HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocuments & Plans - 1977-1996 (CO)l.-or 5 s, Bo'LL
October 24, L996
Town of Vail:
George Ruether Larry Parde Terry Martinez
HAND DELIVERED
Dear Georqe, Larry, & Terry,
Dalton, the children, and I are permanent members of the Vail community. we have no intent to run our l^tater
feature year iound or to disturb Lupine Drive. We will do
whatever-reasonably is necessary to meet the TOv's
standards.
In addition, as a volunteer at the Alpine Gardens rnyself'
the landscaping obviously will only enhance Lupine Drive.
we also per3onSlIy guarairtee that -ny adjacent properties
disturbed during construction will be restored beyond
their originally floras.
Lupine and Bridge Street neighbors who will attest to our
comrnitment include Richard & Sheila Norris, Pillar and
Edwardo vejeille, Rodgers & ltary Docksteaders, the Issacs'
and the Nelsons.
At the Town of Vail, Council Mernbers Rob Ford and Michael Jewitt can verify our integrity and intent, as well as
Tolrn Manager, Bob lilclaurin.
we started this project 6/L/95. we_platl to move j-n on
LL/22/96, which is 5ur dairghter's biithday and to spend
our first Thanksgiving in our new home. If you have any
concerns that wiLI disturb our fanily holidays, please let
us know now.
"'"""r.'"8b""aXon sim
Pfi4ted by George Ruther 12/10:03am
From: Terri Partch
To: Georqe Ruther
SubjecL: fwd: Sims
:==No1E=== :=LL/20/96==4:03pm=
George, Larry was asking me today about
signing off on a TCO or CO ? for the sims
residence. What was the end result out
there? Did you send a letter to the owners?
Fwd=by: =ceorqe=Ru Lher=LL / 2L / 96==3: 2 6pm=
Fwd to: Larry Pardee, Terri Parcch
The Sims have agreed to shut off Lhe water
f 1ow. The only water that will be allowed
in the "ditch" is surface run-off. I
instructed the Sims that any desire to run
wat,er in the ditch would reguire Town of
Vail review and approval of a hydrologists
reporc.
Fwd:by: =Terri=par Lch:=LI / 22 / 96==8: 14 am=
Fwd to: George RuL.her
The diLch is sti11 in place? ( r thouqht it
rniqht be because of the snow. ) r guess we
can check it in the Sprinq-
Fwd=by: =George=Ru Lher=L2 / 02 / 96=10: 01am=
Fwd to: Terri Partch
Yes, the ditch sti11 exists. We will
inspect the dit.ch next spring to determine
if the water in the diLch is from surface
run-off or if it is being diverted.
l'wd=by: =Terri=Par Lch==L2 / 02 / 9 6=L0: 02am=
Fwd to:
George Ruther, Lauren Watert on,
Terri Partch
Thanks, Georqe. I will let Larry P. kno
o
-;.
o
c 9'z
o
z
F
€E€E::€=;E
;€€iis
;gEg€g
€iE€*;
Eg€ea;
I
_l
El rl,-l^
I
I
>i H 4
il A H A{3 I -ol
O,l
"l
€
.=
=
z P
I
I
I
I
I
='=
:
U
-
I
I l2
HF -l '-1 c.l
I 11 E 01 H
z
*l
?;
.)
rnl
I
=':
.!.;
-
=
z
a
*
1
z
z.
o F'-urH
a r l-- -_\Y--
^€>x
!zz qs<
=ez ^a\J Y^-
z"!=z='.\it inD fsz ;-x (1 -.j \J '/..-r--Iz zuA .ri ---\ -'i
<F<=lLi f- -.,j a<qcQ S=s oI z LrJ ! i-t--
-;.J{S9=)-<--<)i o;<L- cri :-z l-- !r_ >Z-<<-y
!!E-.rH
PF-A lrj
ito>-; .aC A>-{z i -Yv it€s xF<X \Ji-/.\"
=o<-SZ\-,.-c(i-:-F ..ri :'- '.-' !a *.-tX=
-FYl'+*=*i-;::\*i-\J,;-
tFa
P
-O.
-a ara tf,{k t ae
i{r
O.
FR
tfl
F
-ti-t a rra rl-
I
-H
-t .lJ
E F
lrr f\sv
F.
-:rl
-11 |e
a+\dd L.l-T H .*,
*Fl F t{L*
f'\€v
rt-a
11
A.rFt
E H rf-il-l
.lJ thf f{
A.rl \t
Pfto --Z-Patd -* Ct,lto, --..--.*/:t\
Alnx -*- arryr.w 4/:
/>
CHDCK ITEQAEST
PREPARED py . {p nJ^''evv!/--DArE: v/+ / r+
VENDORNAVTI-/b"O 9-?",^-,
(l:
J'b-\
VENDORNUMBER:( r'.;)
DESCRTPTTON OF EXPENSE: CLE{N Up DtrpOSrr RETTUND FOR Bp # bq{ -031
NAME OF JOB:3in"/-'Ba
ACCOLINTNUMBER: 0l 0.000 22002
AMOLINT OF REFLIND:47rory
DATE APPROVED:l/rylqa- ..- -? r)
APPROVAL SIGNATURE:)n *L 1.U)^'a
APR 10 1gs6
1 0\l-c0[lt{\, DE\' DEPT'
April 10, L996
Dan Stanek
Town of Vail Vail, CO 81657
Dear Dan,
Please be advised that H&R contracting, Inc. is the
builder for our residence at 39L6 Lupine, Vail. Bob
Borne, Snowshoe, t as terninated January 5, L996.
Please change the building perrnit, which we paid for, to
H&R. If you have any questions please call me at
#476-8505.
Atilti* \, r \,^-
cc: Bob Watson, Weststar Bank
George Roberts. H&R Fred Otto
o o
o
LOP
Nunber of Dwelling
Factor Sq' Feet -si.+e 4'649
27.60 586
subtolal: .5 t235
Tota} Valuat:-on:
Adjusted Valuatron:
dO{ Gas APP|iances: 2
Restuarant P lsn Rcvi cY-->
DRB F
NorE :
lii3*iiii",: ili fb*llBR'?"
DEPARTMENT OF COM]"TUNITY DEVE
3916 I-,UPINE DR
fof Gas Logs:
*Jrr#ir*ir*J'*rir|'ri***r#**
MENT
JOBSITE AT
Pernit
Total' Catculsted fers--->
Additionat f ees--------->
TotaI Pernit Fee-------->
PaYnents-------
BALANCE DUE-----
Statug. ' 'applied. '
Issueq.. '
ExPires. '
Phone: 476-5263
ISSUED
os /re /1e95
to'/t7 /Lees
os'/07 /ree6
Units: 001
Valuation
434,588.52
16 ' 1?3. 60
450 ,'1 62.12
450 ,162.12
507, oo0 ' 000
fof uood/Pal' tct:
?q "[-Xftlk", *ooo
\ti'rrE"-""Lu'ALL TIMES
895-031?
Job Address:
Location' ' ';
Parce} No 'y' 'Pro j ect ,)ro ' :
2101-111-o 3-012
PRJ95-0197
OWNER
APPLICANT ,I I
CONTRACTQ{ n &
DescriPtion: tlev{
OccuPancY
Dwe I Iings
Private Garages
Table Date:
4
tirePlece Infornation: TXHI;J--*-*J;;;* tEE sur4nARY
*d#.**ffiJr**r*irt*Jrt*ffi1 o116 R.vicv-->
5,563.70
.00
5,5E3.70
5 ,583.7O
.00
Bui tding---->
Pl,an chrck-->
lnvestigation>
Ui l,l' cat t---->
2,36E.00
1 ,539.20
.00
3.00
Recreat ion tee---------->
c tcan-UP DePosit------->
TOTAL fEES---'-
.00
400.00
523.50
750.00
5,5E3.70
ii.r""|!$$t',".r6-*e--e+et+
CONST
coNsr -,t i(
R
SFR
TYPe
Zor,e
Zone
06 /20 /tees
v-N
v-N Masonry
Town of Vail
DePt:BUILDING Division:
Item: 05100 BuILDINGT?::ilTt:iI
1o Joz ltsss^tIY:I Action: APPR
"iLi^:.'
i i i 6 o
-
i; ioi'iN r NG
-
DE PART*:II
iETtlzi;li "ig'{9i^.,t:h#il
onn*
i;'";;' osi6o-Fine DEPARTMENT
CHUCK ACTiON: APPR
'-? 12? /'^Z??o' 3B3l'. *6iii" "'
tt'em:'05500
1o 1n 1ns_s-^cl-u.:T ACtiON: APPR
DePt
DePt
DePt
DePt
PLANNING Division:
FIRE Division:
PUB WORK Division:
ENGINEER Division:
i;'.;i' ossso ENGTNEERTNG
See Page 2 of this Docunent for any conditions that may aPPIY to this Pernit'
DECLARATIONS
l,:::"::."::::::i:ili::J::::";1ru:::jli:*Yiiil::;r#rqi{$*:i4ff['*:i:;l{.'*::'l" l-otv Hith att rovn ordinances.-t :]."li,li'l;ll^1"",i". ..ot"ances of the Tovn appticable thereto'
codes, design reviev approved' uni{orm BuiI'ding Code and
'ul,?t)
NOTE: THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON
PROJECT TITLE: SIM RESIDENCE
NEw (SFR,P/S,DUP) PERMIT
JOBSITE AT
Permit
ALL TIMES
895-0 317
Units: 001
Val-uation
434,588.52
L6,t73.60
450 ,7 62 .12
450 ,7 62 .t2
507,000. 000
#:
APPLICANT SNOWSHOE DEVELOPMENT
5032 SNOWSHOE LANE, VAIL, CO 81657
CONTRACTOR SNOWSHOE DEVELOPMENT
5032 SNOWSHOE LANE, VArL, CO 81657
OT4INER SIM DALTON
PO BOX 4205, VArL, CO 81657
Description:NEW SFR
SIatus...: APPROVED Applied..: 09/Le/Iees Issued...: lO/I1/I995
Expires. . : 04/08/L996
Phone: 3Q34765253
Phone: 3034765263
Phone:476-5263
Job Address
Location. . .
Parcel No..
Project No.
3916 LUPINE DR
2101- 111-0 3-012
PRJg 5-019 7
Occupancy
Dwellings Private Garages
Table Dare: 06/20/L995
Fi reptace lnforration: Restricted: Y
P lan check---> 1 ,539 .2O DRS
Type
Zone 2 V-N
Zone 2 V-N Masonry
Number of Dwelling
Factor Sq. Feet
93.48
27.60
Subtotal-:
4 ,649
586
5 t235
#*ffffiffi*ffiffff********ffffi FEE SUlll,lARY **tffi*Hffirrffirr,t****ffi
Bui f.ding-----> 2,364.@ Restuarant Ptan Revi ew-->Total catculated Fees---> 5,5E3.70
5 ,583 .70 .00
3.00
.00
400.00
523.50
750. 00
Total Val"uation:
Town of Vail Adiusted Valuation:
fof Gas Appliances: 2 fof Gas Logs:fof tlood/Pa t tet:
Addi tionaI Fees--------->
TotaI Permit Fee-------->
Dept: BUILDING Division:
Deptr PLANNING Division:
Dept: FIRE Division:
Dept: PUB WORK Division:
Investigation>
Ui L l, Ca L t---->
Recreation Fee---------->
Ctean-Up 0eposit-------->Payments-------
BALANCE DUE----
*t#*ffi *ffi *r.ffi ffi(ffi *rffi *lrtrlrt*Jrtr*trffi f H##****ffi *'(lr't**ff ft
TOTAL FEES-----
Item: 051OO BUILDING DEPARTMENT
IO/02/7995 CHUCK Action: APPR
Item: O54OO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
IO/06/7995 GEORGE Action: APPR
Item: 05600 FIRE DEPARTMENT
L0/02/7995 cHUcK Action: APPR Item: 05500 PUBLIC WORKS
L0/L1,/L995 CHUCK Action: APPR
*{r*'r|ffir*#r:t***'rff*ffi*ffi*ffr'ffi*|ffirtffir**#rt'rffi*!t'r'u|Hrir'drffir'*iffrff'rffi#ffi*ffi**ffi
See Page 2 of this Document for any conditions that may appJ-y to this pernit.
DECLARATIONS
I hereby acknouledge that I have read this app[ication, f il.l.ed out in ful,l, the information requi red, conPl,eted an accurate P[ot
pLan, and state that al.l the information provided as requi red is correct- I 6gree to cornpty with the inforrEtion and pl'ot Pl'an,
to compLy rith att ToHn ordinances and state [aws, and to buitd this structure according to the Tom's zoning and subdivision
codes, design review approved/ uniform Buil,ding Code and other ordinances of the Torrn appticabte thereto.
REOUESTS IOR INSPECTIONS SHALL BE TIAOE TIIENTY-FOUR HOURS IN ADVANCE gY TELEPHONE'AT 479-?138 OR AT OUR OFFICE FROII 8:OO A 5:OO PI'I
Send Ctean-Up Deposit To: Slll SIGNATURE OF OI,INER OR CONTRACTOR FOR HIIISELT ANO OUNER
Permit #: 895-0317
Permit Type: NEW (SFR,P/S,DUP) PERMIT Applied: 09/L9/L995
rssued t LA/77/L99s
PAGE 2 ********************************************************************************
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
as of 7o/t1/9s ********************************************************************************Statue: APPROVED
Applicant
Job Address
Location Parcel No
SNOWSHOE DEVELOPMENT
3916 LUPINE DR
210l_-111-0 3-012
********************************************************************************
CONDITIONS ********************************************************************************
1. THrS PROJECT WrLL REQUTRED A SrTE TMPROVEMENT SURVEY. SUCH
SURVEY SHALL BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO REQUEST FOR
A FF.AI'4E INSPECTION.
2. ATTIC SPACES SHALL HAVE A CEILING HEIGHT OF 5 FEET OR IESS,
AS MEASURED FROM THE TOP SIDE OF THE STRUCTURAL MEMBERS OF
THE FLOOR TO THE I]NDERSIDE OF THE STRUCTURAL MEMEBERS OF THE
ROOF DIRECTLY ABOVE.3. That the Public Works Dept. sign off on the building permit
4. That deck encroachments conform with zoning requirements
5. That aLl construction fencing be in place prior to construct
ion. A11 fencing to rernain in place until ALL constructi-on
ie completed.
NOTE: THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOBSITE AT ALL TIMES
ELECTRICAL PERMIT Permit #: E95-0209
APPLICANT SNOWSHOE DEVELOPMENT
5032 SNOWSHOE LANE, VArL, CO 81657
CONTRACTOR SNOWSHOE DEVELOPMENT
5032 SNOWSHOE LANE, VAIL, CO 81657
OWNER SIM DALTON
PO BOX 4205, VArL, CO 81657
CONTRACTOR TRI PHASE ELECTRTC
P O DRAWER 920, GYPSUM CO 81637
Deseription: NEW SFR
Etectrical---> 221.N
DRE Fee Investigation> .00
t,i Ll, cal.L----) 3.0O
TOTAL FEES---> 274.OO
StaIuS...: APPROVED
Applied. .. 09/L9/L995
Issued. .. : LO/02/1995
Expires. . : 03/30/L996
Phone: 30347 65263
Phone : 30347 65263
Phonez 476-5263
Phone z 303949O249
Valuationt 25,000'00
Job Address Location...
Parcel No..Project No.
3916 I-,,UPINE DR
2 l_ 0 1- 1 1 1-0 3-Ot2
PRJ95-019 7
*#r*ffi*ffitffii FEE SUflllARY **|t't*
Total, catculated Fees--> 274.@
Additional Fees--------> .m
Total Per]it FeF------> 274.@
Payments------
BALANCE DUE----
**ffr**ffiff **rHffi #rrt*#**|*ffi **ffi *ffi ***ffi*ffi *itr*ffi
Dept: BUILDII{G Division:ITem: -06000 ELECTRICAL DEPARTMENT IO/02/L995 CHUCK Action! APPR
**ffi*ffi****f,*ffi*ffi*ffiH*ffiH*******rr** rr**fitf,
CONDITION OF APPROVAL
*rtfffl trl*rBrrt*inl**lrt**JtrHnt*t***r***ffi ir***
DECLARATIONS
I hereby acknouledge that I have read this appl,ication, fiLl.ed out in fult the information required/ co@leted an accufate Ptot
pl.an, and state that at[ the infornat'ion provided as requi red is coppect. I agree to conply rith the inforrEtion and ptot ptan,
to corpty uith att Town ordinances and state [avs, and to buiLd this structure according to the Tovnrs zoning and subdivision
codes, design revieu approved, Uniform Buitding code and other ordinances of the Tovn appticabl.e thereto.
REOUESTS FOR INSPECTIONS SHALL BE }IAOE TI'ENTY-FOUR HOURS tN ADVANCE BY TELEPHONE AI 479-2138 OR AT OUR OFFICE FROII 8:M Ail 5:M Pil
SIGNATURE OF OI.'NER OR CONTRACTOR FOR HIIISELF AIID OUNER
o
NOTE: THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOBSITE AT ALL TIMES
PLUMBING PERMIT Permit #: P95-0150
75 Sourh Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2 I 3 8/479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
APPLICANT
CONTRACTOR
OWNER
CONTRACTOR
Description:
Deparnnent of Conrmunity Development
tr#ffi*ffiff(***ffi****H********ff**** FEE SUtll'lARY ff*#***ffitHdr**rt**rffiH***ir*ff*lrl*******ffirrlr**
SNOWSHOE DEVELOPMENT
5032 SNOWSHOE LANE, VAIL. CO 81657
SNOWSHOE DEVELOPMENT
5032 SNOWSHOE LANE, VAIL, CO 81657
SIM DALTON
PO BOX 4205, VAIL, CO 81657
BEAVER CREEK PLIJMBING & HEAT
P o BOX 625, AVON CO 81620
NEW SFR
Phone: 3034765263
Phone:476-5263
Phone z 3039497523
Valuation:20, 000 . 00
Tota[ catcutated Fees---> 378.00
Additiona( Fees--------->
Totat Perhit Fee-------->
Paynen
GNATURE OF OI.IN OR CONTRACTOR FOR HI
Job Address Location...
ParceL No..Project No.
3916 LUPINE DR
2101-111-03-Ot2
PRJ95-0197
.00
378.00
Status. . .
Applied..
Issued. . .
Expires. .
Phone:. 30347
I S SUED
0e /7e /rse5
1.0 /L7 /tee5 04/r4/lee6
65263
.00
t78.00
378.00
P Lumbi ng----->
Ptan Check---)
Investigation>li l,L Ca t t---->
Restusrant Ptan Revi ew-->
TOTAL FEES-----
300.00
75 .00
.00
3.00
SALANCE DUE----
******t*H(ffi*ffiitffi**rt*'rlt*ffit'rJrr*ffiffi*********ffij*ffi****lrffi*****#***ffirr*ffffiH***ir*******
Item: O51OO BUILDING DEPARTMENT LO/02/1995 cHUcK Action: APPR
Dept: BUILDING Division:
************t***ffiir*tff#*********ff*t*H#J*ff*************************ikrrrrrr***#**trff**iffiffi***#*t!.rr**********
CONDITION OF APPROVAL
ffiffi1rffiffi*ffi'|**ft*i**|t********'*ffi******************trt**ffi**Jrt******ff*trtr***ffff***************lr*****ffi*
DECLARATIONS
I hereby acknou(edge that I have read this appl.ication, fitl,ed out in ful,l the inforDation required, compteted an accurate p(ot ptan, and state that a[[ the 'infornation Provided as required is correct. I agree to conpl.y vith the information and pl.ot itan,to conpty rrith atL ToHn ordinances and state [avs, and to buil,d this structure according to'the Toun's zoning and subdivis.ibn codes, design review app.oved, Uniforn Buitding Code and other ordinances of the To!,n-.amIicabl,e thereto. _,--z
REOUESTS FOR INSPECTIONS SHALL BE IiIADE TI,IENTY-FOUR HoURs IN ADVANCE BY TELEPHoNE*T 179-*fr oR cE FRol'l
{S ^rn""roru",
o
****************************************************************
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO Statemnt
***.***r.L**********r.******************J.**********L***************
Statemnt Number: REC-0088 Anount:378.00 70/L7 /95 16;39 rnit:,fR
o
Payment Method: CK Notalion: LL79
P95-0150 Tlpe: B-PLMB PLIIMBING PERMIT
2101-111-0 3-012
3916 LUPINE DR
Total Fees:
378.00 Total ALL Pmts:
Balance:****************************************************************
Permi-t No:
Parcel No:
Site Address:
This Payment
Account Code
01 0000 41311
01 0000 4t332 ol 0000 41336
378.00
378.00
.00
Deecription Anount
PLIJMBING PERMIT FEES 3OO.OO
PLAN CHECK FEES 75.00
WII,L CALI INSPECTION FEE 3. OO
lors /)1 z
'z:-- .,\
i C*': ,'
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ,3/-/ ,t /-TOWN OF VAIL
75 S. FRONTAGE ROAD
vArL, co 81657
97 0-47 9-2738
Job Address...:Location......:
Parcel No.....:
Project Number:
NOTE: THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON
MECHANICAL PERMIT
JOBSITE
Permit
Phone:
Phone:
Valuation:
lof 6as L€s:
ALL TIMES
M95-0155
AT
#t
OWNER
CONTRACTOR
Description:
NEW SFR
ttcch.ni c.t->
Pl.m chrck--> 60.m DRB
lnvc3tig.tiorD
Li ( t Cat(-->
3916 LI'PINE DR
2101-111-03-012
PRJ9 5-019 7
SIM DALTON
PO BOX 4205, VArL. CO 81657
ZIKA PLI'I4BING & HEATING
P.O. BOX 6013, VArL CO 8L65?
fof Gss Ap?tilnces:
240.00 Rcatuarant Plan Rcvi ar-->
Status. ..: ISSUED Applied..t 09/L9/Le95
rseued. .. | 08/0t/!996
Expires .. z 0L/28/L997
47 6-5263
97 O /47 6-e2O8
12, 0OO.0O
fof Uood/ P. L tct:Fircptrc. Informtion: Rcstricted:
TEE SUIT{ARY
,00 Total cstculatcd Frca->
.00 Additional, F.ca--+>303.00 Total P.rii t fca----)PaYoa;1t3--_-->
303.m
.m
303.00
303.@
.0o ToTAL f EES---->
t.@
Ile.qti .951q0_9q_TI,DING_DEPARn@!rT_ __Dgpt: BUILDING DiviEion:08/OL/L996 CHARLIE ActiON: APPR CHARI,IE DAVI-S
I!bqr;"956Q0 FIBE DEPART.MENT ____ , Dept: FrRE Division:og/oL/1996 CHARLTE Action! APPR n/a
CONDIIION OF APPROVAL
1. FIELD INSPECTIONS ARE REOUIRED TO CHECK FOR CODE COMPTIAI{CE.2. COMBUSTION AIR IS REOUIRED PER SEC. 607 OF THE 1991 I'MC.3. INSTALLATION MUST CONFORM TO MANUFACTURES INSTRUCTIONS AND
TO APPENDIX CI1APTER 21 OF THE 1991 IIMC.4. GAS APPLIANCES SHALL BE VENTED ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 9 AND SIIALT TERMINATE AS SPECIFIED IN SEC.9O6 OF THE 1991 I'MC,5. ACCESS TO IIEATING EOUIPMENT MUST COMPLY WITH SEC.5O5 AND 703 0F THE 1991 nMC;6. BOILERS SHAI.,L BE MOI'NTED ON FLOORS OF NONCOMBUSTIBIJE CONST.I'NLESS LISTED FOR MOI'NTING ON COMBUSTIBLE FLOORING.7. PERMIT,PLANS AND CODE ANALYSIS li{IUST BE POSTED IN MECHANICAL
ROOM PRIOR TO AN INSPECTION REOUEST.8. DR,AINAGE OF MECHANICAL ROOMS CONTAINING HEATING OR HOT-WATER SIJPPLY BOILERS SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH A FLOOR DRAIN PER SEC.2119 0F THE 1991 ttMC.
********************************************************************************
DECLARATIONS
I h.r.by acknovtcdgc that I have read this appli cation, f i l,l,!d out in ful,L the inforration pcqui rcd, coaptctcd an .ccuratc plot
ptan, .nd state that !t[ thc infor|.tim providcd as pcquircd is coFrcct. I agrc€ to conpl,y vith thc inforration .nd pl,ot pl,an,
' to corpty vith rtt Tovn ordittrnccs * .r"*Q"rr, rnd to buitd this structurc ".-"oirrgQrhc Tosn,s zoning ana suuivision
coder, dcsign rcvicu approvcd, uniforr 8uiLding code lnd othcr ordinlnccs of the Tovn appticabl,e thcrlto.
REQJESTS FoR II{SPECTIONS SHALL BE }IADE TI{ENW-fOUR HolrRS ltl ADVANCE BY TELEPH0IIE
^l
4T}-2138 0R AT OUR OFTICE FRONI E:OO Att 5:(n Pl
SIGNAIURE OF O9NER OR CONTRTCTOR IOR HTHSELF AND OIITI€R i. '. I-
TOV|N OF VArL, COLORADO Statemnt
***********************:l****************************************
Statemnt Number: REC-o178 Anount:303.00 08/0L/96 14:08
Init: CD Payment Method: CK Notation: 31357
M95-0155 Type: B-MECH MECHANICAL PERMIT
2101-111-03-012
3916 LUP]NE DR Total Fees:303.00 Total ALL Pmts:
Balance:****************************************************************
Permit No:
Parcel No:Site Address:
This Payment
Account Code
01 0000 4L3L2
01 0000 4L332
01 0000 41336
Description
MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES
PLAN CHECK FEES
WILL CALL INSPECTION FEE
303. 00
303 .00
.00
Anount
240 .00
60.00
3.00
is12 I 0950 Notliogh:m 8d.
I Avon, CO 81620
| (303) 9494300
174tr w. 2d
I w''chlu, KS 67203
| 615) 26S36sl
Estimate po,. 5.- < R.s o","
Srench .-::
riAil:1, :UIrill,' i,','.:;
Y1/1li\ |r'..1 .r..'''\|Ir\'l :'f .) ! rt) titj L,.j{IltiltI i../
,)t.)t.. ,, r!r)a..
.t7rl"i1rt- 11.:ua;
HOME OFFICE:
926 N- Modey
P.O. Box 458
Wichita, KS 67201-0458
' {LJU ,rri-o
6
tiil:,i-.;i,'i
,:'ii:.i;l,ill- rl
.: r)Li:ilil;;
] '..'. ':-]
:l'' '- )
(Ns"
. ilr'
r " ii:4.
Htstllcoorr;rl
Fixfine * k:' -:rI,l
i1 : n[:]li;lci
ffiss
It4
I :J-\A &1'
9o.t
J-\
t.l
Ar
F t_
f
trl U
A.
;c tr
u)
a
I t}
$l
S!
i
I,J (,
0.
q
H
ts
t-{a
N {R IHHfl IlNq lHHHfi CT
q\_
o
o-
rlrl rl zl ol. A.j 'l *l ,l =l -l -l 'l ,l .l :l -1,.1
ti:
F
F<
:tc
U1
'J
t-r o t-{
ci
n
5 '.'l +-
lt {oo EZfrd,trl< !{
' hl < F-r (/)Qt-.o
ti=Ora 'FF .F. il
.l>.H<O='rZ
fQ d l'1 F : O,r'{.. l!. Ira ..,E: .H =tsOt:rtsra OEIE{(/)z Z?9)=t4
.n \J
U
'i S G l')
U
U
..>
;v'q
(..(l\v)
$.:
(-
a.
J
E
u,E (|)
F rrj
&J trci t.r.) (4
:?: bl J ooJ (J<-<*7 H a.t)
(,FO HINA frl H (,POF{F.i ') ="r_ .1 Itz )-{ F{.O
E<c4 O .:oq4Y
q) la !4 Cr -rrt < O_(.?Ja<d:^
< tt, l,J= -E AF r'<Z-/L.x'(, f-< 5 co .^| | t.t t
. , .'|l]. o()ooc4 . . . i<oooo
rl c.l = : Z ,{,<c'r\O<
! t I to
.9N\OO}-l @ ' . .,-)..{.-{N<
q
\
*$
e<.
a J
o:
d.
F<L)
14 Ai o.
ts
z.
J
, -1,
A.
! f...ts'}..(.?a q.q -. t\n ,. I (!
,1
q
(t)
A
lll
r--t
J
a
ua
+-N s
tr.l
rn
H
F(
?.ts
tfi l$$nqsNtll $N
H \]+l c\l
n
o ft
..
:E .l =l *l -l *1,1.,'1,=l "{."1
(:1
l-{
F<
F4
H
ln
.-]
F
F.
tl <ao &z.Ed qr< H'F i-1 .,.1 J kl 4F{(nAF.o H-O.a . FF
-,1 >F<(J=',. z F cd I'J €:r . O,r_{ .... ... r& () cA F trl .H =FAF.t{q.Otr)F{t/)Z ZtsltlDH
\)
t y r--\Jv
l,t
--:; l--\r di u
at)E rrt F
2
crJ Fd Q arJ
:.GIJ OOrl (J<,<
ti v,
9F{o H(']H
lrl H ?:
F-. H.O JZ,&<
vY-
(/) ro !! c) -trl < O-(rJdc<:^<coLrr=--& O F< t-'<27-1'
QH)cQra I r t.t {" lrl o(Jo(Jc4
oooo
trr"c.] : : E -{-{ql\O<.
r I I to
€c.r\,oO|l cO . . .|J .-<.-.(y<
lvl
o
? \.a v;us aO
o I ol cz I N.l s,
ii;)irl,;.1 ;,;l'i' . ,'
-'? i.r it,-l ;' t ;'{ii .,r;'
,'ir/.iil ' r:-r lli:,"'
HOIIE OFFICE:
926 N. lrlosley
P.O. Box 458
Wchita, KS 67201-0458
:i, ill,,it r. i : l, i li o g
l! ll: i r.. i;
;i.,1 ,,\".i;l
::i i i,; ili L :,
.- rli- l;iiil,'l .
ffiss Htstl:{aiarwl
t, ,r:
(Ss"Fffim r,::,1
!:ll L )tilC:.: r); C i- .1
r.lM--iiYl lili,
'i: ;i il '. il l i ,l . ii,:i
,1. :l jl ., tjl
,,:,... l_ll l:.,:,
; -1i1
ll;'. i1,:Jt)
/i ! r.r/jir ;-; | .::
:T:__- r-i
.: l- l rr ! li ;
,"-!-."--'
:r: -, ._,-
]I.,1,'. '-'; .i
-t ,
:r;iii'lIi,i il.jpf i.. \l ..t';1.:i)
' a' j:rl tll; ' = l llii;lrii1 [;
,fiil'.1 ' :l.; illi,::i)
'ir ltl ''t.i'j .ii0C
HOME OFFICET
926 N. Mosley
P.O. Box 458
Wichita. KS 67201+458
rll QUi-lil-;i-,1 ',r o
6
Pr)iri:,
!l,l.l r 1i r..,,il
!fii-ir )rn'l
- \l _-1l,\i
,r ir i- i- .:, lirr ' -
ii:,ir: .::.
ffiss fr6tNlxdor'd
Fix?lle:ir*ii
i.,'1 Rl3iDit{ci
iiill il :::: :',i (sg"
L i'- i r;!-!-
v i lL
. \'' 1r..t.!il ' I ii,
.ic):l I ii;i[ ]l-: R,. iI
:'r li : r:a j:l
,C -
HOMEOFFICE:
926 N. Mosley
P.O. Box 458
Wichita. KS 67201-0458
I iiiJili',fii-r;.r :1
'" li
'.1i:
.
8Ui;:i'.
.rrl1 "s7i-il r\iU,,1ri.rri
iri;lf i, ; ir,l. .
::Ai- - I 11'1
:[ilH:.. ::,
o
/#l v
ErstNhdondl
fin1fre ::,,(. irir,, ':'
;i,'1 i[3Irll:;,,
'4ev
,;.1.'
- i, '..... ,
.: li-,.;.'" )a
.t.:-..
:- 'i _' ''' /ir!'
.;ri i, ;
::.' i
i ,L ..i .Jri:
,. rliii I :_tr;:l |i',.r.i
- {)rj;t-;.. ll; il'i rl(li',rii'r iil
','r tir I .l; I l;;,:.i
HOfrlE OFFICE:
926 N. Mosley
P.O. 8ox 458
Wchita, KS 67201-0458
j,rT iiLi-'/,',i_''i-
't^
t
:.1/il' - ii--. r;ill.'r'::
/z-.\ ,, I lii:;... ,.",:_
) ftT j' !l-rr11tr: irrr r;'EL "ii
rlflLvz-- lI- iinl:.]lr li3; ll I l.rrl -.'.-.
:.tr |D-- ,.{l
Z1-noPU)"${ rr. Y ,b)ul_"..nol$\p" ru$twonal
Gf,9}'- Fixfine **:i sirri *-r :i,*,:' nR\\r"uu-
.r ill,ti;IiT,.i.il ," |l aui-] , i-l; . .iar'j.; .
lr':: t1 '1 :': ::r :: 1. k ! :< !. :it V ,1U0;i', :l;N Darl:: ii;':. r-
ilar- J.1- - - j
. nL',l,"\t.' J{
.i:,i Ri:5iDIi'tCi _._.r:7
r,_ i:i-tj,1i:;il;
.1.'.|^'.r|.^'a'
i\-
:.,':L;-: .i -,, .j l*:i' --:.. I i"r0 i1
-,1
l.)l
''..,
HOMEOFFICE:
926 N. Modey
P.O. Box 458
Wchite, KS 67201-0458
' ^i1-
ir--r'- L! -i!,r i 'r,.ri
lr kif ri :r.{:t-i }:r 1::.:11 a a l/f i'.- iilll
nf irr, :
r'r) :
ffiss
.a fia v
H'.stNIddoul
:it-.lSiii,il :
rtill'i:l : lll
fitcnne *r"( i illi.:
i : ,'i i\'13: DI;'lil::
(Ns"
irr , '. rr i. i ]w,
'i -_,'ii-r.ii .i ; I ..'',
li ii;-,)i i;.1 ,:.
'/ i,: - -
:i c i'i
,tiij- :,1i[] Jil ,il-. - .'n:Di.i
. ',i ' l.ll,-f . - "'. L,, r';; r'.il
'-: r.:;l ;ri:*i- li: .l.,:li ;ri.l:-,
,; .: .;iil,,.r,l . 14,-r.- ,:,.:!;;:.
.'.;:i:ili- l;:ii-:: ll ,r'i''
;i- iLrl- i ; .. .. :: - :
TOWN OF VAIL
75 Soutlt Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479 -2 I 3 8/479 -2 1 39
FAX 970-479-2452
Octobcr 30, 1996
Iloward Fcldman
P.O. Drarvcr 3680
Avon. Colorado lJ 1620
Departnent of Connnnity Deve lopme nt
RE: Thc Sim rcsidcncc, locatcd at3916 Lupinc Drive/l-ot 58, Block 2, Bighom 2nd
Addition
Dcar Howard:
On Tucsday, Octobcr 29,1996,l complcted a landscapc inspcction of thc Sim rcsidcncc, locatcd
at 3916 Lupinc Drivc. 'l'hc purposc of this lcttcr is to inform you of thc rcl;ults of my inspcction'
In onlcr for a Tcmportry Ccrtificatc of Occupancy (TCO) to bc rclcascd by thc Planning
Dcpartmcnt for thc Sirn rcsidcncc, adclitional landscaping is rcquirccl. 'l-rvo 8'tall Colorado
spnrcc trccs arc rcquircd ot thc top of thc rctaining rvall ncar tlrc drivcway tumaround. Thc trccs
arc ncccssary to scrccn thc garagc {oors ofthc Sim rcsidcncc tiom thc ad.ioining propcrty.
Nonc of thc rcquirctl shrubs wcrc plantcd. ln ordcr to ru-ccivc a l'CO, you will nccd to bond thc
planting of all of thc rcquircd shrubs. Thc bond must bc put in pltcc in thc anrount of | 25Y" of
thc installation and matcrial costs. A Dcvclopcr Improvcntcnt fblm is availablc at our oflice.
Should you havc any qucstions or conccrns rvith rcgard to thc information addrcsscd in this lcttcr,
as always, plcase do not hcsitatc in giving mc a call. I can bc rcachcd most casily during rcgular
officc hours at 479-2145.
Sincerclv.
A-'y-Q*'*lr-
Georgc Ruther
Torvn Planncr
GR/jr
{g *u"'"'"u '*"*
U'giBffiUffIiIFUN
Category Number IZ --1 i.'! -.i ia^.^ | / 't | .-J t\Ua|d tt
Project Name: .'.
Building Name:
Proiecl Description:
Owner, Address and Phone:
-..---'-.-.11,. I /ArchiteodContact,AUdressanoFnone: r-, ,.-,.,i F.;.1 ,.,.-,, l-'L). L)t--.. r
Legal Description: Lot 5 Block 5 Subdivision C'.. r/ ,- - , r- r//bt> zoneDistrict
Project Street Address:
Comments:
Motion by:
Board lS;iatt Actiqn -)
Vote:
Seconded by:
fl Approval
fl Disapproval
'gi Staff Approval
Conditions:
- ;.\ 1-rj r/ I -*
DRB Fee Pre-paid
JLL 09 'Sts €:s$fi l{lERCdrtlTRfr';TIN;
!rtx. llttr,a
P. 1,, t
Drrtd ]* rqrrD rtlLrcruo, . BoE o O cocnnrDo
DITE RreEllfltDr
DATE OF D!5 tc|fffl{G r iattttaalt
A.
D.
l.
P.
B , ltF! OF RlrvfE|f,!
aoNll*l:
t{rlG Ot
-lll?t!
. eonr rruEil on (ft00,00)
-rdCitloE
(110.00)
rDmltl | 3915 Lqolne D!., t{rrt
ADI&IC,[I$T I llSl comnrg[Trc. ItrC.xalliaE Adilraar
H.
g.
NrfiE OF CmE, t I
ffi"?!is'
If Ptoparty ir darcrib€d, b-y I a.ecr .16 beu$ttr laqrl {.tc.alPtton. . Dlrlse grovltlc o" i -iipgi.-.-iClet. aad rt trcrb to thlt eDgllcrglon. -
Nflr8 0!tlrlling ^PPLICNTT.
g l,SPltlamArrvl I r|0xf,tD pBLDxrx *dt"ra,&
Itenc
g.-P."*,hdffi#l
l.PPDran,riflil' EA WI DD !'dOCE'SD t'l,Effl dnat,, ,.r4nnr
dondalnlun lDDaoval lf aFpliea.blr,
!f! FEEt Dll.frce, tr -tho'rc6 lbove, ale to bc DAio, ab tbe rir!. or ruhlhull of th. onr aspriciiroi. - lltii,-ruea-r|prylge lor a buitdlss pa-nf6-tilaic-ricgtitv -Eic-'icslraec
::1u!!i91.?! thr ercpeg.l]. _'rtri ian-;r-iili-*iri idjffi-;;;rat r'ocolnlng :o ibo ErblE bclor, to rnrtrEi-che eorriet, frc 13 D.ld,
Elt Eer tE?.! r
V}LUTTIODI
? 0.f 10,000
110,001 .t s0,000 t30,0c1 .f lfo,ooo
fr50,001 . | 500,000 fs00.001 .11,000,000 I Over f1,000, OO0
g!!Iq-!ry!H tqriD rrrrotr! Errur
irrT#rJ:I{EEr r lrElDrro etrEc,r,rI
Fr
+{f;if;*-
1100.00
f200.00 f.00. 00
1300.00
0|rr llll lFlrr Emr,r8tpD r|ro cd8rruqlrtr
EiGI'E! orrnrlrGrr3
A
H
fr r
.FHclNE EALL
SIGNED TOPS
AREA CODE NUMBET] EXTENSION
IVIt:5J/AL,E
i
I
'rn- -
1W
't v.
\
(t
li;:--:.:
-ao.-" .11
}fi
$"t
\
\
V
;l
o o o o
o o v
I
I
a i
i I
'*ae-;*..stt'?'r*'-
-"-- t
fhrn,^*r&,c)*uo,k*Dd*t*";;i:;i o** h,
5B,r* Gxe +ri zoae
o
-fr NrW.eat-#*uo
+'0" g*{rriy
_- 2,0,, uh/ypfr,k
>
tr;T #ifu s'o",(ry11, ky#'of**re htrl 'bp h*'
??nff.ffirv *\ei? nnu
.. rltev I I
ftt;*N anr* oL'try fdrT-
/*ne r 7 'fs
..4 ---
oefrn Review Action rorl
TOWN OF VAIL
Category Number 1r
Project Name:
Building Name:
Project Description:
Owner. Address and Phone:
Arch itecvgintacAd d ress an d P hon e :
Legal Descripti on: tot 5 6 Block L Subdivision
.]-2 ,/ e'Qt.-</*.a i., ' / Zone Districl
Project Street Address :
Comments:
,.---,.Eoard/Staff Action |--.'.
Motion by:,ll,tt Vote:
Seconded by:V-f. ... . ,i r t. t. | 't
$(Approval
! Disapproval
[] StaffApproval
Conditions:
DRB Fee Pre-paid
E;vtt d, *r7 lsa
DESIGN REVIEW
I.
A.
BOAXD APPI.,ICATION . TOWN OF
DATE RECEIVED:
DATE OF DRB MEETING:
*!:i***!t*t!a
PROJECT INFOR}IATION:
DESCRIPTIoII: Q O,I/ S
F &ll-t, t9@9 -f/on7 d/=A)e S,U
PT
VAIL, COLORADO
TYPE OF REVIEW:
./a
#'Iew Construction ($200 . 00)1 Addition ($50.00)
t-
l\
ADDREss, 71 lla y'uQ.n'< orZ,u<_-__
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT
'
B
subdivision 13 'Lt' oai-E Block ;Z.--.
-Minor
AlE,erat.ion ($20. 00)
Conceptual Review ($0)
4VD.Ft04)
If property is described by description, please provide
Eo this application.
a meeEs and. bounds
on a separate sheet,
1ega1
and attach
E. ZONING:S,F
NAr'rE oF APPLTcAT{T, O4 Lf aaS 9, rVt
Phone 4zn- ?26'<
G.
t/
NAI',IE
Phone
I.
J.
FEE
$ 20.00
$ 50.00
$r.00.00
$200.00
$400.00
$500. 00
.l;ri
! t,,
NAI{E OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIvE, @ Mailing Address . 2o.B az q*o S
Phone
H.oF owNER (il : ? 4 <*t-o'<-t f)^
<-l
Mailing Address. P. O A-t ll+, 1 c-D, 6te 9(
APPLICATIONS WII,IJ NOT BE PROCESSED WITHOW O'INER'S S.IGMA?URE
Condominium Approval if applicable.
DRB FEE: DRB fees, as shown above, are to be paid at the time of submitt.al of the DRB application. Lat,er, when applying for a building permit, please identify the accurat,e valuation of the proposal . The Town of Vail will adjust the fee according to t.he table below, to ensure the correcL fee is paid. -l
7D0 "
FEE PAID: $ l-- CHECK #: DATE: BY:
-
FEE SCHEDULE:
VATUATION
$ o - $ 10,000
+ rir, uu.r. - + 5ri , iJ ij ij
$ 50,001 - $ 150, 000
$r.50, 001 - $ 500, 000
$500, 001 - $1, 000, 000 $ Over $1,000,000
DESIGN RSVIEW BOARD APPROVAIJ EXPIRES ONE YBAR AFTER FINAI-I
APPROVAI, I'NIJESS A BUII.'DING PERMIT IS ISSUED AIID CONSTRUCTION IS STARTED.
,{.ill :f t|t .
,: i.5
II,t
A pre-application meetinq with a member of the planning
sbaff is encouraged to deLermine if any additional application information is needed, It is Lhe appLicant,'s responsibility to make an appointmenL wich ehe staff to
determine if Lhere are additional submitt,al reguirements.
PLease not.e LhaL a COMPLETE applicaLion will streamline the review process for your project.
ITT. TMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING AIII' SIIBMISSTONS TO TEF DRB:
A. In addition to meeting subnitt,al requirements, the applicant must sEake and tape the project siLe to indicat.e properey lines, building lines and buij-ding corners. All trees Eo be removed must be taped. Al-1 sit,e t,apings and staking must be completed prior to the
oRB site visit. The applicanL must. ensure LhaL stakingr
done during the winter is not buried by snow.
B. The review process for NEw BUILDINGS normaLly reguires two separate meetings of the Design Review Board: a concepLual review and a final review.
c. applicants who fail to appear before the Design Review Board on their scheduled meeCing date and who have not
asked. in advance that discussion on their item be posLponed, will bave their items removed from t,he DRB
aqenda until such time as Lhe itern has been republished.
D. The following items may, at the itiscretion of fhe zoning administrat,or, be approved by the Conmuni.ty
Development DeparCmenL staff (i.e. a formal hearing before the DRB may not be required):
a. Windows, skylight.s and sirniLar exterior chanqes which do not alter the existing plane of the building; and
b. Building additions not visible from any other 1oL or public space. AE che cime such a proposal is submitEed, applicanLs musL include lettefs from adjacent property o\^rners and/or from the agrent for or manager of any adjacenE condominium association staLing the associaEion approves of the addition.
E. ff a properLy is locaLed in a mapped hazard area (i.e.
snow avalanche, rockfall, flood p1ain, debris flow,wetland, etc.), a hazard study must be submitted and the owner musE. sign an affidavit recogmizing the hazard report prior Lo ghe issuance of a building permit,.Applicants are encouraged to check wiLh a Town planner prior to DRB application to determine the relationship of the property t,o a1l rnapped hazards.
F. For all residenLial consE,ruction:
a. Clearly indicate on the fLoor plans the inside face of the exLerior sLrucLural wal1s of the building,. and
b. irrdj.ud.Le wilir a ciashe<i line on che sice plan a four foot dist.ance from ttre exterior face of the buildinq walls or supporE,ing columns.
c. ff DRB approves the applicat.ion with conditions or modificaLions, all- condiLions of approval musL be addressed prior to the applicaLion for a building permit.
rV. IUEW CONSTRUC,I.J.UF
A. Three copies of a recent topographic survey, stanped by a Colorado Professional Licetrsed Surveyor, at a scale of L" = 20, or larger, on which the following informat.ion is provided:
1. Lot. area, and buildable area when different than lot. area.
2. Legal description and physical address.
3. Two foot conLour intervals unless the parcel consisLs of 6 acres or more, in which case, 5 'contour intervals may be accepted.
4. Exist,ing Lrees or groups of trees having trunks with diamebers of 4,t or more, as measured from a point, one foot. above grade.
5. Rock out.croppings and other significant natural features (1arge boulders, intermiEtent streams,etc. ) ..il'
<9"'.uo Hazard areas (avalanche, rockfall, etc.),centerline of streans or creeks, required stream setback, and 100-year flood plain,creek or
be
Ir ,v , , i,i(V. Ties t.o existing benchmark, either USGS landmark
;L.u* ,,. or sewer invert. This informffity .--'- \ ./
-
(: l_.a l_6il nh l-h6 d^ Flr-.- ^'l 1 e!,,,-- \ ,r-V scEE6-d-on Eh-survey so Lhat alL measurernenEs are V Y based on the same start.ing point.. This is
hatching.
part.icularly important for deLermining building height and driveway slope. See policy On Survey Information, for more informat.ion regrarding surveys,
8. Locations of the following must be shown:
a. Size and t.lpe of drainage culvert,s, swales,
af a.
b. Exact. Iocat.ion of
applicable. Slopes of -40t clearly delineat.ed by cross
sha11
exisE,ing utiliE,y service source Eo the s tructure,/'1 ,-llv lines f rom
-, - \ inctuding:
\> (cabre rv _--'/ TelepFof,e
lines from Lheir
a.()\:seuer 'Ga9./
i'.water.--r -glectric
\!''-
c. A11 uti. lity meter locations, including any pedestals to be locaE.ed on site or in bhe right-of-way adjacent, to the siEe.
d. Property lines - distances and bearinqs and a basis of bearing.
e. Indicat.e all easements id.ent.ified on the subdivision plat.
9. Provide spot elevations at the edge of asphaltn along t.he street. fronLacre of Lhe propertlz at
t\rent.y-f ive foot, intervals (25") , and a minimum of one spot elevation on either side of the 1ot.
Site Plan
L. Locations of the following must be shown:
- a. Existing and finished grades.
f_,,b. Proposed surface drainage on and off site.
^(}. Proposed d.riveway, irlu<iing percenE slope - and spot elevations at Che properEy 1ine,
grarage slab and as necessary alongr the
. centerline of the drive to accurately reflect
\f driveway grade.
I ^OU/t\lt .- a. A 4' concrete drive pan at the edge of
asphalL for driveways that exit Ehe st.reet in I 4n uphill di.reccion.
2. A11 existing improvemenLs incl-uding strucLures,
landscaped areas, service areas, storaqe areas,vralks, driveways, off-sE.reeL parking, -loading areas, retaining wa1ls (with Eop and boLLom of
3.
waII spot. elevations), and oLhef gxi.stinq sit,e improvemenrs. *q ft, /y- )rn order n aqdi;" n'"ff" friTi^r^n n.Jr"elevations of \!l!cp roof ridges,jurd.-sd-ves when
a
debermined necessE f-ng adminisErator,sha1l be indicated on the sit,e plan with existing
and proposed contour lines shown underneath.
Landscaoe Plan (1" = 20, or larqer) - 3 copies reguired 1. AL a minimum, t.he following information must be provided on the landscape plan:
a. Location of existing trees 4'r d.iameter or larqer,
b. Typ€, size and location of all exist.ing and proposed plant material ,
c. Locat,ion of all trees t,o be transplanted,
d. A detailed legend of all proposed plant
materj-al including common and Latin narnes.
2. The locaLion and tlpe of existing and proposed
. watering syst,ems to be employed in caring for plant maE.erial following its inst,allation.
3. Existing and proposed cont,our lines. Retaining walls should be included with the contour information with top of wal1 and. boLtom of wa11 elevat.ions 1i.s Led .
4. CompleLe ehe attached landscape maE,erials 1ist..
Sign off from each utilitv companv verifying the locat.ion of utility servj-ce and avaj-labi1ity (see
att,ached utility verification form) .
A preliminarv title reoort Schedule A and B musE.
accompany all submitLals, to insure property ownership and ident.ify all easements affecting the subjecL properEy.
Architectural plans (t/8,, = 1' or larger, t/4" is preferred scale for review) 3 copies are required.
1. Floor plans and all elevations of the proposed
development drawn to scale and fu11y d,irnensioned.Thc e.,i,eva-,-io- clro.wirigs lrur L siruw buuit exiscing ano finished grades.
2. One set of floor plans rnust be t'red-lined" to show how the gross resident,ial floor area (GRFA) was
calcu1aE.ed.
s
$
n
F
E.
SPECIFIC POIIER OF ATTORNEY
BE IT ACKNoIfIEDGED, that I. Dalton slmn of Denver, colorado' the
undersigned, do hereby grant a limited and specific power of attorney to
Robert Borne of vaiL, coLorado as my aLtorney-1n-fact.
Saj.d attorney-in-fact shall have fuLl- power and authority to undertake
and perform only the followlng acts on my behalf: FiIe pel3dts and act as
representative with regard to constuctlon of a home on lot 5Br Luplne Drive'
vaLl, coLorado.. The authority hereln sha11 include such lncj-dentaL acts as
are reasonably required !o carry out and perform the sPeciflc authorities
granted herein.
My attorney-ln-fact agrees to accept this appointment subJecc to lts
tems, and agrees to act and perforrn 1n saj-d fiduc.iary capacity consistent
with my best interest as my attorney-in-fact in its discretion deems
advlsable.
Thls power of attorney is effective upon executlon. ThJ.s power of
attorney may be revoked by me at any time, and shalL aueomatically be revoked
upon my death, provided any person relying on this power of attorney shall
have full- rights to accept and re1y upon the authority of my attorney-lD-fact
until. in receipt of actual notlce of revocation.
slgmed under seal this lst day of JuLy, 1995.
STATE oF colorado
COUNIY OF Eagle
on Jury 2O,L995 before me,personally appeared ilane
D.Borne, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basls of satlsfactory
evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) islare subscribed to tbe wltbj.n
lnstrument and acknowledged to me that helshe/they executed the sarne J-n hls/her/tbeir authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
slgnature (s) on the inst.rument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of
which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and officlal seal.
Slgnature
Affiant
Type of
_l(nown_Produced ID
ID
Page 1
( seal )
TILE SOPT
TOWNOFWN
75 Sonth Frontage Road
Vail" Colorado 81657
97W479-213V479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
Septemb€r 8, 1995
Sally Brainerd
RKD
1000 Lionsridge Loop, Suite 3D
Vail, CO 81657
Depamrcnt of Comrnunity Devebpment
REj SimResidence Final Design Rwiew Boad Approval
Dca Sally
Thank you for appearing bdore the Design Review Bord (DRB) on Wednsday, September 6, 1995 with the
proposed Sim residcnce located at 3916 Lupine Drive/Lot 58, Block 2, Bighom Fint Addition Upon final review
of the proposed Sim residence. the DRB placed swcral conditions on tie approval. Each of the conditions of
approval listed bclow nnrst be rcsolved priq to application for building permit
6,J . A revised site and landscape plan be submisetl for staffreview. The revised plans need to indicate the
nsw location ofthe proposed driveway, eight additionat trces planted along the southerly properfy line
betrveen the existing residence and thc proposcd rcsidencc. ad an amended tree presenatiot/site
disturbancc linc indicated on thc plans.
()v 2. The architect submit the revised color board as proposed and approvcd by the DRB.
OU 3. The fire dcpartnrent sign offon the newly proposed driveway plan.
6p 4. Thc arcbitect submit revised clevations accuratcly depicting the plans approved by the DRB.
ow 5. A final zone check is conpleted for the revised floor plans
withtheTown ofVail Municipal Code. <-,s&- rt *
o insure compliance
o4Daz Z f
I hopc the inform*ion addrpssed above will be of help to you as you prdeed towards the completion of the Simm
residence plans for building permit application. Should you bave any questions or concerns regarding the
information addressed in this letter, as always, plcase do not hesitate in giving me a call. I can be reacted most
easily during regular offce hours at479-2138.
Sincerely,lU-R**t-l
George Ruthcr
Town Planner
-,'t | (N
,(rb "t '"
{pr"notor*o
TOWT:{ OFVAXL
75 Sowh Frontage Road
YaiL Colorado 81657
97M79-28q479-2139
FAX970479-2452
August21,1995
D ep artment of C ommunity D ev e lopme nt
fltf r'ilPY
Sdly Brainerd
RKD
1000 Lionsridge Loop, Suite 3D
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: The Sim Resldence Conceptual Review.
Dear Sally:
Thank you for appearing before the Design Review Board on Wednesday, August 16th, with the
proposed Slm Residence, located at 3916 Lupine Drive/Lot 58, Block 2, Bighom lst Addltlon.
lJp6n conceptual review of the proposed Sim Residence site plan, the Design Review Board
recommended the following:
1. That a down slope retaining wall be added to a portion of the proposed drive to
ensure the protection and survival of the existing grove on the southeast corner of
the property.
2. That the proposed garage location be shifted to the north to allow for the
protection of the exlstlng aspen grove on the southeast corner of the property.
The driveway and garage should be shifted such that he minimum amount of
aspens are lemoved from the property.
3. As proposed, you have retaining walts in the front setback that exceed 3 feet in
height. The Town of Vail MunicipalCode permits retalnlng walls up to 3 teet ln
heigfrt in the front setback. Please review the proposed site plan and adjust the
retaining walls accordingly.
4. Please review your proposed re-grading plan. As indicated on the site plan, re-
grading oocurs in several localions at greater than 2:1. Pursuant to the Town ol
Vail Munlcipal Code, regrading cannot exceed a slope of 2:1 without a variance,
5. As required by the Town of Vail Public Works Department, please indicate on your
site plan a 4 loot driveway pan. The purpose of the driveway pan is to prevent run
otf from the proposed driveway onto the travel surlace of Lupine Drive.
6. In order to confirm proposed building height, please provide ridge elevations for
each of the proposed ridge lines. Additionally, please provide an eaveline
elevation around the structure.
{i*oto'*o
Please reMew the proposed roof plan. In comparing the rool plan as proposed on
the site plan with the proposed building elevations on sheet A4, there appears to
be a missing hip in the ridge line. lf this is so, please make the coneclion on the
roof plans.
Please submlt a color board indicaling the proposed colors and exterior materlals
for the proposed structure. At the Design Review Board meeting, dwing which
this ltem was conceptJally reviewed, the Board telt that addidonal accent colors
were necessary. Please keep this in mind as you prepare your finalcolor board.
Please provlde on your site plan as well as a witten descrlpdon ol what measures
will be taken to ensure that the fiees indicated on your plan that are to be saved,
witl in fact be protected. (i.e. construction fencing, hay bales, etc.).
Staft has not completed a slte coverage and GRFA check of fte proposed
residence. Once all changes have been made to the site plan and floor plans as
suggested by the Design Review Board, Stiaff will then complete a final zone
chmf of the plans to determine its conformance with the Town of Vail Municipal
cde. In order to provide both yourselves and staff u'ith an appropriate amount of
time to make the revisions, please submit all revised plans to the Office of
Communlty Development by no later then 5:00 p.m., Thursday, August 31st'
I hope the information addressed in this letter will be of help to you as you proceed lowards
conipeting the Design Review Board set of plans for the September 6, 1995, Design Review
goaid me6ting. Should you have questions or concerns with regard to the information addressed
in this letter, as always, please do nol hesitate in giving me a call. I can be reached most easlly
during regular otftce hours at 479-2138.
Sincerely,
7.
8.
10.
11*K'**'t
George Ruther
Town Planner
GR4r
o o ,...
B@.r
/--r^- /*#/t , nTT'
"/--J q.h e/-=^A
'Qur;*= ;-L- f-L---- I 4 fL*--z-,y-L,-.,.^-.t -rj;J -i--o*,-*
L-^--"a*--J &
5'o*r< hr4-a
G.
H.
I.
to fJia, !rim, raiJ.ings, crrimrrOcap, meter locaLions, etc. must be showu graphically and fully dinensioned.
Zone check list (attached) nust be compl_eced if the project is Located within the single-Fami1y,Prinary/Secgndary or DupLex zone districts.
Photos of the existing site and wb,ere appLicabLe, of adjacenL structures.
The Zoning Adninistrator and/or DRa nay require the submission of add.itional pl-ans, d,rawings,specifications, samples and other rnaEeriaLs (includ,ing a model) if deened necessary to detemine whether a project wilL compLy with Design GuideLines.
v.MINOR ALTERATTONS TO TEE E:XTERTOR OF BITTIJ'INGS.
Photos or sketches which clearly convey Ehe redevetopment proposal and tbe Location (sige plan) of the redeveLopment proposal. may be submit,ted in Lieu of the more formal requirements set forth above, provided all, important specifications for the proposal incS.uding colors and,materials to be used are subrnitced,.
VI. AI)DITIONS . RESIDENTIAI.I OR COMMERCIAIJ
A. Original fLoor plans wiEh alL specifications shown.
B. Three sets of proposed floor plans L/8" = 1' or larger
^ (l/Au = f is preferred)
C. Three copies of a site plan showing existing and proposed construction. Indicate roof ridge elevations with exist.ing and proposed grad.es shown underneath.
D. ELevations of proposed addiLion.
E. PboLos of the exisLing st.ructure.
F. SpecificaLions for alL maLerials and col.or sa-mpLes on materials List, (at.tached) .
At the request of the Zoaing Administrator you nay a]-so be required to submit:
G. A statement from each utility verifying location of service and availability. See aEtacbed utility l-ocation verification forn.
H. A sit,e improvement, survey, sgamped by registered
Colorado Professional Licensed surveyor.
I. A preliminary tiLle report, to verify ownersbip of property, which lisLs aLl easements.
VII . FfNAIJ SITE PIJAII
Once a buildinq permit has been issrred- and ,"..ttrqtrrir.r-i^F
undenrray, and before the Building Department wilL schedule framing inspection, two copies of an Improvenant lrocatioD Certificate survey (ILC) stalnped by a reqistered professional engineer must be subnitted. The foLlowing information must be provided on the ILC:
A. Building locaLion(s) with ties to propergy corners,i.e. distances and angles.
B. Building dimensions to tbe nearest tenth of a foot,.
tct
Al.atir.ity service Lj.ne as-Ues, showing tlpa of nat-rial used, and size and exact location of lines.
Basis of bearing to tie to sectj.on corner.
All property pj.ns are to be either found or set and stated on irnprovenent survey.
AL1 easements.
Garage sLab elevations and all roof rj.dge elevations with existing and proposed grades shown under the ridge lines
VIIT.CONCEPTUAIJ DESTGN REI,:TEIT
A. Submitt,al requirenent,s: The owDer or authorized agent of any project reguiring design approval as prescribed,by this cbapt.er may submit plans for conceptual- review by the Design Review Board to the Department of
Comnunity Development,. The conceptual review ig
inEended to give the applicant a basic undetstanding of the compat.ibiLity of their proposaL with the Townrs
oesigm GuideLines. This procedure is recommended primarily for applications more complex than single-fanily and two-fanily resid,ences. However, developers of single-fami1y and two-faniJ.y projects shall not be excluded from the opportunity to request a conceptual desigm review. complet,e appl.ications must, be submiEeed
10 workinq days prior to a.schedul-ed oRB meeting.
The following information shalL be submigted for a
conceptuaL review:
1. A conceplual site and Landscape pJ.an at a minimrn scaLe of one inch equaLs Ewenty feet;
2. Conceptual elevations showinq exterior materials
and a description of the character of the proposed structure or structures t
3. Sufficient information to show the proposal conplies with Lhe development standards qf the zone d,istrict in which the project is to be located (i.e. GRFA, site coverage calcuLations,
nurnber of parking spaces, etc.)t
4. Completed DRB application forn.
B. Procedure: Upon receipt of an applicalion for conceptual. design review, the Departmeng of Cornnrunity Development sha1I review the subrnj.Lted materials for general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the zoning code. If the proposaL is in basic compliance with the zoninq code tequirenents, the ' project sha1l be fo::vrarded to the DRB for conceptual review. If the applicaeion is not generally in compliance with zoning code requirenents, the appl-icaLion and submicLaL materials shal1 be returned.to the appLicant with a written oqlLanation as to why Lhe Connunity Devel_opment Department staff has found the project not to be in compliance with zoning code
----.!reeiiir'€iiieJ.iLS. Olrce a complece applicaUion nag been received., Ehe DRB sha1l review the subnitted, conceptual.revlew application and supporting material in ordei to deterrrine whether or not the project generally conplies with the design guidelines. The DRB does not, vote on conceptuaL reviews. The property onaer or his representaLive sha11 be present, at tbe DRB hearing.
c.
D.
E.
G.
H.
O zoNE cHEcK
FOR
amiJ.y Residence, Duplex,
ZONE DTSTRTCTS
t4 I DATE: 6/3/,/ ?S
I
I
I Single F
IJEGAL DESCRIPTION: Irol _s6
Prinary/Secondary
Block _ Subclivision
ADDRESS:
OWNER
| 4e/
&-,--l Allowed
+425=
+ 425
IJOT AREA
Proposed Total
or-
osE4 . 77h
elsl#41-c6 d ou?*
II P
3Z
^{=o.l (
tol ?.'rtl.lt',,
33',/ n
AL
_-
a-+ J.--,--+ ZZ,OA 4
3'/5'
20'
t5,
15'
Regrd EncL
carage Credic
Drive:
Complies with T.O.V.
( 3oo)/46@(eoo) (1200)_
L
NO
Wat.er Course Setback
Do Finish Grades Exceed 2:1
Environmen E al/Hazards :
(50%)
1)
2)
YES !\t.-\ AV
FLood Plain aL
Percent, Slope (< > 30%) Z.3O7a
Geologic Hazards a) Snow AvaLanche b) RockfaIl
fue"',, G%A c) Debris Flow
View Corridor Encroachment:
4) WetLands OL
Yes- No_ nb'__
Does this iieeuesL irrv!,ive a 25A Aririition? LID How much of lhe alrowed 250 Addirion is u"effiTis requesr?e/A_
Previous condiEions of approval (check properEy f ir.e) z / -xt-r ,,-<,/.,-,/
fiale1't Hnz*zo 3)
@v i'etJ /Idcrto*l I edg err b-F
\
ARCHTTECT 3- t , 7 .^- -r.-. "J pHONE
T,
ZONE DISTRTCT ?13
PROPOSED USE
IrOT SIZE
o*tlY
Primary GRFA
Secondary GRFA
. Sebbacks Front
Sides
Rear
Site Coverage
Landscaping
ReLaining Wall
Parking
Heights
Height "h4*r'\v'Ir1 7t-'''rtr''-t-t'-6{aof6@
ror.al .RFA 4'.tLs f _p* *_/Zs
BUII,DABLE
Exi s tinct
permir.red stope I t proposed Slope A t
Liqhcing Ordinance
(30) (s0)
Yes
-/a, t t"../-, 1 J ,/,
. l- ,- w/,L t.-.t*t. t-r:. "/
PROJECT: A;
DATE SUBMTTTO:
Enginocring:
Rcvicwcd by:
Commcnls:
5W-
COMMENTS NEEDEd BY:
INTER:DEPARTMENTNL REVIEW
$or agpro'rd ' h€.s3 se'o\ornr\
Datc:
Datc:
,
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OFTHE PROPOSAL:
,I @ _/)L,._,
I
,al-etto. T _A_-/-_z--< --t_.-^_l-l ./. .-^aerz-tz v aa/,-'..-a ol
-forr\ l.Agrrnryn,9o1s; fecievd a rg.rWier.red Rl r2 . rdO<..cAq ti"
- ,e^rJA--,n:-A-t'-J
lAcie qe 5ft\\ l, qs.11r, \s\idn e*'(€A tai in hci$t , See grcn.
Landscaping:
Revicwcd by:
Commcnts:
Firo Dcpt.:
Revicwcd by:
Commcnls:
Distribulcd lo lhc Firc Dcparlmcnl, public Works, and Landscaping on
I \d!MIKE McGEE
DATE SUBMITTED:DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMMENTS NEEDED BY: g/g
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PBOPOSAL:
tV-eus Sra-Ul Le &ou, (7 (es,Jencg
Commenls:
{ ?o\n €q\t'(€Aat v'trs €tt\d6[ ltp Artuc$ro)
Nofsrdifn^\.rra\'i ryecta \no\ 3t intho korrt s€r\oodA (zo')-
)ee,*flt qt At^{ a\b'rcA S\@ t\irarl Z: I
Ntb!\9 \\s lfg oe tYls co\oct rr<}Cf' neAl\n ttra dnrOe ?.
.
g#td' S g€rrt\ lt€ rs<'on{cn &fe15tVr ot rtc'debats \\o's "'rosl'
Lanrlscaping:
. @creoedelr ?gJ\olr-d
Enginccring:
Reviewed by: Teri l,'lcvrez g31g;
GREG HALL
tmfl'AUl 0 f pgsr
DD OPPENHEIMER I
Retum to
tJor A€Pso!€D' PL6g <asvtnit"
B16 cey , glct
66.ls-
Reviewed by:
Commenls: .
Firo DepL:
Hevlewed by:
Commenls:
Date:
Dalc:
Distributcd to lho Firc Dopartmcnl. public Works, and Landscaping on
IOLII'I I]F URIL CO1,I-DEV
.t
N,T!{E OT PAOIECT:
IDr!03-479-24s2 luL 2s5 l5:tl6 Nc.004 P.ll
O ,,rsq-gF F'ATERTA''
LEGAI, DESCRIPTTON: tOT5b- U'aCr, L SUDDTVT5ION a4b6-18
9TREEI ADDRES8: z4l lo I ufinz. ,..?tnp -.,,.- ..-.
Lo the Design
' ' GAa,, .', ,tn ..--.,-.-- Moh "o0 .
lhe tollowlng
REvlew Boord
intormation lD
before a fi.nal
regulred foa 6ubmiLtaI
approval can'be giveD:
IYPE OF IIATSRIAIJ A.COITOR EIEITDING IIIAtrERIALS I
Roof
9iding
Othor wau Materlals
FaEcia
Sot f i t.s
Wlndows
tlindow Trim
Doorg
Door Trim
llaDd or Deck Ralls
l'luss
Fla6hingg
Chlnneys
Trash Eaclosures
Creenhousas
Retaining walls
ItxLsrisr LightIng
Obber
(4'a^ Sbn ': tt";thatn 'Pt o3 '
E.q' C-e&z= f-h^f az+1
tE r* feaaf , ,, -e,eAt ggt
C/at| , --- Ann" < ='8,< OrA- ,, Ah-rI ,ze-t .
ll
Qorc". --_ 9.t1, Pto3 -
Ary'?
*nc . ..- Vot*,to"I--
4n2,,, .t:lo+" hs,L
De6igner:
Plrone r
D. LANDSCAPINGI NAme of,
t-
,.
replaed Wl1 /94
.fOB NAME 5t ln gtJr2?ze-e c f
SIJBDIVISION I,OT 9B /r-.t.o.&@z-FII-lING
ADDRESS
The form is used to verify service availability and location. This
should be used in conjunction with preparing your utility pLan and
scheduling installaEions. For any new construction proposal , Lhe
applicant must provide a compleLed ubility verification forrn.
The location and avaiLability of uEiLities, wheEher Lhey be main
trunk lines or proposed lines, mus! be approved and verified by Lhe
following utilities for Lhe accompanying site plan.
AI-1 auLhorizing signatures need Eo be originals.
Aubhorized Sict+ature Date
U.S. wesE Comrnunications
468-6860 or 949 -4530
Public Service ComPanY
949 - 6135
cary Hall/Rich Cooley
Holy Cross ELecLric Assoc.
949 - 5892 Engineering DePL.
Ted Husky,/Michael- Laverby
**TCI CabLevision of the nockies
949 - L224
Mark Graves
**Upper Eagle valley water
& Sanitation District *
476-7484
Fred Haslee
*rA site plan
must be shotcE offer service shall be the
NOTEr L.
rk/r .T
-. zy-?f,
2.
3.
is required. Physical locat'ion of known utilities
on Ebe site pLan. ut'iIity locations may or may not
to tbe properBy line. ani utility ext'ension reguired
responsibility of tbe property owner.
rf a utility company has concerns with the proposed
consLruction, uhe uuility represenbaEive should not
direccly on Lhe utility verificaLion form that there
is a proUlen which needs to be resoLved' The issue
shoul-d Lhen be spelled out in detail in an att'ached
letter to the roiln of vail. However, please keep in
mind EhaL it is the responsibiliLy of the utilitv
company Lo resolve identified problems'
rf the ut,ility verification form has signatures from
each of the uLil-iEy companies, and no cornments are
made direcLly on Lhe form, the Town will presume
that there are no probJ-ems and Lhat the development
can proceed.
These verificaLions do not relieve Lhe conEractor of
his responsibility t,o obtain a streeb cut permit
from the Town of vail, Department of Public works
and Lo obtain util-itv lociLions befofe d-ioolnq in
inv puU enL in the Town of
viif'. a buildino permir is ngt ? sqreet cut' pernie'
A street cuL peEiu nust be obtained separately'
4. InsLallation of serviCe l-ines are at the expense and
responsibility of the propert'y owner'
/
o +4 ,(
tnv sJiz.is
tNv 4J47.16 r
rNv af,ra.lo s
5 @
"c c
6B)
IO
z\\€\z;
\,.,
\\. ('4
p,.'r\f , \..' 4/ \'
**#,. '' / ,V--
\[-
"Klt,*
,.\
o @ /,?!,, I
,/ s,,
g'\i
14
\
oi @
to
s@ lrH 006 nc-
o
4)
7@ ,o -o
o
jq\
uH (xo T
,/;
^ lNv 4t58.72 llE ftari INV &t56.0€ S€\t::/ txv 8356.08 Ntt
"4n
.tE
9l @
,#,
4
a_892 qtn
\_e ,\ o
%,@,h
,^
'+ct
,/
e{'1a*TlT I ad6 610up €Y€TgFl
anVc.oe efr
Hbt? lFlE,
-Hl.bv c.ar{Jtr*dE4"
;':oH H G 4.n
?t, I
l- Oll
S trn Res ldenae
COLD ROOF ASSEMBLY
FI-ASHING - PAINT
2x6 R.S. FASCIA
2x12 R.S.FASCIA
FRAMING -RE: STRUCT
TYP. EXT. WALL
3/4" T&G CEDAR SOFFIT
- RE: 3/A1O
TYPICAL RAKE
I ln"-l'
Strr Resldarroe
AIRSPACE
COLD ROOF TYP
FLASHING - I
2X6 R.S. FASI
VENT w/ SCf
2X14 R.S. FA:
5/4 T&G SOFI
TYPICAL EAVE
CEIVIENTNIOUS STUCCO SYSTEM ON
BUILDING WRAP ON
EKT. SHEATHING
FULL BATT INSUI.ATION &
5,/8" GYP. BD. INTERIOR
l12--1'
Slrn Fleelderrce
STUCCO SYSTEM
g" x l-t/z"
IGID INS. RRISED
}{INDO}| TRIM },/
STUCCO SYSTEM
SHERTHIN
HERDER
SERLRNT
CLRD tllINDO'lJ
B-L/z 0 slM.
?irtJ[tEDGES)
t-t/z" X 6"
R IG IO INS.
!{RBP INTO
R IPPED TB IMMER
JRMB EXTENS
HERD
(JRMB S IM')
/1"
SlLL
(EFSE EDGES)
S ILL
t-t/2"
RIPPED
x 1-l/2"
TRIMMER
TYP. WINDOW
ln Reg ldence
Traditional
outdoor
lighting with
a budget
ln mind.
[|
Dimensions Hot. from cenler
olwall oPening
1-60-W. Max. (M)Hot. 13", Width 4%", Extension 5'l'
Hdt. ts", Width 4%"' Extension 5%"7xl"K-9401
K-9401
K.9402
K-94o2
K-94o.2
K-9402
Antioue SOLID BRASS
Polished SOLID BBASS
Clear beveled
Clear beveled 1-60-W. Max.
1-60-W. Max. (M)
1-60-W. Max. (M)
1-60-W. Max. (M)
1-60-W. Max. (M)
Antique SOLID BRASS
Black
Polished SOLID BRASS
While
Hot. 16', Width 5%"' Extension 6%"
H;t. 16', width 5%', Extension 6%"
nlt. ro", Width 5%', Exlension 6z'
Clear beveled
Clear beveled
Clear beveled
Clear beveled
I'I'
9"
9Y,"
9Y1"
'
rtw-Hgt. 14"
16', Width 5%", Extension 6/i'
. Width 6'l", Extension 4%"
. WiOtn eN', Extension 4%"./ K-9718
K-9718
Polished Brass
Verdigris
Clear
Clear
2-40-W. Max. (C)
2-40-W. Max. (C)14"
KICHLER LIGHTING 171
ACGENT -ACCENT/UNDER RAL ThiFVersatile, compacl fixlure provides
safety and security when installed under patic/deck railings.
May also be wall mounted or used witrsuppliaC stem adapler.
LOW VOLTAGE (12-VOLT)
@ K.I5O77 ARCHITECTURAL BRONZE
SPECIFICATIONS
Housing Durable aluminum
construction. % NPSM
threaded stem adapter included.
Finish Baked lhermosel
powder coat.i"rsfu
Stem mount
Socket l2-VOLT single contact bayonet base, zinc plated.
Wiring l2-VOLT lixture wired wilh 60" of 105'C #18-2, SPT-1-WA
leads. "QUIC DlSC"rM cable connector supplied.
LAMP GUIDE
.I2 VOLT
(supplied with fixlure)
24.4
(nominal at |2-VOLTS)
ACCENT/STEP Kichler's "step lite" fixtures add safety and
security to stairways, paths or palio areas. Fixtures offer a choice
ol louvered faceplate or white
acrylic lens.
LOW VOLTAGE (1z-VOLT)
ACRYLIC LENS
K.I5O7O AHCHITECTURAL BRONZE
LOUVER FACE
K-I5072 ARCHITECTURAL BRONZE
K-150'n2 WHITE
SPECIFICATIONS
Houslng Stamped aluminum faceplates with steel housing.
Finish Faceplates, baked lhermoset powder coat.
Housing zinc plated with white interior.
12-VQLT wedge base.
12-VOLT fixture wired with 18" 01 105'C #18-2. SPT-1-WA leads,
IAMP GUIDE System Lamp Type wattage
912
(supplied with lixture)
11.6
(nominal at l2-VOL
AOCENT/WELL Kichle/s well light will shed foosed illumination
on trees, shrubs, or exterior walls. 30" swivel from vertical provides
uplighting for silhouettirg, shadowing, or grazing effects. For a
unique application, mount fixture in decorative planter.
LOW VOLTAGE (12-VOLT)
@ K-I5O89 ARCHITECTURAL BRONZE
@K-r5089 SLACK
@K.I5O89 VEFDIGRIS
SPECIFICATIONS
Housing Combination die-casi and
stamped aluminum housing with
rubber gasketed heat resislant lens.
Heavy duty polyethylene sleeve
provides in-ground fixture support.
Flnish Baked lhermosel powder coat.
(Verdigris color hand-applied.)
Socket 12-VOLT porcelain bi-pin push in sockel.
LAMP GUIDE
Syslem Lamp Type Max. Wattage
12 VOLT MR16
(not supplied)
202 KICHLER LIGHTING
12 VOLT
I
I
I
I
q
q
OAvv ltl ?Jvei li -.dAf a ti i',1 +1,2,
^JC?IE 77a? ( frP.\
'-A@ eozEr- AAc- rv t; / 4=-eea---:-2/ ,r1+t=r2
? tFe ?v+.ae.
ts*U vITPa+a?4
='.-,J= fr-Z'-t.t J A-- rtJ
,()1)- f ''-c --'u.hz-
I
i
I
vFva l-
V OF? EA aA Cv\
aavTT /,T>PtauatNe ?lz' ?ua
aeaJca l=i;:'+)
4;tA t?a'rtiiJc-z
F >u? F tog
c4l HiJ?A 1#? ir=T+\'-,
I t/ z tt -' i ll 1'P"
I e-F]e -T_
?tUee F*yaA +A+'
t/>" fva 4AV^'T]P.ttJCt
d?fr? >AFr/eV
?La ffiaYtw ar''l ' 'fJ I tvde? Ja)+-l
| 1t >< O ?TUP ?tztsfl l
?t4 Fro ?;1r .+ HlL- TOva v-?-
a/b tt ar?. v?.
='r/t1tLt wlJ6 v
?Vea?- A,h+6nlt-f
7qolwte|, ap*re +ffi eA phH???
eap)4 aa'trL?ATTa rJ
- eSta f caftFlct
Vt'H'T aPtsdV
fa aa?'
F-lrtlAF I t>37ta Otlx2v AU\?'ztJFl?
?j*'n€173 y'fr>,-
,A / ftvtrl +v!ra-,lt},
AFJ
- e>l'
g\
)a ,n
tl
'll 6
0
q
';-.\l
-x :u
'il z.\r 'v t /fr, !-''.dlS' -'a 'r?l
h ?Aa
I ll .7'- p tr
4:aroza-r? a"--?+ aJ
Z'hfiVttFV4 aatsI
I>rl?a]H+-r]? len>z-* -
?-Y q!, -?An1 t'ri,fe cz il
?+(aeP ftA'F1\J1?.
aJ
,4*AT 41Ete
lO tth f4l-?aih
a11 li
c.t ?4 6?ov=tf
A\/-'tt/o
tLx
Q-X
lx
rl
?-c
?tve FvX-='e
T ILE €<,O =
7rz tA4OLb
fu 7FzolA
\--62ALv't*
aaga
x1+xb
| -/
--
,lt ll t1 : ':j:7-A
I -l-CUT ATOAU CF?
7x Q e\2dP 6f7
(z-': t--* 4 li 'r e V 4.;
'?. ^+ zVl/J? ?y'-Ja t---e-
\
_l
lO
!- , ['-' / t'b '!-:a.lorev 36 >.,,ti--r i--.1 ?gfaJ?
__.-l
ox C? 4PH? FA?eAC? Joi.d4?
( +z*1fiJ )lWV=+tW\
4-X 12- re TFIH
eV$cT Efr+..1 e-tht,*
' l'&'i ?P=,'I --v'---
o a
/_-,+Th**n 4,1 l, +'l
#* t+T.
(ot ffi.+, t 0 a#itv?€b
7?")v@2 4|.oft(rt*x\
e?E> ril 7i?47 @2'oe,a-
?o'J>P=7 Fe'Vrr--J ,rb
b/4 I '- e ll
\\\vl lt-...
t)-
I
lr;'liii
i <+
I h ,"1
=Vf,.r' ja, * Gy?. ao
?AOF f za^r-;,"iU
ac')aiJle e +a ->A
t 7v+aE ( b%o'J?A=A\
.t-'b Jt2p\€6/9' <ry,.'/-' fr4 >v,;y 4 a:)? ?7.*' ":u A/P' a,?'a rYtffi?. ?P.Z ai =A2
u ??av- ( aa,ac',:zh?Y
gVPF F?a.Yl IJC'
'ix b
+/e''1
4Tj? F?A.^t-'' J/3
T"A'X' QV. ??.=e aiT
€ wo= 771-r-l','-:Q
')???4
FIAI ^t2 f-\:
\-/'--'i-'-
K.9135 ARCHITECTURAL BRONZE
Smoke qlass. 1-lighl' 100-W. Max'
(M) Hot:g", widtfi 6%"' Extension
bzo, H-eign from center ol wall
opening 5%".
O K-999O ARCHITECTURAL BBONZE
gt6ks 3srylic. 1-light, 100-W. Max'
(M) (G-40 l-amP reC.) Dia. 15"'
i-toi.'zt'. lllustiated with K-9505
odst. Must be ordered seParatelY'
@ K-969O ABCHITECTURAL BRONZE
Smoke glass. 1-light, 100-W' Max'
(M) (G-25 lamp rec ) Hgt. 132"'
Wibrn to", Extension 10%". Height
from center of wall oPening 10"'
OK-9991 BLACK
O K-9991 VEBDIGRIS
White acrvlic. 1-light, 100-W' Max'
(M) Dia. 15", Hgt' 21"' lllustralecl
iuirh r-ssoo poit. Must be ordered
separalely.
O K.969i BLACK
@ K.9691 VERDIGRIS
White qlass. 1-light, 100-W. N
(M) Hqt. 13%', Width 10"'
Exieniion l0%", Height from '
ol wall oPening 10"'
_---.--*----
K-9990
AKTHUR T MEARS. P-L, INC.
lltnlFkaeCceduo
222 Ea Cd* A"e (-r. Calq.do E1230
303 - 6{l -}236
January 24, L995
Mr. Jim Driver
Parduc-Hldc Appraisl
4915 w. Cypress St-
Suitc 200
T*pa FL 33607
Dcar Mr. Driver:
At your requcst, t have prepatd the following preliminary appraisal of saow avalaache and
other gcologic hazads that affcct lrt 58, Bighoro SuMivision First Addition, Vail. Lot 58
is affectcd by snow avalaache, debris flow, ald rockfall hazard, all of which must bo
cmsidered in building c$ItyructioD.
SNOW AVAIANCHE
Snow av"lancbvs affecriog Lot 58 begin in thc "Waterfalln avalanch€ patbr, a sglall, steeP
drainage basin lmatcd immediately lo thc wcst of Lot 58. This avalalcho path has
approximately 15-20 acres of steep starting zone2 terrain abovc 10,t)00 fect elevatioo, all of
which can rclcasc simultarcou-sly during conditious of higb sno$rpack indabilify and produce
a large, high-vctcity avalarrhe. This starting zon€ emrot be setn from hpine Drive or Lot
5Il. The *grern spacc" wrst of t t -58 (aa alluvial fan) is the activc ruuout zotrGl fot major
avalanc.hes and muddy "dcbris flows" (see below). Durhg the major desig-avalancln
("100-year") cmdirions that Nust be considcrcd ir building dcvelc'pncnt at Vail, avalanches
will cross Lupiae pfive, impacl buildinp locat€d north of L.rpine Drire and stop in Gore
Crcek- Thes€ largc avalanches are not csmmon cvcrts; ihe alluvial fan has not bccr reached
by avalanchcs since Vail was dcvclopcd in t9ti2. lfowever, inspcction of old aerial photm
datcd 1939, 1950, ard 1962 suggest that a largc avzlaachr probably oc€Err€d bctwccn 1950
aad L962 ud may havc ovcmrn portioDs of rhe futurc "green space." I estimate that thc
' AVAIANCF{E PATH: The entire area in which an avalanche moves
2 STARTD,iG ZONE: The sreep fuencrally > 3O) stopas wbere urstable snow is
rclcrocd and avalanches acccleratc and incrcase in rnass-
3 RIINOUT ZOtiE: Arca et thc bottom of an avalanche path where arzlalches
decelerate and stop. In Vail, somc buildings arc located in thc nmout zonc.
lh V*4 r.,{E$aLr r lrr&t Claaj<aarl
return periodt of potentiaUy dcstructivc avalanches or Lot 58 is agproximatcly 30-te-10o
years (a LCh lo 3qo aunual probabiliry)-
Tbc desigr-mapitude avalaqche-s thar affect I-ot 5B will be capablc of seriously rlamaging ol
dcstoying a builOing if it has not begrr dcsigned for avalaucbe fcrces or otherwise pmtected.
Portions of fof Sg lies within a 'Red Zonc" wierc avalaflch€ risk to too s€rrsrp to pcmit
tmilding aud is thcrcfore prohfuited by Tovm of Vail ordinancc. Most of thc reanaindcr of tho
lot is iu the t'Bluc Zone" wbcre avalanchc impacl forccs or Aequency is tcduccd somcwbat
and building is porrritted by the Town if special construction tecbnigucs are used to cosure
stability agiinst avalanchc impact. Howcvcr, tho REd 7*nc/Bluc Zouc boundary is ouly an
agproximation. Large, potcntially destructivc avalalcbes clul ovElrun mo6t of Lot 58; thci'
will estrain 6p€n trees into thc flow that worsen avalanche impa* potoutial
Building withi-u the "Blue Zone" is pennincd by Vail ordinance if mitigation is ircorpontcd
into dcsign and comtruction. Thc following must be includcd in desigtt:
o The bsitdhg must be orientcd s(J that tbe short dimemion is exposcd to the
avalanchc;
r Thc uphitt building sudece must be suorgiy reinforced for avalanche fsrccs
(includiug impacr of trces); vcrtical surfaces and wirrdows/door may Dot bc possiblc;
r Thc buildiDg exposure facing tbe geen space must also bc rcinforced for avalanche
loads;
I AII avalancbc desip loads must bc computed through application of thc most
rcliable avalarrche-dlnamics proccdurcs;
r Design features that attract people duriag thc avalarrche sason (November - May),
such as dccks and hot tnbs, must be avoided in all avalanchc:ucas and espcciatty on
tbc uphill side of 16s luil.ling.
Itl SulnDlafy, a building can be ptaced oo this site ancl is pcrmined by Vail ordinancc.
Ifowcvcr the design of thc building will bc sbongly controlled by the deign-avalanchc
conditions. The addirional desip and corlstructiotr cost will prut'ably be in thc rauge of 10%
to 2frTo over a builditg of similar size i-s a lou-avalanchc area. Because avalanchcs arc not
a csmmon oocurrcncc al this site, the avalmchc risk to people near thc building will he small.
DEBRIS FLOWS
The alluvial fan (grccn space) and ponions of tot 58 has beeu formcd by rcpcated detris
flows and debris aralanchcs originating in thc Watcrlall drainage basin. The.se flonrc will
transport watcr, uud, aud entrained dcbris, incl.uding tnees and bouldcts at lcast as fax as
Lupino Drive aad possibly to Gorc Clcck duriag psriods of satuatcd soil coaditions.
4 RETURN FERIOD: The average intenal between avalanchcs of a givcn size; the
retum perioq T is rclatcd 1s 1bc annusl probability, P by thc relationship T = LlP. Thc rcturn
pcriod or probability docs not sperify whexr m. avalanche occxtls.
These flsws will entcr a portion of lrt 58 already dcsignated a Red avalanche bazard zonc.
Thc debris florv condition'qrill not, therefore, affcct building oo Lot 58.
ROCKFALL
Aoccrdi$ to Town of Vail bazard mapa, l-ot 58 is located wetl wjthi:: a -high sc. crity"
rockfall arca. Tbese high-sevcrity areas arE &fincd by tbo Town of Vail as are.s u/hcrc
'..,,.ruck cmuup,s sqc thick or numerorlt and mare tnas 100 ftet above ths hill^ci& r.irh.iSrficsnt
fracturiry ard pcshaps e [a:ge ausbs af t*tn or boulderg ar tbe base of e #eP hin<idE ""t
Atthough not erplicitly stated in the Vail rcckfall hazard rcport, the severc hazard rocldall
arcas would probatty rcquirc cxtcusive mitigatiotr for rockfall impact. I havc uot cYaluated
this sitc for rocklall hazard, howevcr, during several prcvious invrstigations of dcsignatd
roclf,all sites I cqncludcd tbat mckfall hazard was aot as sgvere as iadicated oD the Vail
'naps- Structural mitigatioa of the' rockfall hazard was fcasiblc at all of thesc sitcs.
Io ordcr to quantify the rockfall hazard and define the mitiption dsign paaoctcrs, tbc
follox'ing steps would bc rcquiredt
r Field investigation of thc rockfali source (outcrcp) arcas;
e Ouantificatir:n of rrrckfall sizcs, bouncr hcights, and velocitics;
e Specificetion of mitigation dEtails.
Althougb rockfall abnost ccrtaidy is a design considcration, the building comtraints pobably
will not be a sovere as thosc associated with avalanches,
In summary, ,;." 6{rilding site on l-ot 58 is scriorsly cxposcd to sirorn' avalanches, is probably
also cxpo.sed to rockfall, but is not cxpo.scd to debris flows. Snow aualanche is thc mo.st
potentially dangcrous and dcslructivc proc€ss at this site. Howwer, avalanchc haead can bc
mitigated with special attcntioo to building desigl. Avalanche forces may, fiowel'er, pccludc
"oormaln building design and will incrcasc thc dcsign and coastruction costs significantly.
Close commrmication botwccn thc avalanchc-control cn&incer and an architect erperiaced in
aralmche-mitjgation dcsign wiU be requircd and is highly recommcnded.
Please contact ne if you bave additional questiom.
Sinccrely,
MhQ.ulitena
Arthur I. Mears, P.E.
Avalalchc- couhol engineer
Nicholas Lampiris. Ph.D,
coi{srrTrNc $EQLO(IIST
P.O. EOX 2
stLT. coLoRADO 81652
(rxr5l 87F5,t00 (94 HoUFB)
Alrq Lr6t :19 r lL)']A
Foh er t: For n e
5(r52F $nowslroe l.-ane r/ai I CA 81657
fiEl: I'ti-{r"1rrl Evdrl unti{rn,' [-mt 13,| Eti.ghorrr l?rrtl Atldi ti r:n
f)erarr Mr " Forng:
I viqited the atrpvr+ re{erenced lot in Vrli I rec+rrrtl y ,f r:rr pur'Fcr$ecj
of 4 fleoloOic hardrd evaltr6ticln, tlrFesi 6l Iy ax J t p.lrtains to t'ock .F;rl l ]:otent-i al. . Ars yot''t know thtd hiirsard Ie sfrnwrr by ttr$Tnwn c]f V,ai I '$ mrRpE ar! "a f + .|6t t r-r € yrlLrr pr-crperr-ty , ni tfr A ',hi gh c;everity' fr I ;r$s I + i tr at t 6n , 6now avql anche is alao 6 potential hatar-rj at ttr€ si te but hrrg bsen ev.rl uated by anot.her.
llr mf e--t'i Dn,xl .Al thorrgh dehri:s +I.:rw ,$reflF of pcrt,rerrti,al hazerrrJ,
;rt+ mairped by {h. t l"lesar"s, inpFr$flr to ex e l L(clF thE ar+l.a o.f t.}rra L dt-
;-rropoeerJ f {r?' devHlopoent ! it wil! be dtBel.rH6t1d.
Ply general f inr3inqs nre that the". rt:cl( .f ,all I harard lrs inclepr,pre{*Fnt butl i. q, nr:t Eiev€}r tit !i h{twrsver E$mE mi. t- i g;ati on i s i rr nr-rJpr .Thei ster:p hi Llsj.cle+ +qbova yaur hoane Iii lat Iearrt 35.10 f sish trIUh .ehd is hedvl. 1y f ore*tad, Tlri 6 I n'l- lri ahout trXl f Fet tr clm thr-t, Lr arri:: crf th.ht h t I l. $t de and tlrerF,'+ (Jrd ntit .1, i kel y to he y-eached by rnriny
btrltl rjmrE. Tlre hopoqraphy ls also snmpwhat +i{vorabl n l.n that there i*i ,n:r homa between muc:h of the slape and your- r;ite.
There are a nr-.rrnber of fri q houl ddr:i r:n thG eli tct tJhI ch can be
al:Lqnr:cl q,n thG"' not'th slde o+ thr* lrrt ,f $r' prfltf-'$tifin arrd irF,JrhqFs cJirt r,:.rn he placed trstt.:l*flrn the bc:t-rldet-s f r:r cr:heriion r ,adclpd br,rl [{ }.lnd +or t hr-. pc'tential f or vegEtatiorl i { that. i15 de$l rerl ,, Ttrer
r(]cl(r-! shol,rl r:l FtF Irl,aced gio 'tF to af f orrJ m;rxirnuln F r.rt.€+ct i t]n. Ar:i an
;rclcit.cl prerca t i fln Lll("r r-rrar o{ the hc)mr+ Bh(i\.1I c, be delii. on(ed wl Lh dt rr:.qr' { ctt,ttttJ,'{t: i r'}n wal. I prrotrr,lclin0 abDLrt- thr u+ej f s:c..:t dlrr-rvu- 'f iniqhrp
cjrarJe flfid he eaparbl e ef wl thsrteinctl ng +$f '(:a:!i o{ up to 3O() pouncls
pr elr squrarr: ftro'f - Th*lt-e sshcrul cl be no wiDdowB in tlrte interval ,T'h{isF |ni'E1{.rttv*: gtt+trrii will {,i[;:il"J serve tu Frc|t-H(:t- th.! ],rorne f rnm iI\rlY debri$ {Iol^ls r^lhich may travel thi!5 {:,ar {r"orn t.l-r rt [r,u*re r:{ tfr:a
5l Opr"
llr,ri na6e aF'frLtnd tihH hornd eihor".tl cl bre firervj slncl and tl,r* hrrfitl tshoLrl rl l;r+ derii gned te pr*event the acclrinul, ati li|l o+ r-.adorr sas .r!! thi. I i u
hdlcoml nq Ft€n('isr-d pretrtt$B in the 6tate. {iioi llr lnvestl-qeitlofl f {irr"
Ftlr-Fo{ies o+ fJpofrttr' {6uncla+.l(rl| rJe's:lgn l5hcrr-l I d pr^e}cedlr c6nldtrLrcf i on.
Fer.rtt:iel cJf thF ha;rar-cJ rH-qr"rl n'lii ons, o+ the{ Triwn of V.:l I l r r:arr* nrurgih h# t {r}:eh to nc}t :i ncrefl$ej th6 I'ritt Hrd Le a rr*i qhhor- bv your
nt t+rmpt+ 6t- mi t l. qatl(:h.
t0J t00 8l;tl 5l-t0-E661
The Froperty d6as lle l a Ec€loqical ly senlritivG srcrer but
dovcl qFnrnt nill not incrFagq th|t hl?Erd to otFrar prdprFtyr tir
structurasr DF tn publ i c rl ghtr-tef -ury t rordl I r*trccttt saegnentst utllttt|r or +rctlttlt!] or oth€r proFcrtlEt of rny
kind" If thFrs *rr 'furthsr qucrtlontr plet$F contact mE.
Bl ncerel v.
,&luq*-NtcholFl l/imotrle
Consul t i ng SprFl eg I rt
eod t00 6I:!l S[-1.0-5681
JUL-25-1995 e,2"3?STEilART
o
A. AJ-,,TA OWNER't t.rtafi.2
PROPOSED INSTIRED: {i*L€€$l SIM
;(4995 at 8: oo
POLICIES Tn trtr T C CriFn .
B. AIJTA IrOAN POLICY
PROPOSED INSURED: WESTSTAR
C. ALTA LOAN POLICY
PROPOSED IN9URED:
TITLE ESGLE COUI.IT
SCHEDULE A
o
A.v1 .
A!,lOlJN: oF INSiIRAIICE -4gG)-F
=i'j-
P.@L
ORDER NUMBER:
.1 ErErtritarT TrrF
2. POIJICY OR
'/p)
D
-BANK
F
ffi.,,Z"j ,1.1'? 5s4
3.TI{E ESTATE OR ]NTEREST IN THE I,AND DESCiIBED OR R,EFERRED TO IN TIITS
COMMITMENT AIID COVERED HEREIN IS FEE SIMPLE A$D TITLE IHERETO IS AT tliE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF VESTED lN:. :
MICHAEIJ 1.,. GRAbIT and DEBORAH A. GRAIIT
TIIE IAND REFER,RED TO IN TI{IS COMMITMENT IS DESCRIBED A5 FOLLOWS:
LOT 58
FINAI. PLAT, A RESTISDIVISTON OF LOT 5, BLOCK 2,
BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, FIRST ADDT?TON/according to the PLat reco=ded June 30, i992 in Book 583 aE Page 63-0 as RecepE.ion No .' 479716
COUI{TY OF EAGLE
STA?E OF COLOF-ADO
THIS C2 COMMIIMENT WAS PREP.ARED ON JIINE 27, 1995. FOR QLESTIONS pLEASE C,4IJL TRItDy MATARESE AT (970)949-1011 .
PREMIUM:owNERS: 995.00
IT1ORTGAGEE; 50 . 00
TAX CERt. : l-0 . 00
Copies to;Miehael L. Grant
Deborah A. Grant
oal ton Sim Ginny Culp
,Jane Brock
t)=n -WacF€rpr Er'ric
STEWERT TITIJE
Vf A+aslA \-\JUr.r ! ! ,, J.r\\',P.O. BOX 2000 vAIIJ, CO, 8t_5s8
\ JUJ,I 9+y-tUJ'r
COUIiITERSIGNATIIRE
JUL-25-1995 A?339 TITLE EAGLE COUNT P.A2
SCHEDI,]I,,E B _ SECTION ]-
ORDER NUMBER: 95011713 -C2
REQUIREMENTS
TTTE FOI,LOWING ARE THE REQUIREME} TS TO BE COMPIJIED 9IITH:
I?EM (A) PA:IIYTENT TO OR. FOR IHE ACCOUNT OF THE GRAI ToRS oR MoRTGAGoRs OF TI{E FtILrr CONSIDERATION FOR THE ESTATE OR INTEREST To BE INSURED.
ITEM (B) PROPER INSTRUI"IENT (S) CREATTNG THE ESTATE OR INTEREST TO BE
INSURED MUST BE EXECUTED AND DULY FILED FOR R.ECORD, TO WIT:
1. Execution of affidavit aa ro Debte and Liens aFd its reiurn to SterrJart' Title Guaranty Company. ,/
2. Evidence satisfactory to €tewarE Ticle GuaranEv companv of iJ payment of all outstanding' taxes and ageessmenLs as-ceigifiedl by fhe Eagle County Treastrer.
STEI.,JART
o
3. Execution of, Certificaie - Entity Transferor/Individual Traneferor and its return ..o the- office.
4. Evi.dence satisfact,ory to SEewart Titie Guaranty Company that Ehe real esEaEe transfer Eax assessed by Ehe Toran of Va-i1 has been paj-d or that t,he transacEion is exempc from said tax.
5. Release by the Public TrusE.ee of Eagle County of Ehe Ueed of Trust from Michael L. Grant and Deborah A. Giant for the uee of Sable Lupine Partners, LJtd., a Colorado Limited Parcnership, ro secure S210,0C0.00, dated March 7, t994, recorded March 11, 1994 j-n Book 534 at Page 643 as RecepEion Na. 530F98.
The above Deed of Trust is eubject Eo a Modi-fication and Continuation of Promissory Note, recofded Decernber 1_6, 1994 in Book 65? at Page 308 as Reception No. 553340.
6. Deed from Michael L. Gran-.- and Deborah A. Grant,, vesting fee sJ.mple liEle in Dalt,on Sim.
d
,olao
NOTE: NOTAIION OF T!{E LEGAI AIDRESS OF TIIE GRANTEE WJST APPEAR.
ON THE DEED AS PER 1975 AMENDMENI TO STATUTE ON RECORDING OF
DEEDS 'CRS 38-35-109 (2) .
7. Deed of TrUEE from t.he Bcrrower to ehe Public Truatee for :he use of the proposed lender to secure the loan.
NOTE: In the eveft a Power of .A,t,torney is used in connection
^^i-i-..^,i s|Jrr L i.l |..gra v{r .rgrt|r Pagc
,,JA
JUL-25-1995 82!38 STEilRRT
o
TITLE ERGLE CT]UNT P. A3
CONTINUATION SIIEET
SCI|EDUITEB-SECfIONI
ORDER MII'IBER: 9501-L?l-3 -C2
wiE,h t.his Eransaction, please noEe Ehe following requiremencg:
Said Power of Attorney mu€tt be dated no more than six
monrirs before dac,e of said transacsion,
Powcr of, At,torney musc meee approva] of Stewart Titie Guaratlty
Company, and Bhould be preeenled to Stewart TiEle Guaranty
Comirany'prior to closing-ly at least one week.
NOTE: For an addlcional charge, SEewart Tit1e of Eagle Counby wiII provide any copies of exceptions ae shown on schedule e -
Secbion 2.
JUL-25-1995 A?|39 TITLE ERGLE COUNT
SCI{EDULE B - SECTION
EXCEPTIONS
ORDER NUMBER: 95011713-c2
THE POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSLT-ED I{IIJL CCNTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE
FOLLCWING IJNLESS THE SI\ME .AR8 DISPCSED OF TO THE SATISFACTION OF
THE CCMPANY;
o P.E4
SI{OWN BY THE
- ! EtNf.tt\ |
U
RIGHTS OR CLAIMS OF PARTIES IN PCSSESSION }'IOT
PUBLIC RECORDS.
EASEMENTS, OR CIJAiMS OF EASEMENTS, NOT SHOWN
RECORDS.3. DISCREPAI{CIES, CONFLICTS IN BOUNDARY LINES, SHORTAGE IN AREL,
ENCROACHMENTS, AND AI{Y FACTS WHICH A CORRECT SURVEY AND
INSPECTION OF THE PREMISES 1^iOUI.ID DISCLOSE AND WHICH ARE NOT
SHOWN BY THE FUBI.,IC RECORDS.
4. ANY I-,,IEN, OR RIGIIT TO A LIEN, FOR SERVICES, IABOR OR MATERIAJ-,,
i{ERETOFORE OR I{EREAFTER FI'RNISHED, IMPOSED BY I,AW A!{D NOT
SHOWN aY THE PIIBITIC RECORDS '5. DEFECTS, IJTENS, ENCUMBRAIICES, ADVERSE CL',AIMS OR OTHER MATTERS/
IN ANY, CREATED, FIRS? APPEARING IN TITE PTJ'BLIC RECORDS OR
ATTACI{ING SUBSEQUENf TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE liEREoF BIJr PRIOR
TO THE DATE PROPOSED INSURED .ACQUI.R.ES oF RECORD FOR vAIJttE
THE ESTA,TE OR INTEREST OR MORTGAGE THEREON COVERED BY THIS
COI"IIIITMEIflI .
5. IINPATENTED MINING CLAIMS; RESERVATIONS OR EXCEPTICNS
IN PATENTS OR AN ACT AUTHORIZINC THE ISSUANCE THEREOF;
WATER RIGHTS CL.EIMS OR TITLE TO WATER.
NOTE: 'TMECII\NIC'g LIENU .AND/OR 'r GAP. PROTECTION
(EXCEPfIONS 4 ATID 5 ABOVE) }IAY BE AVAIIABLE WITH AII
OIiINER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE ON RESIDENTIAIJ
PROPERTY UPCN COMPLJIAI'ICE WITH STEWART TITLE GUAIANTY
REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE CAI.,L FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
AS TO TTiOSE SPECIFIC REQUIREI,IENT (S) NECESSARY TO
OBTAIN THIS COVERAGE.
7. Any and all unpaid taxes and assessmentrs and any unredeemei tax
sales.
8. The effect of :nclusions in any g'eneral or specific wacer
conservancy, fi-re protecEicn, soil conservaLlon or other
distJict oi inclusion in any rrater service or etreet irnp:-owement
9, ReservationEi cr exceptions in PaEenLs, or !n Accs au:horizing
Ehe issuance Ehereof, incl-uding Ehe reservaeion of a right of
way for dr-tches or canals consErucceci by che autrhcrity of the
United gta:eg, aa reserved in UniteC gtates Patent reccrded
f ,.'.r r i r,r , ad .rtt n,--^- ---xE pag:e
JUL-25-1995 02',t39 TITLE EAGLE COUNT P. A5 o
CONTINUATICN SHEET
SCHEDULEB-SECTION2
5X-5?TIONS
CRDER NUMBER: 9s011-71-3-e2
November 22, 1939 in Bock 123 aE Page 625.
l0. Ten percent non-participating royalty in and to proceeds derived frcm t,he sale of minerals, of whacsoever kind and nature,
produeed and mined from t,he said, premises, as reserved by Gusc Kiahtipes and Eva J. Kiahtipes by instrunene record,ed November 2, 1962 in tsook 156 at Page 407, and any and all assignmen!.s thereof or interests therein.
11. Restrictions as contained in inscrument recorded December ?0,
1962 in Book 174 at Page 403 as Recep'-ion No. 96856 and
irrecrument recorded in Book 1?5 at Page 33.
l-2. Easements, reetrictlone and rights-of-ways as shown on the PIaE of Eighorn Subdivision recorded December 3, l-962 a6 Recepeion No. 96766.
13. Easernent for consErdcLion and naintenance of gas dislribution
aystrem in and along rcads of Bighorn Subdivision, as recorded
August 11, l-965 in Book 190 at Page 40s as Reeeption No, 101914.
5 | EL{I-i|t I
v
l-4. Order and
JuIy 18,
15. Order and
reeorded
Decree creating tsighon Water DistricE, as recorded
1957 as Reception No. l-062L0.
Decree C=eating The Bighorn Fire Protection Distriet,
December 9, 1971 as Recept.lon No. l-18234.
l-6. Easements, restricticng and rights-of-ways as shown on the Final Plat, a Resubdrvision of L,,oc 5, Block 2, Bighorn Subdivigion,
First Addition. recorded ,June 30, 1992 in Book 553 af, Page 510
as Receotion Nc . 4797L6.
DoT
Pursuant to Senate BilI 91-14 (C.R.S, r0-11--122) Notice is hereby given thac:
?a) lhe subject real- propert,y nay be locatec in a speclal
caxing disirict;
b) A certificate of Eaxes due Ilscing each taxingr jurisdiction may be obtained fron t.he County treasurer or t,he Ccun.-y Treasurer' S authorized agent,'
Coneinued. on next page
JUL-25-1995 A2|44
(fft*t
rlrLE EAGLE colslr
CONTINUAIPION SITEET
SSHEDULEB-SECTIQN2
EXCEPTIONS
P. A6
OR.DER NUMBER: 95011713-C2
Pureuant t,o genate Bl11 92-143 given that:
c) fnformation regarding special districts and Ehe boundariee of such distrlcts nay be obtained from the board of County Commiesioners, Lhe County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Aaseseor.
(C.R.S. 10-11-122) Noticc is harebv
A certificate of taxea dua ll-eting each taxing jurlsdietion shall be obLaiued from rhe County Treasurer oi Ehe County Treaeurer' g authorized agent.
TT]TAL P.6
6lr
ON JOBSITE AT ALL
Permit #:
Lof /3G)
A 6J,t',-
IIMES
E9 6-0171
5-
/-f r.
TOWN OF VAIL
75 S. FRONTAGE ROAD
vArL, co 81657
97 0-47 9-2138
Investigation>
tJi l. L Ca L t---->
TOTAL FEES--->
Job Address
Location. . .
Parcel No. .
Project No.
APPLICANT SUPERIOR ALARM VAIL
PO BOX 2644, VATL CO 81658
CONTRACTOR SUPERIOR ALARM VAIL
PO BOX 2644, VAIL co 81658
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NOTE: THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED
ELECTRICAL PERM]T
3916 LUPINE DR
SIM RES]DENCE
2101-111-03-0L2
PRJ9 5-019 7
DULUDE CLAUDIA
5O4O MArN GORE PL #B-5, VArL CO 81657
Additiona L Fees--------->
Tota I Perni t Fee-------->
Paynents--------
BALANCE DUE-----
Status...: ISSUED
Apptied..z 08/05/t996
Issued...: 08/05/I996
Expires. . : 02/01/1997
Phone z 30347 67300
Phone: 3034767300
.00
53.00
ouR oFFICE FROt't E:00 All 5:00 Pil
rl -{ -e-e-r-r.A--'-.-J .
OWNER
Description: FIRE ALARM SYSTEN SFR
*t(i****ffi*Johjcld.tr*triffitk*rr#ffi#r,rf*tck FEE
E Lectri cat---> 50.00
DRB Fee
Valuation:1r 045.00
SUI4MARY ffi**thffi ***tnffi(#*iffi.fi#(ffid'H*
Totat catcu lated Fees---> 51.00
.00
3. 00
53.00
****ff *rlr*ir****lrj<ff *iikffi ffi *Hi#***irtiHffi Jdr****i#drtihf***lt*i*ffir*:ffi *********
Dept: BUILDING Division:IIem: O6OOO ELECTRICAL DEPARTMENT a8/65/L996 DAN Action: APPR
t ***t**irr#(ffi ,r*riRffi 't*ffi i**fr***i*ffi*t*
CONDITION OF APPROVAL
*rt***J<rH(*t**Jiffirt ffidr*J*ffil#**#ffidr*t(ffi r**t**ffi trffi ff **.J*irriffir*rrffi *ffi* Jr*
DECLARATIONS
I hereby acknowtedge that I have read this appLicstion, f il,Led out in fuL( the infornation required, completed an accurate Plot
ptan, and state thit alL the information provided as requi red is correct. I agree to compl'y vith the infornation and pLot Ptan/
io clmpty rrith att Town ordinances and stete [aws, and to buil.d this structure according to the Town's zoning and subdivision
codesr'dlsign review approvcd, Uniform BuiLding code and other ord'inances of the Town appticabl.e thereto.
REOUESTS FOR TNSPECTIONS SHALL BE I''IADE TUENTY-FOUR HOURS IN ADVANCE BY TELEPHONE AT 479-213E OR AT
<r- P
SIGNAT{JRE OF OIINER OR CONTRACTOR FOR HIIISELF AND OI,INER
TOWN OF VAIL
75 S. FRONTAGE ROAD
vArL, co 81657
97 0-47 9-2138
OWNER
Description: FIRE ALARM SYSTEN SFR
*** Jr*rt* J#*Lli*i.ffi ,rffi *#irffi ****)ffi*
E[ect|icat---> 50.00
DRB Fee
Job Address
Location. . .
Parcel" No. .
Project No.
APPLICANT SUPERIOR ALARM VATL
PO BOX 2644, VAIL CO 81658
CONTRACTOR SUPERIOR ALARM VAIL
PO BOX 2644t VAIL CO 81658
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NOTE: THIS PERMIT I"IUST BE POSTED
ELECTRICAL PERMIT
3916 LUPINE DR
SIM RESIDENCE
2101- 11 1-0 3-012
PRJg5-0197
DULUDE CLAUDIA
so4o MAIN GORE PL #B-5, VAIL CO 81657
ON JOBSITE AT ALL TIMES
Permit #: 896-0171
Status . . .
Applied..
Issued...
Expires. .
Phone z 30347
Phone z 3034767300
I SSUED
08/05 /ree6 08/0s/re96
02/ot/Lee7
o,/ 5uu
Investigation>
ti i L l, Ca l,l,---->
TOTAL TEES.-->
.00
3.00
53.00
Valuation:1, 045 .00
FEE SUB ARY #(#t#rr*ffirlrt*ir**ffiiffilrr#****
Total ca Lcu tated Fees---> 53.00
Additional, Fees--------->
TotaL Perni t Fee-------->
Payments--------
.00
53.00
53 .00
BALANCE DUE-.---
***rr**tiffirr(ffiffi**#r***f***t rr*rrffitdrtlr#c*Jr*****ffir*Jdr**rrffit#dr*********iri.ffi(irlrffi*tdrtr
Dept: BUILDING DiViSJ.ON:Item: 05000 ELECTRICAL DEPARTMENT 08/05/1996 DAN Actionr APPR
**ffrr.J*Jr*#.H*Jrtffi*ffir*irffi#.*ffir*ffi *****L***rr*ffiffidi*td
CONDITION OF APPROVAL
*tr***tlct ffi ffi i*ffidrt*ffi ffi**ffi ffid*t*ffi ffi(:k.t**f*rrtrt**lr* Jr***ffi *
DECLARATIONS
t hereby acknowtedge that I have read this apptication, fiLted out in ful], the information required, conPteted an accurate PLot
ptan, ana state thit atI the information provided as required is correct. I agree to comPl.y w'ith the intormation and Ptot Pl'an,
io compl,y vith al,l, Town ordinances and state Laws, and to buiLd this structure according to the Town's zoning and subdivision
codes, disign reviev approved, Uniforn Buitding Code and other ordinances of thc Tovn appIicabte thereto.
REOUESTS FOR INSPECTIONS SHALL 8E I'IADE TI,IENTY-fOUR HOURS ]N ADVANCE BY TELEPHONE AT 479-213E OR AT
<:- P-
oUR oftlcE FRO S:00 An 5:00 Pl'l
ir --{ e-e_s.s,,N---..-_) .
SIGNATURE OF OI.]NER OR CONTRACTOR FOR HII'ISELF AND OIINER
o
************
Statennt
*************************
****************************************************************
\v
***************************
TOWN OF VArL, COLOSADO
Statemnt Nurnber: REC-0179 Amount:
Pavment Method: cK Notation: #1130
s3.00 o8/05/95 L5222 Init: Ds
896-0171 Type! B-ELEC ELECTRICAL PERMIT
2101-111-0 3-0l_ 2
39].6 LUPINE DR
SIM RESIDENCE
TotaL Fees:
53.00 Total ALL Pmts:
Bal-ance:****************************************************************
Permit No:
Parcel No:Site Address:
Location:
This Paynent
Account Code
01 0000 41313
01 0000 41336
Description
ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES
WILL CALL INSPECTION TEE
53.00
s3.00
.00
Amount
50.00
3.00
at
TOWN OF VAIL
?5 S. FRONTAGE ROAD
vArL, co 81657
97 0-47 9-2]-38
E Iectr i ca [--->
DRB Fee
NOTE: THIS PERMIT MUST
ELECTRICAL
JOBSITE AT ALL TIMES
Permit #: 896-0171
Status...: APPROVBD
Applied..: 08/05/1996 riiued... : 08/05/t'se6
Expires. . : 02/07/L997
Phone: 3034767300
Phone: 303476730O
.00
53.00
.00
53.m
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY LOPMENT
o
DEVE
ON BE POSTED
PERMIT
APPLICANT SUPERIOR ALARM VAIL
PO BOX 2644, VAIL co 81658
CONTRACTOR SUPERIOR ALARM VAIL
Po Box 2644, VArL co 81658
OWNER DULUDE CLAUDIA
5O4O MArN GORE PL #B-5, VArL co 81657
Description: FIRE AI-,ARM SYSTEN SFR
Htrffi Hrffi ***ffi****tr#*r**#**t**'rrikHr**tr F EE
Valuati-on:1, 045 . 00
SUlll,lARY ****fr******r**r****,rf*tt*tf**tfffr*****tffi*ffi
Totat Cal,cutated Fees---> 53.m
Job Address
I-,ocation. . .
Parcel No..
Project No.
3.00
53.00
3916 LUPINE DR
SIM RESIDENCE
2101-111-0 3-0L2
PRJ9 5-0197
50. m
.00
lnvestigat'ion> .0O
Additional' Fees-------->
Tota I Perrit Fee-------->
Payment
BALANCE OUE----Ui l" L Cal. L---->
TOTAL FEES--->
Item: 06000
08 /05 /ree6
ELECTRICAL DEPARTMENT DAN ACTiON: APPR
DepT: BUILDING DiViSiON:
CONDITION OF APPROVAL
ffir*#r*#rtfr#nffirffi**tr**ffiffffi***rtffi*rrffrtt*ffrffi,t****tl**rnHfirtt**ffirffi*****f*****M
DECLARATIONS
r hereby.cknoyl,edga that r have read this appl,ication, fitted out in futt the infornation required, conpleted rn
ptan, and state that al,L the infornation pro;;ded as required. is correct' .l agfee to compty trith the infornation
to conpty Hith al,l, Town ordinances and stlte [aws, and io bui l,d this structure according to the Tovn's zoning and
codes, design reviey approvJ, u"it..t Buitding code and other ordinances of the Toun apP[icable thercto'
accuratc ptot
and ptot Ptan,
suMivision
8:00 Afi 5:00 P
REOUESTS FOR INSPECTIONS SHALL BE IIADE T9EIIfi-FOIJR HOURS T[ ADVANCE BY TELEPHONE AT 179-?138 OR AT OUR OFFICE FROIT
ffiR FoR HIIISELF ANo orNER
e . County
640 for
PERr.rrT APPLTFATTON FORM oere: elr \q(,3 a5 - c,lrl
, APPLICATfoN MUST BE TILLED OUT COI.IPLETELY OR IT IrtAY NOT BE AccEpIED
X*** ******** ***!r************** PER!{IT fNFORI.IATION rr***************** ***** *:r****tl , =rA€- ALLE.'I
Office
Block_ Fil inc SrTBI-trvrSroN:
C'rrr&ta-D*t3'a' 4--lq Z i+\
tttolffi
o,. vArL coNsrRuc't
a - 3-31 ' ,r*,r, o
(.'rrr&.s -D,,.rJ.a
Address:
Address:
ILECTRICAT: ! ,o_ff_OTHER: $
t J/ F lF.E- f\\-FG!' \I J-Building t ]-Pfuqbing [X-Electrical [ ]-]rechanibal [\<]-other sysrsr^
( t '-- ., | \ '---.- -.,Job Name: ).*q > LeS,D-*(A Job Address: BAt(._ L-PrsJE r)R.r\.;e_
Ph.
Architect:Ph.
ceneral Description:
I{ork class: D{-New [ ]-Arteration [ ]-Additionar [ ]-Repair [ ]-other
Nunber of DwelLing Units:t Number of Acconmodation Units:
f*"t
and TyPe of Fireplaces: Gas Appliances- Gas r,ogs X. wood/perlet_
/f********************************* vAtuATIONS * *** ******** * ************* * ******
Legal Description: Lot
Owners Name:
BUfLDING: $
e-S, D art:-'i-',r.,--- F,c)-E A! A-2$-\<,+.\-t-L\ --*r.-y)
:^t::::-r:.toltgctor :_<- -++.a, -;a -\ r_ r.).,t \ \_ \r r_
AOqfeSS:
-J
-C --1. o>, 264=]$'')\ \ rL! - Town of Vail Reg. No._;Al\.- .-' Phone Nrrmlrcr:Phone Number:
Plunbing Contractor:-\a-e-L\+-
d-_t-7b4/ 7/
Address:
PLUMBING: $
Address:
Mechanical Contractor:
Address:
Bf'TLDING PERMIT FEE:
PLUMBING PERMTT FEE:
MECHANTCAL PERI{TT FEE:
ELECIRICAL FEE:
OTHER TYPE OF FEE:
DRB FEE:
T:t" "-{ Vail Reg. No.+zq.-::Phone Number:
Town of Vail Reg. NO.Pbone Nurnber:
Town of Vail Reg. NO.Phone llunber:
********* * * * * ******* * ***********FOR OFFfCE USE *********************!**********
BUTLDING PI,AN CHECK FEE:PLWBING PT,AN CHECK FEE:MECEANTCAL PI,AN CHECK FEE:
RECREATION FEE!
CLEAN-UP DEPOSTT:
IOTAL PER}ITT FEES:
BUTLDTNG:
SIGNATURE:
ZONTNG:
STGNATURE:Comments:
crEAlr rrP DEPOSIT nEPItl{D TO:
75 3oulh t?onlege rord
Yail, colorado 81657
(303) 479-2L38 or 479-2L39
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SURTECT:
offlcc ol communlly devclopmonl
ALL CONTR,ilqIORS CI'RRENILYL REGISTERED WITH TIIE TOWN OF VAIL
TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS/COMMINITY DEVEIOPIIENT
UARCH 15, 1988
CONSTRUETTON PARKING & }TATERTAL STORAGE
rn sunmary, ordinance No. 5 states that it is unlawfur for any person to litter, track or deposit i"i-r"if]-rJ"lc, sand, d,ebris or nateriar, including trash iunpsters, portable toirets and workr.ren vehicles. upon any streetl siaewair, -"Ii;y or public place or anv porrion ttreieoi. --rf" righi:;i-il"-;" alr Town of vaj.l streets and.I3"g= is approi-ir"t"iv-s-it.-lri pavement.This ordinance r11l b".;ari;iit"enforced bv the Tonn of vail Pubric r{orks Departrnent. perslns found. ,ril,r.ri"g this ordinance wilL be siven a 24 hour writien--noii""-to-;;;;;;"="id naterial.rn the event the person so notified.aoes-not-""oiprv with the notice within .n:__r1 rrour tiue-=p""fiiil,"il"'il;lic works Departmenr !ril1 remove said uratei:."r ii-tn"'"*ili=e of person notified' The provisions or-trri= ordinance sn;'r not be appricable to c-onstruction, riint"n.tge 9r repair projects of any street or a1ley or any utilities in the ,ijti_"_*uy.
To review ordinance No- 6 in fu'l, prease stop by the Tovrn of :::i"::i1:i"3"":lif*:i:"::-'";t;i" a copv. rir"ni vou ror your
. .I""U an!-acknou\edged by:
Y,. r.rf_ -
. .t -{ -C-F .,_\ A *
contractor, owner)
75 .oulh lrontage .ord
v!ll, color'do 8t657
(303) 479-2138 ot 479-2L39 oltlca ot oommunlty dcvclopmc[t
BUILDING PERtiIT ISSUANCE TIilE FRAME
If this permr:t requires a Town of vail Fire Departnent Approval ,Engineer's (publt. !?Ilrl review .na'.pp"ouat,' a ptinnin!-b.p."t .nt review or Hearth Deparrn6nt review, rnl'.-""uiJ ;i-iil;"Euiraing
l,eril;1;'h"lll ."r*red time ror'a-lJtar "rrii"i.y"Lil'u, r6ng
All commerciar frarge or smail) and ail mu]ti-fami'ry permits wi.rl have to folrow [tre ioove r"nti6n"J riiirur requirernents. Residentia]and small projects shourd take a teiier'amount of time. However, if residentiar or snailer.projecis inpiii'the various above mentioned departments with reqard to-necessai.y revier,-;h;;; ;;;j;.il'*v a'l so take the three*weef peiioJ.
Every.attempt will be ,1g9" Uy this department to expedite this pennit as soon as possible. -
I:,i!. undersigned, understand the plan check procedure and time Trame.
Corununf ty Devel ooment Departnent.
I O MEMoRANDUM
TO: ALLCONTRACTORS FROM: TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WOFKS DEPARTMENT DATE: MAY 9, 1994 RE: WiIEN A "PUBLIC WAY PERMTT'tS REOUTRED
Job Name:
Date:
Please answerlhe following questionnaire regarding the need for a'Public Way permit':
YES NO
1) ls this a new residence?
2') ls demolition work being performed
that requires the use of the right
ol way, easements or public propety?
3) ls any utility work needed?
4) ls the driveway being repaved?
5) ls ditferent access needed to site
other than existing driveway?
6) ls any drainage work being done
atfecting the right ol way, easements,
or public property?
7) ls a "Revocable Right Of Way Permit,
required?
8) A. ls the right of way, easemenls or
public property to be used for staging,
parking or fencing?
B. It no to 8A, is a parking, staging
or {encing plan required by Community . Development?
!!9u_ answered yes to any of these questions, a'Public Way Permit'must be obtained.?ublic Way Permit' applications may be obtained at the public Work's oflicE or at C_o.TTrIity Development. lf you have any questions please cail Charlie Oavis, ifie iown ' of Vail Construction Inspector, at.4Z9-21ffi.
I have read and answered ail the above questions.
Job Name Contraclols Signature Date
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
PUBLIC WORKS PERM]T PROCESS
How it relates to Building Permits:
1) Fill out our check list provided with a buitdino oermit aoolication.
lf yes was answered to any of the above questions then a "public way" is
required. You can pick up an application at either community Developmeni,
located at 75 S. Frontage Road or PublicWorks, located at 13Og VailValley Drive.
Notice sign offs for utility companies. Ail utilities must field verify (tocate)
respective utilities prior to signing application. Some utility companies require up
to a 48 hour notice to schedule a locate.
A construction traffic control/staging plan must be prepared on a separate sheet
of paper.An approved site plan may also be used. This plan will show locations
of all traffic control devices(signs, cones, etc..) and the work zone, (area of
construction, staging, etc..). This plan will expire on oct. 1sth. and will need to
be resubmitted for approval through the winter.
Sketch of work being performed must be submitted indicating dimensions (length,
width & depth of work). This may be drawn on the tratfic controt plan oi a site
plan for the job.
Submit co.mpleted application to the Public works's offtce for review. lf required,
locates will be scheduled for the Town of Vail Electricians and trrigation crew. The
locates take place in the morning but, may reqrlip up to 4g hours to perform.
The Public Work's Construction Inspector will revierry the application and approve
or disapprove the permit. You will be contacted as to the status and any thai may
needed, Most permits are released within 4g hours of being received, but please
allow up to one week to process.
As soon as the permit is processed, a copy will be faxed to community
Development allowing the "Building permit'to be released. please do not confuse
the "Public way Permit" with a "Building permit" to do work on a project itself.
NOTE:
] ]tr9 9O9ve process is for work in a pubilc way onty.* Public Way Permits are valid only until ttovemUer iSttr.* A new Public way Permit is required each year if work is not complete.
7)
GO/pvay
75 South Frontage Road
VaiL Colorado 81657
303-479-2 I 38 / 479-21 39
FAX 303-479-2452
Depanment of Comnuniry Developtnent
IXFORMAIIOIf IEEDED lfHEf, APPLIIIIG FOR A II|ECHAIIICAIJ pEnMIT
HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS.
TO SCA],E FLOOR PLAN OF MECHANICAL ROOI,T VIITH EQUIPUENT
DRAWN IN TO SCALE, WITH PHYSICAL DIUENSIONS AND BTU
RATINGS OF ALL EQUIPMENT IN MECHANICAL ROOM.
sHow srzE AND rrocATroN OF COMBUSTION AIR DUCTS, FLUES,
VENT CONNECTORS AND GAS LINES.
NOTE WHETHER ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT UIILL ALSO BE INSTALLED TN
MECHANICAL ROOM.
FATLITRE To PRovrDE lHrs rl|FonuaIrox nu.L DErrAr rouR PERMTT.
1.
2.
3,
4.
lnwn
75 routh |ronlrg€ rc.d
vrll, colordo 8'1657
(30i1).792138
(303) 4&2130
offfce ol communlty dwelopmenl
NOTTCE To coNTRAcToRs,/owNER BUIIDERS
Effective June 20, L99L, the Town of Vail Building Department has deveroped the following procedures to ensure that new construction sites have adequately established proper drainage from buj.lding sites along and adjacent to Town of VaiI roads or sE.reers.
The Town of vair Public ?forks Departsent will be required to inspect and approve drainage adjacent to Town of vail roads or streets and tbe instalration of temporary or permanent culverts at access poiats from tbe road or street on to tle conetruetion site.such approval must be obtaineti prior to any request for inspection by the Town of Vail Buirding Department for footings or temporary electrical or any other inspection. please call 41 9-2160 tA request an inspection from the public works Department. AlLow a mini-mum of 24 hour notice.
AJior'the Town of vail publ-ic works Department wilr b9 approving all final drainage and culvert installation with resulting roai parching as necessary. such approval must be obtained prior to Fj.na1 Certificate of Occupancy issuance.
INSPECTION REQUES
TOWN OF VAIL
479-2138 PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
DATE
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:
JOB NAME
yo*
CALLER
TUES
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
D ROUGH / D.W.V.D FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING O ROUGH / WATEB
n ROOF & SHEEF " PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION N POOL / H. TUB
D SHEETROCK NAIL
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
fl reue. PowER
MECHANICAL:
D HEATING
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
D CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
D
o FINAL
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REOUIREL
tr
tr FINAL
.F'APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
DATE INSPECTOR
INSPECTION REQUES
TOWN OF VAIL ,6 ?s''rJ g,/ Z
PERMIT NUMBEB OF PROJECT
oo-,= z"Z' /s{ JoB NAME
FRI AMF INSPECTION:MON WED THUR
479-2138
READY FOR
LOCATION:
FRAMING
2zt
BUILDING:
FOOTINGS / STEEL
FOUNDATION / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNOEBGROUND
tr ROUGH / D,W.V.
tr ROUGH/WATER
o
tr
o
o
tr
tr
tr
tr
rl
ROOF & SHEER
PLWYOOD NAILING C] GAS PIPING
INSULATION
SHEETROCK
tr POOL/ H.TUB
NAIL
FINAL O FINAL
ELECTHICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
O ROTJGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL tr FINAL
B DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REOUIRT
L
7.t rf tlt\V
INSPECTION REQUE
TOWN OF VAIL
t---l^-.--
D^rE lQl75 {1\ JoB NAME
I
t-o3l+
FEnutr NUMBER oF PRoJEcr 479-2138
READY FOR INSPECTION:
LOCATION:
BUILDING:
O FOUNDATION / STEEL
f roorrnres / srEEL i ''l 11' t ! iT1*
O FFIAMING
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
E] ROUGH / WATER
tr GAS PIPING
n i'oot- / H. TUB
- ROOF & SHEER u PLYwooD NAILING
B INSULATION
r] SHEETROCK NAIL tr
B
tr
o
o
FINAL
MECHANICAL:ELECTRICAL:
t] TEMP- POWER E HEATING
O EXHAUST HOODS B ROUGH
r] SUPPLY AIR T] GONDUIT
FINAL
L
-;tt v
INSPECTOR
PERMIT NUMBER OF 9ROJECT
INSPECTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
479-2138
f, ,o" *o*DATE
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:
CALLER
MON TUES THUR FRI llifO---@r "
BUILDING:PLUMEING:
tr UNDERGROUND
T1 ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
;(roorrNcs / srEEL fu+e n,eL
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
n ROOF & SHEER " PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL tr
tr
tr FINAL D FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
T] TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
B HEATING
tr
tr
tr
ROUGH O EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL tr FINAL
B APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
.1 { DrsAppRovED d nerruseecroN REouTRED
S u i< G,r.) $A. /S F-Pc: rlr.i. t)-,' ,( r- rua-l- rlz-cl, J
; Po'-.rQ .3, B cre
INSPECTOB
l$*'*-'z r o ) - | r r- e',U;iJ%gffiflilry;#:q6-
{ ApjrrcArrox }rusr BE Frr.r.ED our co}lpLsrEl.y oR tr W"fl}f,flilffiFffiH
N..../********* *y******** yG rlFoRl{arroN **r*rt{*******r**r****.****ri**
fiy'-BuildinS IL{-prunbing t/]-Elecrricat I l-uechanib,al I J-other
"oL *"'., lLut By5 D (/lc€
'ob Address:t'lM Kv5 tj(/tC€ .rob Addrerrr39/6__ldE t/< VP-,(re
Lesat Description: *t56 nrocx_\ "rrtry KI#r#=.!oH I
onners Name: ?A U > f Ul' ouu"""",
Architect, ?e? Address: lOn Lo*t,rn /orf ,n.tllt ?rt
cenerat Descriptj-e^- (Ottr= l.l Qc9 J: F - Fos ,Pgat-
\,/I{ork class: p\l-xew [ ]-Alteration t l-Addittonar [ ]-RepaLr I l-other_
Nrrtnher of Dnellincr Units: I
rypnber and rr4re ol ri""or.[;-
Nunber of Dnelling Units: +-_ Nunber of AcconnodatLon Units: a_
Irnber and rlpe of Firepl.J"r, Gas Apprirrr""ryL cas Logs- wood/perret
* * ** ******** ********** ******** ** * VALUATTONS ****** *** * ***********************
. Plunbing
Address:
Mechanical Contractor:
Address:
** * * * ** * * * * * * ** ** ** ** * * * ** * ***
BUILDTNG PERMIT FEE:
PII'IIIBING PERI'IIT FEE:
MECHANICAL PERMTT FEE:
EIJCTRTCAI] FEE:
OIHER TYPE OF FEE:
DRB FEE:
'5{ P!.one Number:
oFrrcE usE *******************************
BUTLDING PI,AN CHECK FEE:
PLUI.IBfNG PIIAN CITECK FEEs
I.IECHANIC},L PIAN CIIECK FEE:
RECREATION FEE:
CI,E:AN-UP DEPOSTT:
ZONING:
SIGNATT]RE:
cx{Z- <bXe P9C----"wn of vail
*-t'.L Ce.e(E
! FOR
TOTAL PERUIT FEESi
BUTLDTNG: O €;L*.'
-
SfcNATttRE:
-
CI.EAN I'P IIEPOSIT BEPIIXD TO:P ,qL fr)\) I t'4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
o MEMORANDUM
ALL CONTRACTORS
TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MAY 9, 1gg4
WHEN A ''PUBUC WAY PERMT'JS REOUIRED
Job Name: 9 , q, )/4.P e/r€
Date: Y-t 6x>
Ptease answerthE following questionnaire regarding ths need for a'Pubtic Way Permit':
ls this a new residence?
ls demolition work baing performed
that requires the use of the right
of way, easements or public propefy?
ls any utility work needed?
ls the driveway being repaved?
ls ditferent a@ess needed to site
other than existing ddveway?
ls any drainage work being done
atfecting the righl of way, easements,
or public property?
ts a'Revocable Right Of Way Permit'
YES
,./tl
NO
1)
2l
3)
4)
s)
6)
t./V
---L/
Development?
!f1ou, answered yes to ary olthese questions, a "Public Way Permit'rnusl be obtained.
'Public Way Permit" applicalions may be obtained at the Public Work's office or at C-o.rlqulttf Development. lf you have any questions please call Chartie Davis, the Town ol Vail Construction Inspec.tor, at 479-2158.
T
required?
8) A. ls the right of way, easemenls or
public property to be used for staging,
parking or fencing?
B. lf no to 8A, is a parking, staging
or fencing plan required by Community
I have read and answered afl the questions.
f rrr\ pr2ae*e
.7 L/
-/-s
Job Name ContracloFs Signature
2)
3)
o
PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT PROCESS
How it relates to Building Permits:
1) Fill out our check list provided with a buildino oermit aoolication.
lf yes was answered to any of the above questions. then a "Public Way'" is
required. You can pick up an. application at either Gommunity Dwelopment,
located at 75 S. Frontage Road or Public Works, located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive.
Notice sign otfs for utility companies. All utilities must field verify (locate)
respective utilities prior to signing application. Some utility companies require up
to a 48 hour notice to schedule a locate.
A construction traffic controystaging plan must be prepared on a separate sheet
of paper.An approved site plan may also be used. This plan willshow locations
of all traffic control devices(signs, cones, etc..) and the work zone, (area of
Construction, Staging, etc..). This plan will expire on Oct. lsth. and will need to
be resubmitted for approval through the winter.
Sketch of work being performed must be submitted indicating dimensions (length,
width & depth of work). This may be drawn on the traffic control plan or a site
plan for the job.
Submit completed application to the Public Works's office for review. lf required,
locates will be scheduled for the Town of Vail Electricians and lrrigation crew. The
locates take place in the morning but, may require up to 48 hours to perform.
The Public Work's Construction Inspector will review the application and approve
or disapprove the permit. You will be contacted as to the status and any that may
needed. Most permits are released within 48 hours of being reciived, 6ut pleas6
allow up tb one week to process.
As soon as the permit is processed, a copy will be faxed to Community
Development allowing the "Building Permit" to be released. please do not confuse
the "Public way Permit" with a "Building Permit" to do work on a project itself.
NOTE:
'The above process ls lor work in a publlc way only.* Public Way Permlts are valid only until November 15th.* A new Public way Permit is requlred erch year it work is not complete.
4)
s)
6)
7)
cdFnray
TOWNOFVAIL
75 South Frontage Road
VaiL Colorado 81657
30s -479-2 I 38 / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303-479-2452
1.
2.
Department of Communiry Development
IttFORXArIOf, IEEDED I{HEf, I.PPTTTTG FOR A UECIIIIIICIL PENXII
IIEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS.
TO SCALE FLOOR PLAN OF IIECI1ANICAL ROOU I{ITH EQUIPUENT
DRAWN rN TO SCALE, WrTH PHYSTCAL DIUENSIONS At{D BTU
RATINGS OF ALL EQUIPMENT IN MECHANICAI ROOM.
sHow sIzE AND LOCATION OF COMBUSTION AIR DUCTS, FtUES,
VENT CONNECTORS AND GAS LINES.
NOTE WHETHER ELEVATOR EQUIPI-IENT WILL ALSO BE INSTALLED IN
MECITANICAL ROOM.
FAIIJURE IO PROVIDE IIIIS II5FONXAIIOf, WII.L DEI.AI IOI'R PENXIT.
3.
4.
75 loulh honilge rold
vCl, colondo 81657
(3dr) 47$Zr3E
(303) 41$2139
otfioe ol communfty denelopmenl
. NOTTCE TO CONTRACTORS/OV|NER BUTTDERS
Effective June 20, 1991, the Town of Vail Building Department has developed the following procedures to ensure that irew tonstruction sites have adequately established proper drainage from building sj-tes along and adjacent to Town of Vail roads or streets.
Tbe TowD of vail Public works Departueat rill b€ reguired to inspect and approve drainage adjacent to Towa of vail -roads or streets and tbe instarlation of teaporary or peruanent culverts at access points from tbe road or street oa to tbe construction site.such approval must be obtained prior to any request for inspection by the Town of vail Building Department for footings or temporary electri-cal or any other inspection. prease carl 479-2160 t.o request an inspection from the public works Department. Allow a minimum of 24 hour notice.
Also, the Town of vail Public works Department will be approving all finar drainage and culvert instalration with resurting road pacching as necessary. such approval must be obtained pri.or to FjnaI Certificate of Occupancy issuance.
75 louth trcnllgG rold
v.il, color.do 61657
l3o3l 479-2L.38 ot 479-2L39
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SU&'ECT:
otflc. of communlty d€yelopm.nt
ALL CONTRACIORS CURRENrLYL REGISTERED WIIII TIIE TOI{N OF VAIL
TOWN OF VArL PT'BLIC WORKS/COUUT'NITY DEVEIIPIIENT
UARCH 16, 1988
CONSTRUCTION PARKING & UATERIAL STORAGE
rn sunnary, ordinance No. 6 states that it is unlawful for any person to litter, track or deposit. any "oif,-"J"i<, sand, debris or materiar, incruding trash iumpsters, portabre toilets and worknen vehicres.upon any streetl siaewaiil-;Ii;y or pubtic P]?:e or any porti6n theieot. -rne rrgnt-of-way on arl Town of Vail streets and.fga.d= is approi-inately 5 ft. off paveurent.This ordinance wir| rc. striltiv--enforced by the Town of vail Pubric works DeDartment. pers6ns found .rilrriti"q this ordlnance wirl. be given a 24 hour written--n"Ii""-ti-;;;;;;"""id nareriar.rn the event the person so notified.aoes noi-coipry with the notice within th:-24 hour.tir"-=p""i;i;,' if.-iilf,ric works Department wilr remove said uateli"r it-it" -"riEi=e of person notiried- rhe orovisions or-tr,is-o"aii.illE :#ii not be applicable to c6nstruction, ,.irri"rr.rrge or repair projects of any street or alley:or any utititres in the right_a_way.
To review ordinance No- 6 in full, please stop by the Tordn of Vail Buirding Department to obtain a copy. riani you for your cooperat,ion on this natter.
gcknowledged
ositionTReliffiiE$(i.e. contractor, owner)
lnwn
75 .oulh lrDntagr rold
utll, colondo t1657
lsolt, 479-2L38 or 479-2L39 otf,c. of communlty. d.u.lopm||tt
BUILDING PERI,IIT ISSUANCE TII4E FRA}IE
If this pe"qlt requires a Town of Vail Fire Departnrent Approval,Engineer's (.public works) review and approvar,'a piinnini-bip""t
"nt review or Heat th Departnent review, .ni' "-""ui"; Li-il;;"driioing Department, the estimated tine tor'a totat "euii, i"v"Lf is rong as three weeRs.
Al'l corrnercial (laroe or small ) and all mu]ti-fami'ly permits will have to follow dtre Suove r"nti6n"a *iimum requ.irements. Residential and.small projects shourd take a resser amound of time. However, if residential or smailrer.projects impiii the various above mentioned departnents with reoard to necessai"y review,-ih;;; ;;;j;.ii'*v also take the three-week period
Every.attempt will be made by this department to expedite th.is permi't as soon as possible. -
l:_!1" undersigned, understand the plan check procedure and time Trame.
.a\t - /.''\V- rR -75 t(ft t t./
Corrnuni ty Devel opment Department.
FILE COPY
TOWN OF VAIT
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-213V479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
September 8, 1995
Sally Brainod
RKD
1000 Lioosridge LooP, Suite 3D
Yail, CO 81657
REj Sim Residencc Final Desigrr Review Boa.-d Approval
Department of Community Deve lopment
Dcar Sally:
Thank you for appearing bcfore the Design Review Board (DRB) on Wednes&y, Sepember 6, 1995 with the
proposid Si* residence located at 3916 Lupine Drive/Lot 58, Block 2, Bighorn Fint Addition. Upon final review
6ftbe proposed Sim residence. thc DRB placcd sevcral conditions on the approval. Each oftbe conditions of
approval listed bclorv must be rcsolvcd prior to applicati on for building pemdl
6u). 'A rcvised site anC landscape ptan be submittcd for staffreview. The revised plans need to indicate the - ,r3lr" location ofthe proposed drivervay. eight addidonal trces planted along the south€rly property line
befween thc cxisting rcsidence and thc proposed rcsidcncc. and an amended tree Preservatior/site
dis$rbancc linc indicated on thc plans.
Cv 2. Thc architcct submit the revised color board as proposed and approvcd by the DRB.
AL 1. The fire dcpartment sign offon the nervly proposed drivervay plan.
6V 4. Thc architect submit revisedclevations accurately depictingthe plans approvedby theDRB.
o\, S, A finat zone cbeck is complcted for the relised floor plans by the Tos'n of Vail staff to insure conrpliance
with ttre Torvn of Vail Municipal Code. c:,te., | * cl.tt>gz Z f
I hopc the information addrcsscd above will be ofhelp to you as you procced towards the completion ofthe Simm
residcnce ptans for building pemrit application. Sbould you have any questions or concenrs regarding tbe
infonnation addressed in this letter, as always. plcasc do not hesitate in giving me a call. I can bc reached most
casily during rcgular office hotrs at 479-2138.
Sincerely,
--,4 | fut+'/t |t.
ial
"\1D
l1*-?,;t-.'
{2'"ttot"'uo
Single namily
ZONE CHECK
F'OR
Residence, Duplex,
ZONE DISTRICTS
nrimary/ Secondary
/\l DArE: 6/3/ i.?<
.
LEGAIJ DESCRIPTION;56 BIock
ADDRESS:
OWNER
ARCHITECT
ZONE DISTRTCT
PROPOSED USE
T.r\.n crr!r
o,tl1 | J-,- -^,' , Allowed
Height, \-c''ttt''t-l l' ' 11s''t t'"{rot
@
roE,ar GRFA 44Ls _f , ,?-t_ l4Zs
Primary GRFA
Second,ary GRFA
Se tbacks
Si t.c Coveragc
Landscaping
Retaining Wall
Parking
Subdivis ion
PHONE
BUIIJDABLE
Exis tinq
IJOT AREA
Proposed ToL,aI
3Z oL
+ 425
+ 425
,,t=d ( "i{*_
rot1l,r-. 41-;.6 dl
"F{fr+tol
ova tr6
26,Zod*irb,
Fron L
Sides
Rear
4-t
2r.t L-Jv / I I
olL
_|_
o-l -,'.,-.,u.1 ZZ,O% i
20'
15'
15'
Ileigh Us 3'/5,
Rcqrd
( 300) i(600 )l (e00) ( 1200)
Encl
carage Credit
Drive:
NO
NO Ota
2l Percenu slope 1a -, 3g%l 1fu2)
Geologic Ilazards a) Snow Avalanche \iFq b) Rockfart
-
c) Debrisrrffi
4 ) Wet.lands
Vicw Corridor Encroachmcnl: yes No___ei: _
Does this reque$ L_ irrvuivql a 250 riqdi [ion? \_\D How rnush of b,hCI aLLowecl tso aauiuion is used-ilfuimio requosuz U,ltl _ -t Previous condiLions of approval (check property file) :
? /")rorjr/I h /)
'.,1
Pcrmirred slope At proposed sLope A t,
fueolxls Fltwtau 3 )
P.e,.r;'erJ 1l clc,-L ov-, i €r1r, e t t EuT-
Complies with T.O.V. Lightinq Ordinance yes
water Course ScLback (J0) (50)
Do Finish Grades Exccccl 2 : 1 ( 50e") yES
EnvironmenEal,/ilazards: 1) FIood plain
-1
.tl"' , , ,. 'L' /
tt--, a, Lt'"-. t-r^./
Q**,rf Vril
OFFICE COPY
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-213V479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
Department of Community Development
Town of vaiT
75 South Frontage Road
Vai1, Colorado 81657 (303) 479 -2138
Pl an analvsis hased on
the 1991 Uniform Buildinq Code
Proj ect Number: 895-0317
Address: 3 91-6 LUPINE DR.
Planner: GEORGE R.
Occupancy: R3,ML
Type of ConsL: V-N
Name: SIM RESIDENCE
Date: October 2, I995
Contracbor: SNOWSHOE DEV.
Architect: RKD
Engineer: MONROE
Plans Examiners CHUCK FELDMANN
NOTE:The code items listed in this report are noL intended to be a complet.e listing of all possible code requirements in the 1991 UBC. It is a guide to selected sections of the code.
AREA MIN. LIGHT MIN.VENT NO. EXITS EGRESS
2 Master bath 2 Master bedroom
f I i vi ! rrY ! vvru
? ni hi
2 Ki tchen
2 Den 2 Ha11s, closets, et-c.
TOTAI, FOR FLOOR 1 Bedroom #2 1 Family room 1 Bedroom #3 1 Bedroom f4 1 Ha]1s, cl-osets, etc.
TOTAL FOR FIJOOR B Garage
B Hal1s, closets, etc.
TOTAL FOR FLOOR
BUILDING TOTAL
r.5 8
444
519
194
333
773
2543
246
399
r17
207
854
1883
585
223
809
4 426
0.00
44 .40
51.90
19.40
33.30
12.20
0.00
24 .50
39.90
L7.70
20.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
7 qn
22.20
25.95
9.70
to.ol
5. l0
0.00
12.30
1-9 .95
8.85
10.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1-
I
L
1
2
tp un"uoou*
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-213V479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
Department of Community Development
FOOTNOTES:
1) EGRESS - An operable window or door that opens directly to the exterior is required from this room. The minimum clear openable area must meet
bhe following. -- Sec. 1204.
1) The minimum clear heighL ts 24 inches
2) The minimum clear width is 20 inches
3) The minimum cfear area is 5.7 square
4) The maximurn sill height is 44 inches 2) The number of exits is based on Table 33-A 3) A mechanical ventilation system may be used
openings for ventilation. -- Sec. 1205. (c)
4) The requirement for an egress window in the
Sec. 1204.
feet
(Dwell ings )
in in lieu of exterior
basement is based on
ROOM DIMENSIONS:
Habitable space sha11 have a ceiling heiqht of not less than 7 feet 5 inches. KiLchens, haffs. bathrooms and toilet comparLmenLs may have a ceifinq height of 7 feet measured to the lowest projection. ff bhe ceiling is sl-oping. then the minimum height is required in only I/2 of Che area.
- - Sec. 1207. (a)
Every dwelling unit shall have at least one room which has not. Iess than 120
square feeb of floor area. Other habitable roorns except kitchens shatl have an area of not less btran 70 square feet. -- Sec. 1207. (b)
Habitable rooms oLher than a kitchen sha1l not be Less than 7 feet in anv dimension. -- Sec. 1207. (c)
GI,AZING REQUIREMENTS :AII glazing in hazardous locations is required to be of safety glazing material . -- Sec. 5405. (d)
1) Glazing in ingress and egress doors except jalousies.
2) Glazing in fixed and sliding panels of sliding door assembl-ies and panels in sr4ringing doors other than wardrobe doors.3) Glazing in storm doors.
4) Glazing in all unframed swingi-ng doors.5) Glazing in d.oors and encfosures for hot tubs. whirlpoors. saunas. steam rooms. bathtubs and showers. Glazing in any portion of a buj-1ding wall enclosing these compartments where the bottom exposed edqe of the glazing is less than 50 inches above a sbanding surface and drain inlet.6) Glazing in fixed or operable panels adjacent to a door where the nearest exposed edge of the gl-azxing is within a 24-inch arc of either vertical edge of the door in a closed position and where the bottom exposed edg.e of the glazing is less thah 50 inches above the walking surface.7) Glazing in an individual fixed or operable panel, other than those locations described in items 5 and 5 above, bhan meets atl of the following conditions:
A. Exposed area of an individual pane greater than 9 square feet.B. Exposed bottom edge less than 18 inches above the floor.C. Exposed top edge greater than 35 inches above the floor.D. one or more walking surfaces within 35 inches horizontally of the plane of the gI az ing .
{p *""'o"o '*"*
75 South Frontage Road
VaiL Colorado 81657
970-479-213V479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
D epartment of C ommunity Deve lopment
8) Glazing in railings regardless of height above a walking surface.Included are structural balusLer panels and nonstructural in-f ill-
panels.
See except.ions.
SMOKE DETECTOR REQUIREMENTS :
A smoke debector is required on Lhe ceiling or waII aL a point cenErally
located in the corridor or area giving access co each sleeping area.
- - Sec. '12L0. (a) 4.
A smoke detecbor is required on Lhe ceiling or waII in each sleeping
area. -- Sec. 121-0. (a) 4.
A smoke detector is required. in the basement. -- Sec. l-2f 0. (a) 4.
A smoke detector is required on all stori-es. -- Sec. 12f0. (a) 4.
If the upper level contains sleeping room(s), a smoke detecLor is required
in Lhe ceiling of the upper level close to Lhe stairway.
- - Sec. I2L0. (a) 4
Smoke d.et.ectors are required. bo be wired to the buildinq,s power source and
shall be equipped with a battery backup. -- Sec. f210. (a) 3.
Detectors shal-I sound an alarm audible in all sleeping area of the dwelling
in which they are located, - - Sec, 1210. (a) 4.
FIREPLACE REQUIREMENTS :
MASONRY FIREPLACE:
1) Fireplace must be supported by a foundation. -- Sec. 3707- (b)
2) The firebox must be at least 20 inches deep and walls of firebox are
to be L0 inches thick. If the lining is of firebrick then the wa11s
may be 8 inches thick. -- Sec. 3707. (c)
3) The ninirnum clearance to combustible material is from the fireplace.
smoke charnber, and chimney walls is 2 inches. Combustible material may not be placed withi-n 5 inches of fireplace opening and combustible
within 12 inches may not project more than l/8 inch for each I inch of clearance. -- Sec. 3707. (h)
4) The hearth must be noncombustible, a minimum of 4 inches thick. and
supported. by noncombustible material , The hearth size must be at leastr If Opening size is: FronC ext.ension Side extension Less than 5 sq.f t.16 inches 8 inches
12 inches 6 sq.fb. or greaLer 20 inches -- Sec. 3707. (k) & (1)
5) Chimney heiqht must be per TabLe 37-B
FACTORY BUILT FIREPLACE:1) Unit must be an approved unit. -- Sec. 3705. (a)
2) Clearances and hearth size must be per manufactures approval .-- sec. 3705. (a) & (b)
3) Chimney heiqht must be per manufacturer's approval and Table 37-B
{g *'"'"""o '*tr
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-213V479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
Ratio
L / 1.s0
Department of Community Development
OCCUPANCY SEPARATION;
Between the qarage and. the residence, materials approved. for thr fire construction are required on the garage side only and any doors between the garage and the residence are to be a self-elosing 13/8 inch solid core d.oor or a 20 minute fire door. -- Table 5-B & Sec. 503. (d) exc. #3
STAIR REQUIREMENTS :
A stairway in a dwelling must be at least 36 inches wide. -- Sec. 3306. (b)
The maximum rise of a sbep is 8 inches and the minimum run is 9 inches.-- sec. 3305. (c) exc. fL Provide a handrail on one side a st.ai-rway 34 to 38 inches above the nosing i.f there is 4 or more risers. -- sec. 3305. (i)
Provide a guard rail where drop off is greater than 30 inches. Minimun heiqht = 35 inches, maxirnum opening size = 4 inches. -- Sec. LiI2 - (al exc. #1 The minimum headroom is 5 ft.- 8 inches. -- Sec. 3305. (o)
Enclosed usable space under the stairs is required to be protected as required.for thr fire-resistive construction, -- Sec. 3305. (1)
SHAFT ENCIJOSURES:
1) Chutes and dumbwaiter shafts with a cross-sectionaf area of not more than 9 square feet may lined on bhe inside with not less than 26 gage galvanized sheet metal with aII joints locklapped. The outside must be t hr construction. A11 openings into any such enclosure shal-1 be protected
by not less than a self-closing solid wood door I 3/8 inches thick or equivalent. -- Sec. 1705. (f)
2) Gas venLs and noncombuslible piping installed in wal1s passing through 3 floors or less do not need to be in t hour shafts.-- Sec. 1706. (c)
3) Shafts for gas vents, factory-built chirnneys, pipinq, or ducts that do
noL extend through not more than 2 floors need not be in t hour shafts.-- Sec. 1705. (c)
4) A11 other shafts are required to be enclosed in a L hour assemblv.-- Sec. 1705. (a)
CRAWLSPACE REQUIREMENTS :1) Provide ventilation either by mechanical- means or by openings in exterior wa11s. opening sha11 provide a net area of not less than I square foot for each 150 square feet of area in crawl space. Openings shall be dj-stributed on two opposj-te sides and be located as close to corners as practical .-- Sec. 25L5. (cl 5. Note: Vent openings may be reduced to l-0% of the above if ground surface area is covered with an approved vapor barrier and the building official approves.
For a 1575.0 sq.ft. crawlspace area:
Minimum sq.ft. of vent
10.50 2) Provide 18-inch by 24-inch access opening to the crawr space area. Not.e:opening may be required to be larger if mechanical equipment is located in the crawl- space. -- Sec. 25L6- lc) 2.
{p *""n'"o '*"*
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-213V479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
De partme nt of C ommunity Deve lo pme nt
3) Unless the wood is listed as an approved wood of natural resistance to
decay or treated wood, the minimum clearance between exposed earth and floor joist is L8 inches. The minimum cfearance to beams and girders is is 12 inches. - - Sec . 251"6. (c\ 2.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS :
F^r I} -l
Thj-s project will require a site improvement survey. Such survey shall be submitted. and approved prior to request for frame
ihcha.|-i^h
AII crawl spaces wit.hin the Town Of Vail are limited Lo a earth to structural floor ceiling height of 5'. be earth floor on1y, be ventilated as per UBC 2515(C)6 with minimum access as per UBC
25L5(C\ 2 and maximum access of 9 sq. ft.
Any building site with a slope of 30 degrees or more shal-l require an engineer design. Such design shall address d.rainage, soil retainaqe
and structural desiqn.
Excavation below slabs on grade shalI not be permitted without prior
approval .
Address numbers shall be posted plainly visible and legj_ble from the
For Ml occupancy
Slope garage floor to al1ow for drainage to outside to provide a floor drain witir. sand and oil interceptor to dry well or Lo sewer.
Any garage floor drain connected to sewer must be approved by Upper
Eagl-e Valley Water & SanitaLion District.
In garages with living area above. Lhe walLs of the garage wiich are bearing the area above shal-I be protected with one hour fire resistive construction. UBC 503 (B) .
{,7'""'"""o'*""
tlnof\hil
CFFICE COPY
75 South Frontage Road
Vail. Colorado 81657
970-479 -2 I 3 8/479-2 I 39
FAX 970-479-2452
Departme nt of Community Deve lopme nt
Town of VaiT
75 Sorr t h Fronfaotr Road
Vai1, Colorado 81557 (303) 479 -2138
Plan review based on
the 1991 Uniform Building Code
Project Number: 895-0317
Address : 39L5 LUPINE DR.
Planner:GEORGE R.
.]-drrh2n-1' ' P? M1
Type of ConsL: V-N
NAME: SIM RESIDENCE
Date: OcLober 2, 1"995
Contractor: SNOWSHOE DEV.
ArchitecL: RKD
Engineer: MONROE
PIans Examiner: CHUCK FELDMANN
All electrical work is to be complete to the
requirements of the latest National El-ectrical code,
aIl Town of Vail Ordinances, and Hol-v Cross
P adrr i r6m6h l- c
This project will require a site improvement survey.
fhis survey sha11 be subttritted and staff approved prior to a request for a frame inspection. Under no
circums t.ances will a frame inspection be done without an approved site improvement survey.
A1l" areas del,ineated as crawl spaces or nonhabit.
basement. shall have less than 5,ht. from earth to structural floor/ceiling above, be ventilated as per
UBc 2516, with minimum access as per UBC 2510 and
max. accegs of 9 sq. ft.
Exterior surfaces with sLucco shall be provided with exterior metal labh as per UBC 4705 with 2 layers of paper. Windows and doors are required ho be adequately flashed(not with just screed rnetal-) . A lath inspection is required prior stucco
appl ication.
All new construction within the Town of Vail will be required to have a Public Way permit plus an initial
i-nspecLion by the T,O.V. public Works Department to approve site drainage and culvert installation prior
Lo any Building Dept. inspections.
{p ^"n'"tt' t*"*
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2 I 3 8/479-2 I i9
FAX 970-479-2452
Department of Community Development
This project is restricted from the burninq of wood.in fireplaces. Unless the lot is a restricted Lot
in size, three gas logs fireplaces and three gas
appliances are permitted per unit allowed. Gas Iog
chimneys enclosures shall be one hr. protected..
In bathrooms with a t.ub or shower and in laundry
rooms a rnechanical ventilation system connected.
directly to the outside shalI be provid.ed.. Bathrms
which contain only a water closet or lav. may be ventilated with a recirculating fan. UBC 1205(c).
Domestic clothes dryer exhaust ducts shall be installed as per UMC 1"104 and 1903. Flexible duct
connectors may not exceed 5' in length and shall- not
be concealed within construction. Ducts shal1
terminate outside the building and not exceed 14'length.
No domestic dishwashing' machine shall be directly
connected. to a drainage system without the use of an
approved dishwasher air-gap fitting'. UpC 508.
Cross connection control devices shalI be installed to protect pollulion of potable water supply by use of approved backflow prevention d.evices. UpC 1003.
Plumbingr fixlures wieh mechanical apparatus shaff be supplied with an access panel for inspection and repair of equipment. UPC 904.
Each water closeb shall be l-ocated in a elear space not less than 30r' in width and have a clear space in front of such stool of not Iess than 24". UBC
511(a) .
Domestic ranges shalf have a vertical clearance
above the cooking surface of not less than 30" to unprotected combustible material . UUC 1901.
A chimney enclosure for a wood burning fireplace flue shall be protected by a one-hour fire resistive construcbion. UBC 1706. This involves lining the inside of such chase with 5/8" Type X sheetrock and.fire - taping j oints .
10
11
L2
l-3
L4
{g *""'"uo "*"
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-213V479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
Department of Community Development
Approved gas logs may be installed in solid-fue1
burning fireplaces provided the installation is
according Lo the list.ing instructions. any darnper
shal1 be removed or permanently blocked, and a safety shutoff vafve is provided. UMc 803.
Gas fireplace appliances are required to be
installed as per listinq installation instructions -
wlth a'rB" vent only. Combustion air mr.rsL be
supplied from the outside for al1 new construction in the Town of VaiI.
Furnaces not lisLed for closet or alcove
installation shal-l- be installed in a room or space
hraving a volume at least 12 times the volume of t.he furnace, A boiler unit will require a space L6
times larger than Lhe boil-er. UMC 504(b)
Supply a mechani-cal drawing indicating design of
system, size (BTU and volume) of equipment. vent location and termination, and combustion air to be supplied prior Lo any installation.
Due Lo Colorado State Statutes. all sink faucetts
and shower heads are required to utilize flow restricbion devices. Al-so. the maximum water closet flush usage is limited to a maxi-murn of 3.5 gallons per flush,
This f act-ory-built fireplace must be an approved unit. Incl,ude the manufacture's name. model number.and approval information. -- Sec. 3705.(a)
The enclosed usable space under the stairs l-s required to be prolected by thr fire-resistive consbruction. -- 3305. (l)
Ttre desiqn. construction, and installation of elevators. dumbwaiters, escalators and their hoistways shall be as per the requirements of UBC Ch. 51. This includes fire-resistance of enclosure
& openings, hoistway ventilation, and vestibufe
requ]-rement's.
At eaves and valleys an adequate underlayment shall be provided to protect a structure from ice buildup
and water damage. Two layers of felt solid mopped to sheathing and between layers or a commercial water & ice shield may be used. as per Tabte 32Bl-.
t3
18
19
20
2L
22
12
{p *"n"""o "*o
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2 I 3 8/479-2 I 39
FAX 970-479-2452
Department of Cornmunity Developrnent
A one-line electricaf drawing for each leve1 is
required. for this project. Failure to provide such
may result in field corrections at the expense of
conEracEor,
Because of this projecL's location. the foundation is required to be dampproofed Lo prevent d.amage to
areas below finished grade. UBC 1707 (d) .
The structure is required t.o be anchored. to the
foundataion w:-Ltr 1,/2 inch anchor bolts. The bolts
must be into the concrete or masonry 7 inches and
spaced a maximum of 5 feeb apart. See code for additional requirements. - - Sec. 2907. (f\
Include a copy of the soils report for the site t.o
be built on. -- Sec. 2905.
25
zo
{g *""ro"o"*",
ios t{o
3o41 t'l 21 4't
Strl
3 tC Lu?tNe De-
iEMF, oat ., Al
3O ou1 l, @ pv
PFe SE H.r AT 5,TE
lp1,tcE.r.'rb 40lJTlz*<ro.
THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED :
copfl:s ro
o o
v o
flEprl31 O routN BF 'AIL' troLoRRa
AZTTiTSA O7:II REtrUESTS FOR INSPECTIBN T.'ORH SHEETS FOR: 3/TL/96
895-0317 3/LL/Sb Type: B-BUILD
39 16 LUPINE DR
elol-111-o3-ote
NET.T SFR
SNOI.ISHOE DEUELOPIIENT
SII4 DALTON
SNOT.JSHOE DEUELOPIIIENT
PAGE
AREA: DS
Activity:
Address:
Locat i on :
Parce I :
Description:
Appl icant:
Owner:
Contract or:
Inspeet ion Request Inforrat ion. . . . .
Requestor: BOB BORNE-SNOI.ISHOE DEU
Req Tirez AE=66 Corrents: FINAL
lters requested to be Inspected...
oBA?6 BLDG-Foundat i onlSt ee I
FI'I*{DATITIN-BOB I.IILL
Action Corrent s
Status: ISSUED Conttr: ltlliFR
Oce: OO67 Use: V N
Fhone: 3{i34765253
Fhone: 476-F863
Phone: 3(134765263
Fhone r 4:26-5e63
CRLL DAN iION
dru
Notes: SUBGRADE IS FROZENI.,.ITILL NOT ALLOTJ CtrNCRETE TO BE POURED
ON FROZEN SUBGRADE. BLANKETS ARE REtr'D. TO PROTECT FRO]II
FREEZING. NE T.IALL APPEAREi TO BE OVER EXCAVRTED' iIUST HAUE
solLs ENEINEER INSpECT,AtrtrR[]UE AND SUB]lrT REpoRT
IO/?:6/95 Inspector: CD Action: AtrtrR PARTIffL
Notesr PARTIAL ONLY CALL FOR REFIAINING TO BE INSPECTED
PUBLIC }JORKS FIUST DO ACCESS/DRAINAGE BEFORE FOUNDATION IN
LA|W/9S Inspeetor: CD
Iter : OOO€O BLDG-Foundat ion/Steel
Action: APtrR REIIUUE LOOSE tIATERIAL
12./"9/95 Inspector: CF flction: AtrCR AFFROUED/CORRECTIIIN REBD
Notes: NEED ENG LETTER SHOI.IING CHANGES AT 13./gi5 FRDI{ *g'BAR Ttr *
TENTING AND HEAT REAUIRED_LP & HEATERS AN SITE
RECEIVED ENG FIELD INSPECTION REPORT
Iter:6O520 PLAN-ILC Site Plan
Iter: OOO3O BLDG-Frarinq
Iter: Qgo4g * * Not 0n File * +
Iter : O0O5O ELD6-Insulation
Iter: AoA60 BLDE-Sheetrock Nail
Iter: OAOBG + * Not On File * *
Iter : 6,o,670 BLDG-ltlisc.Iter: OO090 BLDE-FinaI
Iter: 60530 BLD6-Telp. C/O
Iter: OO54O BLDE-FinaL C/O
I
\. t.,,
tl
7'-l-
tl
tr t,i tt t;
nroe & Ne
Ilngineers, Inc.
Vail, Grlorado
l)errvqr, (i,loratkr
Mo well
February 29,1996
Mr. Bob Borne
Snowshoe Development
PO Box 4205
Vail, CO 81658
Re: Sim Residence Foundation Observation (M&N 3047)
Gentlemen:
Monroe & Nswell Engineers, Inc. visited the site of the Sim Residence foundation in East
Vail on 2121196. The purpose of the site observation was to review the following specific
itenrs as requested by you.
L We observed several small pockets of honeycombing on the inside of the foundalion
walls in the garage area and the crawlspac e area at the south of the garage. The
honeycombing should be filled with an epoxy-type non-shrink grout.'I'|is repair is
not unusual for the tall walls poured. Waterproofing the outside of the walls will
prevent any exterior moisture from penetrating the honeycombing pockets.
2. T|rc top of the foundation wall at the front of the garage was poured approximately
18" below the future garage floor elevation. The existing reinforcing dowels
protruding from the top of this wall should be spliced and the garage floor slab poured
onto the foundation walls as shown in the attached revised section l/S5.
3. We observed the accessible foundation wall surfaces during our site visit. We could
not find any cracking that exceeded typical shrinkage cracking. The walls appeared to
have not suffered any darnage due to the frost conditions during the hydratation
process. The concrete seemed to have cured correctly. Enclosed witlr this letter is our
contractor's option for reinforcement of a l0'-0 higlt retaining wall dated 10/23/96.
'fhc altcrnatc rcinforccmcnt option allowcd rrsc of //6 rcitt[otcirrg blrs itr lictr ol-//ll
bars.
OO4tl ll. llt'irr.r'r tllt cli lilvtl . Soilr'l()l . P () ll()x 1597 r Ar rr. (li'l r;r<lrr ll16?0 . riot) ilir) 776tr.l'AX a.t,)t) ()lrr 'io5,l
4. Tlre building's foundations were originally designed for an allowable soil bearing
pressure of 2000 PSF. After excavation of the site, the soils engineer cletermined that
tlre bearing capacity ol the on-site soils was only 1200 PSF. Monroe & Newell
llngineers, Inc. had to resize the building's foundations and increase the footing sizes
up to 100%.
It is our opinion, that the concrete was installed in general compliance with the
construction documents. We observed the installation of the reinforcement during
previous site visits. We also saw plastic tenting and the use of gas heaters during the
concrcte wall pours.
If you lrave any questions or comments, please call.
Very tnrly yours,
MONROE & NEWELL ENGINEERS, INC.
t rl
-#y\j
Ilannes Spaeh, l'.8. I
Principal
o P. U5 r-E--l l/ Ei l\r\iHr
L+X4Xt/4X cotttl.|l.JLrS LlrH y+'0 x 5' EXF. A A.T 4'4
Fl **gE
I
G
C
ir
OEZK E+5TC)u
z
E
b
I a
A 'l
^_J
{60
H
o
. .\*'
t€fE'tz
I. EFEAR I z c(2Nclel 5- +AW bl 4. A6T|VE
1'-.-1-
.R.A;'E @
=tE Fc' - Wffi
Fe'eg5L|PE 16 "
r#l(*t t b C o e F G r{
/-d (-$E 7-+'w .€. ld 16tu..6 a lef 6. z+
4'-d t-4'6',"-4'td #. 14:.5o|a'#.lc'ra I tzf
6'-d )-f g E'-t E *at4 16. ld .G.q *6tE'
b'-d 4'--D'td 6'4 l4'*atd *5rtt'*G.6'*ooo'
td-o G'-a rf c'-g lG':aof fitts'+Gcf *asd
=FC >/4' = t'
Qn_73/-=
TT]TAL P. 05
Nerrrell
Eoglaere, Iac,
ll.lt.t-t l'L',ti. -t1:LJb O
fr Monroe &t\(/V
u*t+'altJa.'.trredlF-L€:
F*tf,TlN4' ---feuie*.nad-
HLU- "i... : .' ., i.
1=oa-raF.l ,1 /od (e..\
G E /E=oF-
' ; i \v:l-*,*
tml:tlll (ltl !lr.l tl I drr.a 1F9.1.. Ca rr l|lt loOdflof ruffi r{}t!#t
l0! s. Irmre nd. w. t203
P. O. !il 357
vrll, CO El65l
303{7e?2tl
FAx 3ot.a7&4514
Rt,,r.'!/'dJ'E
lilhltl's.twtCnnpay
{Mir**
o
m0 JUN 2 9l9g2
llr Nrubrr (303) 176-4334 Fhonc l{wbcr -(303) 476-32Fr
Ft
* 0F E GEs (rf,cltDrnc covEB PAGIB) 2
If thsrt ra! lrly lroblcug rlth thlr
lurdtatttY.
tfantrlsNlonr Plclec Dotlft ur
LAT{D TITTE
GUA,FANIEE
COnfiAlff
GouperrY tele
PI.EASE DBLIYIT TUE FOLIOIIITG PAGIS TO:
- (af,Ytfll,uLlla
Cotrtaet Pcrron
Fax f,rrubcr
rl0l{r
f,3EG
I}AIE TIAI8UIfiED:
IAGSIIfiI.E IITTNIIIIETL
?hooe turber
fu tw:'tdth ditlwtw llr alltflali ht \rnl
ORDER NB: KAREN
VEND0R NB: EOOO?
TSEUED TO: LAND TIfLE CUARANTEH
P. o, Bqx 3F7
vAIL, ctr €169i8
sEtfl BY:EAGLE Cotfifi : 0-29-92 : 7:46 I 3000287207-
srAre ttQffiA3oo, ,,, *'lgUX# ofAotE
CER1IFICATE OF TAXE6 DUE
ao{i {7ti{EiJ4 it 2! :'.
xgi's JUN 2 9199e
PARCEL NOr OOIOSSS
ABEEBSED TOi
BABLE LUFINE FARTNHRB. LTD.
+iioo-tl. FEDEf,AL Hl.tY - ETE eos B
BOBA RATON, FL 33437
AI.IOUNTS F€FLECTED ARE VALID ONLV UNTIL
a7/3t/"e
-*-Fff ffi FC w " tiH$tfr iF fi d
EIOHORN lgT ADDITTON
-CIcR a LoT 5
F* VACANT LAND {t*l
iltinnenr TAx a, 357. 07 STA
TAX DUE
INTEREST
ADVERTISTNO
PEMLTIEs
tlI3G.
TI]TAL TAI( DUE
o. o0
0. oo
o. oo
0. oo
o. oo
AX LIEN SALE AI1OUNT IS SUEJECT O
HANEE I}UE TO ENDORBEF1ENT OTJ THE
URRENT TAX BY CEBT OF PURCTIASE
U-DER. AFTER SEPT 1, PERSONAL PROP.
ITOOTI-E HOIIE AFOUNT Ig SUB.'ECT TO
HANOE. AFTER trCT. T REAL PROF. TAX
I'IOUNT IS SUE"ISCT TO CHANEE' PLEASE
ONTACT THE TREASURERS OFFICE FOR
ORRECT Af'IOUNI PRIOR TO REf{ITTINC.
5PECIAL TAXINA DIgTftICTS AND TI{H
BOUNDRIES OF SUCH DI€TRICTE T'IAY BE
ON FII.E T.IITH THE BOARD OF' COUNTV
COTIIIISSIONERS' THE COUNTY CLEFR,
trR THE C9UNTY ASSEggOR
FEH FON IA5UINO THI$ CERTIFICATE TlO' OO
TAX LISNS OH DELINOUENT TAX
TETAL AM{IUNT TO BEDEEI{ o. oo
SPECIAL ASSESgttFNTg DUE
TOTAL SFEC. ASSIITS DU€
o' o(
TOTAL DUE T}IIF CERTIFICATE
o' o(
0. 00
Ffi*frnTTiil ;T ;-ffi';;ffi;-ff;f ;ilTa nd o r'i mp r ov cmrn t I
.chadulr numDG"r perFgnill pt'opettg tnrrrr tranrf dr' tar
,rh6lf sf othGr entitierr .poiial or local lmprovrmcnt
'oiii. hotolr, unlesg rpccifically nrntloned'
; :;ffi : i' il"J" t.il;;;; ;; ;-;i - i"nq -'s1-'.ei t..tyi-r ?q A:y 2+ -ruitE
asre$rcd or mi rc,
dis,tritt
ungct a r nP lra ts
tar collcctsd on
alttFtsttrintc of
, ths u||drrsl!nad. ds herbs iiarttfg that thr entira-:11iT:-tl,n:":^:':"::ll
,;":1".::::l;::";:;.":;,":;':,:;';;;;";;i'"iJ 'ii :l!:o:l1ris-_:"I:: l:1,1"[:t':::Il l;":;ili"rl"lii'i*l;'';i;:il:;i-liii:i-il:i^'l::n,:n:"li]'niil'il'il Ii ::;::,-t; iltH"ril il;;';-;:;iri"r"'i"i';;;;'piion-.n' as noted herein' rn urrtnets
,16 .J -.. -.G -llltlF 7qq2
thr
iNi.CSUNEN, HAOLE CtlVNl.Y SHERRY ENANDON BY
1992
rfritro+. I havl heteonto tet ng hEnrl :nd :e€l "'-iiiesunen. e*or-e couNl'YeHERFY BHANDoN BY
; . a.i
f]l
.. PI.ANNING AND ENVIRoNMENTAL CoMMISSION
June 2.,1992
Present
Greg Amsden
Jeff Bowen
Ghuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Dalton Williams
Gena Whitten
Absent
Staft
Kristan PriE
Jill Kammerer
Shelly Mello
Mike Mollica
Tim Devlin
Mary Caster
Kathy Langenwalter
The meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m. by Chairperson Diana Donovan.
Worksession
1. Worksession to discuss the feasibility ol creating an Environmental
Board in the Town of Vail.
Presenter: Susan Scanlan
Susan gave a presentation to he PEC about the research on environmental
commissions, specifically the Telluride Environmental Gommission. Commentrs were
made by the Council. Diana Donovan felt that there were enough boards at the
present time and it would be difficult to find interested persons in the area to serve.
Dalton Williams stated he felt such a board would be another "hoop to go firough', but
felt there were interested people in town that would apply for the commission. lt was
felt that a voluntary board would be beneficial to the new Environmental Policies
Officer, Russell Forest, who will be joining the Community Development Department on
August 10th. lt was felt by the Commission that this board would best be served by a
county-wide commission. The PEC thanked Susan for her research on this issue.
The Public Hearing portion of this meeting was hen opened by Chairperson Donovan.
Chairperson Diana Donovan introduced the new PEC member, Jeff Bowen, and welcomed
him to the Board.
2. 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
Pl€nnkE end E Nlronnsflsl Comnisshn ll€.dng, June 22, 19s2
7. The next item reviewed by the PEC was ltem #3 on the agenda, a request for a minor
subdivision for Lot 5. Block 2,
.Bighorn
First, 391 6 Lupine Drive.
Applicant Marty Abel, President of Sable Lupine Parhers,
Lrd.
Planner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica reviewed he request wilh he Commission, stating that he applicantis
proposing to reduce he GRFA on the property, which is zoned duplex. The applicant
is proposing one single family dwelling with an optional caretaker unit. The applicant,
Mafi Abel, stated he felt if he project was built-out using the allowable GRFA it would
be an excessive amount of building for he lot. After some discussion, Greg Amsden
made a motion to approve he request per he stiaff memo. Chuck Crist seconded he
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. lt was suggested by Kristan Pritz that the Commission be polled to see how he
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. Afler
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 vole was taken and the motion
passed unanimously, 6-0. Kristian PriE 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 PriE stated that height restrictions would be recorded on the
plat. The staff further recommended the applicant record a driveway/garage access
envelope on the plat. ln 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
slructure shall not exceed an elevalion of 8503 feet.
2. On the balance of the site (north portion of the site), the ma:<imum building
height shall not exceed 30 feet ftom existing or proposed grade, whicfiever is
more restrictive.
Phnnln0 ard Envlrgnme,rt.l Commksbn M€edno, Jun 2a 1992
t
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
June 2, 1992
A request for a minor subdivision for Lot 5, Block 2, Bighom First, 3916
Lupine Drive.
Applicant: Marty Abel, President of Sable Lupine
Parhers, Ltd.Planner: Mike Mollica
I. DESCRPNON OF THE REOUEST
The applicant, owner of Lot 5, Block 2, Bighom First, is requesting a minor subdivision in
order to divide Lot 5 into two lots. Lot 5 is currently vacant, however the property does have
the remains of a partially constructed foundation located upon it.
The sunounding zoning includes Two Family Residential to the east and north, Single Family
Residential to the northeast, and Agricultural and Open Space zoning to the west. The
property located to the south of Lot 5 is in the White River National Forest, and is not within
the Town's municipal limits.
Lot 5 is located within the Two Family Residential zone district. Portions ol Lot 5 are
encumbered with the lollowing geologically sensitive designations:
. 407o slopes
. Red hazard avalanche
. Blue hazard avalanche
. High severity rockfall
. High hazard debris flow and high hazard debris avalanche
The appllcant's proposal ls to subdlvlde the propedy, approxhately In halt, whlch
would create two separate, bulldable lots. The zonlng for each lot wlll r€maln duplex.
Howeyer,lhe appllcant ls llmltlng development on each new lot to one slngle famlly
dwelllng wlth an optlonal caretaker unlt. The GRFA ls also proposed to be restrlcted to
8,804 square bet, whlch ls-ilZtli uare teet below the cunent allowable GRFA lf each
new lol has duplex zonlng.
I
II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
A. In October ol 1983, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a
rezoning and a minor subdivision lor an adjacent duplex lot, locabd at 3967 Lupine Drive.
This rezoning and minor suMivision allowed two single family lots to be created (3967 and
3977 Lupine Drive) from lhe one duplex lot.
B. On February 12, 1990, lhe PEC, by a vote of 7-0, unanimously recommended
approval ol a zone change request for Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, Bighorn First, from the existing
Two Family Residentialzone districl (duplex)to he Single Family Besidentialzone distict. At
this same meeting, the PEC, by a vote ol 5-2, approved a request for a minor subdivision
which would have created 4 single family lots from the existing Lots 4 and 5. Both th€
rezoning and a minor subdivision request were subsequently reviewed by the Vail Town
Council on February 20, 1990. At this meeting, the Town Council denied the request for the
zone change and the application for the minor subdivision.
ZONING ANALYSIS
1-Lot Area
Gross Area:
40% slopes, red
hazard avalanche:
NET BUILDABLE
AREA:
GRFA
Densitv
Existing Duplex
Zoninq
;:-----=..\q_azpEjs&__)
-20i99 sq.ft.
Existing Duplex Zoning
with Minor Subdivision
Lot 5A Lot 58
30,296 sq.ft. 36,716 sq.ft.
-1t!.788 sq.ft. -_L?,I198. sq.ft.
16,508 sq.ft. 23,816 sq.ft.
2 DU's 2 DU'S
Prooosal
Lot 5A Lot 58
Same as Duplex zoning
with minor subdivision
4$04
2 DU's plus 2 optional
caretaker units
includes the 425 square foot "bonus' that the Two Family Residential zone district allows for
dwelling units (as indicated in Chapter 18.12.090(a). Should a lot owner decide to construct a
caretaker unit on the property, the GRFA for that caretaker unit must come out of the
maximum allowable GRFA for the lot. The additional 425 square foot 'bonus" shall not be
applicable to the caretaker unit. Each new single family drelling unit would also have the
right to construct a garage per Section 18.04.130 of the Town ol Vail Municipal Code. The
optional caretaker unils do not qualify for the garage 'credits'.
40,324 sq.tt.
<fsojq..!,
2 DU's
2.
3.
*;{}
(stc
I At the request of the statt, the applicant has agreed to allow lor an.gp[g[g!_care'E!gl_gd! In
each of the dwelling units on Lots 5A and 58, and the following r€strictions will apply to the
caretaker unib:
. The caretaker unit shallbe restricted to a madmum GRFA of 9C[) square feet.
. Any and all GRFA utilized br the construction of the caretaker unit shall bo d€ducted
from the maximum allowable GRFA for the specific lot the caretaker unlt h located
upon.
. No caretaker unit shall be sold, transfened, conveyed or subdfuided separately lrom
the main, or gimary unit.
. No caretiaker unit shall be leased or rented for any period less than 30 consecutive
days.
Should a lot own€r wish to construct a caretaker unit, the abow listed restrictions lor
caretaker units shall be agreed to in writing, by the lot owner(s), prior to the Town's issuance
of a building permit for the unit. Said agreement shall be liled on record in he otfice of the
Eagle County Clerk and Recorder on a lorm approved by the Town Attorney, tor the benetit of
the Town, to insure that the restrictions shall run with the land.
IV. MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA
A. Lot Area
Chapler 18.12.050 of the Town's Municipal Code requires that the minimum lot or site area for
a property located within the Two Family Residential zone district be 15,000 square feet of
buildable site area. As indicated in Section lll of this staff memorandum, the zoning analysis,
the proposed Lots 5A and 58 would botr meet and exceed the required minimum lot size.
B. Frontage
Chapter 18.12.050 of lhe Vail Municipal Code requires that each lot have a minimum frontage
of 30 feet. The applicant's proposed minor suMivision meets this requirement, as Lot 5A has
a proposed frontage of approximately 91 leet and Lot 58 has a proposed frontage ol
approximately 1 1 5 teet.
C. Site Dimensions
Chapter 18.12.050 of the Municipal Gode requires that each site be of a size and shape
capable of enclosing a square area 80 feet on each side within its boundaries. The
applicant's proposed configuration for Lots 5A and 58 are ot a size and shape that they can
meet and exceed the 80 teet square area regulation.
t V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The stafl recommendation for fie applicant's proposed minor subdivision request is for
approval witr two conditions. lt is the staff's position that all of he required
zoning/development standards for a minor subdivision request have been either met or
exceeded. The staff would recommend that the following conditions of approval be placed
upon the minor subdivision:
1. That prior to the To,vn's issuance ol a building permit for the development of eifter Lot
5A or 58, that a site specific geologic hazard report be completed. The geologic
hazard report shall take into account the proposed architectural design of the
residence, as well as the overall site planning.
2. lt shallbe a condition of this minor subdivision approval that the primary method of
mitigation lor the geologic hazards shall be intemal (built into the structure). lt is
acceptable to have limited exlemal mitigation as a part of he project, as long as this
mitigation is approved by the Design Review Board and do6s not constitute maior
regrading or earth moving on the site. One example of an acceptable extemal method
of mitlgation would be to incorporate "garden walls' into lhe site planning for the
property.
cpacttrdr|cvudna.822
4
FINAL PLAT, A RESUBDIVISION OF
TOWN
\t11l
Di
'-
vrcrNrTY traAP
."\
LOT 16
BIGHORN SUBOIVISION SECOND ADDITIOI'{
Yi
r:jlo. i. . rtat.rtr
LOT 4
o^,.a
R.soo.oo' -c
A . |8'OO'OO'
L .15707'(CALC. r5708')
NT\
t. !,
!.s k.rt \ jr,
N89.49'06'w
b
""?
\*.3
\\rooo.'!e6..ri..
'%.
4
2u
i/
rtura . ra ! rrar. r.ri
ir'r.a/!,, ?r' rlor rotr
|,
o!g
d J
l:'l
UNPLATTED
-::r :i :la:r ir -- i;:1:l:.:r.i'r. 3€' -.*
r rrrj r [Jh* ]r r 6..{ |,|9k vai coro!.rro l.t yd
=!g
aa.. .n, t.9rl .cird b..rd lte .nv <t lEr r'r rnrs rqv.y rlrhu dud ta.r. .tt., ytu ln N .venr,Ny .ht icrro lDsL-.! uFs $r d.r.ct In clrtr :g.*, rf, enc€d rrd r|E.l.rc or r.l'r cEr(rrr.ltrd.hd h<!t{{.
sE. r/4, r{.€, r,/4,
SEc. tl
hr^'n i - :,)-\)rt',, i, Li "i
', .j1L
DATE RECEIVED by CoMMUNITY DEVEIPPUENT
DEPARTMENT
/EC hf i {vNe zz' rttz
IPDLICATIOX FOR
ITNOR SUBDIVISION REVIEF
CEIPTER 1?.20 YAIIJ !fitNICfPAL CODE
(I OR FEFER I'T8)
(PLEASE PRINT
A. APPLICANT
OR TYPE)
Sable Lupine Partnef€j--Lld-t-PHoNE 476-888 3
HAIL]NG ADDRESS
PROPERTY OWNER General Partner
OIINERIS SIGNATURE
IIAILING ADDRESSSam pHONr-{76-8883 or
407 -367 -0 400
c.tocATION OF PROPOSAL (STREET ADDRESS) 3916 Lupine Drive
Vail, Co 81657
IPTS 5 BI.OCK SUBDMSION eiqherrl--lE!- dition
ps"r<ffib-o PAID4 5:4.|L CHECK * 1116
The first step is to reguest a meeting-with the zoni'ng
ad.ninistrator to assist the applicant in rneeting the
subnrittal. requirenents and to give the proposal a
prelirninarY review.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREI{ENTS
.-L. The applicant shall subnit three copies, two of which
nust Le mylars, of the proposal following the ./
requiremeits for a final plat be1ow. Certain of these
r"{nir"r"nts may be waived by the zoning adroinistrator
"rrd-7or the planfiing and Environmental Commission if
deternined not applicable to the project'
ttz.A list of all adjacent property oltners (including those
behind and across the street) with their MAILING
ADDRESSES sha1l also be subrnitted. In addition, subnit
addressed, stamped envelopes for each of the above'
4. Title Report verifying ownership and easements'
(Schedules A & B)
4. An environmental iurpact report roay be required as
stipulated under Chapter 18.56 of the zoning code'
5. FINAL PI,AT - REQUIREI{ENTS AND PROCEDURE:
(Some of these requirenents rnay be waived')
A. The subdivider shall submit four copies oi the
final plat, trto of which shall be mylars, twelve
copies-of the final EIR (if.required) and any
aa-aitional material as required below' within
thirtv davs of receiving the conplete and correct
subniital for a final plat, the zoning
administiator shall cause a coPy of a notice of
the ti;;;-pfi." and general' nature of the hearing
ana propo="t to le puUtished in a newspaPgr-of
g"t"tii'circulation-in the town of Vail at least
fifteen days prior to said hearing' AIso'
adiacent piopLrty owners to the proposed
subdivisibn inafi be notified in vriting at least
seven days prior to the public hearing'
500 S. Frontaqe RD East Suite 1I2 Vail' Co 81657
B.
^l
GocP Kt*l*'
Ftc
D.
E.
F
Doug Lindsay
7597 S Willow Circle
Englewood, Co 80112
Gatewa$ Development
2303 E Dartmouth Ave
Suite 200
Englewood, CO 80110
William and Betty Hewitt
Christie Hewitt
7 Cherry Hills Drive
Englewood, CO 80110
U.S. Forest Service
District Ranger
Holy Cross Ranger District
P.O. Box 190
Minturn, CO 81645
Ronan Colorado, Inc.
25 lmperial Street
Suite 500
Toronto, Ontario
CANADA MsP 1C1
C. Stanley and Martha Wilson
5455 West Jewell
Lakewood, CO 80232
,'[
ZeZ08 OC'poo,tlolB-l
llo'!\af lsaffi 99ts
uosllM equPkl,l puP
^eluPls
'3
tct d9k1 vovNvc ou?luo'oluorol
009 oilns
loa4s puadurlgz
'cul 'opeJopc uPuoH
9?9t8 OC'urnluln
06l xog 'o'd
lculslo raouPH ssorc AoH
raoueH pulslo
oc!ruas lseroJ 's'n
Ol tO8 OC 'Poo,$al6u3
a^uo siltH tuieqc I
ll!,!\sH oRsUtlC
ulileH rqp8 puE rxPllllM
ot toS oc 'poo^ st6u3
002 orns
a^v qlnouuEo 3 eoez
luaudols^ao ABne|Eo
zt108 oc'poo,\ sl6uf
olcllC,1 olllffi S 269/
Iespull 6nog
+'(Pu" itu* ,^T tr* fu^
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTTCE tS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town ol
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
ihe Town of Vail on June 22,1992, at 2:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municpal Building.
Consideration of:
1. A request to extend for 2 years the September 9, 1991 front setback variance approval
lor the Krediet residence located a|224 Forest Road, Lot 11-A, Block 7, Vail Village
Fhst 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
Besubdivision ol part of Sunburst.
Applicant: Jack Stanley
Planner: Jill Kammerer
, / 3. A request lor a minor subdivision for Lot 5, Block 2, Bighom 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
SuMivision Sth Addition.
Applicant: Wolfram Klawriter
Planner: Shelly Mello
6. A request for setback variances for the Grubbs Residence, 1031 Eagle's Nest
Circle/Lot I, 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 lhe
Municipal Gode 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 he VailTrail on June 5, 1992
rO3 roril OF VaIL
Herers the list of addresses that need to be notified of the
proposed minor subdivision of Lot 5, Block 2, Bighorn 1st Addition.
1) c. Stanley and Martha B. Wilson
5455 West Jewell
Lakeuood, co 80232
(they own Lot 16, Block 1, Bighorn 2nd Addition to the west).
2') Doug Lindsay
7597 S, Wi]low Circle
Englewood, CO 80112
(he owns Lot 2, Block 1, Parcel B, Bighorn lst Addition across the street) .
3) willian D. and Betty R. Hewitt Christie F. Hewitt
7 cherry Hills Drive
Englewood, CO 80110
(they own Lot 2, Block L, Parcel A, Biqhorn Lst Addition across the street) .
4) Ronan Colorado, Inc.
25 Imperial Street, Suite 5OO
Toronto, ontario, CANADA M5p lcl
(they own Lot 3, Block 1, Bighorn 1st Addition across the street).
5) Gateway Development, Inc.
2303 E. Dartmouth Avenue, Suite 200
Englewood, CO 80110
(he owns Lot 4, Block 2, Bighorn 1st Addition to the east).
6) U.S. Forest Service
District Ranger
HoIy cross Ranger District
Box L90, Minturn, CO 81645
o o
I 4n":rfhPr Odt _,.-L-<- " c
TOWN OF VAIL
D EPARTMENT OF COMMT]NITY DEYELOPMENT
SALES ACTION FORM
.1r;::
0l 0000 41540 ZONING AND ADDRESS MAPS - s5.00
0l 0000 42415 UNIFORM BIIILDING CODE s50.00
01 0000 42415 UMFORM PLUMBING CODE $36.00
01 0000 42415 TNIFORM MECHAN]CAL CODE s32.00
0r 000042415 LTNIFORM FIRE CODE s36.00
0l 0000 42415 NATIONAL ELECTRICAI CODE . s30.00
01 0000 42415 OTHER CODE BOOKS
0l 0000 41548 BLUE PRINTS MYLARS)s7.00
0l 0000 424 r2 XEROX COPIES / STUDIES s0.25
0l 0000 4237r PENALTY FEES / RE.INSPECTIONS
0t 0000 41332 PLAN REVIEW RE.CHECK FEE [S4O PER HR.]
010000 42322 OFF HOURS INSPECTION FEES
01 0000 41412 CONTRACTORS UCENSES FEES
,il 0r 0000 41330 OTHER FEES
ll 0l 0000 41413 SICN APPLICATION FEE s20.00
0 t 0000 4141 3 ADDnoNAL SIGNACE FEE [$1.00 PER SQ.F|.]
0l 0000 42440 vTC ART PROJECT DONATION
0l 0000 4133I PRE PAID DESIGN RE\TEW BOARD FEE
01 0000
0l 0000 41330 DDITIONAL GRFA "250"$200.00
0l 0000 41330 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $200.00
0l 0000 41330 EXTERIOR ALTERATION TLESS THAN IOO SQ.FT.]$200.00
0l 000041330 EffERIOR ALTERATION TMORE THAN IOO SO.FT.I s500.00
'I
0r 0000 41330 SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTzuCT tNElVI $r J00.00
0l 0000 41330 SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTzuCT IMA'OR AMEND]s l,000.00
OI OOOO4l:]30 ISPECFbDEVELOPMENTDISTzuCT IMINOR AMENDI $200.@
0l 0000 41330 (l SUBDIVISION )4*5'/t0'
0r0000.{i3i0 TVARIANCE $250.00-I
0r 0000 41330 ZONINC CODE AMENDMENTS s250,00
0t 0000 41330 RE . ZONING s200.00
0l 0000
Are CO}TMITI{8NT
SCTTEDUI.E A
our order No. v15580_3
'"irllSiiTH "l"iTilo r''oN - Chargea -AIJTA Omer Fotlcy ' cANcErJr'Arr:N-o$o$g 3Y'' ti3:33
****!Ixt'|H youR REurrrANcE
'TJEABE
REFER To ouR
'RDER
No. vls'8o_3.****
l. Effectlve Date: septenber tr, l99o at 8:00 A.l{.2, Pollcy to be lssued, and propoaeat Inaured!
'rALTArf Ohrnel' ra folloy t9B7 Revlelon (Auenala rggo)
propocad fnEured:
GATEWAy 12, LtrD., A corsRADO rJrilrTED PARTNERSHTP
3. Ili""Eff;i.f,I"i"l"T"::":lJT"l:ii deacrrbec or refrffed to rn
A Fee glnple
4, fitle to the eEtate or Lntereet covereil hereln te at the effective date hereoi-.r."ili-rru
'ABLE
luPrNE
'ARTNER', LTD. r A cor,oRADo rJrMrrED
'ARTNERBHT'5. Hir*l? r€ferrecl to in.thts connttnent te deEcrtbed ae
rroTs 4
^'fD
s,_p!ocx 2, ErcHoRN su_BD_rvrsro* FrRST ADDrTroN,AccoRDrNc ro Trp pr,lr'nicoiinriii_1ry1' l, 1e63 rN r,rAp cAsE 2 DRAI{ER r, courrry or nalii,-'iiiru oF corJoRADo.
:lE-
PAGE 1
ALE coD!uIT
SCHEDUIJE E-l
(Requlrenenta)
I.tENT
our orclor No. v15580-3
The followlng are the requlre&entg
1. faymant to or for the account the fult consideratfon-ior li'e lneured,
to bc complled nlth:
of the grantorE o estatr or rnterJl.tiltB"ttor. or
4.
5.
6.
2, Proper inetrunen!-l:1.-:rt"tlns_the 99!ate or lnrerest to be lnsured rnust be executed ana-auii iir"a-rJi i.cora, to-wrt:
3' PARTTAT' RErrEAs-E-or-lrpD oF Tnusr DATED ootober_01, rggof FRor[ L'NNE H, Ar'rARAr, ro rr^E puaiic rnusriE 9{ !$r.i-c6ffiiv FoR rrrE us' oF vA-,.ilBgi"i$ iflx^lg i:;:i ilii-;rJu or rie,ooo,6ii'nuconon6-o"t6uli oz. 1es0, rN
EXTENSToN AND.-I'{oDrFrcATroN AGREEII-8NT rN CONNECTI9T_WITH gArD DEED oF rRusr wAs RECORDED Noven'er io,-'r'ss-j, rN BOOK 348 AT
'AGE
876.
;f:tlglfl ?$-rt35iTol"o;"ilXE;rlfl.r{rrH sArD DEED oF rRusr wAs RECoRDED rune
tiltl8fS) l$-"t35il[3rl".F"il3$tl3il.wrrH sArD DEED oF rRusr IrAs RECoRDED May
3ll3Hl"ilrl"llfyl.I"'ilo31*Ifl'i3}'#l"oil]" DEED oF rRusr wAs RECoRDED
(AFFEcr6 LOI 4)
cERTrrrcATE oF RI-qI oF FrRsr REFu6Ar._ rN coMpLrANcE ,orrH THE sET FORTH rN WA*RANTV Orso-iicir:friip r,rAy 2?, r9s3 rN 800K 360
(AFFECtS r.oT 5)
A COPY OT CERTTFI9IIE OF IITI{TTED PARTNERSHTP FOR SA!!! LUPTNE PARTNERS,LrD., A r,rlrrrED nl$nrnsrip-'iiiilpbo ; ;iii.ii,"'iiril_-r'E DA'E oF Fu,rNc By TlrE sEcRErARy oF srArE oF-Loroiilob, uusr-ii-rui;iiiinsD ro rHE coMpANy.A COpy o!'cERTrrrglrT_or r.rMrTED PTRTNERSHTP roR cATEwAy #2, LTD., A r.r'rrr'D pARrNERsHrp^erAr.rpED-.:_;irilg,,_yrqri_irri_;Hb
oF FrLrNc ey i,Hs SECRETARy oF srArE or-toionauo,'irler su-iijRryii'iil'io rHE coMpANy.
RESERVATTON
AT PACE 611.
PAGE
Ar,T? coulrrruEl{T
SCHEDUI.E B-1
(Rrqulrenentt) our ordrr No. vls5g0-3
7. EVTDENCE SATTEFACToBY TO THE couFAr{y THAB IHE TER!{6, coNDrTroNs AND PROVISION8 OF THE TOWN OP VAIL trnltIEFER [Ax HAvE BEiIN sATIsFrED.
8. WARRANTY DEED FRou SABLE r.uPrNE PARTNEB, L?D.. A coLoFADo Lr!{ITED PARTNERSHIP To GATEWIY #2, LTD.' A coIPRADo Lrt'{fTED PARTNERS}|iF coNvEyINg . SUEJECB PROFER,TY.
THE COUNTY CIJERI( AND RECORDERE OtrFICE N.EQUIRTS RETURN
ADDREssES ON DOCT'MENTS SENT FOR RECONDTNGI I
PAGE 3
U. UTILIIY EAEEI.IENTS
IHE RECORDED PI,AT
COMUITI'I 8NT
SCHEDULE B-3
(Exceptione)out ord€r No. v15580-3
FEET IN WIDTH AFFECTING sUBJECT FROPERTY AS SHOWN ON BICHORN EUBDIVTSION FIRST ADDITION.
12' EASEUEIflIS, RESERVATIONS AND RESTRfCIfONS As sHO?fN oR RESERVED oN THE RECORDED PI,,AT OF BIGHORN SUBDIVIEION FIREI ADDIUON.
10
OF
ALT(l
The pollcy or porlclee to be leaued nlll oontaln cxceptLons to the following unress the eane are drspoaed of to the aatr;fi;aion oi---the Conpany!
1. standard Exceptlons I through 5 prlnted on the covcr sheet,
6. Texec and aegeeEmentg not yet due or payabl€ and cprclal as8€sam€nts not yet certrfled to tlre llreagurerra oifloe.
7, Any un;:ald taxee or ass€Bamentg aEalnet gaid lEnd,
8. L,ienE for unpaid water and Feqr€r chargea, if any.
9. RIGHT OF WAy roR DITCHES OR CANALB CONSTRUCTED BY THE A(xIHoRfTy OF THE IINITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNTTED STAEES PATENT RECORDED Novtrnber z:,1939, IN BOOK 1?3 AT PAGE 625.
10. RESTRTCTIVE COVENANTE, WHTCH DO NOT CONBAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CITAU$E, 8UT OMIITfNG RESTRICTTONS, Itr Al{y, EASED oN neCE, COLOR, RELIGION,oR NATToNAL oRIGIN, As CONTAINED fN TN8TRII}|ENT RECORDEO OacenUetr ZO, 1,s6z',IN BooK 174 AT PAGE 403 AND AS N.IENDED IN INSTRUI.|ENT RBcoRDED Aprtl'oi, -'
1963, IN BooK 175 AT PAGE 33 AND AS AI,IENDED fN fNSTRuIrtENT REcoRbED Uay 03,1963, rN BOOK 175 AT PACE 81.
PAGE
I,AND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY
Dated May 06, L992
Case V1890
Policy O00O
ENDORSEMENT OE
OWNER AND ENCTJMBRANCE REPORT
CHARGE S75.OO
That according to the indices of the county Recorder of EAGLE
County Colorado, relative to the following real property:
LOT 5, BLOCK 2, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, FTRST ADDITION.
A. The recorded owner of said real property is:
SABLE LUPINE PARTNERS, LTD.
B. There are no mortgages or deeds of Trust, Federal Tax Liens,
Association Lj.ens, Judgrnents or Mechanic Liens which purport to
affect said real property, other than the following:
DOCUMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 9, 1990 IN BOOK 539 AT PAGE 701
No inforrnation is furnished herein with respect to covenants,
conditj-ons, restrictions, easements, or real estate taxes and
assessments.
This certificate is dated to include the 5TH day of MAY I L992.
TITLE INSI]RANCE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA
)/ -sl^, L)syz 'f A) l;L i' Ytt-),f L-
Authorized officer of Aqent
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE CO.
108 South Frontage Road West
Suite 203 Vai1, Colorado 81657
Phone - 476-225L
Liability of the conpany under this certificate is limited to the
amount of charge.
Representing Title Insurance Company of Minnesota
Hl--o
-st.
E.
fclFit. fh ------ Lrrnlrr
ql'il ('l.Alll trl.l.l,
11 fH!| DCFI). \lrl rh'. 28th JJr or
fatG|r
Septenber . l'r 89.
ALBERT E. NIARAL
500 s. Frontrgc Fold Eatt, vtll, co
d rL '(1{||rt .'{ EAgle r'rt \t.rh ,{
(i'|fth. trl|.arr. -t u'\
0\0\
SABLE LUPINE PAN$ERS, LTD.
A colorrdo Llnltril Prrtncr.hip
I ihi. krd drra ii 5OO 8. Prontrge Rd. E!!t, Sultc llD
oflL
vail, colorrdo
(idntt t'f Ea-:lC 4rI Sli'c 0f ( '*rrh. !d|E.r\r
$tnsEssgt{. Tha dic t!..trrttrl [t.til InG.niat'tr-r.{ dE r{|n (tl Aen 1910.00)
IXXI.AtS
th. r11 11 .lt .oftri.1r.\ r{ r ht.lr r. hcr(hr ir l ,kr l(J$'1. h.8 tunrr<rt. tik'ind. rrld. !..rqd -tl (&fT CLA|I|ED..rd bt
dErF...rlr.l€!.rrnrr.nrk.$'.\'ll.!.{rr\nrjQllT(l-Atll|'|!(|thtrJnrr.{\rthclf icn. .rttrsr nd 8ril6.
t{rr. Jl it nflrr. nrlc. |nti'.r. (ltt||| rlr.| |ll|t|i,r, rlitst ||E Frr.tr'l h. ! . tr! b rtE rd tEFtr. r{rll|6 ri
?d
hFar*rrr. .f rtr rt{*. l-r fif Jnl h.lnf ln dr
Cdc&. &rr'titcrl a i{lr.
Ccr )ot EaglC d$roa
tor 5, ELoctr 2, ETGHORN SUBDtVrsroN, rrRst ADDltloll
li
alaeltt l-sta P-719 lole3l49 16133 PrB t G t
JOI'ICTTE P'IILLIPB EA6I.E Cq. TY CLERT(
nEc g. aa
DG
a.ao
(
'8 ':?
lo &Ft bt rltaar rl rs'nht 5.Luplnc Drivc, vril, colondo
lI) HAtt. ANtt lo llrr{-1, rlE r|ft. rtgtrr 16 r[ rr $!dr rlE .[Ef.|r6 rtd FirdGF lbtF t.ldtila .r -
-t'rir ftr.taro {'|t ||!l||f - d,allrlr ({tc ndr' tdk' |nt|t{ lrd GLim rb'{trtt' dtb FrFirr c'!r - h aGqdt' D
rl..rlt F .. !.. tEtEtt {rr, t!.htl ,'l tlt Frl(..(\L theltltGtr ed &.iFr\ kt\*r
ta rtflt{Ess $lltitl()+. Itr'lrr.ndr.t hJ 3 6Ntd t||F &dl Ir| rlE d{' r.r lrnr 'rho'<
SlAll: ttt (Ir|lt9A]Xr.
(irr !ot EAgl?
lb ir,:r! |r|rt |1! t/'n!d r|t rl n'| l.df rll h(krt 'rr' lht 'b All:ert E. A|nr ra I
-,"/^ l:',-ei4?." h. r ..e*?.
lri|n...' nrt lvnt fi, .{tr, !.1 r.l .
'll.r l\'N.r' t,tn ( ti "
b,tll h l.|i. q ll .l rllt.,rr!:r
of TnultT
||\ Df,tD Of Tatf,L
b
Tlr FDFL b G{t I Frtt11a gt al1r_'
=;u-i--.--lD - ?r.t- Sult!-l12- Yr
dr ?iJEL|(. TlttSn:F d ir' (iart't 'i t nr lrd (it' r rn rhth tlr prgrtr drsriH
rrtr rr srrt{' ir lht St- d ('(*r''dn'
Ii '%.fff.::iil-i.rr. corotrdo 8r6t?-drrr I il
r ?ir!L|(. TltrSn:F d th (iarit rr ( ||r lrd (it'tli m rhttr tlr FFrtt d'Ttilld I l:
rlr rr srrrt, rr lhr Sr- i{ (i*t''dn- I .- U,h rmmpln i #:+- [!
=!t
I .!fi1 r{ },
'.1. t:
:v}:d prrr:- r\.'r.rr__.ffi"'."., FlrtFt ri l_rrrarl.
,t---
': O.t t*..r'y ftta ld cwt nao 'oi blt llrre ir lllrr4 e*ti'.1
'ro0arl.
ltt h ft
--
ot*
.rtt
&c| t€iclt ltt l5 ccq ttr rr r.tr
r -f
ealr -snd(olrs-lrl.
Lors 4 ArD 5. BLocx 2. 6l6xgxriuBDlvrslON
tiih'eiroitiox,-icconorrc m ?|-!Llr
RECORDED APRIL l. 196! fN ltlP{'A!E-''
DRASER 1. COUNTI OF E.ACLE, SIIE 9I
corcRADo.
435t!5t 8-539 p-70l tolo?/ge l4r{S C r OF f Jt,I$ilETTE PIIILLTPS ENBLE COUNTY CLERKT OLORADO
b.-rlflb
-ldhl-
&rsrt-rrt'.r*r 3916 end 39!6 Lufnr Drlvr' Yellr Colorrdo
REC
!r. 09
-
cn.r o
?P
I ry | lltr, hr.rr "fir d.'
b.Ot/L h.tf rDCtttif rnr lrrrttrr rr
;lrFftr. a i -r.F.it I l#j.?:.i;.-'bt d*
i65-Frrrnorr. LEd. I r G6torrdo
, Wlrro nY hlrl nd r{tlcul rcd'
l'-ra hr .t Llt I ' t' l&r''' ttl rl'|.
,t
Abol , Prcrl
PIANNING AND ENVIRONIIIENTAL COUIIISSION
January 22. L99o
Minutes
Present Jin Viele
Diana Donovan
Chuck Crist
Kathy l{arren
Jim Shearer
Connie Knight
Dalton I{illians
staff
Peter Patten Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica Shelly Mello
Anne Jansen
The Planning and Environrnental Conrmission rneeting began at
approxinately 3:10 p.n. following Site Visits which started at
r:So p.m. The rneeting was ca1led to order by Jin Viele,
chairperson. First on the agenda was the approval of the minutes
of January 8, 1990.
Item No. l.: Approval of nrinutes for ilanuarv 8. 199o meeting.
l{otion for apnroval of rninutes was made by Diana Donovan and
seconded bv Kathv Warren.
voTE: 7-0infavor.
Item No. 2:
Core II in order to enclose two decks on the
villaqe center Buildinq on Block 58, vail villaqe
First Filinq at 122 East l'teadow Drive.
Apnlicant: Fred Hibberd
This proposal was discussed during the site visits by Shelty
ilello.
The motion for consent aPProval was made by Kathv Warren and
seconded by Chuck Crist.
Diana Donovan asked that the wording of the reguest be changed
from rrtwo decksrr to rra portion of the south facing entryrr in
order to clarify that the enclosure Itas not of just a deck.
AIso, Ann Loutham, the president of the condominign association,
asked that sonething in writing be submitted from the owner of
the condo being affected directly by this proposal and that
approval be conditional upon receipt of a letter from that owner.
this request was agreed to by the comrnissioners.
VOTE: 7-oinfavor.
I
Iten No. 3: A request to anend the Arterial Business Zone
District to allow private unstructured off-street
vehicle parkinq as a conditional use.
Applicant: VaiI Associates
This proposal rras presented by Peter Patten. He reviewed the
proposal and reitereated on the fact that this was not a specific
site request today but only an amendment to change the current
zoning to acconnodate future parking sites.
Joe llacy was present from Vail Associates to explain the need for
the arnendment just as Peter had stated. He repeated that it was
only for conditional use and not to begin any buiJ-ding of parking
lots.
comments were then opened to the that this conditional use needs
and it should not be overlooked.
PEc nenbers with Diana stating
to be accommodated for future use
Kathy warren asked for the addition of the word rrscreenedrr since
the loning code reguires it and Peter answered that this would be
done.
Jim Shearer rnotioned for recomnendation of approval to allow for
use. Dalton Williarns seconded the rnotion.
VOTE: 7-0infavor.
fteur No. 4: A Work Session for a minor subdivision and zone
chanoe for Lots 4 & 5, Block 2. Biqhorn First
Addition.Anplicant: Sable/Lupine Partners, Ltd.
This proposal was Presented by Mike MoIIica to the PEc members.
l,like gave an overview of the memo going over the staff nemorandum
and the Zoning Conparisons chart. There was one change made to
this chart on #4, under the PROPOSAL column. A change frorn 121000
sf GRFA to 12,895 sf GRFA. Mike than covered the issues of the
proposal which he felt needed to be discussed today with the PEC.
At this time, Mike Perkin, ttre architect representing the
applicant, responded by polnting out the option of changing Lot 2
in a way that would elininate tbe construction of a hazard
nitigation berm and presented a drawing to show what the revised
lot would look like. It nade an unusual shaped lot but would
fulfill the 12,500 sf buildable area requirement. lle also stated
that by direct nitigation, there would have to be a lot of heawy
concrele laid to strengthen the structures. He continued to say
that if the safety factor is the issue, then the ability to.blend
the housing in as single fanily would be safer than two fanily in
respect to avalanche and other hazards which are currently
present on this site.
o
The discussion was then directed towards the issue of driveways
and the number which would be allowed for the homes' ft was
nentLoned that access may present a problem - more cuts, more
vehicles, more accident possibilities which brings the safety
issue back in to the piciure. Staff has suggested two driveway
cuts instead of four.
euestions concerning the berm were ttren addressed by-Jin Vie1e.
He stated that ther6 is " constant danger of snow slides each
V""i-i" thi. ar"" and wished to know how the overall proposal
would fit into this.
Connie Kniqht asked about the rrcreekrr and Dlike Perkin responded
that it wal not a creek, but a spring run. He also slrowed how
itris spring could be diverted down the property lines on the far
side of the lots.
Diana Donovan then gave her comnents to this proposal. She
stated that the hazirds are very severe and suggested that only
three lots be created (subdivide the eastern lot only) which-
would make for safer t6ts. she felt that the building of a bern
is unacceptable and that rnany of the 40 - 50 foot asPen trees
would have to be sacrificed-
Kathy warren stated that she would like to see enployee housing
fi;iar;;a"a it these tots. She agrees with Diana concerning the
Ut'tri"g and added that it would create an eyesore fron the
intersfate. She did say, in regard to the safety of the
proposal., that eurpJ.oyee housing-would not be a good idea if the
iaziras lresent c-oufi not be elininated. She also said that she
would rather see two driveways and if ttris berrn is_propos?d,.!lr9n
she wants it staked on the =ite as to the exact height and width
of the bern.
chuck crist said that he was opposed to the berm and would like
to see the rrrest lot subdivided- tor possible employee housing and
leave the east lot as is.
Dalton willians said that he personally would like to have his
own ari""way and asked if three single !"Tirv }ots would
elininate alt of in" ir=n"s being riised (ie. berrns, geologic
hazards, drivewaYs, etc. ) .
Diana stated that she was against
fewer the cuts for driveways the
this.
employee housing and that the
betler. Jin viele agreed with
Connie Knight expressed that she felt the proposal was geared to
profitability on ine appficantrs part with not enough emphasis or
'regara to ge6togic hazlids, division of lots, traffic generatlon,
overall safety' etc...
Jin Shearer made the suggestion of retaining walls and inquired
if they could save on nifigation costs. t{ike Perkin responded
t
that it would be more expensive than the building of the bern but
would do less darnage to the forest. He said that he could
investigate the building of retaining walls for the planning
cornmission I s infornation.
Finally, a guestion was raised by Ed Zhneier in the audience
asking if nitigation or berrning would be a part of the proposal
if this projeci were submitted tonorrow for a building pernit,
and xristan responded that the nitigation/berrning would be part
of the Landscape plan submitted directly to the DRB.
Item No. 5: A Work Session for an amendment to Special
Devefopment District #4. cascade Villaae to amend
Ludwig Kurz removed himself frorn the board due to a conflict of
interest.
This proposal was presented by Kristan Pritz. Kristan nade it
clear to the PEC that no bottting would be taking place at the
brewery. She enphasized the change in the parking Lot located to
the east of the brewery which wiII allow additional spaces. She
said that parking seems to be the biggest issue facing the
coqnission at this point.
Andy Norris, developer for the project, discussed the square
footage chart attached to the memo' He proceeded to go over the
conceptual schedule for coropletion of the project. Andy-noted
that ln emergency exit had been proposed for the south side of
the building-and stated that it was the only place available
under the Town building codes. He also described the loading
that was designed for pick-ups, delivery vehicles, etc. and said
that it would not interfere in any way with the buses or general
vehicular traffic. The loading access was designed specifically
for vendor traffic. He also inforned the commission that a trash
compactor will be installed to cut down on the freguency of trash
pick-up for the brewerY.
Andy went into how the parking woutd work. lle said that the Brew
ttall. would be operated like a banquet type facility with one
seating. He stated that the Bres Pub will be a local type
establishnent with a maximun seating capacity of 80 people and
wilt not affect the parking very much at all considering the
times that locals will be coming to the pub- He ended his speech
by giving facts retated to this new project:
--The brewery would be approxinately 9Oo feet fron both the
t{arriott and the Westin Hotels.
--He is looking into getting the bike path lighted for use by the
brewery in both summer and winter:
Partnership
Winter: sleigh rides to and fron the brewery (up to 80 People per evening could be transported this way).
Iten No. 63 A work Session on Air Oualitv.
Susan Scanlan presented the rnemo to the coumission. It is dated
Decenber llth because it had been tabled to later meeting dates.
Susan discussed with the cotnrnission that the biggest contributors
to the Air Quality problen were noodburning firepJ.aces and road
sanding, both occurring nostly in the winter season. It was
suggested that the writing of ordinances be done to correct the
probtem of enforcement on woodburning versus gas log fireplaces.
Jin viele suggested that before ordinances uere lrritten' nore
testing was needed to pinpoint more accurately the Percentage-contribution of woodbuining and road sanding to the overall air
quality picture. This could possibly be accornplished through the
Ctrenicit mass balancing technigue of anal-yzing filter samples.
The costs of this process need to be further investigated as well
as the degree of accuracy and the significance of the results.
Other alternatives suggested involved an extensive
sweeping/vacuuming program for the Town of Vail and Colorado
Oepartnent of Highw-y roads. The parameters of this tlpe of
program need to be discussed with CDOH and Stan Berr)man.
overall, the PEc nenbers felt that more inforrnation rras needed
before any further recommendations could be nade by the
cornmission on changes to existing regulations or new regulations.
It was recommended that this issue be investigated further before
PEc could give policy recommendation to the Town Council-
It was decided that Susan would prePare a report for the PEc
outlining recommendations for air quality concern!ng resuspended
particulates and also infornation on additional air testing (CMB)
with specific cost figures. The report will also document what
other conmunities are doing for air guality. Steve Arnold fron
the health departnent may also be invited to discuss the question
of whether or not the Town has adeguate information to irnplenent
air quality inprovernent measures.
The neeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
YAWN! ! !
MI NUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 20, 1990
7:30 P.M.
A regular rneeting of
at 7 :30 p. m. , in the
MEMBERS PRESENT:Kent Rose, F'ayor
Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro Tem
Jim Gi bson
Merv Lapi n
Robert LeVi ne
Peggy 0sterfoss
Lynn Fri tz1 en
Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TOlllN OFFICIALS PRESENT:
The first item was Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance
amending Title 8 of Health and Safety of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by
the addition of Chapter 8.36 Skier Safety. Mayor Rose read the full title of the
ordinance. Buck Al Ien briefly noted the added definitions Counci1 requested at
first reading. Joe Macy stated Vail Associates was involved in the wri ting of the
ordinance and urged Council to pass it. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the
ordjnance, which Tom Steinberg seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously 6-0.
Item two was Ordinance No. 4, Seri es of 1990, second reading, an ordinance approving
an intergovernmental agreement between the Town of Avon, Eagle County, and the Town
of Vail regarding the Berry Creek 5th Filing and the Miller Ranch. The fulI title
was read by Mayor Rose. Larry Eskwith reviewed the changes made on page 2,
paragraph 2, and page 4, paragraph 9D. He explained these changes were requested by
Council at fjrst reading. The Council decided to postpone action on the ordinance
untiI John Slevin, who had helped initiate the agreement and who was in the
audience, had a little time to review the language.
Next on the agenda was 0rdinance No. 5, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance
amending the Arterial Business Zone District to allow private off-street surface
parking as a conditional use. Mayor Rose read the fulI title. Mike MolIica noted
there were no changes made since first reading of the ordinance. Kristan Pri tz and
Mike then answered questions of the Council. Robert LeVine made a motion to approve
the ordinance on second reading, and Tom Steinberg seconded. Peggy 0sterfoss stated
she was sympathetic to the situation, but did not feel it was appropriate to add
off-street parking in the Arteri al Business District zone. A vote was taken and the
motion passed 4-2, with Peggy 0sterfoss and Merv Lapin opposed.
The next order of business was Ordinance No.8, Seni es of 1990, first reading, an
ordinance rezoning Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, Bighorn 1st Addition, from two family
residential to single fami1y residential; and appeal of the PEC decjsion granting
approval of a minor subdivjsion. Mayor Rose read the full title. Mike Molljca
reviewed the zone change request and why the applicant was asking forit. He then
reviewed the criteria used in evaluating the request. Mike stated the staff
recommended approva'l of both the zone change and the minor subdivision requests, and
the Planning and Environmental Commission approved both as well. He noted staff
recommended four conditions apply to the subdivision:
1. The Town Council approve the zone change request before the PEC chairperson
signs the plat.
2. The plat include a restriction which prohibits the use of berming as a
nethod of hazard mitigation.
3. The plat include a restriction which limits the total allowable GRFA to
L3,295 square feet.
the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990,
Council Chambers of the Vai l Municipal Building.
f
4. The plat jnclude a restriction limiting the number of dri veway cuts to a
maximum of two.
Mike Perkins, the architect representing the applicant, stated Mike Mollica had done
an excellent job, and then further explained why he felt both requests should be
approved. John Slevin stated he preferred a single family design to a duplex
design. There was some discussion by Mayor Rose regarding his feelings why the'l ots
shouid be'l eft as two, not four. Kristan Pritz and John Slevin gave additiona'l
information trying to clear up any confusion. Peggy Osterfoss stated she would
agree to everyihing, but preferred two driveways instead of four. Tom Steinberg
eiplained why he wis against the subdivision. After much discussion by Council,
Peggy 0sterfoss made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 8 on first reading (for the
zoi6-change) with the findings of 1) the zoning was suitable for the area; 2) there
was a convenient workable reiationship within the land uses; and 3) it would provide
growth of an orderly, viable community, and with all provisions stated in the staff
iemorandum included. Jim Gibson seconded the motion. There l,/as some discussion
regarding the minor subdivision in relation to the rezoning. Peggy Osterfoss
amended ihe motion by adding the approval of 0rdinance No. 8 was contingent upon the
approval of the minor subdivision, which was seconded by Jim Gibson. A vote was
tai<en and the motion failed 3-3, with Mayor Rose, Tom Steinberg, and Merv Lapin
opposi ng.
Item five was Resolution No. 5, Series of 1990, a resolution in support of the Eagle
County mil l levy election for recreational facil ities. Ron Phi ll ips discussed both
Resolution No. 5 and Resolution No. 6, which was a resolution providing for certain
types of Town expenditures and contributions in-kind in regard to the Eagle County
mill Ievy election for recreational facilities. He remarked that the twg
resolutiins would 1) endorse the election scheduled for April 10 supporting the mill
levy for recreational facilities, and 2) any individual member of the Town Council
o. its department heads or employees as specifica11y directed by the Town Council,
may expend not more than fifty dollars ($50) of public monies in the form of
letters, telephone cal1s, or other activities incidental to makjng a Town
Councilmember available to the press or the public for the purpose of responding to
question about any issues relating to the increase in tax levy and the purposes
therefor, or to express an opinion on any such issue. Merv Lapin made a motion to
approve Resolutjon No. 5, which was seconded by Peggy Osterfoss. A vote was taken
and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
The next item was Resolution No. 6, Series of 1990, a resolution providing for
cer"ta'i n types of Town expenditures and contributions in-kind in regard to the Eagle
County mi11 levy election for recreational facilities. A motion to approve the
resolution was made by Merv Lapin and seconded by Peggy Osterfoss. A vote was taken
and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
The next order of business was the appointment of a Vail Valley Marketing Board
member. The appl icants were: Mary Anne Daly, James Feldhaus, Bruce Gi11ie' Robert
0'Malley, Marilyn Pierce, and Richard Salturelli. A secret ballot vote was taken
and Marilyn Pierce chosen as the new member. Tom Steinberg then made a motion to
appoint Marilyn Pierce as the Vail Valley Marketing Board member, which Merv Lapin
seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. Merv Lapin
encouraged people to apply to the assorted Boards of the Town. Jjm Gibson
encouraged the VVMB to do their own appointments from now on and become a more self
standing board; they know better what type of person they need than the Council did.
Action on a letter of intent to purchase Forest Service Spraddle Creek and Golf
Majntenance parcels was next on the agenda. Ron Phillips gave background
information, brought Council up-to-date on these properties, and reviewed the letter
of intent. Tom Steinberg nade a motion to approve the letter of intent and that it
be sent to Bill Wood, District Ranger, which Merv Lapin seconded. A vote was taken
and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. Tom Steinberg asked if we should send a
sjmilar letter of intent for Parcel H, to which Ron responded he would check with
Bill Wood. There was some discussion regarding monies being used to develop the
properti es .
Next was djscussion of an Urban Mass Transportation Adminjstration (UMTA) grant
application for a people mover. Stan Berryman gave background information on the
subject. Ron Phillips provided additional information, and then both Ron and Stan
answered questions of Council. After some discussion, Tom Steinberg made a motion
to approve up to $10,000 for a grant application for an EiS, whjch Peggy Osterfoss
seconded. There was some discussion of from where the money would be budgeted. A
vote was then taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
-2-
At this tjme, Mayor Rose asked if John Slevin had had enough time to review the
intergovernmental agreement, so the Council could act upon it. John felt it was
basically a good agreement for all parties concerned. Peggy Osterfoss then made a
motion to approve Ordinance No. 4, and Tom Steinberg seconded. A vote was taken and
the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
There was no Citizen Participation.
At this time, Mayor Rose stated there were a few'i tems which there had not been time
to discuss at the Work Session, and he wanted to go over them now'
The first item was a presentation of street entertainment survey results. Pam
Brandmeyer gave background information, and stated this year they wanted to begin
with Memorial Weekend and run through September 23, with entertainment only Fridays
through Sundays. She then reviewed the survey results and answered questions of
Council. Jim Gibson suggested the present committee be retained and those who
cannot participate would be replaced as designated by those who continue. The rest
of Council agreed.
Next was djscussion of the Avon STOLport. Merv Lapin and Ron PhilIips are planning
to attend a meeting next Tuesday, February 27, lo meet with Continental Express.
Also, the Town of Avon is presently trying to purchase 160 acres the STOLport is
on. There was some discussion regarding these items'
Peggy 0sterfoss gave an update on the County Recreation Complex next. She noted
they were forming a special citizens' promotional committee and the promotional
efforts were solely from pri vate funds. She stated they had come up with a first
draft of a fact sheet, and distributed copies to Councilmembers. There was some
discussion regarding distribution information. Peggy asked for Council comments
before Friday for the next County Recreation meeting'
Ron Phillips' began his Information Update wjth a request that Council review the
drafted Citizen Survey by next Tuesday. He stated Council would discuss any
comments/additions/deletions/changes then. Ron commented that Mari on and Kay Hurtt
donated $L,297 for a personal computer to the Library. This was the second donation
as such; the first was from Merv Lapin. He remarked the Library was very
appreciative of both. Ron then requested Council go into Executive Session to
discuss a 1ega1 problem that had come up.
Mayor Rose commented he liked Caroline Fisher's "Around Town" article for the paper.
At this time, Larry Eskwith requested Council to retire to executive session to
discuss a 1ega1 matter. A motion by Tom Steinberg to go into executive session was
seconded by Robert LeVine. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
There being no further public business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfu l ly submi tted,
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
Mi nutes taken by Brenda Chesman
-3-
PI,ANNING A}{D ENVIRON!,TENTAL COMMISSTON
February L2t t99o
Uinutes
Present
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Connie ltnight
Ludwig Kurz
Jim Shearer
Kathy Warren
Dalton Willi.ans
Staff Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Shelly l{ello
Tom Braun
Betsy Rosolack
The planning and Environmental coumission neeting began at_
ifproxirnateiy r:OO p.m. following Site Visits which started at
1'2':oO p.m. itre neeting nas called to order by the vice-
chairperson, Diana Donovan.
Iten No. 1: AnPointment of PEC chairperson and
vice-chairPerson.
VOTE:6-0TNFAVOR.
chairperson.
VOTE:6-OINFAVOR.
Iten no. 2:
Jin Shearer excused hinself from this iten due to conflict of
interest.
Torn Braun reninded the Board that this was a reconnendation to
ti," io*n Council. He explained the proposal by stating that
there were two parts to -it. One was an anendment to the approved
pi""-t" allow f-or the enclosure of two decks on the third floor
irt tn" structure and the second part was a reguest for an
amendment to the parking standards to allow parking for the -.uaalii"" within tire parfing structure at the Vail Valley Medical
C;;t;;. Tom reviewed-the ciiteria for major amendments to SDDrs
"r,d th.n listed several concerns of the staff. Ile stated that
the staff recomrnended denlal of the reguest'
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, extrllained the original
reguests fron the hospital and from the Doubletree regarding parking and the proposed hospital parking structure. Jay pointed
out that the Doubletree had anended their SDD even though the parking structure was not started and no condition was placed on the Doubletree at that tine. Jay stated that the hospital has
agreed to add tvo L/2 levels, 35 innediately for parking and 35 at the present would be used for other things to naxinize the space. He said that the past two approvals lf,ere not conditional
upon the parking agreernent.
He suggested to the Planning Conmission that they could approve the request with conditions concerning the start of construction of the Hospita). parking structure. Jay said the vail National
Bank wanted to start construction Uay first. They would be done in July or August. The conditions could state that the parking
structure nust be started by August 1 so the Planning Couunission
would know whether or not there would indeed be parking
available.
Jay explained that they do have a tenporary tining problern prior
to the cornpletion of the parking structure. He explained that if
one assumed the Hospital did not build their parking structure
the Town could revoke the tenporary c.o. and he would sign a letter regarding that.
Ton pointed out that the approved parking structure does not have
excess parking spaces but only meets the demand of the Doubletree
and the hospital . The proposed additional parking spaces have
not yet been approved.
Kristan Pritz added that at best, there nigbt be one excess
parking spot. Sbe also added that, although the town is
supportive of adding the two l/2 levels, the Highway Departrnent
would need to be contacted for approval of the additional parking
spaces because they would contribute to additional traffic. She
continued to explain that the issue is adjacent property owners
wanting additional devetoprnent without the parking in place.
Connie Knight stated that she felt the present Vail National Bank
parking wai atrocious and wouLd reconmend denial .
Kathy ltarren stated that until something concrete was in place
with the hospltal parking structure, stte felt that the Bank
should provide some tenporary parking. AIso, that the existing
parking-shoul.d be addressed because, at present, it is already a
problern.
Jay stated that the Bank did neet parking reguirements now.
o
.?":t u.X:o ,, . I
ca(=.C)4.3. I
c o( (oa ;- -( o(-.C,a:l ( oc.(:
$Hffii{$ffi -ff$' ifi
* **n:$Tlllffi
$,ff
*""#'ff{.uu-,ff
|
Jay pointed out tbat the conditions would work' that the Vail
National Bank wouid not be able to take out a building pgrmlt
until the constr""[i""-"i trr" parking structure began and_they
could get a rco *r,.rr-in- parri-ng structure rfas substantially
completed.
Kristan stated that the board needed to realize the wishes of'
and the number oi-entities involved. stre was concerned about
g;;ttilg i ico l"i"t"-"otpi"ii"" of the parking structure' she
added that the Sink is n6t under constriints itrat were irnposed on
the Hospital . unu=uif circunstances ttere put on.the llospital
because of the .i.gi;g and she vanted the Loard to keep in mind
that the action on the bank proposal was a real precedent and
needed to be r"or.ea-ii .'"ty -"atifully' . {ty said he felt that the
vail National nank was in ihe saroe position as the hospital .
DaltonaskediftherewasacontractbetweentheBankandthe ;;;;it.i:---iristin anslrered that it was not officiallv approved
yet.
Diana suggested tabling fo1- tyo. weeks and Jay agreed' Tom asked
Jay to Put the """aiii""s that he lrad suggested in writing'
The rnotion was rnade bv. Dal.tQn wi-ltiarns- and.-s.ecgnded bv cbuck
Crist to table t h' the condition that
Juv would draft "t"tt tithitt o''tt """k'
VOTE:
Lten No. 3:
Tom Braun described ttre request as a modest one' That the
Vailglo wanted t"-Iaa'-it"-6t'tti"" plus 9 Poftg cochere' They
also want to put'";-; gile a"a ao iaaitional landscaping on the
llest side. Tom r"ii"w6a criteria and said that it would be as
outlinedinCCII.""""'-ai'trictandtheVailLionsheadUrban
Design Guide pfan in aaaitiott to Jtandard zoning considerations
such as set bactcs,-"it" coverage' .parking. etc. - However' since
the Lionshead PIan focuses prinariiy-on the-pedestrianized maII
area of Lionsheai"""a-itt" Viifgfo f.iaqe is.located outside the
i.ii i3a";t;i;;i;.I"arei-or ii5nsneaa, rnost of the review
criteria r"r. ,roi-aiil"irv relevant to ttre vailglo proposal.
There were no ="i i"ttt--irectfy-affecting ttre.property' As far
as compliarr"" tiit-iiE'utu""-oE'=i"" considerations for Lionshead'
the relevant issie"-"t"-tissing' roofs' -facade-walls' structure
and accent elements' The proposal seemed to be in compliance
with thes" .r"t"tiI. i;;itted out that the proposal-i='"1tP
consistent with ;;;i"g-;;n-siaerations in the ccrl zone district.
lrith Jin shearer absta
The staff recommendation was for approval' However, in
."if"iii"g this site the staff fetl- tnat landscaping iurprovenents
are needed on the berm on tbe Frontage Road. - Landscaping in that
area wourd screen ifr- parrcing lot and in conJunction with
irpro.r"r"nts that woul-d be nide to LrOstello, it would greatly
irnprove the streetscape in this area.
Tbe staff recomrnended approval with the conditlon that the
pi"p"r"a tanascape-pi""-8" revised to include improvements to the
berm between the p.iXitg lot and the south Frontage Road'
This revision is to be nade prior to the Design Review Board
Review of the ProPosal .
KirkAker,Architectontheproject,statedthatlandscapingon the back berm Provided very iitlfe advantage for users of
Vailglo.Jin Sbearer stated that he lfould like to see the entire Frontage
ioua fanascaped. He also added that he wanted to see the
durnpster on the southwest corner incorporated in the landscaping
pIan.
Kirk said he would like to discuss these landscape issues with
his client.
Katby felt that an enclosure or acreen for the durnpster should be
;;;I'oi irt" conditions to the Design Review Eoard'
chuckCristagreedwiththeneedfortandscapiTgontheFrontage
Road and the screening on the dunpster' . He said that he was
;il;dt-"uout tne-iac€ trrut the t-ops g-f tlr.pil. trees r,ere sawed
off to allow tne-sign-on the wall -of the vailglo to be viersed'
Daltonfeltthatthebernneedstobehighandthereneedstobe ;;Ia;; iitta"capittg, b""."se on the rnterstate one can see the
parked cars.
Diana stated that with aII the signs on the vailglo the berm can
be built uP a bit.
Connie mentioned that the proposal did look nice to her'
g.Ei-7-OINFAVOR
rtern No. 4: A recnrest for a minor subdivision-and zone chanqe
foTEts c e s. glock z',giohorn=First
.
Partners, Ltd.
Mike Mollica explained the proposal . He reminded the board that
they had had a iork session-on-this iten two weeks prior. He
expialned that there were two parts to the request; a zone
change and a minor subdivision.
Ttte request for the minor subdivision would create four single
iamily'lots from two duplex lots and the zone change was for
single farnily zoning.
Mike reviewed existing zoning and the criteria to evaluate a
zone change. one itefr was tie suitability of the.proposed
iezoning. The staff felt that the proposed rezoning.would be
consist6nt with the Townrs objectives and would not increase
overall densitY.
Mike showed a map which indicated large areas of snow and debris
iior, ied hazard'and blue hazard avalinche zones within tbe
boundaries of the two lots. He explained that the applicant was
;;;;;;i;; t- mitisate the hazards eitrrer by constructins larse _
berms or direct rrltigation which is structural strengthening of
in" u,tifaings. ue siia the applicant wanted to keep open-the.
"pii""r-"i itri"n type of nitigltion to use, and would prefer to
tt^i""-[n" individuai'fot owneri decide the method for themselves'
Mike continued to explain that the staff felt very strongly that
ifr" ptoposed berning-method of uritigation was unacceptable. It
was ieti that vehicrilar access into the woods to construct the
berm lrtould create additional scaring' Another. concern of the
staff was the four driveway cuts proposed and the staff
recommended a naxirnum of two driveway cuts'
The second criteria was whether or not the amendment presented a
convenient, worfalie ielationship within land uses consistent
;i|;-t;;-rrl"i"ipii objectives. ttixe stated that the staff felt
1fr'; ;-i;gi" i"rniiv reiidential zoning was- consistent with
uaj"..r,t-land use's and was conpatible with the neighborhood.
The staff was in favor of the proposed staggered setbacks along
i"pi". oii.'". However, one concern of the staff was the
ip-pfi""nts' reguesi i"i GRFA. The existing allowable GRFA is
i5;t;5-;q"are feet. The applicant is asking for 14,390 square
i"!t. Tlie staff was not in- favor of that increase'
The third criteria tras whether the rezoning provides for the
;;;il;-;; in-oraEiry, viable cornnunity. The staff believed that
the rezonrng would iioviae for the growth of an orderly and
viabl-e cornmunitY.
I
The staff reconmendation was for approval of both the reguests
rlin-itt" following conditions of approval:
1. That tlre Town council approve the zone change
'.qo""iueroretheplan.ningcolDmissionchairPerson signs the PIat'
2. That the plat include a restriction which
pioniUit= the use oi-ferning as a nethod of hazard
nitigation.3. d;['[]r;-;Iat include a restrlction which linits
trre-to€ar'allouable GRFA to 13r295 Equare feet.
4. That the ptat lnclude a restriction liniting the
ttttl"i of'driveway cuts to a maximurn of two'
Michael Perkins, architect for the project'-=t?:?9 that the
appricant wourd p;;i;; to be allowei s6rne flexibility in the
sorutions ro, ,r[iJ]ti""-"i-ttre trazaras. He passed out a draft
restricti.r. .o.r"r,iii-pt"p""ed to ut usea for hazard rnitigatigt'^
It stated that the us! oi berms as the sole or primary- method of
rnitigation of natural hazards be prohibited and that the use of
;;;;; retaining walls or other rnitigation devices less tban 6
feet in height r"V-[" used in "otjtttEtion with direct rnitigation
of the structure:' ;; "o"[i"""a t6 explain -that-the reason they
were asking for extii GRFA is that it-would cost more to do
direct rnitigatio"l--rnft, a-cording to Perkins' would off-set
their cost.
Marty Abel, property oller, said that his engineer confirmed that
each dwelfing unii-iould cost about 24 thousind dollars to do tbe
;;;;rt ;rtigitr""-."a-itt"t that was how they arrived at the
additionar sguare iootage for each unit--270 more square feet per
unit.
In regard to driveway-cuts.Michael Perkins felt that with four
cuts it would b;';6t'Iess traffic as gPposed to-two cuts and he
fett that it tne' werE--ueeting the si-nlfe-fanily restrictions
they should have'"i"gi" -arnily-allowance of one driveway per
unit. He said Jft]i'iig-.-ati"'.t"V is part of what nakes a duplex
"ot-i= fleasant as a -ingre fanily house'
Marty Abel said he would agree to covenants that restrict large
berms. Horirever,"i.-'i"ii tn" best nay for rnitigation was site
specific, ,,ot ,,l""J="iiiy direct nitigation' He felt the wording
on the restri'ctlon-sttoufi satisfy.each-Ttpil?l:nt for
construction ani-i"fi-init excluiing all berning rtas unfair' He
fert that tne cJvenants courd say tfrat benning would not be used
ur-it" primary nitigation method'
I
Kathyaskedhinthatifhedidnotwanttogoalongwithanyof the staff t""orr"naeo conaitions. uarty that they would go along
with iteus #2 and #r Unt not *4. Katby-was-not-very comfortable
with the statenent"th;t saia €nat they-could only- do a certain
ir"" "i-ritiqation ina-asfea Kristan if it would be-appropriate
ili-ti" ;ilii;;;i to come back to the prannins conrnission if
;;rri;g i's-proposed. Kristan answered that the condition was
retated to the r,rlairri=l-n reqnest and tberefore must be deaft
with norv.
Kathv felt tbat the correct way to
a de-sign and discuss mitigation.
do this was to come back with
Marty felt that the primary Detlod should be direct rnitigation
Uut-'teft it was unfair to iestrict berms cornpletely'
Kathy lras not comfortable allowing additi"l?l- Gl|}' Regarding
the &rive cuts, she had no problen having four drlveldays'
Dalton felt that the applicant could be-pernitted,additional GRFA
since it wouLd Ue alloild under single firnily zoning, which is
wbat they were requesting.- Dalton also preferred the sentence
that allowea retai"i"g-tiffs or berms leis than 6 feet in height
io u. used in conjuncfion with direct rnitigation'
Connie asked if with hazard nitigation Itas a concern of the
;r;;id-Cornroission. Kristan answered that the Planning
Comrnission needed to consider any concerns that were part of. a
proposal. connie vas in favor of two driveway cuts' did not
want an increase it, enfa and felt that the rnitigation should
pr.i"uiv-;;-G the structure itself. she also felt that there
should be some warning of the hazard on tbe plat'
Jim had no problem with four driveway cgts:- He..spoke of the..
.
i.!"iiiieiiiaiio" ;i ih; lot lines and- felt that this tvpe of thins
should be discouiig"d. He wanted ttre GRFA to stay the same as
that which was oii6inaffy on the lots' With regard to
#;rs;;r;;, h; rei€-trrat- if they need both types of mitisation
then both types of nitigation should be penoitted'
DianastatedthatdeveloPers|financialconcernscannotbea
"on=ia.rutlon of tt" pr"-ttning conrnission. she felt that four
;;i;;;;t; nere uei{er than tio and that the GRFA shourd stav the
same. She statea tnut the Planning Connission. has not previously
criven additional GRFA when changinS-zoning' She suggested
iillioiiTilil;-.-"onaitiot trrat siia trees over six inch caliper
cannot be removea. --srt" wanted the setbacks shown on the plat and
covenants for al-l four lots'
t
Chuck asked if the total
placed on all the lots.with the covenants.
square footage restriction would be
t{ike answered that this would be part of
conditions:
1. Ttrat the Town Council approve the zone change request
before the PEC chairperson signs tbe plat.
2. The the following restrictive covenant be placed on the
subdivision: DThe prinary uitigation of natural
hazards on the property strall be through direct
nitigation of the structure, and the use of berns as
the iole or prinarv nethod of nitigation shall be
prohibited. Bemsl retaining walli or other nitigation
hevices less than ilx feet in treigtrt may be used in
conjunction with such direct rnitigation.r'
3. That the following restrictive covenant be placed on
the subdivision: rrThe total allowable GRFA for the
subdivision shall be as foLlowst L'ot I = 3'300 square
feet, Lot.2 = 3r3OO square feet, Lot 3 = 3'300 square
feet and Lot 4 = 3,395 square feet. The total GRFA
sha1l be 13,295 square feet.rl
4. The front,
Plat.Lot L
l'c_t 2 Lot 3
I,ot 4
staggered setbacks shall be indicated on the
= 40 foot front setback
= 20 foot front setback
= 30 foot front setback
= 50 foot front setback
VOTE:
A motion was made bv Kathv Warren and seconded bY Ludwio Kurz to
ffiChlnoe based on the staff neno dated Februarv
L2. t990.
VOTE:7-OINFAVOR
Iten No. 5:
Fanilv
Connie removed herself from the discussion of the Garden of the
Gods stating a conflict of interest'
A request to arnend a soecial Development Pistric!for ttre Garden of the Gods on Lot K, Bloc+ 5. vail
Vltlaqe Fiith rilincr at ges qore creek orivg.
Appliiant: Garden of the Gods, Mrs. A.G. Hill
Kristan Pritz presented the.proposal to the Board' she started
;t-;t--".ii"g i!r.[-tne app:.i-cani naa decided to have only a
worksession.
Ur. Don Hare, representing Mrs. llill, discussed the proposal', -He
soncurred with the staff ind reasons for the-proposal' He said
ih" o*ntt"r will tear down the building and build a new one'
i"qurdi"g the concerns of the Vorlauier residence, he said he met
with thern ana con=iaeiea-r"Lation of the bullding but will stil'1
need to amend the SDD.
Art carol , a resident of the Vorlaufer, asked when this would be
proposed to come back. Kristan answered that this would be on
the 26th of Februirv, uut itut she felt it woufd be helpful to
hear his "o'".rnJ-l!e.t:- ffte nain concern is ttre effect on the
view of the mountain aird he questioned wtretber there ltas aome I'rray
that this could be lessened. - fheie followed a long discussion of
"i"*", "*ount of encroachment and View Corrldors'
)
Mike Moltica presented this proposal' tte had a letter of
;;;;";;i irot- ttre condoniniurn Association'
The o\tner of condominiurn #1, next to the condominium that was
proposing crranges-o;J;;a.a io the location of a balcony. she had
two concerns. The first was sharing tlre balcony and the second
was the fireplace-"!"li"g:--ffri9 wai di""ussed ind it was decided
to etiminate rhe-b;i;;;t; and th" fireplace_would.be vented to
theeast,threefeetab.oveunitf,l|soperablewindows.
ften No. 6:
Conditions: 1.
VOTE:7-orNrAvoR
ftem No. 7:
2.
She1lY Mello
iten for two
explained that
neeks.
the applicant requested to table this
10
tor an exterior alte
illaqe First
waII.
the staff merno.
vait villacre
The motion was made bv,Kathy Warren anC-Feconded bv Jim shearer
EGEEThis item until Februarv ze ' 19go'
VOTE: 7-OINFAVOR
ftem No. 8:A recruest for a heicrh.t vFrlange,go constrqc! i new
' vait Potato Patchr
The request is for a height variances ranging- from two to nine
feet. Tom Braun'ir""""tEli-this request aia snowed site-plans and
="r""V"]--Ue expliined that the pr6ject wolld involve altering
;;i;ii;s siades-rlv-iiirt"g in loir p6ints throushgut the lot. An
existing easenent'is also-referencld as a hardinip atfecting site
p-ia"ni"6. Ton pointed out that the history on the lot was
relevant.
Sometime in L976 excavation was begun for a fesidence' The
excavation dramatiJiiti altered the grade. and. lhen tlris past
;;,. ";-irre appti.""[-ulgutt tirrino the rot without approval from
the Town. tne tiEtors iere relevint in deternining Ylat.is the
existing grade of the lot. Tom also added that considering the
gradeofthelotafterthe19T6excavationwouldinpose.anunfair
hardship on the appifcant because of the hole that had been
created on the lot.
Twosurveysr'eresubrritted,oneshowingeEsentiallyexisting conditions and one showing the conditions of the lot prior to
excivation in rstg. The itaff detenoined that the most
reasonabl" "rrtr"y-io t"" was the one that was done prior,to .-
excavation in fgi6. ffti= approach is also consistent with other
decisions rnade by-staii-conlirning lots that have been disturbed'
Tom continued to discuss criteria and findings. The staff felt
that granting the i"gt""t would be a.grant-of Epecial privilege'
The staff t""o.t"ttd.€iott was for deniil' The staff could see no
iliiilir.i.-;ht"i;;i-trirasnip to allow for the variance' rhe
sraff fett that ffr; ;;;;"et ae"ign shoned little consideration
to the grade of the ProPertY'
Mike Lauterbach, the applicant, took exception to the staff memo'
He felt that he """ia L'ontorn i,o ttre reg,ired regulated height if
there were not .-ei=-fi"J itt ttt. easenent. He felt that he could
drop the house "ii"-f"Et-into the hole, comPensate by allowing a
four to six foot-ii"ieht-""ii"tt". or fiit the lot completely and
start fron scratch. -He then pointed out that the Lionsridge
subdivision had
-iiif"a a wholL ravine. He felt that the Potato
Patchsubdivisionwourabebest.Eer:\fedifthehousewerebuiltto in"-iiieftii ana'il.ti-"t.-for this site. He stated that without
filling the lot,-in.tt would be no views of the ski mountain'
11
cary Bossow, a property owner who lives tno lots a!ay' -agr99q -witir rotn uike ind-the-staff ln that you could fill and build buL
he sald 10 feet over the height restriction uas excessive.
Kristan explained that in construction, the existing grade must
be used an& persons were not given permissJ.on to dunp dirt and
then build on the lot later on.
Chuck asked how the Lionsridge subdivision obtained approval and
Kristan said that the planning Corunission had given approval. for
a total slte plan.
Gary Bossos stated that naybe the lot was not designed-to trave_a
viei of VaiI Mountain. Ludwig Kurz then stated that with really
creative plans you could irnprove the situation without requiring
a variancl. r,airterbach said that he fett that Ludwig was
suggesting that he point the trouse down the valley but that was
not what he wanted to do.
Connie asked if it was perrrissabfe to fill lots and Diana
expLained that they could fill theu but they stilL must use the
original grade in considering height restrictions.
Mike added that the ridge was artificially bigh and that nas a
hardship and that the eisernent rdas as big a problem as the low
point o-n the lot. Diana said she could not find a reason for the
iariance, and that the lack of a view is not a hardship. Mike
asked about the easernent. Kathy asked if the easements llere on
the lot when it uas purchased and Mike stated that they were.
Diana wondered if tha Planning Conunission didnrt often give.
variances for easements. Ton-pointed out that there was still
plenty of land to build on.
At this point the board discussed other ways and places that the
home could be built.
The motion was made bv Kathv Warren. and seconded bv Ludwiq Kurz
ffi fact tbat there was no lrardship proven
and per the staff merno.
Jirn stated that he felt that the home needed to be redesigned.
Diana said she rfas not convinced a variance was needed.
Bossow asked what kind of hard,ship lauterbach could possibly
have.
Diana expressed a need to look at the lot again'
Mike asked how the Lionshead subdivision had gotten an approval
."a Xii=tan explained that they went before the Planning
""rririi"n regiresting a fill and grading pernit'
ilike Laterbach said he would like to table for two weeks and
present a grading Plan.
L2
Ludwiq withdrew his second.
Torn reminded l.tike that if the lot uere regraded, the engineer
would need to look at the whole proJect and the other lots
affected. l,like said he thougtrt-he could cone back nith a
revised grading plan and aEked to table.
Diana asked Kristan if you could look at all the lots that had
been fitled. Diana staled that the Planning Connission had
allowed grullies on lots to determine whether units could be
separatea. Da1ton said if the ridge were artl.ficially raised
that that seemed to be a factor.
table for two weeks.
VOTE:
Tten No. 9:Discussion of revisions to Zonino Code. Sidn Code
and Desiqn Review Gui-deliDe-$-
Ton explained to the board that there iras a need to revise
existiirg development regulations, that over tine a nurnber of
snall aid relativety isolatea issues and problems with the codes
had arisen. tte asked that the Planning Eoard take a
comprehensive look at the regulations.
He stated that he was interested in the big picture Perception of
existing guidelines, for exaurple do tlre codes onJ'y need
refinerntnis or are ihey in neEa of a naJor overhaul? Can tbe
i"iiti""ihip between -DRB, PEc, and Council be itnproved wlth
;6;;e io tir" developroent'review process? Is the existing review
pr5c"u. cumbersome and slow, not thorough enough or adequate.
iorn wanted to know what the problerns were and wanted input for
the RFP.
Diana felt that it was not a good thing to rewrite the zoning.
code and that she also felt that it wai not a 99od thing to hire
an outsider. she sirnply felt it needed to be tightened up.
Torn explained that it was extrernely valuable to bring in fresh
eyes to look at the zoning code.
Kristan exptained that when they did choose a consultant the
staff and -Board would have lnpul. They wanted to work with the
soira ind council but felt that a fresh look was inportant.
Diana felt that there nere very few minor problens. Chuck tended
t;-;;r;;-wiitt piatta, he nas very opposed to hiring an outside
consultant.
13
Jin fett that we did not need rnajor involvenent of an attorney to
overEee the Project.
Dalton did not feel that an outside consultant was necessary'
He said that the "ott,ttt.nt would be paid to atudy rules that the
"tuii-"u= alreaay-iiroifiii-titn. Diaira stated that everyone that
works with the c6de knows the problems already'
Kristan explained that the etaff wasnrt advlsing a total overhaul
"i-[rr" ""rring "oae,--u"t €n.t st" has seen the use of many loop-
n"r"" and sh6 felt the need for consultant assistance was
inportant, "=p."iitii-ei""n ttre eiisting staff level in planning.
Dalton wondered J.f you could get an outside advisors in certain
areas without hiring a consultant'
Diana expressed that fact that usuatly ideas seemed to come from
in. c"ttirnity during the public hearings'
Kristan said that there would need to be sone tlpe of consultinq
team and that the rt"if was not in tfre position-to work on this
u..""""-"f their work load. Kathy felt that.this was not an easy
;;;Jil,-lfrut-itr"re were broad raige issues to consider and tbat
the Counry regurations and those oi tne Town should fit together
better.
Kristan said that it sounded as though the PEc nanted a lead
person with cons"f[""ir as needed. Sit she reninded then that
fi;;";.;i;"";;;-;-e€tott'"v ror rewritins the code' Jim stated
that he would fiie to see ilearer lines between the Planning _
conmission and tiie oetlgn ntt'i"* Board' Tom agreed that total
revision was not necessary'
KathylikedChuckrsideaofhavinglocalsrinput'butfeltthere ;;;;'nany tocals that were self serving'
The discussion ended.
L4
rT^.
Fr^Yn'
Date 3
Subj ect:
Planning E Environmental Cornrnission
Cornmunity DeveloPment Department
February 1.2, 1990
A request for a zone change and a minor subdivision for
Lots 4 & 5, Block 2, Bighorn 1st Addition'
Applicant: Sable/Lupine Partners' Ltd'
Description of the ProPosals
The applicant has reguested a rezonins ald subdivision of
tne aLove named lotsf more specifically located at 39L6 and
3956 Lupine Drive in East vail. The requests include the
following:
1) A zone change frorn the existing.Two Famify Residential
zone distri6t (duplex) to the Single Farnily Residential
zone district.
2) A minor subdivision which, if approved, would create
four single fanilY lots.
rtr- )
\>e r
n#-,I
vacanq, however, Lot 5 does have the
c6frEEructed foundation. The
applicants also ProPose to relocate an existing interrnittent
cieek that flows through Lots 4 & 5.
Surrounding zoning i4cluqgs Two Fanily.Residential to the
GaEEanil n5-r€il s-ing It Ferni- Iy nes ident ia I to the northeast,
and Agricultural & Open Space zoning to the west' Lands
south of these lots ire included in the White River National
Forest and are not within the Townrs rnunicipal lirnits.
II. Backqround
In October of 1983, the PEc approved a rezoning and minor
subdivision for an adjacent duptex lot located at 3967
i;pi;" Drive. Two single faurily lots were created (3967 and
:s?z r-,upine Dr.) fron the one duplex lot' The approval-
requireh that only one driveway cut be allowed for the two
to€s. This condii.ion was subsaquently removed by the PEC in
September of 1987.
III. Zoninq Analvsis
A. Lot Area (Lots 4 & 5 cornbined)
Gross Area :
Areas of 4Ot sloPe
or greater, and red
hazard avalanche:
l-L5, 918 square feet
-57,467 square feet
Both lots are currentl
;enefiE- oT-a partiallY
Net buildable area:58 r 451 square feet
Existing Zoninq
The current Two Farnily Residential zoning on Lots 4 & 5
witl allow for the construction of one duplex structure
on each 1ot. Current allowable GRFA and site coverage
are as follows:
Lot 4 GRFA = 6,L91. square feet
Lot 5 GRFA = 7.104 square feet Total : l-3r295 square feet
Lot 4 site coverage = 9t765 sguare feet
Lot 5 site coverage = 13.417 scruare feet
Total = 23,183 sguare feet
IV. Criteria To Be Used in Evaluatinq This Proposal
The three criteria to be used in the evaluation of a zone
change request are as follows:
Suitabilitv of the proposed zoninq.
rt is the staff opinion that the proposed rezoning
would be consistent with the Townts rnunicipal
objectives and that the rezoning would not create an
increase in overall density on this site. The current
P/S zonLng allows for a total of four dwelling units on
the lots, and the proposed Single Farnily zoning would
al-so allow for a total of four dwelling units.
Archj-tecturally, the main differences in the zone
districts include the layout, or site planning, and
general rnassing of the structures, (i.e two duplex
structures vs four singte farnily structures) . The
zoning comparisons are as shown in Section V be1ow.
There are currently large areas of snow and debris-
flow, red hazard and blue hazard avalanche zones withj-n
the boundaries of the two fots. There are also
rockfall hazard zones and large areas of 40? slope on
the Lots. The applicant is proposing to nitigate these
hazards by either the construction of large berrns (L2t
in height, 40t in width and approximately 265' in
length) uphill, or south, of the proposed residences,
or through direct rnitigation (structural strengthening
of the buildings). The applicant would like to keep
the options of nitigation open, and would prefer to
have each future lot owner decide the nethod of
mitigation for their particular lot. According to Art
l4ears, Avalanche-Control Engineer, the leve1s of safety
would be approxinately the same for either the direct
protection or berming rnethods.
B.
Ll
fs-..lj
method of nitigatio
rvthat@ s unacceptable. We believe that The staff feels stro
create an ex Te anount of scarring
ob'i ectives?
The staff feels that the Single Family
zoning designation would be consistent
land uses and woul.d also be conpatible
existing character of the neighborhood.
Residential with adjacent with the
We are in
@
on the hilldside as well- as the loss of numerous aspen
t=ee.s.--VEhicular access onto the wooded' hillside to
construct the berns would create additional scarring.
The applicant is proposing four drivewav culs onto
t.,upinL-Drive' one for each lot. The staff is
relommending that only two driveway cuts be allowed for
the project. The Town engineer has recommended this
lirnitation from a perspective of safety and we believe
that the issue of street aesthetics is also applicable.
2)fs the amendrnent presentincr a convenient, !.vorkable
ffi land uses consistent with Municipal
favor of the propos acks along
Lupine ere are no major impacts to thE
vElFtation on the site as a result of the staggered
A concern that the staff has identified with this
project lies with the applicantrs request for€.
ihe existing Przs zoning allows for a total GRFA of
1-3,2g5 square feet. At the PEC worksession the
applican€ts GRFA reguest was for.12,000 square feet,
(during the worksession the applicant amended the
requesi to 12,895 square feet) . Tha apnlican!.is llqw
proposing 14,390 square feet of GRFA. We believe that
3'295 sguare feet
should be naintained. Increases in GRFA, over the
current allowable, would only contribute to an increase
in the bulk and mass of the structures on lots that
have many environmental hazards.
setbacks. we believe that
posj.tively to the overall
as viewed from the street.
the setbacks will contribute
appearance of the develoPrnent
The applicant has agreed to
J)
indicate the setbacks on the r ded plat
viable comrnunitv?
Staff believes that the rezoning would provide for the
growth of an orderly and viable.community. The
froposed use of foui single fanily residences on this
sitL woutd be conpatible with the neighborhood in terms
of density, scale, mass and bulk, and general site
planning.
v.ZONING COMPARISONS
1 Per:nitted
Uses:
2. Setbacks:
3. Height:
4. Density:
5. Site
Coverage:
6. Buildable
Area:
TWO FAI.IILY
Singte Family
and two Fanily
DweIlings
Front: 20'
Sides: 15'
Rear: L5'
3O' //33',
AIIowabIe D.U.'s: 4
GRFA: L3,295 sf
20* = 23,L83 sf
l-5, 000 sf
SINGLE FAMILY
Single Farnity
Dlrellings
Front: 20'
Sides: L5'
Rear: L5'
30' /33'
Allowable D.U.'s: 4
GRFA: 1-9, 090 sf
2O* = 23,L83 sf
12,500 sf
PROPOSAL
single Family
Dwellings
Front:2O-5O'
Staggered
Sides z !5'
Rear: L5'
30' /33'
Proposed D.U.'s: 4
GRFA: 14,390 sf
2OZ : 23, l-83 sf
7. Total Lot Lot
Size: Lot
48,830 sf
57,088 sf
t=
)=
l=
Q=
1=)=
l=
Q=
1=2=
Lot
Lot
Lot
Lot
Lot
Lot
Lot
Lot
L2,648 sf
13,22O sf
16, 385 sf
1.6 ,187 st
34, O58 sf
32,577 sf
23,56'7 sf
25 ,7 L6 sf
staff Recomnendation
The staff recommendation is for approval of botl the
"otr. "tt."ge and ninor subdivision lequests' .A11 of the
i"q"ii"e ioningldevelopment standards (i'e rninimum lot
"i"-",-ti"irnurn i'rontagel etc.) f9r t minor subdivision
iecrulst trave been net.' we would reconmend that the
;;ii;;if conditions of approval be placed upon the
minor subdivision:
1)
2)
3)
4)
That the Town
reguest before
That the PIat prohibits the
rnitigation.
That the Plat include a
the total allo$table GRFA
That the Plat include a
number of driveway cuts
Council aPprove the zone change
the PEc chairperson signs the Plat'
include a restriction which
use of beruring as a method of hazard
restriction which limits
to L3,295 square feet.
restriction tirniting the
to a maximum of two.
orh;:
- M-fr../ tr * ftt ru/'*z?Za^ , & ;4 \
evr,-i,w+ @f *w'r''., \ ro'> b z--"-t *fr
"4*'e ,w-Az"-A+ ,,>.4 /e b/"^"1
ii
t?
JT 7/
,/
v)o
a<
9=-r===l
-|IJ
<!
o oZ
39
lfJalt
urt (9if,
E97
lz.
q'tr
-6 llro q<
(oo
=r=t.'-o'.JZ l!o oai
z>
-tDd >6
HE <,6
|!
z.
at 5
at
l-
u.J .Y o u Er
U.J A )z
.'';
=<
-.1-
=
=o 6
7z
ab
=2 *=
F
tU
E.
-u-Ll-J J
(Y Z_-o FJtr F<Tz-
=
lE t
ql (.) ,
E
'j,>;i!
z
Y F @t,^
EE rtl aZ E{
=.F
(8 t c
'..O'r
't -- ..' n, ^..r. lJ r .-.
\ -'2 - l li .L--=---',
z:
. ! \r--
.l, r _: \'
.?./l )(t \.],:'[i--
\t-',_Y\
T;,1 \'
'-:- :*-:1 ": i5i,':l
-.1 \:-. -:\
I
lrJ.
F srz
?4 q>-
v=(Dta
!
'':=i, \
' ! -y:Y '3 .'?:
i.' -l /1 A;v,'-
'lrr:::!
'! i:-
.'22
fY
=E x<\Y \ 9b -.e)"4'I \; $t:;,rc-
i ),.t"
\
tl t ';7
s
z
o
o (-)
z
(9
I
;r :5 il q$
s<1b
0u Id i{hi
ii s5
,F (
E
I !
F
Ir
?t .r!?c a aa al lrl ;i
Jr
fIc llii nT$$P;eP F A i 9 A .. A ar r r I i g rgili;Fil i;ri i;:t Il:: i::!}irl iiti iliI rtli lil* i:i: :1!i fiii
i$1i lfii i;$i ,,ttl{
ililli \\itli qiIii ilill;
(t
JI o s 1 9r vrE
)i
fif
rll " 6.
eiBl
=i: iit trr*l d
-eo J .r i ,(I Hg:{; (ufi
* \n< jF
]
lt
)iitfiti
iiiiiiii
iui it il
I I
iii :::Iti
I
r ! ->tl lxl
(
t
!
't |l z
1 -{
I
Y
o t
t
7P !{
t/l r
t$
Pts
vl${
?i$
=i,{tll:1$Jt-u y91
$\P
LT :fa
biu
-z S.l
t-*H5 tV H]\[ r- lr t loi/l
.T. n =i t- L$ Fl
s s5t
A t- -rl li({
\TO trll za$ll c 0r.$il !n { i-l iu$[ui€Ll
grli, so ii;
$|[i:i slliil {{liii:4!-}ir!
b|{iiqF{rlii
{i$93{lilla I
$z
.P
t a o t,
-|z
.?
tlrl
TE
z .-{
lg
tl
3$
Frr t.-
t"A It l.A
5F
iI
NI
NI *%
U,
"ifr
$E rf f:
9s
3!
e\r e$
?r U<\ro
iT ii
ifl
5E
g$:.
da f(
$i
ls tri {[o{
r;r
rA
+ i**$ E\r *it
F *\
FT \c rd
!.i-
:f .;
!ir !
i ii rq'
.lr '/r ,'
1
I <-;!
\{
i;
?t
(3 F +
€
Y t
N s4,z'
s1 't
^\, a.r
l\ ^f-
}-\-/
Nv,
!
!
5
I
N
lr
\
I :{
'r i |;
' .t
\ f,:
!?
J
clj ol
|)l ol grl
I
EI ol al
SNOW-AVALANCITE AND DEBRIS-FLOW HAZARD ANALYSIS AND
MITIGATION CONCEPTS
LOTS 4 AND 5, BIGHoRN 2nd ADDITIoN, VAIL
Prepared For
Mr. A1 Arnaral
Arthur I. Mearsr p.E.f Inc.Gunnison. Colorado April, I989
t
t
PLAI|NING AI{D EIfVIRONITENTAL COI,IMISSION
January 22t L99o
Dtinutes
Present Jln Viele
Dlana Donovan
Chuck Crist
Kathy l{arren
Jim Shearer
Connie Knight
Dalton l{illians
staff
Peter Patten Kristan Pritz
lrtike llollica
SheIly l{ello
Anne Jansen
The Planning and Environmental Conrnission meeting began at-
approxinately 3t10 p.n. followinq Site Visits which started at
firo p.n. The neet-ing was calted to order by Jfun V5-ele,
chalrperson. First on the agenda was the approval of the rninutes
of January 8, 1990.
ften No. 1: Approval of minutes for Januarv 8' 1990 neetina.
seconded bv Kathv Warren.
VOTE: 7-Oinfavor.
Item No. 2:
APPIicant: Fred Hibberd
This proposal was discussed during the site visits by SheIIy
l{e1 lo.
A recruest for an exterior alteration in CoFmercial
Core II in order to enclose two decks on the
villaqe Center guildinq on Block 5F, Vail ViIIaqe
First Filincr at 122 East l'teadow Drive.
seconded bv Chuck Crist.
Diana Donovan asked that the uording of the request be changed
from trtwo deckstr to ra portion of the south facing entryrr in
order to clarify that the enclosure sas not of Just a deck.
Also, Ann Iouthan, the president of the condominl-um association,
askei that something in writing be subnitted fron the owner of
the condo being affected directly by this proposal and that
approval be conaitional upon receipt of a.letter frorn that owner.
riris reguest was agreed to by the coronissioners'
voTE: 7-oinfavor.
Iten No. 3: A request to anend the Arterial Business Zone Dlstrict to allow private unstructured off-street vehicle oarkincr as a conditional use.Applicant: Vail Associates
This proposal was presented by Peter Patten. He reviewed the
proposal and reitereated on the fact that this was not a specific gilg reguest today but only an amendment to change the current
zoning to acconmodate future parking sites.
Joe l{acy was present from Vail Associates to explain the need for
the amendment just as Peter had stated. He repeated that it was
only for conditional use and not to begin any building of parking
Iots.
connents were then opened to ttre PEC nenbers vith Diana stating that this conditional use needs to be acconmodated for future use
and it should not be overlooked.
Xathy warren asked for the addition of the word rrscreenedr! since
the ioning code requires it and Peter answered that this would be
done.
Jirn Shearer motioned for recornrnendation of annroval to allpw for
- r:f raaf ll s67666641lt
use. Dalton l{illiarns seconded the notion.
t
,
VOTE: 7-Oinfavor.
Item No. 4: A Work Session for a rninor subdivision an9 zone
cbancte for Ipta 4 t 5. Blocl< 2 ' Biqhorn Firat
Addition.ApPlicant: Sable/Lupine Partners, Ltd.
This proposal was presented by Uike Uotlica to the PEc members.
Uike gav- an overview of the nemo going over the staff memorandun
and the zoning conparisons chart. There itas one change nade to
this chart on #4, under the PRoPoSAL coluBn. A change from 121000
sf GRFA to 12,895 sf GRFA. l{ike than covered the issues of the
proposal which he felt needed to be discussed today with the PEc.
At this tine, ltike Perkin, the architect representing the
appllcant, responded by pointing out the option of changing Lot 2
i-n-a way that would elininate the construction of a hazard
nitlgation berm and presented a drawing to show what the revised
lot iould look like. It Dade an unusual shaped lot but would
fulfill the 12r5OO sf buildabte area requirement. He also stated
that by direct rnitigation, there would have to be a lot of heavy
concrele laid to stiengthen the structures. He continued to eay
that if the safety factor is the issue, then the ability to blend
the housing in as-single fanily sould be safer than two fanily in
respect to avalanche ind other hazards nhich are currently
present on this site.
t
ThedlscussionwasthendirectedtowardstheiEsueofdriveways
and tbe nurnbenni"tt torria rc allowed for the homes' It uas
nentioned ttrat acce". tiy presgn! a problero - Dore cuts' nore
vehicles, ,or" ..Jra""[-i,"-r=iuiriti"-r which brings the safety
issue back in t"-d;-;i"["i". Stait hae suggested two driveway
cuts instead of four.
Questions concerning tlre berm were then addressed by.Jiu Vlele'
He stated that ther6 ls a constant danger. of snow slides each
vear in this area-ina-rittted to know h5w the overall proposal
iould fit into this.
connie Knight asked about the ncreekrr and lilike Perkin reeponded
that it uas not a creek, but a sprlng run' He also showed hort
this spring couta uE aii'erted doG tfre property llnes on the far
side of the lots.
Diana Donovan then gave her conments to this proposal' She
stated that the hazards are very "e.tere and suggested that only
three lots be "r;;;;a-ituuait'ial the eastern tot only) wttich.
would nake for ,.iri-rdtr. sbe fert that the buirding of a berm
is unacceptable ina-ttrat nany of the 4o - 50 foot aspen trees
would havL to be sacrificed'
xathy warren stated that she would like to see employee housing
implenented ln these lots. She agrees with Diana concerning the
u.-r-i"s .ncl added it"i-ii woura cieate an eyesore froD the
interstate. sne-aia-say, in.regard to the safety of the
proposal, ttrat "tpi"V""'trousing-wou1d
not be a good idea if the
hazards present "-""fif not be elininated' She also said that she
sould rather see two driveways and if this bern is-propos:d,.tt-':n
she wants it stakel-on-itt. site at to the exact height and width
of the berm.
Chuck Crist eaid that he was opposed to the berro and vould like
to see tbe west'f"t-t"Uai*ria"a-ioi possible ernptoyee housing and
leave the east lot as is'
Da1ton Williaus Eaid that he personally-vould like to have his
own drlveway ana-i-ied if thrLe single- !"TifV lots would
elirninate aff oi [["-i".""s Ueing riisea (ie-. ber:ms, geologic
hazards, drivewaYs, etc') '
Diana stated that ehe was against enployee-1'ou-sing and that the
fewer the cuts i"r-dii""wayi the Uetterl Jirn Viele agreed with
this.
Connie Xnight expressed that she felt the proposal was geared to
profitabirity oioi;;-;;pi'i;ili;: lart with- nol. enoush euphasis -or ;:;il-i;-g.i,r"6iJ-;.;ile;; division of lots, traffic seneration,
overall safety' etc...
Jiu Shearer nade ttre suggestion of retaining valts and inquired
if they could =I.r!--""-rli.igation costs. t{ike Perkin responded
I
ta
l.'t that lt sould be nore exPenslve than the building of the berm but
would do less danage to the forest. He sald that he could
investlgate the luitatng of retaining walls for the planning
connission I s infor:mation.
Finally, a question uas raised by Ed Zhneier in the audience
askJ.ng- if nitigation or betning iould be a part 9f lne proposal
tf this projeci, were submitted-tonorrow for a buildJ.ng-pernit,.
and Kristan resPonded that the nitigatlon/beming would be part
of the landscape plan subnitted directly to the DRB.
lleLNg,lL
Lldwig Nurz removed hinself fron the board due to a conflict of
interest.
This propoEal was presented by Kristan Pritz. xristan uade it
clear-to-the PEC that no bottling would be taking place at the
brewery. sbe enphasized the change in the-Pfrfing lot located to
the ealt of the brewery which will allow additional_spaces. She
said that parking seeni to be the biggest issue facinq the
conmission at this Point.
Andy Norris, developer for the project, discussed the sguare.
-footage chart attaclred to the rneno. He proceeded_to go-over the
conceitual schedule lor conpletion of the_proj-ect. Andy.noted
that ln emergency exit had Leen proposed for the south side of
the building-and-stated that it ias the only Place available
under the T5wn building codes. He also described the loading - _that ras designed ror picr-ups, delivery_vehicles, etc. and said
that it nould not inteifere in any way with the buses or general
v.fttcufat traffic. The loading access was designed specifically
for vendor traffic. He also inforned the counission that a trash
compactor will be installed to cut down on the frequency of trash
pick-up for the brewery.
Andy went into how the parking would work. He said that ttre Brew
nali woutd be operated like a-banquet tlpe facJ-Iity with one
seatlng. Ee etlted that the Brew Pub will be a local tlpe
establislrnent with a maximum seating capacity of 80 people and
viII not affect the parking very uuch at all considering.the
tines that locals witt be coming to ttre pub. He ended his speech
by giving facts related to this new project:
--The brewery would be approxiuately 900 feet fron both the
ltarriott and the Westin Hotels.
--ne ir looking into getting.the bike path lighted for use by the
brewery in both summer and winter:
nevetoonent District *4, CaEcade VLllaqe to anend
Partnershio
l t{inter: sleigh rides to and fron the brewery (up to 80 People per cvening could be transported this way).
Item No. 5: A l{ork Sessl-on on Air oualitv.
Susan Scanlan presented the nemo to the coumission. It le dated
Decenber llth because it had been tabled to later neeting dates.
Susan discussed wlth the conrnission that the biggest contributors
to the Air Quality problem uere uoodburning fireplaces and road
sanding, both occurring nostly in the winter Eeason- It uaE
sugges€la that the wrlting of Ordinances be done to correct the
pr56ten of enforcernent on-roodburning versus gas logt fireplaces.
lfun viete euggested that before ordinances were written, nore
testing was needed to pinpoint nore accurately the percentage.
contriSution of woodbuining and road eanding to the overall alr
quality picture. This could possibty be acconplished through the
cneniclf-rnass balancing technique of analyzlng fllter samples. _-
The costs of this proc-ss need to be further investigated as well
as the degree of accuracy and the significance of the resulte.
Other alternatives Euggested involved an extensive
sweeping,/vacuuming prograu for the Torrn of vail and colorado
oepa-rtneht of Highwly ioads. The parameters of this tlpe of
progran need to be discussed with CDOH and Stan Berrynan.
overall, the PEc neDbers felt that more information was needed
before any further recomtnendations could be nade by the
connissioir on changes to exJ.sting regulations or new regulations.
It sas recommended that this issue be investigated further before
PEC could give poticy reconrnendation to the Town Council.
It was decided that Susan would prepare a report for the PEc
outlining reconmendations for air quality concerning resuspe4"g-
particulites and also inforruation on additional air testing (CuB)
iitn specific cost figrures. The report will also document what
other Lonnunities are doing for air quality. Steve Arnold fron
the health departnent Day ilso be invited to discuss the question
of whether or not the Torln has adequate inforuatlon to irnplenent
air quality inprovement Deasures.
The neeting was adJourned at 6:00 p.10.
yAwN! ! !
VAIL TOI.IN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1990
7:30 p.m.
7 :30
Larry Eskwi th
Buck Al Ien
7:40
Larry Eskwith
7:50
Mi ke Mol l ica
8: 00
Mike Mollica
Background Rationale:
final1y been approved,
and Eagle County, and
the Town.
Staff Recommendati on:
The I ntergovernmenta l
with some changes by
should now be approved
Approve Ordinance No.
Agreement has
the Town of Avon
by ordinance by
4, Series of
1.
EXPANDED AGENDA
0rdinance No. 3, Series of
ordinance amending Title 8
Municipal Code of the Town
Chapter 8.36 Skier Safety
1990, second reading, an
of Health and Safety of the
of Vail by the addition of
Acti on of Counc i I : Approve/modi fyldeny Ordi nance
No. 3,Seri es of 1990, on second reading.
Background Rationale: Buck Allen has requested that the
ffi Skier Safety Act dealing with reckless
skiers be adopted as an ordinance by the Town' This will
allow violations which occur within Town'l imits to be
prosecuted in MuniciPal Court.
Staff Recommendation: Approve 0rdinance No. 3, Series of ffiing.
2. Ordinance No. 4, Series of 1990, second reading, an
ordinance approving an i ntergovernmental agreement between
the Town of Avon, Eagle County, and the Town of Vail
regarding the Berry Creek sth Filing and the Mi lIer Ranch
of Council : Approve/modify/deny Ordinance
1990, on second reading.
1990, on second reading.
Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1990, second reading, an
ordinance amendi ng the Arterial Business Zone District to
allow private off-street surface parking as a conditional
use Appl i cant: Vai l Associ ates, Inc.
I: Approve,/modify/deny 0rdi nance
second reading.
of Councjl: 1)Approve/modi fyldeny
on first reading; and 2)
with regards to the minor
Series of 1990,
Uphol d/overturn
subdivision appl
Background Rationale: The PEC, at their Jan ' 2?, L990
pmlj c h-eail ng, unan jmously recommended approval of the
request (vote of 7-0).
Staff Reconrmendation: Approve Ordinance No. 5, Series of
1990, on second reading'
4. Ordinance No.8, Series of 1990, first reading' an ordinance
rezoning Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, Bighorn 1st Addition, from
Two Fami ly Residential to Single Fami1y Residentia1 ; and
Appeal of the PEC Decision granting approval of a minor
subdi vi si on
the PEC decision
i cati on.
Act ion
Acti on Reoue s ted of Counci
Seri es of 1990, on
Background Rationale: The PEC, at their February 12' 1990
ffiimously recommended approval of the zone
change request (vote of 7-0). The PEC also approvg9 by a
vote of 5-2 the minor subdivision request with conditions'
The Town Council has called up the minor subdivision
re0uest,
Stlfl feconrneldqtion: 1) Approve Ordinance No. 8, Seri es of
ffig; and 2) Uphold the decision of the
PEC regarding the minor subdivision request.
8:20 5. Appointment of Vail Va11ey Marketing Board Member
uested of Council: Appoint one member to the
Backqround Rationale: Alan Aarons has resigned from his
ffisentative to the Vail Valley Marketing
Board. To date, four appljcants have submitted resumes and
wish to be appointed to the position. They are: Jim
Feldhaus, Director of Marketing for the Charter at Beaver
Creek; Bob 0'Mal1ey, retired travel and transportation
professional; Mary Anne Da1 ey, radio sales and marketing
professional ; and Rjchard Salturelli, restaurateur.
6. Action on Letter of Intent to Purchase Forest Service
Spraddle Creek and Golf Maintenance Parcels
8:30
Ron Phi l1 i ps
8:45
Stan Berryman
9: 05
9:20
Actjon Reguested of Councjl: Approve/modify letter of
'i ntent.
Background Rationale: This letter
our position for buying these two
Bi'l'l llood dated FebruarY 15).
is important to so1 idify
parcels (see letter to
Approve/deny expenditure of
perform work to prepare grant Act ion Reouested of Counc i l :
funds to allow consuitant to
appl'i cati on.
Staff Recommendation: Approve letter of intent.
7.Discussion of People Mover UMTA Grant Application
Background Rationa'l e: Staff has been working with offjcia'l s
ffiton, DC and Denver in discussing the
steps necessary to proceed with required studies to secure
UMTA funding for the proiect. The Town's former consultant,
Lea E'l liott, has met with UMTA officials in l'lashington. The
attached scope of work by Lea El|iott will resu'l t in a
formal UMTA grant application for $500,000 to produce an
Environmental Impact Statement for the project
Staff Recormendat'i on: Approve the expenditure of funds and
ffint application.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
8. Adjournment
Action Re
Marketi ng
-?-
M0 MI NUTES
VAIL TotlN CoUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 20, 1990
7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TOI,JN OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Kent Rose, Mayor
Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro Tem
J'im Gi bson
Merv Lapin
Robert LeVi ne
Peggy 0sterfoss
Lynn Fritzlen
Ron Philljps, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town AttorneY
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
The first item was Ordinance No. 3, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance
amending Title 8 of Health and Safety of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail by
the addition of Chapter 8.36 Skier Safety. Mayor Rose read the full tit'l e of the
ord'i nance. Buck AlIen briefly noted the added definitions Council requested at
first reading. Joe Macy stated Vail Associates was involved in the writing of the
ordinance and urged Council to pass it. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the
ordinance, which Tom Steinberg seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously 6-0.
Item two was 0rdinance No. 4, Seri es of 1990, second reading, an ordinance approving
an intergovernmental agreement between the Town of Avon, Eagle County, and the Town
of Vail iegarding the Berry Creek 5th Filing and the Miller Ranch. The full title
was read by Mayor Rose. Larry Eskwith reviewed the changes made on page 2,
paragraph 2, and page 4, paragraph 90. He explained these changes were requested by
Couni.i I at first reading. The Council decided to postpone act'i on on the ordinance
until John S'l evin, who had helped initiate the agreement and who was in the
audience. had a l itt1 e time to review the language.
Next on the agenda second read ing, an ordinance
amending the Arterial BusineJ!-Zorr-iETiTtiict to alT6fr- private off-street surface
parking as a condit'i onal use. Mayor Rose read the fulI title. Mike Mo1 'l ica noted
there were no changes made sjnce fjrst reading of the ordinance. Kristan Pritz and
M.i ke then answered questions of the Counci'l , Robert LeVine made a motion to approve
the ordinance on second reading, and Tom Steinberg seconded. Peggy Osterfoss stated
she was sympathetic to the situation, but did not feel it was appropriate to add
off-streei parking in the Arterial Business Distri ct zone. A vote was taken and the
motion passed 4-2, w'i th Peggy Osterfoss and Merv Lapin opposed'
The next order of busi f i rst readi ng , an
ordi nance rez on ing , from two family
residential to single famiIy i,5sldentia] ; and appeal of the PEC decision granting
approval of a minor subdivision. Mayor Rose read the fu1 'l
reviewed the zone change request and why the applicant was
reviewed the criteria used jn evaluating the request. Mike
recommended approval of both the zone change and the minor
the Planning and Environmental Commission approved both as
recommended four conditions apply to the subdivision:
title. Mike MolIica
asking for it. He then
stated the staff
subdi vi si on requests, and
we'l I . He noted staff
rL A P,-
!rfn4,*
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990,
at 7:30 p.m., in the CounciI Chambers of the Vail Municipal Bui1din9.
1. The Town Counci'l approve the zone change request before the PEC chairperson
signs the p1at.
?. The plat include a restriction wh'i ch prohibits the use of berming as a
method of hazard mitigation.
3. The p] at include a restriction which limits the total al'l owable GRFA to
13,295 square feet.
4.Theplatincludearestrictionlimitingthenumberofdrivewaycutstoa
maximum of two.
Mike Perkins, the architect representing the applicant, slaled Mike Mo'l Iica had done
an excellent job, .ri'it'.n-furlher expliined wi'ry he felt-both requests should be
approved. John Sl.uin-ri.t.a he preferred a single family design to a duplex.
design. There ""r ro.nr-aiscuss.i on bv mavor Rose-regarding_his feelings why the'l ots
shou'l d be left as twJ',-not-iorr. xrista"n-pritz and-John ilevjn gave additional.
.i nformat.i on trying to'ci ei" up any confulion. Peggy 0sterfoss stated she wou'l d
agree to everything,-UJt-pr.i!.t.i t*o driveways_instead. of.four. Tom Steinberg
expla.i ned why he *". "giii.i itt. irUaiujsion. After much discussion by Counci'l '
Peggy Osterfoss macle a motion to approve Ord'i nance No. 8 on first reading (for the
zone change) with the-findings of i) the zoning was suitable for the area; 2) there
was a convenient workable relationsnip wiihin ihe land uses; and 3) it would provide
growth of an orderrv,-"i"Uie iommunity, "nJ "igt alI provisions stated in the staff
memorandum included. Jim Gibson second.J in" motion.' There was some discussion
regarding the minor subdivision in relatjon to the rezoning. Peggy osterfoss
amended the motion by adding the approval of 0rdinance No. 8 was contingent upon the
approval of the minoi,iuUAiiirion,'which was seconded by Jim Gibson' A vote was
taken and the motion tiiiea 3-3, with Mayor Rose, Tom Steinberg, and Merv Lapin
opposi ng.
Item five was Resolution No. 5, Series of 1990, a resolution in support of the Eagle
County mi11 levy eteition for recreational-faci l'i ties. Ron Phi'l Iips discussed both
Resolution No. 5 and Resolution N0.6, *hi.h n". a resolution providing for certain
types of Town expendilures and contributions in-kind in regard to the Eagle County
ri i i
- f.uv el ecti bn io. recreati ona'l faci l i ti es. He remarked that the two
resolutions would l)-enaorse tne election ichedu'l ed for April 10 supporting-the mil'l
levy for recreationar-ii.ilit'i es, and ?j any individual member of the Town Council
or its department neads or employees "s'tp.i'i fically,directed by the Town Council'
may expend not more-ihin fift' doltars ($bOl of public monies in the form of
i"it.r!, telephone.ilIr, ot -othet activities'i ncidental to making a Town
Counci'lmember available to the press or the pub'l ic for the-purpose of responding to
question about any issues relating to the increase in tax levy and the purposes
therefor, or to expreis in opinioi on any such issue- ^Merv Lapin made a motion to
ipprou" Resolution'No. 5, which-was seco-nded by Peggy 0sterfoss. A vote was taken
and the motion passed unanimously 6-0'
The next item was Resolution No. 6, Seili es of 1990, a resolution provi.ding for-
certain typ€s of Town expenditures and contributions in-kind in regard to the. Eagle
c"rriv riii-i.uv efection ror recreational facil ities. A motion to approve the
resolution was made-by Merv Lapin and seconded by Peggy osterfoss' A vote was taken
and the motion passed unanimously 6-0'
The next order of bus.i ness was the appointment of a Vail ValIey Marketing.Board
member. The applicints were: Mary i\nne Daly,-James Feldhaus, Bruce Gi'l Iie,.Robert
0,Mal 1ey, Marilyn pi.rie,
"na Richird Salturlil:. A secret ba] Iot vote was taken
and Marilyn Pierce chosen as the new member ' Tom Steinberg then made a motion to
ipp"i"t M-arilyn pi.rce-is irr" v"il Valley Marketi.ng Board member' which Merv Lapin
seconded. A vote ,r"i-t"k"n and the moti-on passed unan'imously 6-0. Merv Lapin
".i"rris.a people to apply to the assorted Boards of the Town. Jim Gibson
encouraged the vVMB to'do-their own appointments from now on and become a more self
standing board; they know better what type of person they need than the counci'l did'
Action on a letter of intent to purchase Forest Service Spraddle creek and Golf
miini"nin.. parcels was next on the agenda. Ron Phill ips gave background
.i nformation, brougnt'-dornii'i up-to-daie on these properties, and reviewed the.'l etter
of intent. fom Steinberg-maae'a motion to approve the 'l etter of intent and that it
be sent to Bilt Uood,-Oiitrict Ranger, which i4erv Lapin seconded' A vote was taken
and the motion p".."a uninimousty O-0. Ton Steinberg asked if we should send a
similar letter ot ini"ni ior Pariel H, to which Ron iesponded he wou'l d check with
Bill l,|ood. There rrii ror" discussion regarding monies being used to develop the
properti es.
Next was discussion of an urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) grant
ippii.iiio. for a peopl. rou.t. ltln.Berryman gave.background information on the
l[5i.ii. -ion phitii;t p.ouia.a addit'ional infoimation, and then both Ron and Stan
answered questions oi Council. After some discussion, Tom Steinberg made-a motion
;;-$p;;";-rp-to iro,o00 for a srant "ppii.ition for. in EIS, whigl l"sgv,osterfoss
seconded. There v{as some djscuision oi'fto* where the money would be budgeted' A
vote was then taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0'
-2-
Item No. 4:A recruest for a minor subdivision and zone ch4ncle
Addition.Partners. Ltd.
Mike Mollica explained the proposal . He rerninded the board that
they had had a work session on this item two weeks prior.- He
expiained that there hrere two parts to the request; a zone change
and a minor subdivision.
The request for the minor subdivision would create four single
farnily iots from two duplex lots and the zone change was for single
fanily zoning.
Mike reviewed existing zoning and the criteria to evaluate a zone -frittg". One itern wal the suitability of the-proposed rezoning-.
the itatf felt that the proposed rezonlng would be consistent with
the Townts objectives and would not increase overall density-
Mike showed a map whj.ch indicated large areas of snow and debris
fIow, red hazar-d and blue hazard avalanche zones within the
boundaries of the two lots. He explained that the applicant was
froposing to mitigate the hazards either by constructing. large
L.m= or direct rnitigation which is structural strengthening of
the buildings. He iaid the applicant wanted to keep open the
oftiotr of inicn tlpe of rnitigiiion to use, and would prefer to
hive the individuaf -fot owners decide the method for themselves'
Mike continued to explain that the staff felt very strong,ly that
ln" proposed berming- method of uritigation was unacceptable. rt
was fel€ that vehicui.ar access into the woods to construct the berrn
would create additional scaring. Another concern of the staff was
the four driveway cuts proposed and the staff recornmended a maxj-mum
of two drivewaY cuts.
The second criteria was whether or not the arnendment Presented a
convenient, workable relationship within land uses consistent with
the rnunicipal objectives. Mike stated that the staff feLt that
single fanity residential zoning was consistent with adjacent land
usei and was compatible with the neighborhood'
The staff was in favor of the proposed staggered setbacks along
Lupine Drive. However, one concern of the staff was the
apilicants' request for 6RFA. The existing allowable GRFA is
tig',ZgS square ieet. The applicant is asking for L4f390 square
feet. ThL staff was not in favor of that increase'
The third criteria was whether the rezoning provides for the growth
of an orderly, viable conmunity. The staff believed that the
rezoning would provide for the growth of an orderly and viable
community.
The staff reconmendation ltas for approval. . However, in evaluating
this site the staff felt that landJcaping improvements are needed
"tt tfr" berm on the Frontage Road. L,andscapils il that area would
;;r;;; lrre parting lot an-d in conjunction_ with improvements that
would be made €o L'ostello, il would greatly ilnprove the
streetscape in this area.
The staff recommended approval with the condition that the proposed
iandscape plan be revi-sea to include improvernents to the berm
f"tw""" th6 parking lot and the south Frontage Road'
This revision is to be nade prior to the Design Review Board Review
of the proPosal .
Kirk Aker, Architect on the project, stated-that landscaping on
the back Uerm proviala.t.ty filtfe advantage for users of Vailglo'
Jirn Shearer stated that he would like to see the entire Frontage
n""a-i""ascaped. He also added that he wanted to see the dumpster
on the Southiest corner incorporated in the landscaping plan'
Kirk said he would like to discuss these landscape issues with his
client.
Kathy felt that an enclosure or screen for the dumpster should be
;;;i'oi trt" conditions to the Design Review Board'
chuck crist agreed with the need for landscaping on the Frontage
Road and the screening on the dumpster. He said that he was
""ttuppy about th; faat-tnat the topJ o-f t!e.Pil" trees were sawed
off to allow tne-sign-on the wall -of the Vailglo to be viewed.
Daltonfe}tthatthebernneedstobehighandttrereneedstobe ;;ta;; tanascaping, because on the rnterstate one can see the
parked cars.
Diana stated that with all the signs on the Vailglo the berm can
be built uP a bit.
Connie mentioned that the proposal did look nice to her'
7-OINFAVOR
The staff recommendation was for approval of both the requests with
the following conditions of approval:
1. That the Town Council approve the zone change
request before the Planning Corunission chairperson
signs the plat.
2. That the plat include a restriction which prohibits
the use of berrning as a roethod of hazard nitigation.
3. That the plat include a restriction which limits
the total allowable GRFA to L3 '295 square feet.
4. That the plat include a restriction lirniting the
number of driveway cuts to a maxinum of two.
Michael Perkins, architect for the project' stated that the
applicant would prefer to be atlolred some flexibility in the
solutions for rnitigation of the hazards. He passed out a draft
restrictive covenant proposed to be used for hazard nitigation.
rt stated that the use of berms as the sole or primary method of
mitigation of natural hazards be prohibited and that the use of
berms. retaining walls or other nitigation devices less than 5 feet
in height rnay be used in conjunction with direct nitigation of the
structure. He continued to explain that the reason they were
asking for extra GRFA is that it would cost Inore to do direct
nitigition. This, according to Perkins, would off-set their cost.
Marty Abel, property ol^tner, said that his engineer confirned that
each dwelling unit would cost about 24 thousand dollars to do the
direct mitigation and tbat that was how they arrived at the
additional sguare footage for each unit--270 more square feet per
unit.
In regard to driveway cuts Michael Perkins felt that with four cutss
i.t would be 5o8 less traffic as opposed to two cuts and he felt
that if they were rneeting the single fanily restrictions they
should have lingle fanrily allottance of one driveway per unit. He
said sharing a driveway is part of what makes a duPlex not as
pleasant as a single farnily house.
Marty AbeI said he would agree to covenants that restrict large
berns. However, he felt the best lray for nitigation was site
specific, not necessarily direct rnitigation. He felt the wording
oi't tn" restriction should satisfy each requirement for construction
and felt that excluding all bemingt was unfair. He felt that the
covenants could say thit berming would not be used as the primary
nitigation rnethod.
Kathy asked hiru ttrat if he did not want to go along with any of
ttre ltaft recornnended conditions. Marty tlrat they would 9o along
with iterns #2 and #3 but not #4. Kathy was not very comfortable
with the statement that said that they could onty do a certain type
of mitigation and asked Kristan if it would be appropriate for the
applicait to come back to the Planning Comnission if berrning is
pi-oposed. Kristan ansuered that the condition was related to the
iuU-aivision request and therefore must be dealt with now.
Kathy felt that the correct way to do this was to come back with
a design and dLscuss nitigation.
Marty felt that the prinary method should be direct rnitigation but
felt it was unfair to restrict berns conpletely-
Kathy was not cornfortable allowing additionaL GRFA. Regarding the
drive cuts, she had no problem having four drive!'tays.
Dalton felt that the applicant could be permitted additionaf GRFA
since it would be allow-ed under single farnily zoning, which is what
they were requesting. Dalton also preferred the sentence that
all-owed retaining wa1ls or berms less than 6 feet in beight to be
used in conjunction with direct nitigation.
Connie asked if with hazard nitigation hlas a concern of tbe
planning Cornmission. Kristan answered that the Planning Cornmiss_ion
needed Lo consider any concerns that were part of a proposal .
Connie was in favOr of two driveway cgts' did not Want an increase
in GRFA and felt that the rnitigalion should probably be in the
structure itself. She also felt that there should be some warning
of the hazard on the PIat.
Jim had no problern with four driveway cuts. He spoke of !h.r"-o.riigoration of the lot lines and felt that this type of thlng
should 6e discouraged. I{e wanted the GRFe to stay the sarne as that
which was originatly on the lots. With regard to rnitigation, he
reit trrat it tley neLd both types of nitigation then both types of
rnitigation should be Pernitted.
Diana stated that developersr financial concerns cannot be a
consideration of the nlanning Commission. She felt that four
driveways were better than two and that the GRFA should stay the
same. She stated that the Planning Comrnission has not previoY-sly
gi.r"n additional GRFA when changing zoning.. Ph.- suggested possibly
iaOittq a condition that said trees over six inch caliper cannot be
removed. She wanted the setbacks strown on the plat and covenants
for all four lots.
Chuck asked if the total square footage restriction would be placed
on all the lots. Mike answered that this would be part of htith
the covenants.
A notion was nade bv Kathv !{arren 4nd seconled Pv Daltgn
Wifliarns to-trecornruend apProval of a ninor gubdivision to the
ffi- the staff rnerno with the folf owino
conditions:
l-. That the Town Council approve the zone change request
before the PEC chairPerson signs the pIat.
2. The the following restrictive covenant be placed on the
subdivision: rrThe primary nitigation of natural hazards
on the proPerty shall be through direct nitigation of the
structure, ana the use of berms as the sole or prinary
rnethod of roitigation shal1 be prohibited. Berms,
retaining walls or other rnitigation devices less than six
feet, in height may be used in conjunction witb such
direct rnitigation.tl
3. That the following restrictive covenant be placed on the
subdivision: rrThe total allowab1e GRFA for the
subdivision sha1l be as followst Lot I : 3,300 square
feet, Lo|.- 2 = 31300 square feet, Lot 3 = 31300 squarg
feet and Lot 4 = 3,395 square feet. The total GRFA shall
be 13,295 square feet.rl
staggered setbacks strall be indicated on the 4. The front,
Plat.Lotl=Lot2=Lot3=Lot4=
40 foot front setback
20 foot front setback
30 foot front setback
50 foot front setback
VOTE:
A motion was made by Kathv Warren and seconded by Ludwiq Kurz to
approve the zone chancte based on the staff meno dated Februarv 12,
1990.
VOTE:
Item No. 5:
T.OINFAVOR
Familv
Connie removed
Gods stating a
Kristan Pritz out by saying
worksession.
herself from the discussion of the Garden of the
conflict of interest.
presented the proposal to the Board. She started
that the applicant had decided to have only a
Mr. Don Hare, representing urs. Hill, discussed the proposal . He
concurred with the staff and reasons for the proposal . He said
the owner will tear down the buildingt and build a new one.
Regarding the concerns of the Vorlaufer residence, he said he net
witn tnern and considered rotation of the building but will still
need to amend the SDD.
Art Carol , a resident of the vorlaufer, asked when this would be
proposed to come back. Kristan answered that this would be on the
zetir ot February, but that she felt it would be helpful to hear his
concerns today. The main concern is the effect on the view of the
mountain and he questioned whether there was some way that this
could be fessened. There foltowed a long discussion of views,
amount of encroachment and View Corridors.
Itern No. 6 :
Filinq.
Mike Mollica presented this proposal .
from the Condominium Association.
He had a letter of aPProval
The owner of condorniniurn #1, next to the condorninium that was
proposing changes objected to the location of a balcony. She had
Lwo-concerns. The first was sharing the balcony and the second was
the fireplace venting. This was discussed and it was decided to
elirninate the balcony, and the fireplace would be vented to the
east. three feet above unit #lrs oPerable windows-
for approval with conditions.
Conditions:L.
2.
The Balcony be removed from the comrnon
wall.
The fireplace be vented to the East about
three feet above the window per the staff
memo.
VOTE:7-OTNFAVOR
10
rli
75 south lrontage road
vail, colorado 81557
(303) 479-2138
(303) 47!r-2139
October 20, 1989
otlice of communily developmenl
Mr. Michael Perkin
P.O. Box L351
Vail, Colorado 81658
Re: Minor subdivision for Lots 4 and 5,First Addition Block 2, Bighorn Subdivision
Dear Michael,
As you are av/are, the hazard rnaps relating to LoLs 4 and 5, Block 2,Bighorn Subdivision First Addition indicate that the property is in a high hazard avalanche red zone, rnoderate hazard blue aval-anche zone,hi.gh severity rockfal-L zone, and debris avalanche high hazard zone. rn respect to your request for rezoning and for a minor subdivision to create four lots out of the existing two lots, the staff has the following comments:
1. An environmental impact report wourd be reguired. The ErR rnust specifically address the hazards and stream relocation. We also want to have information and drawings showing the appearance of the rniti,gation for the hazards.
2. A certified surveyor showing buildable area will be required. All areas having 40? slope of greater, red avalanche zones, and 1_00?flood plain must be excluded frorn the buildable area. These calculations must be made by a certified surveyor.
3. The title report must be submitted verifying ownership and easements for both lots.
Without going into a full review of your request, the result of the staff's conceptual review of your proposal is that we do not support the request. The lots appear to have very severe hazards. The best planning decision is to not expose greater anounts of structure or habitable area t,o these hazards. The request goes against good environmental land use planning.
The staff is concerned about having two additional structures in the high hazard areas. We also believe from past experiences with
developnent on these types of J.ots, that the houses would most 1ike1y be required to be located close to the front property rine in order to renove the structures from the hazards as rnuch as possible. This means that the houses would be close to the street. rn additi.on, hre would have four driveway cuts along Lupine Drive which is excessive.certainly we courd restrict two rots to one drj-veway cut. However, !./e tried this approach previously with another sirnilar subdivision and the developer ended up coming back and reguesting individual driveways.It is certainJ-y the developerrs right to request a driveway for each Iot. However, it does not minimize our concern about the appearance of the additional development.
we are arso concerned about what the rnitigation wourd actually look Iike. Our desire wouLd be to have the mitigation cornpleted up front before the lots are soLd to various people. However, this concern wirl be addressed by further inforrnation in your site specific hazard
l.at.\a.rr.F c
The Town of Vail Land Use Plan also states in Section 5.1:
"Additional residenti.al- growth shoutd continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. r'
We believe the request is in conflict with this section of the Land Use PIan. If you wish to proceed with your proposal, please let rne know.I would be happy to answer any further questJ.ons.
S incerely,
l(t's+* ?"+
Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
KP:1r cc: Peter Patten
1
At this time, Mayor Rose asked if John Slevin had had enough time to review the
intergovernmental agreement, so the Council could act upon it. John felt it was
basica1 'ly a good agreement for al1 parties concerned. Peggy Osterfoss then made a
motion to approve Ordinance No. 4, and Tom Steinberg seconded. A vote was taken and
the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
There was no Citizen Participation.
At this time, Mayor Rose stated there were a few items which there had not been time
to discuss at the Work Session, and he wanted to go over them now.
The first item t{as a presentatjon of street entertainment survey results. Pam
Brandmeyer gave background information, and stated this year they wanted to begin
with Memoni al tleekend and run through September 23, with entertainment only Fridays
through Sundays. She then reviewed the survey results and answered questions of
Counci'l . Jim Gibson suggested the present committee be retained and those who
cannot participate would be replaced as designated by those who continue. The rest
of Council agreed.
Next was discussion of the Avon STOLport. Merv Lapin and Ron Phillips are p'l anning
to attend a meeting next Tuesday, February 27, to meet with Continental Express.
Also, the Town of Avon is presently trying to purchase 160 acres the STOLport is
on. There was some discussion regarding these items.
Peggy 0sterfoss gave an update on the County Recreation Complex next. She noted
they-were forming a specia1 citizens' promotiona'l committee and the promotional
efforts were sole1y from private funds. She stated they had come up with a first
draft of a fact sheet, and distributed copies to Councjlmembers. There was some
discussion regarding distri bution information. Peggy asked for Council comments
before Friday for the next County Recreation meeting.
Ron Phi'l lips' began his Information Update with a request that Councjl review the
drafted Citizen Survey by next Tuesday. He stated CounciI wou'l d discuss any
corments/addjtions/deletjons/changes then. Ron commented that Marion and Kay Hurtt
donated $l ,?97 for a personal computer to the Library. This was the second donat'i on
as such; the fjrst was from Merv Lapin. He remarked the Library was very
appreciative of both. Ron then requested Council go into Execut'i ve Session to
discuss a 1ega1 problem that had come up.
Mayor Rose commented he'l iked Caroline Fisher's "Around Town" artic'l e for the paper.
At this time, Larry Eskwith requested Council to retire to executive session to
d1 scuss a legal maltet. A motion by Tom Steinberg to go into executive sessjon was
seconded by Robert LeVine. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0'
There being no further public business, the meeting v{as adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectful ly submi tted,
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman
-3-
1TOWN OF VAIL ITE!,TORANDUU
To: Town Couacil
From: Mike li{ollica, Town PlaDDer
Date: February 20, 1990
Re3 Sable/Lupine Partners, Ltd.
The Planning and Environmental Cornmission, at their February
\2, 1990 publj.c hearing reviewed the above narned zone change and
minor subdivision request. The PEC, by a vote of 7-ol
unanimously recommended approval of the zone change request
(Ordinance No. B, Series of 1990) . The PEC' by a vote of 5-2,
approved the minor subdivision reguest with the following
conditions:
1) That the Town Council approve the zone chang'e request
before the PEC chairperson sigins the p1at.
2) That the following restrictive covenant be placed on the
subdivision: rrThe prirnary nethod of mitigation of natural
hazards on the property shall be through direct mitigation
of the structure, and the use of berns as the sole or
prirnary method of rnitigation shall be prohibited. Berms,
retaining walls or other rnitigation devj-ces less than six
feet in height may be used in conjunctj.on with such direct
mi-tigation. "
3) That the following restrictive covenant be placed on the
subdivision: "That the total allowable GRFA for the
subdivision be as follor.rs; Lot L = 3,300 square feet, Lot 2
- 3,300 sqlrare feet, Lot 3 = 3,300 square feet and Lot 4 =
3,395 square feet. The total GRFA shall be L3,295 square
f eet. 1r
4) That the front, staggered setbacks shall be indicated on
the plat.
Lot l" : 40r front setback
Loiu 2 = 2Ot front setback
Lot 3 = 30r front setback
Lot 4 = 50t front setback
ORDINANCE NO. 8
Series of 1990
AN ORDINANCE RE-ZONING A PARCEL OF
LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK 2, BTGHORN lST
OFFTCIAL ZONING MAP IN REI,ATTON TO
PROPERTY.
PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED
ADDITION, AND AMENDING THE
THE RE-ZONING OF SAID
WHEREAS, the property to be re-zoned is located within the
municipal linits of the Town of VaiI; and
WHEREAS, there is an application from the property owner of
Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, Bighorn 1st Addition, for re-zoning said
parcel i and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Conmission has
considered the appropriate re-zoning for the property and has
unanimously recommended that the Tohrn councir re-zone the parcer
frorn Two Farnily Residential to Single Farnily Residential; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the public
interest to re-zone said property.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED By THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
SecLion 1.
The Town Council finds that the procedures for the provision of
re-zoni-ng property in the Town of Vail have been fulfilled, and
the Town council hereby received the report of recornmendation of
the Pl-anning and Environmental Commission recommending the re-
zoning of said property.
Section 2.
Pursuant t,o sections l-8.66.1-oo - 18.66.1-Bo of the Vail Municipal
Code, a parcel of property described as Lots 4 and 5, Bl_ock 2,
Bighorn 1st, Addition, Town of VaiI, Eagle County, Colorado is
zoned as Two Family Residential.
Section 3.
As provided in the ordinances of the Town of Vail, the zonj_ng
administrator is hereby directed to modify and amend the official
zoning map to incLude the zoning specified in Section 2 above.
Section 4.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence. clause or phrase of
the ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinancei and the Town Council hereby declares it would have
passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that
one or rnore parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or
phrases be declared invalid.
Section 5
The Town Council hereby finds, determirres and declares that this
ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and
welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
Section 6.
The repeal or the repeal and re-enactnent of any provisions of
the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not
affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any
prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as
commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or
repealed and re-enacted. The repeal of any provision hereby
sha11 not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 7.
AII bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of
such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to
revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part
thereof, heretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS of
, l-99O, and a public hearing shall be held on this
ordj-nance on the _ day of , 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in
the Council Chambers of the VaiI Municipal Building, Vail,
Colorado. Ordered published in full this _ day of
,1990.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Panela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED
PUBLTSHED this_ day of , l_990.
ATTEST:
Pame1a A. Brandrneyer, Town Clerk
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
AFFECTING LOTS 4 AND 5, BLOCK 2
BIGHORN SUBDIVISION. 1ST ADDITION
THIS DECLARATI0N of restrictive covenants is made this _ day of
1990, by SABLE/LUPiNE PARTNERS, LTD. ("the Declarant").
WHEREAS, the Declarant js the owner of Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, Bighorn
Subdivision, 1st Addition, County of Eag1e, State of Colorado ("the Property") and
wishes to subject the property to certain restri ctions and covenants for the benefit
of the Property, each owner of the Property, and the Town of Vail.
NOI.J, THEREF0RE, Declarant hereby subjects the Property to the followjng
restrictions and conditions:
1. The buildable portion of the Property is located in a Town of VaiI blue
avalanche hazard area as defined in Chapter 18.69 of the Municipa1 Code of the Town
of Vail, which further provides that structures may be built in blue avalanche
hazard areas provided that proper mitigating measures have been taken. The primary
method of mitigation of the natural hazards on the Property shall be through direct
mitigation of the structure, and the use of berms as a sole or primary method of
mitigation shall be prohibited. Berms, retaining wal1s, or other mitigatjon devices
less than six (6) feet jn height may be used'i n conjunction with such direct
mi ti gati on.
2. The total a.l lowable area of gross residential floor area (GRFA) as defjned
in Section 18.04.130 of the Municjpal Code of the Town of Vail allowable for the
subdivis'i on. shall be as follows:
A. Lot 1shall be permitted three thousand three hundred (3,300) square
feet.
feet.
B. Lot 2 shal 1 be permitted three thousand three hundred (3,300) square
C. Lot 3 sha'l 'l be permitted three thousand three hundred (3,300) square
feet.
D. Lot 4 shal1 be permitted three thousand three hundred ninety-five
(3,395) square feet.
E. The total GRFA permitted sha'l 'l be thirteen thousand two hundred
ninety-five (13,295) square feet.
3. The provision contained in this Declaration shall bind and jnure to the
benefit of and be enforceable by the Declarant, the Town of Vail, Colorado, or the
owner or owners of any lot located within the Property, or their lega1
representatives, heirs, sLlccessors, and assigns. Failure by the Dec'l arant, the Town
of Vail, or by any other Property owner, or their 1ega1 representatives, heirs,
successors, or assigns, to enforce any of such conditions, shall in no event be
deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter.
4. These covenants and restrictjons shall run with the land and be binding
upon all parties and al 1 persons cla'iming under them these conditions, restrictions,
and covenants may be changed, modified, amended, or appealed on'ly by the written
consent of the owners of more than seventy-five percent (75%) of the privately owned
real property within the boundaries of the subdjvjsion and the written consent of
the Town of Vail, Colorado.
SABLE/LUPINE PARTNERS, LTD.
By:
Martin Abel . General Partner
-2-
ACKNOI||LEDGMENT
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
The foregoing Declaration of Sable/Lupjne Partnens, Ltd. is hereby acknowledged
by Martin Abel , a General Partner of Sable/Lupine Partners, Ltd., before me
this _ day of
seal .
, 1990. llitnessed by hand and offjcial
Notary Pub'l i c
Address
My cormission expires:
ss.
-3-
PIANNING AND ENVIRONIT{ENTAL COMMISSION
February 12, L99o
Minutes
Present
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Connie lhight
Ludwig Kurz
Jirn Shearer
Kathy warren
Dalton Willians
Staff Kristan Pritz
Mike Molli.ca Shelly Mello
Tom Braun
Betsy Rosolack
The planning and Environmental conmission neeting began at
approxirnately 3:00 p.n. following site visits-which started at
rii oo p.n. The rneeting Itas called to order by the vice-
chairperson, Diana Donovan.
ftem No. L: Appointrnent of PEC chairperson and
vice-chairperson.
Crist seconded the motion.
VOTE:5-OINFAVOR.
cha irperson.
VOTE:6.OINFAVOR.
Iten no. 2:District 23 and a parkingr variance to allow for an
Jin Shearer excused hirnself from this itern due to conflict of
interest.
Tom Braun reminded the Board that this was a recommendation to the
Town Council . He explained the proposal by stating that there were
two parts to it. one was an amendment to the approved plan to
atloi for the enclosure of two decks on the third floor of the
structure and the second part was a request for an amendnent to the
parking standards to allow parking for.the addition within the
iarking structure at the vail valley Medical Center.
Tom reviewed the criteria for major amendments to SDDts and then
listed several concerns of the staff. He stated that the staff
recommended denial of the request.
Jay peterson, representing the applicant, explained the original
reiuests from tire hospitlal and--frorn the Doubletree regarding
p.iXi.tg and the propose-d hospital parking .stru_c_ture. Jay pointed
6ut that the pouftLtree had arnended their SDD even though the
parking structure was not started and no condition was placed_ on
Lne nouftetree at that time. Jay stated that the hospital has
agreed to add two Il2 ]evels, 35 irnrnediately for parking and 35 at
tfre present would be used for other things to maxirnize the space.
ne siia that the past two approvals were not conditional upon the
parking agreernent.
He suggested to the Planning Corornission that they could approve
in" r66""st with conditions toncerning the s-tart of construction
of the -Hospital parking structure. Jay said the va_j1 National Bank
wanted to ltart Lonstruction May first. They h'ould be done in July
or August. The conditions could state that the parking structure
must 6e started by August 1 so the Planning Cornrni ssion woufd know
whether or not thLre woul-d indeed be parking available'
Jay explained that they do have a ternporary timing-prob1-em- pfigl
l.'tn"'""*pletion of tf,.e parking structure. He explained that if
one assumed the ltospital aia not build their parking structure. the
Town could revoke the ternporary C.O. and he would sign a letter
regarding that.
Ton pointed out that the apProved parking structure does not have
"*c"'rr parking spaces but onfy meets the denand of the Doubletree
and the'hospi€all The proposea aaditional parking spaces have not
yet been aPProved.
Kristan prLtz added that at best, there rnight be one excess parking
"p"t. She also added that, although the town is supportive of
.baing the two L/2 levels, the Highyay Departrnent would need to be
conta6ted for approval of the additional parking spaces. because
they woula cont-riUute to additional traffic. She continued to
expiai" that the issue is adjacent- . propert-y owners wanting
ad-ditional development without the parking in place'
Connie Knight stated that she felt the present VaiI National Bank
parking r^rat atrocious and would recomnend denial '
Kathy Warren stated that until sornething concrete was in ptace- with
the -hospital parking structure, she felt that the Bank should
fi".ria"^=o*" tenloraiy parking. Also, that.the existing parking
inouta be addresied beciuse, at present, it is already a problem'
Jay stated that the Bank did rneet parking requirements now.
2
Chuck asked if the Bank Itanted to purchase additional. parking
spaces that were going to be constructed but were not yet approved.
When he was told that was correct, he vondered what would happen
if the structure was not constructed. Jay stated that the VaiI
National Bank would have to exercise their option for the
additional spaces that they nere renting before receiving 3 building perrnit. chuck felt that with that restriction, he would
vote for the request.
Dalton stated that he had wanted to lease a space in the Vail
National Bank for his business but tre could not get parking along
with it. He asked if they could request a parking study to see
exactly what the needs really were at the Vail National Bank
Building. Dalton wondered if they were too premature in trying to
vote on the project. Perhaps the hospital could come in with the
proposal for the additional parking first.
Kristan felt that they were premature but that it was an issue for
the Planning Cornmission to decide.
Ludwig added to Daltonrs remarks. He felt that he would have to
say no to the proposal at the rnoment. Ludwig asked what the tine
table was for construction.
Jay said that it would be okay to table the issue for 2 weeks. He
added that he felt it was unfair of the Planning Commission to make
the Bank provide rnore parking than is really required.
Diana asked that if there were more spaces needed than were
originally reguired, if it lrere possible to still require more.
Kristan said she would discuss it with Larry.
Torn explained that Larryrs feeling is that if they are complying
with the code, he was reluctant to say whether or not they could
ask for rnore parlcing.
Kristan remarked that if the bank was planning to lease parking
spaces on a pernanent basis it nay alleviate concerns for the
future.
Diana had the same concerns as the other planners and said that
the Planning Cornrnission could deny the request, table it or they
could approve it with conditions.
Jay stated that with conditions the Town wouLd have absolute
pr6tection that the spaces witl exist by the end of the fall and
it would be easily eniorced. Tom stated that this was not easily
enforced.
Jay pointed out that the conditions would work, that the Vail
uational Bank would not be able to take out a building perrnit until
the construction of the parking structure began and they could get
a Tco when the parking structure was substantially conpleted.
Kristan stated that the board needed to realize the wishes of, and
the nunber of entities involved. She was concerned about getting
a TCO before completion of the parking structure. She added that
the Bank is not under constraints that were imposed on the
Hospital . Unusual circumstances were put on the Hospital because
of the staging and she wanted the board to keep in rnind that the
action on the bank proposal was a real precedent and needed to be
Iooked at very carefully. Jay said he felt that the Vail National
Bank was in the same position as the hospital .
Dalton asked if there was a contract between the Bank and the
Hospital . Kristan answered that it was not officially approved
yet.
Diana suggested tabling for two weeks and Jay agreed. Tom asked
Jay to put the conditions that he had suggested in writing.
The rnotion was nade bv Dalton lililliams and seconded bv Chuck Crist
to table the matter for two weeks with the condition that Jay would
draft and submit conditions to Kristan within one week.
VOTE:5 - O - 1 (with Jin Shearer abstaininq)
ftem No. 3: A request for an exterior alteration to the vailglo
Lodcre on a portion of Lot L. Block 2, Vail Lionshead
Third Filinq.Applicant: Craiq Holzfaster
Tom Braun described the reguest as a modest one. That the Vailglo
wanted to add two entries plus a porte cochere. They also want to
put up a gate and do additional landscaping on the West side. Ton
reviewed criteria and said that it would be as outlined in CCfI
zone district and the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan in
addition to standard zoning considerations such as set backs, site
coveragle, parking etc. However, since the Lionshead Plan focuses
prirnarily on the pedestrianized naII area of Lionshead and the
Vailglo Lodge is located outside the main pedestrianized area of
Lionshead, most of tbe review criteria were not directly relevant
to the Vailglo proposal. There Itere no sub areas directly
affecting tha property. As far as cornpliance with the Urban Design
Considerations for Lionshead, the relevant issues were nassing,
roofs, facade-walls, structure and accent elernents. The proposal
seemed to be in cornpliance uith these elements. Tom pointed out
that the proposal is also consistent with zoning considerations in
the CCII zone district.
The staff recommendation was for approval . .However, in evaluating
this site the staff fett that landJcaping inprovements are needed
"" tn. berm on the Frontage Road. Landscaping in that area would
;;.;;; ltrl parfing tot an-d in conjunction_ with improvements that
would be iade {o LrOstello, it would greatly improve the
streetscape in this area.
The staff recommended approval with the condition that the Proposed
ianascape plan be revi-sed to include improvements to the berm
between-th6 parking lot and the south Frontage Road'
This revision is to be made prior to the Design Review Board Review
of the proPosal .
Kirk Aker, Architect on the project, stated-that landscaping on
the back nerrn proviaea very ffltfL advantage for users of Vailglo.
Jirn Shearer stated that he would like to see the entire Frontage
noaa ranascaped. He also added that he wanted to see the durnpster
on the Southwest corner incorporated in the landscaping plan'
Kirk said he woutd like to discuss these landscape issues with ttis
client.
Kathy felt that an enclosure or screen for the dumpster should b'e
;;ra'of the conditions to the Design Review Board'
chuck crist agreed with the need for landscaping on the Frontage
Road and the screening on the dumpster. He said that he was
;il;ppt about the fact that the tops- o! the. Pile trees were sawed
oef t'"-allotr the sign on the wall of the Vailgto to be viewed.
Daltonfeltthatthebermneedstobehighandthereneedstobe ;;t;;; -finascafi.tq, because on the Interstate one can see the
parked cars.
Diana stated that with all the signs on the vailglo the berm can
be built uP a bit.
Connie mentioned that the proposal did look nice to her'
The notion was nadq by Kathy Warren and seconded bv Chuck
crist to talle the iten.
VOTE: 7-OINFAVOR
Item No. 4:
Mike Mollica explained the proposal . He rerninded the board that
they had had a work session on tnis item two weeks prior. He
expiained that there were two parts to the requesti a zone change
and a minor subdivision.
The reguest for the ruinor subdivision would create four single
farnily iots fron two duplex lots and the zone change was for single
farnily zoning.
Mike reviewed existing zoning and the criteria to evaluate a zone
change. One item wa! the suitability of th-e_ proposed rezoning-.
rne Jtatr felt that the proposed rezoning would be consistent with
ine townts objectives a;d would not increase overall density.
Mike showed a map which indicated large areas of snow and debris
f1ow, red hazar-cl and blue hazard avalanche zones within the
boundaries of the two lots. He explained that the applicant was
froposing to mitigate the hazards either by constructing large
t".i,r or direct rnltigation which is structural strengthening of
in" buildings. He iaid the applicant wanted to keep open the
options ot ifrictr type of rnitigation to use, and would prefer to
h^ave the individuat -fot oli/ners decide the method for themselves'
Mike continued to exptain that the staff felt very strong_Iy that
the proposed berning- rnethod of nitigation_ was unacceptable. It
was feli that vehicular access into the woods to construct the berm
would create additional scaring. Another concern of the staff was
the four driveway cuts proposed- and the staff recommended a maxirnum
of two drivewaY cuts-
The second criteria was whether or not the amendment presented a
convenient, workable relationship within land uses consistent with
the municipal objectives. Mike stated that the staff felt that
single famity residential zoning was consistent with adjacent land
usei and was compatible with the neighborhood'
The staff was in favor of the proposed staggered setbacks along
iupine Drive. However, one concern of the staff was the
apilicants' request for 6RFA. The existi.ng a:l ]owable 6RFA is
ts',ZSS square ieet. The applicant is asking for L4,390 square
feet. Th! staff was not in favor of that insrease'
The third criteria was lrhether the rezoning Provides for the growth
of an orderly, viable cornmunity. The staff believed that the
rezoning woul-d provide for the growth of an orderly and viable
communiLy.
The staff recommendation was for approval of both the requests with
the following conditions of approval!
1. That the Tol^tn Council aPProve the zone change
reguest before the Planning Cornrnission chairperson
signs the plat.
2. That the plat include a restriction which prohibits
the use of berning as a method of hazard nitigation.
3. That the plat include a restriction which linits
the total allowable GRFA to L3,295 square feet.
4. That the plat include a restriction liniting the
number of driveway cuts to a maxinum of two.
Mj.chael Perkins, architect for the project, stated that the
applicant would prefer to be altowed sone flexibility in the
solutions for rnitigation of the hazards. He passed out a draft
restrictive covenant proposed to be used for hazard nitigation.
It stated that the use of berms as the sole or primary rnethod of
mitigation of natural hazards be prohibited and that the use of
berni, retaining walls or other rnitigation devices less than 6 feet
in height may be used in conjunction with direct nitigation of the
structure. He continued to explain that the reason they were
asking for extra GRFA is that it would cost more to do direct
mitigition. This, according to Perkins, would off-set their cost.
Marty Abel , property owner, said that his engineer confirmed that
each dwelling unit would cost about 24 thousand dollars to do the
direct rnitigration and that that was how they arrived at the
additional sguare footage for each unit--270 more sguare feet per
unit.
In regard to driveway cuts Michael Perkins felt that with four cuts
it wouta be 508 less traffic as opposed to two cuts and he felt
that if they were meeting the single fanily restrictions they
should have Lingle farnily allowance of one driveway per unit. He
said sharing a driveway is part of what makes a duPlex not as
pleasant as a single fanilY house.
Marty Abel said he would agree to covenants that restrict large
berns. However, he felt the best way for nitigation was slte
specific, not necessarily direct nitigation. He felt the wording
oir tne restriction should satisfy each reguirement for construction
and felt that excluding all berning 1tas unfair. He felt that the
covenants could say thit berrning would not be used as the prinary
nitigation rnethod.
Kathy asked him that if he did not want to go along wi-th any of
the staff recommended conditions. Marty that they would go along
with iterns #2 and #3 but not #4. Kathy was not very cornfortable
with the statement that said that they could only do a certain type
of rnitigation and asked Kristan if it would be appropriate for tl'e
applicant to come back to the Planning cornnission if berming j,s
pioposed. Kristan answered that the condition was rel-ated to the
luuaivision request and therefore must be dealt with now.
Kathy felt that the correct way to do this was to come back with
a design and discuss nitigation.
Marty felt that the prirnary nethod should be direct nitigation but
felt it was unfair to restrict berns cornpletely.
Kathy was not comfortable allowing additional GRFA. Regarding the
drive cuts, she had no problem having four driveways.
Dalton felt that the applicant could be permitted additionaL GRFA
since it would be allowed under single farnily zoning, which is what
they were requesting. Dalton also preferred the sentence that
allowed retaining walls or berms less than 5 feet in height to be
used in conjunction with direct rnitigation.
connie asked if with hazard rnitigation was a concern of the
Planning Comrnission. Kristan answered that the Planning Commission
needed to consi-der any concerns that were part of a proposal .
Connie was in favor of twO driveway cuts, did not !'tant an increase
in GRFA and felt that the rnitigation should probabLy be in the
structure itself. She also felt that there should be sorne warning
of the hazard on the plat.
Jin had no problen with four driveway cuts. He spoke of !h.reconfiguration of ttre lot lines and felt that this type of thing
should be discouraged. He wanted the GRFA to stay the sarne as that
which was originally on the lots. with regard to nitigation, he
felt that if they need both tlpes of mitigation then both types of
mitigation should be Permitted.
Diana stated that devel.opersr financial concerns cannot be a
consideration of the Planning Cornmission. She felt that four
driveways were better than two and that the GRFA should stay the
sane. She stated that the Planning Conmission has not previously
given additional GRFA when changing zoning.. th"- suggested possibly
iOaitrg a condition that said trees over six inch caliper cannot be
rernovid. She wanted the setbacks shown on tbe plat and covenants
for all four lots.
Chuck asked if the
on all the lots.
the covenants.
total square footage
Mike answered that restriction would be placed
this would be part of with
2.
A rnotion was nrade bv Kathv Warren and seconded ,bv Dalton
vlilliams to recornrnend anproval of a rnlnor gubdivision to lhe
T'own cotrncil based on the staf f rneno with the followinq
conditions:
1. That the Town Council approve the zone change request
before the PEc chairperson signs the plat.
The the following restrictive covenant be placed on the
subdivision: ttThe prinary rnitigation of natural hazards
on the property shall be through direct rnitigation of the
structuref ana the use of berms as the sole or prinary
nethod of rnitigation shall be prohibited. Berms,
retaining walls or other rnitigation devices less than six
feet in height may be used in conjunction with such
direct mitigation.rl
That the following restrictive covenant be placed on the
subdivision: rrThe total allowable GRFA for the
subdivision shall be as foflows; Lot 1 = 3,300 square
feet, Lot 2 = 3r3OO square feet, Lot 3 = 3'300 square
feet and Lot 4 = 3,395 square feet. The total GRFA shall
be L3 r 295 square feet. rl
staggered setbacks shall be indicated on the
3.
The front,plat.
LotL=40
Lot-2=20 Lot3=30 Lot4=50
foot front setback
foot front setback
foot front setback
foot front setback
VOTE:
A motion was nade by Kathv Warren and seconded bv Ludwiq Kurz to
apprrcwe the zone chanqe based on the staff nemo dated Februarv 12,
1990.
VOTE:T.OINFAVOR
Fanily
Itern No. 5 :
Connie removed
cods stating a
Kristan Pritz out by saying
worksession.
herself fron the discussion of the Garden of the
confLict of interest.
presented the proposal to the Board. She started
that the applicant had decided to have only a
for approval with conditions.
Conditions:L. The Balcony be renoved from the cornnon
ltall.
The fireplace be vented to the East about
three feet above the window per the staff
Mr. Don Hare, representing Mrs. HiIl, discussed the proposal. q9
concurred with the staff and reasons for the proposal . He said
the owner will tear down the building and build a nelir one.
Regarding the concerns of the Vorlaufer residence, he said he met
wifn tnern and considered rotation of the building but will still
need to amend the SDD.
Art carol, a resident of the Vorlauferf asked when this would be
proposed io come bacl<. Kristan ans\dered that this would be on the -Zetir of February, but that she felt it would be helpful to hear his
concerns today. the main concern is the effect on the vlew of the
mountain and he questioned whether there was some way that.this
could be lessened. There followed a Long discussion of views,
anount of encroachrnent and View Corridors.
Item No. 6:
Mike MolIica presented this proposal .
from the Condoninium Association.
He had a letter of aPProval
The owner of condominium #1, next to the condominium that was
proposing changes objected to the location of a balcony. she_ had
iwo-conc6rns. -ffre first was sharing the balcony and the second was
the fireplace venting. This was discussed and it was decided to
eliminat6 the balcony, and the fireplace would be vented to the
east, three feet above unit #l'ts operable windows'
2.
Filing.
memo.
VOTE:7-OINFAVOR
10
vait villaqe €ixth_ rit iinsr
Applicant: Clinton G. Nnes. Jr.
Item No. 7:
shelly Me1lo explained that the applicant reguested to table this
itern for two weel<s.
The motion was nade bv Kathv Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer
to table this itern until February 26, 1990.
VOTE:7-OINFAVOR
Iten No. 8:
APPIicant: Michael Lauterbach
The request is for a height variances ranging from two to nine
feet. Tom Braun presented this request and showed site plans and
surveys. He expiained that the project .$tould_ involve altering
existing grades -by filling in low points thro_ughout the lot. An
existin! 6asenent-is also-referenced as a hardship affecting site
plannin!. Tom pointed out that the history on the lot was
relevant.
Sometirne in Lg76 excavation was begun for a residence. The
excavation dramatically altered the grade and then this past sunmer
the applicant began rirring the lot without approval frorn the Town.
The factors were relevant in deterrnining what is the existing grgde
of the lot. Tom also added that considering the grade of the 1ot
after the 1.976 excavation would irnpose an unfair hardship on the
applicant because of the hole that had been created on the 1ot.
Two surveys $rere subnitted, one showing essentiatly existing
conditionJ and one showing the conditions of the lot prior to
excavation in 1-975. The stltf deterrnined that the rnost reasonable
survey to use was the one that was done prior to excavation in
tgle. This approach is also consistent with other decisions rnade
by staff conceining lots that have been disturbed'
f-orn continued to dlscuss criteria and findings. The staff felt
tn]-t-gi""ting ttre reguest would be a-g_rant of special privilege.
The staff reconmenda€ion was for denial . The staff could see no
i"gitir.ie jnysicat hardship to alLow for the variance. The staff
teit that tne proposed design shotted little consideration to the
grade of the ProPertY.
Mike Lauterbach, the applicant, took exception to the staff nemo'
He felt that he could Lontorrn to the reguired regulated height if
there r^rere not a gas line in the easernent. He felt that he could
Alpine Townhomes IV.
11
drop the bouse nine feet into the hole, cornpensate by allowing a
four to six foot height variance or fill the lot conpletely and
start from scratctr. He then pointed out that the Llonsridge
subdivision had filled a whole ravine. He felt that the Potato
Patch subdivision would be best served if the house were built to
the highest and best use for this site. He stated that without
filling the lot, there would be no views of the ski mountain.
Gary Bossow, a property ottner who l-ives two lots away, agreed with
both Mike and the staff in that you could fill and build but he
said 1o feet over the height restriction was excessive.
Kristan explained that in construction, the existing grade must be
used and plrsons were not given perrnission to dump dirt and then
build on the lot later on.
Chuck asked how the Lionsridge subdivision obtained approval and
Kristan said that the planning Comrnission had given approval for
a total site p1an.
cary Bossow stated that rnaybe the lot was not designed.to have a
view of VaiI Mountain. Ludwig Kurz then stated that with really
creative plans you could irnprove the situation without requiring
a variance. Lauterbach said that he felt that Ludwig was
suggesting that he point the house down the valley but that was
not what he wanted to do.
Connie asked if it was permissable to fill lots and Diana explained
that they could fill thern but they stiLl nust use the original
grade in considering height restrictions.
Mike added that the ridge was artificially high and that was a
hardship and that the easenent was as big a problern as the Iow
point on the lot. Diana said she could not find a reason for the
variance, and that the lack of a view is not a hardship. Mike
asked about the easement. Kathy asked if the easements were on the
l-ot when it was purchased and Mike stated that they were. .Diana wondered if the Planning Comrnission didnrt often give variances
for easements. Ton pointed out that there was stilf plenty of land
to build on.
At this point the board discussed other ways and places that the
home could be built.
The rnotion was made by Kathv Warren and seconded, bv Ludwig Kurz
ffihe fact that there was no hardship provqn and
per the staff memo.
Jim stated that he felt that the home needed to be redesigned.
Diana said she was not convinced a variance was needed'
t2
Bossow asked what kind of hardship Lauterbach could possibly have.
Diana expressed a need to look at the lot again.
Mike asked how the Lionshead subdivision had gotten an approval
and Kristan explained that they went before the Planning comrnission
requesting a fill and grading permit.
Mike Laterbach said he would like to table for two weeks and
present a grading plan.
Ludwiq withdrew his motion.
Torn reminded Mike that if the lot ltere regraded, the engineer would
need to look at the whole project and the other Lots affected.
Mike said he thought he coufd come back with a revised grading plan
and asked to table.
Diana asked Kristan if you could look at all the lots that had been
fiIled. Diana stated that the Planning Commission had allowed
gullies on lots to detennine whether units could be separated.
Dalton said if the ridge Lrere artificially raised that that seerned
to be a factor.
The motion was rnade bv Chuck Crist and seconded by Jirn Shearer to
table for two weeks.
voTE: 6 - I with Kathv votino against tabling.
Iten No. 9: Discussion of revisions to Zoningr Code, Siqn Code
and Desiqn Review Guidelines,
Torn explained to the board that there ltas a need to revise existing
developrnent regulations, that over time a number of srna]l and
relatively isolated j.ssues and problens with the codes had arisen.
He asked that the Planning Board take a conprehensive look at the
regulations.
He stated that he was interested in the big picture perception of
existing guide).ines, for exanple do the codes only need refinements
or are tfrey in need of a rnajor overhaul? can the relationship
between DRB, PEc, and Council be irnproved with regard to tbe
development review process? Is the existing review process
cunbersorne and s1ow, not thorough enough or adequate- Tom wanted
to know what the problems were and wanted input for the RFP.
Diana felt that it was not a good thing to rewrite the zoning code
and that she also fett that it was not a good thing to hire an
outsider. She sirnply felt it needed to be tightened up.
13
Tom explained that it was extremely valuable to bring in fresh eyes
to look at the zoning code.
Kristan exptained that when they did choose a consultant tbe staff
and Board ltould have input. They wanted to work with the Board
and Council but felt that a fresh look was inportant.
Diana feLt that there were very few ninor problerns- chuck tended
to agree with Diana, he was very opposed to hiring an outside
consultant.
Jirn felt that we did not need major involvenent of an attorney to
oversee the project.
Da1ton did not feel that an outside consultant was necessary.
He said that the consultant would be paid to study rules that the
staff was already faniliar with. Diana stated that everyone that
works with the code knows the problens already.
Kristan explained that the staff wasnrt advising a total overhaul
of the zoning code, but that she lras seen the use of many loop-
holes and she felt the need for consultant assistance was
irnportant, especially given the existing staff level in planning.
Dalton wondered if you could get an outside
areas without hiring a consultant.
advisors in certain
Diana expressed that fact that usually ideas seemed to come from
the community during the public hearings.
Kristan said that there would need to bge some type of consulting
team and that the staff was not in the position to work on this
because of their work load. Kathy fel-t that this was not an easy
project, that there were broad range issues to consider and that
the- county regulations and those of the Town shouLd fit together
better.
Kristan said that it sounded as though the PEC wanted a lead person
with consultants as needed. But she rerninded then that they would
need an Attorney for rewriting the code. Jin stated that he would
like to see clearer lines between the Planning Conmission and the
Design Review Board. Tom agreed that total revision was not
necessary.
Kathy liked chuckrs idea of having l.ocalsr input, but felt there
were rnany locals that were self serving.
The discussion ended.
L4
o
ARTHIIR I. MEARS, P.E., INC.
Nanrnl Hazar& Csrsulanr!
222 Frr Gqhic Avc.
Gaaigr, Glqrdo 61 210
n3 - &t.3236
November 20, L989
Mr. Tim Boyle
Boyle Engineeringr fnc.
143 E. Meadow Dr., Suite 390 Vail, CO 81657
RE: Hazard Mitigatj.on plan, Lots 4 & 5, Lupine Drive.
Dear Tin:
As you reguested, I reviewed the hazard-mitigation plan for lots 4 & 5 dated I1-15-89. The followinq comrnents result from mv review of the p1an.
1. Snow and debris avalanches from the "LandsIide"avalanche path wilI be stopped by the earth dams as
shown OD the nl:'. rl'haca iams wilI also stop falling
rock.
2. Direct protection of buildings on the northwest side of Lot 5 wiIl be required for avalanche and debris-fIow protection. This has been indicated on the plan (November 15, 1989) you sent me for leview.
3. Dj.rect protect j.on can al so be used to protect
against avalanches originating in the "LandsIide" path and af f ecting Lot 4 and part of Lot 5. Llotirever, the direct-protection design used for avalanche protection
may not eliminate the risk or possible structural
damage from rockfall at this location. Additional details about rockfall energy and specific structural design will be necessary to determine the suitability of structures for the rockfall protection.
The proposed building areas are in "moderate" avalanche-hazard zones. Furthermore, the mitigation proposed on the plan will not increase the hazard from avalanches, debris flows, or rockfall on any adjacent or downslope properties or other private or public faci I ities .
Please contact me if you have any further questions.
Ci nz-ar.al u v...>\.9^J,
WU,1l.fi\oav Arthur I. MEars, P.E.
Avalanche-Control enqi.nder
Mas Wwtina . Aulancha . Aahnchc Contal Eryin..rint
o
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
0793 VALLEY FOAO
CARBONDALE. COLORADO 81623
(303) 9533600 (24 HOURS)
Nsvernber :(l , lgEg
I have revier.red the drst;i ng= of the prcDogeC mi.ti a.at j.cn +cr-the abr=.,,e re{=renced p.op=itv ,rir-h r=q.qr.l to il-,e ier* Iot line= "rnd the exisf-ing recl,:f aIl e.nd debr-i s ilovt he:ards. Ag in our pre'zicLls ccmmunic.etions, the type o* mitigation needs to be i n thE f or-m sf de"F l ecti on =tr-utctltreE or di recr tn!ti!erti:n by frene cesign to minimi:e the danger to propo=ec htrme=' from avslanche, aE r+el1 as rocl:*all e.nd debris f 1or.l ha!ard=.
The dt-ar.ri ngs whi ch ;,our have presented have adequatel y addressed the conr:erns r.ri th the ce=i gn o{ tr.lo earth berms with sutf f icient height! rnass enC orients.tion to protect ths e-rstern three proposed lots. The westernmogt one can onLy be mitigated thro'-tqh the uEe of direct protection inccrporated into the Etructurre c{ the dwelIing. It iE my nnderst-inding that Hr. Art Mea.rs he.e pr-ovi ded you with the necessary gui del i nes to protect e.gsi nst aval _rnche. Theee shoul d
=u41i ce {or the protecti on o{ the other- two h.a:ards as wer I .
The resr-rl t wi I I be thet the eastern Lhree I ots wi I l now be pl aced i n the Moderate He.:ard Zones, br-rt the f or-rrth Ei te wi I I remsi n i n the Hi gh Haiard Zone. If your have f r_rrther qLreEti, ons pI eage contact me.
Tim Bayle
14.1 Eas+- Meadow Dri ve. SLri te I'J 1r.'r Crossroad= Shoppi ng CentL3r Vailo CO. 816=7
FiE: Lcts 4 tr l, Fighorn
Dear l'1r'-Ecy,! s:
Si ncerel v.
qZ^* 4^1,^
Ni chol as Lamp i r !. s
Eonsulting Eeologist
I
I
I
I
1 OBIECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS
This analysis Of Snovr-avalanche and debris-fIow hazard and
mitigation- concepts on Lots 4 and 5, Bighorn 2nd Addition, was
requ6sted by mr. Amaral and i\lr. Tim Boyle, .P.E', of Vail '
Specificalfy, tit. study has the following objectives:
a. Analysis of the dynarnic characteristics of design-
magnitude (100-year) snow avalanches on Lots 4 and 5;
b. Estimation of the frequency (return period) of
major avalanches that may reach the building areas;
c. Discussion of the structural mitigation procedures
that can be used to Protect bulldings and living areas;
d. Description of debris-flow and debris-avalanche
hazard; and
e. Discussion of risk from avalanches.
This study is site specific and should be applied to only this
area. l,jalanche an-d debris-f 1ow characterlstics will dif f er
considerably at various locations, therefore the findings of this
study cannot be applied to other sites.
2 SNOW-AVALANCHE CHARACTERISTICS AND FREQUENCIES
Two snor/,,-avalanche paths af f ect Lots 4 and 5: (a ) the
,,waterf a1l,' avalanche wil l reach portions of Lot 5, and (b ) the
"Lands1i,de". avalanche will reach Lot 4 and 5'
The Waterfall avalanche begins on steeP, deforested, northeast-
facinlEl6at 10,500 feet elevationr sorTi€ 2'100 feet above the
lots inigure I). Terrain analysis indicates tbat the "design-
magnitudJ,,, or ', 100-year" avalanche will result as 10-15 acres of
snow breaks away j.; the upper starting zonet descends the
channel, spreads over the alluvial fan and stops in Gore Creek.
tlhen this bccursr s€v€ra1 lots (and existinE buildings) wilI be
reached by avalanche debris, including portions of Lot 5 (Figure
2). The -design avalanche will not be contained by the e_xisting
channels on lhe alluvial fan, but wiII spread laterally and
entrain aspen trees as it advances down the fan. such a major
avalanche wiIl probably occu! in the dry winter snowpack'
therefore the design-avalanche will -consist of dry-flowing snow.
This conclusion i: based on a statistical study of avalanche
terrain in Colorado, my familiarity with avalanche behavior in
the locaI area, and a dynamics analysis of the !''taterf aII
avalanche.
Inspection of aerial photograph-s dated I939, I950, 1962, L9'1 4,
and 1984 give some indication of aval,anche frequency. Debris
from onty- one large dvalanche could be seen on these photos.
li
t,
li
o
This avalanche occurred between 1950 and I962, stopped above the
lorver waterfall, and did not descend over the cliffs to the alluvial fan. Although this was the largest avalanche to occur during a 45-year period, apparantly only a smalI part of the potential starting zone and snow mass was involved. This could
be deduced from the channel directions that conveyed moving snow in the upper basin. If the entire 10-15 acres of starting zone
had released, the avalanche would have been much larger -and probably would have reached Gore Creek. The return period of of
avalanches to Gore Creek is probably 50-to-100 years.
If the Waterfall path releases as a large wet-snow avalanche it will move slowly and be confined to the channels on the alluvial
fan. Portions of the wet snow could turn sharply to the east anil
west and cause deep snow to be deposited against and structures.
The Landslide avalanche is located directly above the Lot 4/LoE 5 bound-,ifr1-nis is a smalI avalanche path of some 400 vertical
feet elevation difference and begins below the thick limestone cliff. This avalanche path became more active since a debris
avalanche occurred in May | 1984 and removed the entj.re forest
cover, leavi.ng an open scar approximately 150-200 feet wide
through the aspen forest. Because snow will not adhere well to
the existing surface, avalanches are frequent and wilI flow into the upper part of Lot 4 nearly every year. When thick, unstable
snow slabs accumulate on these steep slopes, avalanches will
sweep across most of Lot 4 and part of Lot 5 stopping near the
south edge of Lupine Drive (Figure 2).
The boundarj.es of the design-magnitude avalanches in both the
Waterfall and the Landslide paths are shorvn on Flgure 2.
SNOW.AVATANCHE MITIGATION
3.1 Protection from l,.taterfaII avalanche
Two forms of avalanche protection were considered in the
Waterfall path: (a) diversion wa11s, and (b) direct protection
as di.scussed below
A diversion wa11 $/as considered as protection for the western parT-ffiuchawaI1,ifproperlyorientedand}5.20feet
high could increase the hazard-free area on the Waterfall alluvial fan such that one or possibly two buildings could be placed in an avalanche-free zone. Hottever, such a diversion wal1 would deflect avalanches and possibly increase avalanche
frequency on the Lots north of Lupine Drive. Because a diversion waII may, in this case, increase the hazard to adjacent property,
this nitigation opti.on was rejected.
Direct-protection structures are the recommended mitigation form
r.rfElfn the runout zone of the WaterfalI avalanche. Direct-protection structures are of two tyPes:
I
a. Reinforcement of buildings for avalanche loads; and
b. Placing reinforced wedges directty above buildings to prevent avalanches from reaching uphilI building walIs.
'nl..i ^ .: -ItrIS 15
mod era te
many VaiI
Waterfa I L
should be
a common form of avalanche protection in areas of.avalanche hazard ("BIue Zones"), and has been used at sites.If buildings are to be placed inside the avalanche runout zone (Figure 2), direction-protection
used to reduce the avalanche hazard.
c. Buildings often do not appear to be designed for avalanche impact.
I
I t
Direct-protection structures can take many forms, depending on the shapes, sizes, and orientati-ons of the buildings that need protection. Requirements for final design of direct-protection structures are discussed in Section 4 of this report.
Advantages of direct-protectiion structures are:
a. Complete protection is attained for those inside the building i
b. Additional earthwork and excavation is usually not
roarrr i roA .
- sYvf -ev t
Disadvantages of d i rect-protect ion structures are:
a. Special design and construction can increase buildinq costs by l0B to 20?;
b. Complete protection of the site is not achieved (not an important factor with long return-period avalanches.
3.2 Protection from the "Landslide" avalanche
I
The Landslide avalanche path is small, therefore Iarge velocities and flow depths are not expected, even during the design-avalanche conditions. This avalanche can be stopped by building a catching dam at right angles to the avaranche flow- direction (FiEFn:--Ee structure will serve to protect buildings on the northern part of Lots 4 and 5 such that special design of direct-protectj.on structures will not be required withj.n this area.The dimensions of dam cross sections are shown in Figure 4.
DESIGN OF DIRECT.PROTECTION STRUCTURES
Design-loadi.ng standards for direct-protection structures (in the Waterfall runout zone) incorporated into buildings can only be gi-ven when final bui lding characteristics are known.Specification of Ioading standards requires knowledge about the foLlowi.ng architectural' and design detaj. ls:
T
T
t
I
T
I
I
il
a. Building location i b. Building shape; and c. Building orientation.
When these archj-tectural details become known, design-avalanche forces can be resolved into normal and shear components, and the heights, strengths, and other details of direct protection structures can be specified. This design requires careful communication between the property owner, architectr structural engineer, and avalanche-engineering specialist in order to ensure a safe design.
DEBRIS.FLOW HAZARD
l'lost of the Waterf all alluvial f an has been bui 1t f rom debris flows, conseguently the fan surface must be exposed to debris-flow risk. The extent of the debris-flow areas are indicated on
Town of Vail napping. Only the northr.resteln corner of Lot 5 is reached by debris flows, therefore they will not constj.tute a building constraint at this location.
DEBRIS-AVAI.ANCHE HAZARD
The prominent landslide scar which presently serves as an avalanche path hras indicated as "debris-aval.anche hazard" on the 1984 Town of Vail maps. This area has stabilized and no longer presents a danger (from debris avaLanche) to Lots 4 or 5. Snow avalanches do occur in the 1984 debris-avalanche scar, as
discussed in Section ? of thic rFDort.
SNOW-AVALANCHE RISK
Any building within avalanche areas will tend to increase the overall risk to people because of the increased exposure tj.me of people in the area resulting fron the development. The overall
risk from snow avalanches to people who are outside of buildings j.s very small, however. This is true because people generally
spend a smal. 1 percentage of the total time (roughly 1t) outside
during the avalanche season.
Because this very sma1l risk is finite, f recommend that a1l
users of these and other avaianche areas should understand the potential risk and heed all official warnings.
Submitted by,
C,L,r llllr*,t
Arthur I. Mears. P.E.
Avalanche-Control Engineer
I
I
I
I
I
i\^
i=:--:--J- _
FICURE 1. Location Map showing llaterfall
and. Land.slide avalanche paths wlth po.,en.,Lal
runouts during design (tOO_year) avaLanche
condltlons. Other avalanche paths in the East
Vail area are not shown cn this map.
Map Scale: 1" = 2000,
\ \ -e \
tlF
\1:=N)
t,
*S
\--'---....'-<,
'-\
r-)-F;
F--
J+:JS
?r a.
I
BtG HO
\.._{
lt tt
FfcURE 2. Design ("100-year") avalanche
bound.aries in the ,'HaterfaLl,' and
'T,ands]lde" paths.
ilaP Scale: 1" = ZOO'
g)>i
-7\ c'
/ \ --"-
,*{
n-'r-
=.-lt\-3-i+N
3--.---:\
il_ , --- -
{..-
\.{W-U.)
IE,r@
\.I ..\ \ /.,''\X tt
FIGUR9 3. Design-avalanche linits
acljusted. by catching tlan. Area
sultable for dlrect Protectlon ls
also shown.
Map Scale; L" = zvv
''
1---z
1i
I
I
\
i--
F\.r-F-
r_-
t--
o
Avalanche Dlrection ._*__>
i
FIGLRE 4. Dinensions. of d.arn cross section. Dan crest position
1s shown on Figure f.. Construction d.inenslons should be cor:.ect to within + t%, This catching darn provid.es protectlon frorn the 'landslide" avalanche, as d,iscussed. in the text.
#;{ !^ii 9"; ,o o;i3:N
FJo'"o'r'%"^t
e*J* A
Tbe prinary nethod of nltlgation of nbtural hazarde on
the property shaIl be through direct nirig,arion of the
Btructure, and the use of berns as the soLe or primary
Dethod of nltigation shall be prohiblted. Berns, retalning
walIs or other nitigatlon devices less than six feet in
height Day be used in conjunction with such direct
nit igation.
t"low4
Ez
(4tyE
boyle engineering, inc
tt'a'z-,..j' :-,r s",. j(-"..',.) ?: J "??'-i
Febrr-jenV E. i 390
l'1:cheei E. Perl rn Arshitect
F.!. Ec:.. li5l
Uai I , Col arEic EiE38
!uo;ect, Ha:ard l'lrt igat ren
Lois 4 & 5. Luprne !rr.' e
"ra
r J . Cci.-':'-rdo
Oe".r !'lrl e,
Iris .!ett-ei- ls t:. reccr,.':rr: ri:r r€c€:i+, col'.':rsatrcn aegdacrng cost c)nfEr:=:r'1!
{o- ha:rrd r''itrgB:r;n ii lf.t st.irc+.ures p:-cpcJe.: fgr the circ!'e notei Fr^cEer'i!.
fs .,'oLr i. noirJ r^e ha',e g j. !'en acn-irde,'able thcugit to deal r.r'q oith ihe Cebrrs -ind
avaler:che f Icr.rs thrc,uEh the ccnstr-uc'i ron cf en earth d-rpl bef'.Lnd the br-rt iritrgt
f i:,;r r',o9t of the urdth cf tha orcoert-v. i.,ie have detennrned that the ccst c f s..:ii
an unCer-1.e1. rng r,rouio i:e roughi'; $40, (ill t.a $S4,000. Ih: E l.r.:nslates tc' $1fl,000
1o $ I2,000 ser duelirng.
Ii has been nr eiperrence ihai drrect prcl,eci rc'n inccrpcrered rn the 9ii'uctur-el
desrgn ot' the cjueilrngs .an edd 15I to t fre rau structur-ei cssl cf the b'"rr iornl-:e.
If u,€ eerume 3600 sqr-,ere icct bu:. ldincg l:th a z,zzi. ti $45'5qu5r s l.-or, f or the
lou;-,'iatrcrr anC sheii, tnrs i5;l rr ror,rghi.,, S2.1 .0110. Ii ue e'p:nd tl",r: i,e t11'.Bi
f:ur f!,elirngs on the groyLerly, ihe talal --csr, oi lrrti-oat ron t h:-cr.rgrt !rr::"
pnote.t!.n r5 rn ihe ne:ghborhoac of 55E.9t]0 t,; $i0'3,800.
&S r.,,i,r r'a-t ..CP tnrl!,-r ,.- 1L'' , r".L.!J
e,pEnstue as the earih CEr, ,=rgFfc.ich. -ie ab...ctrr advantsSe tn thr: etcrra:r
waul ci be le:s drsruot ron i-o the :i te Bnd foreat.
Fieage grve Fe a cail if yc.tr h6ve dnv queSt rr';rs reg-rrdrnp ihis nattel-.
y OUrg !
EOrl-
Ttcrothy,
P.e: l rje n t
143 e meodor,,u dr suite 390 o crossroods shopprng cenier . vor colorodo 81657. 303/4762170
Fron:
Date:
Subj ect:
Planning & Environmental Comrnission
Community Development Departrnent
January 22, 199O
A WORK SESSfON to consider a request for a zone change
and a minor subdivision for Lots 4 & 5, Btock 2,Bighorn Lst Addition.Applicant: Sable/Lupine Partners, Ltd.
II
1) A zone change fron the existing Two Family Residential
zone district (duplex) to the Single Family Residential
zone district.2) A minor subdivision which, if approved, would create four single farnily 1ots.
Both lots are currently vacant, however, Lot 5 does have the rernains of a partially constructed foundation. The applicants also propose to relocate an existing interrnittent creek that flows through Lots 4 & 5.
Surrounding zoning includes Two Famil-y Residential to the east and north, Sing1e Famity Residential to the northeast,
and Agricul-tural & Open Space zoning to the west. Lands south of these lots are included in the White River National Forest and are not within the Townrs rnunicipal lirnits.
In October of 1983, the PEC approved a rezoning and ninor subdivision for a duplex lot located at 3967 Lupine Drive.
Two single family lots were created (3967 and 3977 Lupine
Dr. ) from the one duplex lot. The approval required that only one driveway cut be allowed for the two lots. This condition was later removed by the PEC in Septenber of 1987.
Zoning Analvsis
Description of the Proposals
The applicant has scheduled this possible rezoning and subdivision
more specifically located at 3916
East Vail. The resuests include
A. Lot Area (Lots 4 & 5 conbined)
Gross Area:
Areas of 4oZ slope
or greater, and red
hazard avaLanche:
work sessi-on to discuss a of the above named lots,
and 3956 Lupine Drive in the following:
115,918 square feet
-57 ,457 square feet
Net bu11dable area:58r451 square feet
B. Existinq Zoninct
The currenL Two Family Residential zoning on Lots 4 & 5 will aLlow for the construction of one duplex structure on each lot. Current alLoh/abl_e GRFA and site coveraqe is as follows:
Lot 4 GRFA = 5,1-91 square feet Lot 5 GRFA = 7,104 ssuare feet
Total- = 13,295 square feet
Lot 4 site coverage = 9,766 square feet Lot 5 site coverage = l-3.417 square feet Total : 23,183 square feet
III. Criteria To Be Used in Evaluatinq This Proposal
The three cri-teria to be used in the evaluation of a zone
change request are as foLlows:
1) Suitability of existing zoning.2) Is the amendnent presenting a convenient, workable relationship within land uses consistent with Municipal objectives?3) Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly, viable comrnunity?
IV. Issues
1) Geologic Hazards - There are currently large areas of
snow and debris-fIow, red hazard and blue hazard avalanche zones within the boundaries of the two lots.There are al-so rockfall hazard zones and l_arge areas of
40? sl"ope on the lots.
The applicant j-s proposing to nitigate these hazards by either the construction of large berns (I2, in height)uphill (south) of the proposed residences or through direct mitigation (structural strengthening of the buildings). However, it is proposed that Lot 2 utilize
berming in order to meet the rninimum lot size requirernent for subdivision. If berming is unacceptable for Lot 2, perhaps a variance fron the
minimun lot size would be considered.
The proposed berms will be staked on-site for the pEC
site visit. Should the method of mitigation be stipulated on the plat (berming vs direct protection within the structure)? If berrning is acceptable, is the proposed revegetation of the berrns adequate?
2) GRFA and Site Coverage - The applicant is proposing to restrict the total GRFA to 1-2,000 square feet. This
amount of GRFA is 1,295 square feet under the Two Fanily zoning allowable GRFA and 7,OgO square feet under the Single Fanily zoning allowable GRFA. fs the
r)
4)
R\
6)
proposed restriction on the naximum allolrab1e GRFA
acceptable?Site Coverage under either Two Farnily or Single Farnily zoning is 2O8. The applicant proposes l-0.4?. Should site coverage be further restricted?
Zoning - Would the proposed rezoning be compatible with the neighborhood, (i.e four single family hornes vs two duplex structures) ?
Access - Should the number of driveway cuts be restricted?
Setbacks - Are the proposed, staggered front setbacks acceptable to the PEC?
Emplovee Housinq - In light of Vaitls current ernployee housing shortage does the PEC feel it approprj.ate to
encourage an employee unit in each of the proposed single farnily homes? fn order to obtain the employee units the property would have to remain zoned Two Fanily Residential and a variance from the ninumurn 1ot size, for Lots a, 2, and 3 would be needed.
Should the GRFA be linited to what is proposed (1-2,000
square feet) or should the GRFA cap remain the same as the existing Two Farnity zoning (L3,295 square feet) to allow for the employee housing?
\/ZONING COMPARISONS
TWO FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY
Single Family
DwelJ.ings
Front: 20t
Si.des: 15 '
Rear: L5'
30' /33 '
Allowable
D.U.'s: 4
GRFA: 19,090 sf
Permitted
2. Setbacks:
Height:
Density:
5. site
Coverage:
Single Family
and Two Fanily
Dwellings
Fronta 20'
Sides z L5'
Rear : l-5 '
30' t/33t
A1lowable D.U.'s: 4
GRFA: L3,295 sf
2OZ = 23,183 sf
PROPOSAL
Single Family
Dwellings
Front:2O-5O,
Q1_rrrerararl
Sides: 15'
Rear: 15'
3O'/33'
Drnrrnc aA
D,U.'s: 4
GRFA: l-2,000 sf
Lot
Lot
Lot
Lot
T ,'\+
T.^f
Lot
Lot
3:
3-
12,648 sf
12, 580 sf
l-4 , 31-0 sf
22 t497 sf
34,058 sf
25, 041 sf
21, 838 sf
34, 981 sf
2OZ = 23,l-83 sf 1-0.42 : 12,O00 sf
L2,500 sf b. IJUlJ_ctapte
Araa.
15, 000 sf
1 : 48,830 sf 2 : 67,088 sf
Total Lot Lot Size: Lot
SE oo
-o tl a<tt 9-o |-.., 8i
<r I
o az
39 urq) l
E-@ !
-[
]Y (/lF
zx
X< r'\ En .,*".{\ fr # -,\ -..: {I \i gq.+c"i >r"""
/r/
*
,/
tz :o qtr
:aF
:<
JZ
zi
!lo a@ >6
P6
F
:)O
z o 6
o
l
F a
LtJ E
LL
ft.
.22 EO
l' ll--
l-a
--
=
F
u')
ttJ
E.o
-LL UJ -J
= -r.
l!F F<-z
=
<n1 :-;
o -:-
<-:.j uJi,:
- !:-
r.l
2
F
(r +i,uel L<.6.
z
tr o
LTJ
z
r
12
o o
x
-?9
!{
Vlr
'E A.Ets
in S9 ' sri .., --o
!+Tri *{N *a ,-
J .:{
ul{'i Jtt)
Irj vt 4 {F{
\\j1:
4-l
h ["'l
f H5l
juHl
-?. A zl t -u =,{
e $:il
lFet
\T\l trll
=$Nli us[ilf
X *t Mll oo ut{uilr
.' t-
tt.. - l]
9ul!;9iil;
$[iiiH[iiii
\$Hi3\s*i3 i
{r z,
.9
Y ?o qJ
4l z +g
,x
tl\l
I
+t
Nts
&ir
9s -g
=[g(
H
*
!0
f E
i
tD
0
4
L 3 q
T
z ...,s .^ [x"i lt
NI r*
1S lS Frr,r,i ili *f re it $t z0 9*o
EH 5H AS otl ir 3i
t\.{
$
t
{t ZNTH
I
TJ
I
F
UJ
s J
I
F +f
t_ {lr
z
s
o
F
!--1 r-
frl
ln s =s ) r.i ;{a!l
hd
vr i:o
Iuuf -7\0 :Ji L\ {
,.'. g t urAf Jp 0 [o,i-
$tJ
I
I I
6
T
$ldt
{lfl
il$l
pt 0l
lrl I l"l
i|fl-
Fl$l 5 q!l
'n 5is 9iN
urJJ s<lY Jr ?y9g
$:: t tliS fi"t;o
\n
N
o
C(L
1t
st
0 --'{{
It
3${I
oS -i
gS
<o
: O "Z ii i$ er
$i fl li i:[iii 'rB $o =t'^6 $ii s[ iF *ir tt rl
\I
/2:4:i$r{t $AN!H
lll
d p
ul
z.
0-
I
I v
ri
r(l
7
s
q
fil
ill
ul
L
r
c
n
I
i
P
\t
z
$
N
u-
u
vl
1(L
j
/
2
)
1
+,
ti!
$s:
I" r''
[_r!\
.1
!1
l
l
I
:
I
I
I
ir
li lr
I
!t
o J
><l ro
C .9
€
x g,
G
N s4,z'
i6
^s4
.l
./- -\./'a <:i \ =t "t
r/
I
I
I
'i
ol
(rl cll ol
I
ot ol
SNOW-AVAf,ANCHE AND DEBRIS.FLO!{ HAZARD ANALYSTS AND
IIIITIGATION CONCEPTS
LOTS 4 AND 5, BIGHORN 2Nd ADDTTION, VAII.,
Prepared For
Mr. AI Amaral
Arthur I. Mears, p.E. r fnc.Gunnison, Colorado April, 1989
I
OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS
This analysis of snow-avalanche and debris-f1ow hazard and
mitigation concepts on Lots 4 and 5, Bighorn 2nd Addition, r'itas
requested by Mr. Amaral and Iur. Tim BoyIe, P.E., of Vail.
Specifically, the study has the following objectives:
a. Analysis of the dynamic characteristics of design-.
magnitude (100-year) snow avalanches on Lots 4 and 5;
b. Estimation of the frequency (return period) of
major avalanches that may reach the building areas;
c. Discussion of the structural mitigation procedures
that can be used to protect buildings and living areas;
d. Description of debrj-s-f1ow and debris-avalanche
hazard; and
e. Discussion of risk from avalanches
This study is site specific and should be applied to only this
area. Avalanche and debris-flow characteristics will differ
considerably at various locations, therefore the findings of this
study cannot be applied to other sites.
2 SNOW-AVALANCHE CHARACTERISTICS AND FREQUENCIES
Two snow-avalanche paths affect Lots 4 and 5: (
"Waterfal1" avalanche wilL reach portions of Lot 5' and
"Landslide". avalanche will reach Lot 4 and 5.
cL)
fh)
the
the I.
I
l.
li
li
The Waterfall avalanche begins on steep, deforested, northeast-
facin!-ET6pEFat 10,500 feet elevation. some 2,100 feet above the
l"ots (Figure 1). Terrain analysis indicates that the "design-
magnituder " or "1OO-year" avalanche will result as 10-15 acres of
snow breaks away in the uPper starting zone, descends the
channel, spreads over the alluvial fan and stops in Gore Creek.
llhen this occurs, several lots (and existing buildings) wiII be
reached by avalanche debris, including portions of Lot 5 (Figure
2). The design avalanche will not be contained by the existing
channels on the al1uvia1 fan' but will spread laterally and
entrain aspen trees as it advances down the fan. Such a major
avalanche wiII probably occur in the dry winter snowpack,
therefore the design-avalanche will consist of dry-flowing snow.
This conclusion is based on a statistical study of avalanche
terrain in CoIorado, my familiarity with avalanche behavior in
the local area, and a dynamics analysis of the ltlaterf aIl
avalanche.
Inspection of aerial photographs dated 1939' I950, 1962, l9'74,
and 19g4 give some indication of avalanche frequency. Debris
from only one large avalanche could be seen on these photos.
l,
li
This avalanche occurred between I950 and L962, stopped above the loler waterfall, and did not descend over the irirrs to the alluvial fan. Although this was the largest avalanche to occur during a 45-year period, apparantly only a small part of the potential starting zone and snor ma!s wai invorved. This could be deduced from the channel directj.ons that conveyed moving snow in_the_upper basin. rf the entire l0-I5 acres oi startin{ ,on.had released, the avalanche would have been much Iarge-r and probably would have reached Gore creek. The return period of of avalanches to Gore Creek is probably 50-to-100 years.
rf the waterfall path releases as a Iarge wet-snow avalanche it wilI move sJ-owly and be confined to the channels on the alluvial fan. Portions of the wet snow courd turn sharply to the east and west and cause deep snow to be deposited againit-and structures.
Ihe rj"!s]i9g avalanche is located clirecrly above the Lot 4/Lot 5 boundary. Thrs is a smaIl avalanche path of some 400 vertical feet elevation difference and begins bLIow the thick rimestone cliff. This avalanche path became more actlve since a debris aval-anche occurred in May, 1984 and removed the entire forest cover, leaving an open scar approximately L50-200 feet wide through the aspen forest. Because snow wili not adhere well to the existing surface, avalanches are frequent and wiII flow into the upper part of Lot 4 nearly every yeai. when thick, unstable snow slabs accumulate on these steep slopes, avalanches will sweep across most of Lot 4 and part of Lot 5 stopping near the south edge of Lupine Drive (Figure 2).
The boundaries of the design-magnitude avalanches in both the Waterfall and the Landslide paths are shown on Figure 2.
SNOW-AVA],ANCHE MITIGATION
3.1.Protection f rom lrlaterf al I ava lanche
Two forms of avalanche protection were considered in the Waterfall path: (a) diversion walls, and (b) direct protection as discussed below.
A dive_rsion wall was considered as protection for the western part ot Lot 5. such a wall, if properly oriented and 15-20 feet high could increase the hazard-free Lrea on the waterfarl alluvial fan such that one or possibly two buildi.ngs coura Le placed in an avalanche-free zone.- Horvever, such a di.virsion wali wourd def I ect ava I anche s and possibly i ncrease ava I anche f nrnr r a-n " ^h rl.^ttL-.jusrr.-y .Jr! rrle Lots north of Lupine Drive. Because a diversion waII may, in this case, increase the hazard to adjacenc properry,this mitigation option was rejected.
Direct-p-rotection structures are the recommended mitigation form wr-thi-n the runout zone of the !,'laterfarl avalanche-. Direct-protection structures are of two types:
I .l ' .; i'..^.,... tit.)') t.t.i,
a. Reinforcement of buildings for avalanche loads; and
b. Placing_ reinforced wedges directry above buildings to prevent avalanches from reaching uphill building wa1ls.-
This is a sommon form of avalanche protection in areas oE.moderate avalanche hazard ( "Blue zones"), and has been used at many vail sites. rf buildings are to be placed inside the waterfall avalanche runout zone (Figure 2), direction-protection should be used to reduce the avalanche hazard.
Direct-protection structures can take many forms, dependj-ng on the shapes, sizes. and orientations of the buildings itrat ieeO protection. Requirements for final design of dirett-protection structures are discussed in Section 4 of this report.
Advantages of direct-protectiion structures are:
a- complete protection is attained for those inside the building i
b. Additional earthwork and excavation is usuarlv not rarrrr i raA .
-v11Y4rvu,
c. Buildings often do not appear to be designed for avalanche impact
Disadvantages of direct-protection structures are:
I
-i
i.-.|'/ -r. -..?o'J)
,:IFX.
f,!
ll
!l
I
a. special design and construction can increase buildinq costs _by 10? to 20? i
b. Complete protection of the site is not achieved (not an important factor with long return-period avalanches.
3.2 Protection from the "Landslide" avalanche
The Landslide avalanche path j.s smal1, therefore large velocities and- flow depth.s are not expected, even during the design-avalanche conditions. This avalanche can be stoppea by buildlng a catchinq dam at right angles to the avalanch6 flow directioi (Figure 3). The structure wilr serve to protect buildings on the northern part of Lots 4 and 5 such that special design of direct-protection structures will not be reguired within this area.The dimensions of dam cross sections are shown in Figure 4.
: ..-2
\ .-_il
4 DESTGN OF DIRECT-PROTECTTON STRUCTURBS
Design-loading standards for direct-protection structures (in the Waterfall runout eone). inc.orporated into buildings can only be given when final buirding characteristics are kno-wn.specification of loading standards requires knowledge about the following architectural and design detJils:
I
I
l
n
I
l
{
tl il
II I :
I
I
I
a. Building b. Building c. Buj.lding
location;
shape; and orientation.
l
when these architectural details become known, d es ign-ava I anche forces can be resolved into normal and shear components, and the hej.ghts, strengths, and other details of diiect protection structures can be specified. This design requires careful.communication between the property owner, irchitect, structural engineer, and ava l anche-engineer ing specialist in order to ensure a safe design.
DEBRIS-FLOW HAZARD
I\tost of the waterfall alIuvial fan has been bui rt f rom debris flows,- consequently the fan surface must be exposed to debris-flow ri-sk. The extent of the debris-flow areas are indicated on Town- of vail mapping. onry the northwestern corner of Lot 5 is
.reg9h9d by debris flows, therefore they will not constitute a l-rr|i I ni ^^ ^^*^l--- i -! -! !r-.:-int at this location.
6 DEBRIS-AVAI^ANCHE HAZARD
The prominent landslide scar whi ch nreqen t- l r.z
avat anche path was indicated u" ,,li[it""-;:;:"'.'nt" ;:jffi? jr" ,il 1984 Town of vair maps. This area has stabilized and no rongei presents a danger ( from debris avalanche ) to Lots 4 or 5. Snow avaranches do occur in the t9B4 debris-avalanche scar, as discussed in Section 2 of this reporc.
7 SNOW-AVAI,ANCHE RISK
Any building within avalanche areas wirl tend to increase the overall risk to people because of the increased exposure trme of people in the area_ resulting from the development. The overall risk from snow avalanches to people who are dutside of bui. ldinqi is very smalI, however. Thia is true because people g."";;i-i;spend a small percentage of the total time lrougnty fZi outsil;during the avalanche season.
Because this verl, smal1 risk is finite, I recommend that alI users of these and other avalanche areas should understand th;potential risk and heed aII official rvarninqs.
e" l.-.i ++^J l^r,L \-g\J uy,n r AA'
L,l'7 /Ul'Zad
Arthur I. ivlears. P.E.
Ava lanche-Control Enqineer
tv g:-a1r-.:
,7rF:---,-\
I f -.--'--'-r --v/--"-\
tilt
i%
Map Scale: 1" = ZO0O'
l'//%)IL\\
31,.u-I\N"**
:\\\
3,
/-\
I -:--
7,J,
I
:/i
J
iE /@
a=-.\
BtGHo AI rt
:*N FIGURE 2. Design ("100_year,,) ava)_anche
boundaries in the "llaterfalL,, and
"Landstide,' paths.
Hap Scale: 1" = 200'
lt
!.e
i--:\:?
' \ \\r\)''. \\
r'Rr'i
,,.rt\
'I
-'iN *i
il- ,
:}-\
BIGHO N
FIGURE j. Design-avalanche linits F
adjustecl by catching darn. Area
=:suitable for direct protectlon is
=l'-
also shown.
"*R flN
Map Scale: 1" = 200'
fl
g
J
Avalanche Directlon
->
I
lt2'
Ground Surface
rl,'
\---!
I
22.
FTGLAE 4' Dirnenslons of d.arn cross section. Darn crest position ls shown on Flgure J. construction d.inensrons should. be corzect to wlthin + tV,. This catching darn provides protection frorn the "Land.sl j.de " avaLanche, as dlscussed. in the text.
ds {lxip 9,2 _3;":N
s4)e";6;",-,\
C
ARTHURI.MEARS, P.E.,
Nan:ral Hazar& Corsulants
222 &r Corbc A,c.
Guraisr, Gloodo 81230
N3 - 641.32J6
November 20, I9B9
Mr. Tim Boyle
Boyle Engineering, fnc.143 E. Meadow Dr., Suite 390 Vail, CO 81657
RE: Hazard Mitigation plan, Lots 4 & 5, Lupine Drive.
Dear Timr
+s you requested, r reviewed the hazard-mitigation plan for Iots 4 & 5 dated r1-15-89 . fhe f oJ. Iowing comme'nts reiu lt rro* *y revj.ew of the plan.
1- snor'r and debris avaranches from the "LandsIide,'avalanche path wiII be stopped by the earth dams as shown on the plan. These Oims wifl also stop falling rock.
2. Direct protection of buildings on the northv,,est side of Lot 5 wilI be required ior avalanche and debris-flow protection. thi! has been indicated on the plan (November 15, 1989) you sent me for review.
3. Direct- protection can also be used to protect against avalanches originating in the,,Landslid'e', path and affecting Lot 4 and part of Lot 5. However, the direct-protection design used for avalanche protection
!ay not er.irninate the risk or possible structural damage from rockfall at this location. Additional details about rockfall energy and specific structurar design wilr be^ necessary to-determine the suitability of structures for the rockfall protection.
The proposed building areas are in ,'noderate" avalanche-hazard zones. Furthermore, the mitigation proposed on the plan will not increase the hazard frorn avalinches,-deLris rto*i, or rockfalr on any. adjacent or downslope properties or other private ot fr[ril facilities
PIease contact me if you have any further guestions.
Sin54reI y,
I'lflaa-fi\nP Arthur I. MEars, p.E.
Avalanche-Control engineer
tNc.
(
L
Maa Wastiag . Amhnchq o Amhnchc Contpl Enginccsrg
(
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.
CONSULTING GEOLOGTST
0793 VALLEY ROAD
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623
(303) 963.3600 (24 HOURS)
November 3rJ. 1989
(L
Tim BoyI e
14f, Eaet Meadow Dri ve, Sr_ri te N 1r1 Crogsroadg Shopping Center
Vai !. , CO. 81637
F:E: Lots 4 Er 5y Bighcrn
Dee,r l"h-. EroyIe:
I h'r'e re'i e'ed the drer.,i ng= of the pr-ooc:ed rni ti gati on f or_the .rbeve re{erenced propeity ,,.rith regRr.d to the ner.l tot line= and the' e:risting rccr,:{a! r and debri= f rar.r heiercre. As in olrl- pre'/ioLrs cornmuni c-rti. ons, the type of mitig.rtion needs to be i n the f orm cf def l ecti on stl-LrctLtres or di t_ect mitigertlon by horne design to llinimize the danger to proposee homesr f rom av-qlancheo as r.rer 1 as roch{ar r a"J=Jebrr s +ror.r h.r.rardg.
The dr--rr.lings which yolr have pre=ented have adequately addr-essed the conrerns with tha Ce=rgn o+ tr.Jo eartlr ber_ms with sr-rf {icient height, fna=s -rnc orients,tion to protect the easter-n three proposed lots. The r.rester_nmctgt one can only be mi t i gated thror-rgh the use of di t-ect pt-otecti on i ncorporated into the strlrcf-rrre of the dwelI ing. It is my underst-:nding that r'rr-. Art r'rears ha= provided you with the h€ce55c1F/gLtidel ines to protect against aval-enche. These shoLrl d suf {ice {ar the pr-otecti on o{ the other two harards ae l.rel l.
The resrrl t r.ri I I be that the eagtern three I ots wi I I nor.r be placed in the Moderate H*:ard Zones, br-rt the {or-trth site l.,i 1r remain in the High Ha:ard Zone. If yocr have f urrther questions pl ease contact me.
Si ncerel y,
qZ.* 4"1,,A
Ni chol as Lamp i r i s
Consul t i ng Geolooist L
l,2z'70
Pt=c
Iten No. 3: A request to amend the Arteri-al Business Zone District to allow private unstructured off-street vehicle parkinq as a conditional use.Applicant: Vail Associates
This proposal was presented by Peter Patten. He reviewed the
proposal and reitereated on the fact that this was not a specific site request today but only an amendment to change the current
zoning to accommodate future parking sites.
Joe Macy was present from vail Associates to explain the need for the amendment just as Peter had stated. He repeated that it was only for conditional use and not to begin any building of parking
lots.
Cornments were then opened to the PEC nembers with Diana stating
that this conditional use needs to be accommodated for future use
and it should not be overlooked.
Kathy warren asked for the addition of the word rrscreenedrr since the zoning code requires it and Peter answered that this would be
done.
Jim Shearer rnotioned for reconmendation of approval to allow for private off-street ltscreenedtr surface parkinq as a conditional
use. Dalton Willians seconded the moti.on.
VOTE: 7-0infavor.
rtem No. 4: A Work Session for a minor subdivision and zone
chanqe for Lots 4 & 5, Block 2, Biqhorn First
Addition.Applicant: Sable/Lupine Partners, Ltd.
This proposal was presented by Mike Mollica to the PEC members.
Mike gave an overview of the memo going over the staff memorandum
and the Zoning Cornparisons chart. There was one change made to this chart on #4, under the PROPOSAL colunn. A change from 12,000 sf GRFA to 12,895 sf GRFA. Mike than covered the issues of the
proposal which he felt needed to be discussed today with the PEC.
At this time, Mike Perkin, the architect representing the
applicant, responded by pointing out the option of changing Lot 2
in a way that would eliminate the construction of a hazard
nitigation berm and presented a drawing to show what the revised
lot would look like. ft rnade an unusual shaped lot but would
fulfill the 12,500 sf buildable area requirenent. He also stated
that by direct mitigation, there would have to be a lot of heavy
concrete laid to strengthen the structures. He continued to say
that if the safety factor is the issue, then the ability to blend
the housing in as single fanily would be safer than two family in
respect to avalanche and other hazards which are currently
nresent on this site.
The discussion was then directed towards the j-ssue of driveways
and the nurnber which would be allowed for the homes. It was
mentioned that access nay present a problem - more cuts, more vehicles, more accident possibilities which brings the safety
issue back in to the picture. Staff has suggested two driveway cuts instead of four.
Questions concerning the berm were then addressed by Jim Vie1e.
He stated that there is a constant danger of snow sl-ides each year in this area and wished to know how the overall proposal
would fit into this.
Connj-e Knight asked about the rrcreekrl and Mike Perkin responded that it was not a creek, but a spring run. He also showed how this spring could be diverted down the property lines on the far side of the lots.
Diana Donovan then gave her conrnents to this proposal. She stated that the hazards are very severe and suggested that only three lots be created (subdivide the eastern lot only) which
would make for safer lots. She felt that the building of a berm is unacceptable and that many of the 40 - 50 foot aspen trees
would have to be sacrificed.
Kathy Warren stated that she would like to see employee housing
irnplernented in these lots. She agrees with Diana concerning the
berrni-ng and added that it would create an eyesore from the interstate. She did say, in regard to the safety of the proposal, that ernployee housing would not be a good idea if the
hazards present could not be elininated. She also said that she
would rather see two driveways and if this bern is proposed, then
she wants it staked on the site as to the exact heiqht and width of the berm.
Chuck Crist said that he was opposed to the berrn and would like to see the west lot subdivided for possible ernployee housing and
Ieave the east lot as is.
Dalton Williams said that he personally would like to have his
own driveway and asked if three single fanily lots would elirninate al1 of the issues being raised (ie. berms, geologic
hazards, driveways, etc. ) .
Diana stated that she was against employee housing and that the
fewer the cuts for drivewavs the better. Jirn Viele aqreed with this.
Connie Knight expressed that she felt the proposal was geared to profitability on the applicantrs part with not enough ernphasis or
regard to geologic hazards, division of lots, traffic generation,
overaLl safety, etc...
Jim Shearer nade the suggestion of retaining wa11s and inguired if they could save on mitigation costs. Mike Perkin responded
that i-t woul-d be more expensive than the building of the berrn but
would do less damage to the forest. He said that he coul-d investigate the building of retaining walls for the planning
commission I s information.
Finally, a question was raised by Ed Zhmeier in the audience
asking if nitigation or berrning would be a part of the proposal
if this project were submitted tomorrow for a building permit,
and Kristan responded that the rnj.tigation/berming would be part
of the l-andscape plan submitted directly to the DRB.
Item No. 5: A Work Session for an amendnent to Special
Developrnent District #4, Cascade Village to arnend
Area D, clen Lyon Office Buildinq at 1000 South
Frontage Road West, Lot 54, GIen Lvon Subdivision.
Applicant: GIen Lvon Office Buildinq - A Col-orado
Partnership
This proposal was presented by Kristan Pritz. Kristan nade it clear to the PEC that no bottl-ing would be taking place at the brewery. She enphasized the change in the parking lot located to the east of the brewery which will allow additional spaces. She
said that parking seems to be the biggest issue facing the
cornmission at this point.
Andy Norris, developer for the project, discussed the square
footage chart attached to the memo. He proceeded to go over the
conceptual scheduLe for completion of the project. Andy noted that an emergency exit had been proposed for the south side of the building and stated that it was the only place availabl-e
under the Town building codes. He also described the loading that was designed for pick-ups, delivery vehicles, etc. and said that 1t would not interfere in any way with the buses or general
vehicular traffic. The loading access was designed specifically
for vendor traffic. He al-so informed the comrnission that a trash
compactor will be installed to cut down on the frequency of trash pick-up for the brewery.
Andy went into how the parking would work. He said that the Brew
HaIl would be operated like a banquet type facility with one seating. He stated that the Brew Pub will be a local type
establishment with a maximun seating capacity of 80 people and will not affect the parking very much at all considering the
times that locals will be corning to the pub. He ended his speech
by giving facts related to this new project:
--The brewery would be approxinately 900 feet from both the
Marriott and the Westin Hotels.
--He is looking into getting the bike path tighted for use by the
brewery in both summer and winter:
Winter: sleigh rides to and frorn the brewery (up to 80 people per evening could be transported this way) .
To: Planning & Environrnental Comrnission
From: Conmunity Development Department
Date: January 22, L990
Subject: A WORK SESSION to consider a reguest for a zone change and a minor subdivision for Lots 4 & 5, Block 2,Bighorn 1st Addition.Applicant: Sable/Lupine partners, Ltd.
f. Description of the proposals
The applicant has scheduled this work session to dj_scuss a possible rezoning and subdivision of the above named 1ots,nore specifically located at 3916 and 3956 Lupine Drive in East Vail. The requests include the following:
l-) A zone change from the existing Two zone district (duplex) to the Single
Family Residential
Fami l-v Residential zone di-strict.2) A minor subdivision which,four single family 1ots.
if approved, would create
Both lots are currently vacant, however, Lot 5 does have the remains of a partially constructed foundation. The applicants also propose to relocate an existing internittent creek that fl_ows throuqh Lots 4 & 5.
Surrounding zoning incl_udes Two Family Residential to the east and north, Single Family Residential to the northeast,and Agricultural & Open Space zoning to the west. Lands south of these lots are included in the white River National Forest and are not within the Townls nunicipal lirnits.
Tn October of 1983, the pEC approved a rezoning and minor subdivision for a duplex lot located at 3967 Lupine Drive.
Two single fanily lots were created (3967 and 3972 Lupine Dr. ) fron the one duplex lot. The approval required that only one driveway cut be allowed for the two 1ots. This condition was later rernoved by the pEC in September of 1987.
If. Zoning Analysis
A. Lot Area (Lots 4 & 5 combined)
Gross Area:
Areas of 4OZ slope or greater, and red
hazard avalanche:
Net buildable area:
115,918 square feet
-57,467 square feet
58r451 square feet
Existing Zoning
The current Two Farnily Residential zoning on Lots 4 & 5 will alLow for the construction of one duplex structure on each lot. Current allowable GRFA and site coveraqe is as follows:
Lot 4 GRFA = 6,L91 sguare feet Lot 5 GRFA : 7,l-O4 square feet Total - 13,295 square feet
Lot 4 site cover€llfe = 9,766 square feet Lot 5 site coverage = l-3,41-7 scruare feet
Tota1 = 23,183 sguare feet
fII. Criteria To Be Used in Evaluatinq This Proposal
The three criteria to be used in the evaluation of a zone
change request are as follows:
1) Suitability of existing zoning.2) Is the amendment presentingr a convenient, workabl_e relationship within land uses consistent with Municipal objectives?3) Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly, viable comnunity?
IV. Issues
Geologic Hazards - There are currently large areas of
snow and debris-flow, red hazard and blue hazard
avalanche zones within the boundaries of the two Lots.There are also rockfall hazard zones and large areas of
40? slope on the lots.
The applicant is proposing to rnitigate these hazards by either the construction of large berms (I2, in height)uphill (south) of the proposed residences or through direct mitigation (structural strengthening of the buildj-ngs). However, it is proposed that Lot 2 utilize
berrning in order to meet the minimum lot size requirement for subdivision. If berrning is unacceptable for Lot 2, perhaps a variance from the
minimum lot size would be considered.
The proposed berrns will be staked on-site for the PEC site visit. ShouLd the method of rnitigation be stipulated on the plat (berming vs direct protection within the structure)? ff berming is acceptable, is the proposed revegetation of the berms adequate?
cRFA and site coverase - rh"-alrrf6;;i'T: It.nosins co restrict the totaL GRFA to l?>eq0 square feet. This
amount of GRFA is 1,295 square feet under the Two Fanily zoning allowable GRFA and 7,O9O square feet under the Single Fanily zoning allowable GRFA. Is the
1)
2)
proposed restriction on the maxirnurn allowable GRFA
acceptable?Site Coverage under either Two Farnily or Single Family
zoning is 20?. The applicant proposes LO.4Z. Should site coverage be further restricted?
3) Zoninq - Would the proposed rezoning be cornpatible with the neighborhood, (i.e four single farnily homes vs two duplex structures) ?
4) Access - Should the number of driveway cuts be restricted?
5) Setbacks - Are the proposed, staggered front setbacks
acceptable to the PEC?
6) Employee Housinq - In light of Vailrs current employee housing shortage does the PEC feel it appropriate to
encourage an enployee unit in each of the proposed single fanily homes? In order to obtain the employee units the property would have to remain zoned Two
Family Residential and a variance frorn the minunum lot sLze, for Lots L, 2, and 3 would be needed.
Should the GRFA be lirnited to what is proposed (L2,0oo
square feet) or should the GRFA cap remain the same as the existing Two Family zoning (I3 t295 square feet) to allow for the employee housing?
1 Perrnitted
Uses:
Setbacks:
Height:
Density:
5. Site
Coverage:
SingLe Family
and Two Farnily
Dwellings
Front: 20t
Sides: L5,
Rear: 15'
,gt 733,
ALIowabIe D.U.'s: 4
GRFA: L3 t295
2OZ = 23,L83
v.ZONTNG COMPARISONS
TWO FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY
Single Farnily
DweJ.Iings
Front:. 20'
Sides: l-5 '
Rear: l-5 '
30' /33'
AllowabLe D.U.'s: 4
GRFA: L9,090
2OZ = 23 t1-83
12,500 sf
PROPOSAL
Single Family
Dwellings
Front:2O-50'
Staggered
Sides: l-5,
Rear: L5,
3Ot,/33'
DrnrrncaA
D.U. ts: 4
GRFA: >adqsr qm5 f
IO.4Z - LZt 000 sf
Lot
Lot
Lot
Lot
Lot
Lot
Lot
Lot
1-
2-3-
2=3=
sf
Sf
sf
sf
6. Buildable
Area:
1-5, 000 sf
l- = 48r830 sf
2 = 67,088 sf
12,648 sf
3-2, 580 sf
l-4 , 310 sf
22,497 sf
34,058 sf
25,O41- sf
21, B3B sf
34,981 sf
7.Total Lot Lot Size: Lot
t1 2.r'
,/
^6o
--o v&<
-,., 6E
<rl
qZ
39
uJ (/,
Ea (
-S
lz
rftr )<^o;-
Y<(Do
FF o-.JZ
ot2
z>
YO (/) q]
>a
-'5
E l
e z o
U)t 6 (D
u>
z.g:I (t a
F a
LU rY
*LL
UJ -J
-t-- ..<+-z
=
F
CN
UI E o lL
fr
2Z (rO
,,' F
=<I_
=
t:Ir *,e
',^q
I
', trJ
/ lrJ l i8/uI
61.(5 1
(t
o ol
,F
\
+I t,.?
N
z
tr
o
Q
o
t
(D f g)
z
I
q
-. @=]Y
lt1 F zx
H<\ F* ..re.,
r \F ."1e::;b 'i >,,"&"
t//
o o f;-J :
$;tl$i
T.n'l ;.F
tF:tfl$s
g$$il,frii
ur€Lllr ft5*d
[.. r,
9ni! ; tli ili
f,[iiifl[iii1
{i z
.P
Y ?o U
al z +
,t rtt
TH
{.^u
l$
rS
fil r|l'!ti
UE
Ht
gA
Cn \F
s$
3t
l-sl l-\\-l NI xa \ llz)
uiU I(
NI
{=lri
fr
t;l
-. iE .li oU *lt
I
tll
0 p
UJ j
I
I
Y
+\.x t_ [r
la''
''| r-UFI r'l r{ --r.t flil fil i dlil }t i ;illfl, q !
d; Hr$tf i $t 6 i iiliii'f i q u;
'ill.iisa gl )^,'$lli9rri fil nl ;lib$r; $ Nll
flifr$H ; $il ;ir nli u=t'$
$il. j$l ,h, $ilr 3{J >*+ Lr:/4 -- ;-r;r.=Hi;
-t, '-212-o;'zzl
ll \ ,' ",ti \$ Y^'"-'--^";i'i ..,,, o ___-]--_kJ
$':,T;:;-',:17
'''. ...:' C'1." . :.1i" . .t '/*i' " i ,,, ! i -\s;:: -ri I ill i u --F#{( I iaNlr
fliluuilil
Iiifli[$i
I
F
scil iil
r,$il t E:11 (s[
i.u ) $,ll
i\il | {ll
g
E
o
;
td lal
lhl lal
..l Nl
OI
AI ll,t
bl
FI
u
i
3 ol ii
\o!
r1
$l
8l
.l
sl
;l
PI
ul
FI
6l
r{;
l
$
uri
{i
\n
'$a
tr
.\
..\
\
0 *
t
u
,,1
9r
s,
Ai
ol
ll"a<ol!Nf
n-l.'f,
da
F!:ri5 ,i p$\( :;
^l{
!t
x
g
IL
{l
I
I v
{r
7
0
a
!_
AI
dJl fl
9l tul
srl
+..
i
s i
t\
ls'
ni t;
$\
li'
:t
!i
!:
:
:/
ji
(1
1
I
I t :
5 l
I
I
\rc
J
'i
c l:ol
IJI qrl t',l
I
ol ol
t2
ai \:"1
5-.-..s
C .9
€
x fl,lE
N *4 z.'
i6
c
I
I
)
i
.\\
';
i
!
o f'
I
I
l
I
SNOW-AVALANCHE AND DEBRIS-FI,OW EAZARD ANALYSIS
MITIGATION CONCEPTS
LOTS 4 AND 5, BIGHoRN 2nd ADDITToN. vArIJ
Prepared For
Mr. Al Amaral
Arthur I. Mears, p.8., Inc.Gunnison, Colorado April, 1989
a
t,
l,
t:I
OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS
This analysis of snord-avalanche and debris-flow hazard and
mitigation concepts on Lots 4 and 5, Bighorn 2nd Addition' was
requested by Mr. Amaral and !1r. Tim Boyle' P.8., of VaiI.
SpecificaIly, the study has the following objectives:
a. Analysis of the dynamic characteristics of design-.
magnitude (100-year) snow avalanches on Lots 4 and 5;
b. Estimation of the frequency (return period) of
major avalanches that may reach the buildi-ng areas;
c. Discussion of the structural mitigation procedures
that carl be used to protect buildings and living areas;
d. Description of debris-fiow and debris-avalanche
hazard; and
e. Discussion of risk from avalanches.
This study is site specific and should be applied to only this
area. Avalanche and debris-fIow characteristics wiII differ
considerably at various locations, therefore the findings of this
study cannot be applied to other sites.
2 SNOW-AVALANCHE CHARACTERISTICS AND FREQUENCIES
Two snow-avalanche paths affect Lots 4 and 5: (a) the
"Waterfall" avalanche will reach portions of Lot 5, and (b) the I'Landslide"- avalanche will reach Lot 4 and 5.
The Waterfall avalanche begins on steep, deforested, northeast-
facin!-ETopEFat I0r500 feet elevation, some 2'100 feet above the
Lots (nigure f). Terrain analysis indicates that the "design-
magnitude, " or "10O-year" avalanche will result as 10-15 acres of
snow breaks away in the upper starting zone ' descends the
channel. spreads over the alluvial fan and stops in Gore Creek.
Irthen this occurs, several lots (and existing buildings) will be
reached by avalanche debris, including portions of Lot 5 (Figure
2). The design avalanche will not be contained by the existing
channels on the alluvial fan, but wilI spread laterally and
entrain aspen trees as it advances down the fan. Such a major
avalanche will probably occur in the dry winter snowpack,
therefore the design-avalanche wilI ,consist of dry-flowing snow.
This conclusion is based on a statistical study of avalanche
terrain in Colorado, my familiarity with avalanche behavior in
the 1oca1 area, and a dynamics analys j.s of the !{aterf alI
avalanche.
Inspection of aerial photographs dated 1939, 1950' L962, 1974,
and 1984 give some indication of avalanche freguency. Debris
from only one large avalanche could be seen on these photos'
t:
f;ai
fi
l!
a,
This avalanche occurred between 1950 and Lg62, stopped above the Iorver waterfall, and did not descend over the cfiffs to the
; I l I ; ; " :. lii ; ". l' ; :: I 3!,' I ;; "i1=" ..,1r"
"'
; i ;..". *"."i i " ;:? .. "" iT; a potential starting zone and snow mass was involved. This could be deduced from the channel directions that conveyed moving snow i-n the upper basin 0-I5 acres of starting zone had release
prc!c_b_l
avalanches to Gore Creek is obabl 50-to-100 years
SNOW-AVAIANCHE MI TIGATI ON
3.1 Protection f rom lrlaterf aI l avalanche
rf the waterfall path releases as a large wet-snow avaranche it will move slowly and be confined to the thanneLs on the alluvial fan. Portions of the wet snow could turn sharply to the east and west and cause deep snow to be depositecl against- and structures.
The Landslide avalanche is rocated directly above the Lot 1/Lot 5 bounEEr|. rhis is a small avalanche path of some 400 vertical feet elevation difference and begins betow the thick Iimestone criff. This avalanche path became more acti-ve since a debris avalanche occurred in May, 1984 and removed the entire forest cover, Ieaving an open scar approximately 150-200 feet wide through the aspen forest. Because snow will not adhere weIl to the existing surface, avalanches are frequent ancl wiII flow into the upper part of Lot 4 nearly every year. when thick, unstable snow slabs accumulate on these steep slopes, avalanches wilr sweep across most. of Lot 4 and part of Lot 5 stopping near the south edge of Lupine Drive (Figure 2).
The boundaries of l-ho rrac i .'n-ma-.litude ava Ianches in both the waterf al I and trl. r,."-o=ii;"';";;:'are shown on Figure 2.
Two forms of avalanche protection Waterfall path: (a) diversion wal1s,as discussed bel ow.
were considered in the and (b) direct protection
A diversion wall was considered as protecti.on for the western parEof-ToE-E--Tuch a wall, if propeily oriented and l5-20 feet high could increase the hazard-fiee area on the waterfall alluvial fan such that one or possibly two buirdings coura Le placed in an avalanche-free zone.- Horvever, such a div-ersion wati would deflect avalanches and possibly increase avalanche frequency on the Lots north of Lupine orivd. Because a diversion walI may, in this case, increase the hazard to adjacenr property,this mitigation option was rejected.
Direct-protection structures are the recommended mitigation form !srthr-n the runout zone of the waterf ar l avaranche-. Direct-protection structures are of two types:
I
f,I
'/'t ty I
a. Reinforcement of buildings for avalanche Ioads; and
b. PIacing. reinforced wedges directly above buildings to prevent avalanches from reaching uphill building walIs.
This is a common form of avalanche protection in areas of,moderate avalanche hazard ("BIue Zones"), and has been used at many vai-1 si.tes- rf buildings are to be placed inside the Waterfall avalanche runout zone (Figure 2), direct ion-protecti on should be used to reduce the avalanche hazard.
Direct-protection structures can take many forms, depending on the shapes, sizes, and orientations of the buildings that ieed protection- Requirements for final design of direct-protection structures are discussed in Section 4 of this report.
Advantages of d i rect -protecti ion structures are:
a. Complete protection is attained for those inside the building i
b. Additional earthwork and excavation is usuallv not rarrrli razil .
-!Y93lvv,
c. Buildi ngs often do not appear to be designed for avalanche impact.
Disadvantages of direct-protection structures are:
a. Special design and construction can increase buildinq costs by lOts ta 2OZi
b. Complete protection of the site is not achieved (not an important factor with long return-period avalanches.
3.2 Protection from the irLandslide" avalanche
I
....-
; i.-v uo'j
,'-iy'v
n
I
The Landslide avalanche path is small, therefore larse velocities and flow depths are not expected, even during the design-avalanche conditi-ons. This avalanche can be stopped by build1ng a catching dam at right angles to the avalanchi- flow directioi (Figure 3). The structure will serve to protect buildings on the northern part of Lots 4 and 5 such that special design oi direct-protection structures wirl not be required within this area.The dirnensions of dam cross sections are shown in Fiqure 4.
DESIGN OF DIRECT-PROTECTION STRUCTURES
Design-loading standards for direct-protection structures (in the waterfall runout _zone) incorporated into buildings can only be giy_en_ qhen f ]ta! !_uif-Q1qg characteristics are kndwn.specification of loading standards- r-quifes knowledge about the following architectural and design details:
I -r.a
!l
J
l
l
n
I
.ll
4t
a. Building location i b. Building shape; and c. Building orientation.
when these architectural details become known, des ign-ava I anche forces can be resorved into normar and shear aoaponarrt=, and the heights, strengths, and other details of diiect protectron structures can be specified. This design ."qurr"" careful communication between the property owner, irchitLct, structural engineer, and avalanche-engine6ring specialist in order to ensure a safe design.
5 DEBRIS-FLOT{ HAZARD
llost of the waterfall alluvial fan has been built from debris flowsr. consequently the fan surface must be exposed to debris-flow risk. The extent of the debris-flo* arlas -aie inaicated on Town. of vail mapping. only the northwestern corner of Lot 5 is .rea9!ed by debris fIows, therefore they will not constltute a building constraj-nt at this location.
T
l
6 DEBRIS-AVALANCHE HAZARD
The prominent landslide scar whj ch nrpqehr'l i,avatanche puii, r.. indicated u" ,,'i'.ilt="-';:;:rt"tnt ;:rt"H:1984 Town of vail maps. This area has stabirized and no presents a danger (from debris avalanche) to Lots 4 or 5.avalanches do occur in the 19g4 debris-avalanche sca discussed in Section 2 of this reporE.
as an
on the
I onger
Snow
L, CtD
I
I
I
7 SNOW-AVALANCHE RISK
Any b-uilding within avalanche areas will tend to increase the overall risk to peopre because of the increased exposure t.r-me of people in the area_ res.ulting from the deveropment.- The overali risk from snow avalanches to peopJ.e who are o'utside of buildinqs is very small, however. Thi; i; true because peopl. ;";-";i'i;spend a small percentage of the total time (roughly fa'l ."t.iO!during the avalanche season.
Because this ver]' small risk is finite, r recommend that aLr users of these and other avalanche areas should understand th;potential risk and heed all official warninqs.
tKt,tt",f
n
ot'
Ltn / l/lrad
Arthur I. l"lears. P.E.Avalanche-ControI Enqineer
N =\\
*-wi
thz
'N NS?iNS---'N>
;ion Map
avalanc
d esign
ther avr
not shor
Locat
.s1ide
during
a a.l.tr
11. Lo
Lancisli
uts dur
i +i ^-^
area al
FIGURE 1.
and. Lanr
runouts
conditit
Vail arr
Sai-n:
-e\
F
\
v/-.:.}--=-=--t2-:
<--: S
--\\
Map Scale: 1" = ZOOO'
1 .:l -\
l:\...
z-:\
,'
1-Jt
---\'
\.o
i*\
It
-UCF
\s
iit\\*
/oA/
FfcURE 2. Design (',100_year,,) avalanche
boundaries in the "Waterfal],,and
"Land-sl_ide " paths .
ilap Scale: 1" = 200 ,
3,
/@
.1
>t-\S
rt
a
I lr
ttrce.
-f -'-\
{----.
ll- ,'IE
1--j,
EIGHO
FICURE 3. Deslgn-avalanche lirnits
acljustecl by catching dam. Area
sultable for dlrect Protectlon is
also shown.
Avalanche Direction =___>.
i
I t/.
Ground Surface
I'
_-!
..r I
I
FIGURE 4. Dinensions. of dan cross sectlon. Dan crest positlon is shown on Figure J' constructlon dinensions shoul. be co:rect to withln + Iq., This catching dan provi-des protectlon fron the "LaniLslide,, avalanche, as discussed in the text.
,4:
Oou
o r,O
?foo o
2ft g oor\I o o-^9 "o?
.f--uY"l;o?a-",)q-g-b" b"2o^1o-\
o
ARTHTJRI. MEARS, P.E., INC.
Nstunl Hazrdr ConsulbnB (
L
222 E-l Cothic Avc.
Crnnjpn, Glootb 81 230
303 - ut.3216
November 20, 1989
Mr. Tim Boyle
Boyle Engineering, fnc.143 E. Meadow Dr., Suite 390 Vail, CO 81657
RE: Hazard Mitigation planr Lots 4 & 5. Lupine Drive.
Dear Tim:
As you requested, r reviewed the hazard-mitigation pran for rots 4 & 5 dated t1-I5-99. The for rowing .o*r"-r.,t= -reiu 1t e ,orn -ry
review of the plan.
t. Snow and debris avalanches from the "LandsIide,,avalanche path wilr be stopped by the earth dams as shown on the pran- These -aams witl arso stop falling rock.
2. Direct protection of buildings on the northwest side of Lot 5 wilr be required ior avulanche and debris-flow protection. thil has been indicated on the pLan (Novernber 15, I9B9) you sent me for review.
3. Direct, protection can also be used to prorect against avalanches originating in the ,,Lands.l ider narh and affecting .Lot a aria parr of Lot 5. HorJiJr,'in.direct-protection design used for avalanche protection may not eliminate the risk or possibJ.e structural damage from rockfarr at this loiation. aoa:.tionat details about rockfarl energy and specific structural design will be- necessary to-determine ttre suitability of structures for the rockfall protection.
The proposed building areas are in "moderate', avaranche-hazard zones. Furthermore, the mitigation proposed on the plan wifl noi increase the hazard from avalinchesr-delris rrorns, or rockfarl on any adjacent or downslope properties or other jrivate
", luuiil faci lities.
Please contact me if you have any further questions.
Singqrel y ,
Ulflaa.\\uaj/Arthur I. MEars, p.E.
Avalanche-ControI enqineer
Ma* Wa ing . Ac,hncha c Aar,hacAc Contrcl Eryinceiag
(
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
0793 VALLEY ROAO
CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623
(3O3) 96336{n (21 HOURS)
November ?O, 19Eg
(L
Ti rn Fa.r] e
14.1 EaEt l.lesdorv Drive. SLtite N l rlr Crossroads Shoppi ng Center Vail, CO. 81687
RE: Lots 4 Ec 51 Bighorn
Dear l'1r-. Boyl e:
I ha'e re'i ewed the drswi ngs o+ tne pr-onc=ed rni ti a"rti on f er_the -rbcve F!:=+*€rentrerr p.op=ity i.rith r--gsi-;-i; th;-ier.r tot lines and the exi:;ting rocl:{ar t and debr-i -- f l or-r hs.=ards. As i'n our pre'/ioLrs crlt'rxuni c-etions, the type of mitig.rtion needs to be in the form of deflection structltres or dir_ect m!.ti,_:aticn by trome design to minimi:e the danqer to propose.home'' .f rom avslanche, as r.Jel r as t-ock*.r r anJ=J=brrs f r. or.r n!1iRrds.
The dr.ir.li ngs r.lhi ch your have presented he.ve adequatel y addressed the concerns with the design of t r.lo earth beFmg with surf {icient heightr fnass :.nc orientstion to protect the easter-n three proposed lots. The uresternmost one can only be mi ti gated thror-toh the uge of di t-ect protecti on i nccrporated intr: the strcrctire of the dr^rer r ing. It is rry urnderstanding th-rt Hr. Art Mears he,s provi ded y,6rr wi th the neces=,ary gLtidelines to protect egainst -q.rslanche. These should gt-tf f i ce {sr the pr-otecti on of the other- two hs:ards aE r.Jel I .
The resr-rl t wi r I be thst the esstErn three I ots wi r l nor.r be placed in the Mocerate He,rard Zones, b.rt the {or-rrth site r.ri r t remai n i n the Fli qh Ha: ard Zone. I { yor_t have f urrther qurest i ons please contact me.
Si ncer-eI y,
q1,,* 4rd
Ni chol as Lsmoirig
Eonsul,ting Geologist
,[AlW Wvlfrw*r,ls PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GMN that the Planning and Environmental
Cornrnission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section L8.66.060 of the nunicipal code of the
Town of Vail on February 1.2, 1990 at 3:OO p.n. in the Town of Vail
Municipal Buildinq. Consideration of:
L. A reguest for a minor subdivision and zone change for Lots 4
& 5, Block 2, Bighorn Lst Addition.
Applicant: sable/Lupine Partners, Ltd.
2. A reguest for an exterior alteration for the Ameri-can Ski
Exchange in the WalL Street Building on Block 5C, Vail
Village First Filing.
Applicant: American Ski Exchange
3. A request for an exterior alteratj-on for Condorniniurn Unit #3
in the core Creek Plaza BuJ.lding at l-93 East Gore Creek
Drive, Block 58, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Michael Sanner,/Piero Rivolta
4. A request to rezone a Special Developnent District for the
GarCen of the Gods on Lot K, Block 5, Vail VilJ-age Fifth
Filing at 365 Gore Creek Drive.
Applicant: carden of the Gods, Mrs. A.c. HiJ-1 Fanily
5. An amendment to Special Development District 4, cascade
Village, to anend Area D, clen Lyon office Building at 1000
South Frontage Road West, Lot 54r Glen Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: clen Lyon Office Bldg. - A colorado Partnership
5. A request for a height variance for Lot 3, Block 2, Vail
Potato Patch; Alpine Townhones IV.
Applicant: Michael Lauterbach
7. A request for an exterior alteration for a portion of Lot 1,
Block 2, YaiL T,ionshead Third filing; Vailglo Lodge.
Applicant: Craig Holzfaster
8. A request for an amendment to Special Development District 23
and a parking variance to allow for an office expansion, for
the Vail National Bank Building at l-Og South Frontage Road
West, a resubdivision of part of Lot D, Block 2, Vail Villaqe
Second Filing.
Applicant: Vail National Bank Building Corp.
g. A reguest for a side setback vari-ance for Vail Village Sixth
I'iling, Lot 6, Block 2 .
Applicantr clinton G. Arnes, Jr.
Michael G. Perkin
P.O. Box 1351
Vail, Colorado
(303)
Architect
81658
827-4146
January 15, 1990
Mr. M ike Mol lica
Department of Commun i ty
Town of Vail
/! South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 91657
Devel opment
Wes t
Dear Mike:
As you instructed, today I am del ivering additional information relating
to the rezoning/resubdivision appl ication for the proposed rrSable-Lupine
Subdivision". Attached you wil I find four drawings each labeled rrStudyrr,
dated 1-8-90; and one drawing Iabeled I'Proposal", dated 1-12-90. lt is my
understanding the planning staff will review this information at a review
session tomorrow. Please note, I am aware that you wish me to prepare a
formal statement that addresses why the appl icant wishes to rezone and
resubdivide this Iand. lwill do that, and immediately del iver it to you,
after I have the chance to hear from you about the results of tomorrowts
review. I would like to have the opportunity to incorporate any last-minute
ideas you may have, or address any last-minute concerns.
As you can see on the drawing labeled 'rProposalrr, we are propos ing to build
an earth berm on Lot 2 only. lt appears this berm must be constructed under
this plan to create the necessary 12,500 square foot buildable area on that
lot. lmust say itrs a strange reason to build the berm because, in reality,
a single-family house can easily be constructed on the proposed Lot 2 without
a berm -- but I guess we must follow the establ ished rules! While the
applicant is willing to pay the cost of constructing berms on Lots 1,2 and
3, we have el iminated the immed iate construction of the berms on Lots I and
3 because we agree with Kristan's position that we should avoid berming if
we possibly can. Please note, however, we feel that the potential of berm
construction on Lots 1, 2 and 3 should not be eliminated al together at this
time because whether duplexes or single-family houses are constructed on the
land, there are still substantial blue hazard zone forces to contend with and
we feel any duplex or single-family owner should have the right and option to
mitigate either with approved berms or by direct structure protection.
Even though a formal statement will be forthcoming as I mention above, lwould
like to briefly discuss some of our reasoning behing this rezoni nglresubdivision
proposal. I rema in convinced that four single-family homes stand a better
chance of resulting in a nicer neighborhood than would the construction of two
big dupl exes under current zoning; however, the more I study this land,
particularly the hazard zones as establ ished by Art Mears, the more convinced
I become that the blue zone forces can more easily be mitigated within the
structure of single-fami ly houses. Because there is less exposure on smal ler,
single-family houses, the hazard forces are less than they would be on duplexes.
Also, single-family homes are more easily rotated on the site so that they
may deflect sliding snow like the prow of a ship. Long, massive duplexes are
difficult to rotate in such a way.
Member: American Institute ol Architects
Page Two
Letter to M ike Mol
January I5, I990
lf the health, safety and welfare of the potential residents is given the
highest priority in our minds, I think any archi tect or structural eng ineer
would say that if the Town wants to el iminate berming as a means of protection,
then it is far more compl icated, difficult and costly to directly mitigate
the blue zone forces within the structure of a duplex, than it would be within the structure of a smal ler single-family house.
Not too long ago, The Vail Daily quoted Peter Patten as saying "We donrt feel multi-family areas have the ambiance, if you will, that are (sic)
associated with bed and breakfastsrr. I agree with Peter, and I do recognize
he was discussing areas with a higher density than two-family zones. However,
I think Peter's thinking reflects my position that as one progresses from the
lowest density areas to higher density areas, the character of the neighborhoods
change in nature. I think even going from single-family to two-family zones,
the character of neighborhood begins to change to a more commercial feel ing.
Therefore, I think the proposal to change from two-family zoning to
single-family zoning is a positive idea from an urban design standpoint, not
to mention the fact that both out-of-town buyers and local buyers place
single-family homes very high on their priority list.
As you know, you and others within the planning department have suggested that
we consider adding employee housing units to each of the four proposed lots.
We are not closed to this idea if your department, the Planning Commission,
and the Town Counci I wish to see this happen. As you can see on the I'Proposal "
drawing lam submitting today, we have proposed to limit the total GRFA on the
four proposed lots to 12,000 square feet (13,295 square feet would be allowable
if Lots 4 and 5 should remain under duplex zoning). I,thi le we are not including
employee housing units in our proposal at this time, if your department, the
Commission, the Council and the neighboring property owners want to see this
idea happen, we would be happy to incorporate the idea into the submission, but
would want to see the additional GRFA requi red by such units be added to the
12,000 square foot total we are currently proposing.
Please feel free to call me with any questions you may have regarding the
informat ion lam submitting to you today, and I hope to hear the results of
tomorrowrs staff review meeting so that we may all concl ude this phase of the
process and get everything ready for the Planning Commission work-sess ion
scheduled for January 22. Thank you for your help with this.
S incerel y,
,|l
Michael G. Perk i n
cc: Martin J. Abel
,"t1r,,("(
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTfCE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental
Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearj_ng in
accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the municipal code of the
Town of Vail- on January 22, L990 at 3:00 p.n. in the Town of Vail
Municipal Building. Consideration of:
A request for a minor subdivision and zone change for Lots 4 &
5, Block 2, Bighorn l-st eddition.
Applicant: Sable/Lupine Partners, Ltd.
A request for an amendment to Special Developrnent District 23
for the Vail National Bank Building at 108 South Frontage Road
West, a resubdivision of part of Lot D, Lo|u 2, VaiL Village,
2nd Filing.
Applicant: Vail National Bank Building Corporation
A request for a minor subdivision to vacate the internal lot
lines of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Bl-ock ?, Bighorn 3rd Addition.
Applicant: Williarns Realty Corporation
A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core fI in
order to enclose two decks on the Village Center Building on
Block 5E, Vail Village 1st Filing at 122 East Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Fred Hibberd
5. A reguest to rezone a special Development District for The
Garden of the cods on Lot K, Block 5, VaiI Village 5th
F11in9 at 365 core Creek Drive.
Anrrl i-'.h+. i=rl^- ^4 !r-.lo,o,rJ_\,crrrL: Garden of the Gods, Mrs. A. G. HitI Fami]v
6- A request for an amendrnent to special Developnent District #4
cascade village to amend Area D, clen Lyon office Bui.lding
at 1000 South Frontage Road West, Lot 54, Glen Lyon
Subdivision.
Appricant: Gren Lyon office Building, a colorado partnershi-n
7. A request to amend the Arteriar Business zone District to
a11ow private unstructured off-street vehicre parking as a
conditional use.
Applicant: Vail Associates
The apprications and infornation about the proposal_s are available
for public inspection in the community Development office.
Town of VaiI
Comrnunity Development Departnent
Publ-ished in the Vail trail on January 5, 1990.
I SNoW-AVALANCHE AND DEBRIS-FITOW HAZARD ANALySIS AND
I
MITIGATION CONCEPTS
t.
l' IOTS 4 AND 5, BtrGnORN 2nd ADDITION, VAIL
Prepared For
Mr. AI Amaral
Arthur I. Mears, P.8., Inc.
Gunnison, Colorado Apri1, 1989
I
fi
$
1 OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS
Thisana}ysisofSnow-avalancheanddebris-flowhazardand mitigation concepts on Lots 4 and 5, Bighorn 2nd Addition, was
requ6=tea by Mr'. AmaraI and Iur. Tim nbyle, .P'8" of VaiI '
Spe'cif:.caf1y, tne study has the following objectives:
a. Analysis of the dynamic characteristics of design-
magnitud6 (100-year) Jnow avalanches on Lots 4 and 5;
b. Estimation of the frequency (return period) of
major avalanches that may reach the building areas;
c.Discussionofthestructuralmitigationprocedures thatcanbeusedtoprotectbuildingsandlivingareas;
d.Descriptionofdebris-flowanddebris-avalanche
hazard; and
e. Discussion of risk from avalanches'
This study is site specific and should be applied to only thi-s
i.... ArlaLanche un'a debris-f low characteristics wiII dif f er
considerably at various locations, therefore the findings of this
study cannot be applied to other sites'
2sNot{.AvALANcHECHARACTERISTICSANDFREQUENCIES
Two snow-avalanche paths affect Lots 4 and 5: ( a ) the
',WaterfalI" avalanche iliIl reach portions of Lot 5, and (b) the
"Landslide"- avalanche wilI reach Lot 4 and 5'
Th. @ltsIoll avalanche begins on steep, deforested' northeast-
facing slopes at i0,500 feel elevation, some 2,100 feet above the
f"t" ifigure 1). Terrain analysis indicates that the "design-
magnitudJ," or "1gg-y-tr" avalaiche will result as 10-15 acres of
snow breaks away i; the upper starting zone ' descends the
channel. spreads'ou"r the aiiuvial fan and stops in Gore Creek'
when this occursr-several lots (and exlsting buildings) wi1I be
i"i"f,.a by avalanche debris, including portions-of Lot 5 (Figure
2). the -design avalanche will not be contained by the e-xisting
channels on the alluvial fan, but wilI spread laterally and
entrain aspen trees as it advances down the fan' Such a major
avalanche will probably occur in the dry w-inter snowpack'
therefore the design-avalalnche wilI consist of dry-flowing-snow.
This conclusion is based on a statistical study of-avalanche
terrain in colorado, my familiarity with avalanche behavior in
the local area, and- a dynamic6 analysis of the waterfall
avalanche.
Inspectlon of aerj-aI photographs dated 1939, 1950, 1962, I9741
i'a"f984 give some indlcatibn of avalanche frequency. Debris
fromonlyonelargeavalanchecouldbeseenonthesephotos.
This avalanche occurred between 1950 and 1962, stopped above the
Iower waterfall, and did not descend over the cliffs to the
alluvial fan. Although this was the largest avalanche to occur
during a 45-year period, apparantly only a sma11 part of t!9
poteniial stirting zone and snow mass was involved. This could
be deduced from the channel directions that conveyed moving snow
in the upper basin. If the entire 10-15 acres of starting zone
had released, the avalanche would have been much Iarger and
probably would have reached Gore Creek. The return period of of
avalanches to Gore Creek is probably 50-to-100 years.
If the Waterfall path releases as a larqe wet-snow avalanche it
will move slowly and be confined to the channels on the alluvial
fan. Portions of the wet snow could turn sharply to the east and
west and cause deep snow to be deposited against and structures.
The Landslide avalanche is located directly above the Lot 4/Lot 5
boun&$---This is a small avalanche path of some 400 vertical
feet elevation difference and begins below the thick Iimestone
cliff. This avalanche path became more active since a debris
avalanche occurred in May, 1984 and removed the entire forest
cover, leaving an open scar approximately I50-200 feet wide
through the aspen forest. Because snow will not adhere well to
the existing surface, avalanches are frequent and will flow into
the upper pirt of Lot 4 nearly every year. When thick, unstable
snow -sIabi accumulate on these steep slopes, avalanches will
sweep across most of Lot 4 and part of Lot 5 stopping near the
south edge of Lupine Drive (Figure 2).
The boundaries of the design-magnitude avalanches in both the
Waterfall and the Landslide paths are shown on Figure 2-
SNOS!-AVALANCHE MITIGATION
J.I Protection from Waterfall avalanche
Two forms of avalanche protection were considered in the
WaterfaII path: (a) diversion wa1Ls, and (b) direct protection
as discussed below.
A diversion wall was considered as protection for the western
parEET.,oTI-Tuch a waIl, if properly orlented and 15-20 feet
frigtr could increase the hazard-free area on the WaterfaIl
alluviat fan such that one or possibly two buildi-ngs could be
placed in an avalanche-free zone. However, such a diversion wall
would deflect avalanches and possibly increase avalanche
frequency on the Lots north of Lupine Drive. Because a diversion
wal1 may, in this case' increase the hazard to adjacent property'
this mitigation option was rejected.
Direct-protection structures
within the runout zone of
protection structures are of
are the recommended mitigatj.on form
the Waterfall avalanche. Direct-
two types:
I
I a. Reinforcement of buildings for avalanche Ioads; and
b. Placing reinforced wedges directly above buildings to
prevent avalanches from reaching uphill building walIs.
This is a common form of avalanche protection in areas ofi
moderate avalanche hazard ( "BIue Zones"), and has been used at
many Vail sites. If buildings are to be placed inside the Waterfall avalanche runout zone (Pigure 2)r direction-protection
should be used to reduce the avalanche hazard.
Direct-protection structures can take many forms, depending on
the shapes, sizes, and orientations of the buildings that need protection. Reguirements for final design of direct-protection structures are discussed in Section 4 of this report.
Advantages of direct-protectiion structures are:
a. Complete protection is attained for those inside the
bui lding;
b. Additional earthwork and excavation is usually not
required;
c. Buildings often do not appear to be designed for
avalanche impact.
Disadvantages of d irect-protection structures are:
a. Special design and construction can increase building
costs by 108 to 20t;
b. Complete protection of the site is not achieved (not an
important factor with long return-period avalanches.
3.2 Protection from the "Landslide" avalanche
The Landslide avalanche path is sma11, therefore large velocities
and flow depths are not expected, even during the design-
avalanche conditions. This avalanche can be stopped by building
a catching dam at right angles to the avalanche flow direction (Fiqure 3). The structure will serve to protect buildings on the
northern part of Lots 4 and 5 such that special design of direct-protection structures wiII not be required within this area.
The dimensions of dam cross sections are shown in Figure 4.
DESIGN OP DIRECT.PROTECTION STRUCTURES
Design-loading standards for direct-protection structures ( in the
WaterfaIl runout zone) incorporated into buildings can only be gi-ven when final building eharacteristics are known.
Specification of loading standards requires knowledge about the
following architectural and design details:
rl,
^lt111 r't.S.t
I
t
; ;._.v
{-'t->/,Jt
,"iAy
I
L
I
t
I
I
a. Building location i b. Building shape; and
c. Building orientation.
When these architectural details become known, des i gn-ava I anche
forces can be resolved into normal and shear componentsr and the
heights, strengths, and other details of direct protection
structures can be specified. This design reguires careful-
communication between the property owner, architect, structural
engineer, and ava l anche-engineer ing specialist in order to ensure
a safe desiqn.
DEBRIS-FLOI{ HAZARD
Most of the Waterfall alluvial fan has been built from debris
flows, consequently the fan surface must be exposed to debris-
flow risk. The extent of the debris-flow areas are indicated on
Town of Vail mapping. Only the northwestern corner of Lot 5 is
reached by debris flows, therefore they will not constitute a
building constraint at this location.
DEBRIS-AVALANCHE HAZARD
The prominent landslide scar which presently serves as an
avalanche path was indicated as "debris-avalanche hazard" on the
I9B4 Town of Vail maps. Thj.s area has stabilized and no longer
presents a danger (f rorn debris avalanche) to Lots 4 or 5. Snow
avalanches do occur in the 1984 d ebr i s - a v a 1 a n c h e scar ' as
discussed in Section 2 of this report.
SNOW.AVALANCHE RISK
Any building within avalanche areas will tend to increase the
overalt risk to people because of the j-ncreased exposure time of
people in the area resulting from the development. The overall
risk from snow avalanches to people who are outside of buildings
is very smaII, however. This is true because people generally
spend a small percentage of the total time (roughly I?) outside
during the avalanche season.
Because this very small risk is finite, I recommend that aIl
users of these and other avalanche areas should understand the
potential risk and heed all official warnings.
tKt,tt",fnot'
L,lil tUl?ad
Arthur I. Mears. P.E.
Avalanche-Control Engineer
I
t
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I,
li
C
Ut6
%
=S
i\ \t,\
FICURE 1. Location Map showing Waterfal-l
and. Land.sl-ide aval-anche paths with potential
runouts during design (1OO-year) avalanche
cond.iti-ons. Other avalanche paths in the East
Vail area are not shown on this map.
Map Scale: 1" = 2000,
-ead
ef ,,%u)'| f
A. \ .. ',\-
\r.'i-r:. \
lt ce
s
-___j__
FIGURE 2. Design ("100-year,') avalanche
bound.aries in the "Waterfall,' and
"Landslide" paths.
Map Scale t I" = ZQO'
I,
l-
\)
i{|.-\
\. \-{s lJt
I
I
I
.-i\
N
o o
tce
--------.
l'-J
ii
\_)
IE l@
BIGHO
,r,c/JJ,
ti>Avalanche Direction>l
Ground. Surface
FIGIJRE 4. Dinensions. of dan cross section. Dan crest position
is shown on Figure 1,. Constructlon d.imensions should. be corzect to within + t%, This catching darn provides protectj_on fron the "Land.slide " avalanche, as d.iscussed- in the text.
ffi {i"^;i9,6 'tdd"'""i*\
I
boyle engineering, inc
prof?Sl;Lr rr rr.r sl(rciltrO .2t \tJnzqs
November 22, 1989
l"ls, Kri stan Prltz
0ff ice of Conmunity 0eveloplrent
Tourn of Vail
75 South Frontage Road tiest
Val l, Colorado 81657
Subject, Hazard Mltigation for Loto 4 & 5
Block 2, Bighorn First Addition
Vail. Colorado
Oear Knistan:
As you k,nor,r I have been enployed by Sablc Lupine Partners Ltd. to coordinate the
mitrgation of the snou and debris-f Ior,r avalanche and rockfall hazards for the
above noted si{es. As you are also a[rane, Marty Abel, the prrncipal of SabIe
Luprne PantnensI r,rishes to address and def j,ne the mltigatlon options for this
property as pant of hrs subnittal package for the resubdivision request. Thls
cover letter is io serve as a brief chronology of the process we have used in
arriving at these final mitigation concepts.
In late Mar-ch of this year both Manty Abel and nyself met r.rith tuo Natural
Hazards Consultants at these sites. These urere Arthur I. t'lears, P.E. of
6unnison, Colorado, r,rho is an expert in snour avalanche mitigation and Nicholas
Lsmpiris, Ph.0,, of Carbondale, an expert in r-ockf all and debris-flour hazands.
At the ti.me of this r'reeting ure r,ralked the property lineE and both of these
consultants made a visual assessment of the hazand situatron on the Iots. [.J e
explained that Marty intended to resubdivide the property and develop four
slngle falriIy building sites, The consultants enlightened us verbally about the
pros and cons of the pnoperty and it uias agreed that l"larty's plan uas feasible.
Art l"lears uJas corlrrri.sEioncd to pnepane a formal nitigation repont. He accessed
his stonehouse of infornatlon on the Vail VaIley at hi.s office as pant of thls
pnocess.It was agreed that Nlck Lamptris r,lould prepane his flnal
recoprmendation letter- aften revier^ring Ari's report and a drauting to be propaned
by nnysel f .
Mr. MearE iEsued his neport in Apnil of this yean and I had a couple of
conversations urith hllr to clanify itenos and dlecuss options pnlon to drafting my
lnltial document on May 24, 1989. At this tine I copied Nicholas Lampiris ulth
both Art's report and ny drauing for his revieu,. Nick lssued his initial Ietten
on May 26, 1989 in which he concluded that the pnoposed mitigation concept uould
also adequately address any and all debris-fIoul and rockfall hazands.
143 e meodor,,r dr, suite 390 o crossroods shopping center . voil, colorodo 81657 o 303/476.2170
I
o
o
f'
Page 2
l"ls. Kristan Pritz
November 22, 1389
Shortly aften thls initiai work was perfonmed Manty AbeI decided not to attompt
mttigation this sut'rner, but rather to address the lritigatlon at the same time as
the nequest for resubdivision. He contnacted the serviceE of Michael G. Perkin,
Anchj.tect, of Vail to begin the study of the buildinq envelopes, driveu,ay access
and possible uater features utili;ing the existinq strean on the site. Mike's
research concluded that building envelopes would have to be a r4inimum of 12,500
square feet to satisfy Tourn of Varl zoning constraints. Mike prepared a prelrminary plan on Auqust I r,rhich proposed moving the nitigation dams further
uphill to Eatisfy this constnaint. A copy of said plan uras f or-wanded to both
Art and Nrck to obtain their verbal reactions to the change.
I aFoke r,rith both of the Hazards Consultants at a later date and both agneed
that this shift urould not adversely affect the ability of the dam to pr.ovide the
rnitigatron requlned fon these building enve.Iopes. In my conversation r^rith Art
l'lears, ure both agneed that the smaII earth "uredges " proposed f or- the Iot
furthest to the raest ulould be rneffective and that direct protection designed
into the structure of the bulldinq r,ras the only option for this unit.
I later spohe r,rith Art Mears on November l0 and asked if direct pnotectron L,a$
also dtn option on the other thnee buildings. Hr. Mears stated that ule could
use elther the earth dam or dinect pnotection as altennative solutions on theoe
three sites. Marty r.rould Iike to Ieave both options open at this tine.
FinaIly, I have just nevlsed my Hazard t'litigation Plan to reflect the neu
locat ion of the earth darn and to cooresoond to the ]atest lot l lne and
topoqraph j.c information pnovided by Eagle VaIley Sunveying. Both Ar^thur Mears
and Nicholas Lanprris have reviewed thrs plan and provided the cnclosed Ietters
appnoving the nitigation concept. They also state that direct protectron is etn
acceptable option for alI four of the pnoposed buiiding envelopes,
I trust that thts Envinonrnental Impact Report r,riIi dernonstrate that Sable Luplne
Partnens Ltd. are making their rnost conscientious effont to comply urith alI of
the Town of Varl ordinances regarding natur-aI hazards and to insure that this
pnoperty , adjacent properties and public rights of uays are safe from such
hazards. As such, I hope that the natural presence of these hazards does not
adversely influence the Staff's deciEion on the resubdivision request.
Please give me a call if you have any questions or comments on this matter.
erely
Timothy
Presldent
o
o
o
ARTHIJR I. MEARS, P.E.,
Natunl l-lazar& Ccrsultrnu
INC.
222 Lr Cahic Ave.
Gunnircr, Colocrdo 81 230
ni - 641.3?36
November 20, 1989
Mr. Tim Boyle
Boyle Engineering, Inc.
143 E. Meadow Dr., Suite 390 Vai1, CO 81557
RE: Hazard Mitigation plan, Lots 4 a 5, Lupine Drive
Dear Tim:
As you reguested, I reviewed 4 & 5 dated l1-15-89. The review of the p1an.
the hazard-mitigation plan for lots following conments result from my
1. Snow and debris avalanches from the "Landslide"avalanche path will be stopped by the earth dams as
shown on the plan. These dams will also stop falling
rock.
2. Direct protection
side of Lot 5 wilI be debris-f low protection.plan (November 15 , I 98 9 )
of buildings on the northwest required for avalanche and
This has been indicated on the
you sent me for revi-ew.
3. Direct protection can also be used to protect against avalanches originating in the "Landslide" path
and affecting Lot 4 and part of Lot 5. However, the direct-protection design used for avalanche protection
may not eliminate the risk or possible structural
damage from rockfall at this location. Additional details about rockfall energy and specific structural
design will be necessary to determine the suitability of structures for the rockfall protection.
The proposed building areas are in "moderate" avalanche-hazard zones. Furthermore, the mitigation proposed on the plan wilI not
increase the hazard from avalanches, debris fIows, or rockfall on
any adjacent or downslope properties or other private or public
facilities.
PIease contact me if you have any further guestions.
SinS{rel y ,
WLqA.\\tUa/v Arthur I. MEars, P.E.
Ava I anche-Contro 1 enqineer
Mou lIlating o Amlqc\c: . Amhnchc Contal Eaginecting
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
0793 VALLEY ROAD
CARBONDALE. COLORADO 81623
(303) 963-3600 (24 HOURS)
Novr:rnb u.r ?<-J r 1 98?
Ti m [roy] e
I 4f, East l'lesdow Dr i ve . Sur i t e lrl i rlr
Crss:;r-oads Shopp i ng Center
Vail, CO. 81657
RE: Lots 4 Er 5, Biqhorn
Dear l'1r . Boyl e:
I havi: ret'iewerJ the dre,r+i ng= o.f the pr-opc=ed rnitigatic,n f or-the abnve rL=f erenced property r^rith reg.er-cl to the n er.r lot
I ine= and the e:li=.tinq rocl,:f al 1 end debris .f Low ha:ards. As in or-tr previolr:i c r:rr'nmun i c at i on s , the type o{ mitigation needs to bE+ in the form af deflectien etr-utcturreg or direrct mitigation by l-tome design to rninimire the danger to proposec
home: {rom avslanche, as r.re I I as r-ocl;{al I and debris +l.ot,haeards.
The dr"rwi ngs pJhi ch yor-r have presented have adequatel y
addrs-.ssed the concerns wi th the desi gt.r o{ tr.ro earth bermg with sLr++icient heightr rnaEs *,nd orientstion to protect the eastern three proposed 1.ots. The wester-nmsst on€-: tran onl.y be mitiqated thr-or-rch the uee o{ dit-e,ct protection incorporated
i nto the strlrctrtre of the dr.rel 1 i ng. It i s my nnderst-andi ng that 1"1r. Art Mears has provi ded you wi th the n€ceesslry
gLti del i nes to proiect sgai ftst avsl anche, l-hese ghor_tl d eu{{ i ce +or the pt-otecti on o{ the other- two harards ae r.re l. I .
l-he reslrl t wi I I be that the eastern Lhree I ots wi I I nor* be pl*.ced in the Modsrate He,:ercl Zonego br_rt the .f olrrth gite r.li 1l remain in the Fli gh Ha:ard Zone. If yor_r have {crrther
qLreeti ons pleaee contact me.
Si ncerel y n
Ni cfrol ag Lsmp i r i s
Consul ti nq Geolooist
December 11, 1989
Ms, Kr istan Pr itz
Town of Va il
Department of Conmun i ty Development
75 South Frontage Road West
Va il , Colorado 81557
Michael G. Perkin Architect
P.O Box l35l
Vail, Colorado 81658
949- 58e6
827 -41\6
(303)
Dear Kristan:
lam attaching this letter to the trSable-Lupine Subdivision minor
subdivision appl ication package with the hope that it will serve as a
reintroduction and general discussion of the proposed minor subdivision.
As you are aware from several discussions and meetings in the recent past,
the Appl icant, Harty Abel of Sable-Lupine Partners, Ltd., is applying to
combine, subdivide, and rezone two duplex lots in East Vail with the goal
of creating four single-family lots.
After several meetings with various Vail real tors, the Appl icant has
concl uded that single-family lots and the single-family residence
lifestyle is a more popular and desirable product to offer for sale,
than would be duplex lots or duplex residences. The Appl icanl may
develop some or all of the proposed lots should this minor subdivision
be approved; however, whether he developes the lots or sells the land only,
all real tors have expressed the opinion that single-family lots and single-
family homes are highly desirable to out-of-town buyers as wel I as,
obviously, being very attractive to current Vail residents looking to move
from a multi-family I iving situation into a single-family home. Admittedly,
this subdivision proposal has an ease of marketing and financial reward
motive. At the same time, should this subdivision be approved, it would
result in making available the kind of lots and the kind of houses people
u/ant most, and without compromising good urban planning principles or
creating any negative effects on the environment, the town infrastructure,
or the neighborhood. As we both know, single-family houses are a scarce
and desirable commodity in the Vail area.
Though I am an architect by profession, my undergraduate minor f ield of
study was city planning and my post-graduate urork was in urban design.
Therefore, I suspect I look at this subdivision concept with a Iittle
different perspective than the real tors Marty Abel has tal ked to. Because
the proposed lots are large, mostly wooded and adjoin National Forest land,
and because the Appl icant is open to working with you and others in the
Conmunity Development Department to I imit the Gross Residential Floor Area
maximums on the new lots; I feel confident that four modestly sized single-
family residences would result in a much more pleasant rrstreetscape than
could easily happen if two massive dupl exes were built under the current
zone district. Obviously, the Vail Design Revi ew Board wil I have something
to say about the qual ity of either duplexes or single-family houses, but
I think almost always, four smaller masses are more pleasant and less
intrusive than two larger ones, I bel ieve single-family structures create
a better sense of neighborhood than the commercial feel and impl ications of
duplexes and other multi-family buildings.
Member Anreflcarr Instrtute of Archrtects
Page Two
Letter to Kr i stan Pr
December ll, 1989
My past exper ience with most ttrezoningsl has been that they usually
have some sort of problem or circumstance which can be very reasonably
debated by those opposed to the appl ication. I don't see that situation
here: the topography works better for single-family homes than it does
for duplexes, the stream relocation seems a minor matter and would need
to be addressed under a duplex development scenario, the hazard mitigation
needs to be solved under any kind of zone district and probably in exactly
the same manner as is proposed by the Appl icant, and most important, the
Appl icant is willing to limit GRFA maximums and is open to discussing
staggered front set-back restrictions if you should so desire. lt could
welI be that you see something that I am missing and, if thatrs the case,
I would be most interested in hearing about it and trying to solve your
concerns. But this seems, at least to me, to be a very straightforward
and most uncl uttered rezoning proposal.
With apologies for making this a very long letter, lwould like to
specifical ly address several I'Sections" within the appl ication package:
Section 5 - Topographic and Slope Information
As you can see, Dan Corcoran has surveyed the land and the four proposed
lots have no difficulty containing the 12,500 square feet required,
minimum buildable area (land sloping less than forty degrees) and are
each capable of containing an 80' by 80 I square as required by Town of
Vail regulations.
Section 5 - Stream Relocation Plan
As is indicated on the drawing, the rrstream" is really a springtime
runoff ditch, rather than a attractive mountain stream or brook. I bel ieve
that if Lot 5 was to be developed as a duplex lot, the ditch would most
probably require some relocation work, some clean-up work, and some
seepage prevention measures to protect the duplex from underground water
contributed by the ditch. That is to say, under the single-family concept,
nothing really changes excePt that the Appl icant wants to try to develop
the ditch into a feature rather than just clean up a nuisance as might
be the approach with a duplex project. As you know from visiting the
site, the existing ditch and the proposed relocation occur almost entirely
within the aspen forest, For that reason, whatever might be done to the
ditch has little or no impact on the public viewing the land from Lupine
Drive. Please note, the Applicant is open to your wishes regarding the
timing of the stream rgl6s6fion construction work, and we hope to have
the opportunity to meet with you prior to the Planning Commission hearing
to come to an agreement on whether or not this work would need to be
done as an attachment to the minor subdivision approval, or whether the
work could wait until building construction is about to commence with
some sort of restriction placed on the bui Iding permit appl ication.
o
itz
Page Three
Letter to Kr istan Pritz
December ll, 1989
Section 7 - Hazard Mitigation Plan
As you know, Tim Boyle of Boyle Engineering; Art Mears, natural
hazard consultant; and Nick Lampiris, consulting geologist have
developed and designed the plan for the hazard mitigation. I
bel ieve the information conta ined in the appl ication package is
sel f-explanatory, but lwould like to point out that in Mr. Lampirisl
letter of November 20, he states t'the eastern three lots will now be
pl aced in the Moderate Hazard Zone." The eng ineering consul tants
have concl uded that proper hazard mitigation can be achieved on
al I four proposed lots by designing the mitigation directly into
the individual structures themselves, or by constructing earth dams
above the structures on proposed Lots 1, 2, and I (mitigation must
be provided directly within the structure itself on Lot 4). The
Appl icant is prepared to install the earth dams as a requirement
attached to the minor subdivision approval; however, it seems most
logical to me to only require that the mitigation be in place prior
to the issuance of any building permi t so that any lot owner or lot
developer has the option to either construct the dams or design the
mitigation directly into the structure itself. I hope we wi ll have
the opportunity to meet with you prior to the Planning Commission
hearing to discuss how best to handle this aspect of the mitigation
plan. No matter which mitigation solution might actual ly be
selected by any given developer, I hope the information provided by
the hazard experts shows, at a minimum, that mitigation is feasible
on each of the four proposed new lots.
Section 8 - Comparat ive Development Study
This mathematical study is included within the minor subdivision
appl ication package so that the Appl icant, you' your colleagues in
the Commun ity Development Department, and lcan begin discussing how
best to place some reasonable constraints or limits on the Gross
Residential Floor Area maximums on the four proposed lots. I know
this is a concern of yours, and a justified one. As I have mentioned
above, the Appl icant is more than willing to limit the GRFA and'
once again, I hope we can get together to discuss and reach agreement
on this prior to the Planning Commission hearing. Relating to GRFA
restrictions, we are open to discussing some restrictions on front
set-backs if that would alleviate your expressed concern about the
possibility of having four houses all placed in a line and too close
to Lupine Dr ive.
Page Four
Letter to Kr i stan Pritz
December ll, 1989
I hope this appl ication package is complete and addresses all of
your concerns. I hope you will agree with my opinion that this
proposed subdivision concept is, at a minimum no worse than developing
two duplexes on the land under the current zone district, and more
probably would result in a more attractive neighborhood than might
otherwise happen if two massive duplexes were built - as has al ready
happened on other, nearby sect ions of Lupine Drive. I am confident
||a r ty Abel i s prepared to address and try to sol ve any concerns the
Town may have, and we are certainly available to you to meet at any
time prior to the Planning Commiss ion hearing. I will also be
available to supplement the appl ication package with any informatlon
you may need, or try to answer any guestions you may have, Please give
me a call if I can be of help. Both !1arty and lwish to thank you for
your help and cooperation, and look forward to worklng with you as
this process evolves.
Sincerely,o urlw
l,li chael G . Perk in
cc: Martin J. Abel
COMPARAT I VE DEVELOPI'IENT STUDY
(rwo-rR|4t Ly REs I DENTIAL Dt srR I cr vs. s I NGLE-FAH I Ly REs I DENTTAL 0 t srn t cr)
DEVELOPMENT CALCULATIONS FOR
EXTSTING LOTS 4 AND 5 IF FULLY DEVELOPED AS DUPLEX RESIDENCES:
Lot Number: Total Lot Area:Al lowable Lot Coverage:
J,J66 sg. f t.
13,418 sq. ft.
23,184 sq. ft.
Al lowable GRFA:
Lot 4
Lot 5
Tota I
48,830 sq. ft.
57,088 sq. ft.
115,918 sq. ft.
5,191 sq. ft.
/,t04 sq. ft.
13,295 sq. ft.
DEVELOPMENT CALCULATIONS FOR
PROPOSED LOTS 1 THRU 4 IF FULLY DEVELOPED AS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES:
Lot Number:Total Lot Area:Al lowable Lot Lot Coverage:Al lowable GRFA:
Lot I
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot 4
Total
32,734 sq. ft.
25,371 sq. ft.
27,754 sq. ft.
30,059 sq. ft.
115,918 sq. ft.
6,547 sq. f t.
!,0/4 sq. ft.
5'551 sq. ft.
6,012 sg. ft.
23,184 sq. ft.
!,148 sq. ft.
4,412 sq. ft.
4,550 sq. ft.
4,881 sq. ft.
19,091 sq. ft.
Notes: Gross Residential FIoor Areas (GRFA) shown above are basic
calculations per Town of Vail regulations and do not include
allowable increases for storage areas, mechanical rooms,
garages, etc.
Lot Areas shown above are taken from data developed by
Eag I e Va I ley Survey ing, Inc.
O "sABLE-LuplNE suBDrvts roN', r.ryLAR
'LAT
MAp rs BErNG suBMrrrED ,NDER
SEPEMTE COVER.
A BLUELINE PRINT OF THE PLAT IS ENCLOSED HEREIN.
75 south lrontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 47$2138
(303) 47$.2139
October 20, l-989
oftice of communily development
Mr. Michael Perkin
P.O. Box 1-351 VaiI, Colorado 81658
Re: Minor subdivision for Lots 4 and 5,First Addition Block 2, Bighorn Subdivision
Dear Michael ,
As you are aware, the hazard maps relating to Lots 4 and 5, Block 2,Bighorn Subdivision First Addition indicate that the property j-s in a high hazard aval-anche red zone, moderate hazard blue avalanche zone,high severity rockfall zone, and debris avalanche high hazard zone. In respect to your reguest for rezoning and for a minor subdivision to create four lots out of the existing two Iots, the staff has the following conments:
1. An environmental impact report would be required. The EfR must specifically address the hazards and stream relocation. We also want to have information and drawings showing the appearance of the nitigation for the hazards.
2. A certified surveyor showing buildable area will- be required. A11 areas having 40E slope of greater, red avaLanche zones, and 1OO%flood plain must be excluded fron the buildable area. These calculations must be made by a certlfied surveyor.
3. The title report must be submitted verifying ownership and
easements for both lots.
Without going into a ful1 review of your request, the result of the staff's conceptual review of your proposal is that we do not support the request. The lots appear to have very severe hazards. The best planning decision is to not expose greater anounts of structure or
habj-tab1e area to these hazards. The request goes against good environrnental land use planning.
The staff is concerned about having two additional structures in the high hazard areas. We also believe from past experiences with
development on these types of 1ots, that the houses would most 1ikely be required to be located close to the front property line in order to
remove the structures from the hazards as much as possible. This neans that the houses would be close to the street. In additj-on, we would have four driveway cuts along Lupine Drive which is excessive.Certainly we could restrict two lots to one driveway cut. Holrrever, we tried this approach previously with another sinilar subdivision and the
developer ended up corning back and reguesting individual driveways.It is certainly the developer's right to request a driveway for each lot. However, it does not minimize our concern about the appearance of the additional development.
we are al-so concerned about what the nitigation would actually look Iike. Our desire would be to have the rnitigation completed up front before the lots are sold to various people. However, this concern will
be addressed by further information in your site specific hazard
reporES.
The Town of Vail Land Use Plan also states in Section 5.L:
ttAdditional residential growth should continue to occur prirnarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist.tl
We believe the request is in conflict with this section of the Land Use PIan. If you wish to proceed with your proposal , please let me know.I would be happy to answer any further questions.
S incerely,
1(r':l* ?"+
Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
KP: 1r cc: Peter Patten
IIIICHAEI G. PERKIN. ARCHICT LETTT OF TRANSNflITTAL
P. O. Box l35l
vArL, coLoRADO Et657 81658
827-4146
Kr istan Pr itz
_ Town of Va I I
_o.ii|,..,s"
GENTLEMEN:
WE
D
!
ARE
Shop
copy
SENDING YOU
drawings
of letter
F Attached tl
)C Prints
1l Change order
.Sq TO
"^"D."*b". 14, 1989 l'o'
ATTENTION
Kr i stan Pr itz
Sable-Lupi ne l,'l inor Subdivision/Rezoninq
Under separate cover via
! Plans
the following items:
! Samples n Specifications
coPrEs DATE NO.DESCRIPTION
3 Proposed Plat
c Toooo ra oh i c I'la o
3 Stream Relocat ion Plan
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED
I For approval
E For your use
E As requested
as checked below:
n Approved
! Approved
! Returned
as submitted
as noted
for corrections
! Resubmit-copies for approval
! Submit
-
cooies for distribution
D Return
-corrected
prints
I For review and comment
N FOR BIDS DUE 19- ! PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
pgy6p6g Kristan- Tim Bovle is out of town riqht now. but when he returns on
December 18, he will del iver three prints of the Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Please note, Marty Abel , the Appl icant, is coming into the Town offices
ft
today to fill out the rezon ing appl ication and pay the additional fee
as you reques ted.
COPY TO
SIGNED:
FORM 2r(}2 - Av![atib lroln @lnc.. G.olo.r irb3s. o1a5o It cacro3uras arG not as notad, klndty notily ua
LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OU/NERS
(To Lots
Town of
PARCEL:
Land to north, east and
south of Lots 4 and 5.
Sub., First Addition.
Lot l, Block 1, Bighorn
Sub., First Addition.
4 and 5, Block 2, Bighorn Subdivision, First Addition,
Vail)
OWNER(S) AND ADDRESS:
fJh i te River National Forest
P.0. Box 948
Glenuood Springs, Colorado 81602
Consol idated 0il and Gas
1850 Lincoln St., #1300
Denver, Colorado 80203
Triangular shaped parcel A
wi th in Sect ion 1 I touch ing "
South corner of Lot 4.
!:l 3',?l::o^1,?i:lo'" o -+.+.-=sor-t58_-
Frank C. Shorter -_l
m.-_3ort5S_- \-z-
ua+-@+658 )
'-9(i fv '\l;L L" t.."
1''-l;l "t- '
",l,'to'fg
f,r{
d C. .(ic2
rs, Jr. an
c/o Vail As I Es ta te
, Colorado 81658 \,..
f)Douglas H. Lindsey " 7597 South Willow Circle
Eng I ewood , Co I orado 801 t 2
Willam D. Hewit, Betry R. Hewit and
Christie F. Hewit
#7 Cherrv Hills Drive
Englewood, Colorado 801 l0
6 Ron"n Col orado, Inc.v 25 lnperial Street, Suite 500
Toronto, 0n ta r io, Canada M5PlCl
"ryf; c^"'t bz"l
9'r*;'tg Zos
ffnarr-- , C O
veffi+658
P.0.
he H. Sheahan
Lot 2, Block 1, Bighorn
Sub., First Addition.
(Parcel A)
Lot 2, Block l, Bighorn
Sub., First Addition,
(Parcel B)
Lot 3, Block 1, Bighorn
Sub., First Addition,
o
Di,lriu 'kt
December 29, 1989
Mr. M ike Mollica
Department of Commun i ty Development
Town of Va il
75 South Frontage Road West
Va if , Coloraao 81657
Dear Mike:
As you recall, you called me several days ago to tell me that there was
some difficulty with one of the adjacent property owner names I isted
in the application for the "Sable-Lupine Subdivisionrr.
Apparently Stewart Title Company's records werentt quite up to date, and
after some research at the county, I bel ieve the fol lowing is the correct
information for proper notif ication by the Town of Vail.
LOT 1, BLOCK I, BtGHORN SUBDtVlSt0N, FTRST ADDITI0N:
Owner of Side A: Bernard J. Gral ino, Jr.
l3 Lombard i Ter race
Fort Worth, Texas 76132
0wner of S ide B: Robert A. and Lesl ie l'1. Penkhus
140 Hun t ing ton P lace
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80905
Apolog ies for this inaccuracy in the appl ication, and please call me if
you f ind any other probl em with the list of adjacent property owners
provided in the appl ication subrnittal.
S i ncerel y,
Michael G. hrkin Architect
P.O. Box l35l
Vail, Colorado 81658
(303) 94s--5835
827-41\6
uill;w
Michael G. Perkin
cc: Martin J. Abel
Member, American lnstitute ol Architects
f,t tr'.'i'7
PUBLIC NOTTCE
NOTTcE rs HEREB' crvEN that the planning and Environmental
comrnission of the Town of Vail wi1r. hold a pubJ.ic hearing in
accordance with section 18.66.060 of the municipar- code of the Town
of vair- on January 8, 1990 at 3:OO pM in the Town of Vail Municipal
Building. Consideration of:
L' A request for a rezoning frorn Residential cr.uster to High
Density Multiple Family with a special- Deveroprnent DistricE
for parcel D, Stevens Subdivision.
Applicant: Faessler Realty
2. A request for an amendment to special Deveropment District No-
4, Cascade ViIIage to arnend Area D.
Applicant: vai] ventures, Ltd., Gren Lyon office Building,
Colorado partnership.
3. A request for a major amendment to the Doubl,etree Hotel
special Developrnent District No. ].4, zso south Frontage Road,
to change uses: reduce the nurnber of accomnodation units anit
to add a spa facility.
Applj.cant: Jerry Kratzoff
- 4. A work session on a request for an arnendrnent to special
Developrnent District 19, carden of the Gods, 365 Gore creek
Drive, Lot K, Block 5A, Vail Vi:.tage 5th Filing.
Applicant: .Mrs. A. c. HilI
'" 5. A work session on a request to arnend speciar Developrnent
District 7, Marriott l,tari, 214 West Lionshead Circle, Lot 2,
Block 2, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Marriott Mark
5. A
4
work session
and 5, Block
a reguest for a ninor subdivision for lot Bighorn lst Addition.ine Partners, LTD
7. A request for a conditional use perrnit in order to construct an addition to the VaiI Village parking structure located on Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing.Applicant: Town of Vai1.
The application and information about the proposals are available for public inspection in the Community Development office.
Town of Vail
Comnunity Developrnent Department
Published in the Vail Trail on Decenber 22, l-989
on
petiti Jnate
PETTTION FOR},,l FOR ,LUEND}IENT TO THE ZONJNG OR.DII.]ANCE
T
OR
A cpANGE ffitHi8;^i8i
.This procedure i,". i"l- l"iln"lE= i"r::n:';i3.:i:.
BOUNDARIES
any anrendnent to boundary cbange the zoning oriinance
A. NAJ.IE OF PETITTONER .I
B.
c.NAl,lE 0F OI{NER (print or type)
SIGNATURE
ADD.R.ESS
D.LOCATION OF PRO*DOSA-I.,
ADD]?ESS rt"(
HONE4?r- H v_/
E. FEE $1oo. oo
LEGAI DESCRTP"ION rcx445 bl.ock
PAID
:J j :"'. T, :l5, l; T";," :,' :i'J T":, :j,
frlin rM4"1-r"
aJ"1 property adjacent
? rl.t r-A- - ^ -..-v r uJJ9>.
py,oNt 4tt- lf,gl
to the
E
si" "
(0vrR )
.efition forin for.qmen.Q zo,-,i.,g ord or Rec,uesa rpchange lr, solr.,.iuur.2.,
If. Four (4) copies of the following infor:ration:
A' The petition shar-l incrude a sur,x'ary of .tl: progosed revision of the reguration=,-ot- a-coinprete d-escr-iption oi the pioccsea ' chanses in aitlti"i iiunauri"=-""a-""ilp .in<iicati"g-tf,i'exrsti:rg ;*i
^
iJ "J::il, : 1=.',: i:; .* T"*l' it..^::liil : "*. s ub m i." ri t i en a n d / o r
.fff. Time Requirenents
fr*.:i:":i"3":ilu,,.,:ll,1:'"1":tar conr,rssion neets bn the 2nd and 4th marerLal *";r_;",,,;ili"liaal.Oeririon with the necessary eccon"ar,, i ng
il i ";::]9.",i " s tr, ;-;i;,=i" f.:: g . H:;f "i;il:. i"" ;m, : : *" ;i"
".1
:'.1: :._. ii,usr so ro'li: ;:,;nE",1ililir::.i3:i;.:irll:r.;;; il.;;li,r";i;;E;
;i::?_,-ti-- j i-EF: !._!= T i
'a'lr --.:' , r'- j- -..:t
..-
i-,r,,_.._,r! - jj,.'j
o
o 1.
2.
SCHEDULE A
ORDER NUMBER: 89005569
EFFECTM DATET September 26, L989
POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSUED:
A. ALTA OWNERIS POLICY
PROPOSED INSURED: SABLE LUPINE
PARTNERS, LTD.
B. ALTA LOAN POTJICY
PROPOSED INSURED:
C. AI.,TA LOAN POLICY
PROPOSED INSURED
at 8:00 A.M.
AMOUNT OF INSURANCE
3.
4.
s 50,000.00
THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND DESCRIBED Oh NETENNED TO IN
THIS COMMITMENT AND COVERED HEREIN IS FEE SIMPLE AND TITLE THERETO IS AT THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF VESTED IN:
SABTJE LUPINE PARTNERS, LTD. ' A COLORADO LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS COMI'IITMENT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
I.,OTS 4 AND 5
BLOCK 2
BIGHORN SUBDIVISION, FIRST ADDITION
PREMIUM!
OIIINERS:366.00
STEWART TITLE
OF EAGI,,E COUNTY, INC.P.O. BOX 1248 vArL, co. 81658
( 303 ) 949-1011
S'I'E\VAR'T TIA'LIJ
OUARANTY C()HI,AI'Y
ZED