaE.erial shall b() noL greater than etght (B)inches nor less tiran one (1) inch.
2) 'l'1re mater i.al sha11 be subs tantially f reeof matcrial I.irrt'r Lii:rrr Ehe No. l0 sieve size.
b)
-]) 'l'lrcr m;rLt'r i:rl "t'ot lerul,r. a parclcle
composiLion providing adequate reslstance towcittl)cring, l^llrere the englneer elects Eotest for this requirenent, magnes lum sulfaCe
soundness loss greaEer Ehan 35 percent willbe carrse for rej ec t ion.
e) 5e-[ cc u (iranular Subgrade - Ma Lerlalsfurnished under this item shall have nopar[.lc1cs grc:]ter than s1x (6) lnches ingrcatcst dimcnsion, portlon passlng the four(4) inch square sieve shall contaln rrot lessrlran 30 percenE, by weighE, passing Ehe I/4inch square sieve, noE more than 50 percent
by weight, passing the No. 40 mesh sieve andnot more than 15 1;ercetn, by weight, passlngthe No, 200 mesh sicve. Well graded, blasfedrock rna y be used for thLs item. In Ehiscase, the particles sha1l not exceed L2inclres in grearest dimension or 2/j of theloose lifr thickness, whichever is 1ess,
Selcct Structure flll - The requlrements formatcri.als furnished under thls ltem sha1l be
cl)c sane as C, rselect Granular Fillt above,L'xccpt fhat the particles shal1 noE exceed 4Incircs in greaCest d imensions.
I",l:r ter rrscd J or dus t con trol- or compaction purposes
nray be obraincd from any source.
r)
'Iopsoi.I - Se lected Eop.soiJ.
dL'si8lt;ltr'J iry tlrc r.ngi rrr:cr.
at Ehe site will be
o.l.lxti(iuTI0N
GENEML - 'l'he contr..acEor shafl remove all soi1,rock, and orher material and utllize, or dispose oftllcse ma teri;rl.s as required by the plans andspecificaiEons. All excavation and embankmentwcrrk shall be execuEed to -cro ss-sec t.i.onsestablished by tlte engineer. Attentlon isdirecced ro the portion of the general conditionsrclaLing Lo 'safety and proEectionr regardingcontractor responsibilities in perforrnlng work ofthis s ec t ion.
AI{CHAIIOI,O(; I CA], SAl,VAGI
o
b)
l^lhenever, during tt,u "oO. of construction,
h j.sforical objccfs are encountered, such
objecLs shall not be destroyed or noved.
l/ork sha1l be stopped and re-scheduled to
avoid disEurbing such areas and the englneer
sha.l I be no tif ied irnmedlately.
'flre r-.ngineer wi ll , through proper channels
rrot.i [y tht: own<'r rvho wlll arrange to h€ve an
inunediaEe lnspecLi.on of the slte nade by Ehe
a P proPr: ia te sCate:rgency.
In Lhe event rhat che objects are Eo be
removcd or salvaged, agreements between the
orrner and Ehe contractor will be made Eo
cover the cost of any extra work. Such work
wi1l be l-imiced to that performed within the
limit or work and ac any location under
direcE, control of the contractor used as a
source of approved borrow ulaterial .
c)
SCI{IIDULING O]] WOITK 'iU MTNIMIZE SOIL EROSION AND
WATER POLI,UTI0N - l'he conEracLor eha11 prepare and
subrnit to che engineer for approval , schedules for
alI excavation, scripping, embankment, f111 and
grading opcrations connected with the projecE in
or outside of Elie project lirnits. Schedules shall
be preparetl to (1) sequence Ehe work in such a
rndnner that tlle exposed unproEect.ed surface area
of any earth nLlterial thaE is subJect to erosion
by wind or v/ater, will not exceed a EoEal of
75O,O0O square fccr zrt any glven ELme $rlchout
prior approval by Llre engineer,. and (2) to perform
permanenE erosion c<,rntrol work at the earliest
l;ossiblc Llne durlnp, Lllo course of constructlon at
all loca tions.Such schedules shall lnclude
cemporary and perinanenr erosion control measures
required by state, (:ounty or local agencles.
[arttrwork shall not be started at a glven location
ur-rtil the method and sequencing of-a11 operations
arc approvcd by tire enliincer.
DIi.AINACI ANI) CI{ADING
l) T'he corrLractor shall provlde and malntaj.n
slopes, crolrrl s arLd ditches on all excavation
and embankments Eo insure satlsfactory
surface drainage at all tlmes. A1l exlsEing
cu-lverts and drai nage systems shal1 be
maintainerl in satisfacEory operatlng
condition chr()ufllrouc the course of the r+ork.
If i.t is necessary Eo lnterrupt existing
J.
-
ROCK EXCAVATION
l) Rock excavat ion sha1.l cdnslst of rock Ehat
mus t be drilled and blasted in order Eo beexcavatcd and hauled to the embankment area.Rocl< wlr.ich is rippable uslng a D-B wlrhsingle-tooth hydraulic ripper w111 not beincluded under this c lass i, f ica tlon.
su r fr t:c drainagc, "or"rlor under-dralnage,
t.hen Lemporary drainage facillties shall beprovided tLntil llre permanent dralnage rdork 1scomplete. Top-of-s10pe lnEercepEo; dlcches,wltcrc slrown on the plans, shall be completeclbeforc adjacen t excavaElon operations ateltcgrrn. Trr t.lrr Lh r:n ts, the conCractof ehallprogress hls excavaElon operaLlons in such amanner tha t tlte portlon of the cuc
irnmcd iatr'1y ad-iaccnt to che deslgn slope acleast flve feeE ]ower bhan the general levelof thc cut a! all Eimes unCil the lowerp:ryment is reached.
I,,Jirere sLrepage causes instability of cucs.lopcs, excava t j.on and backf i11 shall- beperformed as ordered by the engineer and paidunder appropriate items.
b) Fin.ishcd rock slopes sha1l be stable and freefrom possiblc hazards of falllng rock or rockslldes that enclanger public safety. If,af ccr proper scal.ing, such hazards stillcxisL, a deLermination of Ehe cause w11I bematlc by :r gco I ogi c s tudy and if i t isdecer:mined that the hazards are the result ofpo()r workntanslrllr or irnproper methods enployedby the contractor, he shall provide approved
reme dial t!-ea tment, at no expellse to Eheowltcr.
b)
c)ConlracLor shafI ardhere Eo a1l
agenc ics having j ur isd lc rl"ondril l ing and blasting work.
regulatlons of
over rock
f) Fragmentation Blasting _ FragmenEaEionho1es, or portions thereof, shal1 noE bedrilled closer th.tn four feeE Eo the proposedfinished s1ope. Warer gels and/or "lrriri""will noE be perrniEced within ZO feet of the
I j n.islred slope. Fragment.ation charges shaI1be detonated by properly sequencedmil l. j.sccond delay cl.ectrlc blastlng caps.
6. St]I,TABLE }IATI]RIALS
a
a) tr^trhe n cxcava tion is perforned under the ltemrlJnclasslfied lixc:rvatlon and Dlsposal t all
ex(:itvated sulcablc materlals sha1l become the
cou Lr:rc tor I s property for dlsposal or use
under anotlier j_tem of these specificarions.
b) Wlrt.| n excava Eion is performed under Ehe
Excavation andi rem unctasstl].ed
IlmbankmenE t, all suitable maEerlals excavatedand paid for under Ehls ltem shall- be
ernploycd -[or cmbankment consEructlon unless asurplus exisrs as per lt9.Non-surplusexcavated suitable rnaterl-als nEry, withpermission of Ehe engigeer, be used for itemsor purposes othef than embankment
consCruct.ion if the concractor furnlshes, ac
no additional cost co the owner, a quantiEy
of sui table ma ter ia1 havlng a conpac Eedvoltrme equal to thaE whlch the excavated
ma Leial woul.d lrave occupied in the
embankrnen Es.
UNSUITABLE MATERIALS - tlirh rhe excepclon ofmaEerials designated for re-use under tTopsoilr,
aI1 excavated unsuitable maEerlals sha1l be thecontractor rs property for disposal as surplusmaterials under the provisions of ll9.
])ISPOSAL O}I SURPLUS EXCAVATED MATERIALS
l) 0nly trnsuiEable maEerials, or thaE portl-on of
su italtle m:t terial cxcavallon 1n excess ofquanticy required to consErucE a1l
emb;rnlimenls on projecE shall be considered as
s urpl us.
10
b) When Ehe contractor has surplus maEerlals
that ire wishes Eo dispose of wlthln lfunlt of
work, che engineer wi11, whenever posalble,
allow material lo be used Eo flacten
cull)anl(menL side slopes, or 1f this 1g noE
pr:sslb.l e, allows deposltlotr 1n other
locaEions within the right-of-way as
deslgna Eed and ap1;roved by the englneer.
Where compl ete disl>osal of surplus materlals
cannot be accomrodated wlchin ltmlt of work,
excess shal1 become thd concractorrs propercy
for disposal off che project. AJ-l dlsposal
wi thin right-of-way sha11 be subJect to the
engineer Is approval of flnal cc,ndition and
appearance, but is not subJect to provlsions
governlng lift placement and conpactl-on of
cnbanknrent containe d in /110 and //12.
9. I}IBANK,I'1ENT }'OUNDATION
b)
After compleci<rn of work required under
Sectior-r I.O2-(:, 'C1ear1ng and Grubblngr
enbankmenl foundation Aha11 be prepared. Sod
and topsoil shall be removed where final
grade is 6 Feer or less above exist.ing ground
surface and in oEher areas deslgnated in
plans or by Ehe englneer. Unsultable
materials oEher than sod and topsoil shall be
renoved to dcpths shown ln plans or as
directed by the engineer. Underwater areas
slr;r.l I bc f ilicrt wi.tlr rselect Borrow or Select
Fil.l I, B-2b, to !\ro f eet above water surface
at Lime of pl:rcement.
Whcre emballkmcnEs are to be constructed over
ground tlrat wil I not adequaEely support
embankment constructj,on equiprnenE, an lnltial
layer of fill nray be altowed Eo form a
worlcing plarform. 'Ihe needl rnanner of
constrrrction, arrd thlckness of such a layer
shall bc subjecc to approval of Ehe engineer,
and layer will- be permitted only where lack
of support i.s, as determined by the engLneer,
not due to deficient ditchiBg, gradlng or
drainage practices or where emba nkment. could
be consErucEed in approved nanner by use of
different equipment or procedures. Ihickness
of up to 3 feeC may be pernltfed for such a
layer.
c)In locatlons where ernbankrnents are to be
constructed on hillsides or against exlsElng
a)
/
It
cmbankntenrs r./ith slopes s Eeeper than I(vertical) on 4 (horizonEal), slopes shall bebenched. Benches shal1 be constructed asslrowLr on s Landard detalls t Transverse
transition and benchlng and longltudlnal
t'.rirns i L-ion and bcnchingt .
Where o1d pavement is enbountered wlthln zfeeE of top of subbase course, lt shall bethoroughly broken up or scarl-fied.
10. EMBANKM]]NTS
d)
it)
b)
limbankmcrnt maceria.l sha11 not be placed onfrozen earth, nor sha11 frozen solls beplaced in any embankments. Embankmentnurterial shal1 be pl.aced and spread 1n llfls(layers) of uniforrn rhlckness, then unlformly
compac ted as specified under appllcableportlons of lt12 rCompactlont. Durlng
embankmen! cons truc tion operatlons, earEh
moving equipment. shall be routed as evenly aspossible over entire width of embankments.
In any soil lift, parEicles with a dimenslonin excess of tl'o-thirds of loose lift
[h ickness are deslgnated oversl zedparEicles. Irr lifts of blasted or brokenrock, che limitaEion is three-quarters ofIoose lift thickness. MaxLmun llnlts on llftthickness are determlned Ln Sectlon 12tConrpacriont. Embankments' consEructed fromrock excavation producEs shall be spread bybladed equipment on each lifc to mlnlmize theformarion of large voids as work progresses.
Top lif E of a rock fill shall be thoroughly
ch inkcd .
Damage Co any compacEed lift at any Elneduring lhe course of construcEion, such asrrrtcing under loads imposed by earth movingcquj-pment, shall be fu11y repal.red byconEracEor at his otrn expense prlor toplacement of any overlying materials.
c)
I2
ll.SUR(;RADE ARIiA - Wherby,subsrade Area, ;;.',:;::;:i: li::J""i:ii".,conforrn ro 2-a 'serect subgr[,te;.--iiJlu*un. unucompaction of materials stratl "ttru.*iuJ' conform torequiremenrs of il10 and #12. whe;; iJn'giruainaror transverse change from cut to fill areencountered in work, a subgrade transilion sectionshall be provided in conformance with standarddetails'Transverse transition
"na-j"nJii.ng, and'Longitudinal rransirion una J.n"r.,iii j'"on"nouu
uaend of sec t ion.
L2. COMPACTION
a) It shaLl be hhe contractor,s responsibilityto properly place and conpact all materiaLsin embankment section, .nd to ao.au"a anydeficiencies resulting from insufficient orimproper compaction oi such .uiu.r.ar,throughout lhe contracc perioi. The
;:l;;:.::'.:13::.::';::1":" :H:, .i'j:, i":.liil;.lili"i,:l ;::;::'":; : :" l.:j:: {",.....conEent of rnaEerial, and other detaiLsnecessary to obtain satisfactory results.During progression of work, -ifr.
ungineer willinspect the cont- rnr,r- ^r , - ^:_ -_ :.permir "".n ;:":i;::;i."";:."Jarions and wirr
l. Lif t. thickness i.s controlled anrl does notexceed maxim
crassif icatr'f*
urlo*ud accorcing to equipment
whichever 1"oll:^ot l't?ht tai inches'
equrpment ah
ttt"' Thinner lifts and righter
a n max imurn a I lowe,J may benecessary for satisfactory results on sornematerials.
2. Not less than 90 percent of nodifiedprocEor maximum density as deternined by ASTMD_1s57 , is ;
emban kme n r, j:.;; ";:.::" :"1"o:.:,,il.:j.l:.".,or as specified for ot.her items with apercen t maxinrum Censity reguiremenc.
J. Significant rutting under action ofcompactor i.s not observed ". ii".f passes ona lift.
o) Whenever the (
conrorm to ah:onttuctor's operations do not
r e qu i r e me n r. ;":::l;";'r' i.j ii;, "ju bpa r as r aph s
l3
of tlr Ls arricle, tl)e englneer w1l1 prohlblt
placcrnent oF an overlying lift uncil the
contractor takes ef fec tlve correc L ive
ac tion. l^/lren Lbe englneer determtnes that
densiEy tests are necessaryr the contracEor
shall provide any assistance requested Eo
Facll.itate such tesLs. Such asslstance shall
include, buc will noE be linlred Eo,
excavation and backflll of LesE p1!s and
holes. This work shall be
inc idencal cons truc rion.
considered co be
c) Rutting of a compacted lift under acEion of
eilrthmoving equiirment, shall noc necessarily
be inrerrupted :rs due to faulty compactl-on or
m()is turc control dur:i.ng compaction' but shall-
be considercd as constitucing damage to a
compacted lifc reqtrir:ing full repalr prlor to
1>Iac i.ng any ovcr I y iug maEerlals.
d ) Sel-ec Lj.on of conpac tion equlpment is the
contracE.orrs responsibillty, buE shall be
subject to meecing approval by the engineer
wlth respecE to the lift thlckness allowed.
Any eqtripmcnt not principally manufactured
for compaccion PurPo-ses and equlpnenc which
is not in Propcr: working ordet ln all
respects shall noE be approved or used.
'fhe erng inecr w il1 :ll.so withhold approval of
anv compaccor ft;r which the contractor cannol
f u rn.i,sh manuFacturerfs spec iflcations
c)
covcring daEa noL obvious from a vlsual
inspection of equipmenE and necessary Eo
(letcrmine ifs c l;tsr; i f ica c lon.
Compaccion equiirment for confined areas. In
areas inaccessible to - conventlonal
compactors, or where maneuverlng space is
l.imited, impact ranmers, place or srna11 drum
vil)rat.()rs, (-) r pneumatic buttonhead compacEion
equipmenE may be used r^i i" Eh layer thlckness
not exceeding 6 :inches before comPacElon.
Hand lampers shal1 not be PermltEed.
llowever, materia.l.s placed for subbase course
construcEion shall have a maximum compacced
thickness of 6 inches. The engineer may
approvc or rcjcct any of Ehe above described
mech;rriic;rI devicr:s based -upon resul ts o f
approl)r i a Ee on-site field rests.
llois lure Control - All ftlt and backflll
maferia]. to be compacted, shall be aE a
no is Lurc content for ProPer compactlon of
LhilL rrur Ecrial. Lrsing the compactor selected by
Ehe conEract-or: to perform the work. The
engineer shall be responslble for deterrnining
ther Proper mo j:; ture content and cont.rolling
11)
F)
l3
ic hrirh.in l)roper llmlts as work isprogrc:;scd. ffhcn water rmrst be added go amaccrlal, lE may be added on lift or in
excavaLion or borrow p1t. Water added on
1ift, however, shall be ,applied by use of any
riiprovcd wii Ler d Lstrlbutor. Dlstrlburors
musL be approved and documenEed by the
engineer.DocumentaElon by che engineer
shtrll bc adequare evidence of hls approval .
Water added shall be thoroughly incorporated
in !o the soil ;rnd manipulaEion shall beprovided wlrenever necessary to atEain
uniformi ty of. npj.sture dlsfrlbution ln the
soil. Iy'hen moistrrre contenE of a lift aboutto be compac ted exceeds required amount,
compaction sha1.l be deferred unuil the layer
has dried back Co required amount. Naturaldrying may be accelerated by blendlng in a
dry lMterial or manipulation along, co
incrr.ase the raEc of evaporation. Increased
loose lift thicknesses caused by blendlng in
a dry material, Itowever, may necessltate achange in conpac Lion equl-pment to meet
rnininlrm provisions of subparagraph B of chis
arti-cle.
FILL ANi) IIACKIITLL AT S',1'RUCTURES, CULVERTS, pIpES,
CONI]UITS AND DIRIICT BURIAL CABLES
a)Ty1>e pf macerial ro be used in bedding,
f i.L Ling and backfilllng. at scructures,
cul.vcrts, pipes, condult and direcL burlal
cab l t' uLrd paymL.rl t 1 ines therefore shalI be in
conlorrnauce with dcCalls shown on plans or as
o rdered by che ongineer.
Fi11 or backfill macerial aE sErucLures,culverts and pipes sha11 be depos1.t.ed lnhorizontal layers noE exceeding 6 inches in
thickness prior Eo compactlon. Compaction ofcat:h layer shal.l be as specified under #12!Compaccionr with a minimum of 95 percent of
scandard proccor maximum denslcy AASHTO T99,Method B. ["]-h en placing f il1 or backf i.11arountl culverts and pipes, layers sha1l bedeposited Eo progressively bury plpe orculvert to equal depEhs on both s1des. Whenf1lling belrlnd wa1ls and slnilar sEructures,
:i.1 I material sha1l be placed and compacted infron! of wal1s prior ro placing fill behlnd
L,af ls to a higherr elevatlon. Lirnits Eo whichthis subsec tion will apply shal1 be in
accordance r^/i th plans .
D,)
L5
-
llt
(t)FiIl or backfil I for condulr or cable Placed
In a lrencir shall be carefully Placed ln a
hori.zonEal laye r: to a depth of slx lnches
over Lop o[ condu-lc or cable. Thls layer of
material sha11 not be compacted, however,
renu ln ing Port krtt of trench shall be
backfilled in accordance wlth precedlng
paragraph. Where cables or condults are
placed and backfilled by a machine In one
operation, abovq requiremenEs for backfllling
do loL apply. I
lloiiltol.]
ManagemenE of a borrow, source and
acceptability of all borrow materlal shall be
srrb ject to approval of Che englneer ac all
cimcs. The conLraccor shall noclfy the
engineer at least cen (10) worklng days in
advarrce of opening any borrow arear and
request approval of rhe source under pay ltem
1nvolvcd. Tes E piEs r:equired by the englneer
to cvaluate acceprabil 1ty and llrnlcs of
source shall be provided by Ehe conEractor at
his own exPense. ConcuTrent removal of
macerial for more than one pay irem from a
single source or pit shaIl be prohlbiced
except \diElr written permisslon of, and under
sucl'r conditions aud resErlcLions as may be
irnposed by the engineer. A11 borrow pits
shall be strippcd of sod, topsoll and
vege t;rble mactcr well in advance of any
workilrg l:ace according to Section B-c.
I'Iln i nnrm d is tance by whtch scrlpplng sha1l
lead cxcavation for a given source shall be
cs L:rblislted by t.ltc engineer to suic 1ocal
conditions. hlrerr: a borrow source is not
under direcc control of the conEractor or
where special condiElons exist, the engineer
may r,raive any of above requirements and
es tablish alternative provisions for conErol
and accep tabilicY of borrorv.
Ordinary borrow will be accepEed for use
uhere maLerial qualifies under deflnition of
suitable maLerial (Ab7). Borrow of select
granular materials enumerated ln 82 sha1l be
accepted subjec t to meeting addltional
provis.ions cortt:rined thereln. AII borrowt
vrlrcLlrer ordlnary borrow or select borrow,
placed wichin limits of embankrnents or
sulrgrade area shal1 be Placed in confonnance
at)
b)
l6
wiElr #10 or illl respec tlvely, as approprlate,
or where trsccl tor fill or backfill aE
s ! rrrc tu rcs, (:ul vr:r f s , and plpes, ln
conformance wlth /1I3.
i 5. 'li{Il'OIINC SUC'IIONS - AII lraded earth surf aces
slral.l- be smoothed and r r:inuned ln reasonablv close
con fornli ty (plus or mirrus 3 lnches) of true
gradc. AfEer lrirnnring, area shall be left 1n a
co ll.rirct and satisfil(: tory condltlon, ready for
topsoiling, seeding or sodding, free of large
stoncs o.r other ob je c ti.orrable nalerials.
16. After rough grading is compleEed and approved by
the enginecr, spread topsoil on areas indlcated to
recei.ve topsoil Eo depEh shown on plans, wich
surface elevations not less than lhose lndicated.
Surfaces of Lopsoil sha11 be neat and smooEh.
Individual soil l.umps shaJl
diamercr in Lhe top 3 inches'.
noE exceed 3-inc h
1.04 PAVII'IENT BAS]J (]OLIRSE
AIl gravel basc course shall be quarry wasle, crushed rock, or gravel
of such characcer thac it will compact. and thoroughly cement under
watering and rolling, to make a hard bonded base. It sha1l be free from
excess of flar elongaLcd parciclcs,
When Ees ced by a lirboratory sieve,
che following requirements by weiglrt:
the gravel base course shall meet
Sicve Sizc Per Ccrr c PassinE
lt'
3/4"
No. 4
No. 10
No. 40
No. 200
Cube Compr:ess io rr
L.A. Abra ison
Li-quid Limi t
Plas rlc f nclex
Per Cent lassing 40 Mesh
90- l 0()
65-90
50-6_5
30- 50
20-30
I5-20
200 min.,
50 n:rx .
25 max.
6 nurx.
60 rnax.
All base coursc rnirLcrial shcll be comp:rcttrd ln layers noc to exceed
s1x (6) inches in thickness. T'he compacted thlckness to be a mlnimum of
stx (6) iu,,:hes.
Immediacely fo) Jowi ng tire finaL
maierials, placcd slurl1 be comPact.ed by
shall. be wi th a pneurni-r Cic roller, and shal I
to 95 percent of tirc denslry decennined by
sprcading and smoothing, all
wacering and rolling. Roll ing
continue uncil- a denslEy equal
t})c SEandard Proctor Mechod ls
T7
o
obca-[ned, Any ir rc1;rr I a r i t. j e s or depressior-l.s clraE develop while compactlng
shall be corrccLo(l by adding r)r removlng nraterial unt1l Ehe surface 1s
smoo tb arrd uni[,;rm irrrd t.o [lrc dcs-ired grade, witlr.in 0"I0 feeE except thaE
tlris tolerance shrrl I not permit low areas witl.r resulting ponding of
rrrtrof[.
An;' rc'pirirlng l-rrrrnrl lleL'r!ss;rry [or L]re cornpletlon of work 1n place
shaIl be considered a parC of tlre work and included in the contract pr1ce.
1 ,05 ASPIIAI-TIC PAV[il'l]iN'I'
This icem shol.l r:oLrsist of a
aggrcgrte and bituninous material rnixed in a central mlxing planE and
constrrrcted on the exis t.:ing ltrepared base, itr accordance with these
specifications .rnd in c:onfonnity with the lincs and grades and compacled
thickness as shown on the plans and as approved by rhe engineer.
The mineral agllregate sha11 consist of crushed slag or crushed.gravel
conposed oF hard durable fragmenEs having it)corporated 1n 1t lfunesfone
dust iron oxide, or other binding material in such proportlons that Ehe
rvhole will be homogenous material-. The porti()ns of Ehe materlal retained
on a No. 4 sieve sir.r ll. be l(rlonrl as a fine aggrcgaLe. When produced from
gravel , not less lfran 60 percent by weight of coarse aggregate particles
shall be partlclcs lraving at least one fractur:ed face.
The mineral aagrcrgatc shal.1 be well graded
wlren tes ted by means of laboratory sieves with
conform to clle follorvins linrits:
S tandarci Sievc Si.zc
3/4"
N.r. 4
No. g
No. 50
No. 200
Liquid Limit
Pla s cicity I|rdcii
wearing course composed of mineral
from coarse to flne and
square openlngs sha11
Percent Passing by Weigh t
r00
50-65
36-48
20-35
3- r0
25 max.
6 max.
Coarse aggregat(' slrall bc clean, frce from dislntegraEed sEone,
vege t.ablc matter and () tlr()r cleleterious subs tances and shall show loss of
not more than 5() lL-rcent when Lesred in accordance with MSHTO T-96-46.
ASTI1 c-I31.
The bituminous m.tterial shall be the proper grade of peneEraEion
asphal t cctrent Lo givr.r thcr l)cs t resul !s for rhc mix used and shall meet.
the approval of the errgineer. A certificate shall be furnlshed co the
engiueer by tlte prodrrccr sE||ting Ehar Ehe bitumlnous maEerlal used MEETS
requlrenrcnts of th(' Lirtcst revision of the ASTM for Ehe grade used.
l8
o
Tlte mlx turc
use ln veh lc I es
naLerlals. ll te
EeBperature of
The PercenEagc of bi rtrmlnous miterJat by welghc to be added !o the
aggregate shall be :-p.r:ttottt co B percenE of the l'elght of the dry
aggregate. I
slnl I lrc t rattslrr.rrctlcl l-rom tlre mt'ving planE to the polnt of
having t.lghg bodies prevlousl y cleaned of all forelgn
otanr nrtxr,rie strall be dellvered to Ehe Job slte ac a
not less tlran 225 degrees F.
Equlpment for :;prt:lcl ing thc mjxcure shall consls! of a self-powered
"pt"uilng and finishing macltine operaced in such a nzrnner thaE rhe
require6 thlckncss rvill be procluced unlformly, segregatlon of naEerlar
wl1l be avoided, arttl the finishlng surfaces will cornply i.'lth Ehe
requlrements tor snxrotitlless. Necessary sma1l toolst - rakest shovels'
lute',etc.shall[>cprtrvidecl!ocorreccanylrrcgttlarltlesEhaEmayoccul
1n placing the cottrsr':,'
wh l1e stiII r^rarnt, tlle surtace course mixtur:e shall be thoroughly and
unlformly comirresst:i1 bf u prlwer-drivcn rollcr" Rolllng shall overlap on
successlverrlpsbyirEll)as!one-halfEhewldtlrofthero11eruntl.la11
ro1ler marks are I rtrned ottt and Ehe wclarlng sr'rr:face shall have a denslty
ofavoldlessmixL|trccomposedofthesamematerlalslnthellke
pro Por t 10ns.
The motion of tlrc. roller shatl be atall cines slos/ enough to avoid
dlsplacements of tlr.r mixture, aud any displa<'ement. shall be at once
corrected by use rtl. r:rhus and Ircsh mixturc when r:equired. In all places
noc accessible i() Llic roi-ler, Ehe nixttrre shall be compacEed by hand
camPer as apProverl bv tlte cng' j-rleer '
Hatldta'nPersstrirllwelglllloElesstlran25poundsandshallhavea
tamplng facl .strr[n,.f il.rc3 ol not nore Ehan 50 square lnches. The surface
ofchemlXtUrclt|.terl:omprcsslclnslral].lrcrsnroothandtruetothe
es cabllslred llrres ;trtll gradc:;, lrrrd :;lrali :;l,t>1't' uniformly from hl.gh poincs
tolowpoint:;i".itlrotrrirrcgrtl;rri-!iclsr.lhicllwj']lacttoholdsurface
dralnage in Pools -
1 .06 CIJLVERTS
All culverts :;ltlt] l mr:eL ttre reqr'rirements on plans and those
M36 for corrugaced stceL plpe an<l [\SuTo ]1196 {ot alumlnum pipe'
of AASHO
Trenches slr;: j. j bti excavated to a width sufficlent to allow for proper
Jolntlng of the t:trntlui c and thorough comPactlon of the beddlng and
backftll ma!erlaI ttttde r rnd itroutld tltc conduil' Where feaelble' trench
waIIs shall be verrlcal .
11re compleLed rrenchboctom slrall be firm for lts full length and
wldch. In ctre cosc of r:ross drains, the trenclr shall have a mln irnum
longiLudi-nal camber oi otte l)crc(:nt of the lengrh of the ptpe' Camber may
be lncreaserd Eo sr-r ic hoigllr of fill and supporting so11 .
l9
When pipe corrdrr i.Ls arc r.o be inslal I cd in new embankments ' the
embankment shall. f j.rst be consErucLcd to tlre required helght as shown on
the pLans, and for cl jsLiurcc cilnlr s.idc of t.lrc condulE locatlon of noE Iess
Ehan 5 Eimes Ehe diameter of the conduit, afEer which Ehe trench sha11 be
exc;rvatcd and tltt- t:tttlrltt il irlsrL;il I e rl .
Placing of the conclui! shal.l begin at the downstream end of the
condult line. Thc lower segrnenl of the t:ondr.r ir shall be in contact with
the prepared bedcling Eltroughou! 1ts full lengllt'.
Mccal condu i ts slr;r I I be f irrnly joined by coupllng bands. Llhere
exis ting rnetal conduiLs arc to be extended, danraged ends shall be cut off
or repaired in an approved manner. A11 ends requiring extensions sha11 be
cleaned r+ithin the area necessary for proper insrallation of connecEing
bands.
\{hen spec:ia1 joinL trcatnent is called for on the plans, che jolncs
sirall be nl:Idc using x scrljng comPound wiEh LIrc connectl-ng bands.
After tire concluit or secLion of condui t is installed lt shall be
lnspecced before anv backfill is placed. Any conduiL found to be damaged
shall- bc replaced, and conduic found to be out of alignment or unduly
set.tled shall be tak(:n uP ;rtrd rel.aid. The Erench shall then be
backfilled.
Ou Eside circurnlcrenLi:rl laps
fac:ing ul)s lream. F.lt'xiblc cctrtduit
or seams at thc sidcs.
Special care wilJ be require<l wlten
thc bachflll nlaL('riills up on l>o tlt
s imul caneously.
of flexible conduits shall be placed
shall be placed with longiEudinal laps
backfilIing around conduj-t to bring
s ides o f Ehe plpe, eveoly and
Unless otherwise indicated, all bedding ilnd pipe zone material and
backfitl shall be select excavaEed naterial. Selecced excavated macerlal
shall be frec of r+ood and other foreiglr materials. Maxlmum maEerial size
shall be 2 inches. hrhere indicated, or r.rhen the englneer determlnes
lnsuffieient or unsuitable material exists aL crench side, lmport and
placed impor ted plpe berdding and inporEed pipe zone material .
Pipe zone is dcfined irs full widch of exc:rv.r [.ed trench, from bottom of
pipe to a point 10 lnches above Lop outside surface of pipe barrel.
Backfill pipc zonc irom botton to horizonraL center line of culverc by
hand placir-rg mat.erial around pipe in 6 inch layers and Ehoroughly
compac f ing l,,.itlr approved trmping sticks srrppl emented by rwalking int andrslicing' rvith a shovel " Use special care to insure flrm support is
obtained to prevent- nr()vr'mcnE of pipc during final backfllllng. Backfill
and compacE rclnirindcr (.lf pil)L- z()nc lrt sim [.lar nanner.
Pipe conduits slra.LL be protecced with at least. four feeE of cover
before heavy cons ErucLior'r equipment will bc permitced to pass over them
during construction o1)sr31i6nc. lart of Ehis cover may have to be removed
20
ol.i
I
I to permit the completion of the parrement structure. In t.his event, the
I removal and disposal of this cover material will no\ be measur:ed and paid
for separat.ely but shall be inctuCed in t.he work.
I Alternative materials mav be approved by the Engineer, i,e. precast
concrete sections, after review of nlat-er ials and installation methods.
II
I
I
I
I
I
2L
ELK MEADOWS SUBDIVISION
Our agency has reviewed the Elk Meadows SubdivisionEnvironmental Impact Report and has no concerns with the El_k
Meadows Subdivision request.
Yes, our agency has the following concerns with the Elk MeadowsSubdivision request:
Ear Kristan,
ft ar:pears evident that the derrelorrers of Elk l&ado'rs Sr:bdivisionwill not recruir€ naturaL qas f-acility installation dr:ring tlre
devre.logxent phase of ttreir project. Hq/rever, it has been m1/
e>acerienoe that tlre ultinate DrcDerEy oh[l€rs1 jl sjmi]-ar dereloptentst
nray pr€fer latural gas heatinq energry to eleetric.
Sdoseguent installations of natura.l gas facilities could create a
sigrnificant disturbance to easefient landsca:iag and tlle eristing
lGA^ray adjaoent to Elk !,Fadows.
frrclosed is a Oonq:etitirre fl:e1 Cost Oorcarlson betlveen el-ecLric and
natural gas energD/s, to sqe'rJorL IIEI corurEnts.
Repr fihz
COMPETITTVE FUEL COST COMPARISON
Following is a brief comparison of natural gasoperating economy in relation to electric operatingcosts. The "therm' (1001000 Bturs) is used as areference for accurate comparison.
HOLY CROSS ELECTRTC ASSOCIATTON COST PER THERM
04109187
100,000 Btu + 3,413 = 29.3 kwh
29.3 kwtt x $.065 = $1.90
Given 11800 hours of annual
operation, the cost would be
$3,420.00
(3r413 = conversion constant
Btu per kwhl ,
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO
100,000 Btu + 755 = 132 cubic feet
132 cubic feet x $.53
Given 1,800 hours of annual
operation, the cost would be
$9s4.00
(755 = Btu per cubic foot at
8,100 foot elevation)
$1.90
THERI{
ELK MEADOWS SUBDIVISION
Our agency has reviewed the Elk Meadows Subdivision
Environrnental lrnpact Report and has no concerns with the E1k
Meador{rs Subdivision reguest.
Yes, our agency has the following concerns with the Elk MeadowsSubdivision recruest:
Represent
75 soulh Ironlage road
yall, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
DATE:
TO:
ATTENTION:
rRou:
su&tEqr:
offlce of communlty devclopmenl
YIay 26, L987
National Forest Service
Mr. Bob Poole
Conmunity Development Departnent/Krj-stan pritz
Revien of Elk Meadows Subdivision: Phase IfI ofthe Valley, a portion of Parcel A, LionsridgeSubdivision, Filing No. 2
Attached is a copy of the Efk lileadows Subdivision proposal .The request rlrill be reviewed by the Town of vaiJ- planning andEnvj.ronmental Commission on June 8, 1997. The Torsn staff isinterested in any comments you may have on the proposal . Weare asking that you submit your conments no later Lhan June 3,1987 at 5:OO Plt.
Enclosed is a comment sheet and self-addressed, stampedenvelope. You may ind.icate that you have no comments orconcerns on the project by nerely checking the rno further
commentrr box. If you have concerns with the proposal , pleasecheck the comment box and list your concerns in the spaceprovided.
Thank you.for your cooperation on this project. ff you haveany questions, please feel free to call Kristan pritz, TownPlanner, at 476-700O, ext 11I.
o
Asse$ror
P.O. Box al49
Eagle, Colorado 81631
EAGLECOUNT
o
Y
551 Broadway
Eagle,Colorado 81631
(303) 328:7311
November 5, 1986
Mike Lauterbach
Lama.r Capitol CorporationP. O. Box 3451Vail, CO 81658
RE: Meeting_of November 5. 1986
Dear Mike,
I{e accept your withdrawal of File No. PD-262-a6-P
E1k Meadows as verbalized at the meetingame In-EEe Town of Vail. in the presenceKristan Pritz, Pete Edrington, and Peter
held on thisof Peter Patton,
Feistmann.
Si-ncere1y,
SV:pm
cc:
*re"k#
Community Development
James Fritze, Eagle County Attorney
Board of County CommissionersPeter Patton, Town of VailKristan Pri-tz, Town of VailPeter EdringtonPeter FeistmannFiles
Board of County Commissioners
P.O. Box 850
Eagle, Colorado 81631
Oerk and Recorder
P.O. Box 537
Eagle, Colorado 81631
Sheriff
P.O. Box 359
Eagle, Colorado 81631
Treasurer
P.O. Box 479
Eagle, Colorado 81551
Nicholas Lampiris, PhD
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
P.O. 80X 10935
AsP€N, COLORADO AT6I2
(3031963.3600 9256020ASP€NOFFICE
November 1, f9B6
l.:risten Frit:
Commlrni ty Devel opment Dept.
75 S. Frontage Road
VaiI, CCl. 81657
RE: Phage IIIn The Valley
Dear Mg . F'r i t: :
lhis letter is intended to address the positianing of planned
homes with respect to the Lion's Ri.dge Loop Road. As can be
seen on the Town o{ Vai1 rock{;rl I sturdy, the rock{alI
hroundary discussed in previor-rs reports by Banner Asgoci ates
and mysel f extends atrross the meadow to approximately the
tree I i ne al ong the srourth si de of the val 1ey.
I believe that the propoged burilding gites are placed in the
most appropriate location congidering the natLrre of the
rock{all haeard in this area, I{ homesites were to be placed
slonq the Loop Road, they wolrld be egsentially at the bage of
the steep hillside {rom which rockg courl d come and therefore,
be much rnclr F siusceptible to damage. l'litigation there would
be much more di{{icurlt and cor-rld reqlti re a ten or twelve {oot
wall o{ adeqr-tat-e st-rurctutral composition to protect each home.
In the present lscation, rninimal mitigation degigns were
necessary and thege can be blended nicely into the proposed
homes and landscaping. The rock{all line would then be
determined by the edge of the mitigative designg in each
case. Ag an additional note.' Eagle Dolrnty n based Iargely on
rny rectrnrnendat i ong, denied a tenth lot to the devel oper
hecause it was located near the Loop Road in a more
vlrl nerab I e posi t i on,
I believe I have addressed yolrr ct:ncerns n br-rt please do not
hegitate to contact me i{ your have {urther qurestions,
5i ncerel y,
4 /.7.'i v {utn" /tu,ul4t,
Ni chol as Lamni ri s
Ccrnsul ti ng Geol og i st
cc ! l"li chael Lautterbach
NL/cl l:
v
Clerk and Recorder
P.O. Box 537
Eagle, Colorado 81651
tt
Sheriff
P.O. Box 359
Eagle, Colorado 81651
Tteasurer
P.O. Box 479
Eagle, Colorado 81631
o
E AGLECOUNT
551 Broadway
Eagle,Colorado 81631
(303) 3287317
October 30, 1986
Lamar Capitol Corporation
Mike LauterbachP. O. Box 3451Vai1, CO 8f658
RE: SM-467-86/PD-262-86-P-E1k lleadows
At their Public Eearing of October 28, 1986, the Boardof County Commissioners tabled your PUD preliminary plan
to December 9, 1986, at I-O:OO A.[I. in order that you mayprovide a complete preliminary plan to the County.
The staff, Town of Vail staff and representati.ves of theValley PIID have agreed to meet you in the Town of Vail offices
November 5, 1986 at 9:00 A.M. to discuss your plan..
Sincerely,
Susan Vaughn, Dlrector
Community Development
SV:pm
cc: Jim FritzeLarry MetternickFiles
,t
Board of County Commissionerr &sessor
P.O. Box 850 P.O, Box zl49
Eagle, Colorado 81631 Eagle, Colorado 81631
Revised - ro/22/s6 |
BOARD OF COIINTY COMMISSIONERSI AGENDA
ocroBER 28, 1986
550 BROADI,IAY, EAGLE, COLORADO
9:00 A.M.
PRELIMINARY PLAN
9:00 (ltit<e) FILE No: sU-254-86-p Colorow Subdivision(Applicant Requesting Tabling)REQUEST: Preliminary plan review for 24 singlefanily lots on 420 acres.
LOCATION: Squaw Creek drainage between Edwards and
lrlolcott
MINOR SUBDIVISION (TYPE A)
9: 15 (Mike) FILE No: SM-46.8--96 R. L. ShufflebochamEEaUmT: ate a
5.15 acre Darcel .
LOCATION: Parcel trCrr- in Lot 18, Section 4, T8S,
R86W, Basa1t, CO area.
10:00
LAND USE REGULATION CHANGES
9:30 (Susan) Mobile llome Park Regulation Changes, Section 2.08through 2.A8.07
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT
Request for extension of the Eagle Hills(SU-fZO-AO-f) Subdivision Improiements Agreemenr
PUD PRELIMINARY PLAN
10:15 (Susan) FIIE NO: PD-262-86-P E1k Meadows (Laurerbach)
REaUEST:
acres.
LOCATION: A portion of Parcel ItA", Lionrs RLdgeSubdivision, Filing No. 2, Phase III atthe Vallev.
11:30 Review of FBO plansffir""
Howard ALr Service
12:00 - 1:30 LUNCH
"r aa-
RECOMMENDATIONS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ocroBER 28, 1986
FILE NO:
f,6ETTT6N:
REQUEST:
BACKGROIJND:
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
FILE NO:
mauEsr:
BACKGROI]ND:
SM-4 6 8 - I 6 - Shuf f leborhamParcel "C" of Lot 18, Section 4, TBS, R86W,Basalt Area.
Type "A" Minor Subdivision for 1 1ot in a
Resource Zone District.This 5.15 acre parcel was created prior to theadoption of Eagle Countyts zoning regulationsand is therefore considered ttgrandfatheredttl
but the parcel has never been through theproper subdivision procedure, hence this ninorsubdivision.
Water sha11 be supplied by the MilleniunSpring, adjudicated in Case No. W-375-76-A.
An individual septic disposal system willhandle the sewage needs.
Access to this site is by neans of an
abandoned County Road, East Cedar Drive,formerly the 01d Frying Pan Road.
The Planning Conmi-ssion unanimously
recomoended approval with the condition that afavorable recornmendation be received from theDivision of Water Resources - Office of theState Engineer with regards to the proposedltater supply on the parcel .
Recommend Approvel
PUD prelimlnl@singlefanity lots in Phase ILi, the Valley.farnily lots in Phase tii, rhe Valley.
The Valley PUD lras developed before the Countyhad regutations. Because of concern by theCounty about the specifics of the plan, theBoard of County Commissioners reviewed and
approved a plan on March 26, 1980, to specifylocations, phases, numbers of dwelling uni.ts
and alloraable square footage in the Valley. Aresoluti-on and planned unit development guide
was signed and recorded at Book 300, Page 757,Reception No. 197L46, and Book 300, Page 758,Reception No. 197147, which specified that alltracts must comply with the Countytssubdivision and zonlng procedures and appearbefore the Board of County Coromissioners for
review.
a
RECOMMENDATIONS
BOARD OF COUNTY COM},{ISSIONERS
ocToBER 28, 1986
PAGE 2
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
The Valley was annexed by the Town of Vail andthen deannexed. After the Countv hadjurisdiction again, the applican! applied foranct received a grading permit on May- 15, 1996,Pernit No. 3015*to construct a road-on ihesubject property.
The Planning Coromission revier"red this orooo""1and passed it on to the Board with no ^
reconmendation.The Board of CountvConnissioners tabled this iten on August 26,f28_9, -to allow the applicanr ro subrnltadditional informacion. The Board tabled thisrequest a second tiroe- on September 23, 19g6,to allovr the file to be converted to i plannedUnit. Development prelirninary plan as requiredin the resolution and pUD GLiiIe cited earlierand to allow for sufficient public notice tobe given.
Recommend denial_. The applicant has notprovided the necessary drainage informacion,revised site plan- showlng wider setbacks, andparking areas with suffl_cient back-up space,etc.
: --\o
I,AI4AR CAPITAL CORPORATIONP. O. Box 3451Vail, Colorado 8L657
Oct.ober 21, 1986
Susan Vaughn, Director
Cornununit,y Development
551 Broadway
Eag1e, CO 81631
RE: File No. SM-467-86Elk Meadows Subdivision
Dear Ms. Vaughn:
Pursuant to your letter dated September 26, 1986,-we agreeas follows:
1. Eagle CognLy requires three parking spacesper dwelling unit. Our submirtats will be
amended to provide for two parking spaceswithin the garage and one additional on thelot, either behind the garage or adjacentthereto. A typical site plan can easily
accomodaEe this change.
2. We are willing to compromise on theproposed five foot se.tback requirement.Ten feet seems Eocalty adequaie andsatisfies all safety and fire coderequirements. We may revise our plat !o
accomodate only eight lots in meetingthis compromise,
3. Building overhangs will be liithin rhe
. proposed setbacks. Our document submittalswill be appropriately amended. As areminder, flaE roofs would noE present a'problem.
4. Items four through eight will be amendedto reflect the staff's direetlves shouldthe plat be approved by the Board of
Conunissioners.
It, is our intent to fully conform Eo your seand.ards asoutlined in your leuter of September 26, L986, should the plat
99 ?ppto',red at the Board of Cornmissioners meeting on October 28,
1986.
I
, ,(L
Susan Vaughn
Ocrober 21, 1986
Page 2
Please contact me if you have any questions or further
concerns prior to the meeting.
Very Truly Yours
,'r'l')-,ti'/*4L
c I *l{n"It-, rr|L,Irr,/
Michael Lauterbach i **
ML/ cdb
\
THE VALLEY PHASE III
PRELIMINARY STAFF COMMENTS
0ctober 1986
In response to the enclosed Eagle County letter, the staff has the folIowing
comments related to each point outlined by the County staff:
Po int1. Under the Town of Va'i 1 regulations, two parking spaces are adequate for
a unit under 2,000 sq ft. Our regulations do not address required
turn-around aneas or requ'i red back up Iength.
2. A f ive foot setback is unacceptable to the Town of Vai] . I,Je would
require that Single Family 1ot standards be met which would reguire
setbacks of 20 feet in the front and 15 feet in the side and rear
setbacks. We woul d not recommend bui ld'i ng envel opes as thi s part'i cul arsite does not warrant a bui1 ding envelope due to terrain or hazards.
With the 0lot line approach, two units could share parking, wh'ich is apositive impact. However, the staff feels that ultimately this project
should be designed as a multi-family phase and not a single family
devel opment.
3. Vail regulations allow roof overhangs of 4 feet jnto a required setbackarea. However, given the fact that the setback is only 5 feet to beginwith, overhangs into the setback should be avoided. The buffer of 16'or Ll'will not exist due to the proposed 5' setback.
4. The Vail staff supports the Eagle County posit'ion that the PUD guide
should be a separate document.
5. If this proposal were to be reviewed under the Town of Vail regulations,it would be revjewed as a major subdivision. The proposal wou'l d not
meet Single Family regulations that include: (1) a minimum lot or site
area of 12,500 sq ft of buildable area. (2) Each lot shall have a
minimum frontage of 30 feet and shall be of a size and shape capable of
enclosing a square area 80 feet on each side within its boundaries.(3) Setbacks of 20 feet in the front and 15 on the side and rear.
Variances would be required for the existing proposal and would most
I i ke ly not be granted.
The staff agrees that Eagle County standards and zoning code references
should be used throughout the PUD guide.
7. Our Town Engineer, Bill Andrews, agrees with the comments made by the
Eagle County staff for point 7 and I concerning drainage.
* Town of VaiI staff would like to see a site p'l an with rockfall areas and
buffer areas indicated which can be used in conjunction with the report
from Banner Associates dated July 3, 1986. Recommendations should also
be drawn out so that it is clear what Banner Associates is actual 1y
recommending as far as design/'l ocation for each unit.
* The staff recommends a site visit-
-.. I
75 3oulh fronlage road
vail. colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
October 20, 1986
The Eagle County Board of Cormissioners
P.0. Box 850
EagIe, Colorado 81 631
Re: SM-467-86 Final Plat for Phase III
Lionsnidge Subdivision, Fi1 ing No.
Dear Commi ss i oners:
offlce of communlty developmenl
The Valley, A Portion of Parcel A,
2 (Elk Meadows)
In response to the enclosed Eagle County letter concerning E1k Meadows, the
Town of Vail staff has the fo1 1owing comments related to each point outlined by
the County staff:
Poi nt1. Under the Town of Vai'l regulations, two parking spaces are adequate for
a unit under 2,000 sq ft. Our regulations do not address required
turn-around areas or required back up length.
2. A five foot setback is unacceptable to the Town of Vail. We would
require that Single Family lot standards be met which would require
setbacks of 20 feet in the front and L5 feet in the side and rear
setbacks. We would not recommend building envelopes as this particular
site does not warrant a building envelope due to terrain or hazards.
Wjth the 0lot ljne approach, two units could share parking, which is apositive impact. Howevern the staff fee'l s that u'ltimately this project
should be designed as a multj-famiiy development consistent with theexisting mul ti -fami ly PUD.
3. Vail regulations allow roof overhangs of 4 feet jnto a required setbackarea. However, given the fact that the setback is only 5 feet to beginwith, overhangs into the setback should be avoided. The buffer of 16,or 11'wil'l not exist due to the proposed 5' setback.
4. The Vail staff supports the Eagle County position that the PUD guide
should be a separate document.
5. If this proposal were to be reviewed under the Town of Vail negulations,it would be revjewed as a major subdjvjsjon. The proposal would not
meet Single Family regulations that include: (1) a minimum lot or site
area of 12,500 sq ft of buildable area. (2) Each lot shall have a
minimum frontage of 30 feet and shall be of a size and shape capable of
enclosing a square area 80 feet on each side within its boundaries.(3) Setbacks of 20 feet in the front and 15 on the side and rear.
Variances would be required for the existing proposa'l and would mostlikely not be granted.
The staff agrees that Eagle County standards and zoning code references
should be used throughout the PUD guide.
7. Our Town Engineer, Bjll Andrews, agrees with the comments made by the
Eagle County staff for point 7 and 8 concerning dra.i nage.
The Town of Vail staff would like to see a site plan with the rockfal] area andbuffer areas indicated which can be used in conjunction with the report from
Banner Associates dated July 3, .|986. We also recommend that the Commissioners
make a site visit to Elk Meadows if possible. A site visit will be helpful in
understanding the impacts of the project on the site.
0n 0ctober 17, 1986, the Town of Vail staff met with Mn. Mike Lauterbach to go
over our comments. }'le recommended that he look at a multifamily proposal which
would place the units on the north side of the site. As was stated in aprevious letter, the Valley represents a very sensitive area which reguires
consistency and compatibility (including aesthetics) between phases. Themulti-family approach will be consistent with the established Planned Unit
Deve'l opnent, multi-family nature of The Va1 1ey PUD.
Thank you for providing the opportunity for the Town of VaiI staff to comment
on this proposal .
Sincerely,
l./. | 0 |fr,c}r,.. YriE-nlt)\ul \ u'r t
Kristan Pri tz
Town Planner
cc: Mr. Mike Lauterbach
Ms. Susan Vaughn
Mr. Mike Mollica
f
Septernber 26, 1986
poard of County Commissioners Assessor
P.O. Box 850 p.O. Box 449
Eagle, Colorado 8165l Eagle, Colorado 81631
I
AG LECOUNTY
551 Broadway
Eagle,Colorado 81631
(303) 328:7371
Clerk and Recorder
P.O. Box 537
Eagle, Colorado 81631
6fll4b76tj
Mr. Michael LauterbachP.O. Box 3451
f.anar Capital CorporationVail, Colorado 81658
RE: File No. 5l'I-457-86 - E1k Meadows Subdivision
Dear Mr. Lauterbach,
At their neeting of septenber _23, 1986, the Board of countycomnissioners reviewed-your riquest for'nr.nor'subdiviston for 10 iocsln The val.ley PUD. pursuant to Resolution 80-20 adopied uy uagre -
county on March 26, L980,- recorded ar Book 300, page'157 aha-if,.-puoplan- and-covenants recorded at Book 300, page isg Er ttre nalre-c"i"cyclerk and Recorder records, the Board f6und"that the correcE
"-:?9i"i"lon procedure for your proposal is ruo preiirin..y-fl"n,following section 2.06.1 3 i,f thb rlgle county L!r,J ur" neluiati6ns(fornerry secEion 3.11.04 of rhe zoning Resoiution in effEct tn 19g0
ll9-::l:t:"":d. bv the^PUP^P]""). The iloard ttt"..ior" tabled yourproposal to October- 28, 1986,_gt 9:00 A.M. in the Countycoromissioners Meeting Room, 550 rroadway, Eagl",-c"i"i"io, to allowfor the advertising ind noiification to""aj.E"ri froperty'owners ofyour preliminary,p_lan proposal as reguired'by seciioir 2.is.ol of theEagle County Land Use Regulations.
.l
The.Eagle counry planning and Engineering staff reviewed yourt-yy.?r?tLmrnary pran proposal on September 24, 1996, and had the-roJ. rowt-ng comments :
_1-;.Tl",typical.s.rte plan (Lot 5) reveals a parking situationwnrcn is too tight. There does not appear Lo be JufficientEurn-around-s-pace for vehicles in the'irarking area. A 22 footunoosEructed backup space-is required, but ontv 7 feeE to theside of-tbe parking aiea is shown. ttris-fr;ti;.'witt becompounded when the. snow storage areas arl tuit. nacking outrsould cause encro-achment onto neighbori"g r"i"-"nd alsoPresents some safety concerns.
Sheriff
P.O. Box 359
Eagle, Colorado 8163I
Treasurer
P.O. Box 479
Eagle, Colorado 81631
T
Mr. Michael Lauterbach
Septerober 26, 1986
Page Two
Single Unit Residenrial Lor should beto Eagle pguntyfs definirion.
?. The prop-osed 5 foot setback requirerDent fron arl lot lines
l:-unacceptable. Due to the sroall size of these proposedIot-s, many hones would undoubtedly be builC right^ up to thesetbacks. This would enable lot owners to hav6 onry ro i."tof separation between dwellings. Also, there are no proposed. .restrictions against the locaEion of windows on a homE.-'it"ir- -would reco.-end defined bullding envelopes, larger setbact<s, -
-or. a 'zero-1or ,1ine- approaeh, as"wel1 ""^ rii'a""-it""-r.rriresf.rictions, for a1I- itwelllng units. -- '--- l
1.. . ngrlaing overhangs must be within Ehe proposed setbacks.This is-not reflected on the sire plan as luUiittea.
"4." The PUD Guide should be a separate document and werecommend that it be separated fion the protective covenants.BgEh documenrs will need to be filed with the Final p1at.
5. PUD Guide comments:
defined according
roval of Construction Plans
Eagle County Building Permit is also
ir) i.) GRFA should be FAR, as defined by Eagle Counry.
i.) i:-.) Should be revised, as per comments above.
!.)iii.) nuitaing-height should be defined by Eaglecountyrs Regulalionsl
i.) iv.) Four off-street parking spaces do not work onthese proposed lots - should be"reworked.
t.)ix.) - -Stgns : aly and alt signs will also need to begpproved by Eagle County - refeience should be nade toEagle County's Sign Godb.
Section 1 Definitions
-
- eaa+'J ^- /' --: 'Section 4 AoiA.)--ffi-ApF?oveE
required.
a
!r. Michael Lauterbach
Septenber 26, 1986
Page Three
_ll)I:r:) Temporary Structures - any renporary structurehrnlch Ls necessary-during consEruction, to be used as adwelling_uniE, wiil-need*an_Eagle Couniy fe.poi".yHousing.Pernit - reference Eagfe Countyl"-i;;;-U;.Rggulatig3g:, - _-._
- Sections 17 and 19Reffiendnents and enforcenent authorltyof Eag_le County Board of Connissioners should be as-pecific section o,f the puD Guide and not referenced inthe covenants.
9. .The presenr submittar- contains tqro conflicting plans; 1)Engineering.plans prepared- by Mackown Surveying t-firgine6ring(latesr revision_of SepEembei 17, l9g6) and'2)-e
:::::ig"i!yl:9 plan nore in rhe iorro -of ? plat bur desisnaring
:::::.:-9f11"1c:. Per discussion wirh Micirael Laurerbalh, thEp:"n"- prepared by ltackown are the ones that will be built'andcne tollow1ng co&ments are based upon those plans only.--- ' t--
7.- As sugge-sted in the Banner report, the southern end of theculvert at sEation 1 + 18 should 6e noved to the wesE suchthat it doeb not discharge directly at Lot g.- -
.8. A drainage swa1e, ritF culverts at drive crossings, shouldbe created or designaced between the roadway and ih. lot".This i.s necessary because the roadruay plans'show drainage awav
:I:r_:1". r?adwiy roward rhe lors and rhe schemaric site*plans'tor the lous show drainage away from the lots toward the'roadway. A dicch innediirery lajacenr to the roadway wourd
TIgt be ?ppropriate. The swaie diainage should pass uetweeothe roadway -and the drive to Lot 9 vii a culveri under thisdrivg _placed as a part of the roadway ""a-J.irrur"ycons truc tion.
I -.
-
Mr. Michael Lauterbach
Septernber 26, 1986
Page Four
me.
rf you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Sincerely, ) --:- "." =-
,/ 4/ Fd.'aa-,- Uar, g'+<-.,,-
Susan Vaughn, Dir"ecEor --
Communi ty-Developoent
EAGLE GOUNTY : -
sV/gp
cc: Files
Lgrry -Metternick, County EngineerMike l{olli-ca, Counry Planner
James Fritze, County AttorneyKristan Pritz, Town of Vail
Board of County Commissioners
ANDERSON.BTOUNT INVESTffTENT CO.%Fb
*&-#,'
s000 vAsQUEz BoULEVARD DENVER, COLORADO 80216 (303) 292-3790
WILLIAM }I. ELOUN?. JR.
October l, L985
Ms. Susan Vaughn, Director
Department of Communi.ty Deve lopment
Eagle county
551 Broadway
Eagle, CO 8153L
Dear Ms. Vaughn:
As a hollte owner in the Valley, Unit C 12, Buffer Creek Road, I would
Like to officially protest this proposed developrnent.
Sincere ly ,
ANDERSON-BLOUNT INVESTMENT CO.
t?,4e Ca--Z
WiIIiam H. Blount, Jr.
wHBjr/jo
L'ffib"J'W
trruful /'u4/
EAGLECOUN
o
TY
551 Broadwav
Eagle,Colorado 81631
(303) 328:7311
Septerober 26, 1986
Mr. Michael Lauterbach
P.O. Box 3451
Lamar Capital CorporationVail, Colorado 81658
RE: File No. 5l'I-467-86 - Elk Meadows Subdivision
Dear Mr. Lauterbach,
At their meeting of September 23, 1986, the Board of CountyConmissioners reviewed your request for minor subdivision for 10 lotsin The Va1ley PUD. Pursuant to Resolution 80-20 adopted by EagleCounty on March 261 1980, recorded at Book 300, page 757 arrd the pUDplan and covenants recorded at Book 300, Page 758 of the Eagle CountyClerk and Recorder records, the Board found-that the correcEs_ubdivision procedure-for your proposal is PUD preliminary p1an,following settion 2.06.13 6f th6 Eigle counry Land use Reluiations(fornerly SecEion 3.11.04 of the Zoiing Resoiution in effSct in 1980and referenced by the PUD plan). The Board therefore tabled yourproposal to October 28, 1986, at 9:00 A.M. in the CountyConnissioners Meeting Room, 550 Broadway, Eagle, Colorado, to allowfor the advertising ind notification to iaSa-ent property owners ofyour preliminary plan proposal as required by Section 2.25.01 of theEagle County Land Use Regulations.
The Eagle County Planning and Engineering staff reviewed yourFUD-preliminary plan proposal on Septenber 24, 1986, and had thefollowing comments:
1. The typical site plan (t ot 5) reveals a parking situation
,l^ which is too tight. There does not appear to be sufficient
lV",l". turn-around space for vehicles in the parking area. A 22 foot
,y/"t ,unobstructed backup space is required, but only 7 feeC to the(l l/l ,- ]side of the parking area is shown. This problem will beu ,,./)' o) compounded when the snow storage areas are ful1. Backing out
T *-A t would cause encroachment onto neighboring lots and also
l*.rrlr'r-, Presents some safety concerns.r' (rl
Board of County Commissioners
P.O. Box 850
Eagle, Colorado 81631
Assessor
P.O. Box 449
Eagle, Colorado 81631
Clerk and Recorder
P.O. Box 537
Eagle, Colorado 81631
Sheriff
P.O. Box 359
Eagle, Colorado 81631
Treasurer
P.O. Box 479
Eagle, Colorado 81631
Mr. Michael Lauterbach
September 26, L986
Page Two
2. The proposed 5 foot setback requirement frorn all lot linesis unacceptable. Due to the small size of these proposedlots, nany homes would undoubtedly be built right up to thesetbacks. This would enable lot owners to have only 10 feetof separation between dwellings. A1so, there are no proposedrescrictions against the location of windows on e home. - Staffwould recommend defined building envelopes, larger setbacks,or a zero-lot line approach, as well as wLndow placementrestrictions for all dwelling units.
3. Building overhangs must be within the proposed setbacks.This is not reflected on the site plan as subroitted.
4. The PUD Guide should be a separate document and we
recommend that it be separated fion the Protective Covenants.Both documents will need to be filed with the Final plat.
PUD Guide comments:
- Section I DefinitionsEag@ ratio area) shouldreferenced from our Land Use Regulations, notof Vail's Zoning Regulations.
Single Unit Residential Lot should be definedto Eagle Countyts definition.
5.
4"1
bethe Town
according
of Construction Plans
County Building Permit is alsorequired
i.) i.) GRFA should be FAR, as defined by Eagle County.
i.) ii.) Should be revised, as per comments above.
i.)iii.) guitaing height should be defined by EagleCounty's Regulations.
i.) l-w.) Four off-street parking spaces do not. work onthese proposed lots - should be reworked.
i.)ix.) Signs - any and all signs will also need to beapproved by Eagle County - reference should be made toEagle County's Sign Code.
Mr. Michael Lauterbach
Septenber 26, L986
Page Three
il,LL*
i.)xiv.) Tenporary Structures - any temporary structure
which is necessary during construction, to be used as a
dwelling unit, will need an Eagle County Temporary
Housing Pernit - reference Eagle County's Land Use
Regulations.
- Sections 17 and 19Reffiendments and enforcement authorityof Eagle County Board of Commissioners should be a
specific section of the PUD Guide and not referenced in
the covenants.
6, The present submittal contains two conflicting plans; 1)
Engineering plans prepared by Mackown Surveying & Engineering(latest revision of September 17, 1986) and 2) A
non-signatured plan more in the forrn of a plat but designatingcertain drainage. Per discussion with Michael Lauterbach, the
plans prepared by llackown are the ones that will be built and
the following comments are based upon those plans only.
7. As suggested in the Banner report, the southern end of the
culvert at station 1 * 18 should be moved to the west suchthat it does not discharge directly at Lot 9.
8. A drainage swale, with culverts at drive crossings, should
be created or designated between the roadway and the lots.This is necessary because the roadway plans show drainage away
from the roadway toward the lots and the schernatic site plans
for the lots shbw drainage away from the lots toward the
roadway. A ditch inmediately adjacent to the roadway wouldnot be appropriate. The swale drainage should pass betweenthe roadway and the drive to Lot 9 via a culvert under thisdrive placed as a part of the roadway and driveway
construction.
Mr. Michael Lauterbach
September 26, 1986
Page Four
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Sincerely,
do.^- U"^re^
Susan Vaughn, Dir"ector
Conmunity Developnent
EAGLE COUNTY
sv/gp
cc: FilesLarry Metternick, County Engineer
Mike l{o11ica, County Planner
James Fritze, County AttorneyKristan Pritz, Town of Vail
Board of County Conmissioners
NOTICE lS ffingBV GIVEN, pursuant to Section 30-28'l l2-and Section
3O-28-l 16' respcctively, c'R's' 1973' as amendedr and Section 2'25'01 of
the Eagle County Land Use Regulations 1982, as- amended, the Boad of-
Counti Commissioncrs, County ol Eagle' State of Colorado ar 9:00 e'm"
October 28, L9S6 at the Board of County Commissioner's Meetiig Room in
the McDonatd Euilding, 550 Broadway. Eagle, Colorado shall hold a public '
hearing to consi&r the following: '
"". t r'"ti ':t*11'11r !r''J '-'!c;
A Planned Unit Deveibpment pretiminary plan for 9 ringle family lot.9,-..,..,
the meadow at The Valley, more panicularly described as follows: '":"1"
':: PHASE lll
. A tract of land lying in Parcel A' Lion's Ridge Subdivisiori. Filing No' 2'
a suMvision recorded in the o{fice o{ the Eagle County, Colorado'
Clerk and Recorder. said tract being more Plfticulaily described es - ,.',.
folfows: 'i... 1 :; ..:'-":'" 'iir'r "'i t'r
,-'U"li*itg it a p6int on the southerly right-of-way line of Lion s-ldgc i;:.1
-. Loop, whence the North l/4 Corner of Section l2' Township 5 South.
-Range
gl West of the 6th PrinciPal lleridian bears N 60"55'39" E
-t259.53feet,thencethefol|owingthreecoursesa|on8saidsouther|y
- ' riSht-of-way line: (t) S 49"45'56" W 50.77 feet; (2) 240'51 feet rlong
'..thearcofacurvetotherighthavingaradiusofl|28.7|feet.anin.
'' terior angle of t.2't2'32", and a chord which bears S 55'52'12" W . ..
. .240.06 feet; (3) S 6l"58'28" W 456.74 feet, thence deparcing said -ii
right-of-way tine S I lo59'06" E 65.01 feet. thence N 72"-11.41
- ! 1.,1
-3i.00 feet, thence N 76'47'59" E 382.54 feec, thence S 44'59'18" E
.80.00 feet to a point on the southerly boundary of said Parcel A, thence
the following two courses along said southerly boundary: (l) N
'68otS'00".E 320.00 feet; (2) N 50'05'00" E 100.00 feet, therrce .--.
departing said southirly boundary N 27'02'59" W 208.26 feet' thence "'''r
S 62'57'01" W t21.50 feet, thence N 3"52'59" W9l.5l feet tothe
. point of beginnint, containint t57,628 square fee1o13,6,!9 11!tl Pt". or less. , , f'-; . : .: ,r- ,:'r .
.Copies of the aforementioned Elk Meadows P.U.D. apptication and rehced
documens may be examined in the Office of the Eagle County Depanment of
Community Devilopment located in the McDonald Building' 550 Broadrray,
Eagle, Colorado. TelePhone inquiries regarding the subject matter.of this
. public notice may be made by calting Area Code 303, Number 328-731| (Ex-
iension 229 or 226). :.. ,i'. .
PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE BOARO OF COUNTY COMMI$
SIONERS. COUNTY'Or elCle. STATE OF COLOMDO. ' . : ''""":'
,.. ,, .,,,'l;:o.1,,,t - /si/ TOHNNETTE PHILLIPIi . 1':'
! ,..- . . ",.. ;.::, , county Clerk end Rccorder and
i; -. - , , i.,, l;...i:i ::;?$.LH[,gI:,Brl:l:,
o ro
4701 El Camino Drive
Englewood, CO 801t t
(303) 796-2000
l5l8 Buffehr Creek RoadUnit #B-29
Vail, CO 81652
September 25, 1986
Eagle County
551 Brcadr','ai'
Eagle, CO 81631
Attn:
Stp J, 19g6
&:x'
Ms. Susan Vaughn
Department of Community Dcve lopment
Gentlemen:
Re: File No. SM-467-86-Etk MeadowsMike Lauterbach
As- a property owner in the valtey condominiums, a puD adjaccnt to thereferenced property, I wish to be on rccord in opposition to ihis p.o-posal to create ten single family lots o thc properry.
This proposal is contrary to the planned devclopment concept of Thevalley, whose PUD was created to maintain a iompatible environment tothe surrounding buildings. It is not equitable that this subdivisionshould not be subject to the same puD process that regulated the adja-cent property. It is a strange coincidence that this application appearsbefore Eagle county shortly after de-annexation from- ihe rown oi vait,and that it was not proposed during the twelve year period when theproperty was urder the jurisdiction of Vail.
whether or not you approve of vai|s regulatory approval processes, Iwould urge you to consider the lack of compatibitity of this proposal withthe existing PUD, and the applicant's convenient choice of timing hisrequest to appeal to a regulatory body that he will be able to get some-thing. past in a hurry. An incompatibre usc with an adjacent iuo *ittremain on the land through all our lifetimes. I urge you to reject thisapp.lication, .and suggest the applicant propose a dev-eto-pment coilpatiblewith the existing pUD.
Michael Komppa
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERIS AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 23, 1985
550 BROADWAY, EAGLE, COLORADO
9:00 A.M.
REQUEST: TO-ToTE-wfrh lO dwelling units on3.6719 acres.LOCATION: A portl-on of parcel "A", Lion's RidgeSubdivision, Filing No. 2, phase III atthe Val1ey
11:30 Public Works - Doug pilcher/Larry MerternickE1 Jebel lli1l Road Bids
11:45 Unanticipated Items
12:00 - 1:30 LUNCH
PRELIMINARY PLAN
1:30 Blue Creek Ranch Subdivision Improvements Agreement,First Interstate Bank, Representatl_ve, Ron Wilson
2:00 Request for extension of a preliminary plan forStonehaven Condominiums, Lot 49, Block 6, Filing No. 2,Berry Creek Subdivision
2:30 LAND USE REGULATION CHANGES
9:00 Social Services - Mabel Risch
10:00 Revision of Landfill Operatlon Hours - Jim Fritze
l0:15(Susan) FILE No: gM-467:g6= Elk Meadows - MikeLauterbach
Minor Changes to the Individgal Sewage Disposal Systensporcion of the Land Use Regulations to contorrn to theState Regulations.
3:00 John Olesonts Lease - Jim Fritze, County Attorney
3:30 Attorneyrs Items
4:00 Signing of Plars
tE^cLEcountf
551 Broadway
Eagle,Colorado 81631
(303) 328:t311
September 23, 1986
Dear Property 0wner,
Enclosed you w'ill fjnd a Public Hearing Notice for a PUD pre-
'| iminary plan for 9 single fam'ily'l ots in the meadow south of Ljon's
Ridge Loop Road (also known as Buffehr Creek Road). The project wasoriginally submitted as a minor subd'ivision, and has been'rev'ised to
be a PUD prel'iminary p1 an pursuant to the Board of County Comnissioners'
motion on September 23, 1986.
If you have any questions about the project or wish to look at the
material , please call me or stop by the Department of Community Develop-
ment .
Treasurer
P.O. Box 479
Eagle, Colorado 81631
Si ncerel y,
../ Or ,/@,4'4e^. Ua/4grA-^/
Susan Vaughn, Direct#
Department of Community Deve'l opment
SV/eh
cc: File
Property Owners
Encl osure
Board of County Commissioners
P.O. Box 85O
Eagle, Colorado 81631
L
Assessor
P.O. Box t149
Eagle, Colorado 81651
Oerk and Recorder
P.O. Box 537
Eagle, Colorado 81631
Sheriff
P.O. Box 359
Eagle, Colorado 81651
o
PUBLIC NOTICE
NorrcE rs HEREBY crvEN, pursuant to section 3o_2g_112 andsection 30-28-116,^ rgsoscti;"it; c.R.s. rszi,-"; imend.ed, andsection 2'zs'o1 of the Eagle -6unty Land use'neluiatrons 19s?,as amended,
:: l:-:3:.9- "I !:ur^r t.{ commiss iotrers, - count y of Eagt-t;-STa;6of Colorado at 9:oO A.u. October Zg, iSdO
i:^l!:' !oa5d. of . county cItcDonald e"iidiiEl"iio-!iTiffi;:";;rIi'3il5"n:-"ilrlt;public hearing to consi.der the i"rioi"lng,-"^"***"--.sha1l hold a
A Planned unit Oeveiopment..prelim'inary plan for 9 single farnilylots in the meadow at rhe Varey, mori iarticularry d6siribedas follows:
Legal - see attached
Copies of the aforementioned.'=::gii:"ti"l. ."9 related documents ffiOffice of rl:^E3i*:-9?i":I.?:llit.gl! of community Deveropmentl:::::l-1", :l:" I:?:"111 1ii1rai1s, sso ;;";;il;:-;icil:=6:il;;;,.
T:-t :::'::...1 l"::i :"- Iu gll+i: g I [.,uu; E.i -,;;i ;"";i'Iir!"ili-iil
13:_r::_Ti1, !3^maoe^by.ca11ing Area cooe soiil ^l.ru"i ;;;:?5ii(lxtensi-on 229 or 226)
PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COIIMISSIONERS,COTINTY OF EAGLE, STATE OT COLOBADO.
/S/ JOHNNETTE PHILLIPSCounty Clerk and Recorder andEx-Officio Clerk of the Board ofCounty Commissioners
Elk Meadows P.U.D.
PlIlng Nu, 2,
Clcrk Jod
'' .":.,.! lOE.e6 tG.G. rhs'c. s 6!'5t,ol'. i rzrl:o i;.;,-;;;;;: i"il;i:;r;;,r' ii."r,f,; ,., lrl3 :: :!_p"lr. o( b.ttmtBg, ""n.nr"i"i- i:1,638 rquorc fcer or t.619 acrs-,. ' '.,. DOaC 0r latf.r.- . : :..:': ': .::. ' ...,"'l;:'':'- '..
8-2
TO
EAGLE CCuilro
550 EroadrvayF O. 8ox 65O
EAGLE, COLORADO 8I631
(303) 328-7311
Vai1. Colorado 81658
LffiTfr @F TRANSnflITTAL
O Samples
the lollowing items:
E Specilications
WE ARE SENDING
tr ShoP
D CoPY
YOU B1 Attached
drawings n
ot letter
B Under separate
Prints
Ghange order
coveT vra
Plans
DATE I JOB NO.9-?2-EG I s;1-467-i6
ATTENIION,{e, <rx^L t-
ilike Lauterbach/ /E1l< ileadovts
PS0SoB0hxFrontaqe Rd.
coPlEs DATE NO.oEscRlPtloN
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked belor:
f] For approval
E For your use
n As requested
V For review and comment
as submitted
as noted
tot corrections
O Approved
0 Approved
D Returned
tr
tr
tr
Resubmit-copies {or approval
Submit-copies for distribution
Retu rn
-corrected
prints
o
tr FOR BIDS DUE 19- tr PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
ij.* receiveC tb?_€$Cosc/r nararia'l q thiq Farninq for the neet inC
to be held tonorrrgw. Sentenber 23.
COPY TO
tt f,J 2rG2 ,fiffi, h., er. h. 0t.tt .ncloturc rr. not t. not.d. kindtyt notnv'u''.i on.r.
Murroy Propertles of Colorodo
Septernber 19, 1986
Eagle County
551 Broadway
Eagle, CO 8t631
Gentlemen:
The purpose of this letter is to respond on record to the attachedsubdivision proposal for Elk Meadows.
As a . property owner in The Yalley pUD, I am oooosed to thecreation of the l0 single family lots on the proplrty in question.The proposal is not within the concept of The Valliy pUD which
was_ specifically set up to maintain a planned development compatiblewith both the surrounding environmeni and the existing uuilalJgiin the PUD. This project should be required to go thiough the-complete PUD process if the integrity of The Vafiey is to- be main_tained.
I- hope- you will consider these comments carefully in your evalua-tion of this proposal,
Sincerely,
-/.!r"'* tfrd"Aok
(r/James G. Fdl?patrick
JGF/kd
Enclosure
cc: Valley Condorninium Association
One DTC,5251 DTC Parkway, Penthouse One, Englewood, Colorado g01jl, 36t96-2000
' .Y;'- :';:.t"tElie--t.:' r. * ; ;,5
S[ir ,;:, ig;-i6 NEFI
September L8' 1986
!,1r. Mike Eauterbach
P.O. Box 3451
Vail, Co 81658
Re: Surface drainage for EIk Meadows Subdivision
Vail' Co +8095-05
Dear Mike,
We have reviewed the drainaqe Eor this project particularty as it
concerns the drainage which wiLl flow beneath the access drive
from Lionrs Ridge Loop Road at approximate ta"116n l+18 (per
roadway drawings prepared by ,John MacKown).
Our investj-gations indicate that the 18" corrugated metal pi-,pe is
adequate for the anticj-pated flows. The location of the culvert
is loverned by the roldway profile and the proposed typical
croJs-section and their interaction with the existing ground.
we believe that the southern end of the l8u culvert night
discharge flows in a better manner if it htere moved somewhat to
the wesi so that the discharge of 2.0 cfs, with a velocity of
approximately 7.3 feet Per second, is not discharged directly at
lot 9 as is currently shown.
The site plan we were provided indicates that the private access
road to these lots is no\'r approximate]-y 25 to 30 feet south of
the location shown for our geologic hazard mitigation work.
.
This encroachrnent increases somewhat the maximum water surface
elevation and the anticipated vel-ocities-
The critical area will be along the front of lots 5, ? and 8
where we anticipate the velocities could approach 8 feet per
second due to the additional encroachment of the short stub
driveway which is not shown on John MacKownrs roadway drawings-
Structures and driveway fill along these three lots should be
protected agai.nst these high velocities with riprap having a mean
diameter of not less than 9 inches. This reguirernent could be
waived through the use of an lS" diameter culvert beneath tlte
intersection with the short stub driveway \there it joins with the
main access drivewaY.
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTTNG ENGINEENS & ARCHNECTS
2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVABD
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 t lJO3l 243-2242
a
AN&..f..*i,.r.".. -..,.
ft.tr.r..:r:',,1'j
o
BANNEF
!,1r. Mike Lauterbaqh
September 18' 1986
Page t\Jo
I have also enclosed a typical site grading plan which may be
incorporated since all structures will need to be elevated above
the drainage itay at least Ir-9u.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call-
Sincerely ,
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
. Donald G. PettYgrover P.E.
DGP/r.L)
Encl: DraS.nage calculations
cc: Susan Vaughn
Eagle County Courthouse
w,/calculations
N
R
-\\\:'\.
-:,rc-]tc<\:\)
ff\l7(
7((
|,
o
-\\i--$J
4--)'
ll:'-il,'F
rl\i,N
;l'\ll.:lil/ill,. I,i'
-/'t:;.1! !
- :at !1,-;q/- t
=/2i)lVrt
Vln
%/
',1^u' ll
W .!87Eo..11.
39'37'30'
!80 . rrr!'E
R- Ar W. R.80 W.!tt 6a.l
R0A0 cllsslFlcATloN
I
Primary highway, \ Ugnt'duty road, hard or
hard suriace- imProved surtace--
Secondary highway,
hard surface- Unimproved road': -'--'--'
(-l rara*+eto enrrtc f1u. s. noui. n State Routa
to6'22,30',
tte*
%15m 70q) FEEI
I xrlortrgfEF
s[i)
-e
n
.]'
?3-l
U
'a-'.5'
--:r3+-'
it',t
- .::
t
a
cL
.g -6
6
.g 11rl+r9n2 .-
4t
=<,eE '''=&t
.9r
E ,!
Ftd50
e_s
t{.€l
Ivoj--
,J
i
3
Io3
l*-O
. o |/l
UIFl!
()z
z
o-
Jr3r <lr
=E
calt!tt
s3HCNr Nl (Ol JJONnU lC3UrO
r llta'll91i
3 g'r;
rt ia
(, (,Ea
go
oo
oo
o,o
!Eiii i
iii
t4'/,
6rl@olotl+
o
z.o
g
Lr,l
l!lriolz
l-lltlo
Ilz,loIF
IJlo|(t
t..lbtoIJloIGIOl>
E
!o.!?s
53
=E
=?E=!-:s!3oF:E
E-
-65E
!
ritoTIr
L?
I
i
!
a
l. Requircd Input
AJ'T.
P.Y-
aad 3 for
respeclj.v.Iy)
SJ*(Op!ion!r!: !f adjustaenr is-. not
>tr : Use Y and El, xith iable 7
. drainage
8. llodi.fications
IMP .."t
IMPF -.'?,Lrl-.T-i
QPU - -QP : IUPF
I
cfs
29
DITCH CALCULATION5 :o
$= O. 03600 f t,/+t e= B. OOrl cf sQ= O.5SB f t l= go{l.0rl f t
Sc= O. OTB91 +t/+l 11= rl.lO.I5Orf Vc=Dc= 0.6?= +t TT= 1.63= MIN
VEE CHANNEL E{= O. OITO*Tt '
LT SS=ID.r)D:1 RT SS= r).OO:,*__
1,r= 5.li fps
3.34 #ps
4.5tr fps
]ITCH
f=
l=
ic=
)c=
/EE
.T
Vtr= 3.34 {ps
n\a-i\, -\. ^,i*-[]tPNs.
Ir\o+5 U)*A
+_
t
I
- lo
I
,'
]ITCH CALCULATIONS
t= O. O35otl +t/iL)= l.O?1 ft L:.
:o
Q= B.OOO trfs20().0(] ft
n= o. (:ri5{)o Vc=
es B. erx) cf El-= !OO. O(:r {t
V=. 7.69 fps
4.bI tps
V= b.77 {ps
4.61 fps
lc=O. {13878 +t/+t)tr= 1 .318 +t TT= O. 4:4 ttIN
)EE CHAN|'IEL B= O. OOO f t
-T S5= 2.Or);1 RT 5S= D.0Ol I
)ITCH trALCUKATIFNS
j= Q. (:r4r:r(l(:l +t/+l)= 1.047 ft
lc= {). e3878 f t/+t n; 6; r1:g$$ Vc=)c= 1..318 f t TT= r].49J MIN
/EE trHANNEL F; I). OOO f t
-T 55= ?.OO:1 RT 55= O.O{:1
nnar^ c-[lenn-<-,\ A.-, n.n-e
LAs C,1 {S
i\ 9.o^*{ *
rrc' cautuLATr.f.rs O
= tJ. O4O(IO +t/St e=' g, L)Cr(l cf s \r= 6.99 f ps= O. 9?6 f t. l_= g(:1 . 0(l f t
:-- O.035EI6 +t/+t n= O. O!40(l Vc= 7. lE f ps:= 1. 1(16 f t TT= O. 1lF MIN
IRCULAR CHAT,jNEL 1.5{'O FT
9o* i,,- -..-\v-eA - vn,.a {L .h*^^*r\
o+%
JO6 xO.
,.. CONSULTING E}IGIXEERS I! ANCHIIECTS--
'77'
CFOS5ROADS BOULEVABD- 6RAND JUNCTION. CO El5Ol . B03t 243.2242
JOA
clLcur-ATEo rY -E>G-\P r.:';- : ;o^..4-\ F - I C
cx€cxEo 8Y 3H€ETNO.
-Fr ,J,32 r%".o-tr*{ €R.o-
t\. Aut-e- *.:..
-l t'. ItJ \ \ I
-Q.,ee
C C h-.rt -'r
o={-J
fr n - - ^ I -$ '- p I<c.-l,-re r--t ..- - r..-, \-c-'t- ccrrrcA r -ir o.- $| /r
i voo
E3 troo
I
tl
f; :oo
o,
a 2oo
' f"uk,i5t d:*zfi:.::$ "+
6 a.z-o_\.s.
.,. ?ratA = @.=rn/;.-L
0.3 0.! o.t o.? t.o0.1
TIT,IE OF. COIICEITF.AtIOI| - hours
To further define lirnitations on the graphical uret.hod the results ofnunerous TR-20 runs were conpared- with estj.rnaies of peak discharge made withthe graphical method. The rr:ns were. rnad.e for ranges'of the tine of concen-tration (hours), the precipitation volune (inchesi, and the curve nunber of0.5 to 5.0 hours, 1.0 to tb.O inches, and so to g!'",ttuu nunber units, re-spectively. The results indicate that the graphical rnerhod is a valii ap-proxinati.on of TR-20 as long as the initial-abitraction is less than 2s ier-
Figure 9. Peak discharge in csm per inch of naoff versus tioe ofconcentratj.on (Tc) for 2/--houq Wpe-II sto:m distribution.
::i..:f,:-l:_:":i.l 24-hour rainfatt; this constraint. is e-asily assessed uiingthe forlowing tabular representation of the constrai"t, *t i"r, relates thecurve number (CN) and the minimurn precipitation:
. m].n r.nun
t.preC].D].E.at]-on
8.00 inches
J. JJ. '3.42
2. 00
0. 88
0.42
50
60
7A
80
90
oq
25
"o
TIME OF CONCENTRATTON F/
BASED ON -ElgfrIN EXAMPLE
O .,*uo*9 irll-FIGURE 803-28
-trc
,-..)
9
o
'40F
Lg
UJt!
7u
lrlC)z
F
22,
(,F
I
anlrj
32
=
=
lrl
=
I
I
Ii
t
I
L
I
Ia
l.
L
o
{,rs€- \tc .sn-t\
Tq^, t.8jl.l-C) vtT
96
C. Cocfllcienl of ntnotf
g. oistonce of flow In feet
S 'Slo9c in 7"
T.. l,^:-l =oA
"L Lr'o..s il*"j- LoF
O.4OO'
S'l?"
C. O.7O
T"' 15 Mintdes
o
FIGURE 8O4- 1E8-36
TJANUARY '1980
(z)
5.
rEo
l6a
rl6
!44
ro,ooo
a,ooo
6,OOO
5,OOO
EXAMPL E
0.56 ircLr l!.O t..l I
Q.66 ct. -'
:-6
=
FaL.
-G --- lrl.F
-'.f;
-..
a.$t
(3)5. r6.f' L. *6.
-4.
?.
-e.2.
1.5
r.5 t.5 -
r.o t.o
-r.O r
-.9
-.8
J
I
.?
-1
5 .6
,6
.t
?9*o
. p | 4.,
-ar- " rzl,5 aY{5
.t-Ll,L{t-,f
s4-*---'-- 'e
trl.948,l
- ^^ --a-:zB
-42 z' 2-/o
- _-t/, --
too -/
,eo/ -- '-
5
4
I
2
l!o
ttrFtl
=
.3
HEADWATER DEPTH FOR
.'. rb'd h"s <epa.;\ ,fiili; il[?tt".tJ,tt?li
vnuck ar.c*l-''- $E<
2.o.9-t rr^'t I
Pa\ .
€
o
RECOMMENDED S/TE GRADING
1- site grading should_ s-lope away from the structure in alldirections- Recomeende. siopes lre 6 inches in the first 10.'feet and L/4 inch per foot ilsewhere.
Foundation should be backfilled with a non_porous, non-swelli,ng nateriar and-should be conpacted to not tess than9 5 t of Standard proctor oerr-ity i, deteru,ined by AgTtlStandard D-698.
:rrrigatS'on shourd be ninimized. or elirnlnated, where possibreto reduce the Dotential for "*""ss uorsture to reach thefoundation.
2.
3.
sc HEMA TI C
or^o,-Ecountf,
551 Broadway
Eagle,Colorado 81631
Oerk and Recorder
P.O. Box 557
Eagle, Colorado 81631
(303) 328:7311
Septernber 18, 1986
Mr. l{lke Lauterbach
Post Office Box 3451
Lamar Capital Corp,
Vail, Col-orado 81658
RE: Iile No.: SH-467-86
Dear Mr. Lauterbach,
Ttlis letter ls to inforrn you of an error on the letter senE Eoyou dated Septenber 16, L986. Iten nurnber 4 should not read Lot ,'4"
It should instead read Lot "10".
We appologize for this error, and should you have any furtherquestions, please do not hesitate to conLact us.
Sincerely,
4c*<:a*-14*
Susan Vaughn, Dlrector
Deparlment of Communi ty Development
sv/cb
cc: Nick Larnpiris
Kristin Pritz, Tom of VaiI
Jim Fritze, County Attorney
Larry Metternick, County Engineer
Mlchael Mo11ica, County PlannerErik Edeen, County Environmental Health Officer
Files
Treasuter
P.O. Box 4?9
Eagle, Colorado 81631
Board of County Commissioners Assessor
P.O. Box 850 p.O. Box 449
Eagle, Colorado 81631 Eagle, Colorado g163l
Sheriff
P.O. Box 359
Eagle, Colorado 81631
il,.l;,''-. ... ;:ii*Ig*,r-:+.r i ;.,l.il
Sli .; : i3ii6
: l'. v\
BANNEFI
September 18' 1985
!.1r. Mike Lauterbach
P.O. Box 345I
Vail' Co 81658
Re: Surface drainage for Elk Meadows Subdivision
Vail, Co #8095-05
Dear Mike'
We have reviewed the drainirge for this project Partj.cularly as it
concerns the drainage which will flow beneath the access drive
from Lionrs Ridge Loop Road at approximate tg";16n 1+18 (per
roadway drawings prepared by John MacKown).
our investigations indicate that the 18" corrugated metal pi-pe is
adequare foi the anticipated flows. The location of the culvert
is governed by the roadway profile and the proposed typical
croJs-section and their interaction with the existing grouad'
we believe that the southern end of the 18n culvert night
discharge flows in a better manner if it were moved somewhat to
the west so that the discharge of 2.0 cfs, with a velocity of
approximately ?.3 feet per second, is not discharged directly at
lot 9 as is currently shown.
The site plan we were provided indicates that the private access
road to these lots is noet approximately 25 to 30 feet south of
the location shown for our geologic hazard nitigation work.
This encroachment increaseS Somewhat the maximum water surface
elevation a-nd the anticipated velocities.
The critical area will- be along the front of lots 6, 7 and 8
where we anticipate the vefocities could apProach 8 feet per
second due to the additional encroachment of the short stub
driveway which is not shown on John MacKown's roadway drawi-ngs.
structures and driveway fill along these three lots should be
protected against these high veLocities with riprap having a mean
diameter of not less than 9 inches. This requirement could be
qrai.ved through the use of an 18" diameter culvert beneath the
intersection with the short stub driveway where it joins with the
main access driveway.
ffili;l-l:",;'*
BANNER ASSOCIATES. INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEEAS & ARCHTIECTS
2777 CROSSROADS. BOULEVARD
GRAND JUNfiON, CO 81506 . (3031 243-2242
o
BANNEFl
Mr. Mike lauterbach
September 18, 1986
Page T\vo
I have.also enclosed a typical site grading plan which may be
incorporated since all structures will need to be elevated above
the -ilrainage way at least It-9'.
Should fou hhv'd Eny questions' p'lease do not'hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Donald G. Pettygrove, P.E.
DGP/c.L)
Encl: Drainage calculations
cc: Susan Vaughn
Eagle County Courthouse
w,lcalculations
\turtuij
ruH'\i','.r\
\l'i'tr.ft
r\-l-or--.1 I
=\
n
s
7((
S
ttry5/$
|,K.$N ,/-.-\
i:i
<e
2))
.rE @..11.
39'37',30'
-.-z . !E0 'R- 8l W.R. go w. 3810c.' E
ROAD CLASSIFICATION
r06'22',30',
Primary highway, \ Ugttt'auty road, hard or
hard surface- improved sudtc€--
Secondary highway,
hard surface - Unimprored road-i --"--'-
l-a Inrarcraro trnrrrr J*( u s. noui" f) Sbte Route
't""*^
qsa6m 7oq) F€Er
I XILOH€?€R
{li'l) ., r;i.,.r\ir-r , iJtto
..1r.',,: ' (D
?.l
?3-?
u
t
3g
-?
t
'.2
1
r+r -O.oL.4
::.--
i,.t
:. -ii'
+J
gr
a+a(t{
I
l+{
'6
O3'il
,3 ,!
Frd3dEJ
l{..,t
.:P s9gj --',1
:L3:
Io3
r.ll;1
!;i
oF lrJ-o
=2
o-
|o<tt2
E
G
e
e
6a6
s3l{cNr Nr (o) JJoNnu l33uro
'a(!
5s
9!ooo
oo
co
rEi-!E :
Fi r
iii
@oNl@olo
dli
z
tr
olrl
lt
TLoz
=G
lr-o
z.9
oqt
;(9|o
oGa
I
EI
E(t!o_at:c
g!:6sj
E:
-:ooL
-c=B=-.5;r.E
E
riNIFI
17
o,
r,rtt r,E J .g_q,f uT4Irg{-.sHE{joR _c!r.aRr ufl roo
Ft-rl'*55 :.:: 'c*p"."a *y-LkF o..o?- \-l-
.5.
drainage
:
(6-c;-
6-b, or 6-c.
QP. QU x. \?c.--C cfs
E. ibdifications for Urbanization
IllP' I .
29
DITCH CALCULATIONS
$= O. OE6O(:| +l/+I e=D= O.5Sg ft l_=
Sc= O. 0?891 +t/+tDc= 0.691 +t TT=
B.oorl c+s
5Or). OO f t
n= 0. O35{rO Vc=1.6i3 MIN
\,r= 3. f -I *ps
- - 3.34 *ps
'o
CALCULATItrI.]s
(1.o4oeo +iztt G= e.tr,r,)t1.395 f t 1-= : i{}1: OO
:
Cl. {39?l +t/+l n= 0. O_TE()O0.6?! ft TT= 1.E'41 MIN
CHA|.INEL S= {l.0OO f t55=1O.00:1 *],.=*= O.Oo:1
YY\3i\
-D.BN€,
V= 4.5f, fFs
S.34 {ps
]ITCH
l=
ic=
7
cfs
+t
Vc=
t4'
I
I
I
-\.q,.*-[ eto.r<- Lfs U)*oo
( ser-,t,--r-*rsz-:C
DITCH CALtrULATIONS
l= O, r)F60e +t/+l e-: g. rlOOl= l.t)21 ft [= IOO.OD
lc= O. O3B7B +t/+t rti 0. OI=C)C)lc- 1..31Et ft TT= 0.454 MIN
/EE CHAN}{EL B: O. OOO f t
-T SS= ?.OO:1 RT SS= O;O(l:1
.o
)ITtrH CALCULATIONS
-i= O. O4(:,(:lO +l/+l
'
O= B, rJe{:})= L.QA7 +l l_= ?r:,0.OO {t
lc= O. OS87A +t./+t n= 0. (--'f,5{:xl
)c= 1. S18 f t: TT= C).49f, MIN
iEE trHANNEL g= 0. Otx_r +t
-T SS= 2.OO:1 RT SS= O,OO;l
cfs
+t
Va=
c+s
Vc=
\,r= 7 .64 {ps
4.6t lps
V= 6.77 fps
4.61 fps
{y\arn c-[renn-<-,\ A-=rn=n-e i\ 9.o^-\ "[LAs G,1 {S
311:-lr a--5-11s-6
ITCH CALCULATIONS
= O.O4O(.IQ +t/+t e= B.OOD cfs \,r= 6.?9 {ps= 0.9?6 f t [= SO. r]O +t
== {).113586 +l/+l n= O.0?4D(-, Vc= 7. lE f ps
== 1.106 f t TT= O. 119 MIIV
IRCULAR trHAT{NEL El= 1.5t)O FT
o
@+%
-, [v=A - vna rL A-^"*r\
5'o+€- - 'h\.€+ .o*l--o\
lr4O tb''nt
rlr^ \r\ au--t.r-e4 -3ir-
l.=n*@;/.l-(
\ tr.--*.'..n*.^ d .
. I= ,qbr.,;t/t"\o
Q=
t\Att-e- *o. ...\pi\i'
J*r
CC h--''t-t
-+J
za rc3l.eb,
I
60i+ \,6 * ,6o15
-' PeaL I *).o,r.,,/,i.-k
0.3 0.
of r"tuoff versus tiroe
stotm distribution.
io,r's
6 o.2o-1,s.
=f;..i,
'.!,-.
:i'
l.oO
E
o
q(,
x
o., 0.? 1.0
0F goICEmlAtIO - bours
i rr a<rn nar. .l nahl'v- s.v.r
2/'-hou4 ti"e-Il
ni n .i -'.-
precip itat ion
8.00 inches
J.JJ
'3.42
0. 88
0.42
q.0 5.0
TII.IE
Figure 9. Peak discharge
concentration (Tc) for
50
60
70
80
90
95
of
To further define limitations on the graphical nrethod the results ofnumerous TR-20 runs were conpared with estim.ies of peak discharge rnade withthe graphical nethod. The rtms were.nade for ranges oe ttre-tiure of concen-tration (hours), the precipitation volune (inches!, and the curve number of0.5 to 5.0 hours, r.0 to r0.0 inches, and s0 to 9! curve nunber units, re-spectlvely. The results i.ndicate that the graphicar nethod is a varii ap-proxirnation of TR-20 as long as the initial-abitraction is less than 25 ie!-cent of the total 24-hour rainfall; this constraint is eisily assessed uiingthe followi.ng tabular representation of the constrai"t, "t i"r, relates thecurve nurnber (CN) and the nininurn precipitalion:
25
O JAlruARg
-rs[
-FIGURE 8O3-28
500
400
300
+
o
:l
lrl
lrJ
l.l.
iz7
trl()z3
Lo
i
t
t
L
I
,t
t.
L
IJF
I
an
lrJ
3z
=
=
trl
=tr
zoo
roo
+-tzr^L.
ro
o
1.t52 c an.-l\
BASED 0N EOU4I!eN
Tg= 1.8 (l.l-C) vt'lt
.tF
C. Coclflcicnt of runoff
D ' Distoncc of flos In tcet
S'SloPc 'm oln
EXAMPLE
D.4OO'
S'lo/o
C. O.7O
T"' 15 Minutes
"-... l*s{ stA
"L L'o^s $*a L"F
,,
FIGU RE 8O4 - I E8-36
.,ANUARY I98O
-'.I,OOO
809
600
5(,0
4(,0
too
,- ot
IElrl
=o
=
o.
#'")
-- l-
./':'
.,/E TRA GE.T/ _ rrp!,
' ,..n4('
4t.t re e,lttctr
. tr rtotr
GlrlF
-o
' lrl
lF
-5:1.$3>>
a n dt
to rr. r3.l. (Zt .r (!l ,t.t.cl
t.rit l.llt ta .c.1. lllr tl.r
r.a rrr.ltltl r.3lt..a li.a ltt.rft
O a.a O raalaar at ?ar.ata aa
'*l''lll_
"5r---f.-::-f-.t
a.
I a:, .-
!.
2.2.
t.!- l.t
, t.o LO
-1.O.
.t
.E
.t
.8
.8
.7 j
.7
.o .6
.6
.5
55
53
30
200
60
to
40
!o
20
--J13ZT.5 e'lFG
-LLlrr:r-
.t
HEADWATER DEPTH FOR
,'. tA'6 hos <cpa.r\ ,ii.'il-; ili.?rt?bL??:l' wr,^.L. er.cra-..- $€n*
2.o "S: ..dJ.
b
o
SC HEMA
RECOMIVIENDED S/rE GRAD I NG
r' lite grading should_ sl0pe away from the structure in alldirections- Recommended riopes ire 6 inches in trre first r0."feet and I/4 inch per foot Elsewhere.
Foundation should be backfilled with a non_porous, non_swelli-ng materi-ar and should be cornpacted to not less than95t of Standard proctor o"""ity ." a"i.rri""a by ASTMStandard D-898.
:rrrigation shourd be ninimized or elirnlnatea wnere possibleto reduce the potential foi e*cess molsture to reach thefoundation.
2.
3.
ET
-
EAGLECOUNT
I
Y
551 Broadway
Eagle,Colorado 81631
(303) 328:7311
Septeober 16, 1986
Mr. Mike Lauterbach
Post Office Box 345 I
Larnar Capital Corp.
Vail, Colorado 81658
RE: Fil-e No. : SM-467-86
Dear Mr. Lauterbach,
As you requested by phone on August 27 , L986, we have scheduled the
hearing of your minor subdlvision for Seprember 23, 1986, at 10:15 a.rn.in the County Conrnissioners Meeting Room, ln order to receive publlc
connnent prior to the October L4, 1986 neeting to which the Board tabled
your application. We have notified adjacenc property or{rners and the
Town of Vail of the schedule.
As I mentioned on the phone today, there are items which we have
requested but have not yet received. They are as fol-lows:
1. A road plan and profile is needed shoruing construction-type
plans and speciflcatLoos for the roadway/drlveway which w111
serve the lots, as well as the aeeess to Lots 7, 8, and 9.
These plans should show topography, cross sections, dralnage,
road cuts, and other engineering details pursuant to the grading
perrnit issued by the County earlier in the year.
An overall drainage plan is oeeded which lncludes flow calculatlons
and which shows drainage patterns around proposed home sites.
A formal PUD control document is needed rvhich specifies land use
restrictions such as a11owab1e uses, setbacks, floor area
limitatlons, height restrictlons, parking requirements, and any
requlrements concerning the wa11s for rockfall protection.
Lot 4 should be deleted.
,
?
4.
Board of County Commissioners Assessor
P.O. Box 850 P.O. Box zt49
Eagte, Colorado 81631 Eagle, Colorado 81631
Oerk and Recorder
P.O. Box 537
Eagle, Colorado 81631
Sheriff
P.O. Box 359
Eagle, Colorado 81531
Treasurer
P.O. Box 479
Eagle, Colorado 81651
llike Lauterbach
September 16, 1986
Page Two
5- A drarring of a typical lot layout for Lot 9 and for one other Lotshould be included, whlch sholrs typical building footprint,parking area, road cut, drainage, snow 6torage.
Though I vill be out of the office on Friday, you may leave rheinfornration wich the secretary, and the staff will review it for theni:eting of the 23rd. I^Ie will' recomrnend tabling to the october L4, Lgg6meeting if any of the information is not lneluded or does not meet the
Countyr s engineering standards.
r am enclosing an invoice from the colorado Geologic survey for feesinvolved in the review of your proposal. you should send your eheckdirecEly to them.
Sincerely,
^,4 Q/ /@uaztz /Az.a.A,^.,
Susan Vaughn, Dit""K
Department of Couununity Development
SV/cb
cc: Nick Larnpiris
I(ristln Prltz, Town of Vail
Jim Fritze, CounEy Attorney
Larry Metternick, County Engineer
Michael Mo1lica, County Planner
Erik Edeen, County Environmental Health OfficerFiles
/
75 soulh f.onlage road
Yail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
September 16, 1986
ofllce of communlty development
Eagle County Board of Commissioners
P. 0. Box 850
Eag'l e, Colorado 8l631
Re: SM-467-86 Fjnal Plat for Phase III at The Val ley, a portion of Parcel A,
Lionsridge Subdivison, FiIing No. 2
Dear Commissioners:
The Town of Vail Community Development staff would ljke to outline two areas of
concern pertaining to The Va1 1ey Phase III. In respect to the first issue, it
was decided at the August 26, .|986 County Commissioners meeting that the finalplat for Phase III at The Valley would be reviewed us.ing a Type B Minor
Subdivision process. The Town of Vail Community Development Department staff
does not understand why the PUD subdivision process is not being used when the
minutes seem to indicate that the PUD process is required for each phase of The
Val 1ey. Mr. Jim Fritze, Eagle County Attorney, stated that in the 1980 minutes
of the discussion of The Va11ey it was stressed that each parce'l would need to
go through a complete PUD process. He jndicated that Phase III of The Va11ey
was approved for ten units having a total of 16,000 square feet of GRFA. It
appears that Phase III should be reviewed under the PUD regu'lations.
Our second concern is that the Type B minor subdivision will not provide
adequate review information, especial1y in the area of site standards. In the
Planned Unit Development Distri ct of the Eagle County zoning code, it states in
Secti on 2.06. 13 No. I :
"The PUD proposal shall be considered as a subdivision in
accordance with current Eagle County subdivision regulations. The
PUD zone amendment applicatjon shal'l be submitted with a
preliminary subdivision p1an. Included jn this submittal shall be
a PUD guide sett'i ng forth the proposed land use restrictions."
The PUD guide would address basic site development standards that would include
maximum 'lot area, maximum lot coverage, maximum floor area ratio, minimum
setback, and maximum height of bu'i 1ding. Our opinion is that the informat'i on
requested in the sketch plan application, and pre)ininary plan applicatjon
sections of the Planned Unit Development District (2.06.13 No. 4 and No. 6)
should be required in order to review The Val)ey Phase III. There are also
specific standards and requirements (2.06..|3 No.2) and criteria for evaluationof the PUD (2.06.13) which will he)p in the review of the proposa'I. (Please
see the enclosed sections of the code that relate to the PUD and Type B ninor
subdivision processes. )
As stated in our previous )etter, we feel the proposal js inconsistent and
incompatible with the existing and approved multi-family development of The
Valley PUD. Phase IIi is bordered on the east by an existing multi-familyproject (Phase I) and on the west by an approved, unbuilt multi-family project
(Phase VI). To compromise the established planned-unjt development,
multi-family nature of The Va1ley PUD with a smal'l-'lot single-fami1y
development which will be sporadica'l )y developed by each Jot owner js notutilizing good planning princip'l es. The Val'l ey represents a very sensitive
area which requires consistency and compatibility (including aesthetics)
between phases
Il|e hope that you will consider these comments in your review on 0ctober 14,1986. The Town of Vajl Conununity Development staff will also send a
representative to the meeting on 0ctober 14th to be present if you have anyfurther guestions.
Si ncerely,lt I nl
ttrrl'bn Kih
Kri stan Pritz
Town Pl anner
KP: br
cc: Susan Vaughn
Mike Mollica
Jim Fritze
c) Adeguacy _of the proposed improvements agreercenEand/or off-site road improvemencs agreenent whenapplicable in accordance with SectiSn 2.20.
For Subraittal Dates, Review procedures, and Fees, SeeSection 2.25
TYPE B MINOR SUBDIVISION
1) Five (5) copies of an application form alons with asite-p1an, papel copies-df tne final plar, ind anysupplenental inforrnltion shall be subilicced to theDepartnent of Comrnunity Developrnent. tti"-rui".original of the final plat is iue the Monday prior tothe Planning Cororoission hearrng.
Accompanying the inforrcation shall be a subdivisionSummary_Form_(as found in Appendix A) ""a-tt.required application fee.
2) T-he supplemental information shall include thefol lowing:
C
2.2L.O3
a)
b)
That the land included within the proposed mao
ls properly zoned for the proposed'".L;- - ---r
That all lots on the proposed- map abut a streetor road which is physically acceisible, orcapable of bei_ng physically accessible fron thepuDlr-c stre_et by conventional vehicle;That satisfacEory evidence has been furnished tothe existence of- an adequat" "rra dependablewater supply for each lot;That satisfactory evidence has been furnished toEne exrstence ot a septic tank disposal site, orother 1awfu1 means of disposing of'human ,""i"",which_complies with aIl, aipficlble public heallirlavrs for each proposed lotlThat satisfactory evidence has been furnished toEne geology, soi-Lr- topography, drainage, fireprotection, and other conditions so as toindicate the subdivision will not creaEe anvhazards and that all lots will cont.i; ;"i;1adequate building sites;An improvenents agreement, off-site roadinprovments agreement, or other agreemenE
c)
d)
e)
f)
. . -. ,.{*r ,i.
217
3)
required by the Board of County Commissionerspursuant to Section 2.20 of these Regulationsneed to be executed and submitted C.'tn"-fJ"ra
-\ of County Comnis s ioners ;8) Three (3) copies of all the protectivecovenants, declarations, palty wal I agreernentsor other restrictions oi"""d- on the s,Ibdivision,one copy of which shali be fired-i;r-;;;;;;i"gin the office of the Clerk and Recorder at thetiroe of recording the Final plac;
This inforroaEion shall be referred to the CouncyEngineer, Counry_Enviromeniaf Heairrr-oiti"Il .r,oCounry Arrorney for their i""1"*-"";.;;#;;.
The Zoning Administrator of the Department ofConnuniry Dewelopment sharl .e..rilr.;il-i;;."; MinorSubdivision and iake final-";;i;; on the Type B MinorSubdiwision. rhe planni"t c;ili""i""-"ia^i5lri .,tCounty Comnissioners will"sign iire final plat if ithas been approved by rhe Z;;i;g-AdrainisEraror.
The Zoning Adninistracor shall consider the followingin the revierv of the Type B Mi";. Subdivision:
a) Adequacy of access, water and sewage disposal onthe land to be subdivided:b) Review of the tlinor Subdivision to derernine ifthe proposed subdivision "o.,fo.r"-t"-tt,"*fii"fPlat-requirements and other applicable
^\ 13qg1ations, poticies and guiiLfines; -
c) Aoeguacy -9t !1. proposed improvements agreementand/or off-site ioad irprorrLr"rrcs agreenent whenapplicable in accordancb wirh Secti;"-t:tii: "
*:I.:tt::I-of the decision of the Zonins
l^"1_tl1::iaror may be made to the Board Ef Countyuor'rmt-s s roners . orovided,. however, that such app6al isnade prior to tirirty t:ol a"y"-i3ri"ri"e-Ii.-IlEl'.rthe Zoning AdrnininsLr"cort " f ""i"r-o.,.
5::.i::"i:;;1 0.."", review procedures, and fees, see
4)
s)
2 .2L.04 ADDITIONAL REQUIREI.{ENTS
The additional requirements forshall be the sane as those for aSection 2.L9.
C)a ltlinor SubdivisionFinal P1at, found in
218
2.06.L3 PUD . PLAT\NED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
UD.shall be cons iderevlsi.on COrdance I^,currev1s10n
al l
r'-Q1) Purpose - To perraic Ehe applicatioo of netvEechnology an9 greaEer fr!!aom of design in landoevelopnenE. Ehan -nay be poss ible under-sEriccrnEerpretation of Ehe provisions of EheseRegularions. The densicy of uses-i"O-'i"i.iEuCeof _developnenc, however, must be-oi--sult.j"iin"and scale- ro be-"pp.opii"l"-"na consisr"n. "iEijEhe characcer of bigll councy. The u"u-oi it"PUD-provisions- is dEpendenL i.rpon the submissionor an acceptable plan, a prov6n favorableenvrronEienEal inpact stuciy (if required), andsaEisfacEory_ assurances cire'pI.; -;iii-u!'"Iiri.a
our. Such planned Unic Deveiop*""c-pi". ii"t U"in accord wich rhe Counry Masrir ii";-;; ur"i'U.currenE.Iy adopted for thl Councy.
The Planned DevelopnenE is a separate Zone dis_Ericc and, on]I.-r.f !"r specif icaily "na-piop"iiyapplied for, may be.appioved by -ie-d;";;;';;r_
mj.ss ioners in accordaiie ,,rith the provis ions ofthese RegulaEions.
Eh
U
ri'
n
4
I
s ub-e uount
relim-
2),., Standards and Requirements
The following stanciards and requiremenEs shaIIgovern the application of a pla^n".a-U"it -"-
DevelopurenE:
a) The PUD shall be consisEent wiEh the inEenEof the IIasEer plan and rhe policiesl-haroin
Tbe.design anci consEruction of che pUDsnaII lnclude adequaCe, safe, andconvenienE arrangenenEs for peciesErian andvehicular circuliEion, off_srreeE parkin!-and Ioading space.
I^Ihile.fh.ere nal./ be no fixed seEbacks andIoC lttldCilS, Che CounCy COmmissiOners mayrequire such secbacks, loE r,/idEh;, ancispace beErueen buildings as he.eisu.y co
b)
c
50
o provide adequate access and fireprotection, to insure p?oper ventilation,light, air, and snoumelt betueen buildings,and to insure. that the PUD is compatiblerlith other devel oprnent in the €Fea. As ageneral guide, 3O feet betrrreen huiLdings isconsidered nin imum.
d) Open space for the PUD shall be planned toproduce marimum usefulnesE to the residentsof the development for purposes ofrecreation, scenerg, and to produce a feel-ing of opennpss. All areas designated as
common or public open Epace pursuant to therequirements of this section shaII beaccesEible bg proper phgsical and legalaccegE uaqg.
The developer shall provide rrrithin the pUD
central oater and seu.rer faci!.ities as magbe required bg the Gountg Commissioners,the Colorado Departrnent of Public Health,and the local health authorities.
The development shall be designed to pro-vide for nEcessarg commerciaL recreationsland educational facilities convenientlg lo-cated to residential hous ino.
q) Clustered housing and other buildings shatlbe encouraged to promote maxinum open spaceand economg of development and varietg intgpe' design and lagout of buildings.
h) l'laximum height of structures shaII beestablished bg the approved PUD ptan.
Criteria for Evaluation of the pUD
The follouing criteria shaIl be utilized bg thePlanning Commission and tie Countg Commissionersin evaluating ang Flan for Planned Unit
Deve I opment:
Open Space
It is recommended that a minimurn of ?S per-cent of the total PUD area shall be devotedto open air recreation or other usable opensp€c€r public or quasi-public.
e!
f)
3)
a)
{t'
61
Unusable open 5p€ce shall not be includedin the ?5 percent. g e
b ! Residential Dansitrg
Densitg shalI be lirnited Es required bg theCountg Cornmissioners upon consideration oSthe llaster Plan and individual chargctaris-ticE of f,he sub;eet land
cl Dengitg of Other UsEs
The densitg of uses other than residentislshall be liarited as required bg the CountgCofiniesionere upon consideration of theHaster PIan and individual characteristicsof the sublect land.
d) Architecture
Each structure in the Planned Unit Develop-nent shall be designed in such a {oenner €sto be cornpatible ruith other units in the€r€€r get to avoid uniforrnitg and lack ofvarietg in strucf,ural designs among the
PUD.
e ) l"ti xed Uses
The PUD ehall be designedr insofar aspracticable uhen coneidering the overallsize of the PUD, to provide cornmerciel'recreational and educational anenities toits residents to alleviate the nesessitg ofincreased traffic and traffic congeetion.
f ) l,lirnioun Area
A PUD is not gernritted on a parcel of landlesr then 9 acres in erea. The rnininrunerea Fequirement nag be uaived uponadequate ;ustification shoun bg the' app 1i cant.
g ) ltaintenance of Open Space
No PUD shalI be apgroved unless the .CountgCornmissioners ale satisfied thet thelandouner{s} have provided for orestablished en adequate organizstion forthe ounership and maintenance of com,nonopen sp€ce and private roads, drivEs and
62
O.
parking uhich, in the opinion of the CountgConrnissioners, is best calculated to insuremaintenance of such area.
Enplogee Housing
For anrl PUD pro..1ect, the app Licant isresponsible to analgze his emplogee housingneedE and shou, hou he is satisfging these
needs-
Sketch Plan Application
An applicant shall subfiit !? copies, or ,nore asmag be required, of the completed applicationform to the Department of Comrnuni tgDevelopment. The sketch plan shall include, inaddition to the subdivision requirernents, the
f ollouring information in conceptual or schematicdesign or report forn:
h)
)4',t
a)
b)
c)
d)
f)
9)
h)
Reasons PUD procedure is more desirabtethan conventional p lan;
o'
Proposed land usesr building
housing unit densities;
(1)
(3)
a-\
locations and
indicating theProposed circulation patternstatus of street ournersh io;
Proposed open sp€ce,
e) Proposed grading and drainage pattern;
Proposed rnethod of urater supp Ig and seuage,
Proposed PUD Guide setting forth the pro-posed land use restrictions;
Ang or eI1 of the follouring requirements,
urhen neceFS€TIJr based on the cornpl.exitg ofthe proposal:
supporting data to gustifg ang pro-posed conmercial and industrialelements in an area not so zoned;
prop osed schedule of develoomentphasing;
draft environmental impact statementunless rrlaived bq the Board of Countg
'D o.J
Commissioners at the request of the
app licant,
statement as to the impact of the
proposed PUD upon the Countg school
sg 6 tem
(41
(s)
(6)
(7'
t8l
(?)
statement of estimated
Countg s ervices;
statement of pro;ected
levenue based upon thegear'F Countg tar levgof proJected receipts
revenuei
demands for
Countg tar
previ ous
and a scheduleof that
preliminarg site plans, and prelirnin-arg arrhitectursl plans proposed forthe first phase of proposed
deve I opmen t;
proposed method of fire protecti.on;
conceptual plans of all architecturelforms anticipated for developrnentuithin the Planned Unit Daveloprnent;
( 101 emp logee hous ing p Ian.
Sketsh Plan Revierrr
a) In addition to the standard iterns consid-ered in Subdivision Revieu, the Planning
Cornnission and Countg Comrnissioners shallaIFo consider the follouing in their revieurof the sketch plan:
(1)There are special phgsical conditionsor oblectives of development uhichthe proposal uill satisfg to uarranta departure from the standard negula-tion requ irements;
(2)Resulting development ui11 not beinconsistent urith the Haster plan
ob;ectives;
The anea around the development canbe planned to be in substantial
harmong nith fhe proposed pUD;
c
5l
(3)
64
o,(4) The adlacent and nearb! communitiesui11 not be detriraentallrg affecied bgthe proposed PUD;
(5) The PUD can be eompleted uithin a
reasonab le peri od of tirne, urh ichshalI be deternined prior to finalapproval of the PUD;
(6) Ang proposed conmercial or industrialdevelopment san be gustified;
(7, The streets are adeq-uate to supportthe anticipated traffic and the de-velopment rrri 11 not overload thestreets outside the planned aFeaj
(E) Proposed utilitg and drainage facil-ities are adequate for populationdensities end tgpe of developrnent
prog osed;
(9) The emplogee housing plan as providedis acceptable.
b) For submittal dates, revieul procedures, andfees for the Planned Unit Developmentsketch planr see Section ?.?S.
6) Preliminarg Plan Application
An applicant shall subrnit 22 copies, ot. more asnag be required, of the completed applicationform to the Department of CommunitgDevelopment. The Preliminarg plan shallinclude, in addition to the suhdivisionrequirements, the follouring inforrnation:
€) A Final Environrnental Inpect Statement (ifrequired);
b ) The overal l developrnent p lan;
c ) An Application for Zone Change;
d) A PUD Control Documant;
e) Ang other information required uith Sketch
P lan Approval
65
7, PreI irninarg Plan Revierrl
{1}
(e)
(3)
(4)
a) fn addition to the standard iterns conEid-ered in subdivision revieur, the Planning
Comrnission and Countg Comrnissioners shallconsider the follouling in their revieu ofthe Preliminarg Plan:
Adequacg of Final Environmental
fmpact Statement (if required);
Ang information requested or requiredbg the Gountg Commissioners uponapproving the Sketch PIan;
Application for appropriate ;one
chang e;
The PUD control document. This docu-nent formal lg establishes thepermitted Land Uses and must be filedurith the Clerk and Recordar.
For 9ubmittal Dates, Revi eur Procedures, and
Fees for the Planned Unit Development Pre-liminarg Plan, see Section ?.25.
a)Additional Requirements
Permits for construction in a PUD shall beissued onlg on the basis of the approvedgrel iminarg p lan.
Ii no construction permits have been i.ssueduithin three gears of the date of final ap-proval of the PUD and if urork has notproceeded in accordance urith said permits,
the preliminarg plan shall be automaticallgterminated. Approval mag be extended uponuritten request, uhen reviauled bg thePlanning CommiEsion and granted bg theBoard of Countg Gommissioners after a pub-
lic Hearing.
Anendments to PUD
The PUD plan as finallg approved bq the Board ofCountg Commissioners shall he binding and shallnot be changed during the construction of the
PUD except upon application to the appropriateagencies under the f ollouring procedures:
b)
a)
b)
o
9)
66
al l'linor changes in locations, sitings, bulkof structui€sr height or ch€recter ofbuilding rnag be authorized bg the ZoningAdninistrator if required bg cirrumstancesnot f oreseen at the tirne the prel irainargplan rrra s ap proved.
' art-other ;h-""s;; ;;;r;-"'s re€rransemenrin lots alI changes in the provisions ofopen Ep€ce or densitg, mag be rnade onlg bgthe Board of Gountg Cornmissioners, f oI lorr-ing the procedures for the pUD Amendmentdescribed in Section ?- ?F.
b)
t
of
75 south frontage road
Yail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000 otflce of communlty deyelopmenl
July 29, 1986
Eagle County Planning Commissionersc/o Ms. Susan Vaughn
Director, Community Development DepartmencP.0. Box 850
.Eag1e, Colorado 8.l63.l
Re: sM-467-86 Final Plat for phase III at the va11ey, a portion of parcel A,Lionsridge Subdivis'ion, Fi l ing #Z
Dear Commi ss i oners :
The Town of Vail Community Development staff and Planning and Environmental
Comm'i ssjon have reviewed the subdjvjsion and final plat ior phase III of Theva11ey. frle offer the following comments for your consideration:
The vai1 Planning and Environmental commission and staff feel theproposal is general 1y inconsistent with the nature and concept of rhevalley PUD. As you are aware, the intention of this pUD.i s to develop aseries of multi-family projects which work together with each other andwhich respect the sensitive nature of the'l and in this area. we feelstrongly.that taking a phase which is Iocated between two multi-fam.i lyparcels (one existing,-one proposed) and subdividing into single famjjylots for sporadic deve'l opment is inconsistent w.i th lhe overali puo and'the particular site.
If Phase III is allowed to be subdivided into single family 1ots,shouldn't the proposal meet the county's (and posiiuly the'Town,i)standards for single family'l ots?
The information for the proposal is inadequate. The Town's operationaldepartments need to have prel iminary p1an .i nformation submitted for theproj ect
-(
contours, uti 1 i ti es, fi re lccess, dra i nage, and staked I ots ) toadequately review the proposal .
It is very difficult to understand how the east end of the new road w.i IIconnect up to the main road. This issue should be resolved. Roadprofiles of the connection. of the east portion of the road back up toBuffehr Creek Road should be studied.
?.
?
4.
Lot_10 is very narrow. It is difficult to determ.ine how feasible itwould be to develop this. site without contour lines and ind.i cat.i ons ofaccess points to the lot. The 5 foot setback from Buffehr creek Roaddoes not provide a reasonable buffer from the road.
Tract 3 should be broken down to indicate what portion of this tract isdevoted_to open space and what portion is devoted to the road.Presently, the tract combines open space, a drainage ""r"r"nt and theroad.
7. Lot 7 has an incorrect total .acreage for the site. It appears as thoughthe acreage should be changed to read ,,.0g94 acres.,'
8.A subdivision improvements agreement should be subm.itted with theapplicat'i on to determine who is responsib'l e for complet.int'ihe road aswel l as maintaining it.
The road fill does not conform to the existing site contours. Thissituation creates a negative impact on phase it to the *"it-ot pt"."III. Basical 1y, a 30 foot wall of fi'l I exists at the poini where tneprivate road drops down from Buffehr creek Road. rhe iload design doesnot.appear to be very sensitive to the adjacent phase. It.i s difficultto determine with the existing information how access roads will be cut'i nto the individual'l ots as the existing road is very high above theproposed lots.
10. The 5 foot setback from the road should be greater. 5 feet providesvery iittle buffer between the road and the development. A 5 footsetback is also a very minimal standard for side, rear, and frontsetbacks for the proposed lots.
::,3ii?;:'tlhiE'r#1ix\:E^ft:,t:Lk)6"i/u,x!f,,:i\1,,ii,
The staff and Planning Commission feel strongly that addit.i onal jnformation
must be submitted in-order to thoroughly study-this proposai. without th.i sinformation, it is difficult to give the proposal an'aolquite review as thereare many questions that are still unanswered. We encourage the comm.i ss1onersto consider the possibility of requiring the type of infoimat.i on that wou'l dnormally be submitted at the preliminary plan ilage tor a iuuaivision.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this proposa.l
comments wi I I be hel pful .
Si ncerely,
l,le hope that our
Ki'h'.?-h-
Kri stan Pritz
Town Pl anner
KP: br
felt that in this location, a machine that was accessed by foot would bebetter. Donovan felt a traffic hazard would be created because of the
crisscross of the traffic. Piper felt he would rather see a pedestrian
machine, if the 4 parking spots along the side could be marked for short term.
Hobbs agreed as djd Osterfoss.
(z. The val
This project consisted of 10 single family lots, 1600 sq ft each with 5
foot setbacks.
Kristan Pritz stated that the staff did not have adequate information for afinal review. Duane asked jf the PUD might have been consjdered the
preliminary p1an, and Pri tz answered that it may have been. Donovan was
concerned about accessing the road from the lots. She asked if .l600 sq footlots fit the PUD.
After more discussion, it seemed the concerns were:
l. Single Family lots inconsistent with the rest of the PUD.
2. If single family lots wilI be accepted, they should conform to County
regs for single fami1y 1ots, if not to Town regulations.
3. Information for the proposal is inadequate. Town needs preliminary plan
i nformati on such as contours, uti 1 i ti es, fi re access, dra inage, and
staked lots.
4. How does east end of road connect to main road?
5. Five foot setback does not provide enough buffer.
what portion of this tract is
devoted to the road.
Lot 7 has incorrect total acreage.
Need to decide who js responsible for completing and maintaining the
roaq.
Road does not conform to existing contours.
6
7.
x
Tract 3 should be broken down to indicate
devoted to open space and what portion is
-5-
I
€=
rrl
w
a-
EACLECOUNTY
551 Broadway
Eagle,Colorado 81631
(303) 328:7311
Nelson & Tirnothy D, Fitzpatrlck
that there has been a proposal
in your Lonediate area. For
DATE: September 12, 1986
Jarres G.III & James G, Jr., Bryan
712 South Gaylord Streec
Denver, CO 80209
The purpose of chis le@r is to advise you
made which, if approved, would affect landyour information the followtng is provided;
Reference File No: SM-467-86-E1k Mead
Name of Applicant: Mike LauLterbach
Location: E1k Meadorrs, A resubdivision of part ofSubdivision, Filing No. 2Proposal: A Minor Subdivision to create 1O single
meadow.
DaEe and LocaEion of Public Hearings:
Parcel A, Lionts liidge
family lots in the
Eoard of County Couooissi-oners: September 23. 19g6 at 10:lb A.M.
Meetings will be held in the councy conmissionerts Meeting Room ln the
McDonald Building, 55O Broadway, Eagle, Colorado.
Your conunents concerning this application are inviced. For further infor-
macion, do not hesitate t'o contact this office.
Sincerely,
SV,/eh
L
Board of County Commissioners Assessor
P.O. Box 850 P.O. Bax 449
Eagle, Colorado 81631 Eagle, Colorado 81631
./ 4/ ./%da-a-J /crzr7,'l'^-
Susan Vaughn, Dl-rector
Deparcment of Community Developrnent
Cterk and Recorder
P.O. Box 537
Eagle, Colorado 81631
Sheriff
P.O. Box 359
Eagle, Colorado 81631
Treasurer
P.O. Box 479
Eagle, Colorado 8163
a
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
CUSTOMER
ORDER NO.
4l0Jx
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
I3I3 SHERMAN STREET, ROOM 7I5
oENVER, COLORAoO 8O2O3 FHONE l30Bl e66-26t1
INVOICE
INVOICE NO.
- /6703/
INVOICE DATE
3est. 13, 19rij
SOLD TO:
Uspariment of Connunitl,, Dev:'l opmentlagle County
J5r-l tlroedway
t-agla, i0 d1d,ll
SHIPPED TO:
OUANTITY_UNITcosr TOTAL
tLK PltAi)0ltS SiJ6OiYISIJii
CGS FILE IiO. EA-J7.OOO3J. L. ltynes Revlevler
PLUTSE Si-liilt liiv0l0t :tuilBER Oil pAy;rEiiT
;.190. J;j
DArE SHIPPED:,...-__ .-t
n DESTTNATTON:
WHITE: Customet copy' CANARY: Customer copy
. PINK: Agency copy
GOLD: Accounring copy
RETURN CANARY COPY \VITH PAYMENT
Subtotal
Postage
TOTAL
::il )0. r''i
i190.00 bcr
EA-87-0003
RICHARD D. LAMM
GOVERNOR JOHN W. FIOLD
OIRECIOR
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
715 STATE CENTENNIAL AUILOING _ 1313 SHEFIMAN STRE€T
DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 866-2611
September 12, 1986
Ms" Pai ge i4arti n
Department of Conmunity Development
Eag'l e County
550 Broadway
Eagle, C0 8163t
Dear Ms. Martin:
IEffiffS
SEP r5 ig86
ffi?*'irffi'
RE: ELK MEADOI.IS SUBDIVISION
l,le have reviewed this proposal and the supporting documentation, as we] I asthe general and engineering geology of the area.
l'le concur wfth the findings and reconrnendations of 0r. Lampiris and we see noproblem with the alternative rockfal'l mitigation plan proposed by Banner
Associates.
l.le would like to point out that the origina'l cribbing was an inertial design,with a fair amount of flexibility, which the concrete wall will not have.This will require substantial steel reinforcement to be employed for the wal lto have the necessary strength to withstand the high impulse forces it may be
subJected to.
Dr. Lampiris' conments regarding Lot I0 are well taken and we would llke toreiterate them. In as much as no data exists with |rhich to evaluate theproblem on Lot 10, we recommend that it be elimlnated frorn this proposal .
0theruise, we feel no decision should be rendered on the entire subdivisionuntil the detai'ls on Lot'l 0 are available for analysis and review.
In summary, we feel that with the exclusion of Lot 10, this development can be
successful 1y accomplished with the proper design and mitigation as proposed.
Yours truly,
//NyL-4v-'
Jeffrey L.
Engi neerf ng
ynes
Geol ogi st
bcr:JLH-87-021
3214/6
GEOLOGY
STORY OF THE PAST. , . KEY TO THE FUTURE
EAGLE COUNTIo
550 Broadway
P. O. Box 85O
EAGLE, COLORADO 8I63I
(303) 328.731r
ldJ c5
WE ARE SENDING YOU B Attached E Under separate.cover via
LETTih @F TRANSNflITTAL
"i7, i:- /6 ,l::t::, -- *-.t-eL
AIIENTIOR
tho following items:
tr Specifications
TO
! Shop irawings El Prints
tr Copy ot letter
E Plans O Samples
fl Change order E
,l/t r , ,
coPtEs DATE a{o.DESCRIP''ON
t' :l t(.
/' - ()(,4
1,/f, -t' a tr. i ;.-.r'z- - ;/r1 1 ';, ,
d
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checKed below:
E For approval
D For your use
E As requested
E Approved as submitted
E Approved as noted
n Returned tor corrections
E Resubmit--copies for approval
il Submit
-
copies for distribution
D Return
-
corrected prints
p For review and comment n
U FOR SIDS DUE 19-- ! PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
1, /-a'14 .'l.a'
Nicholas Lampiris, PhD
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
P.O. BOX 10935
AsPEN, COLORADO AI6!2
t303) 963.3600 9256020 ASPEN OFFTCE
September I n l?ElA
*rosp
\u i i3B6
",1.::,.''1-lB&
.nt{. i[€G
k'
€rsg.
l'lr . l'l i chael Lauterbach
F. O. Box 3451
Vailn C0. €1658
REr Seologic Report, Fhase III.' The Valley
Dear l"lr, Lauterbach:
I have campleted my geologic invegtigation o{ Fhage III, The
Valley, of the Lion'g llidga Subdivisian. The property lies
aboutt 1/4 mile northwest of Intergtate 7O and approximately
t/4 ni Ie northtrast o{ Euf{er Ereek along Lion's Ridge Loop
within the Totqn o{ \rail o Eagle County, Eo}orado. The long,
nat.r-tlw tract lies along a thin alluvial va1 ley between Lion'g
Ridge and the Lion's Ridge Loop.
The rna jori ty o{ the tract is open meadow o e:<cept r.rh€rre the
hillside along the gr:uthern edge is {airly heavi}y r+ooded.
The proposed bnilding siteg are to be placed at the base o{
this hill ag shown on the accompanyi ng .nap, except that Lot
lt) lies between the Lion's Rid{e Loop and the slrbdivisicrn
access road north of the r:ther lotg.
The geol ogy of the gite conrii stg o{ the Pliddle Pennsylvani.an
age F1i nturn Formati on crnder the site gradi.ng r-tpward into the
Pennsyl van i an-FeFrn j. an age llaroon Fornati on on the steep
hillsider to the north. Bedrock in this area dip* genarally
about 4O degrees tc the north, or into ther steep hillside.
There are sorDe ancient faults in the arear but these are
consi dered inactive and no evidence o+ recent rnovement has
been noted in the i mrnedi ate vicinity, The bedroch: L{ni tg
range {rorn ghaleg to siltstones and selndstones with some
carbonate units interl ayered on the hillside above the site.
The bedrock units at the site are covered by a thin, alluvial
deposit grading into colluvium both north and sonth o{ thegite. This was probably a minor valley "f ormed durring aglacial epoch; evidence o{ glaciaL drift and granitic eratics
can be found at higher level:i. There it; no evidence t:f
channeli:ed {l our in this valley.
The only potential Iy serious geol,ogic ha:ard asgotriated r.lith
this site ig that o* rocl.;{all down the steep hi I Iside to the
north, Thi s potenti al hag been previ ot-ts1 y addregged
:peci{ica}Iy in rny letter of I'lay 1!', 1?E&. I'litigation hag
September 1 , 19816
Eeologic Report, Fhase IlIo The Valley
Fage Two
been proposed by Fanner Aggociates and a tr6py o{ their reportis herein i nclr-rded. Lot 1O, however, in its position
di'tf erent than the other lots, has not been included in theplan +or mitigaticln by Banner nor specificalIy addressed in
my own roc[,:f al l sturdy. For this particurlar Iot to bedeveloped, rnore elaborate mitigative design will need to be
prodlrced.
In order to ingurre proper f or-rndation design f or each propt:se'd
new strncture, site specific soils engineering studies will
need to be per{ormed. There may be a slight possibility o{
h ydrocornpac t i on in the alluvial sclils. Further drainage
stLtdy by a civil engineer should be per{ormed in addition to
t-he one already produced by Banner Aggoci ates in order to
take into accolrnt the raised accrss road into the property
f rom Lion's FidgF Loop. lrlate'r and waste disposal siyctems are
already availablE t6 the gite.
This ghould be a suitable site {or the proposed developmento{ Lots I throurgh I, i{ the prece,ding reconmendat i ons ,including speci'f ically the rockfall recommendationsr 6t-p{ollowed. P1ease do not hesitate to contact me i{ there are
f urrther questi ons.
Si ncerel v../r -r ,,t^ l,u/6"-/d--p,tZ.
Nicholas LarnbiriE
Consurl ti ng Geol ogi st
encI.
ctr: Eolorado Beol ogi c Survey
Eagle County Pl anni ng DeFartmeht
NL./c I k