HomeMy WebLinkAboutCliffside Lot 1 1979-20050 •
Receipt funds to:
0 "°`!" CASH D POSIT FORMAT
�
Name: —Yn eg Legal Description: Lot Of Block
Address: 1 9 Subdivision:
I y_5"j - 1�1& _ Address: INS RuF " !:Q_
_� r _ $I658 Date of Expiration: uT;g l� eZ
DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _ 44 %day of 5 _pMvM6W , 20Q=
By and among (hereinafter called the "Developer"), and the TOWN
OF VAIL (hereinafter calleb the " own ").
WHEREAS, the Developer, as a condition of approval of the qFJUAIQ v
plans, dated �grvr. (VA 20_qZ wishes to enter into a Developef Impro ement Agreement;
and
WHEREAS, the Developer is obligated to provide security or collateral sufficient in the
judgement of the Town to make reasonable provisions for completion of certain improvements set
forth below; and
WHEREAS, the Developer wishes to provide collateral to guarantee performance of this
Agreement, including construction of the above - referenced improvements by means of the
following:
Developer agrees to establish a cash deposit with the Town of Vail in a dollar amount
of $ 750 (125% of the total cost of the work shown below) to provide security
for the following:
IMPROVEMENT
Attach a copy of the estimated bid.
Z. Zmsr - 4— hALIDVA41 @ 5n4;m - ,CLk
5. v'uitoh LA,.tD" -'4p1L&q
cd E NO
\ \vail\data\odev\FORMS\DIA Cash.doc Page 1 of 4
• •
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the following mutual covenants and agreements,
the Developer and the Town agree as follows:
1. The Developer agrees, at the sole cost and expenses, to furnish al eq ipment and
material necessary to perform and complete all improvements, on or before
The Developer shall complete, in a good workmanlike manner, all ifnprbvements as
listed above, in accordance with all plans and specifications filed in the office of the Community
Development Department, the Town of Vail, and to do all work incidental thereto according to and
in compliance with the following:
a. Such other designs, drawings, maps, specifications, sketches, and other matter
submitted by the Developer to be approved by any of the above - referenced
governmental entities. All said work shall be done under the inspection of, and to
the satisfaction of, the Town Engineer, the Town Building Official, or other official
from the Town of Vail, as affected by special districts or service districts, as their
respective interest may appear, and shall not be deemed complete until approved
and accepted as completed by the Town of Vail Community Development
Department and Public Works Department.
2. To secure and guarantee performance of its obligations as set forth herein, the
Developer agrees to provide security and collateral as follows:
A cash deposit account in the amount of $ „ .7Sa to be held by the
Town, as escrow agent, shall provide the security for the improvements set forth
above if there is a default under the Agreement by Developer.
3. The Developer may at any time substitute the collateral originally set forth above
for another form or collateral acceptable to the Town to guarantee the faithful completion of those
improvements referred to herein and the performance of the terms of this Agreement. Such
acceptance by the Town of alternative collateral shall be at the Town's sole discretion.
4. The Town shall not, nor shall any officer or employee thereof, be liable or
responsible for any accident, loss or damage happening or occurring to the work specified in this
Agreement prior to the completion and acceptance of the same, nor shall theTown, nor any
officer or employee thereof, be liable for any persons or property injured by reason of the nature
of said work, but all of said liabilities shall and are hereby assumed by the Developer.
The Developer hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Town, and any of its
officers, agents and employees against any losses, claims, damages, or liabilities to which the
Town or any of its officers, agents or employees may become subject to, insofar as any such
losses, claims, damages or liabilities (or actions in respect thereof) that arise out of or are based
upon any performance by the Developer hereunder; and the Developer shall reimburse the Town
for any and all legal or other expenses reasonably incurred by the Town in connection with
investigating or defending any such loss, claim, damage, liability or action. This indemnity
provision shall be in addition to any other liability which the Developer my have.
5. It is mutually agreed that the Developer may apply to the Town and the Town shall
authorize for partial release of the collateral deposited with the Town for each category of
improvement at such time as such improvements are constructed in compliance with all plans
and specifications as referenced hereunder and accepted by the Town. Under no condition will
\ \VaiI data\cdev\FORMS\DIA Cash.doc Page 2 of 4
•
the amount of the collateral that is being held be reduced below the amount necessary to
complete such improvements.
6. If the Town determines, at its sole discretion, that any of the improvements
contemplated hereunder are not constructed in compliance with the plans and specifications set
forth in this Agreement on or before the date set forth in Paragraph 2, the Town may, but shall not
be required, to complete the unfinished.
If the costs of completing the work exceed the amount of the deposit, the excess, together
with interest at twelve percent (12 %) per annum, shall be a lien against the property and may be
collected by civil suit or may be certified to the treasurer of Eagle County to be collected in the
same manner as delinquent ad valorem taxes levied against such property. If the permit holder
fails or refuses to complete the cleanup and landscaping, as defined in this chapter, such failure
or refusal shall be considered a violation of the Zoning Code.
7. The Developer warrants all work and material for a period of one year after
acceptance of all work referred to in this Agreement by the Town if such work is located on Town
of Vail property or within Town of Vail right -of -way pursuant to Section 8 -3 -1.
8. The parties hereto mutually agree that this Agreement may be amended from time
to time, provided that such amendments be in writing and executed by all parties hereto.
�\VailWatalcdev\FORMSOA Cash.doc Page 3 of 4
0 o
Dated the day and year first above written.
STATE OF COLORADO )
)Ss.
COUNTY OF EAGLE )
Developer
The fore oing Developer Improvement Agreement was acknowledged before me this
_1,3 day of qtr , 20 0 - 2- b
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires
Public
Z,OD
Administrat r, Community Development
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF EAGLE )
The fore oing peve Improvement Agreement was acknowledged before me this
_ Day of , D e , 20 Uzby
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: L( f o
I
YIP-s- -
Public
O� .fir
�+.. ` V
WaiRdatatclevTORMS01A Cash.doc Page 4 of 4
.
N OS •
m
C
WaiRdatatclevTORMS01A Cash.doc Page 4 of 4
Town of Vail
partment of Community Development
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Name: Ym1eg VAt O Receipt No. t
Addres IN32 Sum 0
Project: !dbWA ,ft- Date _/ S
Please make checks payable to the TOWN OF VAIL
Account No.
Item
No.
Code #
Cost Each
Total
001 0000 314 111
Zoning and Address Maps
ZA
$5.00
*
001 0000 31 1112
Uniform Building Code - 1997 - Volume 1 &2
CB
$50.95
"
0010000 314 1112
Uniform Buil Code - 1997 - Volume 3
$60.65
*
0010000 314 1112
International Plumbing Code - 1997
CB
$36.00
"
0 010000 314 111
International Mechanical Code - 19
CB
$35.00
"
00 314 1112
Uniform Mechanical Code -1996
$35.60
0010000 314 11
Uniform Fire Code
CB
$36.00
'
001 0000 314 1112
National Electrical Code
CB
$42.60
'
0010000 314 1112
Abatement of Dangerous Bldg.'s 1997
$9.95
0010000 314 1112
Model Energy Code - 1995
$10.00
001 0000 314 1 11 2
A nalysis of Revisions to 1997 Uniform Codes
$12.75
'
001 00 0_0 3 111
O ther Code Books
CB
'
00 0000 314 1211
Bl /Mylar Copy Fees
BF
$7.00
"
0010000 314 11
Xero Copies
XC
$0.25
"
0 01 0000 314 1111
Lio Master Plan (_$ 1.80/$1.6 0_ )
MS
$40.00
"
001 000 1111
St udies, Master P lans, etc.
MS
"
0010000 315 3000
Penalty Fees /R Inspectio
PN
00 311230
Pla Review Re -check Fee ($40 /per hour)
PF
001 0000 315 2000
Off Hours Inspection Fees
OH
001 0000 312 3000
Contractors License Fees
CL
0010000 312 4000
Sign Application Fee
SP
.$20.00
0010000 312 4000
Additional Sign Application Fee.
SP
0_01 0000 3112
Design Review Board Fee (Pre -paid)
DR
00 00 315 3000
Building I nvestigation Fee
PN
0010000 2 4 0 33 00
Developer Improvement Agreeme Deposit D2 -DEP10
Restaurant License fee (TOV)
AD
RL
0010000 31 1000
0 010000 230 2000
Spec. Assess.- Restaurant Fee to Co.Dept.Rev.
SA
*0010000 2 01 1000
Taxable @ 4.4% (State) - Tax payable
TP
*_ 001 0000 310 1
Taxable @ 4.0% (Town) - Retail Sales Tax
T7
Other /Misc. -
MS
NVi 000 Vf I'. VV
I"_ ^9 "k'LA Vr..f�Fi• c 4.Va/ -
00 3
A ddition a l G - "250"
PV
$200.00
0010000 311250
C onditional Use Permit
PV
$200.00
001 0000 311 2500
Exterior Alter - Less t han 100 sq. ft.
PV
$200.00
00 10000 311
Ext erior A - More than 100 sq. ft.
PV
$500.00
0010000 311 2500
Special Develo pment District - NEW
P V
$1,500.00
_
001 3112
Special Development District - Major Amend
PV
$1,000.00
00 1 0 000 3112
Special Development District - Minor Amend
PV
$200.00
00100 3112500
Subdivision Fees
PV
001 0000 3112500
Variance
PV
$250.00
0010000 311 250
Zoning Code Amendments
PV
$250.00
Re- Zoning
PV
$200.00
001 000 0 31 93 . 1_00_
Greenstar Program
_
Other-
MS
- - - - - -- - - - - - --
--
TOTAL:
—
Comments:
Cash Money Order # Check # � �59 D Received by:
.'.
12120/2000
r
P
0
0
Rec0p4trh'
re: K E
I tl dN
�A( "" s:
CASH DEPOSIT FORMAT
Legal Description: Lot Block _ Subdivision: A T V-
Address:
Date of Expiration: I- - & / 6 z
DEVELOPER IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this Z6 r "day of A?A t %.-
by and among M11<6 (hereinafter called the "Developer "), and the TOWN
OF VAIL (hereinafter called the "Town ") and (hereinafter called
the "Bank ").
WHEREAS, the Developer, as a condition of approval of the LAW61 c A , l=
plans, dated 3/ zy , *G a wishes to enter into a Developer Improvement
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Developer is obligated to provide security or collateral sufficient in the
judgment of the Town to make reasonable provisions for completion of certain improvements
set forth below; and
WHEREAS, the Developer wishes to provide collateral to guarantee performance of
this ,agreement, including construction of the above - referenced improvements by means of the
following:
Developer agrees to establish a cash deposit with the Town of Vail in a dollar amount
of $ C, "- r O (125% of the total cost of the work shown below) to provide
security for the following:
IMPROVEMENT
P & - V r— (.E - r - ^ ► o r gy
JC Co r-' 5T
O L
F SL�
0
t `1 P. f No
C_ x
Coy tie .• vti
\\VAIL\DATA\EVERYONE\FORMS\DIACAS H. DOC
1 of 4
f t
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the following mutual covenants and
agreements, the Developer and the Town agree as follows:
1. The Developer agrees, at the sole cost and expenses, to furnish all equipment
and material nece sary to perform and complete all improvements, on or before
- K o Z, . The Developer shall complete, in a good workmanlike manner, all
improvements as listed above, in accordance with all plans and specifications filed in the office
of the Community Development Department, the Town of Vail, and to do all work incidental
thereto according to and in compliance with the following:
a. Such other designs, drawings, maps, specifications, sketches, and other matter
submitted by the Developer to be approved by any of the above - referenced
governmental entities. All said work shall be done under the inspection of, and
to the satisfaction of, the Town Engineer, the Town Building Official, or other
official from the Town of Vail, as affected by special districts or service districts,
as their respective interest may appear, and shall not be deemed complete until
approved and accepted as completed by the Town of Vail Community
Development Department and Public Works Department.
2. To secure and guarantee performance of its obligations as set forth herein, the
Developer agrees to provide security and collateral as follows:
A cash deposit account in the amount of $ C a to be held by the Town,
as escrow agent, shall provide the security for the improvements set forth above
if there is a default under the Agreement by Developer.
3. The r Develop may at any time substitute the collateral originally set forth above
for another form of collatera�a(;ceptable to the Town to guarantee the faithful completion of
those improvements referred to herein and the performance of the terms of this Agreement.
Such acceptance by the Town of alternative collateral shall be at the Town's sole discretion.
4. The Town shall not, nor shall A' by officer or employee thereof, be liable or
responsible for any accident, loss or darhbige happening or occurring to the work specified in
this Agreement prior to the completion and acceptarice'of the same, nor shall the Town, nor
any officer or employee thereof, be liable for , any pvso6s& property injured by reason of the
nature of said work, but all of said liabilities shall acre herbby.assumed by the Developer.
The Developer hereby agrees to indemnify and hoIdAarmless the Town, and any of its
officers, agents and employees ag inQ any losses, claims, damages, or liabilities to which the
2 of 4
F:\EVERYONEIFORMS01ACASH.DOC
Town or any of its officers, agents or employees may become subject to, insofar as any such
losses, claims, damages or liabilities ;or actions in respect thereof) that arise out of or are
based upon any performance by the Developer hereunder; and the Developer shall reimburse
the Town for any and all legal or other expenses reasonably incurred by the Town in
connection with investigating or defending any such loss, claim, damage, liability or action.
This indemnity provision shall be in addition to any other liability which the Developer may
have.
5. It is mutually agreed that the Developer may apply to the Town and the Town
shall authorize for partial release of the collateral deposited with the Town for each category of
improvement at such time as such improvements are constructed in compliance with all plans
and specifications as referenced hereunder and accepted by the Town. Under no condition
will the amount of the collateral that is being held be reduced below the amount necessary to
complete such improvements.
6. If the Town determines, at its sole discretion, that any of the improvements
contemplated hereunder are not constructed in compliance with the plans and specifications
set forth in this Agreement on or before the date set forth in Paragraph 2, the Town may, but
shall not be required to, redeem the letter of credit as necessary to complete the unfinished
improvements. The Bank shall release such funds upon written request from the Town stating
that the improvements have not been completed as required by this agreement. The Bank
shall not require the concurrence of the developer prior to release of the funds to the Town nor
shall the Bank be required to verify independently that such improvements have not been
completed as required by this agreement, but shall release such funds solely upon the Town =s
written request.
If the costs of completing the work exceed the amount of the deposit, the excess,
together with interest at twelve percent per annum, shall, be a lien against the property and
may be collected by civil suit or may be certified to the treasurer of Eagle County to be
collected in the same manner as delinquent ad valorem taxes levied against such property. If
the permit holder fails or refuses to complete the cleanup and landscaping, ad defined in this
chapter, such failure or refusal shall be considered a violation of the Zoning Code.
7. The Developer warrants all work and material for a period of one year after
acceptance of all work referred to in this Agreement by the Town if such work is located on
Town of Vail property or within Town of Vail right -of -way pursuant to Section 17.16.250.
8. The parties hereto mutually agree that this Agreement may be amended from
time to time, provided that such amendments be in writing and executed by all parties hereto.
3 of 4
FAEVERYONEIFORMS \DIACASH.DOC
Dated the day and year first above written.
Developer
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF EAGLE )
The foregoing Develop-pr Improvement Agreement was acknowledged before me this
day of iL- , Z�n� by 'Zip
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission ex
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
Planner, Community Development
) ss.
The forego in Developer Improvement Agreement was acknowledged before me this
day of � � /�_ l by __J�l'
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
4 of 4
F IEVERYONETORMS \DIACASH.DOG
r 0
PROPOSAL
From: Proposal No.
SNC Sheet No.
L IU Date
Proposal Submitted To
Work To Be Performed At
Name 9
Street
Street i L(S g— CoCCA
City State
Date of Plans
,{
City a
State -0
Architect
Telephone Number 3 7 GZD
We hereby propose to furnish all the materials and perform all the labor necessary for the completion of
r L
All material is guaranteed to be as specified, and the above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and specifica-
tions submitted for above work and completed in a substantial workmanlike manner for the sum of
Dollars ($ A5-6o4p. as )
with payments to be made as follows:
Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs, will be executed only upon written orders, and will
become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control.
Owner to carry fire, tornado and other necessary insurance upon above work. Workmen's Compensation and Public Liability
Insurance on above work to be taken out by
Respectfully submitted
Per
Note — This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within b days.
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as
specified. Payment will be made as outlined above.
Signature
Date
Accepted Signature
No. 27S. PROPOSAL AND ACCEPTANCE
Is
Bradford Publishing, 1743 Wazee St., Denver, CO 80202 — (303) 292 -2500 — 4 -95
PREPARED 7/17/01, 9:58:00
DEPOSIT REFUND REPORT- UPDATE
PROGRAM MR41SU
PAGE 1
Town of Vail
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CUST -ID CUSTOMER NAME
TYPE
---------------------------------------------------------
CHARGE
CODE DESCRIPTION
TX -DATE AJ -DATE
DEPOSIT DEPOSIT -ADJ
ADJUSTMENT
AFTER - REFUND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMOUNT
AMOUNT
AMOUNT
AMOUNT
2166 MIKE YOUNG
D2
DEP10 DEPOSIT
4/30/01 7/17/01
6250.00
6250.00
6250.00-
.00
TOTAL FOR CUSTOMER TYPE: D2
----
-- -- -----
- - ---
-- -
-- - - --
----- - - - - - --
--- --- --- - - - -
6250.00
6250.00
6250.00-
.00
GRAND TOTAL:
- ------
-------------
------ ----
--- ----
--- -- - ---
--- ---
---- ----- ----
------- - - ----
-- ----- --- ---
- ------ - - - ---
6250.00
6250.00
6250.00-
.00
DEPOSIT COUNT: 1
G/L BATCH CREATED: BATCH -02031 2001/07
USERID - JGUTHRIE AP HELD
COUNT-
1.00 AMOUNT-
6,250.00
•
•
Town of Vail
r • f Community Development
. Frontage Road
ail, CO 81657
`! Town of Vail
+I +F CUSTOMER RECEIPT
DATE: 4/30/01 81 RECEIPT: UN682
CUSTOMER LOCATION AMOUNT TP TM
2166 2170 1 $6250. 00 *AD4727
MIKE YOUNG
MIKE YOUNG
#52473—BOND FOR LANDSCAPING
TENDER WTAIL
CK 14727 $6258.00
DATE: 4/27/01 TIME: 15:42:.
TOTAL DECK
AUNT TENDERED $6250.00
THE{ YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT'.
Receipt No. �
Date
payable to the TOWN OF VAIL
No.
Code
# Cost Each
Total
D2 -DEP10
CJt
PV_
PV
I
_ _
s` able _
' ZA
ales Tax
0 00 00311 2500
t
'Ly
CB
$50 .95
001 0000 311 2500
Volume 3 _
j
PV
$60.65
i
997
CB
001 0000 311 2500
-
_
CB
_$36.00
$35.00
'
6
H
$35.60
Re- Zoning
7d
CB
$36.00
—
_
H
$42.60
j*
1997
MS I
$9.95
Receipt No. �
Date
payable to the TOWN OF VAIL
PN
PF I
OH
CLL
SP $20.00
S P_
DR — j - - r
P
AD Z
R
SA
TP
MS i I
r�nenor Alteration - Less t han 100 sq. ft.
00 0000 3 11 25 Ext erior Alteration - More than 100 sq. ft.
No.
Code
# Cost Each
Total
D2 -DEP10
CJt
PV_
PV
I
_ _
s` able _
' ZA
ales Tax
0 00 00311 2500
Volume 1 &2
_
CB
$50 .95
001 0000 311 2500
Volume 3 _
j
PV
$60.65
001 0000 311 2500
997
CB
001 0000 311 2500
-
_
CB
_$36.00
$35.00
'
6
PV
$35.60
Re- Zoning
CB
$36.00
—
_
CB
$42.60
j*
1997
MS I
$9.95
$10.00
_
'
niform Cod
$12.75
CB
BF
$7.00
XC
$0.25
"
1.
MS
$40.00
MS
PN
PF I
OH
CLL
SP $20.00
S P_
DR — j - - r
P
AD Z
R
SA
TP
MS i I
r�nenor Alteration - Less t han 100 sq. ft.
00 0000 3 11 25 Ext erior Alteration - More than 100 sq. ft.
PV
id) —
D2 -DEP10
CJt
PV_
PV
Co.Dept.Rev
601 0000 311 2500
s` able _
; PV
ales Tax
PN
PF I
OH
CLL
SP $20.00
S P_
DR — j - - r
P
AD Z
R
SA
TP
MS i I
r�nenor Alteration - Less t han 100 sq. ft.
00 0000 3 11 25 Ext erior Alteration - More than 100 sq. ft.
PV
$200.00
PV
$200.00
PV_
PV
$200.00
$500.00
601 0000 311 2500
ISpe cial Development District -
; PV
$1,500.00
0 00 00311 2500
Special Development District - Major Amend
PV
$1,000.00
001 0000 311 2500
+Special Development District -Minor Amend
j
PV
$200.00
001 0000 311 2500
1 Subdivision Fees
PV
001 0000 311 2500
lVariance
PV
$250.00
001 311 2500
Zoning Code Amendments
PV
$250.00
Re- Zoning
PV
$200.00
001 0000 31 9 3100
Greenstar Program
Other -
MS I
TOTAL:
Comments:
Money Order # Check # 10 Z 7 Received by: 0 N/
n V �
V
cJ
ri
v!
1
C7�lans
January 16, 2002
VIA FACSIMILE
Mr. John Hentges
MSE Structures Incorporated
8400 East Crescent Parkway
Suite 600
Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111
Re: The Ridge @ Vail — Lot 4 Retaining Wall
Dear Mr. Hentges:
1
We were asked to review the existing retaining wall located along Buffer Creek Road and
south of the proposed new Mesa retaining wall. The following is the result of our review.
There is an existing wall located approximately 5' -0" south of the west end of the proposed
new wall. The proposed new wall will have an imposed a surcharge placed on it from the
road above.
We are concerned with the stability of the existing wall due to the construction of the new
wall and the surcharge load imposed by the road above the new wall. At locations where
the setback between the top of the existing wall and the bottom of the new wall is less than
twice the height of the new wall, we recommend the existing wall be removed and replaced
with new geogrid as outlined below. We were unable to locate the existing design drawings
of the lower wall.
We have made the following assumptions in analyzing the tiered system of walls (existing
and new):
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1. Geotechnical information from HP Geotech, December 11, 2001, Job No. 100 827.
Wall Area
Moist Unit Weight
cf)
Internal Friction
Cohesion
( 0
Reinforced
130
34
0
Retained
135
36
0
Foundation
135
36
0
Existing block is Mesa Standard block.
Existing wall height is 4' -0" maximum at area of concern.
New wall height is 4' -0" maximum at area of concern.
Reinforcing grid shall be UXMESA3 as manufactured by Tensar.
Existing Leveling pad embedment is 8" below grade.
Rebuilt existing wall leveling pad is V -4" below grade.
A R C H I T E C T U R E * E N G I N E E R I N G * S U R V E Y I N G
GILLANS INCORPORATED, 8471 Turnpike Drive, Suite 200, Westminster, CO 80031, 303 - 426 -1731
Summit County Office: 970 - 262 -6795
The new grid in the area of concern shall be placed as follows:
0
The Ridge @ Vail
Wall
Elevation above Existing
Leveling Pad
(ft)
Required Length
(ft -in)
Existing Lower Wall
2' -0"
7' -3"
Existing Lower Wall
4' -0"
7' -5"
New Upper Wall
6' -0"
6' -7"
New Upper Wall
8' -0"
6' -7"
We estimate that approximately 20' -0" to 30' -0" of the existing wall will need to be
removed and rebuilt.
All comments made are based on conditions and sit:, drawings presented to Gillans. V"-- did
not visually observe the proposed area of construction. We do not accept any responsibility
for unknown or unknowable conditions within the existing site or structures. In addition, if
the professional services of the engineer do not extend to the design documents phase and
construction observations, then, by the acceptance of this report, it is agreed that the owner
will defend, indemnify and hold harmless the engineer from any claim or suit whatsoever.
The engineer agrees to be responsible for his /her own or his /her employee(s) negligent acts,
errors or omissions.
Sincerely,
GILLA �i ���11111
TED
\ Q .
o�
=•�0
3 1710 . A '�
,moo �•r4• . '
Neil ` %kelburg, P L'
StructvQ partment Manager
nlm:NLM
H -10'11 Fn¢'- 1..__ -00 J.... I.1- --. ..IIJ
1
Gillans Incorporated Paget of 2 701259.00
TOWN
Fj� FCOpy
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970 - 479 -2138
FAX 970 - 479 -2452
www. ci.vail.co.us
August 16, 2001
Mike Young
2057 Meadow Brook Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Lot 4, Ridge at Vail
Mike:
The Town of Vail Public Works Department has reviewed you plans for the revised
private access drive within the Cliffside Subdivision. Public Works staff is requesting the
following revisions with your building permit submittal:
■ Please add a note on the typical roadway section pertaining to a minimum clear
width of 16' between face of guardrail and existing crib retaining wall and or slope,
per our discussion.
■ Station 4 +10 to 4 +40 has a section that is at a grade of 12.6 %, this must be
designed according to town code of 10% (non- heated).
■ Prior to final approval, all easements must be in order and retaining walls over 4'
must be detailed and stamped.
• A Revocable Right of Way permit must be issued for improvements within the right -
of -way.
If you would like to discuss this matter in greater detail, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (970) 479 -2140.
Sincerely,
Brent Wilson
� RECYCLEDPAPER
s
•
TOWN OF VAILY
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970 - 479 -2138
FAX 970 - 479 -2452
www.cLvaiI.co.us
July 23, 2001
Mike Young
2057 Meadow Brook Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Private Access Drive at the Cliffside Subdivision
Mike:
Pursuant to Title 14, Vail Town Code:
Nonconforming sites and site improvements lawfully established prior to the
effective date of adoption of the Development Standards may continue, subject
to the limitations prescribed by Section 12 -18, Zoning Regulations. To
encourage redevelopment, there shall be some flexibility granted to existing
nonconforming sites and structures. However, wherever possible, compliance
with the Development Standards shall be achieved. The paving of existing legal
nonconforming, i.e. unpaved, driveways shall be allowed without strict
compliance with the Development Standards. However, a reasonable attempt
shall be made to adhere as closely as possible to the Development Standards
when paving existing driveways. A structure, which is substantially demolished
or reconstructed, as defined by "Demo /Rebuild" in the Zoning Code, shall be
required to adhere to the Development Standards.
The Town of Vail Department of Public Works has reviewed your plan submittal for the
private access drive within the Cliffside subdivision. Public Works staff has determined
that a "reasonable attempt" to closely adhere to the standards involves the
reconstruction of the access drive within the following parameters:
1. Driveway grade The proposed drive may match but must not exceed the
existing driveway grades.
2. Driveway width The proposed drive must have a minimum width of pavement
of 15' and a clear width of 16' between the existing North timber wall and the
proposed guard rail.
3. Retaining Walls A single retaining wall may be used to widen the driveway.
4. Driveway cross - slope A maximum of 2% cross slope may be used in the
direction away from the existing wall.
- W RECYCLED PAPER
• 0
Therefore, pursuant to Title 14, town staff has the ability to "staff approve" the driveway
plans without the need for a variance, provided the above - listed standards have been
met. Otherwise, approval of a variance request by the Planning and Environmental
Commission is required. In either case, please submit drawings indicating the extent of
your proposed access drive revisions at your.earliest convenience.
If you would like to discuss this issue in greater detail, please call me at (970) 479 -2140.
Sincerely,
R, z--
Brent Wilson, AICP
Senior Planner
************************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO Statement
************************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Statement Number: R000001078 Amount: $250.00 07/16/200103:58 PM
Payment Method: Check Init: JAR
Notation: 14998
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permit No: PECO10054 Type: PEC - Variance
Parcel No: 210312102016
Site Address: 1452 LIONS RIDGE LP VAIL
Location: 1452 BUFFEHR CREEK ROAD
Total Fees: $250.00
This Payment: $250.00 Total ALL Pmts: $250.00
Balance: $0.00
************************************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
ACCOUNT ITEM LIST:
Account Code Description Current Pmts
-------------- - - - - -- ------------------------ - - - - -- ------ - - - - --
PV 00100003112500 PEC APPLICATION FEES 250.00
TOWN
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970 - 479 -2138
FAX 970 - 479 -2452
www.ci.vai1.co.us
April 19, 2001
Mike Young
2057 Meadow Brook Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re_ Lot 4, Ridge at Vail
Dear Mike:
At its April 18 meeting, the Town of Vail Design Review Board (DRB) granted a final
approval of your request for design review for a new single - family residence with the
following conditions:
1) All Public Works conditions must be resolved at the staff level prior to building permit
submittal.
2) All retaining Walls along the access road shall match the existing CMU wall. The
proposed boulder walls are acceptable for Lot 4.
If you would like to discuss this matter in greater detail, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (970) 479 -2140.
Sincerely,
Brent Wilson, AICP
Planner II
- W RECYCLED PAPER
TOWN OF VAILiy
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970 - 479 -2138
FAX 970 - 479 -2452
www ci. vail. co. us
July 12, 2001
John D. Goodman
Stovall Goodman Wallace, P.C.
202 Benchmark Plaza Building
48 East Beaver Creek Blvd.
P.O. Drawer 5860
Avon, CO 81620
Re: Your letter dated July 12, 2001;
Cliffside Subdivision
John:
You have inquired about the status of a proposed redevelopment plan within the Cliffside
Subdivision involving the re- alignment of the existing private road. Recently, Mike
Young (owner of Lot 4 at the Ridge at Vail) amended his application for design review
approval /building permit to remove the use of the existing private drive in lieu of access
via Ridge Lane to the north. Based upon a recent conversation with Mr. Young, I
understand he plans to submit an application for a variance and design review approval
to obtain permits for construction of certain improvements within the existing access
drive. However, at this time the town is not processing any applications .involving
improvements to the private drive. I will contact you if /when the application is received
by the Town of Vail.
If you would like to discuss this matter in more detail, you can reach me directly at (970)
479 -2140. You are welcome to review the town's files for the subdivision during regular
office hours (8:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday).
Sincerely,
Brent Wilson, AICP
Senior Planner
RECYCLEDPAPER
W
PREPARED 7/17/01, 9 :58:00 DEPOSIT REFUND REPORT - UPDATE PAGE 1
PROGRAM MR415U
Town of Vail
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CUST-ID CUSTOMER NAME TYPE
CHARGE DEPOSIT DEPOSIT -ADJ ADJUSTMENT AFTER - REFUND
CODE DESCRIPTION TX -DATE AJ -DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- --------------- --- --- - -- ---
2166 MIRE YOUNG D2
DEP10 DEPOSIT 4/30/01 7/17/01 6250.00 6250.00 6250.00- .00
- --- ------ - -- ----- -------- -- -- --- --- - -- - -- --- -------
TOTAL FOR CUSTOMER TYPE: D2 6250.00 6250.00 6250.00- .00
------- - ----- ------- - - - - -- ---- --- - - - - -- -- ----- - - ----
------------- ---- --- - - -- -- ------- - - - - -- ----- -- ------
GRAND TOTAL: 6250.00 6250.00 6250.00- .00
DEPOSIT COUNT: 1
G/L BATCH CREATED: BATCH -02031 2001/07 USERID - JGUTHRIE AP HELD COUNT- 1.00 AMOUNT- 6,250.00
E
0
0
Town of Vail
[ ;rtment of Community Development
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
�
Na ^ me: Iyl (� G �/Ay J (/ Receipt No. �l
Address:
Project: V o 1 9- Date / 2,4 /
Please make checks payable to the TOWN OF VAIL
Account No. Item No. Code # Cost Each Total
001_ 0000 314_1110 Z oning and Address Maps 1ZA $5.00 *
00_1_0 1
_
Uniform Building C - 199 - Volume 1 82
CS
$50._95
01 000 314 1112
Un iform Building Code -1997 - Volume 3
$60.
00 100 0 0 3 14 111
Internation Plumbing Code -1997
CB
$36.00
001 0000 314 1 112
Int ernational Mechanical Code - 19 9_8
CB
$35.00
'
001 000 1112
Uni form Mechani Code -1996
$3 5.60
001 00 314 11
Uniform Fire Code
CB
$36.00
00 000 3 1_4 111
_
Nationa Electrical Code
JCB
$42.60
0 01 000 3 1112
Abatem o Dang erous Bldg.'s 1997
$9.95
60 16600 3 111
Model Energy Code -19 95
$10.00
0_1_000_314 1
Analysis of Revisions to 1997 Unif Co des
$12.75
01 00 0_ 3 1 4 1112
Other Co Books
CB
001 3 14 1_211
_
Blue_P rints/Mylar Copy Fees
BF
$7.00
'
01 000 3 14 1111
Xerox_Copi
XC
$0.25
0 000_ 314 1 111
Lio nshead Master Plan ($1.80
MS
$40.00
0 00 314 1111_
S tud i es, Master Plans, etc.
MS
0 1 000 315 300
Penalty Fees/Re- Inspections
PN
00 10 0 31 1_230
Pl Review Re -check Fee ($40 /per hour)
PF
01 _ 0 0_0 315 20 0
_
O ff Hours Inspection Fees
OH
_
01 000 312 30
Contractors License Fees
CL
001 000 312 4000
Sign Applicatio Fee
SP
$20.00
01 000 312 4 00
Additional Sign Applicati Fee
SP
01 000 311 220
Design Review Board F ee (Pre -paid)
DR
_
661 00063f5 3 _00
Bui lding Investigation Fee
PN
01 00_0 240 330
Developer Imp rovement Agreeme Deposit D2 -DEP10
Restaurant License fee (TOV)
IRL
AD
01 00 312 100
01 0000 230 200
Spec. Assess.- Restaurant Fee to Co.Dept.Rev.
SA
* 00 2 01 100
T axable @ 4.4% (State) - Tax payable
TP
'_ 0000 310110
Taxable @ 4.0% (Town) - Retail Sales Tax
T7
Other /Misc. -
MS
01 000 311 250
PEC APPLICATION FEE
01 000 311 250
_
Additional GRFA - "250"
PV
$200.00
01 000 31
Conditional Use Permit
PV
$200.00
01 000 3112500 'Exterior
_
Alteration - Less t han 100 sq. ft.
P
$200.0
0 1 000 31 25
Alteration - More than 100 sq. ft.
PV
$500.00
01 000 311 2500
Spe cial Development District - NEW
PV
$1,500.00
00 000 3112
Special Development District - Major Amend
PV
$1,000.0
001 000 3 112 00
Special Development District - Minor Amend
PV
$20.0
001 000 311 250
Subdivision Fees
PV
01 000 3112500
_
Variance
PV
$250.00
01 000 311 25
Zoning Code Amendments
JPV
$250.0
Re- Zoning
PV
$200.0
0 000 31 9_ 3
Greenstar Program
Other -
- -
MS
- -- -
i
TOTAL:
Comments:
Cash Money Order # Check # ( 1 ) Z , Received by: N /
lJ
N
s
v1
12/20/2000
Town of Vail
*** CUSTOMER RECEIPT ***
DATE: 4/30/01 01 RECEIPT: 0006682
CUSIOMER LOCATION AMOUNT TP TM
2166 2170 1 $6250.00 *AD CK
MIKE YOUNG CK: 14727
MIKE YOUNG
#52473 —BOND FOR LANDSCAPING
TENDER DETAIL
CK 14727 $6250.00
DATE: 4/27/01 TIME: 15:42:19
TOTAL CHECK $6250.00
AMOUNT TENDERED $6250.00
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT!
i
RECEIPT — The Town of Vail
DATE `� l 20 1� �T
? 52473
RECEIVED FROM
ADDRESS
LLARS $
Permit Numbers
It'+ B
Police Receipt Numbers—
HOW PAID —Cash Check Y
--------------------------------------------- - - - - -- _ �, - - - - --
0 •
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail. Colorado 81657
970-479 -2138
FAX 970 - 479 -2452
www ci.vail.co. us
April 13, 2001
Mike Young
2057 Meadow Brook Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Lot 4, Ridge at Vail
Dear Mike:
The following are comments from the Town of V it Public Works Department on the
above - referenced project. Please provide plans reflecting these revisions prior to a
revised building permit submittal. If you would li ce to discuss this matter in greater
detail, please contact Tom Kassmel, project eng veer at (970) 479 -2169.
■ Drainage swale on north and south side of house should be graded to 2:1. Please
show a typical detail.
■ Cross slope of driveway exceeds 8 %. (Why not straight grade and add a pan or curb
to carry water to swale?).
■ Show the limits of heated drive. (I suggest placing a non - heated concrete buffer
between heat and non heated asphalt)
■ Show spot elevation at top of drive so feeder road has max. cross slope at 8 %.'.
■ Since profile of feeder road was lowered, the existing crib wall is being undermined
from sta 3 +70 to 4 +40. Please fix. Also, the east side of road will need to be graded
to allow for drainage.
■ Show contour above south boulder wall.
■ North CMU wall with encroachment upon lot 5G - is this part of the easement
agreement? (If there is an easement agreement would it be better to just grade
instead of use wall ?)
IL eECYCFZDPAM "
a w
r
• Landscape plan shows additional disturbance and is inconsistent with engineering
plans. Please coordinate plans show all grading and proper location of silt fence.
■ Still need to see engineered retaining wall details.
■ Easement must include all encroachments on other properties.
Again, if you have questions or concerns about these cdhiments, please contact Tom
Kassmel directly at (970) 479 -2169.
Sincerely,
Brent Wilson, AICP
Planner II
i
TOWN OF VAIL
970 - 479 -2138
FAX 970- 479 -2452
www ci. vail, co. us
February 19, 2001
Mike Young
2057 Meadow Brook Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Lot 4, Ridge at Vail
Dear Mike:
have conducted an initial review of the above - referenced application for design review
approval and amended final plat mylars. Please submit the following revisions prior to
final approval by the Town of Vail.
• Please provide ridge elevations on your site plan. It is impossible to measure
building height without the ridgelines interpolated over the lot contours.
• Please delineate exterior building walls and roof eaves on your site plan. This is
necessary to calculate site coverage.
• Please provide the locations of all proposed exterior lighting on your site plan. This
is necessary to ensure compliance with the town's exterior lighting ordinance.
• Please provide the revised plat note regarding GRFA restrictions on the property on
the final amended plat. Pursuant to your March 13, 2000 minor subdivision approval
from the Planning and Environmental Commission, the revised plat note should read:
"GRFA shall not exceed 2,625 square feet (primary unit) plus 500 square feet
(caretaker unit) for a total of 3,125 square feet."
If you would like to discuss this matter in greater detail, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (970) 479 -2140.
Sincerely,
Brent Wilson, Wilson, AICP
Planner 11
RECYCLEDPAPER
Department o 1 0-
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
• • Fj� fCOp�
TOWN OF VAILY
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970 - 479 -2138
FAX 970 - 479 -2452
www ci. vail. co. us
February 15, 2001 k
Mike Young
2057 Meadow Brook Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Lot 4, Ridge at Vail
Dear Mike:
The following comments reflect the Department of Public Works' review of the above -
referenced design review application.
• Please contact to discuss the limited sight distance at the driveway access point
• All proposed walls must be less than 6'.
• Show driveway turning movements for the Cliffside Lot 6 house.
• Show Fire access and turn around. Provide adequate fire staging area as per TOV
Standards.
• A revocable right of way permit will be required for all improvements within the Town
ROW if not already in place.
• Please provide a typical road section.
• All disturbed areas must be returned to a 2:1 grade or be retained.
• Show top and bottom of wall elevations for all retaining walls.
• Provide more detail pertaining to the removal of the Towns existing retaining wall and
how the proposed retaining wall will connect with the existing.
• Please check the scale on sheet 4. And the bottom elevation for the existing wall
(Sta. 2 +25)
• Is the existing retaining wall on the north side of the feeder road to remain, if not
show proposed wall and elevations and note that all disturbed areas will have to be
returned to 2:1 if not retained. If it is to remain how will you protect it from undercuts.
■ Please provide construction fencing and soil erosion control.
• Provide positive drainage away from house at all times or mitigate with drain.
��� RECYCLEDPAPER
)" lit e
TOWN OF VAIL LY
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970 - 479 -2138
FAX 970 - 479 -2452
September 27, 2000
Mike Young
2057 Meadow Brook Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Lot 4, Ridge at Vail
Dear Mike:
At it's September 20 meeting, the Town of Vail Design Review Board (DRB)
conceptually reviewed the proposed access drive for the above - referenced property.
After assessing your physical site constraints and the viability of other options, the DRB
has agreed to direct you to move forward with the new access drive as proposed. Your
ability to construct the road will also depend upon demonstrated compliance with the
town's engineering standards. As mentioned previously, the driveway must demonstrate
compliance with a sight visibility triangle of 90 feet on each side at a design speed of 15
m.p.h.
If you would like to discuss this matter in greater detail, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (970) 479 - 2140.
Sincerely,
Brent Wilson, AICP
Planner II
��� RECYCLED PAPER
f
TO MY OF PAIL
GENERAL_ INFORMATION
(awe a
Questions? Call the Planning Staff at 479-2128
7aR'� 0 V's�
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL
This application is for any project requiring Design Review approval. Any project requiring design review must
receive Desi Review approval prior to submitting for a building permit. For specific infornnation, seethe submittal
requirements for the particular approval that is requested. The application cannot be accepted until all the required
infonuation is submitted. The project may also need to be reviewed by the Town Council and/or the Planning and
Environmental Commission. Design Review Board approval expires one year after final approval unless a
building permit is issued and construction is started.
A. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST:
B.
lid'
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LOT: _ BLOCK: FILING FILING 4 4"f
J
PHYSICAL ADDRESS: /( S Z -/G Olt S 1 cl G ��
PARCEL #: .� L 2 , 102-0 lc (Contact Eaglc Co. Assessors Office at 970 - 328 -8640 for parcel #)
"ZONING: .'� . L,
NAME OF OWNER(S): A t
MAILING ADDRESS:
c.v►n
PHONE:
OWNER(S) SIGNATURE(S):
NAME OF APPLICANT:
TYPE OF REVIEW AND FEE:
X New Construction - $200 Constriction of new buildin-.
❑ Addition - $50 Includes any addition where square footage is added to any residential or
commercial building.
❑ Minor Alteration - $20 Includes minor changes to buildings and site improvements, such as,
rcroofing- painting, window additions, landscaping, fences and retaining
walls, etc.
DRB fees are to be paid at the time of submittal. Later, when applying for a building permit, please identify
the accurate valuation of the project. The Town of Vail will adjust the fee according to the project valuation.
PLEASE SUMMIT THIS APPLICATION, ALL SUBIMITTAL REQUIRENIENTS AND THE FEE TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF COIL V1JUNITY DEVELOPiV'IENT, 75 SOUTH FRONT AD,..- -- - - .
VAIL, COLORADO 81657. i� '�
J
NEW CONSTRUCTION DESIGN REVIEW
TOR
GENERAL INFORMATION
The review process for new construction normally requires two separate meetings of the Design Review
Board, a conceptual approval and a final approval. Applicants should plan on presenting their development
proposal at a minimum of two meetings before obtaining final approval.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
❑ A preliminary title report, including Schedules A and B, to verify ownerships and easements.
❑ Photos of the existing site and adjacent structures, where applicable.
❑ Condominium Association approval, if applicable.
Three — Copies of the following:
2
Topographic survey stamped by a licensed surveyor, at a scale of 1" = 20' or larger, on which the
following information is provided:
❑ Ties to existing benchmark, either USGS landmark or sewer invert. This information must
be clearly stated on the survey so that all measurements are based on the same
commencement point.
❑ Lot area and if applicable, buildable area.
❑ Legal description and physical address.
❑ Scale with a graphic bar scale and north arrow.
❑ Property boundaries to the nearest hundredth (.01) of afoot accuracy. Distances and
bearings and a basis of bearing must be shown. Show existing pins or monuments found
and their relationship to the established comer.
❑ Topographic conditions at two foot contour intervals unless the parcel consists of 6 acres or
more, in which case, 5' contour intervals may be accepted.
❑ Existing trees or groups of trees having trunks with diameters of 4" or more, as measured
from a point one foot above grade.
❑ Rock outcroppings and other significant natural features (large boulders, intermittent
streams, etc.).
❑ All existing improvements (including foundation walls, roof overhangs, building overhangs,
etc.).
❑ Hazard areas (avalanche, rockfall, etc.), centerline and edge of stream or creek, required
creek or stream setback, 100 -year floodplain and slopes of 40% or more, if applicable.
section and elevation drawings shall be provided on the plan or separate sheet.
❑ Delineate areas to be phased and appropriate timing, if applicable
�] Landscape Plan at a scale of 1" = 2(Y or larger, showing the following information:
❑ Landscape plan must be drawn at the same scale as the site plan.
❑ Location of existing trees, 4" diameter or larger. Indicate trees to remain, to be relocated
(including new location), and to be removed. Large stands of trees may be shown.(as
bubble) if the strand is not being affected by the proposed improvements and grading.
❑ Indicate all existing ground cover and shrubs.
❑ Detailed legend, listing the type and size (caliper for deciduous trees, height for conifers,
gallon size for shrubs and height for foundation shrubs) of all the existing and proposed
plant material including ground cover.
❑ Delineate critical root zones for existing trees in close proximity to site grading and
construction.
❑ Indicate the location of all proposed plantings.
❑ The location and type of existing and proposed watering systems to be employed in caring
for plant material following its installation.
❑ Existing and proposed contour lines. Retaining walls shall be included with the top of wall
and the bottom of wall elevations noted.
Architectural Floor Plans (1/8" = P or larger, 1/4" is preferred), including the following:
❑ Floor plans of the proposed development drawn to scale and fully dimensioned. Floor plans
and building elevations must be drawn at the same scale.
❑ Clearly indicate on the floor plans the inside face of the exterior structural walls of the
building.
❑ Label floor plans to indicate the proposed floor area use (i.e. bedroom, kitchen, etc.).
❑ One set of floor plans must be "red- lined" indicating how the gross residential floor area
(GRFA) was calculated. See section 18.04.130 Floor Area, gross residential (GRFA) of the
Vail Municipal Code for the definition of GRFA.
❑ Provide dimensions of all roof eaves and overhangs.
Architectural Elevations (1/8" = P or larger, 1/4" is preferred), including the following:
❑ All elevations of the proposed development drawn to scale and fully dimensioned. The
elevation drawings must show both existing and finished grades. Floor plans and building
elevations must be drawn at the same scale.
w'!
*4w r'
I
Fili
,
TOWN OF VAIL RECEIPT NO. C
NI' DES ELOPAfEN7
NAME C ENT OF COMDIUTS
ADDRESS_ /�� DATE
/ , h O
PROJECT
CHECKS MADE PAYABLE TO TOWN OF VAIL
ACCOIIN - P NO. ITEM NO. TAX COST B.A. TOTAL
01 0000 41540
ZONING AND ADDRESS MAPS
S5.00
z 01 0000 42415
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
S54.00
01 0000 42415
UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE
S39.00
01 0000 42415
UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE
$37.00
=
01 0000 42415
UNIFORM FIRE CODE
S36.00
01 0000 42415
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE
S37.00
01 0000 42415
OTHER CODE BOOKS
01 0000 41548
BLUE PRINTS (MYLARS)
S7.00
01 0000 42412
XEROX COPIES
S0.25
-' 01 0000 42412
STUDIES
01 0000 42412
TOVFEES COMPUTER PROGRAM
S5.00
- 01 0000 42371
PENALTY FEES / RE- INSPECTIONS
01 0000 41332
PLAN REVIEW RE -CHECK FEE S40 PER HR.
01 0000 42332
OFF HOURS•INSPECTION FEES
01 0000 41412
CONTRACTORS LICENSES FEES
01 0000 41413
SIGN APPLICATION FEE
S20.00
01 0000 41413
ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE FEE [S 1.00 PER SQ.FT.
01 000042
VTC ART PROJECT DONATION
012 en41331
RE ID DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FEE
01 OGUff=l
INVESTIGATION FEE (BUILDING)
31 0000 45110
TOV PARKING FUND
01 0000 22027
TOV NEWSPAPER DISPENSER FUND
* O1 0000 21112
TAXABLE a, 4% (STATE)
* 01 0000 41010
TAXABLE (a, 4% (TOWN)
01 0000 42371
BUILDING INVESTIGATION
OTHER
r:
P C APPLICATION FEES
01 0000 41330
ADDITIONAL GRFA "250"
$200.00
01 0000 41330
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
5200.00
01 0000 41330
EXTERIOR ALTERATION LESS THAN 100 S .FT.
$200.00
01 0000 41330
EXTERIOR ALTERATION MORE THAN 100 SQ.FT.
$500.00
x
01 0000 41330
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NEW
S1,500.00
-
=:
01 0000 41330
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT [MAJOR AMEND
S 1,000.00
01 0000 41330
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MINOR AMEND
5200.00
01 0000 41330
SUBDIVISION
-_
01 0000 41330
VARIANCE
S250.00
01 0000 41330
ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS
S250.00
01 0000 41330
RE - ZONING
S200.00
OTHER
OTHER
TOTAL:
COMMENTS:
-
CASH I 1 CK # t 5 61 . 1 M. 0 !-1 REC. BY:
I
qw
tar .
` � ��
' ., ..#
' l
*
�
'
. ��.
^
------- ------
lFolxl" C1F: 1 1if-4 iK_
^
Miscellaneous Cash
0 16:35�24
Receipt # 180289 ~
Account # CK # 1515
���:IMUM C ORT DR8 FEE
�mount tendered >
20.0@
` Jtem paid Amount paid
0100 0041331�08
20.00
Change retorneo >
0.00
/
HEIDI
_
RECEIVED FROM
ADDRESS .4j
DOLLARS s
/
rs
/
DESIGN REVIEW Bdj rDAPPLICATION - TOWN OF VA COLORADO
DATE RECEIVED:
DATE OF DRB MEETING:
INCOMPLETE APPLICATION MAY NOT BE SCHEDULED FOR REVIEW.
* * * * * * * * **
I. PROJECT INFORMATION :
A. DESCRIPTION :Placeymt of hot tub em a-zist -inn
deck
B. TYPE OF REVIEW:
($20.00)
($20.00)
PlacL -ment of womable- lbrtable hot tub
New Construction ($200.00) � miner- r,ter-at;ens
Additi on ($50.00)
Conceptual Review
C . ADDRESS: 1 ASS Ri dae lase. . Kvi 1- CIZ
D. LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot Block
Subdivision
E.
If property is described by a meets and bounds legal
description, please provide on a separate sheet and attach to
this application.
ZONING:
F. NAME OF APPLICANT : Piro Iuia Riim
Mailing Address: Rua do B=ta1. Farba. SP. Brazil
Phone : SS- 11 - ?91 -1121
C. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: _ RBxizU& 0wfort Poll 6 S
Mailing Address: _ A7Anr 2666. 17 CO 81659
Phone: 970 -989 -6339
H. NAME OF OWNER: Bidde Val ley. Entzenrises Ltd.
OWNER (S) SIGNATURE
1 9,\
Mailin Address: 5aze as tFJ ar u-ne VAJ.1 addxess as fallors
The ii _. Qm s -.•r it= ,- -e / tt� _ -r. pit-.
Phone: //
�rrr,rrrl
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
General Public
Community Development Department
February 19, 1992
Movable /Portable Hot Tubs and Spas
O
^ }•4ii• {. %4:.: r. »4:: \v n r.:... }�v .rte vvrtrr. •:: rr :: r.:: .. �` n : ^t } :�4�:• ' .'- r :•. M V'i�i�.�4
;: r : v.. :f. v... {{1l .... •} }`: {x. rt•...... .h....t..:. .. r'vrr. .r. ^........
.:» . 'i} r4}i %xxtw,v,. % { ? +if ?4 }y :4�: { { {:.:: }::::.... %i i::}} } } : »?:. }•4v {: ?4 }:4:.r' ?t »:: }ii: r :YeG>_.v vv vv:.v
r x ::.� ..: {SC•.:f: .. nx. :f. :M4}i v. ::.. ^.}.v fiv} .:.+ ..... •• ...... v ........ .......:.. .. +. vrru
�+j :� }V' ..::. :.x. ; . }......A� .. �• . • f. R'v'i4 r ..... .... »l :f ...4 ...:r} .vvv: 4}Y.vi:...:.4nvv..........:v ........ r rvv v: i:::.::?:4i }i'i {�
%' +. r :v4:.r.:...4 }:{ ..-. ..'v ^. v v:. .. :. .. .v ....!....... v.. ..r ..^ ............:... .... .. ...........v. . xr} kind{ ij: i l : Y• ::' {i:M } i % ?. } :v.? > }::• }' } %: /.}
f5� n�.. .: �(:'. v !.• {4Y� h.. i. f rrf....v,^ � {: }:r:rx::.v:fivf.}:: r}.:v.?vf.-.4Ar {•.t•: v: rr: :.H.r: r a ..•: % /:fi- ... { ?:. •.-::: ....ry.... .: 1.:. .v:j: .r} -
{ �ifr r . ]? rrnx�t•} :ti ? ^,0,4:.;x4r• {;. }•:•'.- .v: }r: �.. vb:?? :x .$ yr �••:.: + .:? f,. i:: iF : : .................v........ .......v ... r............... � > {:.' {• }i } } }: {4'.:v : }.... FA: }: rcr...::.:r:f:}S}:.r.:.. �: } %4
.!.`}4 }r ... ..:f.. r....:...:�F. \ }v: -: h�v; :YJ/ }.{.: r. v.. r..: i. v:: x:. v: ! x: w . . v : :nvvv.: .x::::: :r::. :.:: f.•: rr::.:v w::::: :.::?.i
.r�iwN -v..v: rwr^v..iW. wry: v' lrvnwm: iw• i:. ri-% Jn" v' wwOw:? riviiiW}}} r'. nw.:i i'. rvi :riiiii^wwiGivit•.viivwri.•i'.0
As technology has progressed, a new type of hot tub and spa has been developed. This new
type is essentially a self- contained unit with all plumbing, etc., contained within the structure of
the unit. The only necessary component for this type of unit is an electrical outlet. For the
Town's purposes, these units will be considered' moveable /portable hot tubs and spas.
The following information must be submitted, where applicable, with all requests for
portable /moveable hot tubs or spas:
Survey or site plan - The building location, all property lines and the proposed hot tub
/ unit should be shown.
Cut sheet/photograph of unit - All units must be U.L. listed and must meet the UBC.
3. Condo Association - If a unit is to be located on a general common element (G.C.E.)
or limited common element (L.C.E.), condominium association written approval must be
obtained.
(�I �4. Hazards - A hazard letter will not be required unless some other structure, as defined
in Section 18.04.310 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, is also being added. Specific
requirements for structures in hazard areas are in Section 18.69 of the Town of Vail
zoning code. Maps indicating hazard areas are available in the Community
Development Department office.
A hot tub may be added to an existing, conforming (legal) deck. Decks may encroach into
setbacks, including front, rear, side and creek, either 1/2 the setback distance or 10 feet if
within 5 feet of grade, or 1/2 the setback distance or 5 feet if more than 5 feet from grade.
Please refer to Section 18.50.050, 18.58.060 and 18.58.300 of the Town of Vail zoning code
for the specific regulations. Requests for hot tub /spa encroachments into setbacks further
than allowed for decks may be approved by the Design Review Board. Other sections of the
code, which are not cited in this memo, may also be applicable to some installations.
All completed applications for movable /portable hot tubs will be reviewed by staff. No
approval can be given without all the necessary information as listed above.
This review program is not applicable to permanent/built -in hot tub /spa units.
The Town will not regulate "temporary" hot tubs which are sited for less than a 48 -hour period.
- l Ft a
�_
r _
k.
� i;.
iT
11 low am -
r �
r.
��. _ _.. _ -.. _ _'!►:'fin- -
w-
r
LIST OF PROPOSED MATERIALS
BUILDING MATERIALS TYPE OF MATERIAL COLOR:*
Roof e C1 U /(JG•'t',
Siding
Other Wall Materials
Fascia CQ C ry l vr) .
nn
Soffits ,Ci O( a � Me &C(,,V
Windows `�'�T�ec ( �s{' F-,t ..
Window Trim Alot C/L^ -*n
Doors n JZ— a •-,
Door Tri m
Hand or Deck Rails U
Fiucs
Flashings CG C—,
Chimneys See. 1 C4-'S
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses r p n 1
Retaining Walls S l c>�1 \ ►Jov �d'e�S I __
Exterior Lighting **
Other
* Please specify the manufacturer's color, number and attach a small color chip
** All exterior lighting must meet the Town's Lighting Ordinance 18.54.050(J). If exterior lighting is proposed,
please indicate the number of fixtures and locations on a separate lighting plan. Identify each fixture type and provide
the height above grade, lumens output, luminous area, and attach a cut sheet of the lighting fixtures.
2 1 Updated 6/97
— I ,
c a
1 � 1► 1 ►
This form is to verify service availability and location for new construction and should be used in conjunction
with preparing your utility plan and scheduling installations. The location and availability of utilities, whether
they be main trunk lines or proposed lines, must be approved and verified by the following utilities for the
accompanying site plan.
U.S. West Communications
1 -800- 922 -1987
468 -6860 or 949 -4530
Public Service Company
'949 -5781
Gary Hall
Holy Cross Electric Assoc.
949 -5892
Ted Husky /John Boyd
T.C.I.
949 -5530
Floyd Salazar
Eagle River Water
& Sanitation District
476 -7480
Fred Haslec
* Please bring a site plan, floor plan, and elevations when obtaining Upper Eagle Valley Water & Sanitation
signatures. Fire flow needs mint be addressed.
NOTES:
If the utility verification form has signatures from each of the utility companies, and no
comments are made directly on the form, the Town will presume that there are no problems and
the development can proceed.
2. If a utility company has concerns with the proposed construction, the utility representative shall
note directly on the utility verification form that there is a problem which needs to be resolved.
The issue should then be detailed in an attached letter to the Town of Vail. However, please
keep in mind that it is the responsibility of the utility company and the applicant to resolve
identified problems.
These verifications do not relieve the contractor of the responsibility to obtain a Public Way
Permit from the Department of Public Works at the Town of Vail. Utility locations must be
obtained before digging in any public right -of -way or easement within the Town of Vail. A
building permit is not a Public Wayermit and must be obtained separately
Authorized SiLmature Date
4 Updated 6/97
•t
.y
4 4
V. STAFF APPRQVAL
The Administrator may review and approve Design Review applications, approve with certain modifications,
deny the application, or may refer the application to the Design Review Board for decision. All staff
approvals are subject to final approval by the DRB. The following types of Design Review applications may
be staff approved:
A. Any application for an addition to an existing building that is consistent with the architectural design,
materials and colors of the building, and approval has been received by an authorized member of a
condominium association, if applicable,
B. Any application to modify an existing building that does not significantly change the existing planes
of the building and is generally consistent with the architectural design, materials and colors of the
building, including, but not limited to exterior building finish materials (e.g. stonework, siding, roof
materials, paint or stain,), exterior lighting, canopies or awnings, fences, antennas, satellite dishes,
windows, skylights, siding, minor commercial facade improvements, and other similar modifications;
C. Any application for site improvements or modifications including, but not limited to, driveway
modifications, site grading, site walls, removal or modifications to existing landscaping, installation
of accessory structures or recreational facilities.
VI. ADDITIONAL REVIEW AND FEES
A. If this application requires a separate review by any local, state or Federal agency other than the
Town of Vail, the application fee shall be increased by $200.00. Examples of such review, may
include, but are not limited to: Colorado Department of Highway Access Permits, Army Corps of
Engineers 404, etc.
B. The applicant shall be responsible for paying any publishing fees which are in excess of 50% of the
application fee. If, at the applicant's request, any matter is postponed for hearing, causing the matter
to be re- published, then the entire fee for such re- publication shall be paid by the applicant.
C. Applications deemed by the Community Development Department to have design, land use or other
issues which may have a significant impact on the community may require review by consultants in
addition to Town staff. Should a determination be made by the Town staff that an outside consultant
is needed, the Community Development Department may hire the consultant. The Department shall
estimate the amount of money necessary to pay the consultant and this amount shall be forwarded to
the Town by the applicant at the time of filing an application. Expenses incurred by the Town in
excess of the amount forwarded by the application shall be paid to the Town by the applicant within
30 days of notification by the Town. Any excess funds will be returned to the applicant upon review
completion.
6 Updated 6/97
Town of Vail
d epartment of Community Development
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Name: ��� Receipt No.
Address:
Project: Date / Z 1
Plea4 make checks payable to the TOWN OF VAIL
Account No.
Item
No.
! Code # Cost Each
Total
001 0000 314 1110
Zoning and Address Maps
ZA
$5.00
001 0000 314 1112
Uniform Building Code - 1997 - Volume 1 &2
CB
$50.95
001 0000 314 1112
Uniform Building Code - 1997 - Volume 3
$57.20
001 0000 314 1112
International Plumbing Code - 1997
CB
$36.00
001 0000 314 1112
International Mechanical Code - 1998
CB
$35.00
001 0000 314 1112
1 Uniform Mechanical Code -1997
! $33.60
001 0000 314 1112
Uniform Fire Code
CB
$36.00
001 0000 314 1112
National Electrical Code
CB
$37.00
001 0000 314 1112
Abatement of Dangerous Bldg.'s 1997
$9.95
001 0000 314 1112
Model Energy Code - 1995
$10.00
001 0000 314 1112
Analysis of Revisions to 1997 Uniform Codes
I $12.75
001 0000 314 1112
Other Code Books
CB
001 0000 314 1211
1 Blue Prints/M tar Copy Fees
BF $7.00
*
001 0000 314 1111
1 Xerox Copies
XC i $0.25
*
001 0000 314 1111
Lionshead Master Plan $1.80/$1.60)
MS ! $40.00
*
001 0000 314 1111
Studies, Master Plans, etc.
MS
001 0000 315 3000
Penal Fees/Re-Inspections
PN
001 0000 311 2300
Plan Review Re -check Fee ($40/ per hour
PF
001 0000 315 2000
Off Hours Inspection Fees
OH
001 0000 312 3000
Contractors License Fees
CL
001 0000 312 4000
Sin Application Fee
SP $20.00
001 0000 312 4000
Additional Sign Application Fee
SP I
001 0000 311 2200
Design Review Board Fee (Pre-paid)
DR
Z '
001 0000 315 3000
Building Investigation Fee
PN
001 0000 240 3300
Developer Improvement Agreement Deposit D2 -DEP10
AD
001 0000 312 1000
Restaurant License fee TOV)
RL
001 0000 230 2000
Sec. Assess.- Restaurant Fee to Co.De t.Rev.
ISA
*001 0000 201 1000
Taxable @ 4.5% State - Tax payable
TP
*001 0000 310 1100
Taxable @ 4.0% own - Retail Sales Tax
T7
Other /Misc. -
MS !
001 0000 311 2500
PEC APPLICATION FEES
001 0000 311 2500
Additional GRFA - "250"
PV $200.00
001 0000 311 2500
Conditional Use Permit
JPV
' $200.00
001 0000 311 2500
Exterior Alteration - Less than 100 s . ft.
PV $200.00
001 0000 311 2500
Exterior Alteration - More than 100 s . ft.
PV $500.00
001 0000 311 2500
Special Development District - NEW
PV $1,500.00
001 0000 311 2500
Special Develo ment District - Major Amend
PV $1,000.00
001 0000 311 2500
Special Development District - Minor Amend
PV ! $200.00
001 0000 311 2500
Subdivision Fees
PV
001 0000 311 2500
Variance
PV $250.00
001 0000 311 2500
Zoning Code Amendments
PV
$250.00
Re-Zoning
PV I
$200.00
001 0000 319 3100
Greenstar Program
Other -
MS
TOTAL:
Comments:
Cash Money Order # Check # b Received by: L,,C,
I
F: /Everyone /Forms/Satesaat.exe 2/10/99
(4400V
Town of Vail
+* CUSTOMER RECEIPT +� +*
DATE: 3/23/00 01 RECEIPT: 0006402
DESCRIPTION QTY AMOUNT TP TM
DESIGN REVIEW FE 1 $200.00 *DR CK
SENTRY CONSTRUCTION INC
TENDER DETAIL
CK 13845 $200.00
DATE: 3/23/00 TIME: 13:30:22
TOTAL CHECK $200.00
AMOUNT TENDERED $200.00
TOR YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT!
RECEIPT — The Town of Vail
M
DATE 3 �Z� 1 ��: 5091
r 'IECEIVED FROM S�Af' C. -
\ ADDRESS
P
— DOLLARS $ Z-� 6,
M Permit Numbers Police Receipt Numbers
• ` PAID- 3 t
HOW Cash Check ( � C ' B � 14
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISOION
PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE
Monday, March 13, 2000
MEETING RESULTS
Project Orientation / PEC LUNCH - Community Development Department 11:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Galen Aasland John Schofield
Brian Doyon Diane Golden
Tom Weber Doug Cahill
Chas Bernhardt
Site Visits : 12:30 p.m.
1. Vail Mountain School - 3160 Katsos Ranch Road
2. Pearson — 303 Gore Creek Drive #2 -C
3. Vail Athletic Club — 352 East Meadow Drive
4. Gore Creek Promenade
5. Illig — 706 W. Forest Road
6. Donovan Park —South Frontage Road and Matterhorn Circle
7. Lot 4, Ridge at Vail — 1452 Buffehr Creek Road
Driver: George
Z - )) ]I
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m.
k Q�
�\ �0 Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for an amendment to a previously platted
building envelope and a revised lot access, located at 1452 Buffehr Creek Rd. /Lot 4,
Ridge at Vail.
Applicant: Mike Young
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 4 -0
APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS:
That the developer submits a complete set of engineered plans for the required
improvements to the private drive. The plans shall be required to comply with the
applicable Town of Vail Development Standards. The plans shall be reviewed
and approved by the Town of Vail Public Works Department prior to appearing
before the Town of Vail Design Review Board for final review.
TO WN 4VAILL
2. That the developer records an amended plat for Lot 4 with the Eagle County Clerk
& Recorder's office prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. A request for variances from Section 12 -6D -6, and Section 12 -14 -6, Town of Vail Code,
to allow for an extended entry, trash enclosure and deck expansion, located at 706 W.
Forest Road /Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6 th Filing.
Applicant: Cliff Illig, represented by Beth Levine
Planner: Allison Ochs
MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 4 -0
APPROVED WITH 1 CONDITION:
That a limit of disturbance be established at the rear of the unit and no development
is to occur beyond this line in the future.
3. A request for a variance from Sections 12 -6H -6 and 12 -14 -6, Town of Vail Code, to allow
for the addition of gross residential floor area and balconies within required setbacks,
located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Townhouse #2 -C /Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Village 1st
Filing.
Applicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ron Diehl, Architect
Planner: Ann Kjerulf
MOTION: Tom Weber SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 4 -0
TABLED
4. A request for a work session to discuss a proposed major amendment to Special
Development District #4 (Cascade Village), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West (Glen
Lyon Office Building) /Lot 54, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg Mayhew Architects
Planner: George Ruther
WORKSESSION — NO VOTE
5. A request for an exterior alteration and a conditional use permit for a fractional fee club
and a parking variance, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club, located at
352 East Meadow Drive /A part of Tract B, Vail Village 1 Filing.
Applicant: VML, L.L.C.
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 4 -0
APPROVED WITH 8 CONDITIONS:
That the developer submits a complete set of engineered plans for the required
streetscape improvements. The plans shall be required to comply with the
applicable Town of Vail Development Standards. The plans shall be reviewed
and approved by the Town of Vail Public Works Department prior to appearing
before the Town of Vail Design Review Board for final review of the
streetscape improvements. The plans shall receive final approval prior to
the issuance of a building permit
2. That the developer records a deed - restriction for the new Type III Employee
Housing Unit in the Vail Athletic Club & Spa with the Eagle County Clerk &
Recorder's office prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. That the developer submits an application to the Town of Vail Community
Development Department for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction
of one new Type III Employee Housing Unit in the Vail Athletic Club & Spa and
that the permit be approved by the Planning & Environmental Commission prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
4. That the developer submits a tree preservation plan to the Town of Vail
Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
5. That the developer submits a construction staging and access plan to the Town of
Vail Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the
issuance of a building permit. The plan shall include the location of a construction
fence and erosion control fence to preserve and protect the Gore Creek riparian
corridor.
That the developer pays the Town of Vail $13,620, as previously agreed to, for
previous streetscape improvements already completed by the Town of Vail on
behalf of the Vail Athletic Club & Spa.
7. That the developer submits a comprehensive sign and exterior lighting program
for the Vail Athletic Club & Spa to the Town of Vail Community Development
Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
8. That if the height increases after the DRB review, it will come back to the PEC for
another review.
A work session to discuss a conditional use permit to allow for a proposed expansion at
Vail Mountain School, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road /Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail
Village 12" Filing.
Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Architects
Planner: Brent Wilson
WORKSESSION - NO VOTE
7. A PEC review of proposed modifications to the Gore Creek Flood Plain, located at the
Gore Creek Whitewater Park, Gore Creek Promenade/Tracts I & A, Block 5B, Vail Village
1 st Filing.
Applicant: Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau
Planner: Brent Wilson
WORKSESSION - NO VOTE
8. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the conversion of existing hotel rooms
into employee housing units, located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. (West Vail Lodge) /Lot 1,
Vail das Schone #3.
Applicant: Reaut Corporation
Planner Brent Wilson
MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Chas Bernhardt VOTE: 4 -0
APPROVED WITH 10 CONDITIONS:
3
The approval will not be valid unless the Vail Town Council approves the pending
proposal to amend Section 13 -7 ( "Condominiums and Condominium Conversions ") of
the Town of Vail Code. This amendment is necessary to allow for the conversion of
accommodation units to condominiumized employee housing units. The applicant
shall demonstrate compliance with all provisions of the Town of Vail Subdivision
Regulations.
2. All employee housing units created with this proposal will be deed - restricted in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12 -13, Town of Vail Code ( "Employee
Housing "), prior to the issuance of a building permit for any improvements on the
property.
3. The applicant shall provide the Town of Vail a pedestrian easement for the existing
sidewalk located at the south end of the subject property along North Frontage Road.
4. The applicant shall complete and improve the existing unfinished retaining wall at the
north end of the subject property. This improvement is subject to approval by the
Town's Design Review Board.
5. In accordance with the anticipated impacts generated by the provision of employee
housing units upon the Town's transit system, the applicant shall provide a pedestrian
stair connection between the berm at the north end of the parking lot and the existing
Town of Vail bus stop along Chamonix Lane. This improvement will be contained
entirely on both the subject property and the Town of Vail right -of -way. This
improvement is subject to approval by the Town's Design Review Board.
6. Landscaping along the parking area and lot perimeter will be provided in accordance
with the provisions of Section 12 -11, Town of Vail Code ( "Design Review ").
Compliance with these provisions will be determined by the Town's Design Review
Board.
7. The applicant will obtain an encroachment agreement for the placement of any
parking facilities within platted easements. Additionally, the proposed parking plan
shall comply with the town's development standards and will be approved by staff
during the design review process.
8. The applicant shall complete additional exterior improvements (if applicable) to be
determined by the Town's Design Review Board.
9. That the pedestrian path be formalized in the northwest corner.
10. That There be more screening, in the form of landscaping to the northeast corner of
the lot.
9. A final review of the proposed changes to the Town of Vail's parking pay -in -lieu policy and
proposed amendments to Chapter 12 -10, Town Code.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Brent Wilson
TABLED
rd
10. Final review of the Town of Vail's revised parking generation analysis and proposed
amendments to Chapter 12 -10, Town Code.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Brent Wilson
TABLED
11. A joint work session with the Design Review Board to discuss the proposed development
plan /master plan and a conditional use permit for a park and recreation facility for an
approximately 12 acre unplatted parcel of land zoned General Use and Residential
Cluster, commonly referred to as the lower bench of Donovan Park, located south of the
South Frontage Road and east and north of Matterhorn Circle.
Applicant: Town of Vail/Vail Recreation District
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
WORKSESSION - NO VOTE
12. Information Update
Four, two -year term PEC vacancies — (Galen Aasland, Brian Doyon, Diane Golden and
Tom Weber).
PEC REPRESENTATIVE AT DRB FOR 2000 -
Doug Cahill - Jan -Mar '00
- Apr -Jun '00
- Jul -Sep '00
- Oct -Dec '00
13. Approval of February 28, 2000 minutes.
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2138 for information.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2356, Telephone for the
Hearing Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
GV 41
ka
A LoT "h -o
OAF' A5 p l % c L*u E.
Z, - Z- 7 70 41
? 9
_ - 1 � � R6E �.js i S h vYr l4jpr2. f �fZi.� �g,Qy C oc.tGb2c1
6 jz2 j4Z �E���,�,,
� � . ��dc �-I = Lr'•tii�J� �-i o� ���2 Serb . Co�tE:u�n-s .
VJJ
vw4.c-r- C k SCI
f H S � Q C e
c U ryY c
co
Clo A n rn Fc \1-C Z
( y55 3 Rk j c /h,
� c b y S-C 6 '
V \o eS
G
7 v vv � � -eh e_ lTec, C,
1
Y
QG cc) 7
� •1
4 ji
�o'C ` d.�ii's�°
�z�l
0 I ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPF - Y
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on February 28, 2000, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
A request for final review of a proposed major amendment to Special Development District #4
(Cascade Village), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West (Glen Lyon Office Building) /Lot 54,
Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg Mayhew Architects
Planner: George Ruther
A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the conversion of existing hotel rooms into
employee housing units, located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. (West Vail Lodge) /Lot 1, Vail das
Schone #3.
Applicant: Reaut Corporation
Planner Brent Wilson
A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing
raw water intake structure and pump station, located on Black Gore Drive /Lot 8, Heather of Vail.
Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District
Planner: Brent Wilson
A request for variances from Section 12 -6C -6, Section 12 -6D -6, and Section 12 -14 -6, Town of
Vail Code, to allow for an extended entry, trash enclosure and deck expansion, located at 706 W.
Forest Road /Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6'" Filing.
Applicant: Cliff Illig, represented by Beth Levine
Planner: Allison Ochs
A request for a variance from Sections 12 -61-1-6 and 12 -14 -6, Town of Vail Code, to allow for the
addition of gross residential floor area and balconies within required setbacks.
Applicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ron Diehl, Architect
Planner: Ann Kjerulf
A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for an amendment to a previously platted building
envelope and a revised lot access, located at 1452 Lionsridge Loop / Lot 4, Ridge at Vail.
Applicant: Mike Young
Planner: George Ruther
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2138 for information.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-
2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
Published February 11, 2000 in the Vail Trail.
�q
1
ti
- ►viiau nc 174 11 �.
F• i F .:r r _•h i teC.t.s
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pfanning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 22, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision for Lot 4, Ridge at Vail, 1452 Ridge
Lane.
Applicant: Frank McKibben
Planner: Jill Kammerer
�`i'...a � %�`���;: «' � % s"A:�ssk Nd °:k X ' S ^""'. �' f r.ry f r • r .... r ,., ; ,....,.. s .. ; .,...•" "• h •.� ��,
gslef� y�..t � �� .:�.g.: � JS "' "71 "'^ c � «:ry�pe' . o:e•c. e:ex�x x -:e a •x ^.4o. � ••.�. T "'
� •.L•exi:::: j : pie: •. .G:fSR:t::F���:i %: �:.t:!' : S�:e.w':i� .' %�� sx;Six : .i;f f .'i. : ��� %Y� Rf� flsi ;� ..6��i.. � .s!R tE <`:ikx. ai :` i`�`a: °f a <i>RZ
��f�'i:'I•A�A1:b� A:S:6; >: si t..:.sx:s:.:; > x.,:. >Raas:o�;r:.�+fv k:A:,,Ti., l :.:. .�Q.s. /ra f ��;s.<:Nny,. u,i � [[ �� � yi �� �; a� ��a� uqe�" �'�R:o�'i1�ir�:e:du °:'�:s:'i.s� �?ys
�: ' 4 ! a 3. s a� �rl.r � :FfGq•!i °4. 1�M. 4 i�9a.M.. ��74 9
« w: Y• Y. YXra' c: R: G: Kfii°. �::: tl�6fi4�iR :r.Res:4iF'fiNn`�::f:i�9.'r�:? CYO: 6fi: �:$• S .'�.'�:ri.'•f!•w•'�'e ° :6:�:a�Y o• a A: • eQ; e�. �feewliAf' fiik. A• wws0f•. to9 ,fi�:�1:4%t:�9.;C�r,.c�k >i�1:�43
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE MINOR AMENDMENT REQUESTED
The applicant is requesting a revision to the existing Lot 4, Second Amendment to the Ridge
at Vail plat In order to reconfigure the existing 40 -foot by 60 -foot building envelope in order to
take advantage of the views of the Gore Range which would be obtained from a new
residence located within this building envelope. Please see the attached proposed building
envelope plan. The existing building envelope for Lot 4 was established on January 15, 1982
by the Second Amendment to the•Ridge at Vail, a Resubdivision of Lots 3, 4 and 5 plat.
II. BACKGROUND
The existing site is zoned Residential Cluster. However, the Declaration of Protective
Covenants for the Ridge at Vail which was executed on July 29, 1980, set forth development
parameters for all lots associated with the Ridge. For the most part, these protective
covenants are more restrictive then the RC zone district development standards. Although the
Town of Vail does not enforce private agreements, the applicant has Indicated it is his
intention to design and build the proposed residence in conformance with these protective
covenants with the exception of the restriction for gross residential floor area. The maximum
amount of GRFA which will be constructed on the site is limited by the second amendment to
the Ridge at Vail plat, to a maximum of 2,400 square feet. This platted GRFA maximum is
more restrictive then the GRFA which could be constructed on this lot under the protective
covenants or under RC zoning.
On January 14, 1980, the Town of Vail mailed a letter to Eagle County commenting on the
proposed preliminary plan for The Ridge at Vail. With regard to Lot 4 the PEG had the
following comments:
"The excessive slopes on Lot 4 make it almost unworkable. if Lot 4 were deleted, the
road could be shortened and the western most townhouse on Lot 5 could be moved
down off the ridge. The architect for the project is confident a well designed building
P i Per i ar -h i t_ ct s �� +3'3495253
would make Lot 4 acceptable. If Lot 4 is incorporated into Lot 5 and the building
desigh'ccan be tied to condominiumization approval, we will review the design more
favorably. f
Approval of any building on Lot 4 will be given only if the design Is for an unobtrusive
building, which steps into the slope and is located on slopes under 40 %.'
On February 11, 1980, the Board of County Commissioners approved the preliminary plan for
The Ridge at Vail. The approval was for 6 townhomes, 3 duplex lots and one single family lot
(Lot 4).
On July 25, 1981, PEC approved a minor subdivision request for Phase IV of The Valley (The
Ridge at Vail) which combined a portion of Lot 4 and 5. Formerly Lot 5 had an 'arm' which
extended along the top of the ridge to the west along the north side. of Lot 4. For
main tonance'purposes and to make Lot 4 a more viable lot, this Lot 5 "arm" was incorporated
Into Lot 4. A condition of the 1981 approval was that the existing building envelope remain.
Prior to the combination of the 'arm" of Lot 5 with Lot 4, the area of Lot 4 was 14,418 sq. ft.
In August of 1985 a request to relocate the building envelope was submitted to the Town.
This application was later withdrawn.
III. ZONING ANALYSIS
The following chart compares the development standards set forth in the RC zone district to
the covenants and restrictions for the Ridge at Vail and the Ridge at Vail plat. . .
RC
Protective
Zonin
Covenants
As Platted
" 4,568 sq ft
2,825 sq ft
2,625 sq ft
Site Coverage 6,818 (25 %)
6,818 (25 %)
N/A
Building Height 33'
30
NIA
Setbacks
Front 20'
15'
N/A
Rear 15'
15'
N/A
North Side 15'
25'
N/A
South Side 15'
15'
N/A
Density 2 units
one single family
N/A
' Allowable GRFA in the RC zone district
is based upon buildable area.
These GRFA
`fiugures include 225 sq. ft. bonus which
Is allowed under RC zoning for single family
units constructed in this zone district.
P.02
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 22, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision for Lot 4, Ridge at Vail, 1452 Ridge
Lane.
Applicant: Frank McKibben
Planner: Jill Kammerer
�.< .
- :,:...::.. .....r:: ;;.: R•s''Y••::�: •.>y::::- - r.:;::�::.:�-:.:. .h: "::; �f :t.; :G% %2 % <r: - y .rr:•r... ! �
dM;itY.�.. . ..::!::fi:.i'tiii::;•:. � ::::::.::.... :.h.? ::nrrJ,�h��r i ^ .ii4::} : :•: f. :: .:f /•: }:: :: T:,. ; rr::;. rr.:.::: F.:: r. :vhin.>zu <•;
:. asalC cs: A •�:...ccGwtt+a�w,p,n....�,cu.... .... ::.... :••r y
w wSwnJJ«oiv:.4i%5i1:4:µy�,.....; }Jf...:: .::: .: J::.,/JfrrS}yNA:G4"r %1.. �..'l ;l. +•`'H %l :' - `i' .$rI' •y %r. :;
e. ?try i��i { SS fA'F ii'sii {ifYf���/ t� �ti •:' � JfJrl y' y /
Acid f " y%�Y::;
. ..: ...:v, J..r xrJ J.•.... r
���6
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE MINOR AMENDMENT REQUESTED
The applicant is requesting a_revi ion the existing Lot 4, Second Amendment to the Ridge
at Vail plat in order to reconfigure the existing 40 -foot by 60 -foot building envelope in order to
take advantage of the views of the Gore Range which would be obtained from a new
residence located within this building envelope. Please see the attached proposed building
envelope plan. The existing building envelope for Lot 4 was established on January 15, 1982
by the Second Amendment to the Ridge at Vail, a Resubdivision of Lots 3, 4 and 5 plat.
II. BACKGROUND
The existing site is zoned Residential Cluster. However, the Declaration of Protective
Covenants for the Ridge at Vail which was executed on July 29, 1980, set forth development
parameters for all lots associated with the Ridge. For the most part, these protective
covenants are more restrictive then the RC zone district development standards. Although the
Town of Vail does not enforce private agreements, the applicant has indicated it is his
intention to design and build the proposed residence in conformance with these protective
coven ants the exception of the restriction for gross residential floor area. The maximum
amount of GRFA which will be constructed on the site is limited by the second amendment to
- the Ridge at Vail plat, to a maximum of 2,400 square feet. This platted GRFA maximum is
more restrictive then the GRFA which could be constructed on this lot under the protective
covenants or under RC zoning.
On January 14, 1980, the Town of Vail mailed a letter to Eagle County commenting on the
proposed preliminary plan for The Ridge at Vail. With regard to Lot 4 the PEC had the
following comments:
"The excessive slopes on Lot 4 make it almost unworkable. If Lot 4 were deleted, the
road could be shortened and the western most townhouse on Lot 5 could be moved
down off the ridge. The architect for the project is confident a well designed building
• J
There is no information in the Town's files which specifically addresses the reasoning for
locating the building envelope where it was platted. However, staff believes the reason for
locating the envelope as platted was two -fold:
1. To minimize the amount of disturbance to the site in constructing a residence at this
location and;
2. To minimize the view of the residence from the valley floor.
�71
The lot area is .626 acres. Under the protective covenants, no more than one single family
home may be constructed on Lot 4. The lot is located at the end of Ridge Lane immediately
west of the 6 -unit Ridge Townhome development. The lot slopes from a low point on the
north side of the site to a high point on the south side of the site. The average slope on the
site is 38 %.
In comparing the two envelopes, the staff looked at loss of trees, driveway grade and retaining
walls, site disturbance, and views associated with each envelope. In both building envelope
`configurations, the impact of the garage and the access drive on the lot is essentially the
\same.
A W - Due to the steep slopes associated with this lot, staff also explored the site impacts of
c k:s` positioning a garage at the end of the cul de sac. A garage at this location would result in the
need for substantial soil retaining and site disturbance as well as a setback variance.
_..Additional_ trees would be saved by placing a garage at the end of the cul de sac. Further, it -
Q does not appear that at the termination of the cul de sac one would view a set of garage
,C'__ doors. Staff believes the placement of a garage next to the cul de sac is less desirable site
C - V planning then allowing a driveway, which works with the contours, to provide access to the
'A ;'L" ) site and the siting of a garage further to the north out of the end -of- the -road sight line. For
these reasons, staff supports maintaining the northeast corner of the building envelope
°. �� configuration.
There are 14 lodge pole pines within the existing building envelope. Under the proposed
building envelope there would be 8 lodge pole pines located within the proposed building
envelope. It appears that approximately 7 trees can be saved under the new program.
In order to mitigate the potential visual impact of any new residence constructed within the
new envelope from the valley floor, the applicant proposes to limit the height of development
which would occur within the building envelope as'shown on the attached cross section.
Briefly, the applicant proposes to limit the maximum building height in the southern 20 feet of
the proposed building envelope to an elevation of 8503 _feet. In conformance with the
protective covenants, the maximum height allowali a for any structure constructed in the
northern half of the building envelope will be 30 feet:
On June 16th, the staff visited the site with the project architect, Duane Piper, and the
applicant, Frank McKibben. At this meeting the applicant anchored "a helium balloon on a 30-
foot tether to the existing sting southeast envelope corner and a helium balloon on a 24 -foot tether
to the southeast corner of the proposed envelope. Staff then traveled to the valley floor to
evaluate the extent to which each of these balloons could be seen. In summary, the staff
3
G J
7. The next item reviewed by the PEC was Item #3 on the agenda, a request for a minor
subdivision for Lot 5, Block 2, Bighorn First, 3916 Lupine Drive.
Applicant: Marty Abel, President of Sable Lupine Partners,
Ltd.
Planner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica reviewed the request with the Commission, stating that the applicant is
proposing to reduce the GRFA on the property, which is zoned duplex. The applicant
is proposing one single family dwelling with an optional caretaker unit. The applicant,
Marty Abel, stated he felt if the project was built -out using the allowable GRFA it would
be an excessive amount of building for the lot. After some discussion, Greg Amsden
made a motion to approve the request per the staff memo. Chuck Crist seconded the
motion. The Commission had several questions regarding the geologic hazards. Diana
Donovan asked Greg if he cared to amend his motion to exclude the optional caretaker
units. It was suggested by Kristan Pritz that the Commission be polled to see how the
vote might go. The Commission's response was that 4 Commissioners would not vote
for the option of a caretaker unit and 2 members would consider the option. After
further discussion, Greg Amsden withdrew his original motion and made a second
motion to approve the minor subdivision, per the staff, memo, excluding the optional
caretaker units. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously, 6 -0. Kristan Pritz stated that this approval will be written on the
plat for future reference.
8. The next item on the agenda was a request for a minor subdivision for Lot 4, Ridge at
Vail, 1452 Ridge Lane.
Applicant: Frank McKibben
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Jill Kammerer, Senior Planner, reviewed the proposed building envelope location
modification with the Commission, stating the staff recommended approval. Under the
��J request a cap would be placed on the building height and several trees on the site
would be saved which would have been lost if the existing building envelope were to
be maintained. Kristan Pritz stated that he ight restrictions w ould b recorded on t he
plat. The staq further recommended the applicant- record -a - driveway /garag acc ess
9. nvelope _on the plat. In attendance were the applicant, Frank McKibben, and the
architect, Duane Piper. After some discussion, Greg Amsden made a motion to
approve the request subject to the following conditions:
1. Within the southern 20 feet of the proposed building envelope, the roof and
structure shall not exceed an elevation of 8503 feet.
2. On the balance of the site (north portion of the site), the maximum building
height shall not exceed 30 feet from existing or proposed grade, whichever is
more restrictive.
Planning and Environmental Commission Meotlng, June 22, 1992
4
•
3. A driveway /garage access envelope shall be indicated on the plat.
4. Any garage associated with the project shall be located in the Northeast corner
of the site.
5. GRFA shall not exceed 2400 sq. ft. + 225 sq. ft. for a total of 2625 sq. ft.
Chuck Crist seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously,
6 -0.
9. The last item on theme�enda was th .� proval of PEC Minutes of June 8, 1992. There
were no changes to the es written. Chuck Crist made a motion to approve the
minutes of the June 8992 Plarming and Environmental Commission and Greg
Amsden seconde the motion. A vote was and the motion passed unanimously,
6 -0.
As there vya no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Planning and Environmental Commission Meetlng; June 22, 1992
5
O
A L T A 'C O M M I T M E N T VD
MAY 2 61992
SCHEDULE A
Our Order No. V18814
For Information Only
LOT 4 RIDGE AT VAIL
- Charges -
ALTA Owner Policy $524.00
Tax Report $20.00
- - TOTAL - - $544.00
* ** *WITH YOUR REMITTANCE PLEASE REFER TO OUR ORDER NO. V18814. * * **
1. 'Effective Date: April 17, 1992 at 8:00 A.M.
2. Policy to be issued, and proposed Insured:
"ALTA" Owner's Policy $80,000.00
1987 Revision (Amended 1990)
Proposed Insured:
FRANK MCKIBBEN
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in
this Commitment and covered herein is:
A Fee Simple
4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the
effective date hereof vested in:
RITA H. ELDER
5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as
follows:
LOT 4, SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE RIDGE AT VAIL, ACCORDING TO THE
PLAT RECORDED FEBRUARY 5, 1982 IN BOOK 336 AT PAGE 126, COUNTY
OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO.
PAGE 1
A L T A •C O M M I T M E N T
SCHEDULE B -1 _
(Requirements) Our Order No. V18814
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
1. Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of
the full consideration for the estate or interest to be
insured.
2. Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be
insured must be executed and duly filed for record, to -wit:
3. EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND
PROVISIONS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TRANSFER TAX HAVE BEEN SATISFIED.
4. WARRANTY DEED FROM RITA H. ELDER TO FRANK MCKIBBEN CONVEYING SUBJECT
PROPERTY.
THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE REQUIRES RETURN
ADDRESSES ON DOCUMENTS SENT FOR RECORDING!!
PAGE 2
• 0
A L T A C O M M I T M E N T
SCHEDULE B -2 _
(Exceptions) Our Order No. V18814
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the
following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of
the Company:
1. Standard Exceptions 1 through 5 printed on the cover sheet.
6. Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and special
assessments not yet certified to the Treasurer's office.
7. Any unpaid taxes or assessments against said land.
8. Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any.
9. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE
THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES
AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED December 29, 1920, IN BOOK 93
AT PAGE 42.
10. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER
CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION,
OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED September 20, 1972,
IN BOOK 225 AT PAGE 443 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED September 29,
1972, IN BOOK 225 AT PAGE 565 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED January
22, 1974, IN BOOK 233 AT PAGE 53.
11`. UTILITY EASEMENT 20 FEET IN WIDTH, 10 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF ALL INTERIOR LOT
LINES AND A 15 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG AND ABUTTING ALL EXTERIOR LOT
LINES AS RESERVED ON THE PLAT OF LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION, FILING NO. 2.
12� AGREEMENT BETWEEN TAYVEL ENVIRONMENTAL LAND COMPANY AND MOUNTAIN STATES
TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1973 IN BOOK 231 AT
PA GE 29.1.
113 TERMS, PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS RECORDED MARCH 27, 1980 IN BOOK 300
AT PAGE 758 AND RE- RECORDED APRIL 10, 1980 IN BOOK 301 AT PAGE 415.
14 TERMS, PROVISIONS, CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED IN EASEMENT AND
RIGHT OF WAY RECORDED MARCH 18, 1980 IN BOOK 300 AT PAGE 290.
TERMS, PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF
PROTECTIVE COVENANTS FOR THE RIDGE AT VAIL RECORDED MAY 28, 1981 IN BOOK
323 AT PAGE 717 AND SECOND AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION RECORDED AUGUST 24,
1981 IN BOOK 328 AT PAGE 122 AND THIRD AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION RECORDED
FEBRUARY 5, 1982 IN BOOK 336 AT PAGE 127.
PAGE 3
A L T A 'C 0 M M I T M E N T
SCHEDULE B -2 _
(Exceptions) Our Order No. V18814
16 TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT
RECORDED August 01, 1980 IN BOOK 306 AT PAGE 41 8.
17 UNDERGROUND RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT AS GRANTED TO HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC
ASSOCIATION, INC., INC. IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 6, 1981 IN BO 315
AT PAGE 9 39.
18 UTILITY EASEMENTS AFFECTING SUBJECT PROPERTY AS SHOWN OR RESERVED ON THE
RECORDED PLAT OF THE RIDGE AT VAIL.
19 EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND BUILDING ENVELOPE AS SHOWN OR
RESERVED ON THE RECORDED PLAT OF THE RIDGE AT VAIL AND SECOND AMENDMENT
THERETO.
ITEMS 1, 2, AND 3 OF THE STANDARD EXCEPTIONS WILL BE DELETED FROM THE
OWNERS POLICY UPON RECEIPT OF A SATISFACTORY SURVEY. ITEM #4 WILL BE
DELETED UPON RECEIPT OF A SATISFACTORY LIEN AFFIDAVIT. ITEM #5 WILL BE
DELETED IF THE COMPANY RECORDS THE ITEMS REQUIRED UNDER SCHEDULE B -1
HERE -IN. ITEM #6 AND 7 WILL BE AMENDED TO REFLECT THE TAX STATUS AT THE
TIME OF POLICY. ITEM #8 WILL BE DELETED UPON RECEIPT OF SATISFACTORY
EVIDENCE THAT NO WATER AND SEWER CHARGES ARE OWING.
NOTE: SAID SURVEY MUST SET OUT THE EASEMENTS SET FORTH IN SCHEDULE B -2
HEREIN. PLEASE PROVIDE LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY WITH THE NAME OF THE
SURVEYING COMPANY AND WE WILL SEND COPIES OF THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.
NOTE: IF THE IMPROVEMENT LOCATION SURVEY IS NOT RECEIVED BY LAND TITLE
GUARANTEE COMPANY IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO REVIEW AND ENDORSE THE COMMITMENT
PRIOR TO CLOSING, ADDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS MAY BE ADDED TO THE POLICY.
PAGE 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: File
DATE: May 22, 1992
FROM: Jill Kammerer
RE: The Ridge Subdivision, Formerly Known As The Valley Phase IV
The following is a summary of staff review of The Ridge file. When originally approved there
were 5 lots associated with The Ridge. These lots were numbered 1 through 5. When The
Valley Phase IV development for the Ridge was originally approved the property under the
jurisdiction of Eagle County. The perimeters for the development of this property established
by the County was simply that the GRFA should not exceed 24,800 square feet. There is no
discussion in our records regarding how the County intended this 24,800 square feet of GRFA
to be distributed over the five lots associated with The Ridge Subdivision.
January 16, 1980 - Correspondence in the file indicates on January 16, 1980, the Eagle
County Planning Commission recommended approval of the Ridge preliminary plan for 6
townhomes (Lot 5), 3 duplex lots (Lots 1, 2 and 3) and 1 single family lot (Lot 4) in the eastern
portion of The Valley P.U.D. The architect for this project was Snowden Hopkins. The letter
goes on to further state that the Board of County Commissioners will review the proposed
Ridge preliminary plan on January 23, 1980.
July 21, 1980 - Eagle County issued a grading and footers permit for Lot 5 Townhouse Units
A, B and C.
July 29, 1980 - The Declaration of Protective Covenants for The Ridge at Vail which was
executed on July 29, 1980, set forth development parameters for all the lots associated with
the Ridge. These are private covenants, the Town of Vail is not a party to this agreement.
The Town does not enforce private agreements.
With regard to uses and density, the Declaration of Protective Covenants for the Ridge
at Vail sets forth the use and density restrictions for the 5 -lot subdivision as follows:
Lots 1, 2 and 3 are defined as duplex unit residential lots.
Lot 4 is defined as a single unit residential lot.
Lot 5 is defined as multiple unit residential lot.
Page 4 of the Declaration sets forth the following restrictions with regard to GRFA:
"SITE COVERAGE AND DENSITY (aa) A building situated on a duplex unit
residential lot shall not exceed 25% lot coverage, and if the building contains 1
dwelling unit, such building shall not contain more than 2,000 sq. ft. of GRFA,
and, if the building contains 2 dwelling units, such buildings shall not contain
more than 3,400 square feet of GRFA and onp of such dwelling units shall be .
0 6
limited to a maximum of 2,000 sq. ft. of GRFA and the other dwelling units shall
be limited to a maximum of 1,400 sq. ft. of GRFA.
(bb) A building situated on a single unit residential lot shall not exceed 25% lot
coverage and such building shall not contain more than 2,600 sq. ft. of GRFA.
(cc) Buildings situated on a multiple unit residential lot shall not exceed 20% lot
coverage; nor shall the total GRFA of the building exceed 12,000 sq. ft."
Please note page 4 of the Declaration of Protective Covenants also sets forth
development standards for site coverage, setback requirements, building heights,
parking and access requirements, and landscaping.
August 26, 1980 - The balance of the building permit for the Lot 5 Townhouse Units A, B, and
C was issued by Eagle County.
May 6, 1981 - The Lot 5 Ridge at Vail file contains correspondence from Peter Jamar, Vail
Town Planner, to Craig Snowden of Snowden Hopkins Architects stating the Design Review
Board gave final approval on the Ridge at Vail units D, E and F on May 6, 1981. The letter
further states the GRFA that was approved was for a total of 6,366 sq. ft. divided into 3 units
of 2,122 sq. ft. each.
June 26, 1981 - Correspondence dated June 26, 1981 from Peter Jamar to Craig Snowden
state the total allowable GRFA for the Ridge Subdivision is 24,800 square feet. Total GRFA
for IWtownhouse units A, B, and C was 6,120 sq. ft. and 6,366 sq. ft. for units D, E, and F.
Total GRFA at the time of the writing of this letter was 12,486 sq. ft., therefore, 12,314 sq. ft.
remained. 1 c �,V1w
July 7, 1981 - The Town of Vail issued a building permit for Lot 5 Townhouse Units D, E and
F.
July 21, 1981 - PEC memo regarding a minor subdivision request for the Ridge Lots 1, 2, 4
and 5 indicates at the time of the writing of the memo, 3 townhomes were constructed on Lot
5 and 3 additional townhomes were under construction. Please note under this minor
subdivision request Lots 2 and 3 were combined into one lot which is called Lot 2. Also note Y�
over a period of time the property was annexed, de- annexed and reannexed into the Town of
Vail which is why the TOV PEC is reviewing the request even though the officially recognized \
annexation year is 1987. At the time of the writing of this memo, all 5 lots associated with the
Ridge at Vail subdivision were under 4 ownership.
one.
July 27, 1981 - The minutes of the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting dated
July 27, 1981, indicate the requested minor subdivision request for Lots 1, 2, 4 and 5 of was
approved. These minutes further indicate Peter Patten of the Town Planning staff stated the
following: "... the project is allotted a total of 24,800 square feet (of GRFA) and the developer X
J � is allowed to all Cate that (GRFA) as they wish."
April 29, 1987 - The property was anfiexed by the Town by Ordinance No. 9, 1987, on April
29, 1987.
y � X1991 - Definition of GRFA was repealed and reenacted. Therefore the method of calculating
ad . �} rriivisi� -t Lam 2 � 3 r /tic lid#
c �a % 5� - Z 9-a 0A iz' J'M
GRFA was changed.
By applying the 1991 revised GRFA calculation methodology to the GRFA restrictions
for each lot as set forth in the July, 1980 Protective Covenants, the allowable GRFA for
each lot is as follows:
Lots 1, 2 and 3:
A building situated on a duplex unit residential lot which contains 1
dwelling unit, shall not exceed 2,225 sq. ft. of GRFA,
Lot 4:
Lot 5:
A building situated on a duplex unit residential lot which contains 2
dwelling units, shall not contain more than 3,850 square feet of GRFA
and one of such dwelling units shall be limited to a maximum of 2,225
sq. ft. of GRFA and the other dwelling units shall be limited to a
maximum of 1,625 sq. ft. of GRFA.
A building situated on a single unit residential lot shall not exceed
contain more than 2,825 sq. ft. of GRFA.
The total GRFA of all buildings situated on a multiple unit residential lot
shall not exceed 12,000 sq. ft.
May 6, 1992 - The Town of Vail approved a development proposal for Lot 2 of the Ridge at
Vail. The GRFA proposed under this development is 7,138 sq. ft. Under the current GRFA
calculation methodology, and using the protective covenants and restrictions GRFA as the
base, the GRFA allocation information, the total amount of GRFA which could be developed
on Lot 2 is 7,700 sq. ft. Please note the zoning on all of the Ridge subdivision lots is
residential cluster. At the time of this approval, lots associated with the Ridge at Vail
subdivision were no longer under one ownership.
Improvements constructed or approved to date and remaining GRFA:
GRFA allowed Lots 1 -5: 24,800 sq. ft. (as originally approved)
26,375 sq. ft. (as revised per 1991 GRFA calculation
methodology.
GRFA constructed:
Lot 5: Andy Knudtsen has calculated the floor plans of
this 6 unit townhouse development. His calculations
indicate (*,under the 1991 GRFA calculation
methodology the total GRFA is 12,834 square feet.
Under the GRFA calculation methodology in place at the
time the development was approved the GRFA was
12,486 sq. ft.
GRFA approved:
Lot 2 - 7,138 sq. ft.
Total GRFA approved
or constructed:
12,486 + 7,138 = 19,684 sq. ft.
0 0
GRFA remaining: 6,691 sq. ft.
In conclusion, the original Declaration of Restrictive Covenants set forth the manner in which
GRFA was to be allocated among the 5 lots within the Ridge At Vail subdivision, (formerly the
Valley Phase IV). As constructed the initial development of 6 townhome units exceeded the
allowable GRFA of 12,000 as set forth in the covenants by 486 sq. ft. under the 1981 GRFA
calculation methodology and exceeded the allowable GRFA by 836 sq. ft. under the 1991
GRFA calculation methodology. Therefore, the initially developed townhouse project
exceeded the GRFA which it should have been GRFA allowed under the Declaration of
Covenants and Restrictions document GRFA calculation. Therefore, one cannot assume the
GRFA as set forth in the covenants and as adjusted for the 1991 GRFA calculation
methodology is available to each lot as at some point in time the excessive initial lot 5
development of 486 sq. ft. will have to be made up.
Alu
....... e4•..nun 4N4I�
......�... :e;
� . ,:'
:
..«.. ..... .. ........ ... .......
.....::
Rooc .....�.. - -- \
SCALE: 1' - 10' `1 0,N5 4mA 6470 \ LOT 2
DATE OF SURVEY: 5/6/92
- 6440 i
j k- -. a[r. • Mf.l
.O.1LR r lvm..¢ /1 I A .l N *'r.0 m/ O 1mY 14< p +I ar t.IIIY•q �—
\� 1..• M •Uf ••- M W.�C WalOt .w Iew O.Yt 4�1 .nr .fYdq / / l
6450
_ y /
o •i nx�ra at: °. °ws 'a r . t . w • � / / / � ��r •(\ I
LOT 4
R 126.70'
C1 A - 30'44'00' a-�
L - 59.04' / / . / 6460
Cm - N 13 6'10' E. 66.21'
ZL
6470
oi
-1
' o `
/ ^* 460 n y LOT 5
' / 3 /� /� /� foa..�r[ MI w .A a•. t ».m0 J!- { 9 486 r _ —
,,
8490 S 45'4600 w 105.4 as.
S 52'3S W 16 d♦
LOT , , CLIFFSIDE PRELIMINARY
M u.Yn tall I ��• f4f ...n1 SI
LOT 6, CLIFFSIDE
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
LOT 4
_ SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE RIDGE AT VAIL
°.-."� r• �° °�- ° :"r,,.'^ r •r TOWN OF VAIL
-� • • ~....� -.-.. rW .- f..- • �'� EAGLE COUNTY. COLORADO
.r..•..... Y W -.4fM.a.r .� w.. v -... _�.— �. 1043
� �X /Sr�N� EiY v�LOP�
, L# F*, s A
♦ ♦ ♦'►♦ -♦
All
WA
♦ ♦i♦� ♦ hVl ♦ L �
N.
Al�i►i� �� �����►
WP
m . � ir• "'
Community Development Plan Routing Form
Routed To:
Return To:
Date Routed:
Return By:
Project Name:
Project Address:
Project Legal:
Project Description:
Lot 4, Buffehr Creek Road
Approved Denied (cite detailed reasons) Approved with conditions
In order to access Lot 4 through the private drive at the crest of Buffehr Creek Road, the drive must conform to
the multiple dwelling feeder road standards, as per the Town of Vail Design Standards Handbook pagel 1.
Feeder Rd. min. width: 20'
Curb cut width: min. 24', max 36'
Centerline grade: min. 0.5 %, max 8% (unheated), max. 12% (heated)
Cross slope grade: max. 8%
Centerline grade break: max. 8%
Centerline grade for the first 15' of feeder road: max. 6%
Centerline turn radii: min. 30'
Date received:
Reviewed by: Tom Kassmel
Date reviewed: 3 -08 -00
F• \EVERYONE \DRIP \ROUTING \98ROUTNG\PUBLIC WOU MASTER. FRM
I
Questions? Call the Planning Staff at 479-21.1-K I
AP;�,CATION FOR PLANNING AND l' WVIRONMENTAL
COMMISSION APPROVAL
TOWN OF YAIL
GENERAL INFORMATION
This application is for any project requiring approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission. For specific
information, see the submittal requirements for the particular approval that is requested. The application can not be
accepted until all required information is submitted. The project may also need to be reviewed by the Town Council
and/or the Design Review Board.
A:
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
❑ Additional GRFA (250) ❑
Amendment to an Approved Development Plan
❑ Bed and Breakfast 'W
Employee Housing Unit (Type: )
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑
❑ Major or Xminor Subdivision
Major or ❑ Minor CCI Exterior Alteration
Village)
(Vail
❑ Rezoning ❑
Major or ❑ Minor CCII Exterior Alteration
❑ Sign Variance
(Lionshead)
❑ Variance ❑
Special Development District
❑ Zoning Code Amendment ❑
Major or ❑ Minor Amendment to an SDD
B.
A
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST: 4�
,c �'►'1 �o� rC oc.�5„ (J i'�
3U, (.
%
o.
Gn n iQ«S
C.
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: LOT ,f/ _BLOCK
FILING �� C UG
ADDRESS: ys Z /I % n S 2 4'C/�'
BUILDING NAME:
{{��
QesS ifI\ -r'a
D.
ZONING:
E.
NAME OF OWNER(S):- &it✓rt oc"" y
1311
6 S7
F.
OWNER(S) SIGNATUR
G. NAME OF REPRESENT
4 4 INGA H. FEE - SEE T
For Office Use Only:
. Fec Paid - _ �� Ck#: B -
y� -�
Application Date: a 5( �C' v PEC Meeting Date: ' a�
SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION, ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND THE FEE TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD,
VAIL, COLORADO 81657.
Revised 6196
MAILING ADDRESS: 2057 6ce- c1o Ur k C C)
PHONE: r I7o� y7 �� 3 G
0 0
revised 10/12/92
DATE RECEIVED BY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
APPLICATION FOR
MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW
CHAPTER 17.20 VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE
(4 OR FEWER LOTS)
(please print or type)
A. APPLICANT / // 'P— aV ✓1
MAILING ADDRESS 20 S IMea 4 PHONE 1 1 7d- G 3 6 / 3
B. PROPERTY OWNER - r Car ST
OWNER'S SIGNATURE
MAILING ADDRESS 1 0 -'C7 4 t' PHONE 4{7 - . 3G3
C. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL (street address) l 4SZ ,u-%s Toa
LOTS BLOCK SUBDIVISION C.
D. FEE $250.00 PAID I/ CHECK # 3131 bATE /-- Z.S- 00
E. The first step is to request a meeting with the zoning administrator to assist the applicant
in meeting the submittal requirements and to give the proposal a preliminary review.
F. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
C9 The applicant shall submit three copies, two of which must be mylars, of the
proposal following the requirements for a final plat below. Certain of these
requirements may be waived by the zoning administrator and /or the Planning and
Environmental Commission if determined not applicable to the project.
A list of all adjacent property owners (including those behind and across the
street) WITH COMPLETE ADDRESSES shall also be submitted. In addition,
submit addressed, stamped envelopes for each of the above.
3. Title Report verifying ownership and easements. (Schedules A & B)
4. An environmental impact report may be required as stipulated under Chapter
18.56 of the zoning code.
5. FINAL PLAT - REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURE:
(Some of these requirements may be waived.)
a. The subdivider shall submit four copies of the final plat, two of which shall
be mylars, twelve copies of the final EIR (if required) and any additional
material as required below. Within thirty days of receiving the complete
and correct submittal for a final plat, the zoning administrator shall cause a
copy of a notice of the time, place and general nature of the hearing and
proposal to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town
of Vail at least fifteen days prior to said hearing. Also, adjacent property
owners to the proposed subdivision shall be notified in writing at least
seven days prior to the public hearing.
B. Final Plat - Staff Review.
The final_ plat shall be circulated to and reviewed by the town's departments,
including, but not limited to Public Works, Transportation, Community
Development, Recreation, Administration, Police and the Fire Department.
Comments and concerns of these departments will be forwarded to the PEC prior
to the public hearing.
C. Final Plat and Supplementary Material - contents.
a �
30 0 30 60 90 Feet
LOT 5G
THE RIDGE
AT VAIL 11/
PROPOSED
ACCESS
EASEMENT
22.
LOT 4
THE RIDGE AT VAIL
LOT 6
CLIFFSIDE
'4i5l
T o
N W
5
LOT 1
CLIFFSIDE
l=4WW44r
R -30.00
LP 43.31
T -21.47
LCm
CB-N 0*19'31r E
1•11.20W
�i.
T -20.14
LC- 24.9423
08=8 19 E
N
O
1- 31.38'1 C
R -88.00
L -30.37
T -18.88
LC -29.99
CBmS 10'1/'21' W
1- 42
�
R-20.00
T•7.86
LC -14.12
CB-N 11'3942' W
0
t
W
a�0
Z
,
a
1•11.20W
�i.
T -20.14
LC- 24.9423
08=8 19 E
N
O
1- 31.38'1 C
R -88.00
L -30.37
T -18.88
LC -29.99
CBmS 10'1/'21' W
Form AO /CHI
Our Order No. V267015
Schedule B
LTG Policy No. CTEH267015
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses)
which arise by reason of:
General Exceptions:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Encroachments, overlaps, boundary line disputes, or other matters which would be disclosed by an accurate survey and
inspection of the premises.
Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and
not shown by the public records.
5. 1999 TAXES NOT YET DUE AND PAYABLE. O FE-D-)
6. LIENS FOR UNPAID WATER AND SEWER CHARGES, IF ANY.
7. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE
THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES
AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED DECEMBER 29, 1920, IN BOOK 93
AT PAGE 42.
8. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE,
BUT OMITTING ANY COVENANT OR RESTRICTION BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION,
SEX, HANDICAP, FAMILIAL STATUS OR NATIONAL ORIGIN UNLESS AND ONLY TO THE
EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT (A) IS EXEMPT UNDER CHAPTER 42, SECTION 3607 OF
THE UNITED STATES CODE OR (B) RELATES TO HANDICAP BUT DOES NOT
DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HANDICAP PERSONS, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED
SEPTEMBER 20, 1973, IN BOOK 225 AT PAGE 443 AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT
RECORDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1972, IN BOOK 225 AT PAGE 565 AND AS AMENDED IN
INSTRUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 22, 1974, IN BOOK 233 AT PAGE 53.
9. UTILITY EASEMENT 20 FEET IN WIDTH, 10 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF ALL INTERIOR LOT
LINES AND A 15 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG AND ABUTTING ALL EXTERIOR LOT
LINES AS RESERVED ON THE PLAT OF LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION, FILING NO. 2.
10. AGREEMENT BETWEEN TAYVEL ENVIRONMENTAL LAND COMPANY AND MOUNTAIN STATES
TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY RECORDED SEPTEMBER 27, 1973 IN BOOK 231 AT
PAGE 291.
Form AO /CHI
LTG Policy No. CTEH267015
Our Order No. V267015 O ❑
Schedule B
k� r
11. TERMS, PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
AND DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS RECORDED MARCH 27, 1980 IN BOOK
300 AT PAGE 758 AND RE- RECORDED APRIL 10, 1980 IN BOOK 301 AT PAGE 415.
12. TERMS, PROVISIONS, CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS CONTAINED IN EASEMENT AND
RIGHT OF WAY RECORDED MARCH 18, 1980 IN BOOK 300 AT PAGE 290.
13. TERMS, PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF
PROTECTIVE COVENANTS FOR THE RIDGE AT VAIL RECORDED MAY 28, 1981 IN BOOK
323 AT PAGE 717 AND SECOND AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION RECORDED AUGUST 24,
1981 IN BOOK 328 AT PAGE 122 AND THIRD AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION RECORDED
FEBRUARY 5, 1982 IN BOOK 336 AT PAGE 127.
14. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT
RECORDED AUGUST 01, 1980 IN BOOK 306 AT PAGE 418.
15. UNDERGROUND RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT AS GRANTED TO HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC
ASSOCIATION, INC., INC. IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JANUARY 6, 1981 IN BOOK 315
AT PAGE 939.
16. UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENT AFFECTING SUBJECT PROPERTY AS SHOWN OR RESERVED
ON THE AMENDED FINAL PLAT RECORDED JUNE 7, 1995 IN BOOK 668 AT PAGE 898.
17. EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND BUILDING ENVELOPE AS SHOWN OR
RESERVED ON THE RECORDED PLAT OF THE RIDGE AT VAIL AND SECOND AMENDMENT
THERETO AND AMENDED FINAL PLAT RECORDED JUNE 7, 1995 IN BOOK 668 AT PAGE
898.
18. ENCROACHMENT OF RETAINING WALL FROM LOT 5 ONTO LOT 4 AS SHOWN ON THE
IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE PREPARED BY EAGLE VALLEY SURVEYING, INC.,
DATED MAY 8, 1992, JOB NO. 1043.
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY
Case V267015
Policy CTEH267015
Loan #
Property Address LOT 4, THE RIDGE AT VAIL
Owner MICHAEL D. YOUNG
ITEMS 1 THROUGH 4 AND 6 OF SCHEDULE B ARE HEREBY DELETED.
ENDORSEMENT 110.3
0 F[ D - ) Y
This endorsement is made a part of the policy or commitment and is subject to
all the terms and provisions thereof and of any prior endorsements thereto. Except
to the extent expressly stated, it neither modifies any of the terms and provisions
of the policy or commitment and prior endorsements, if any, nor does it extend the
effective date of the policy or commitment and prior endorsements or increase the
face amount thereof.
Countersigned:
Authorized Officer or Agent
Representing Chicago Title Insurance Company
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 13, 2000
SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13 -4 of the
Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Vail, to allow for the modification
of the platted building envelope location for Lot 4, Ridge at Vail
Subdivision, Second Amendment, 1452 Ridge Lane.
Applicant: Mike Young
Planner: George Ruther
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE MINOR AMENDMENT REQUEST
The applicant, Mike Young, is requesting a minor amendment to Lot 4, Ridge at Vail
Subdivision, Second Amendment, to allow for the elimination of the existing building
envelope. The existing building envelope is generally located at the eastern corner of
the lot and is approximately 45 feet by 60 feet in size and comprises 2,400 square feet.
The applicant is proposing to eliminate the existing building envelope and apply standard
Residential Cluster zone district setback requirements to the lot. The setback
requirements for the Residential Cluster zone district are prescribed in Section 12 -6E -6
of the Vail Town Code. According to Section 12 -6E -6, the minimum front setback shall
be 20 feet and the side and rear setbacks shall be 15 feet. The applicant believes that
the imposition of standard setback requirement and the site planning standards of the
adopted design guidelines will ensure that the intent of a building envelope is met. The
new location of the proposed residence remains in the eastern comer of the lot to insure
views to the Gore Range. A plan illustrating the existing and proposed building locations
has been attached for reference.
The applicant is also requesting as part of the amendment an increase in allowable
GRFA to allow for the construction of a Type II Employee Housing Unit. The total
amount of additional GRFA requested is 500 sq. ft. The applicant has also requested an
additional 300 sq. ft. of garage credit. If approved, the total allowable GRFA for Lot 4
would be increased to 3,125 sq. ft. All other development standards would remain
unchanged.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's
request for a minor amendment to Lot 4, Ridge at Vail Subdivision, Second Amendment
to allow for the elimination of the existing building envelope. Staff's recommendation of
approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section IV of this
memorandum.
FAeveryone \pec \memosUo14022800
�t
TOWN 1Lii
Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to approve the minor
amendment request, staff would recommend that the Commission make the following
finding,
'That the minor amendment complies with the criteria as outlined in Section IV of
this memorandum and the intent of the originally platted building envelope will be
met in that a proposal for construction on the site shall be required to comply with
Chapter 11 of the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations."
Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to approve the minor
amendment request, staff would recommend that the following conditions be made part
of the approval,
That the developer submits a complete set of engineered plans for the required
improvements to the private drive. The plans shall be required to comply with the
applicable Town of Vail Development Standards. The plans shall be reviewed
and approved by the Town of Vail Public Works Department prior to appearing
before the Town of Vail Design Review Board for final review.
2. That the developer records an amended plat for Lot 4 with the Eagle County
Clerk & Recorder's office prior to the issuance of a building permit.
III. BACKGROUND
Lot 4, Ridge at Vail, is zoned Residential Cluster according to the Official Town of Vail
Zoning Map. However, the Declaration of Protective Covenants for the Ridge at Vail,
which was executed on July 29, 1980, set forth development parameters for all lots
associated with the Ridge at Vail Subdivision. For the most part, these protective
covenants are more restrictive than the Residential Cluster zone district development
standards. Although the Town of Vail does not enforce private agreements, the
applicant has indicated it is his intention to design and build the proposed residence in
conformance with these protective covenants. The maximum amount of GRFA which
will be constructed on the site is limited by the Second Amendment of the Ridge at Vail
plat, to a maximum of 2,400 square feet. This platted GRFA maximum is more
restrictive than the GRFA which could be constructed on this lot under the protective
covenants or under Residential Cluster zoning.
On January 14, 1980, the Town of Vail mailed a letter to the Eagle County Planning
Commission commenting on the proposed preliminary plan for The Ridge at Vail. With
regard to Lot 4, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission had the
following comments:
The excessive slopes on Lot 4 make it almost unworkable. If Lot 4 were deleted,
the road could be shortened and the western most townhouse on Lot 5 could be
moved down off the ridgeline. The architect for the project is confident a well
designed building would make Lot 4 acceptable. If Lot 4 is incorporated into Lot
5 and the building design can be tied to condominiumization approval, we will
review the design more favorably. Approval of any building on Lot 4 will be given
only if the design is for an unobtrusive building, which steps into the slope and is
located on slopes under 40 %.
F Aeveryone \pec \m emosUot4022800
On February 11, 1980, the Board of County Commissioners approved the preliminary
plan for The Ridge at Vail. The approval was for 6 townhomes, 3 duplex lots and one
single - family lot (Lot 4).
On July 25, 1981, PEC approved a minor subdivision request for Phase IV of the Valley
(The Ridge at Vail), which combined a portion of Lot 4 and 5. Formerly Lot 5 had an
"arm" which extended along the top of the ridge to the west along the north side of Lot 4.
For maintenance purposes and to make Lot 4 a more viable lot, this Lot 5 "arm" was
incorporated into Lot 4. A condition of the 1981 approval was that the existing building
envelope remain as approved. Prior to the combination of the "arm" of Lot 5 with Lot 4,
the area of Lot 4 was 14,418 sq. ft.
In August of 1985, a request to relocate the building envelope was submitted to the
Town. This application was later withdrawn.
On June 22, 1996, the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission unanimously
approved a minor amendment to the building envelope location on Lot 4. In granting an
approval, the Commission placed the following conditions of approval on the minor
amendment:
1. Within the southern 20 feet of the proposed building envelope, the roof structure
shall not exceed an elevation of 8503 feet.
2. On the balance of the site (north portion of the site), the maximum building height
shall not exceed 30 feet from existing or proposed grade, whichever is more
restrictive.
3. A driveway /garage access envelope shall be indicated on the final amended plat.
4. Any garage associated with the project shall be located in the northeast corner of
the site.
5. Allowable GRFA shall not exceed 2,400 sq. ft + 225 sq. ft. credit for a total of
2,625 sq. ft.
IV. MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA
One basic premise of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the
creation of a new lot must be met. Although this plat amendment involves a minor re-
platting of an existing building envelope and an amendment to a plat note, there is no
other process for review of such a request other than the minor subdivision process. As
a result, this project will be reviewed under the same criteria as outlined in Title 13 of the
Town of Vail Municipal Code.
The first set of review criteria to be considered by the PEC for a minor subdivision
application is as follows:
A. Lot Area
Although this application will affect the size of an existing building
envelope, there will be no net change to the existing platted lot area for
this development.
F Aeveryone \pec \memosUot4022800
P Q
B. Frontaae
The Vail Municipal Code requires that lots in the Residential Cluster zone
district have a minimum frontage of 30'. The proposal will not affect the
frontage for this lot.
C. Site Dimensions
The Vail Municipal Code requires that each site be of a size and a shape
capable of enclosing a square area, 80' on each side, within its
boundaries. This application will not impact this requirement.
The second set of review criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision
request is as outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, and is as follows:
The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in
compliance with the intended purpose of Title 13, Chapter 4, the zoning
ordinance, and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due
consideration shall be given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility
companies and other agencies consulted under Section 13 -3 -3C. The PEC shall
review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town
policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations,
ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, effects on the
aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding
uses.
The subdivision purpose statements are as follows:
1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which
development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information
as to the type and extent of improvements required.
Staff Response One purpose of subdivision regulations, and any
development control, is to establish basic ground rules which the
staff, the PEC, the applicant and the community can follow in the
public review process. Although this request does not involve the
creation of a new subdivision or a resubdivision of an existing
parcel of land, it is the appropriate process to amend a plat and
building envelope.
2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with
development on adjacent property.
Staff Response The proposed plat amendment does not create
any conflict with development on adjacent land. The applicant's
request is consistent with the standards applied to other units on
the property.
F: \everyone \pec \memos\lot4022800
4
~ .' ~ . 0
r
3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and
the value of buildings and improvements on the land.
Staff Response Staff believes this proposal will not be detrimental
to the value of land throughout Vail, nor will it be detrimental to the
value of land in the immediate area.
4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town
Zoning Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable
relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development
objectives.
Staff Response Staff believes the proposed minor amendment
will not preclude a harmonious, convenient and workable
relationship among land uses consistent with municipal
development objectives.
5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate
and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds,
recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to
provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the
proposed subdivision.
Staff Response The subdivision regulations are intended primarily
to address impacts of large -scale subdivisions of property, as
opposed to this particular proposal to amend this plat. Staff does
not believe this proposal will have any negative impacts on any of
the above - listed public facilities.
6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to
establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and
procedures.
Staff Response This goal of the subdivision regulations will not be
impacted by the proposed minor amendment.
7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of
drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise
use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in
order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and
the value of land.
Staff Response This proposal will have no impact on these
issues.
F: \everyone \pec \memos\lol4022800
APPRAwr
Tows : 41 -a
��3�
7. The next item reviewed by the PEC was Item #3 on the agenda, a request for a minor
subdivision for Lot 5, Block 2, Bighorn First, 3916 Lupine Drive.
Applicant: Marty Abel, President of Sable Lupine Partners,
Ltd.
Planner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica reviewed the request with the Commission, stating that the applicant is
proposing to reduce the GRFA on the property, which is zoned duplex. The applicant
is proposing one single family dwelling with an optional caretaker unit. The applicant,
Marty Abel, stated he felt if the project was built -out using the allowable GRFA it would
be an excessive amount of building for the lot. After some discussion, Greg Amsden
made a motion to approve the request per the staff memo. Chuck Crist seconded the
motion. The Commission had several questions regarding the geologic hazards. Diana
Donovan asked Greg if he cared to amend his motion to exclude the optional caretaker
units. It was suggested by Kristan Pritz that the Commission be polled to see how the
vote might go. The Commission's response was that 4 Commissioners would not vote
for the option of a caretaker unit and 2 members would consider the option. After
further discussion, Greg Amsden withdrew his original motion and made a second
motion to approve the minor subdivision, per the staff, memo, excluding the optional
caretaker units. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously, 6 -0. Kristan Pritz stated that this approval will be written on the
plat for future reference.
8. The next item on the agenda was a request for a minor subdivision for Lot 4, Ridge at
Vail, 1452 Ridge Lane.
Applicant: Frank McKibben
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Jill Kammerer, Senior Planner, reviewed the proposed building envelope location
modification with the Commission, stating the staff recommended approval. Under the
request a cap would be placed on the building height and several trees on the site
would be saved which would have been lost if the existing building envelope were to
be maintained. Kristan Pritz stated that he ight restricti would be recorded on the
p lat. The staff further rec ommended the ap liica -mcord_a- ddvp- wiaWg age access
g nvelope on th e plat. In attendance were the applicant, Frank McKibben, and the
architect, Duane Piper. After some discussion, Greg Amsden made a motion to
approve the request subject to the following conditions:
1. Within the southern 20 feet of the proposed building envelope, the roof and
structure shall not exceed an elevation of 8503 feet.
2. On the balance of the site (north portion of the site), the maximum building
height shall not exceed 30 feet from existing or proposed grade, whichever is
more restrictive.
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting, June 22, 1992
4
0
0
3. A driveway /garage access envelope shall be indicated on the plat.
4. Any garage associated with the project shall be located in the Northeast corner
of the site.
5. GRFA shall not exceed 2400 sq. ft. + 225 sq. ft. for a total of 2625 sq. ft.
Chuck Crist seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously,
6 -0. �—
9. The last item on the it enda was th proval of PEC Minutes of June 8, 1992. There
were no changes to the ' as written. Chuck Crist made a motion to approve the
minutes of the June 8, Pla end Environmental Commission and Greg
Amsden seconde a motion. A vote wa - tet ncnaand the motion passed unanimously,
6 -0.
As there vjag no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting, June 22, 1992
11
L A N D • T 'L E G U A R A N T EE
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Required by Senate Bill 91 -14
C O M P A N Y
A) The subject real property may be located in a special taxing
district.
B) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction
may be obtained from the County Treasurer or the County
Treasurer's authorized agent.
C) The information regarding special districts and the boundaries
of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County
Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County
Assessor.
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission 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 22, 1992, at 2:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
1. A request to extend for 2 years the September 9, 1991 front setback variance approval
for the Krediet residence located at 224 Forest Road, Lot 11-A, Block 7, Vail Village
First Filing.
Applicant: John Krediet
Planner: Jill Kammerer
2. A request to extend for 2 years the June 10, 1991 site coverage variance approval for
the Stanley residence located at 1816 Sunburst Drive, Lot 1, Vail Valley 3rd Filing, a
Resubdivision of part of Sunburst.
Applicant: Jack Stanley
Planner: Jill Kammerer
3. A request for a minor subdivision for Lot 5, Block 2, Bighorn First, 3916 Lupine Drive.
Applicant: Marty Abel, President of Sable Lupine Partners, Ltd.
Planner: Mike Mollica
4. A request for a minor subdivision for Lot 4, Ridge at Vail, 1452 Ridge Lane.
Applicant: Frank McKibben
Planner: Jill Kammerer
5. A request for a conditional use permit for a bed and breakfast located in the
primary/secondary zone district at 4768 Meadow Drive, Lot 1, Block 7, Bighorn
Subdivision 5th Addition.
Applicant: Wolfram Klawriter
Planner: Shelly Mello
6. A request for setback variances for the Grubbs Residence, 1031 Eagle's Nest
Circle /Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing.
Applicant: G &S Partnership
Planner: Jill Kammerer
7. A request to amend Chapter 18.71 - Additional Gross Residential Floor Area, of the
Municipal Code relating to Employee Housing Units.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Jill Kammerer
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public review in the
Community Development Department office.
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
Published in the Vail Trail on June 5, 1992
8 Go
U O
Z U
MR. RON CROTZER
1460 RIDGE LANE
a w VAIL, CO 81657 - -- - -i
ui
8
MR. S. SCOTT NICHOLAS
U 2110 WEST LAKE OF THE ISLES PARKWAY
~ MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55405
a .w
d ��
Ui
co
8
p MR. 5 MRS. CHARLES H. ROSENQUIST
U P.O. BOX 686
Yq VAIL, CO 81658
Lu
W
MR. JACK SNOW
BUFFER CREEK TOWNHOMES, LTD.
P.O. BOX 2651
VAIL, CO 81658
Iv io-
i
o
S do
ca
��
OG
M
W
w
w
cn
t
U
m'
co
N
04
MR. JACK SNOW
BUFFER CREEK TOWNHOMES, LTD.
P.O. BOX 2651
VAIL, CO 81658
Iv io-
i
'tea � p� 2 61992
5/25/92
04
V
c
Jill Kammerer, L D P
M
Department of Community Development
-�---
0
Town of Vail
U
w
Vail, CO 81658
W
�
o
Re: Lot 4,
Second Amendment Ridge Vail
to the at
a
Vail, Colorado
o
\
�
Jill:
�—
o
In continuance to our discussions of zoning to the aforementioned lot, 1
N
am formally requesting a review and revision to the indicated building
co
envelope. Our request is to move the building envelope directly upslope
20' on the same fall line.
0
�
0
I believe the factors of consideration for this envelope to be the following:
p
1) Limit the disruption to the remainder of the site.
p
2) Reduce visibility of building structure from valley floor to south.
0
0
Disruption to the site may or may not be best served by this envelope
>
location. It should be noted that the majority of the evergreen trees,
a
predominantly lodge pole pines, are located within the bounds of the
o
envelope. Please note that the area directly upslope or to the southeast
%0
is entirely void of trees. There appears to have been some mature
growth of aspen trees in this clear area above the existing envelope but
X
they have since died and fallen. I make this observation as a possible
merit. The trees in the northeast corner of the envelope are lost with any
site planning because of the point of access; but the trees further west,
and especially those located in the northwest corner, may be saved if the
envelope is moved.
The location of the existing envelope may also have been determined as
Y
most appropriate for vehicular access while balancing a reasonable
m
distance from the townhomes to the east. I would recognize both of these
0
possibilities but would add that moving the envelope upslope to be
m
bounded on the southeast by a typical zoning ordinance fifteen foot
0
setback would not deter from these goals. Actually, to move the envelope
uphill would present less building visibility from the drive access and the
neighboring townhomes and it is less likely that the node of that view
m
co
a
would be a garage door. Furthermore, in reverse or looking east from the
proposed building on Lot 4, the view would be greatly benefited by
relocating upslope. Note accompanying photo looking east from the
middle of envelope.
Specific to the Rem of exposure to the ridge, yes, we would see the
structure If R were moved uphill. However, even with the existing location
of the envelope you can see any building from the main valley floor. The
existing covenant notes a 30 toot height restriction which would be 3 feet
less than the town's ordinance. As can be seen in the accompanying
pictures, this height allows a partial view of any building. What i would
suggest and offer is that the existing elevation limit at the southeast
boundary of the existing envelope be honored in a new relocation of the
envelope further upslope where the new southeast envelope boundary
would be the typical 15' setback. Therefore, little or no additional visual
impact would occur to the main valley floor.
Relative to the Ridge at Vail, the proposed location and height would be
less impacting by approximately two feet. The grade elevation at the
property line in front of Unit `F' is 8472 and the roof ridge of the same
unit is 8494 for a height difference of 22'. By comparison, the grade
elevation in front of the envelope of Lot 4 is approximately 8884 and the
maximum proposed roof ridge would be 8504 for a difference of W.
What i've been remiss in mentioning, is why bother moving up the slope
with the envelope? its so obvious that 1 forgot to even state the fact. The
view from this lot of the Gore Range is magnftentl That view is from the
upper lot area. Why should this lot not be afforded the same great view
of the Gore Range as all the Ridge at Vail townhouses, the Rosenquist's,
the Pitcher's and others on Aspen Ridge? All I'm asking is to allow my
client that same wonderful view.
Please note the accompanying drawing indicating my specific
positioning of the revised envelope. I've indicated a compromise to the
on site section.
Sincerely;
Duane Piper
Architect
0 , A�� lvee /1/0/6z
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 22, 1992
The applicant is requesting a r vi ' to the existing Lot 4, Second Amendment to the Ridge
at Vail plat in order to reconfigure the existing 40 -foot by 60 -foot building envelope In order to
take advantage of th of the Gore Range which would be obtained from a new
residence located within this building envelope. Please see the attached proposed building
envelope plan. The existing building envelope for Lot 4 was established on January 15, 1982
by the Second Amendment to the Ridge at Vail, a Resubdivision of Lots 3, 4 and 5 plat.
II. BACKGROUND
The existing site is zoned Residential Cluster. However, the, Declaration of Protective
Covenants for the Ridge ai which was executed on July 29, 1980, set forth development
parameters for all lots associated with the Ridge. For the most part, these protective
covenants are more restrictive then the RC zone district development standards. Although the
Town of Vail does not enforce private agreements, the applicant has indicated it is his
intention to design and build the pro osed res
:ide in confor with tnPCa nro ective
covenants with -- the exception of the restriction for gross residential floor area. The maximum
amount of GRFA which w ill b e constructed on the site is limited by the second amendment to
e i ge at Vail plat, to a maximum of 2,400 square feet. This platted GRFA maximum is
more restrictive then the GRFA which could be constructed on this lot under the protective
covenants or under RC zoning.
On January 14, 1980, the Town of Vail mailed a letter to Eagle County commenting on the
proposed preliminary plan for The Ridge at Vail. With regard to Lot 4 the PEC had the
following comments:
"The excessive slopes on Lot 4 make it almost unworkable. If Lot 4 were deleted, the
road could be shortened and the western most townhouse on Lot 5 could be moved
down off the ridge. The architect for the project is confident a well designed building
O �
would make Lot 4 acceptable. If Lot 4 is incorporated into Lot 5 and the building
design , can be tied to condom iniumization approval, we will review the design more
favorably.
Approval of any building on Lot 4 will be given only if the design is for an unobtrusive
building, which steps into the slope and is located on slopes under 40 %."
On February 11, 1980, the Board of County Commissioners approved the preliminary plan for
The Ridge at Vail. The approval was for 6 townhomes, 3 duplex lots and one single family lot
(Lot 4).
On July 25, 1981, PEC approved a minor subdivision request for Phase IV of The Valley (The
Ridge at Vail) which combined a portion of Lot 4 and 5. Formerly Lot 5 had an "arm" which
extended along the top of the ridge to the west along the north side of Lot 4. For
maintenance purposes and to make Lot 4 a more viable lot, this Lot 5 "arm" was incorporated
into Lot 4. A condition of the 1981 approval was that the existing building envelope remain.
Prior to the combination of the "arm" of Lot 5 with Lot 4, the area of Lot 4 was 14,418 sq. ft.
In August of 1985 a request to relocate the building envelope was submitted to the Town.
This application was later withdrawn.
M. ZONING ANALYSIS
The following chart compares the development standards set forth in the RC zone district to
the covenants and restrictions for the Ridge at Vail and the Ridge at Vail plat.
Allowable GRFA in the RC zone district is based upon buildable area. These GRFA
fiugures include 225 sq. ft. bonus which is allowed under RC zoning for single family
units constructed in this zone district.
F
RC
Protective
Zoning
Covenants
As Platted
*GRFA
4,568 sq ft
2,825 sq ft
2,625 sq ft
Site Coverage
6,818(25%)
6,818(25%)
N/A
Building Height
33'
30
N/A
Setbacks
Front
20'
15'
N/A
Rear
15'
15'
N/A
North Side
15'
25'
N/A
South Side
15'
15'
N/A
Density
2 units
one single family
N/A
Allowable GRFA in the RC zone district is based upon buildable area. These GRFA
fiugures include 225 sq. ft. bonus which is allowed under RC zoning for single family
units constructed in this zone district.
F
• 0
There is no information in the Town's files which specifically addresses the reasoning for
locating the building envelope where it wAs platted. However, staff believes the reason for
locating the envelope as platted was twb -fold:
*V1
1. To minimize the amount of disturbance to the site in constructing a residence at this
location and;
2. To minimize the view of the residence from the valley floor.
.3- arm
The lot area is .626 acres. Under the protective covenants, no more than one single family
home may be constructed on Lot 4. The lot is located at the end of Ridge Lane immediately
west of the 6 -unit Ridge Townhome development. The lot slopes from a low point on the
north side of the site to a high point on the south side of the site. The average slope on the
site is 38 %.
In comparing the two envelopes, the staff looked at loss of trees, driveway grade and retaining
walls, site disturbance, and views associated with each envelope. In both building envelope
configurations, the impact of the garage and the access drive on the lot is essentially the
ame.
Sa y Due to the steep slopes associated with this lot, staff also explored the site im act of
positioning a garage at the end o f the. _cul de sac. A garage a t is location would result in the
need fo r substantial soil retaining and site disturbance as well as a setback va riance .
.Addit ional tree - _ - F�rt#�er, -it- --
Q--doors. Staff believes the placement of a garage next to the cul de sac is less desirable site
planning then allowing a driveway, which works with the contours, to provide access to the
site and the siting of a garage further to the north out of the end -of- the -road sight line. For
u�� these reasons, staff supports maintaining the northeast comer of the building envelope
� configuration.
y d fi 0
�I There are 14 lodge pole pines within the existing building envelope. Under the proposed
building envelope there would be 8 lodge pole pines located within the proposed building
envelope. It appears that approximately 7 trees can be saved under the new program.
In order to mitigate the potential visua impact of any new residence constructed within the
n w enve ope rom the valley floor, the applicant proposes to limit the height of developmen
which would occur within the building envelope as shown on the attached cross section.
Briefly, the applicant proposes to limit the maximum building height in the southern 20 feet of
the proposed building envelope to an elevation of 8503 feet. In conformance with the
protective covenants, the maximum height allowa a for any structure constructed in the
northern half of the building envelope will be 30 feet:
On June 16th, the staff visited the site with the project architect, Duane Piper, and the
applicant, Frank McKibben. At this meeting the applicant anchored "a helium balloon on a 30-
foot tether to the existing southeast envelope comer and a helium balloon on a 24 -foot tether
to the southeast corner of the proposed envelope. Staff then traveled to the valley floor to
evaluate the extent to which each of these balloons could be seen. In summary, the staff
3
believes reconfiguring the building envelope and limiting the height in the southern half (20
feet) of the new building envelope to an elevation of 8503 feet, will result in no significant
increase in building exposure as seen from the valley floor when compared to the existing
building envelope. It is also important to note portions of existing adjacent residences are
clearly visible from the valley floor all along this ridge.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed building envelope with conditions. Staff believes
the limits on height, which the applicant is proposing, will minimize the visibility of the home
from the valley floor below. Further, the site planning as proposed by the applicant appears to
minimize the amount of site disturbance which will occur in constructing a home at this
location while also considering the visual impact of the structure to adjacent properties and
from the valley floor. The following conditions of the approval will be stipulated on the minor
subdivision plat:
1. Within the southern 20 feet of the proposed building envelope, the roof and structure
shall not exceed an levation of 8503 feet.
driv ay ^ envelo a shall be indicated on the plat brae -'
(,�' 1 r� x . - ..0 /•" f•�i � �`� S�ti -i.G � R`}t � ./'✓ •Ar �. ;"'` .. ... ,/�'N �?L[' /�Z ',
GRFA shall not exceed 2400 sq. ft. + 225 sq. ft. for a total of 2625 sq. ft. f
/U j� / /J�E� °� f%/C�C �/7G�' �U� �� �!/J1,�1� /�' Gr_„ ✓I.7'�j'�.
2C
L
4
• r
a
( I
J) nn�
4 T
\
I)
/� O 2 D r V'1�11.1 "j�f / /
/ � 3 5 -- � L � �Q ,
IV
/ ��'1'aT� Gxls�Co.
:v wrIL-:T
00
0
I
4 CAI 1
1
VEIL, GoLo��o
:! I
L irnbor 8504
7/23/85
I
Littleton, Colorado
Aug. 5, 1985
Vail Planning Commission
Town of Vail
Vail, Colo. 81657
Dear Sirs:
We are requesting a change to amend the approved development
plan of the envelope house on Lot 4, the Ridge at Vail.
This is being presented for us by Craig N. Snowdon of Snowdon
and Hopkins of Vail, Colo.
We will very much appreciate it if you can give us this revision.
The way it is situated now, we are finding it very hard to sell,
as the view of the town and Gore Range cannot be seen from its
present location, Because we own two other multiple vacant lots,
we .find that this is causing us a hardship, without any income
being derived from this investment. We also own Unit E of Lot
J, a townhome at the Ridge at Vail. We believe in Vail, and that
is the reason for the investments,
Thank you
Sincerely,
�Z/
Phillip E, and Rita H, Edler
5900 W. Bowles Ave.
Littleton, Colo. 80123
Tele: (303) 794 -5900
Date
APPLICATION FORM FOR A CONDOMINIUM /TOWNHOUSE PLAT REVIEW
A. Name of Applicant U R�
Address oeel -s /AVV
• Phone
B. Name of Applicant's Respresentative O 5 /
Address Phone
C. Authorizatiop Owner
Signature 0'' y
Address P te• •(.•� /X / 0 2-� (�4� Pho ne y/ID-�110
D. Location of Proposal
Lot SG Block Filing / NE RDGF
E. Fee $100
F. Materials to be submitted shall include:
1. One complete set of the plat including site map, floor area map, elevations
and sections, This can Ve-in mylar or print form upon submittal. Detail
requirements for a condominium /townhouse plat can be found in Section
of the subdivision regulations,
2. One mylar copy of the site map to be retained by the Town of Vail for records.
3. A copy of the declarations and covenants to show that landscaping provisions
are included.
4. Any other information requested by the zoning administrator or Town engineer.
G. The plat shall include a signature block for the Town of Vail with a line desig-
nated for the senior planner /zoning administrator for his signature along with
a date line for said signature.
H'. Review Period:
Within 10 days of meeting submittal requirements as herein listed, the plat
shall be approved or disapproved-by the Public Works Department and the
Community Development Department. If disapproved, the plat shall be returned
along with a written description of the reasons for disapproval. The plat
shall not be reviewed again until corrections or modifications are made as
they relate to the reasons for disapproval. Every time a plat is submitted
or resubmitted, the 10 day review period will apply. The plat shall be dee med
approved by the Town of Vail if no action is taken within 10 days of a correct
and valid submittal.
t
DATE RECEIVED by COMMUNITY DEVELQPMENT
DEPARTMENT y ..
PLICATI0 OR L
MIN S DI S30N REVIEW
CHAPTER 17. 0 VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE
(4 OR FEWER LOTS)
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE)
A. APPLICANT nIIANF PTPFR PHONE 949 7074
Revised 5/1/92
MAILING ADDRESS BOX 5560 AVON, COLORADO 81620
C.
PROPERTY OWNER
OWNER'S SIGNAT
MAILING ADDRES
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL (STREET ADDRESS) 1452 RIDGE LANE
LOTS 4 BLOCK SUBDIVISION RIDGE AT VAIL
D. FEE $250.00 PAID x CHECK # 4324 1- /6°,
E. The first step is to request a meeting with the zoning
administrator to assist the applicant in meeting the
submittal requirements and to give the proposal a
preliminary review.
F. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
1. The applicant shall submit three copies, two of which
must be mylars, of the proposal following the
requirements for a final plat below. Certain of these
requirements may be waived by the zoning administrator
and /or the Planning and Environmental Commission if
determined not applicable to the project.
2. A list of all adjacent property owners (including those
behind and across the street) with their MAILING
ADDRESSES shall also be submitted. In addition, submit
addressed, stamped envelopes for each of the above.
3. Title Report verifying ownership and easements.
(Schedules A & B)
4. An environmental impact report may be required as
stipulated under Chapter 18.56 of the zoning code.
5. FINAL PLAT - REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURE:
(Some of these requirements may be waived.)
A. The subdivider shall submit four copies of the
final plat, two of which shall be mylars, twelve
copies of the final EIR (if required) and any
additional material as required below. Within
thirty days of receiving the complete and correct
submittal for a final plat, the zoning
administrator shall cause a copy of a notice of
the time, place and general nature of the hearing
and proposal to be published in a newspaper of
general circulation in the town of Vail at least
fifteen days prior to said hearing. Also,
adjacent property owners to the proposed
subdivision shall be notified in writing at least
seven days prior to the public hearing.
c a
E0
C.
Final Plat - Staff Review
The final plat shall be circulated to and reviewed
by the town's departments, including, but not
limited to Public Works, Transportation, Community
Development, Recreation, Administration, Police
and the Fire Department. Comments and concerns of
these departments will be forwarded to the PEC
prior to the public hearing.
Final Plat and Supplementary Material - contents
The final plat and supplementary material shall
contain the following information:
1. The final plat shall be drawn in India ink,
or other substantial solution, on a
reproducible medium (preferably mylar) with
dimension of twenty -four by thirty -six inches
and shall be at a scale of one hundred feet
to one inch or larger with margins of one and
one -half to two inches on the left and one -
half inch on all other sides.
2. Accurate dimensions to the nearest one -
hundredth of a foot for all lines, angles and
curves used to describe boundaries, streets,
setbacks, alleys, easements, structures,
areas to be reserved or dedicated for public
or common uses and other important features.
All curves shall be circular arcs and shall
be defined by the radius, central angle, arc
chord distances and bearings. All
dimensions, both linear and angular, are to
be determined by an accurate control survey
in the field which must balance and close
within a limit of one in ten thousand.
3. North arrow and graphic scale.
4. A systematic identification of all existing
and proposed buildings, units, lots, blocks,
and names for all streets.
5. Names of all adjoining subdivisions with
dotted lines of abutting lots. If adjoining
land is unplatted, it shall be shown as such.
6. An identification of the streets, alleys,
parks, and other public areas or facilities
as shown on the plat, and a dedication
thereof to the public use. An identification
of the easements as shown on the plat and a
grant thereof to the public use. Areas
reserved for future public acquisition shall
also be shown on the plat.
7. A written survey description of the area
including the total acreage to the nearest
appropriate significant figure. The acreage
of each lot or parcel shall be shown in this
manner, as well.
8. A description of all survey monuments, both
found and set, which mark the boundaries of
the subdivision, and a description of all
monuments used in conducting the survey.
Monument perimeter per Colorado statutes.
Two perimeter monuments shall be established
Revised 5/1/92
- COUNTY
CC ommmu��ri i:y Development
MLE, 81631
TELEPHONE 303/328 -7311
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
Ext 241
ADMINISTRATION
Ext 241
ANIMAL SHELTER
949 -4292
ASSESSOR
Ext 202
BUILDING IN
INSPECTION
Ext 226 or 229
CLERK &
RECORDER
Ext 217
COUNTY
ATTORNEY
Ext 242
ENGINEER
Ext 236
ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH
Ext 238
EXTENSION
AGENT
Ext 247
LIBRARY
Ext 255
PUBLIC HEALTH
Eagle Ext 252
Vail 476 -5844
PLANNING
Ext 226 or 229
PURCHASING/
PERSONNEL
Ext 245
ROAD & BRIDGE
Ext 257
SHERIFF
Eagle Ext 211
Basalt 927 -3244
Gilman 827 -5751
SOCIAL SERVICES
328.6328
0
Snowden - Hopkins
201 Gore Creek Drive
P.O. Box 1998
Vail, Colorado 81657
Is
21 December 1979
Re: The Valley Phase IV
The preliminary plan for The Valley Phase IV received the
following comments at the Development Review Meeting:
1. Show building envelope on Lot 4 and Lot 3.
Access to envelopes should be provided by developer
at a 10% slope.
2. Building size is too large. Original Tayvel plan
specifies 150 units at 975 - 1487 square feet.
The proportionate share of each to the unit types
was as follows:
A. 1260 square feet - 40%
B. 975 square feet - 26%
C. 1315 square feet - 19%
D. 1487 square feet - 15%
3. Ridge Lane should show gentle curve at bottom of hill
rather than angle.
4. Timber retaining wall is unacceptable; steel or concrete.
5. Width of Ridae Lane should be 22' with 2' shoulders.
6. Show cross section through cul de sac.
7. Dedicated ROW should meet local standards of Eagle
County - 22' x 6' shoulders. Cedication is dependent
on Selby zone change.
8. Sketch plan portrayed max cuts of 6'.
9. Utility plan should receive approval by respective
utility districts.
10. Easement should be provided on lots impacted by snow
removal from Ridge Lane.
11. Land Use Requlations should relate explicitly to the
type of units to be built. The parameters presented
on t "e plans were too broad.
TREASURER
Ext 201
4
• The Valley Phase IV
Page 2
12. Lions Ridge Loop Road - is it up to local standards?
If not, contribution should be made to upgrade this
access road.
; 13. Intersection at bottom of Ridge Lane is dangerous.
�- Revise with less grade and large radius.
14. Sketch plan revision portrayed 6' max.cut and fill
required. This commitment has been severely compromised
with a road that is substandard.
15. Size of building should be addressed.
16. Show relationship of new Ridge Lane to existing drainage
structures (comments by L. W. Graham, Eldorado Engineers,
April 18, 1978).
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office.
Thomas Boni
Asst. Director of Planning
TB /adj
06 A FILE COPT'
TOWN OF VAIL 15/
75 South Frontage Road Department of Community Development
Vail, Colorado 81657
303 - 479 -2138 / 479 -2139
October 8, 1992
Mr. Frank McKibben
228 Bridge Street
Vail, Colorado 81658
RE: Lot 4, Ridge at Vail, 1452 Ridge Lane, PEC approval for a minor
subdivision to amend a building envelope
Dear Mr. McKibben:
Enclosed is a copy of the minutes of the June 22, 1992 Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC) meeting at which your minor subdivision request was approved. The
attached copy of the minutes will serve as your record of the conditions of approval.
Please note that this approval to amend the building envelope shall lapse and become void if
the plat is not recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office within three years,
i.e. June 22, 1995. If approval of this lapses, an application must be resubmitted for
reconsideration by the Community Development Department staff and the PEC. It would be
helpful if you could submit the plat soon, Frank, so we can take care of this issue.
If you have any question or comments regarding this information, please do not hesitate to
contact me art 303 - 479 -2138.
Sincerely,
fl& f.
Kristan Pritz
Community Development Director
Enclosure
Ap p lication � '
rr ate g�
APPLICATION FORM FOR A VARIANCE
I.
This procedure is required for any project requesting a Variance.
The application will not be accepted until all information is submitted.
A. NAME OF APPLICANT Phillip E. Ed ler and Rita H. Edler
ADDRESS 5900 tii. Bowles Ave. Littleton, Colo.80123
PHONE 794 -5900
Snowdon and Hopkins, Architects
B. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE Craia Snowdon
PHDNi s J.3) 476 - 2201
C. NAME OF OWNER (type or print) Phillip E. Edler and Rita H. Edler
ADDRESS 201 sore Greek A rive Vail, Go . 81657
v
iia
ADDRESS 5900 Ti Bowles Ave. Littleton;,Colo: 8012 ;HONE 794 -5900
SIGNATURE
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL
R
ADDRESS Ridge of Vail
LEGAL DESCRIPTION lot 4 block Filing
Si 'land Amendment to the Ridge at Vail, Vail , Co ora o
E. FEE. $100.00
F. A list of the names of owners of all proper y
'subject property and their mailing addresses.
,,V Ridge Tdwffli6me 'Acc.ociation
Box 1027 Vail, Colo. 81658
Unit A Fheal, N.V. Unit D:
P.O. Box 1027- _
Vail, CO 81658
Unit B: Ron Artinian Unit - - E:
48 Pheasant Run
Roslyn, NY 11576
Unit C: John 9L Theresa Sadler Unit F:
3112 27th Ave.
1 161ine, Ill. 61265
adjacent to the
T.Joody Ic 'Aarion_ Sudbrink
2727 S. Ocean Blvd, Ant 1407
Highland Beach, Fla, 33431
Phillin E, and Rita H, Edler
5 300 W. Bowles Ave,
Littleton, Colo, 80123
Glen & Barbara Barnard
5367 E. Oxford
Englewood, Colo. 8ollr �
/Lot 2, Resubdivision of Lots 2 F 3 Ridge at Vail
Owners: Phillip_ E, and Rita H. Edler
5900 .. Bowles Ave.
Littleton, Colo, 80123
Lots 1 and 6, Cliffside Subdivision
Owner: Chuck Rosenquist, c/o Rosenquist & Associates
193 E. Gore Creek Drive, Vail, CO 81657
application form Wr a variance page 2
II. Four (?_) copies of the following information:
A. A statement of the precise nature of the variance requested,
the regulation involved, and the practical difficulty or unnnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title
that would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforce-
ment of the specified regulation.
B. A site plan showing all existing and proposed features on the
site, and on adjoining sites if necessary, pertinent to the variance
requested, including site boundaries, required setbacks, building
locations and heights, topography and physical features and similar
data.
C. Such additional material as the zoning administrator may Y pre -
scribe or the applicant may pertinent to the application.
III. Time requirements
The Planning and Environmental Commission meets on the 2nd and
4th Mondays of each month. An application with the necessary accom-
panying material must be submitted four weeks priorto the date
of the meeting.
R
FILE COPY
TOWN
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-21381479-2139
FAX 303 7 479 -2452
May 17, 1995
Mr. Frank McKibben
228 Bridge St.
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Frank:
Department of Community Development
In response to your submission of an Amended Plat for Lot 4, Second Amendment to Ridge at
Vail, I have the following to offer. A review of our permanent file indicates that the Planning and
Environmental Commission (PEC) approved your request to amend the building envelope at their
meeting on June 22, 1992. A copy of the PEC minutes are attached for your reference.
Conditions # 1,2,4 and 5 should be added to the plat as specific notes affecting the development
of the of the property and should be labeled as "PEC Conditions of Approval" and dated June 22,
1992. The utility and access easement that is currently shown on the plat as the partial shape of a
cul -de -sac, satisfies condition # 3.
Please come in and pick up your mylar copies of the plat and make the changes noted above.
Once this has been done, resubmit both copies of the mylar to me and we will sign and record the
documents with Eagle County. A ten dollar recording fee must be submitted along with the
revised mylar sheets. Please note that the re- platting must be accomplished by June 22, 1995 or
your building envelope change approval will lapse.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at 479 -2138.
Sincerely,
g, -4 X4
Randy §touder
Town Planner
F:kvesyonekandyUeuenunckibben .515
be an excessive amount ul uu„ulliv
Chuck G-'
made a motion to approve th uest per the staff memo. , econded to
motion. The Commission , venal Questions regard0 exclude �he optionale arDaker
Donovan asked Greg if hcared.to7amend his mCommission be polled to see how the
units. It was suggested by Krsf'an Prits that the Commissioners would not
vote might go. The Commission's response was wo cons der the option. After vote
for the option of a caretaker unit and 2 members ion
further discussion, Greg Amsden withdrew his oginal memo, excluding ding he optional
motion to approve the minor subdivision, per t he
caretaker units. Chuck Crist seconded the motion vote was ta
I n n dtt h mo
passed unanimously, 6 -0. Kristan Pritz stated t th s ap p r oval
plat for future reference.
The next item on the agenda was a request for a minor subdivision for Lot 4, Ridge at
B.
Vail, 1452 Ridge Lane.
Applicant: Frank McKibben
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Jill Kammerer, Senior Planner, reviewed the proposed building envelope location
modification with the Commission, stating the staff recommended approval. Under the
ees on the site
request a cap would be placed on the nl lost bui t e existing build in were to
would be saved which would have been ons would
on the
be maintained. Kristan Pritz stated that height a a e r� st tlec�ord- drivewaylg acc ess
the
plat. The staff further r ecommended the - applicant, Frank McKibben, and the
9 nvelope on t he plat. In aftendance were the
architect, Duane Piper. After some discussion, Greg Amsden made a motion to
approve the request subject to the following conditions:
1. Within the southern 20 feet of the pro
of bull i fe
envelope, the roof and
structure shall not exceed an elevation
2. On the balance of the site (north the
or p oposed grade, whichever is
height shall not exceed 30 feet from existing
more restrictive.
ss envelope shall be indicated on the plat.
3, A driveway /garage acce
4. Any garage associated with the project shall be located in the Northeast corner
of the site.
5. GRFA shall not exceed 2400 sq. ft. + 225 sq. ft. for a total of 2625 sq. ft.
Chuck Crist seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously,
6 -0.
roval � of PEC Minutes of June 8, 1992. There
The last item on the�enda w th p rove the
were no changes to the'mi a as as
g. written. Chuck Crist made a motion to app
minutes of the June 899 PIa ningan Environmental Commission and Greg
Amsden seconded -the motion. A vote was and the motion passed unanimously,
6 -0.
As there via no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
0 0
M
a
a
U '
�— o
M
X
U °
o
o�
Iq
0%
o
\ M
1 — o
U�
~ 0
0
0
0
0
a
0
V)
to
X
0
A
.p
.0
0
0
0
.d
00
11
5/25/92
Jill Kammerer, L D P
Department of Community Development
Town of Vail
Vail, CO 81658
Re: Lot 4,
Second Amendment to the Ridge at Vail
Vail, Colorado
Jill:
In continuance to our discussions of zoning to the aforementioned lot,
am formally requesting a review and revision to the indicated building
envelope. Our request is to move the building envelope directly upslope
20' on the same fall line.
I believe the factors of consideration for this envelope to be the following:
1) Limit the disruption to the remainder of the site.
2) Reduce visibility of building structure from valley floor to south.
Disruption to the site may or may not be best served by this envelope
location. It should be noted that the majority of the evergreen trees,
predominantly lodge pole pines, are located within the bounds of the
envelope. Please note that the area directly upslope or to the southeast
is entirely void of trees. There appears to have been some mature
growth of aspen trees in this clear area above the existing envelope but
they have since died and fallen. I make this observation as a possible
merit. The trees in the northeast corner of the envelope are lost with any
site planning because of the point of access; but the trees further west,
and especially those located in the northwest corner, may be saved if the
envelope is moved.
The location of the existing envelope may also have been determined as
most appropriate for vehicular access while balancing a reasonable
distance from the townhomes to the east. I would recognize both of these
possibilities but would add that moving the envelope upslope to be
bounded on the southeast by a typical zoning ordinance fifteen foot
setback would not deter from these goals. Actually, to move the envelope
uphill would present less building visibility from the drive access and the
neighboring townhomes and it is less likely that the node of that view
r
0
would be a garage door. Furthermore, in reverse or looking east from the
proposed building on Lot 4, the view would be greatly benefited by
relocating upslope. Note accompanying photo looking east from the
middle of envelope.
Specific to the item of exposure to the ridge, yes, we would see the
structure if it were moved uphill. However, even with the existing location
of the envelope you can see any building from the main valley floor. The
existing covenant notes a 30 foot height restriction which would be 3 feet
less than the town's ordinance. As can be seen in the accompanying
pictures, this height allows a partial view of any building. What I would
suggest and offer is that the existing elevation limit at the southeast
boundary of the existing envelope be honored in a new relocation of the
envelope further upslope where the new southeast envelope boundary
would be the typical 15' setback. Therefore, little or no additional visual
impact would occur to the main valley floor.
Relative to the Ridge at Vail, the proposed location and height would be
less impacting by approximately two feet. The grade elevation at the
property line in front of Unit "F" is 8472 and the roof ridge of the same
unit is 8494 for a height difference of 22'. By comparison, the grade
elevation in front of the envelope of Lot 4 is approximately 8884 and the
maximum proposed roof ridge would be 8504 for a difference of 20'.
What I've been remiss in mentioning, Is why bother moving up the slope
with the envelope? It's so obvious that 1 forgot to even state the fact. The
view from this lot of the Gore Range is magnificent! That view is from the
upper lot area. Why should this lot not be afforded the same great view
of the Gore Range as all the Ridge at Vail townhouses, the Rosenquist's,
the Pitcher's and others on Aspen Ridge? All I'm asking is to allow my
client that same wonderful view.
Please note the accompanying drawing indicating my specific
positioning of the revised envelope. I've indicated a compromise to the
i on site section.
Sincerely;
Duane Piper
Architect
DESIGN �EW BOARD APPLICATION - TOWN OF
DATE RECEIVED: J
DATE OF DRB MEETING:
INCOMPLETE APPLICATION MAY NOT BE SCHEDULED FOR RMEW. 7
T OV
I. PROJECT INFORMATION CO MO. DEV, DEPT
A. DESCRIPTION : Pleareant of ioveeble/mrtable hot tub as sristieo
Jdhk
B. TYPE OF REVIEW:
($20.00)
($20.00)
Placerent of Aovable fbrtable hot tub
New Construction ($200.00) i ___ A4te val c ian fq
Additi on ($50.00)
Conceptual Review
C. ADDRESS: IISS-4 R_alza Tang. Vai c
D. LEGAL DESCRIPTION:Lot Block
Subdivision o
If property is described by a meets and bounds legal
description, please provide on a separate sheet and attach to
this application.
E. ZONING:
F. NAME OF APPLICANT Actm lviz Riho*iro
Mailing Address: _ Rua do fbrta1.110_ E.bu. SP Brazil
Phone : 55 -11 -791 -1121
C. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: _ Xeri :ue Casfart fall_
Mailing Address - F0 Box 1666. Vail Co. 81658
Phone 979- -919 -6339
H. NAME OF OWNER: Bidden Valley fttrenzise�r Itd,
OWNER (S) SIGNATURE
Mailing Address: Se e as Z ) ar use Veil anws es follows:
c/a The Frc =dwtael G� Rance Prrrr�rtiem. 2077 M Fi%wteoa Rood
Vail_ Co 81657 . Phone: tY70Jd76 -3800
APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED WITHOUT OWNER'S SIGNATURE
I. Condominium Approval is applicable.
JJ. DRB fees, as shown above, are to be paid at the time of
sumittal of the DRB application. Later, when
applying for a building permit, please identify the accurate
li valuation of the proposal. The Town of Vail will adjust the
i`�(, fee according to the table below, to ensure the correct fee
� is Paid.
0°
�\ FEE PAID: $ CHECK #: DATE: JBY:
FEE SCHEDULLE:
VALUATION FEE
$ 0 - $ 10,000 $ 20.00
$ 10,001 - $ 50,000 $ 50.00
$ 50,001 - $ 150,000 $100.00
$150,001 - $ 500,000 $200.00
r $500,001 - $1,000,000 $900.00
9 $ Over $1,000,000 $500.00
�O W DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL EXPIRES ONE YEAR AFTER FINAL
SCALE: I' - 10'
DATE Of SURVEY: 5/8/92
• :M.. ..• .. w««.. .w ....... .. ... .... .. ..
R1 DGE
UON 5
(w.• V 1�l .y N .V.YL Mow( .PI se.Y I.O[ [....Y �.M
s .c ... � .v... •ws
i
i�
R _ 12e.70' j
CI
t1d ROWS
tar ��
r r
/ e
! / h
LOT 5
4 486
/ f �— — - — �_ w 105.4.) �� t ^ Z aw
S 4 5 - 45 11
� 5 sruoo w is t. �
LOT 1. CuFFSIDE PRELIMINARY
LOT S. CUFFSIOE
I TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
LOT 4
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE RIDGE AT VAIL
TOM OF VAIL
EAGLE COUNTY. COLORADO
tai
Old Envelope
New Envelope
_ LOT 2
\-i . \
P I Per i ar ch It e- =.t s 3039496253
believes reconfiguring the building envelope and limiting the height in the southern half (20
feet) of the new building envelope to an elevation of 8503 feet, will result In no significant
increase in building exposure as seen from the valley floor when compared to the existing
building envelope. it is also important to note portions of existing adjacent residences are
clearly visible from the valley floor all along this ridge.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed building envelope with conditions. Staff believes
the limits on height, which the applicant is proposing, will minimize the visibility of the home
from the valley floor below. Further, the site planning as proposed by the applicant appears to
minimize the amount of site disturbance which will occur 16 constructing a home at this
location while also considering the visual impact of the structure to adjacent properties and
from the valley floor. The following conditions of the approval will be stipulated on the minor
subdivision plat:
1. Within the southern 20 feet of the proposed building envelope, the roof and structure
shall not exceed an elevation of 8503 feet.
2. A driveway envelope shall be indicated on the plat per architect's site plan dated June
19, 1992.
3. GRFA shall not exceed 2400 sq. ft. + 225 sq. ft. for a total of 2625 sq. ft.
P.04
rd
. / . ;;..•: / 5/.43
-
'
�- l;/ B8' 17 '49
/�4 CORNER 1G . 14 '
T, ION
W GYM - -
rorti/.
1 �
Q uT /L /TY €ACCESS
etJ
Ac. � m
-55,28 1 41
L = 180.0/ I l l
CH -A/ 0/ *03
E /
/73•OG
w
20 'U r/4L /TY I 431 Ac.
0
10'uT /CITY I
�� (� 41
h /
l / o
t v ,
/ 4 �,
za -Ac ���, o rl
ENV�[.Or� -- - -- - --
pp " v / S oz"C-' . E / r o 25 So
/5 U7 TE
NOS :
1 O' W �� CA5CM
/ �� � ,BEAR /NGS BA
CALL �iPt�M
I SU00/V /5 /
AT.
OATS U� SURI
SOI ° 55'5 0 E / y 3 Z, /NO/CA
4784"
52 4 /NO /GATES
V
•
J
ut
j� �i
VIM)
IP, I
0
cc
� I
�1(Gtrr �'y`4 -V� � r ��
- �ctr [�- � �a.�Loov�
�rnm wv� bvom �eSi' af'a�r�c
51 v�bA
Date April 28,' 1981
APPLICATION FORM FOR A SUBDIVISION REQUEST
A. Name of Applicant VALLEY ASSOCIATES
and Property Owner
Address 86 Maple Ave. , 'Morristown,
.LTD., a Colorado limited partnership
NJ .07960
B. Name of Applicant's Representative WILLIAM J. POST
Address P.O. Box 3149, Vail, CO 81658
C.
Phone (201) 285-066
Phone 949 -5380
Authorizati fMn PgafgRTI Own INC., N
Signature General Partner By:
a er, V e- rest ent
Address 86 Maple Ave. , Morristown, NJ 07960 Phone _? _Ohh
D. Location of Proposal
Lot 5 Block Filing THE RIDGE AT VAIL
E. Fee $100 plus 18¢ for each property owner to be notified.
F. A list oche names owners o 1 ent to the subject
;- pr rty a ^rjd� mai in address s.
G. Type of Subdivision: (check one)
Major (involving more than 4 lots)
X Minor (involving 4 or fewer lots) per instruction of Peter Patten
Duplex (splitting a duplex structure and /or lot)
H, Procedures for major and minor subdivisions are as defined in the Town of Vail
Subdivision Regulations on pages 9 through 20.
I. Duplex subdivision requires the same information as a minor subdivision with the
requirement that the following statement must appear on the plat before receiving
Town of Vail approval:
For zoning or other land -use regulations of the Town of Vail, the two parcels
created by this subdivision are deemed to be one lot. No more than one two -famil
residence shall be allowed on the combined areas of the two parcels. Allowable
Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) for the two - family residence shall be
calculated using the combined area of the two parcels.
J. Time Requirements: Major and minor subdivisions must be approved by the Planning
and Environmental Commission. The PEC meets on the 2nd and 4th Mondays of each
month. An application with the necessary accompanying material must be submitted
four (4) weeks prior to the date of the meeting.
t
l
CLIFFSIDE SUBDIVISION
12/90
Summary of attempts to rezone lots 1 -6 from RC to SF
Ordinance 12/1981 dated 3/17/81 indicates zoning is imposed on land
annexed from Eagle County.
11/16/81, an application is submitted to the Community Development
Department from the owners of lots 1 through 6 to rezone from
Residential Cluster to Single Family Residential.
12/9/81, Chuck Rosenquist withdraws lot 6 from request.
12/14/81, the PEC hears the request and recommends approval without
any conditions but with concerns about protecting the views from
the Ridge at Vail townhomes. This was determined to be a Design
Review Board consideration, and the PEC felt comfortable addressing
the view issue at the DRB level.
On January 5, 1982, Ord 1, 1982 passes first reading of council
with a condition that "development shall not significantly
interfere with scenic views existing from The Ridge at Vail
townhomes". On January 19, 1982, the Town Council prepared to hear
the request for second reading, but was asked by one of the
applicants to table due to lack of agreement with the Ridge of Vail
property owners on the question of possible view obstruction.
February 12, 1982, Peter Patten wrote a letter to Bill Post
itemizing all events up to that date, including visits to the site
with Craig Snowdon, Jim Flaum, Bill Post, Phil Ordway and Peter.
Craig then did a study to show view impacts from garages on Lots
4 and 5. From this study it appeared that "very serious view
impacts were quite real." Craig Snowdon expressed that
representatives from The Ridge would agree with the zone change
only if access to lots 4 and 5 were from the lower side of the
lots, off of Lionsridge Loop.
February 12, 1982, Peter's letter continued to state that in a
conversation with Phil Ordway, Mr. Ordway suggested that "access
from below would not be acceptable to Richard Brown, current owner
of Lots 4 and 5. At that moment, Peter states that "the matter
will go back to PEC for their consideration at a later date, and
that essentially we will start over with the zone change, now
taking into consideration the view and access issues."
4
February 16, 1982, Phil Orday wrote a letter of withdrawal to the
Town Manager with the statement that "we have decided to go back
to the beginning of the hearing process, beginning with the
Planning Commission on March 8, 1982."
February 24, 1982, letter from Craig Snowdon, with various findings
regarding views from The Ridge townhomes.
March 22, 1982, hearing before the Planning and Environmental
Commission. The memo from the staff included, "It was discovered
that very little thought went into the design of the subdivision
with regard to access for both lots 4 and 5. The study showed that
to meet 8% driveway grade restrictions, that the garage structures
would be very high on the ridge and seriously affect almost every
view from the townhome units." The condition for approval was:
"All improvements on lots 4 and 5 be limited to locating on the
lower portion of the lots so that no structure protrudes into the
views of The Ridge at Vail townhomes." The request was approved
by the PEC with a vote 5 -0 -2 with the following restriction:
"That no structure, improvement or increased grade occur at a
height greater than the existing elevation at any point on the back
property line which is the common property line with The Ridge at
Vail subdivision."
April 5, 1982, Richard Brown withdraws his lots (1 and 6) from the
application for rezoning stating that he would like to study the
problems with the lots and try to find a workable solution.
September 7, 1982, letter from Richard Brown to Peter Patten
stating that he had reviewed the conditions under which the Town
of VAil wanted to rezone lots 4 and 5 and felt the restrictions
were "totally unacceptable" and felt that they were being treated
unfairly. He added that Chuck Rosenquist agreed with him.
January 5, 1983, Richard Brown withdraws his application for a
change of zoning in a letter to Peter Patten.
November 8, 1983, an application for rezoning is received from
Richard Brown, et al for Lots 1 through 6.
December 12, 1983, hearing before the PEC.
The same condition that was in the memo of March 22, 1982 appears
in the staff memo with a recommendation of approval. The vote for
approval was 5 -0 -2 with the condition in the memo plus the
condition that lots 3, 4, and 5 be accessed from the lower road.
On August 7, 1984, Ordinance #21 of 84 rezoned lots 2 and 3 to
single family.
The file does not show any further activity.
�F
102
box 100
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476 -5613
January 16, 1980
Eagle County Planning Commissioners
Eagle County Court House
Box 179
Eagle, CO 81631
[�F]
department of community development
Re: File No. SU- 114 -80 -P1 (Revised- -The Ridge formerly the Val.ley IV)
Dear Planning Commissioners:
The Town of Vail Planning Commission has reviewed the plan of the
Ridge and generally supports the design concept, with the exception
of Lot 4.
The excessive slopes on lot 4 make it almost unworkable. If lot 4
were deleted, the road could be shortened and the western most town-
house on Lot 5 could be moved down off the ridge. The architect for
the project is confident a well designed building would make lot 4
acceptable. If lot 4 is incorporated into lot 5 and the building
design can be tied to condominiumization approval, we will review
the design more favorably.
Approval of any building on lot 4 will be given only if the design
is for an unobtrusive building, which steps into the slope and is
located on slopes under 40 %.
New designs for Ridge Lane will be presented at the January 16
meeting. The Town has some concerns with the earlier proposals,
but we support the new design. We favor stepped back retainage
above the intersection, and a Y- shaped turn around at the upper
end of Ridge Lane.
The Town commends the developer and architect for pulling the
townhouse units back so that they peek over the ridge.
Sincerely,
Dick R Y an
Director
ra i
A INIS RIDGE WATER D14STRIC
c% James P Collins
445 Union Blvd., Suite 123
Denver, Colorado 80228
(303) 986 -1551 .
July 5, 1979
Mr. Terrill Knight, Director
Eagle County Department of Planning
and Development ,
P. 0. Box 179
Eagle, Colorado 81631
Re: File #Su- 114- 79 -P -1
The Valley, Phase 4,
Preliminary Plan
Dear Terrill:
The Lion's Ridge Water District is capable of providing
service to the above referenced development.
However, in order to comment on a final plan, the water
district must have the developer contact the District's
Engineer to design the distribution lines and other water
facilities required. Also, the water district may wish to
have a water storage site within the development upon which
to construct a proposed finished water storage tank.
Per the current rules and regulations of the Lion's
Ridge Water District, the District assumes responsibility
for designing and constructing all water facilities. The
developer, in any particular instance, advises our Engineer
of his specific needs, and the District's Engineer develops
a preliminary design and a cost estimate. Upon deposit of
the estimated cost of the project with the District, the
District will proceed to construct it. Accordingly, the
developer in this instance should contact Roger Hocking,
Eldorado Engineering, Box 669, Glenwood Springs, Colorado,
81601.
I hope this is helpful to you. We appreciate the
opportunity to comment.
S'ncerely,
v
James P. Collins
District Manager
JPC : cy / ,
cc: Edmund H. Drager, Jr., Esq.
Roger Hocking, P.E.
W. M. Cunninghampol
-- r_