HomeMy WebLinkAboutLIONS RIDGE FILING 3 BLOCK 2 LOT 27 CHATEAU TRAMONTE VAIL POINT III FILE 1 OF 2 LEGALD e partme n t of C ommun ity Dev e I opmen t
75 South Frontage Road
I/ail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2138
FAX 970-479-2452
www.c i.vail. co.us
September 10, 2003
John Carlson, President
Chaleau Tremonte Homeowner's Association
1890 Lions Ridge Loop
Unit 84
Vail, CO 8'1657
Re: Tree replacement at Chateau Tremonte/Lot 27,Block 2, Lions Ridge Filing 3
Mr. Carlson:
This letter is in response to a request by Kelli Anthony of McNeil Property Management to
visit the Chateau Tremonte site to inspect the boulder and shrubs which were placed in the
location of the removed Colorado soruce. This letter will serve as the Town's acceptance of
the installed boulder and shrubs. Please be advised that the replacement of the removed
Colorado spruce was imperative as it was a condition of approval for the Chateau Tremonte
development required the tree placement as a deterrent lo the storage of snow on the
southern end of the property which could adversely affect down slope property owners.
Please be advised that snow storage should not occur on the southern end of the property.
Snow can be pushed to the end of the driveway; however, at no point should there be such
an excess that it creates a situation ol concern for down slope property owners.
I appreciate your attention and cooperation in resolving this matter. lf you have any
questions please do not hesitate to call me at970-479-2148.
With reoards. .l ; ;---'--' z1 ^ ill / | | | tl ,n,
LlJtW,nti,tt'{wY
Warren Camobell
Planner ll
Cc: File
Kelli Anthony, McNeil Property Management
{S *""r"""o ro"u
t
t
Department of C ommunity Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail. Colorado 81657
970-479-2138
FAX 970-479-2452
wwwci.vail.co.us
August 4, 2003
McNeil Property Management, Inc.
c/o Kelli Anthony
2077 N. Frontage Road #104
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Tree replacement at Chateau Tremonte/Lot 27, Block 2, Lions Ridge Filing 3
Ms. Anthony:
This letler is in response to your request to visit the Chateau Tremonte site to inspect
several boulders which were placed in the location ol the removed Colorado spruce. I have
atlempted several limes to call you but repeatedly get the office voicemail system which
states thal no one is in the office. As a result I will communicate my findings to you through
this lelter.
Several weeks ago we discussed the placement of a three foot boulder in the location. I
stated thal at the time that could be a solution and requested a digital photo to verify the size
was subslantial enough to prevent the storage ol snow in that area. I never received any
photo of a proposed boulder. I also stated that I would be willing lo meet on site to identify
the location of the reouired solulion. I was never called out to the site.
Upon visiting the site Friday August 1, 2003 | found several smaller boulders had been
placed in the location of the removed tree none of which were three feet in diameter. The
installed boulders do not contain the mass and size necessary to prevent the storage of
snow in that location. As well they are small enough for a plow to push them towards the
slope down to Capstone Condominiums. This is evident in the existing boulder wall at the
end of the drive which showed damage lrom this previous winler's snow plowing.
Please add a boulder measuring three feet by three feet by three feel for a total of 27 cubic
feet to the localion of the removed tree. The current boulders can be added around the 27
cubic foot boulder. ln addition please plant one 7-gallon shrub such as a red-twig dogwood
in the general location of the removed Colorado spruce and the new boulder. I will gladly
meet on site to discuss lhe location of a three foot boulder and 7-gallon shrub.
So that you might understand why I am so adamant about the solutions to replacing the
removed Colorado spruce I will provide some informalion on this developments approval.
During the review and approval process of the Chateau Tremonte development the minutes
of the August 26, 1996 public meeting show that there was concern from the neighboring,
down slope neighbor, Capslone Condominiums over the pushing of snow to the end of the
driveway which would evenlually find its way down the slope and adversely affecl the
Capstone Condominiums development. The Town of Vail Code requires all snow storage to
{S u.r"t"orntu
occur own a development's own property. To miligate lhat concern the developer agreed to
place landscaping in strategic locations to prevenl the accumulation of snow along the
southern property line shared with the Capslone Condominiums.
I appreciate your altention and cooperation to resolve this matter. l{ you have any questions
please do not hesitale 10 call me al970-479-2148.
0d'0,,'^,l'CI
Cc:File
John Carlson, Chateau Tremonte Homeowners Association
From:
To:
Date:
Subiect:
Warren Campbell
BillKassW@aol.com
0711512003 3:27:20 PM
Re: Chateau Tremonti replacement landscaping
The Town will accept the boulder as described (3' x 3'x 3') and a 7-gallon shrub planted in the vicinity of
the boulder. The location of both shall be approved by the Town.
Again, the purpose of these improvements is to prevent snow from being pushed onto adjacent properties
as prohibited by ordinance and to improve the landscape appearance of the area.
Please provide some times when you would like to meet on sight to discuss the location of the boulder
and shrub.
Once again the Town appreciates your attnetion to this matter. lf you have any questions plese don't
hesitate to call 97 0 47 9-2 1 48
Warren Campbell, AICP
Planner ll
Town Of Vail
>>> <E[flKAssW@eo.l=com> 0710912003 1:41:14 PM >>>
There was no text.
The Board of Directors of Chateau Tremonte would like to place a boulder
in the spot where the tree died.
The boulder will be about 3' x 3' x 3'.
ls this agreeable to the TOV?
Sincerely Yours
H. William Weiss Jr.
President of the HOA of Chateau Tremonte.
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Warren Camobell
BillKassW@aol.com
0612612003 8:28:06 AM
Re: Chateau Tremonti replacement landscaping
FIL I coPy
Dear Mr Kass,
I am not certain what information you have been given to this point in time. This is not an issue of a
complaint by a neighbor against the Chateau Tremonti Homeowner's Association. The tree that has died
and been removed was placed in that location by the developer as a direct result of the design review
process that your development went through. lt is correct that the tree was placed there to prevent the
storage of snow which could cause run off problems for the down slope property. Upon doing a site visit I
noticed that the existing stones at the base of the driveway were dislodged as a result of snow being
pushed up in that area. This is exactly the problem whisch was to be avoided by placing the Colorado
spruce in the location next to your home. As I have discussed with Mr. Carlson and Kelli Anthony with
Dan McNeil's office we can look at other solution to replacing the Colorado spruce with the same plant.
One of those options is to place a large boulder in that location. I informed Kelli Anthony to provide a
photo of the proposed boulder before installation so that staff can affirm that it is a size which will
effectively prevent snow storage buildup in that location. Please see the attached letters for further
details. I look forward to resolving this issue quickly.
With Regards
Warren Campbell
Planner ll
Town of Vail
970479-2148
>>> <BillKassW@aol.com> 06/16/2003 1247'.56 PM >>>
Dear Mr. Camobell:
I am the owner of Unit D-12 which has my entrance on that location. The tree was not removed but died
and was then cut down.
I can not have a 10 foot pine in the original site because it would prevent me from gefting into my home.
We just went thru a winter with over 450 inches of snow and there was no snow removal or piling of snow
which could cause runoff in that area or it would restrict my entry way and also my garage.
This complaint from neighbors is petty and shouled not take up the valueable time of TOV personnel.
lf weehave 700 inches of snow there maybe a problem, however we should not worry about the end of the
world because then there are no solutions which can be mandated bv humans.
Respectfully Yours
H. William Weiss Jr.
\
?ltE coPy
Page
'1
of ,
Warren Campbell - Chateau Tremonti replacement landscaping
From: Warren Campbell
To: billkassw@aol.com; jcarlsonl00@attbi.com; jryderl@earthlink.net; mcneill@vail.net;
oscarpsevilla@aol.com
Date: 06105/2003 9:33 AM
Subject: Chateau Tremonti replacement landscaping
Mr. McNeill,
I am in reciept ofa letter from the Chateau Tremonti Homeowners' Association which discusses several option for replacing
a Colorado spruce which was removed on the site. In that letter they requested that I speak directly with you or a
representative of your office. An email was attached to the leuer from Kelli Anthony which discussed several options. The
Town ofVail is willing to look at other options ifa Colorado spruce does not have a high chance of survival in that
location. Please develop a plan and submit it to me for review. I am not a landscaper so please provide information on the
the charatersitics of the plantings in the proposed solution so that I may determine if they are acceptable. For example how
tall and wide does the planting get. Staff is only trying to achieve a solution which prevents snow from being stored in the
location and eventually making its way down slope and negatively affecting neighboring properties.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Wanen Campbell
Town of Vail
970479-2148
fi le ://C :\Windows\temp\GW ) 000 1 4.HTM 06/05/2003
-\a'
Chateau Trernonte Ilomeowners' Association
P0 Box 4694
Vail. CO 81658-4694
Mr. Warren Camobell
I own of Vaii
75 South Frontaqe Road
Vaii. CO 816i7
Mav 28. 2003
I)ear Mr. Campbell:
We are in receiot of vour thoulrhtful and detailed erplanation rcqneslinq that our homeowner's
association piant replacement tree(s) next to the entrywa),olunit Di2. ln response, rve have
besun the Drocess of site evaluation and nricinq various ontions. We erpet:t that this and ofher
landscaping issues wiil be resolved by late June and we hope our eiforts create a more mature and
diverse landscapinp. presentation to our homeowners and anvone livinp near or passine bl the
Chaleau'l-remonte development.
As we discussed orevioush. the issue of site suitabilitv still concerns us. Fnclosed is a written
{.ropy ol'an cmail message reocntly received by our boarui oi directors. in this lelter our landscape
expeft oosits that a -spnroe is not suitable for thc lot:a1ion in quc,slion. Thus r.vr: are workinp. on
alternative tree plantings which we hope will stand a belter change of survival and add to the
overall amhiance of otrr cornmlnilr
lf vou see anv callse for conccrn in the proposals set forth t'rv our landsc.aning cxpert. nlease
contacl Dan McNeill at his office. Dan's number is 479-6Ua7.
Sincerelv.
Chateau Tremonte Homeor.vner's Association
John Carlson
Bill Wciss
Oscar Sevilla
John Ryder
KcD JuN 0 42003
\Paqe I of 1 t'
icarlsonl 00@attbi.eom
From: "Dan McNeill" <mcneill@vail. net>T<s: "johrr V. R'vr-jei" ':ir-,'deii rAaaiiiririrk iret:-. "Biii ..irieiss" -<biiikassw@aoi cc;-;r:-, "oscari:seviiia"
<oscarpsevilla@aol.com> ; "John Carlson" <jcarlsonl 00@attbi.com>ranr. i''ocri=r, t;,,1 27 ,:uu: 9.2 i ,..ii,i
Subjeci: new rrees
ioirii,
i was asked b.v- Dan tlici\eiit to responci to your emaii regaftiing new trees
arornd. 'llnereau i-.
Due to the wind, lack oi drarnage and parttcularly dr,v soil at the south
eird of ihe coini:iicx. I iecomineiicl 'rl'c st&'r cieai oi iisiirii soiiicc oi ijiiie.
Althoush these trees are native to the area. they are extremely
temperameniai anri have a hisher ri!!e oi iiriiure in the area. We sir"ive
to use the most native. reriscapin.e nossible in order to he."vater
elllcient 3nd hnl e e high rrtc ct _!ro\\-th :r-tccesr.
We have, a fe.rrr options dependinp. on the a,ppearance and rr.se Chatcarr T is
lo+king ta sbtalr.
The followinc are -some ideas and e-stimated prrice-s withorrt in-qta,llation
For the front entry. I recommend the follow:
Shrrhcn ( 'hcrn'- u i!! tlou cr .rrril is r rooC sc:'ccn Sl5{}
Mockora-nqe- a,shrrth will will prow'ouieklv. oood, f61 -screen. ercellent
in dr.; a.reas;- $4(!
A-spen- $22t|
Serviceher'+.. s'l:nrh, e:*eellenf *irr dry areas- uill flc.,ver tr.hite .$.10
Back area:
llopa ( )rahapplc- tiorvcrs- gooti scrccn- !i?50
Ponderosa Pine- hest pine for thi-c t\ pe of environment- $2 1 0
Cherr-v
Retween the huil din g-q :
!!onevsrrcklc- !:ootl scrccn, rvill llotrer- .$4{)
Crahapple
Installalion will be clepenclent upon the size and quantifu of tree-s.
Please call me directlv regardins 'yor-tr opinion and the location of the
rccs:.
Thank vou-
kelli anthony
McNlerll l'ropertv [r,4 anagemcnt
5t?7 /2007
,
FILE COPY
TOWN OF VAIL
D e p artme n t of C ommuni ty D eve lopme n t
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-21 38
FAX 970-479-2452
www.ci.vail.co.us
May 14,2003
John Carlson, President
Chateau Tremonte Homeowner's Association
1890 Lions Ridge Loop
Unit 84
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Tree replacement at Chateau Tremonte/Lol 27, Block 2, Lions Ridge Filing 3
Mr. Carlson:
This letter is in response to your lener dated May 8, 2003. In your letter you discuss several
items of confusion over the relationship between the need for replacing the tree and snow
storage, concern for the survivability of a replacement lree, and the role of the Capstone
Condominiums. I will address each item below in the above order.
During the review and approval process of the Chateau Tremonte development the minutes
of the August 26, 1996 public meeting shows that there was concern from the neighboring,
down slope neighbor, Capstone Condominiums over the pushing of snow to the end of the
driveway which would eventually find its way down the slope and adversely affect the
Capstone Condominiums development. The Town of Vail Code requires all snow storage to
occur own a development's own property. To mitigate that concern the developer agreed to
place landscaping in strategic locations to prevent the accumulation of snow along the
southern property line shared with the Capslone Condominiums. This relationship between
the need for replacing the tree and snow storage was discussed in my initial letter dated
March 12, 2003.
Your concern over the suitability of the location lor a Colorado spruce in lerms of what
caused il nol to survive initially is warranted. Whether il was soil, exposure, deadly fungus,
pine beelle, or other factors, as slated in your letter, the site should be invesligated by a
qualified arborist. The other spruce trees in the area, on the Chateau Tremonle site, should
be assessed for their condition and any mitigation which could be performed to better their
health before death and need of replacement should be initiated. lf after investigation it is
discovered that a Colorado spruce will not survive il that location please contact me and we
will work to find a suitable replacement. For example, groupings of aspens, large shrubs,
boulders, etc.
The reason the Capstone Condominium Association has been copied on all correspondence
is that they are the neighboring property which is directly aflect by the loss of the tree as it
was specifically located at that site to address a concern of lhe Capstone Condominium
Homeowners in 1996. The Capstone Condominium Association has not filed a nuisance
complaint against the Chateau Tremonle Association. The Town of Vail is not condoning "tit
{S r"n"*o "or",
for tat" complaints between this or any olher neighboring properties. Statf is following
through on a call expressing concern over the missing tree which was received prior to my
inilial letter dated March 12,2003. The Town of Vail staff is charged with investigated and
resolving issues and in this case the specific tree removed had a specific purpose, location,
and was a condilion of approval on the approved Chateau Tremonle development plan.
In conclusion, staff is willing to work with the Chateau Tremonte Homeowner's Association
lo reach a suitable solution. lt is my hope that I have adequate addressed your concerns
and if lhere are any further questions please do not hesitate to call. Slaff would still like to
work towards having a suitable solution and the installation of a replacement tree planted no
later that June 23,2003. The replacement tree should be a l0-foot tall Colorado spruce
unless it is determined by a qualified individual lhat there is a better alternative for
increasing the survivability of a tree located at thal location.
I appreciate your attention and cooperation to resolve this matter. lf you have any questions
please do not hesitate to call me at 970-479-2148.
With regards,
lilaw"
Warren Camobell
Planner ll
Cc: File
Dan McNeit, McNeil Property Management
Dale Bugby, Capstone Townhomes Homeowner's Association
Chateau Tremonte Homeowners' Association
Mr. Warren Campbell
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail. CO 81657
May 8,2003
Dear Mr. Campbel[:
The homeowners of Chateau Tremonte are happy to work with the Town of Vail on issues of
landscaping and other items. Per your request to replace a tree which died and was subsequently
temoved, we have taken up the issue within the homeowner's association.
Before we can proceed, a number of items need clarification.
We are confused as to the necessitv of replanting a tree in the location specified. It seems the
reason given is one of snow-removal conoerns. We do not understand how this enters into the
landscaping equation. Specifically, is it considered that the addition ofthe tree in question would
improve our snow removal capacities, or diminish them?
Secondly. we are uncertain as to the survivability of a spruce in the location under consideration.
As you knou', the developers planted a spruce in this spot. but it djd not survive- lt is possible that
due to any number of conditions - soil, exposure, deadly fungus, pine beetle or other factors -
this location is not suitable for the planting ofa spruce. Keep in mind that other spruce trees in the
vicinity are unhealthy and may ultimately need removal.
Lastly, we are perplexed as to the role of the Capstone Condominium Association in matters of
concem to the Chateau Tremonte development. We note that the president of the Capstone
Condominium Owner's Association has been copied on letters to us regarding this issue. Please
explain what role this other development plays in our landscaping issues. "Tit for tat" is a
slippery slope, and if Capstone is filing nuisance complaints against Chateau Tremonte, this is not
a behavior which should be supported by anyone within the Town of Vail.
Sincerely,
Chateau Tremonte Homeowner's Association
John Carlson
Bill Weiss
Oscar Sevilla
John Ryder
ilLt 00PY
D e par t me n t of C ommunity D eve I opme n t
75 South Frontage Road
VaiL Colorado 81657
970-479-2138
FAX 970-479-2452
www. ci.vail.co.us
April 18, 2003
John Carlson, President
Chateau Tremonte Homeowner's Association
1890 Lions Ridge Loop
Unit 84
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Tree replacement at Chateau Tremonte/Lot 27, Block 2, Lions Ridge Filing 3
Mr. Carlson:
This letter is in response to your call regarding my letter dated March 1 1, 2003. In
that letter I stated that there was concern over the removal of a Colorado spruce
along the Chateau Tremonte's southern property line and the placement of plowed
snow in its location. In your voicemail to me you requested that I put in writing the
details of what is required to remedy this situation and your desire to have staff meet
with you on site to ensure proper location of the tree.
It is staff's determination that a minimum 1O-foot tall Colorado spruce needs to be
planted in the location indicated on the approved landscape plan from 1996. Staff
will meet you on site or provide a copy of the landscape plan to ensure proper
location of the replacement tree. The replacement tree should be planted no later
than June 23. 2003.
I appreciate your attention and cooperation to resolve this matter. lf you have any
questions please do not hesitate to call me al479-2148.
With regards, n 11
/J*^ 0r,^^ji
Warren Campbell I
Planner ll
Cc: File
Dan McNeil, McNeil Property Management
Dale Bugby, Capstone Townhomes Homeowner's Association
{S *"n"uo r^r",
at
arren
Planner
Campbell
ll
FILEWp,t'
TOWN OFVAIL
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontqge Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2 t 38
FAX 970-479-2452
www.ci.vail.co.us
John Carlson, President
Chateau Tremonte Homeowner's Association
1890 Lions Ridge Loop
Unit 84
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Snow plowing and tree replacement at Chateau Tremonte/Lol27, Block2,
March 12, 2003
Lions Ridge Filing 3
Mr. Carlson:
This letter is in response to a call I received regarding snow plowing and a dead tree along the
southern property line of the Chateau Tremonte site. In response to this call I reviewed the file for
the approval of the Chateau Tremonte on August 26, 1996.
Upon review of the staff report and minutes of approval I found that there was great concern placed
on the landscaping and snow plowing which was to occur on the southern property line of the
Chateau Tremonte site and its impacts on the neighboring Capstone Townhomes, There was
concern over the plowing and storage of snow at the southern end of the driveway. In order to limit
the storage of snow the approved landscaping plan shows a 10-foot tall Colorado spruce along the
southern property line which was to compliment an existing stand of aspens.
Upon receipt of my letter please contact me so that we can discuss the snow storage situation and
the missing tree. I am confident we can reach a mutually agreeable solution to this matter. I
appreciate your attention and cooperation to resolve this matter. lf you have any questions please
do not hesitate to call me at 479-2148.
Cc: File
Dan McNeil, McNeil Property Management
Dale Bugby, Capstone Townhomes Homeowner's Association
With regards,
{g r*o"or^ro
>ct-
F8
E a*"t FC)#E
l-!,-O
$s
.it-
*
s
o
\--
--4-
KGchlein Consultin? Engineers
Gonsulting Geotechnical Engineers
12364 W. Alameda Pkwy . Suite 135 . Lakewood, CO 80228
MAIN OFFICE AVON SILVERTHORNE
(303) 989-1223
(303) 989-0204 FAX
(970)949-6009
(970) e4e-9223 FAX
(970) 468-6933
(970) 468-6939 FAX
Septernber 8, 1997
Mr. Skip Organ
DJ Organ Builders
P.O. Box 1709
Fdrvards, CO 8163?.-l 709
Subject: Excavation Inspection for the Proposed Residence
Lot27 - Lions Ridge Loop
Building 3 - Units 10, I I & 12
Vail, Colorado
JobNo.97-248
As requested, a representative from our office inspected the foundation materials exposed irr the
excavation at the subject site on September 5, 1997. The purpose ofour inspection was to verif that the
exposed materials would safely support a spread footing foundation system for the proposed towltholne.
The depth of the excavation varied frorn approxirnately 4.0 to 9.0 feet. The materials exposed in the
bottom of the excavation consisted of a moist, dense to very dense, silt and sand with gravels and
cobbles. The loose soils within the excavation were compacted in accordance with our
recommendations. In our opinion, the exposed soils will safely support a spread footing foundation
system designed for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. Our opinion is based otr
the natural foundation soils remaining unsaturated.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this service. If we can be of further service, please contact us.
S incerely.
SBM/ir
( | couv sent)'/4
cc: 'l-ou,n ol'Vail - b
* f,\ |ilj'1
KGchlein Consultin? Engineers
Consulting Geotechnical Engineers
12364 W. Alameda Plrwy. Suite 135. Lakewood, CO 80228
MAIN OFFICE AVON SILVERTHORNE
(303) 989-1223
(303) e8e-0204 FAX
(970) 94e-600e
(970) 949-9223 FAX
(970) 468-6933
(e70)468-6939 FAX
August 27, 1997 (Revised September 8, 1997)
Mr. Skip Organ
DJ Organ Builders
P.O. Box 1709
Edrvards, CC I I 5i2- I 709
Subject: Excavation lnspection for the Proposed Residence
Lot27 - Lions Ridge Loop
Building I - Units 1,2 &J and Building 2 - Units 4,5 &6
Vail, Colorado
Job No. 97-248
As requested, a representative front our office inspected the foundation materials exposed in the
excavation at the subject site on August 25, 1997. The purpose of our inspection was to verifo that the
exposed materials would safely support a spread footing foundation system for the proposed townhomes.
The depth of the excavation varied froln approximately 4.0 to 5.5 feet. The materials exposed in the
bonom of the excavatiorr consisted of a moist, dense to very dense, silt and sand r+'ith gravels aud
cobbles. We recornmerrd that the loose soils within the excavation be properly moisture conditioned and
conrpacted. Provided our recommetldations are followed, we believe that the exposed soils will safely
support a spread footing foundation system designed for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of
3,000 psf. Our opinion is based on the natural foundation soils remaining unsaturated.
We appreciate the opporlunity to provide this service. If we can be of further service, please contact us.
Sincerelv.
SBM/jr
(l copy sent)
cc: l'own of Vail - @
KOECHLEIN SULTING ENGINEERS
1}'
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
- THIS AGREEMENT. is made and enrered inro this )y'*auy or O.'/'!u 6K-
by S-.,^-,:*//rae" cc<- , ana Fayn E;a bolo, ua.t^Atg-a quisr-municipal corporarion
of the State of Colorado. hereinatier referred to as 'District''.zr.,* DrJhrcf.
WHEREAS. Properry Owner(s) isiare presently
propeny described as. LotJ ?, Block 2 , Filing J . Llott
the ,owner(s) of cenain real
RiJr< Subdivision. located
in Eagie Counry, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the District is presently in possession of an easement, /J- fsg1 1t
width. running tfu'ough the aforemenrioned properry, which easement is described on Exhibit A.
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS. Properry Owner(s) desires to construct a permanent structure that
will encroach upon the described easement in an area approximately // ' x Z? ', said
encroachmenr being described on Exhibit A; anc
WHEREAS, the easement is an active easement presently in use by the District.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and promises herein, the parties
hereby agree as follows:
1. The District shall permit the permanent structure to encroach upon the
aforementioned easement.
2. The Property Owner(s) shall indemnify the District from the costs of any
repairs to the District's utility lines which may occur as a result of the construction of the
permanent structure over and upon such easement.
3. The Propeny Owner(s) shall hold harmless the District from the cost of
repairing any riamage to the structure, which damage may be caused by the installation of new
utility lines in this easement, or by a break in present and future utility lines of the District, or
by the repair of such break by the District or by other maintenance of the lines.
4. The Properry Owner(s) shall indemnify the District from any increase in
the cost of construction of any new utility lines or in the cost of any repairs to rhe District's
utility lines, such increase, if any, due to the proximiry of the permanenr structure to the utility
lines.
5. This Agreement shall bind the successors and assigns of the Propeny
Owner(s), and shall be appurtenant to and deemed to run with and for the benefit of the
aforementioned propeny in
Eagle County, Colorado until such time rhat the District abandons
J.
said easement. This Agreement shall be recorded against said property in accordance with the
Iaws of the State of Colorado.
IN MTNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
as of the day and year first above written.
PROPERTY OWNER(S)
DISTRICT
ATTEST:
)
Dennis Gelvin, General ,Manager
By
Assistant Secretary : -.',+.. . -.. .'...i- r'1. ,.".._.- .-'\,^..STATE'0F.COLORADO )
-'.ti.'. ;.; '_ ,)ss.
' : GOUI.fTY OF EAGLE )
. The_foregg g instrument was acknowledged before me this 14 day of Vac./
-'
E\' aY J <2+^'. - 7 t
I\{y Commission expires: 7 i -,a
STATE OF COLORADO
)ss
COUNTY OF EAGLE )
- The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this LZ luy of Vt /
-,
L99&, by Dennis Gelvin, as General Manager of the Upper Eagle Valley Consoiidated
N
N\
M
a't \\ ,J
(
?
Gr-
I
J t q /
'l
. -l-l''+--.t..
i'.-'.-l t 'F z.l
F; tlj
t'.] \'
Hl
KilJ
O.'
ffil ,4'*
' -,2!/,,"d
i* .i \J
ri i\,+o
./*\o .-t> *o
\_\\>
^s -.. d, .,ci\\t\
S L,'1 o
--- -- _t{_
-\'\(\
-\ \zs -S=
IIJ
.J o
&
o 2 o
>..
.''t,t',
l.'(
-\\
Tecordcdat--_oclock_M
Keceptron No. _
QUITCLAIM DEED
THIS DEED, r"ruae tri. 7 th day or November
betBeen HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION. INC.
re 96
a corporation dulv- organized and exirting under and by virtue of the laws of the state ofcolorado.
grantor. and _ SIJMMIT PINES LLC
whose legal address is 234 Loyola B1dg. i1911
New Orleans , LA 701L2
ofthe * Count_v of Eagle . State ofColorado. granrce,wlrNEssltTll' That the granto( for and in considcration ofthe sum of ten dollars and other sood and valuable
cons idera t ion---------DOt L {RS.
the recetpt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has remised, released, sold and eulr CLAIMED, and by these presents does remis€,
release' sell and QUIT cLAtM unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever, all the right, litle. interest, claim and demand whrch rhe grantor has in and
lo the real property togelher with improvements, ifany, situate. lying and berng rn the said County of
Eagle and State of Colorado described as forrows:
A portion of Ehe fifteen (15) foot lride utility easemenr located along
the northerly boundary of Lot 27, Block 2, Lionrs Ridge Subdivision,Filing No. 3 described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner
of said Lot 27 and extending wesEerly a distance of 230 feet. Said
easement rras dedicated on the plat for said subdivision recorded
September lO, 1979 in book 29O at page 794 in the Eagle County Courthouse,
Eagle, Colorado.
This Quit Claim does not include any portion of the easement dedj.cated
along the easterly boundary of said LoE 27.
also known by street and number as: N r/A
To HAVE AND To HoLD the same. together with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereunto belonging, or in an),v,ise thereunto
appertaining' and all the estate' right, title' interest and claim whatsoever, ofthe grantor, either in law or equit,v, to the only- proper use, benefit and behoof
of the grantee' his heirs and assigns fotever. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural lhe singular. and the use of any gender shall be
applicable to all genders.
IN WITNESS WHEREOR The grantor has caused its corpoEte name to be hereunto subscrib€d by its General Manaqer )€(oddiroxfn Ofi<
th€ day and y-ear fiIst above written.
HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION. INC.
Secretarv
STATE OF COLORADO
County of Gar f ie ld
The foregoing insrrument was acknowledged before me this
KenE Benham as General Manager of
Holy Cross Electric AssociaE ion,
m-v hand and official s€al.
notary commission expires:
in Deo!e.. inserr "Ciry and'.
day., of November -4
Inc .
/-/.?
QUIT CL4.INt DEf,D (Corporrtion)
Bradford Publishing, | 741 Wazee Sl., Denver. CO 80202 _ (303) 292-25LU _ l2-92
(Fr'rse)
and Addrcss of Pcrson Creating Newli Cr€jrcd
No. 1088. Rer: 12-92.
.re 96
e
o;
z
c
-E E
o
-
-
E
-Ll
-|-
i
-r't
o
c-o
I o
a)
a,
?
=
FORM (G) 122-rO-r910
Recorded at o'clock _M
Reception No.Recorder
QUITCLA|M DEED
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that Public Service Company of
corporation, of Denver, Colorado for good and valuable consideration hereby
Document No.
PIat No.
Grid No.
Colorado, a Colorado
sells and quitclaims to
present owners of the fee title of the property described below
qt/tllfr&'vtrypl +n4state-e{aelerad+th e f o I lowi n g d esc ri bed rea I
property in the (City and) Coung of Fagle
and State of Colorado, to-wit:
whose address is ZX4loyola, Building #911
That certain 1S-foot (15') wide utility easement adjoining the northerly property
line of Lot 27, Lion's'Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 3, recorded September 10,
1979 in Book 290 at Page-794, in the official reiords of Eagle County, Colorado.
Address or property Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Vail, CO
Consideration: (less than $600)€r{g
with all its appurtenances.
)*
l* day ot fSt?+htt , p %o by George J Vonesh, Jr. as Manager, Engineering
Suooort and Rioht-of-Wav ^{ D.,hri. earrrira rnrnna nw at catr'.aArt
l*
PUBLIC
By
srATE OF COLORADO, )
) ss.
City and County of Denver )
George J. Vonesh, Jr.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
Support and Right-of-Way
-
ol Public Service Company of Colorado,
a Colorado corporation.
My commission expires
Witness my hand and official seal.
'Strike inapplicable phrase.
Vnv*,b nzt:z -/ADDRESS
Thisinstrumentshouldberecordedintheofficeoftheclerkandrecorderofthecountywherethepropertyislocated0sir rvsys.11.6.
'f
t
TOIW OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 8/,657
970-479-21 3 8/479-2 I 39
FAX 970-479-2452
August 27, 1996
D e p art me nt of Connnunit-t D eve lopn ent
0$copr
Steve Gensler
5299 DTC Boulevard
Englewood, CO 801I I
FAX 303-688-2273
RE: Thc submittal requircments for Dcsign Revicw Board revicrv of thc proposcd Vail
Point Phasc Iil proiect
Dear Stevc:
Thank you for appcaring bcfore the Tovm of Vail Planning and Environmcntal Commission
(PEC), on lvlonday, August 26, 1996 u'ith the proposcd Vail Point Phase III setback variance
request.
As you are aware. the Planning and Enrironmcntal Commission unanimously approvcd the
rcqucsted front setback variance. as amended. u'ith six conditions.
Thc purpose of this lettcr is to providc you rvith rvritten documcntation of thc PEC conditional
approval and inform you ofthe six conditions placcd on the approval. This lctter is also intendcd
to provide;'ou with a list of outstanding issues, rvhich must be resolvcd prior to final review of
your project by thc Toun of Vail Dcsign Review Board on Wedncsday, Scptcmber I 8' i 996'
The PEC piaced the follorving conditions on your approval:
I . That the applicant schedule a hearing before the Vail Tou.n Council for review of the
proposcd site plan. pnor to appearing bcforc thc Toq.n of Vail Dcsign Review Board, as
rcquired in the Arr.ncxation Agrecmcnt of July I 7, I 979: and
2. That the applicant vcrifo thc vacation of the l5' widc, utility easement along thc nonherly
property line priOf to appcaring bcforc the Town of Vail Design Review Board; and
3. That tbc applicant rcceivc To.vn of Vail Public Works Departrnent and Torvn of Vail Fire
Department approval of thc proposed sitc plan pnal to appearing before the Town of Vail
Design Review Board: and
{S *r"""rro r*r*
That the applicant install a constuction fence, ps@ to the issuance of a building permit'
along the qbZ ,top" line and the area around tGEisring landscapg implgv:ments to the
south, to protect these areas during the construction process' and thlt said fence shall not
be remoned until all driveway and building construction is completed; and
That the applicant submit for review and approval, a snow removal and storage plan; and
That ifthe three, coniferous trees indicated on the approvedplans are transplanted by the
applicant, that a bond of 125%be established to guarantee the survival, or replacement, of
the said trees for a period of two growing seasons effective the date of transplanting'
6.
In addition to the conditions of the Planning and Environmental Commission approval, the
following issues must be resolved qfigl to inal review of your proposed request by the Town of
Vail Design Review Board:
That all retaining walls, greater than 4'in height, be reviewed and stamped approved by a
Physical Engineer; and
That all top and bottom wall elevations are provided on the ploposed site plan and
landscape plan: and
That a surface drainage plan be submitted for review and approval by the Town of Vail
Public Works Deparlment; and
The proposed site plan must be amended to remove Building #l from the required 20'
wide front yard setback: and
That a limit ofdisturbance be delineated on the site plan and landscape plan and that a
constuction fence be installed along thc limit of disturbance; and
That a topographic survey of original, existing conditions on the site be submitted and that
the site pian be amended to refleit existing topographic conditions on the properly; and
That a landscape plan, witl a landscape legend, be submitted for review and approval by
the Design Review Board; and
That a hre-lane access easement be dedicated and recorded for emergency vehicle access
and circulation on the property; and
That the proposed site plan show All, roofridge and eaveline elevations to determine
building height; and
That a fue hydrant be located on the property in tbe landscape island, between Buildings
#3 andll4'.and
t.
2.
^
5.
6.
1
8.
9.
10.
,'
ll.Thatemergencyvehicleaccess,withaminimum3g.tumingradiusfromLionsridgeloop'
be provided: and
12. That a tree preservation and relocation plan be submitted for review and approval in
accordance witu tne ptanning and Environmental comrnission approval of August 26'
1996: and
13'ThattheapplicantappearbeforetheVailTownCouncil,asrequiredbytheAnnexation
Agreement ofJufy ii, 1979,fortheTown Council's review and approval ofthe proposed
develoPment Plan.
Again, each ofthe issues addressed must be resolved prior to,final review ofyour project by the
Town of Vail Design Review Board. In order to prouid. sufficient time to review yow proposed
flunr, you will neJ to submit all revised plans to the Town of Vail Comrnunity Development
Deparbnent by no later than noon, Tuesday' September 3, 1996' If you are unable to meet this
O.iJtin", the 6esign Review Board will not be iute to provide you with. a final review on
September I 8, 1996. The item could be scheduled for a conceptual review by the Design Review
Board with a final review to follow at a subsequent meeting'
should you have any questions or concerns with regards to the information addressed in this
letter, as always, please do not hesitate in giving me a call. You can reach me most easily during
regular office hours at4'79'2145.
Sincerely,
4.1 /J4-.Kur'h)l
George Rutber
Town Planner
GR/jr
8i*:':+ j;:;.g,+,,{
tet
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail. Colorado 81657
970-479-213V479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
Department of Community Development
Julv 31. 1996
Steve Gensler
5299 DTC Boulevard
Englewood, Colorado 801l l
RE: The proposed front setback and building height variance for Lot 27, Lions Ridge
Subdivision, Filing # 3.
Dear Steve:
Thank you for your Planning and Environmental Comission application for thc front setback and
building heighi variances proposed for Lot 27, Block 2, Lions Ridge SuMivision, Filing # 3.
Upon pieliminary review of your request, it appears there are numerous issues which must be
resolved prior to review by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. The
purpose of thir l"tter is to inform you of those issues which must bc addressed prior to final
review.
The following issues must be addressed:
1. Please submit a proposed landscape plan. The iandscape plan shaii identifu the iocation
and quantities of plant material proposed for Lot27.
2. In order to determine if any encumbrances exist onLot2T,, please submit an updated title
report including Schedules A and B'
3. To determine the total buildable area of the site, please submit the topographic survey,
dated either 1989 or 1993. The survey must indicate pre-existing topos prior to the
dumping of fill dirt on the site.
4. Buildings# 10,11 and12areoverontheallowablebuildingheight. Maximumbuilding
height for the Medium Density/Tvlulti-Family Zone District is 38'maximum.
{,7 *""'"u' "*""
5. Emergency vchicle access to the sitc is inadequate. Firc vchicles cannot make access onto
the property when approaching from thc west. Please amend the driveway access point to
accommodate fi rc emergency vehicles'
6. A fire vehicle tumaround is requircd on the site pursuant to Section 10.203 of the Uniform
Fire Codc.
7. A fire hydrani is required on the site. The fire hydrant should be located in the landscaped
island, bctwcen Units # 3 and4. This would providc for adequate flne-flow requirements
per Uniform Fire Code Appendix IIl.
8. Additional ridge elevations are rcquired on the proposed roof plan. The additional
eievations arc rcquired in order to detcrmllc building hcight. Please underlinc E!! roof
ridges.
9. Please indicate areas for proposed snow storage.
10. A 15' wide utility easement exists along the northerly propcrty of Lot 27' An
encroachment agrcernent will be rcquired ifa variance approval is granted.
Again, each of the issues identified above must bc resolved prior to the final rcview of your front
setback and building height variance rcquests before the Town of Vail Planning and
Environmental Commission. In order to rcmain on the agenda for the August 12, 1996 Planning
and Environmental Commission meeting, you will need to submit each of the items identified
above by no later than 12:00 noon, Friday, August 2, 1996. If you are unable to mcet this
deadline, your itcm will be tabled from the August 12, 1996 Planning and Environmental
Commission.
Should you bave any questions or concerns with regard to the information addresscd in this lettcr,
as always, please do not hesitate in giving mc a call. You can reach me most easily during regular
offi ce hours at 479-21 45.
Sincerely,
L*n-t(.-',''t
George Ruther
Town Planncr
GFJjr
Printed by George Rutsher t7/
---t|-'.,t|'--'-----
F'rom: Jeff Atencio
To: George Ruther
Subject: vail Point rrr
===NOTE==LLl12/96=--2 :55Pm=
George,Vail Point III, the Plans are
here and they do work' Fire Department can
sign off on this Project with no
obj ecLions
ireff Atencio
November, 12, 1996
Page : l-
o
Irl ,Fi
():tc
(
a
l"J
3e2 I-(DL .t9,uro)
01 N;4ro:
z,i>oo(E t,,
a\rt !r I
-
-O
O T .I:
-I 7\
:I
I
f 'art
-I
-tt a a f
O
-il
_o-
&---.c-\tn o..r' 2 -'o -:+ <_Yi\ce
) i'--)- ----,
(io \1 \c>u h; _
-\-_ \9:-J z-'
*---,J :{ * -?
\\'\-\* ll
-{J"l saS*|uil:'":yl#T:* 3*l=l
e Ac+1 4A?A4e ,
.'.r..F^r.f'71'llrr'..t.''f'-JTr{T:--1'v'i
dlign Review Action Ftn
TOWN OF VAIL
Category Numbel tzl.* lak fjeretLIJtIt)
Project Name:
Bullding Name:
Projec{ Descripton:
Orvner,Address andPhone: arEu€- &etl<la4
ArchitecUContacl, Address and Phone:
Legaf DesoiptiontLot Z'7 Block 7 Subdtuision La*r*z;4,= :*D zoneDistrict Vlwtttr
Project Street Address:
Comments:
€@staff Action
/
F Approval
E Disapproval
! Staff Approval
Conditions: t. jt t-tt,h , eer' €,^ /flzt*cnf TJaJ
Seconded by: lflvil
t4 ./")
I -l ^ .t-n - K, . -f ./u^,./
Town Planner
o*e, /Zf<f qA DRB Fee er"-p^ia 20.(D
1\ 0y l?:c-t a- tr-
I,
i ,i,
!ocJ
1b,,,
updated 4ll7l95
I. GENERALINFORMATION
' tt -lag,a<_e <ebrt&| h6;1ftl
This proccduro is rcquircd for any project rcqucsting a varianco. Thc application will not bc acceptcd until all thc
information is zubmittcd.
A. BREIIT DDSCRIPTION OI. PROPOS
appti"utionnuto 7 - /J-S?'/ ffi I 5
fr\". t1l-\jrri,i i
PEc MEETING nnrsJ:--:w vtiu'll'
APPLICATTON FOR A VARIANCE
? $$6
u['i Iir l)i iiLt I
lzv", t s
L'"u/r ,J
otJi'L /a*t o"z4q
NAME OF APPLICANT (typo or print
^DDRESS
5:2f f )f( llut #J?go prc:Nt:_hl22J-ff-f)
CITY, STATE, ZIP
C. NAME OF APPLICANT'S RI]PRESENTA
(re,u:
ADD
CITY, STATE, ZIP Lrl (-,
D. NAME OF OWNER(S) (typo or print
owNER(S) srGNA
ADDRI]SS
CITY, STATE, ZIP
E. LOCATIONOFPROPOSAL:h.ot) 4*-
with a planning staff member is strongly rccommended to dctcrminc if any additional
No application will bo accopted unlcss it is complctc (mu$ includc all itcms rcquircd
It is thc applicant's rcsponsibility to makc an appointmcnt with thc staffto find
6ut about additional submittal rcquircmcnts.
V. STJBMIT'TALINFORMATION
PLDASE NOTE TIIAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION WILL STREAMLINE TI.IE APPROVAL PROCDSS
I.'OR YOUR PROJECT BY DtrCRtrASING TI.IE NUMBER OIl CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TIIAT TI'IE
PLANNING AND D}.IVIRONMI]NTAL COMMISSION (PEC) MAY STIPULATI,. ALL CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL MUST BI] COMPILED WITII BI,FORD A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED.
T^
,.--./.
ror--2.1-----slocrr:l-ennrc L,;"^'r€"'J I e J" lJl'
'TREETADDRESS
(io^t€,<t[( Co.of
.ITY,STATE,,,o VT,:L , G|.n,,d.^
rr.. FEE I
$2s0.00 roro?,4'60-.K#JZL-L-8" Sfrl,t".- t' ! "f-.-
Tho fee must bo paid bcfore thc Community Dcvclopmcnt Dopartmcnt will accopt your proposal.
III. ADJACENT PROPERTY NOTIT-ICATION
Stampe4 ad&c.ssed envelopes ofthc names ofowners ofall propcrty adjaccnt to thc subjcct ProPcrty
INCLUDING PROPERTY BEHIND AND ACROSS STREETS, and a list of their names and mailing addrcsscs.
TIIE APPLICANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT MAILING ADDRESSIS.
tv.
B.
c.
a
FOUR (4) COPES OF TITE FOLLOWING MUST B[ SUBMITTI]D:
A. A written statement of the precise nature of the variance requested and the regulation involoved The statement
must also address:
a
l.Tho rclationship oftho requostcd variancc Lo other oxisting or potcntial uses and structuros in tho
vicinity.
The degrce to which relieffrom the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement ofa specified
rcg:rilation is neccssary to achievo compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity
or to attain thc objcctives of this titlc without grant or spccial privilcge.
3. The effect ofthe variance on light and air, distribution ofpopulation, transpofiatiorL traflic
facilities, utilities, and public safcty.
4. IIow your request complies with Vail's Comprehensive Plan.
A topographic and/or improvement survey at a scale ofat least 1" = 20'stamped by a Colorado licensed
surveyor including locations of all existing improvements, including grades and elevations. Other elements
which must be shown are parking and loading areas, ingress and egress, landscaped areas and utility and
drainage features.
A site plan at a scale of at least l" = 20' showing existing and proposed buildings.
All preliminary building elevations and floor plans sullicient to indicate the dimensions, geneml appearance,
scale and use ofall buildings and spaces existing and proposcd on tho sito.
A prcliminary title report to vcrify ownership and eascmenls.
Ifthe proposal is located in a multi-family development which has a homeowners' association, then wrinen
approval from the association in support ofthe pmject must b€ received by a duly authorized agent for said
associalion.
Any additional material ncccssary for the review ofthe application a.s dctermined by the zoning administrator.
For interior modifications, an improvement suwey and site plan may be waived by thc zoning administrator.
TIMII RIIOIJIRIIMRNTS
The Planning and llnvironmental Commission mccts on thc 2nd and 4th Mondays of cach month. A completo
application form and all accompanying material (aS dcscribed above) must bs submitled a minimum of four
(4) weeks prior to the datc of the PEC public hearing. No incomplete applications (as determined by the
zoning administrator) will be accepted by the planning stallbefore or altcr the designed sbmittal date.
All PEC approved variances shall lapse ifconstruction is not commenced within two years ofthe datc of
approval and diligently purzued to completion.
OTI-IER
Ifthis application requires a separate rcview by any Local, State or Fedcral agency other than the Town of Vail,
the application fce shall bc increascd by $200.00. Examples of zuch review, may include, but are not limited
to: Colorado Department of flighway Access Permits, Army Corps of Engineers 404, etc.
Tho applicant shall be responsiblo for paying any publishing fecs which arc in excess of50% ofthe application
fee. Il, at thc applicant's request, any mattcr is postponed for hearing, causing tho mattcr to be re-publish€4
thcn, thc entire fcc for such re-publication shall bo paid by the applicant.
Applications decmcd by the Community Dcvelopment Department to have significant design, land use or other
issues which may have a significant impact on the communiry may require review by consultants other than
town stafl Should a determination be made by tho town staffthat an outside consultant is needed to reviow any
application, Community Developmcnt may hire an outside consultant, it shall estimate the amount of monoy
nccessary to pay him or hcr and this amount shall be fonvardcd to thc Town by the applicant at the time he files
his application with the Community Development Department. Upon complotion of tho rcviow of the
application by the consultant, any ofthc funds forwarded by thc applicant for payment ofthe consultant which
have not been paid to the consultant shall bc retumed to the applicant. Expenses incured by the Town in
cxcess ofthe amount forwarded by the applicant shall be paid to the Town by the applicant within 30 days of
notification by the Town.
D.
I
i" {--r\.
G.
VI.
B.
VIL
A.
B.
C.
f:\everyone\formsVariancc4 I 7
Vail Town Council
l.
Process
WhenLot2T,Block2,Lionsridge#3wasannexedintotheTownofVail'anAnnexation
egtl"-"nt was executcd (July 17, 1979)' According to the agreement:
* there would be a review of each proposed site plan within the annexation
area.
review would be by the PEC, TC and DRB'
the review process is similair to an SDD, the proposal is not an SDD
no specific review criteria was established'
stafffeels the MDMF zone district, goals of the town' and DRB guidelines
are applicable critcria,
DeveloPment Potential
development potential per Eagle County approval
approval allows for 15 dwelling units and 19,445 sq' ft' of GR-FA + credits
total allowable GRFA is 22,162 sq. ft.
ProPosal
The applicant is proposing to construct l2 dwelling units comprising a total
of 21,614 sq. ft.
the remaining 548 sq. ft. of GRFA will be removed per this request
on August 26,PEC approved a front setback variance allowing unit #7 to
.n".o*h into the required 20 ft. front setback up to l2 ft'
PEC approval carried with it 7 conditions
"r"^l
,l
fno{e ko fi#olA
6.{bi\5^L
o {
t
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
community Development Department
August 26, 1996
A request for height and front setback variances to allow for the conslruction of
roui irijfl* buitdiigs, located at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge
Filing #3 (Vail Point Phase lll).
Applicant: Steven Gensler and Stephen Katz
Planner: George Ruther
PIiDJECI!E.9MIEIICN
A. Qeneral Description
Steve Gensler and Steve KaV. are proposing to construcl lour, triplex units on
phase lll at Vail Point. Phase lll is'zoned medium density multi-lamily. The four'
triplex structures will be served by a common driveway, 22'wide,$tith an
emerge,rcy vehicle turnaround at the south end ol tfre drive-vrray._There will be a
totat 6t 12 dwetting units comprised of 2'1,614 sq. ft. of GRFA . The units will
range in size from-1,783 sq. ft. to 1,804 sq' ft. Staff will discuss specific
corn'ponents of the development under the analysis in section lV of this
memorandum.
Thg applicants are Pr
encroacnes uP to 1Z'intg tltg=,
p to 9' into tne sgtback:. A totql of 286
n the front setback. According to Section
Ti-.18. m front setback for
structures built in the Medium Density Multi-Family Zone District shall be 20'.
Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance lrom Section lAJ€Jlql'
to allow for the construction of two structures to encroach into the 20'
required front setback, up to 12'and 9'respectively. The applicants have
stated that the location of Lionsridge Loop in proximity to the northerly property
line warrants the granting of the requested variance. A letter from the applicants
addressing their position on the variance has been attached for reference.
The applicants had originally requested a building height variance to allow one ot
the lour, triplex structures to exceed the allowable building height of 38" The
applicants have since withdrawn their building height variance request.
Therefore, staff will not be addressing the building height issue in this
memorandum.
J
1,L,3 Gq_) 1
I
B. Process
When Vail point was annexed into the Town of Vail, the Annexation Agreement
dated July 17, 1979, (Book 428, Page 936),stipulated thalthere would have to be
a revrew of each proposed site plan by the Planning and Environmental
Commission (peb), ifre VailTown Council and the Design Review Board (DRB)
for each phase of ine Valt Point project. Though the proces-s is similar to a
Special Development District (SDD), the proposal is not an SDD. Furthermore'
the annexation ordinance did not specify review criteria. However, applicable
criteria for this project include the standards for the Medium Density Multi-Family
Zone District, gen6rat goals addressed in the Town of Vail's long-range planning
documents an-d the Design Review Board Guidelines (Chapter 18.54) of the Town
oJ Vail MuniciPal Code.
The annexation agreement permits 15 dwelling units and 19,462 sq. ft. of Gross
Residential Floor Area (GRFA), plus credits of 225 sq. ft. per dwelling unit for Lot
27 . Under the proposed design, there are 2,700 sq. ft. of credits as there are 12
dwelling units. By adding the credits to what is allowed, the total allowable square
f ootage tot tol 27 is 22,162 sq. ft. ol GRFA'
II. BACKGROUND OF THE VAIL POINT PROJECT
The Vail Point Townhome development (formerly Talon Townhomes), Phases I, ll and lll, was
annexed into the Town of Vail on July 17, 1979. Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1979, addresses
the annexation. Upon annexation into the Town of Vail, Lot 27 (Phase lll) was designated
Medium Density Multi-Family zoning with the conditions outlined in the annexation agreement.
The review process was defined at the time the project was annexed into the Town of Vail, as
described in Section I of this memorandum.
The Vail Point Townhome development is comprised of three phases. Phases I and ll are
located on Lot 1, Block 3, which is on the north side of Lionsridge Loop, and Phase lll is located
on Lot 27 . Block 2, which is across the street, on the south side of Lionsridge Loop. According to
the annexalion agreement, Phases I and ll were approved for 48 dwelling units, while Phase lll
was approved for a maximum of 15 dwelling units.
The list below summarizes the history ot the Vail Point Townhome Project:
Phase I Phase l, as constructed, includes 20 dwelling units having a total GRFA ot 27 '759
sq. ft. lt is completed and final certificates of occupancy have been issued.
Phase ll As originally approved, Phase ll called for the construction of 20 dwelling units
having a totalallowable GRFA of 28,045 sq. ft. In September of 1989' the
Planning and Environmental Commission approved a modification to the plan to
oecrease lhe number of dwelling units by one and increase the total GRFA
allowed by 750 sq. ft. This approval resulted in the overall total allowable GRFA
for Phase ll to be 28,795 sq. ft. The 750 sq. ft. of additional GRFA granted by the
Planning and Environmental Commission to Phase ll was required to be deducted
from the total allowable GRFA for Phase lll.
Phase lll
on June 8, 1992, Steve Gensler proposed a modification to the approved plans
for Phase ll. This plan was approved by the Planning and Environme.ryll .
Commission ancl was subsequently constructed. lt included a total of 28'682 sq.
ft. of GRFA in 18 dwelling units. The difference in GRFA (1 13 sq. ft.) was to be
transferred back to Phas6 lll. A large portion of this was used at a later time by a
96 sq. ft. interior expansion lo the KaE residence in Phase ll. The 96 sq' ft'
expansion left only iZ sq. tt. of GRFA to be transferred back to Phase lll.
Construction in Phase ll is not complete'
originally, there was 19,445 sq. ft. of allowable GRFA (plus credits) allocated for
totiZ linase lll). The totalallowable GRFA has been increased by 17 sq. ft. to
19,462 sq. ft. plu's allowable credits. There is a credit of 225 sq. ft. per dwelling
unit lor units constructed in this zone district.
On June 13, 1994, Steve Gensler appeared before the Planning and
Environmental Commission with a request for a worksession to discuss the
construclion of four, duplex units on Phase lll. At that time, the applicant was
proposing to reduce tne totat density on the property from the allowed 'lS.dwelling
Lniis to 8-clwelling units. The Planning and Environmental Commission discussed
at length the site plan tor Lot27. Of most importance, was the preservation of the
existing landscape improvements, constructed by the owners of the Cappstone
Townh-omes, along the southerly property line of Lot 27. Additionally, the Planning
and Environmental Commission was interested in seeing the developer keep a
minimum of 15' of Separation between each structure constructed on the property.
The Planning and Environmental Commission did discuss the possibility of
granting a front Setback variance lo allow several of the structures to encroach
into thefront setback, in order to preserve the existing landscaping along the
southerly property line. lt is important to note that the discussion was preliminary,
and a more specific application would need to be submitted for review by the
Planning and Environmental Commission. The Planning and Environmental
Commission was specifically concerned that lhe applicant needed to exhibit the
existence of a physical hardship, allowing the granting of a variance at the time of
f inal review.
On June 13, 1994, a motion was made to table the discussion to the July 27,
'1994 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. On September 12, 1994,
the applicant requested that the item be tabled indefinitely, to allow the applicant
time to address the numerous issues identified by the Planning and Environmental
Commission.
On August 12, 1996, Steve Gensler appeared before the Planning and
Environmental Commission with a reouest for a front setback variance, to allow ffio ' croach uP to t 9' into the
front setback, while the other structure was proposed to encroach up to 17' into
be built in the front setback.
After a lengthy discussion on the proposed front setback variance request, which
included public testimony from adjoining property owners, the Planning and
Environmental Commission voted unanimously to table the applicant's request to
a subsequent meeting, to allow the applicant time to redesign the site plan. The
planning and Envirorimental Commission members agreed that a hardship
existed on the property, thus permitting the applicant to encroach into the front
setback, however, the'Planning and Environmental Commission members did not
teel that the hardship warranted a '19' and 17' encroachment into the front
setback. The Planning and Environmental Commission requested that the
applicant reduce the ahount of encroachment into the front setback' A copy of
ttid Oraft August 12, 1996 Planning and Environmental Commission minutes
addressing the applicant's request have been attached for reference.
III. ZONING ANALYSIS
Legal Description:
Zoning:
Lot Size:
Allo,vable GRFA
per Talon Townhome
recoros:
Development
Slandard
Height:
Density
GRFA:
Setbacks:
Allowable
38',
15 D.U.
22,162 sq. ft.
Prooosed
J/.3
12D.U.
21,614 sq. ft.
8'--E-
24'
Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 3/'1894 Lionsridge Loop (Phase lll)'
Medium Density Mutti-Family (MDMF).
2. 103 acres (per Eagle Valley Surveying) or 91 ,637.2 sq. ft.
19,462 sq. ft. of GRFA + a credit of 225 sq. ft. per construcled dwelling unit or 22,162 sq. tt.
Front: 20'Side/Side 20'
Hear: zu
Site Coverage:
Bataining wall heights:
Parking:
45oh ot 41,236.7 sq. ft. 15ol. or .13,716 sq. ft.
3',-6' 6'
2 per dwelling unrt 2 enclosed spaces per dwelling unit
IV. CR]TERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the
Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested setback variance.
The recommendation for approval is based on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity'
Phase lll of the Vail Point Townhomes is approved' per the Annexation-.
Agreement of 1979, lor 15 dwelling units.and 22,162 squalq feet of GRFA'.
ifie prJpJseO Oensity ot Lot27 (P-hase lll) is.compatible with the density of
tne ott'et multi-family proiects in the vicinity (Vail Point Townhomes
Phases | & ll and tn6 baistone Condominiums) The applicant lta:. -, .
propoleo to construct .12 dwelling units comprising approximately 21 ,614
iqriare feet of GRFA. The applicant has proposed to construct the{eu+,
tiiilex buildings as tar to the'north as possible to maintain an adequate
sdparation be'tween the Capstone Condominiums to the south, and to
preserve the existing landscaping and landscape improvements -
encroaching on to L;t 27. This has been propos-ed as a result of
worksessio-n meetings with the PEC in June of 1994. ln order tO maintain
the existing landscaling and pr6vide an adequate separation between the
proposed itructures an-d the 6xisting condominiums to the south' the
ipiticant has proposed to encroacfr up to 12' into the 20' front setback'
, Staff believes the variance is reasonable, as the s lot
severe onto
acre lot has
structures
Lionsridge Loop is constructed within a 70'wide right-of-way' The astual
width of pavement is 22' to 24' . The road, as constructed, is all the way
to the north side of the right-oFway, and therefore, approximately 50' of
right-of-way is located between the edge of existing asphalt and the . .
applicant's'north property line. Staff believes that the 50' of vacant right-
of-way will act as a sufficient bufier between Vail Point Phases I and
ll, Lionsridge Loop and the proposed structures.
The degree to which relief from tnettrict and literal interPretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity ot treatment among sites in the viciniry or
to attain the obiectives ot this title without grant ol special privilege-
Staff believes the t has ed the minimum amount of relief
own of Vail Municipal Code to
are intended to provide, in Part,um separation
btructures and uses, and to insure adequate light, air' and open
the
2.
spaces and maintain desirable residential qualities. Staff believes the
reouested variance to encroach into the front setback up to 12' is in
there are extraordi
.t.
staff has had conversations with the applicant regarding the slight shifting
oiitructures to reduce the encroachment into the required setback area.
stiti *orro ,rggest that the pEC discuss with the applicant the ability to
reOrc" tne am-olnt of setback encroachment through slight site plan
modilications.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and Public satety.
The staff believes the requested variance to encroach into the front
setback will have positive impacts on existing developm.ent.in the area.
Staff believes the variance will allow for greater separation between the
proposed structures and the Gapstone Condominiums, without negatively
impacting Phases | & ll of the Vail Point Townhomes to the north'
B.
V.
before granting a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsiitent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the lollowing reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enlorcement ol the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the ob.iectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
@
The Community Development Department stafl recommends approval of the applicant's
reouest for a variance from Section 18.18.060 to allow the construction of two structures
lo encroach into the 20' required lront setback up to 12' and 9' respectively. Staff
believes the applicants have met the Findings necessary lor the Planning &
Environmentai bommission to grant an approval of their request. Specifically, staff finds..
that the applicants have met Finding 8.1 in that the granting of the requested variance will
not result'in the grant ol special privilege. Finding 8.2 has been met, in the opinion of the
staff, since the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
o|. *efare, or miteriall! injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and that
Finding 8.3(b) has been met since there are extraordinary circumstances, in the form
steep itopei ind existing landscape improvements, which prechldes the applicant from
Oefiopitig tne tot to its t-utt potential. Additionally, Finding 8.3(c) has also been met'
since tire itrict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation wo.uld deprive the
applicant of privilegis enjoyed by the other property owners in the same district.
should the Planning and Environmental commission choose to grant an approval of the
requested variancel statf would suggest that the PEC find that:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant cf special
privitege inconsiitent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same zone district, and;
2. That the granting of the variance will not be derimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity, and;
3. That the variance is warranted since the strict literal enlorcement of the
front setback regulation would result in an unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives ol Chapter 18 ol the Town ol Vail
Municipal Code.
Additionally, statf would recomrnend that the approval carry with it the following
conditions:
rl
1. O(/ That the applicant schedule a hearing before the Vail Town Council for
review of the proposed site plan, prior to appearing before the Town of
Vail Design Review Board, as required in the Annexation Agreement of
July 17, 1979; and
That the applicant verify the vacation of the 15' wide, utility easement
along the northerly property line prior the appearing before the Town ol
Vail Design Review Board; and
That the applicant receive Town of Vail Public Works Department and
Town of Vail Fire Department approval of the proposed site plan prior to
appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board; and
That the applicant install a construction fence, along the 40% slope line
and the area around the existing landscape improvements' to protect
these areas during the construction process, and that said fence not be
removed until all driveway and building construction is completed.
FrrZe Lhu€- fu.ma-ff | -r\;c-,+fED tO.
2.
5.
.-J#"x -?''d -),rffi
'A@*
4.
ba*t WtwF -'/Ylote \-
6,+=Lee. Aeca=.
Couotho,m
'l ..4 , nt ft#o4€ urrh t dt\ lL,
1-O Agpaoveo b.^e
.--._--.=--*-_-
LJof 1,2,1
_ ..
'- :l!!l.!i lF-x.d
-c r
r
qi
n
6 .t
6 (E
!- -:- "
i{.'It
r 't-
y'r
i-..
./
:L" I
d'
\
,, \\
u o o J
\IJ '"
o -al
z
=
t'
I
'rl
v
1
I t