The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVAIL VALLEY FILING 3 LOT 4 WARNER SDD LEGAL- Date Jt(2,I (------!..q....:..-l_ Project Application LatA Suh b-=IA-,--,=(~,----t"_ .&vvc 1tJ5wtL'----_ •.' Project N ame :li\JaN f\W Proj ect Descript ion :~L,h. ,. Contact Person and Phone ClJAvDn Own er .Address and Phon e:P;o12 \L\f-=-tJJY--'--'tuN--=....:!._ -------1P,o .Pox CiS CO ) Architect.A ddress and Phon e:_ • .Zone S-Db-4--.Bl ock Fil ing Sl:\n 01t\l~JLegalDescription:Lot Comm ents:_ DesignReviewBoard Date _ M otion b y: Sec onded by :_ A PPROVAL DISAPPROVAL ~LO\f)LI\r---'--"''----------'''-L-''''------=---F-='------------------------ ~oz.-U= Dat e :(p.1-1"q 1 _ 'fZt.Sta ff A pproval ,.,.... ~.J.UN0~1991..'---_.... revised 4/26/91 DRB APPLICATION -TOWN OF VAIL,COLORADO DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED: DATE OF DRB MEETING: ********** THISAPPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNTILALL REQUIRED INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED ********** I.PROJECT INFORMATION: A.DESCRIPTION: C. D. B.TYPEOFREVIEW: New Construction ~Minor Alteration Addition Conceptual Review ADDRESS:/($2...&S <~;:J--- LEGAL DESCRIPTIDN,Lot ~Block Subdivision //0 .f V~r ~ If property is described by a meets and bounds legal description,please provide on a separate sheet and attach to this application. E.ZONING:5Pj) F.LOTAREA:If required,applicant must provide a current stamped survey showing lot area.o?:':....~e:: Phone ~e"....---o........---& 7 9'7 6 -+'~C:::> NAME OFAPPL I CANT :-....<.::l=:::..:..;"..,,::c-----'----=:;----'----''--7"'-'=='-------- Mai 1 i ng Addre ss:-n----::::::--e".....---=,....----"77-::;-:;::--:=~=~-- 171 2..S-S ...e..-.JL. G. ________________Phone H.NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Mailing Address :-==--_ 1.NAME OF OWNERS: *SIGNATURE(S): Mailing Address :------"7"':..--=-=------------- J.Condominium Approval if applicable. K.DRB FEE:DRB fees are paid at the time of submittal of DRB application.$.'i(08 FEE PAID:_;/ FEESCHEDULE: VALUATION FEE $0-$10,000 $10,001 -$50,000 $50,001 -$150,000 $150,001 -$500,000 $500,001 -$1,000,000 $Over $1,000,000 $20.00 $50.00 $100.00 $200.00 $400.00 $500.00 *NO APPLICATIONWILLBE PROCESSED WITHOUT OWNER'S SIGNATURE 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SALES ACTION FORM ©~.J-----=.::....::c::..::...:.--=---=--+--'::.::.c..:=-=.::..:::.:.::..::...==-==-=---------+----f-----=.;:.:.:.=-=-t------f n~w $7 .00 $0 .25 $20 .00 20 EAGLE R OAD P.O .HOX 958 AVON,CO LO RADO R I6 20 (101)9 49 ·4360 DENVER (30 3)53 4·46 95 May 1,1991 Shelly Mello Town Planner TOWN OFVAIL 75 South Front~ge Road Vail,Colorado 81657 Dear Shelly: Thank you for your letter of April 25th concerning the TCO for Lot 4. AsI stated in my letter to Abe Shapiro,we hope to have the landscaping done by June 1st.However,as wet as things have been for the last month,we are behind schedule.We will keep you posted if we do not meet the original date of June 1. In your letter you also stated that the construction access road which crosses Lot 3 should also be revegetated at this time.It is our understanding that the golf course wishes to keep this road open,and therefore the road would not be revegetated.I bel ieve all the neighbors would prefer to eliminate the road.If possible,we would be happy to revegetate it if the golf course concurred. Sincerely, L~er ,Jr. CC:Ron Phillips Ken Wilson C O J'ST R UC TI ON •DE VE LO P ME:--JT •I NVE ST MEJ'T 11 E VE L l )I'~1 I N T S.I N C . ,0 E AG L E R O,\D 1'.0 .BO X 9 1R AVON .C O L OR A DO R I 6 20 (1 01 )9 49 -436 0 DENVER (3 0 J)1 34 -4 695 May 1,1991 Abe Shapiro 21795 Town Place Drive Boca Raton,Florida 33433 Dear Abe: A copy of your letter to Ron Phillips was forwarded to me on the 29th of April. As busy as people are at the Town of Vail,I regret that you did not contact us first concerning any questions that you may have had relating to the three homes that we are developing on Sunburst Drive. Regarding the "work road",it is the Golf Course's desire to keep that road open as a work road for the golf course.We used an existing road and that road will remain after our construction and landscaping are complete.We would prefer to landscape directly to the golf course.However,as of last year,the golf course found it necessary to maintain the "work road". As you are aware,for the last two weeks it has snowed consistently leaving the ground snow covered,frozen and saturated.Because of this,we have not been able to begin our landscaping.As soon as the weather improves and the sun comes out and dries the land,we will immediately begin removing any construction debris and start final grad ing for landscaping.Because of the wet spring,I will be somewhat at the mercy of landscapers who have been on a late start throughout the valley because of the amount of precipitation during April. If you have any questions concerning the landscaping or our houses, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~~ Robert Warner,Jr. CC:Shelly Mello Ron Phillips CO NST RU C TI ON.D EVELOP M ENT.IN VE STM ENT • 75southfrontageroad vail,colorado 81657 (303)479-2138 (303)479-2139 November 19,1990 Mr.Gary Marner Director of Construction Warner Developments,Inc. P.o.box 958 Avon,CO 81620 ~ FILE COpy office of community development RE:Mitigation walls fo r Lots 4,5 and 6 V ail Valley 3rd F i ling,A Resubdivision of a part of Sunburst Dear Gary: This letter is in resp o nse to a copy of a letter to you from Art Mears dated september 26,1990 that I rece nt ly received.The letter prescribes a few minor modifications to the original mi tiga tion walls plans.According to the bu ilding permit plans approved on June 12,1990 ,a number of areas of the mit igation walls on the west side of Lot 4 are currently at the maxi mum a l lowab le height o f 6 ft.Mr .Mears prescribes in his letter dated september 26,that the top of these walls should be raised by 1 and 2 feet accordingly.By increasing the height any amount,the top of wall would be more than 6 ft above grade.In order to accommodate Mr.Mears requirements,it will be necessary for the proposed grades to be revised.It will be necessary that the Town receive confirmation that the revisions are acceptable to him.The rev ised grading plan and certification from Mr. Mea rs wil l be require d before a T.C.O.will be issued for the building. Should you have any questions please call me at 479-2138. ----- Shell yMe ll o Town Planner ARTHUR I.MEARS,P.E.•INC. Natural Hazards Consultants 222 East Gothi c A ve, Gunnison .Colorado 81230 303 -64 1·3236 September 26,1990 Mr.Gary Marner Director of Construction Warner Developments,Inc. P.O.Box 958 Avon,CO 81620 Dear Mr.Marner: This letter responds to Mr.Bob Warner's request for an on-site review of debris flow,rockfall,and avalanche mitigation on new buildings located at lots 3,4,and 5 on Sunburst Drive. Mitigation for these buildings was previously described in my May,1990 report to McGee Architects.The minor modifications to the original mitigation design are shown on the attached site plan. Snow avalanche.Avalanche-loading requirements consist of structural modification to the exposed building sites.I understand these modifications have been incorporated into the buildings as specified. Debris flows and rockfall.As discussed in·the original report, rockfall is not a serious problem and will be accommodated by debris-flow mitigation.Debris-flow mitigation is achieved by several concrete walls designed to resist depositional loads. Minor changes to some of these walls are shown on the attached drawings.In addition,a swale between lots 4 and 5 within the drainage easement will provide mitigation. Any water f looding or site drainage problems were beyond the scope of the original report and are not discussed in this revision. Please contact me if you have any questions. sf~CerelY, Uvtz ~'"'1 4 (1(;(f ce~ Arthur I.Mears,P.E. Avalanche-control engineer M=W",ting •AM!anch..•A Mlanc he ControlEngineering -For additionalinformation please callour offices: Dimensions are app ro xima te and all feat ures and specifications are subject to revision . ~~r""'F1 l r ./ :5 :'0"f-r ~'r"'" :;:I_----r ~~...~O 0.~," .-00i .-~---'"---------'\-- -----------------------»-> o Po ,*,,v ,~.:;..:'7 ::3>t-o..<,;4 ,,-,-~ 5 '-D c.£,\V<:....<Z..T H/1 J'..J c::.,~,-,-c. Fl..c.o.,z c.~ Co L-I~e-<..}e- PROPOSED MODI FICATI ONS REVI EWED . Standai 1815&1835 : 4 bedrooms wil 1 bedroom a pa trance Vail Golf Cours Master suite on Walk-in close Whirlpo ol tu Separate s tall Wall safe Deck off mas ; Window seat Large expan s Vault ed ceilii Optional fire, Large kitchen Activity/familj Breakfast room Formal dining 1 Formal living rl 3-car garage Radiant floor h . Clad wood win Intercom with I Multi phone lin Ski storage,air Bike storage Storage above f Stereo speakers master bedroom I Security systerr Exterior: Heated walk Con crete tile 75south frontage road vail,colorado 81657 (303)479-2138 (303)479-2139 May 17,1990 Bob Warner Warner Development,Inc 20 Eagle Rd P.o.Box 958 Avon,CO 81620 • officeof community development RE:Lots 3,4 and 5 Vail Valley Third Filing,a Resubdivision of a part of Sunburst Dear Bob, This letter is to serve as a reminder of the requirements that will need to be completed prior to the issuance of a Temporary certificate of Occupancy on Lots 3,4 and 5.The following must be completed before a T.C.O.will be issued: 1 .The employee unit deed restriction agreements for the secondary units must be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk. 2.All required geological hazard mitigation must be inspected and certified by a Town of Vail building official and the engineer or geologist who prepared the mitigation plans that the work was properly performed in accordance with the plans and specifications. 3.The Town would also like you to clarify in your affidavit that Lots 3,4 and 5 are located in a geologically sensitive area rather than "may be"as it is currently stated. • Should you have any questions concerning these issues please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Shelly Mello,Town Planner cc:Glen Magee,Junge Reich Magee ,;t'OM--r v.At /"ku.-(j.Lt~t lStYl ch rr~t-S 19 IVVi-h~.J-j f)1,\...~Ivv.,lIi{-bJL (!I~UYC4..~:N,(btu eLI "'-Ii '1& c({..{i/.rL.c 81,r .;y <:"'-f 1\,.U.:r . v~\.llt~\[;J;M o-;&A'I"o/I~\\llJoi O~.TeD.~cL @\M'\~(CLV~~\L\N\- v'/3-L\)~G~oc-:~M11 .>~.'\'f\()(L W n~~ph"nf ~,o'"~~\1,,,.05;l f,i /~J w~)' -Mal~,~'<;.rHD"V'J ,,- !~bY V-Ja..U:J...t; ~~I v0dY..Q.Jb , 75 southfrontage road vall ,colorado 81657 (303)479-2138 (303)479-2139 April 25,1990 Bob Warner Warner Development,Inc. 20 Eagle Road P.O.Box 958 Avon,Co 81620 Dear Bob: • office of community developmenf This letter is to serve as a reminder that the employee restriction agreements for the secondary units on Lots 3,4,and 5 must be completed prior to the issuance of any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy on these properties.I would recommend you contact Larry Eskwith for his review of the wording relative to this restriction.As stipulated in Ordinance No.11,this restriction will be recorded with the Eagle county Clerk and Recorder's office .I would encourage you to initiate this effort well before you anticipate the projects completion so as to avoid complications with the issuance of T.C.O.'s this fall. As of today,Shelly Mello will be assuming the lead role in the Planning Department for the review of this project.Any future correspondence concerning this application should be directed to her. Sincerely, ~~~ Tom Braun Town Planner TB/pp ..I AFFIDAVIT , I hereby acknowledge that Iam aware that the single family residences to be constructed on Lots 3,4,and 5, Filing 3,Vai l Valley SUbdivision may be located in an area of geological sensitivity based upon the findings of Arthur r.Mears ,P.E.,Inc.,Natural Hazards Consultants, as described in the attached Exhibit A. Dated this 17th day of April,1990. WARNER DEVELOPMENTS,INC. STATEOF COLORADO 55. County of Eagle The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me in the County of Eagle,State of Colorado,this 17th day of April,1990,by ROBERT WARNER,JR.,as President of Warner Developments,Inc. WITNESSmy hand and official seal. Notary Public • MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 17,1990 7:30 P.M. A regular meetingof the Vail Town Council was heldonTuesday,April17,1990,at 7:30 p.m.,in the Council Chambers of the VailMunicipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT : Kent Rose,Mayor Tom Steinberg,Mayor Pro Tern Lynn Fritzlen Merv Lapin Robert LeVine Peggy Osterfoss JimGibson Ron Phillips,Town Manager LarryEskwith,Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer,Town Clerk The first item was the Vail Metropolitan Recreation District offer to return $25,000 to the Town of Vail;reduction in Town ofVail recreation subsidy.Tim Garton,VMRD Chairman,reada letter regarding this subsidy from the VMRD Board tothe Council. He further stated that if projected revenues materialize,the additional $25,000 will be returned tothe Town ofVailby the fall of1990.Following limited questioning,this check was accepted by Mayor Rose. Item two was a presentation oftheColoradoTourism Board 1989 Urban Tourism Award toCouncilfromtheVail Valley MarketingBoard.FrankJohnson,Chairman ofthe VVMB,reviewed current and future projects oftheMarketing Board for summer marketing.He stated the Urban Tourism Award was oneofsevenawards given;he listed several other Denver area advertising awards won by the VVMB.Frankthanked theCouncil for their support.Mayor Rose felt the thanks neededtogobackto the Marketing Board for their timeand effort. Third on the agenda was a consent agendaofthe following items: A.Ordinance No.6,Series of1990,second reading,an ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 8.32 of Title 8oftheMunicipal Code ofthe Town of Vailtoexpand,strengthen,and clarify Code provisions relating to smoking in public places and places of employment. B.Ordinance No.11,Series of1990,second reading,an ordinance re-zoning lots 3,4,and5ofVail Valley Third Filing,a part of Sunburst replat,to Special Development District No.24,in accordance withChapter18.40of the VailMunicipal Code;and setting forth details in regard thereto. C.Ordinance No.13,Series of1990,second reading,an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No.23,Series of1988,to provide changesto Special Development District No.22 that concern lot size and corresponding GRFA;andcurb cuts;and employee dwelling units;and architectural guidelines;and setting forth details in regard thereto. D.Ordinance No.14,Series of1990,second reading,an ordinance repealing Ordinance No.40,Series of 1987 and approving Special Development District No.19,Garden of the Gods,in accordance withChapter18.40of the Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto. E.Ordinance No.15,Series of1990,second reading,an ordinance amending Section 2.04 .050 of the Municipal Code of the Town ofVailchanging the order of business in regular and special meetings of the Town Council;and setting forth details in regard thereto. F.Resolution No.II,Series of1990,a resolution ratifying the Articles of Association of the NorthwestColoradoCouncilof Governments. • Mayor Rose read the full title of each.Merv Lapin moved that a consent agendaof onlyitemsEandFbeapproved;all others be pulled off for discussion.Tom Steinberg seconded.Avote was takenandthemotionpassedunanimously 6-0. Therefore,the nextitem was Ordinance No.6,Series of1990,second reading,an ordinance relating to smoking in public places and places of employment.Ron Phillips stated the ordinance hadnotchanged since first reading,and staff didnot haveanyth ing toadd.Matt Carpenter questioned one section of the ordinance,to which LarryEskwith responded.Merv Lapin made amotiontoapprove the ordinance, which Peggy Osterfoss seconded.A vote was taken and the motionpassedunanimously 6-0. Ordinance No.II,Series of1990,second reading,an ordinance rezoning Lots 3,4, and5,Vail Valley 3rd Filing,a part of Sunburst replat from primary/secondary '-residentialto special development district.Tom Braun stated there was oneminor changetothe ordinance,which he discussed.He thenvery briefly reviewedCouncil requests from first reading .Peggy Osterfoss made amotionto approve,which was secondedbyRobert LeVine.There was a short discussion regarding this SDD useas setting a precedent.Merv Lapin was concernedabout using the SDD process inalow density residential area,and would change his votefrom how hevoted at first reading.Lynn Fritzlen agreed the SDD was notthe best mechanism,buttheonly way right now until housing guidelines werein place.Mayor Rose agreed,and would vote in favor ofthe ordinance tonight.Avote was taken and the motionpassed 4-2,with Tom Steinberg and Merv Lapin opposing. Next was Ordinance No.13,Series of1990,second reading,a request for an ,amendment to SDD No .22,a resubdivision ofLots 1-19,Block2,Lionsridge Filing #3.Kristan Pritz quickly reviewedchangesCouncilhad requested be incorporated into the ordinance since first reading.There was some discussion regarding abus stop,to which Mr.Pat Dauphinais stated he would provide a letter of credit for one.Council felt that was agreeable.Tom Steinberg then made amotiontoapprove the ordinance as amended,which MervLapinseconded.Avote was taken and the motionpassedunanimously 6-0. Ordinance No.14,Series of1990,second reading,a request for a special development district at the Ga rden ofthe Gods on Lot K,Block5,Vail Village 5th Filing,anda portion ofP-2,Block3,Vail Village 5th Filing,at 365 Gore Creek Drive.Kristan Pritz addressed questions of Gretta Parksand Council.Amotionto approvethe ordinance was made by Peggy Osterfoss andsecondedbyRobert LeVine. ConnieKnight,a property owner,aired her concerns overthe possible approvalof this SDD request.Kristan thenanswered questions of Council.There was some discussion byCouncil regarding building size andmass.Tom Steinberg requested an annual letter regarding employee housing use.Peggy amended the motionto include this request;Rob amended his second.Avote was takenand the motionpassed 5-1, with Lynn Fritzlen opposing. Item eight was Ordinance No.16,Series of1990,first reading,an ordinance amending View Corridor No.1.Mayor Rose readthe full title.Tom Braun reviewed an architect scale model ofthe request.He thennotedthe Planning Commission's 6-1 recommendation for approvalbychanging the photoandnot the line.Tom then reviewedthe criteria usedin evaluating the request noting views from other buildings werenot included.He stated staff supported the project with two conditions: 1.The photo depicting View Corridor No.i be modified to reflect the new Red Lion Building at atime when the expansion is completed. 2.The specific reasons justifying this request be included in the preambleof the ordinance authorizing this amendment. Tom thenreviewedtheten conditions required by the Planning Commission for their approval,whichwere itemized in the staff memo toCouncil dated April17,1990.He added there was also an eleventh condition tobeadded,which stated the Red Lion would participate ina streets cape special improvement district if and when formed. There was some discussion byCounciland staff regarding notice of action on the Red Lionimprovements.LarryEskwith commented he would have felt more comfortable if all the items were included on the agendamentioned the appealof the PEC action, and recommended Council table the item until the next EveningMeeting.Tom Steinberg felt it was alright to table the item,but we should take comments so staff canbeworking on Council concerns before the next time.Jay Peterson, representing the applicant,stated this was the first hehadheardofa notification problem,andwith the construction season so short,the delay would put them -2- ., ,.• behind.Gordon Brittan felt Tom Braun's presentation was hardto understand and askedtosee the scale model up close andhear the presentation again.After Tom Braun ran through it again,Jay Peterson gave reasons why he felt the Planning Commission approved,and why the Council should approve.Jim Morter,architect for the project,presented photos toCouncilof the view line.Jayadded reasons why the project was good.Jay,Jim,andLarryanswered questions of Council.Yvonne Mu11a1ey made comments on the roof design.After more discussion by Council,Connie Knightasked for the view corridor tobe specifically dealt with separately from the Red Lionimprovements.After much more discussion by Council,Merv Lapin made a motiontoapprove the ordinance on first reading,and directed staff to place the ordinance on the May 1,1990 EveningMeetingagenda directly after the Red Lion application.Mayor Rose seconded the motion.A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-2,with Tom Steinberg and Lynn Fritz1en opposing.. Next was the National Velvet Dry Cleaners sign variance request.Shelly Mello "reviewed the request and criteria usedin evaluating the request.She stated staff supported the height and location variance requests,butnot the one square foot increase in size.Shelly noted the Design Review Boardunanimouslyvoted5-0 for approval for all three requests.Bill House,the applicant,requested the one square foot increase tomatch the liquor store sign.After some discussion by Council,Lynn Fritz1en made amotiontoapprove the height and location variance requests of the sign,butnot the increased size,for reasons presented by staff and finding the same as staff asnotedin the staff memo to the Design Review Board dated April4,1990.Robert LeVine seconded the motion.A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. At this time,it was felt amotion should havebeen made to table the call upof the Red Lion conditional use,variances,and exterior alteration to the May 1,1990 EveningMeeting for adequate notification of the public.'Merv Lapin made the motion,and Peggy Osterfoss seconded.A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. 'A side and rear setback variance request for Lot0-7Bighorn Terrace was next on the agenda.Shelly Mello explained the variance request and discussed staff's recommendation for denial,while the Planning Commission hadvotedin favor of the request.She thenreviewed the criteria usedin evaluating the requests and answered questions 'of Council.Eric Hill,architect representing the applicant, explained the one foot side setback.Lynn Fritz1en suggested staff look into rezoning of the subdivision.Peggy Osterfoss made amotiontoapprove the side and rear setback requests,because there wasnota significant intrusion beyond the original footprint,and stating a hardship was the result of the building already beingin place when the setback was determined.Robert LeVine seconded the motion. Avote was taken and the motion passed 5-1,with Lynn Fritz1en opposing.Tom Steinberg then made amotion for staff to address the local neighborhood into the total zoning issue,towhich Merv Lapin seconded.A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. "Next on the agendawas the LionsRidge rockfall amendment.Tom Braunreviewed the hazard ordinance standards for rockfall zoningchanges within the Town.He stated staff had no recommendation andasked the applicant's consultant for a report on why the area should be rezoned medium severity instead ofhigh severity.Robert Irish, an engineering geologist,representing Jill Down andBruceCanton,discussed his review letter on the LionsRidge hazard area .He and Tom thenanswered questions of Council.Mayor Rose remarkedhe agreed with Mr.Irish.After some discussion by Council,Lynn Fritz1en made amotionto reclassify the area fromhighto medium severity rockfall,accepting Robert Irish's study,and directing staff to amend the Town's rockfall records.Robert LeVine seconded the motion.A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. Actionon the ABC School lease agreement was the twelfth item.LarryEskwith commented the lease was almost a duplicate of the Learning Tree's agreementwhich was before Counciltwo years ago.He added there was no Exhibit A,however,and askedCounciltoapprove the agreement contingent upon having ABC School provide a survey of the area including the addition after construction was complete.Lynn Fritz1en made amotiontoapprove the agreementas presented,with the stipulation that the ABC School provide the Town withan improvement survey after the alterations havebeen made.Robert LeVine seconded the motion.Merv Lapin suggested wordingbeadded that the schoolberunbyaBoardof Directors that is elected by the parents of the students.Lynn and Rob amended the motionand second.A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. -3- • The last item on the agenda was action onVailVillage Innspace lease agreement . LarryEskwithnoted the lessee 'wasnot prepared to discuss the item tonight,and requested it bepostponedto the May 1 Evening Meeting.Amotionto table the item tothe May 1 Evening Meeting was made by Tom Steinberg andsecondedby Peggy Osterfoss.Avote was takenandthemotionpassed 5-0,with Merv Lapin abstaining. There was no Citizen Participation. Therebeingno further public business,the meeting was adjourned at 11:05p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kent R.Rose,Mayor ATIEST: Minutes taken byBrenda Chesman -4- r .• •r ,,• MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 3,1990 7:30 P.M. A regular meetingof the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday,April3,1990,at 7:30 p.m.,in the Council Chambers of the VailMunicipal Building. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Kent Rose,Mayor Tom Steinberg,Mayor Pro Tern Lynn Fritzlen JimGibson Merv Lapin Robert LeVine Peggy Osterfoss None Ron Phillips,Town Manager LarryEskwith,Town Attorney The meetingbeganwithaten year employment anniversary award to Charles Wick.Ron Phillips gave brief background information on Charlie,Director of Administrative Services and Assistant Town Manager,andthen presented Charlie witha Town ofVail silver belt buckle.After a few words of commendation by Ron andKent,Charlie thanked everyone. Next on theagenda was approvalof the minutesof the March 6and20,1990 meetings.There was no discussion by Councilor the public.Merv Lapin made a motiontoapprovetheminutesas presented,and Peggy Osterfoss seconded.Avote was takenand the motionpassedunanimously 7-0. The third item was a consent agendaof the following: A.Ordinance No.10,Series of1990,second reading,'amending Special Development District No .4,CascadeVillage Area0,Glen Lyon office site to provide for changesto parking provisions,micro-brewery building,and east building. B.Ordinance No.12,Series of1990,second reading,amending the Town's sales tax code. Mayor Rose read the full titles of the ordinances.LarryEskwith stated there were nochangesto either ordinance since first reading.Kristan Pritz andLarrythen answered questions from Council.Tom Steinberg made amotiontoapprove the consent agendaas presented,which Merv Lapinseconded.Avote was taken and the motion passedunanimously 7-0. Ordinance No.6,Series of1990,first reading,an ordinance relating to smoking in public places and places of employment was next.The full title was readby Mayor Rose.SusanScanlangave brief background information on how the ordinance had come about.After some discussion regarding posting outside of buildings,Susananswered questions of Council.Matt Carpenter felt this was a watered down policy and that the ordinance shouldhavebeen worded much more strongly.Tom Steinberg made a motiontoapprovethe ordinance,and Lynn Fritzlen seconded.Avote was takenand themotionpassedunanimously 7-0. Fifth on theagenda was Ordinance No.11,Series of1990,first reading,rezoning Lots3,4,and5,Vail Valley 3rd Filing,a part of Sunburst replat from Primary/ Secondary Residential toa Special Development District.Mayor Rose read the full title.Kristan Pritz reviewedthe SOD request andgavebackground information.She reviewedthe criteria usedin evaluating the proposal and explained why staff recommended denial.Kristan notedthe Planning andEnvironmental Commission voted unanimously7-0 for denial.RobertWarner,the applicant,gave reasons why he felt the SOD shouldbe granted,and explained why thepool area under the garage would not affect the floor area.JimJunge,architect"for the project,gave further reasoning why the request shouldbeapproved.Kristan andRobertanswered questions of Council.Mayor Rose felt that since the Warner's were offering over2,000 square feet in three employee units,maybe Councilcouldapproveasan incentive because it was a benefit to the Town.Robert LeVine made amotiontoapprovethe ordinance, which was secondedbyPeggy Osterfoss.Tom Steinberg requested Mr.Warner to deed restrict the poolso it wouldremain that way permanently,and to deed restrict the employeehousing units so they are permanently employee housing;also,to ensure the employee units would not be for sale,butremain rentals only.Robert LeVine amended the motion to include Tom's suggestions,and Peggy amended the second. Peggy Osterfoss stated shewanted it included in the ordinance that the reason for approval was for a gain inemployee housing.Kristan commented it would beadded somewhere in the beginning of the ordinance,in the "Whereas"sections.There was then some discussion byCouncil regarding enforcement and control.Dalton Williams, of the PEC,remarked that all members of the PEC felt it was a good design,a good proposal,but they were concerned about using an SDD as the mechanism to do this and setting a precedent.Jay Peterson addedhe felt the SDD should be granted because it was avery creative way to add three employee units.Peggy Osterfoss commented Council was concerned with providing additional affordable housing for the community and it was appropriate toapprove this SDD.A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Item six was Ordinance No.13,Series of1990,first reading,a request for an amendment to SDD No.22,a resubdivision of Lots 1-19,Block2,Lionsridge Filing No.3.The full title was read by Mayor Rose.Kristan Pritz stated the SDD had beenapprovedand the final plat approved,butnot recorded with the County yet. She noted this wasan amendment to the original SDD and that the final plat was also being revised.Shereviewed the changes requested,and commented staff recommended approval with the conditions shown in the ordinance.Buff Arnold,architect for the project,gave further explanation of the amendments to the SDD and reasoning for approval.Mr.Pat Dauphinais addressed the itemof number of driveways.Therewas then some discussion byCouncil regarding additional curb cuts.Peggy Osterfoss made amotiontoapprove to provide changes with the finding that the changes are in accordance with the SDD criteria conditions as listed in the staff memorandum to the PEC dated March 26,1990;except underemployee dwelling units,the wording"any lot"should be used;a letter of credit should be provided for abus stop,soone canbe provided oncea school or Town bus schedule is established within five years; add the PEC recommendations that 1)eachphaseofdevelopment shall include a minimum ofoneemployee unit until the six employee unit minimum is fulfilled,2) garages for employee units shall be connected to the main structure,3)the developer shall construct a sidewalk along the north side of Lionsridge Lane beginning at the cul-de-sac and extending to the main entry to the subdivision,and 4)at grade,unroofed,unenclosed decks may extend five feet into the rear setback for Lots 1-14;including conditions 3,4,5,and6in the staff recommendation;and the four additional curb cuts not be approved.Merv Lapinseconded the motion. Robert LeVine was concerned that employee housing figures were not included in the total GRFA,andwantedthem shown up front,because they should be addressed and not ignored.Kristan Pritz remarked they would beaddedin the density section.Peggy Osterfoss suggested they beaddedin the preamble like the last ordinance,in the "Whereas"sections,which Kristan agreed to.Dalton Williams,of the PEC,stated the PEC voted on the curb cuts 4 for and3 against,and explained their reasonings and concerns to the Council.Tom Steinberg stated he would vote against the ordinance as presented because of the lack of safety for children on the sidewalk; the curb cuts belongon the north side only.JimGibson agreed.A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-2,with Tom Steinberg andJimGibson opposing. Ordinance No.14,Series of1990,first reading,a request for a Special Development .District at the Garden of the Gods onLot K,Block5,Vail Village 5th Filing,anda portion of P-2,Block3,Vail Village 5th Filing,at 365GoreCreek Drive.The full title was read by Mayor Rose.Kristan Pritz gave chronological background information of the SDD request to amend the original SDD.Shereviewed the criteria usedin evaluating the request,explained why the staff recommendationwas for approval with the eight conditions and three recommendations to the DRB as shown in the staff memorandum to the PEC dated March 26,1990.Don Hare,representing the owner,reviewed again why this SDD amendment was before the Council.Pam Hopkins, representing the architect,explained changesin the building footprint plans.Art Carroll,a resident in the Vorlaufer,was against the SDD because it would block the viewofVailMountain.After much discussion by Council,Peggy Osterfoss made a motionto approve the ordinance with findings basedon the evaluation of the proposed SDD criteria are appropriate,with all conditions in the staff recommendationas shown in the staff memorandum to the PEC dated March 26,1990. After some discussion by Council,JimGibsonseconded the motion.A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-3,with Merv Lapin,Lynn Fritzlen,andRobert LeVine opposing. At this time,Mayor Rose asked that the next fewagenda items be placed ona consent agenda: -2- •,• -\ A.Ordinance No.15,Series of1990,first reading,an ordinance changing the order of business at Council meetings. B.Resolution No.8,Series of1990,proclaiming the week ofApril21-27as Earth Awareness Week. C.Resolution No.9,Series of1990,setting rules for Council public hearings. After some discussion 15,Resolution No.8, seconded the motion . by Council,Merv Lapin made amotionto place Ordinance No. and Resolution No.9 on a consent agenda.Tom Steinberg A vote was takenandthemotionpassedunanimously 7-0. Mayor Rose thenread the full titles ofOrdinance No.15,Resolution No.8,and Resolution No.9.Robert LeVine made amotiontoapprove the consent agenda,which Merv Lapinseconded.A vote was taken and the motionpassedunanimously 7-0. Next was Resolution No.10,Series of1990,a resolution opposingmandatory Social Security andMedicarecoverage for public employees.Lynn Fritzlen stated she would not support this resolution becauseshe felt public employees should be subjected to the same programsas the private sector.There was some discussion byCounciland Ron Phillips.Merv Lapin made amotiontoapprovethe resolution,and Peggy Osterfoss seconded.Avote was taken and the motionpassed 6-1,with Lynn Fritzlen opposing. ~h e Jackalope Cafe &Cantina sign variance request was next.Shelly Mellogave background information on the variance request.Shereviewed the four criteria used in evaluating the variance and explained why staff and the ORB recommended approval ofthe request.Merv Lapin made amotiontoapprove the request for reasons and findings as shown inthe March 7,1990 staff memorandum to the ORB.Peggy Osterfoss secondedthemotion.Avote was takenandthemotion passed unanimously 7-0. There was no Citizen Participation. Merv Lapin commented Councilmembers had received a letter from Woody Beardsley regarding the Beartree lot.He requested Ron Phillips write a letter to Mr . Beardsley requesting detailed information;Ron replied staff would follow up on the request. Kent R.Rose,Mayor Therebeing no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 11:15p.m. Respectfully submitted, ;J(~~ ATTEST: GwA .fullA~/JJ.u.J Pame 1a A.··Br~"9=:::ow;::'n=:C'""l-e-r""'k--- MinutestakenbyBrenda Chesman -3- «, TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Community Development March 26,1990 A request for a Special Development District in order to construct three primary/secondary structures on Lot 3,4,and 5,Vail Valley Third Filing. Applicant:Deborah W.and Robert Warner The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at the March 12, 1990 meeting.At this meeting,the Planning commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of this proposal. The applicants have now amended their project with regard to the three secondary units.Initially,this proposal would have restricted these units from being sold separately from the main~units.The applicants have now.agreed to place a deed t~~~>re~triction on these three lots that would require the secondary ~~un~ts to be rented ona long term basis to employees of the Upper $-Eagle Valley.These restrictions are outlined in section 18.13.080 of the zoning code.This section of the code provides standard language that has been used with other units throughout the Town.It is the applicants desire to present this change to the Planning Commission prior to formal review by the Town Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is certainly supportive of an amendment that would impose restriction on the use of these units.As originally proposed,the units could not be sold off,but there were no assurances that the units would be rented to an employee of the Valley.This restriction would assure the community of three new employee units. Regardless of restrictions on the use of these units,the staff recommendation remains denial.While the employee units certainly offer something back to the community,the staff is very uncomfortable with the trade-off of the increased density for the employee units.The fact remains that any site planning or design aspects of this proposal could be accomplished under existing zoning.The SDD is proposed as away to circumvent the underlying primary/secondary development standards with regard to site coverage and GRFA.The employee units are then being offered as a concession for this density increase. The Town is currently in the midst of developing policies and new development guidelines pertaining to employee housing.It is conceivable that new regulations providing incentives in exchange for restricted employee units may result from this housing study. However,at this time these decisions have not been made.The staff recognizes the value of these units,but is unable to support the proposal offered at this time. TO: • Planning and Environmental Commission Lot 3: Lot 4: Lot 5: FROM:Community Development Department DATE:March 12,1990 RE:A request to rezone property from Primary/Secondary to a Special Development District for Lots 3,4,and 5, Vail Valley third filing,part of replat of Sunburst. Applicant:Debra and Robert Warner,Jr. I.DESCRIPTION OFTHE REOUEST This application is to rezone three undeveloped Primary/Secondary lots to a Special Development District. Development proposed for the SOD includes three Primary/Secondary structures.The purpose of this request is to permit GRFA on one of the 3 lots (Lot 4)to exceed that which is permitted under existing zoning.In addition, site coverage on this same lot is also in excess of what is permitted under existing zoning. with the exception of increases in GRFA and site coverage to lot 4,the development proposed by the SDD is consistent with the underlying Primary/Secondary zoning.Setbacks, building heights and parking are all consistent with Primary/Secondary development standards.The following table summarizes the development proposed for these three lots. Permitted Proposed Site Parcel Permitted Proposed GRFA Site site Coverage Size GRFA GRFA -±L=Coverage Coverage +/- 15,364 3,786 }tiP 3,300 -486 3,073 2,595 -378 16,641 3,914 ~~~5,500 +1,586 3,3283,726 +398 15,967 3 ,846 ~DD 3 ,55 0 -296 3.193 2.878 -315 TOTALS:11,546 ~~~1 2 ,3 50 +804 9,5949,299 -295 !>'J "'iW 1 As indicated by this table,proposed development on lots 3 and 5 is below GRFA permitted under existing zoning by 782 square feet.Lot 4 development exceeds permitted GRFA by 1586 square feet,Collectively,proposed development on the three lots would exceed the total allowable GRFA by 804 square feet.site coverage on Lot 4 exceeds permitted site coverage by 398 square feet.Collectively,all three lots are 291 square feet below permitted site coverage. • Each of the three lots will be developed with a small secondary unit.The applicant has agreed to enter into a restriction agreement with the Town so that these units will not be subdivided and sold off as would be permitted by existing zoning. Two sets of criteria are to be used in evaluating a rezoning request of this type.The first of these are 3 criteria designed to evaluate the appropriateness of the zone change. Secondly,the Special Development District zoning includes nine design criteria.These nine criteria address specific issues relative to the proposed SDD. II.CRITERIA TOBEUSED IN EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL A.Evaluation of the Request: 1.Suitability of the proposed zoning. It is important to understand the purpose of Special Development District Zoning when evaluating the appropriateness of this request.As stated in the zoning code,the purpose of SDDs is to: As stated,the intent of this zoning request is to permit development on one of the lots to exceed what is permitted by existing zoning.This purpose is not consistent with the overall purpose of the Special Development District.With the exception of GRFA, there is nothing about this proposed development plan that could not be accomplished under existing zoning. While SDD's have been proposed and approved for many different reasons,they have generally not been used simply as a tool to allow for density increases with no pUblic purpose as described in 18.40.010. • 2.Is the amendment presenting a convenient.workable relationship within land uses consistent with municipal objectives. The residential use proposed by the SOD is identical to what is permitted under existing zoning.While this proposal is generally consistent with municipal objectives,the~rezonin9-is_nO-more consistent than ~t would be accomp~ished by the properties existing zon1ng. 3.Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly.viable community. The proposed rezoning will not further the growth of an orderly,viable community.If approved,this rezoning could represent the gradual deterioration of Vail's low density residential neighborhoods.One may consider this request and conclude that the uses and development are generally consistent with what is permitted under existing zoning.However,it is important to understand that zoning in vail has~~en adopted in order to establish consistency 1betweefi neighborhoods . .f.l,tedcPdtf -\\The amount of GRFA allocated t~~has a direct: ~c ~.relationship to the size of the lot.the proposal}~l~conflicts with this basic principle of zoning for theB'v Town of Vail.In order to preserve the overall fabric of these areas,it is important to maintain the integrity of the existing zoning.This proposal,by virtue of its deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning,is inconsistent with this criteria. III.SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGN CRITERIA A.Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment.neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to the architectural design.scale.bulk. building height.buffer zones.identity.character. visual integrity and orientation. This proposal is generally consistent with this criteria.While the level of development on Lot 4 greatly exceeds allowable GRFA,the design of this structure is sensitive to minimizin bulk a mas . Each-of t~e ree s ruc es are in compliance with Primary/Secondary height and setback requirements. Development on lot 4 does,however,exceed permitted site coverage by 398 square feet and GRFA by 804 square feet. • • B.Uses.activity and density which provide a c ompatibl e. efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Uses proposed for these three sites are consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and the primary/Secondary zone district. C.Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. This project is consistent with the Town's parking requirements. D.Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan.Town policies and Urban Design Plans. The goal 5.5 of the Land Use Plan "encourages the development of employee housing at various sites throughout the community".The applicant's commitment to restrict the subdivision and resale of each of the three secondary units is a positive step towards providing employee units.In order to fUlly comply ~~J with this goal,deed restrictions limiting the use of ~A~VL~ these secondary units to long term employee rentals I ~ should be established . E.Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the Special Development District is proposed. A site specific analysis of these properties has been completed.Lots 3,4,and 5 are located in moderate \,~~debris flow and rock fall zones.Lots 3 and 4 are~l\~W[iV'~located in a moderate snow avalanche zone.The Town's~:~~n~\hazard ordinance requires mitigation of the snow ~-~__n avalanche hazard.Mitigation is not required for)~l\'_II~'development on the lots im~acted by rockfall and debris ,\.SW"flow hazards.However,thl.S development must be done ~u in a way that does not increase the degree of hazard on adjacent property or Town Rights-of-way. A geologic hazard analysis of the proposed site plan has been completed.All hazards can be mitigated by structural reinforcement of the proposed residences. SUbject to the removal and/or redesign of proposed landscape walls along Sunburst Drive,this development will not increase the degree of hazards on adjacent lots or town rights-of way. •• F.Site Plan.Building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features. vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The proposed development plan is consistent with these considerations. G.A circulation system desianed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Each of the three units have been designed with two driveways,reSUlting in 6 driveways over approximately 290 feet.six driveways to serve three lots is unnecessary and decreases the amount of area that could be dedicated to landscaping. H .Functional and aesthetic landscaping and ODen SDace in order to optimize and preserve natural features. recreation.views and function. The proposed open space and landscaping is consistent with what is typically found in Primary/Secondary development. I.Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable.functional and efficient relat ionship throughout the development of the Special Development District. A phasing plan has not been proposed as a part of this SOD. IV.STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for this request is denial.The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the purpose of the Special Development District and is also inconsistent with the three criteria used to evaluate rezoning proposals. The development standards established by the Town's zoning ordinance are in place for a reason.These development standards are the primary tool used to ensure proper and orderly development throughout the Town.with the exception of GRFA and site coverage on Lot 4,this development proposal does not deviate from established development standards.However,that is not justification to grant this request. .:..•• Special Development District zoning has been approved by the Town Council 23 times.Each of these rezonings have occurred for specif ic reasons relative to the development proposed for these sites.Reasons for SODs have related directly to the purpose of an SOD (as stated before): 1.To encourage flexibility and creativity in the ~eva-lopm ent.-of-l-alfd-i-n-order-tc>promo te i ts most appropriate use. 2.To improve the des i n characte development with in the Town. ~qu a l i t y of new 3.To facilitate the _~qgguat~d-economicproyision of streets and utilities. 4.To preserv ~he natural and scenic features of open space.-.. 5.To further t ne overall goals of he community as stated in the com rehensive plan. This SOD is proposed solely to satisfy the needs of the applicant,with little to no benefit to the community.In essence,the SOD process is being utilized to achieve a density variance.The staff encourages the Planning Commission to recommend to the Town Council to preserve the integrity of the existing zoning and the SOD process by denying this application. •• 'OL - • Jerry addressed the Board explaining that he had been examining the Uniform Building Code.He questioned whether the Mountain Haus,by definition,was actually adding height.Jerry stated that according to the UBC definition of height,the Mountain Haus would not be adding height.He continued to state that buildings that were non-conforming were allowed to present these kinds of improvements as long as there was no discrepancy.They did not see a discrepancy. Diana explained that the Board left the decision as to who did and did not need a variance to the staff. Tom explained that anything above the 48'allowance whether non- conforming or not still needed a variance. Jerry argued that he felt the board should consider the existing height not that which is "allowed". Kathy Warren explained that she understood what Jerry was saying. However,allowable measurements were what was considered.She gave an example of a building that added height that was in an existing side setback would still require a side setback variance even though the footprint of the building was not changed. Jerry then asked if the Board would not approve the dormers,what would they suggest? Kathy suggested skylights and Jerry felt that skylights would add height . Dalton Williams questioned the fire fighting capabilities in a building of this height and Mark Mueller explained that they had been working with Gary Murrain,the Chief Building Official,on this issue.The building currently didn't conform to code. However,Gary would allow a non-combustible wood.They could consider putting sprinklers on the South side of the Building. Dalton then asked why not the north side of the building and Mark explained that they were only proposing the changes to the South Side of the building at this time. LUdwig didn't see an overall impact.The only place the dormers were visible were from the mountain and would increase the livability of the units.He would be in favor. Chuck Crist asked if they would redo the whole roof with non- combustible material.Mark stated that they would do just the roof portion along where the addition was.If they used sprinklers they would not need the non-combustible material. 5 •• Kathy Warren commented that she did not see a physical hardship. She could not see making a bad situation worse.She agreed with the staff. Jim Shearer didn't feel that the dormers made a big enough impact to justify the variance.He could not support the variance. A motion for denial per the staff memo was made by Connie Knight and seconded by Jim Shearer. VOTE:4-3 FOR DENIAL WITH CHUCK.DALTON.AND LUDWIG AGAINST DENIAL. Item No.5:A request for a conditional use permit to expand a proposed parking structure for the Vail Valley Medical Center on Lots #and F.Vail Village 2nd Filing at 181 West Meadow Drive. Applicant:Vail Valley Medical Center. Kristan Pritz explained that the Vail Valley Medical Center had requested to table this item to the April 9,1990 meeting. A motion to table the proposal to the 4/9/90 meeting was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE:7-0IN FAVOR OF TABLING Item No.6:A request for a special Development District in order to construct three primary/secondary structures on Lots 3.4.and 5.Vail Valley Third Filing. Applicant:Deborah W.and Robert Warner Tom Braun explained that the proposal was reviewed at the March 12,1990 meeting and that at that time,the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial to the Town Council.The applicants had amended their proposal with regard to the three secondary units.The applicants had agreed to place a deed restriction on the three lots that would require the secondary units to be rented on a long term basis to employees of the Upper Eagle Valley.The fact remained that any site planning or design aspects of the proposal could be accomplished under existing zoning.The SDD was proposed as away to circumvent the underlying primary/secondary development standards with regard to site coverage and GRFA.The employee units were being offered as a concession for the density increase.The staff recognized the value of the employee units,but was unable to support the proposal offered. 6 •• Bob Warner,the applicant,wished to apologize for not being present at the last meeting.He wanted to give the board some background on the project.Last summer he decided to make Vail a permanent home.He found he could not find any single-family lots.Instead,they found and bought the 3 adjacent lots.He had developed for 20 years and his architect,Jim Junge ,for over 30 years.He was now here to plead with the board.They started by asking the staff for direction.They had tried to work with the staff.Mr.Warner stated that his wife had a chronically bad back (he showed a doctors statement prescribing daily swimming as treatment).He had problems understanding the SOD purpose and concept.He felt that what they were proposing could not be done within the existing zoning.He presented the analogy that it would be like preparing taxes without taking deductions.He felt they were making good trade-offs.He pointed out that he had continually been told what a great design they had presented. They had been looking at the project as three lots as a whole. This was why they felt the SOD process was appropriate.He explained that Gary Murrain,Chief Building Official,was anxious for them to get started due to the level of the water table. They are anxious as well and felt that the staff direction had slowed the time table.He requested approval. Jim Junge,architect for the applicant,commented on the staff's concerns with the SOD purpose.He felt that the SOD purpose was to encourage flexibility and this was what they had done.A solution could be accomplished under existing zoning but not necessarily the most positive solution.What they had proposed had no impacts on neighboring properties.They felt they were offering the Townmany benefits in exchange for the density transfer as followed:(He showed a list on the flip chart) 1.No 60/40 primary/secondary split. 2.Low Profile 3.Luxury Homes 4.3 employee units. Tom Braun stated that he took strong opposition with the applicants statement that the staff held up the process.All avenues were reviewed with the applicant inclUding the pros and cons of each alternative.He stated the staff told the applicant's in writing on October 27 that support of an SOD was unlikely. Kathy Warren commented that she felt that nothing had really changed.She still felt that the SOD purpose and integrity must be maintained.The pool could be permitted by deducting GRFA elsewhere.There were other avenues that the applicant had not explored. Jim Shearer had no comment. 7 • Connie Knight concurred with Kathy. • Ludwig Kurz felt that Kathy expressed how he felt very well.He didn't feel he could approve the project. Dalton Williams concurred. Chuck asked what the specific reasons for denial were at the last meeting?Had it had anything to do with employee housing and asked why they came back.Jim Junge explained that they felt the change of restrictions on the secondary unit was a benefit to the Town.Chuck didn't feel this SOD should be used with trade-offs. Tom Braun explained that this was how the SOD process worked.It was a give and take process. Chuck asked if there were enough trade-offs,would it be acceptable? Kathy Warren commented that aSOD is not appropriate per the last meeting issues.No number of trade-off would be make the project acceptable. Mr.Warner explained that the employee housing was always part of the plan.Under strict zoning,Vail wouldn't get the benefits as pointed out earlier by Mr.Junge.He felt the employee units were a great benefit.He felt they worked out a great solution and that the employee housing should warrant a favorable response. Dalton Williams didn't believe that employee housing units were a good tradeoff.A large house was not a reason for creating an SOD.The point of being on the Planning and Environmental Commission Board was to ensure that rules were applied as written. Diana explained that if they took the extra 804 square feet of GRFA away,she would come close to approving the proposal.She felt it was a great project and encouraged them to proceed to Council. Kristan Pritz wished to point out that the fact that the housing study was not complete was not the reason the staff was recommending denial. Diana stated that she did not wish to set a standard before the standards were set.She could support the project if the GRFA was a total wash.She felt the trade-offs offered were positive. 8 •• A motion for recommendation of denial to the Town Council per the staff memo was made by Connie Knight and seconded by Kathy Warren. VOTE:7-0 for recommendation of denial to Town Council Item No.7:A request for an amendment to Special Development District No.22 and a major subdivision for resubdivision of Lots 1-19.Block 2.Lionsridge Filing No.3. Applicant:Mr.Pat Dauphinais.Dauphinais-Moseley Construction. Kristan Pritz explained that the developer was requesting to make adjustments to the major subdivision and Special Development District No.22 for the property.The project currently consisted of 24 single family lots,an open space tract,and a new public road,Lionsridge Lane. Changes to lot sizes,setbacks,curb cuts,employee dwelling units,architectural guidelines,and the phasing plan were proposed. In general,the changes to the proposal did not have any major impacts on the subdivision criteria.Due to the fact that the proposal represented a resubdivision of an existing approved sUbdivision,a reduction in allowable density,had no significant environmental impacts and was compatible with surrounding low to medium density residential uses,the proposed plan was supportable. The Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plan for the major subdivision and the revisions to Special Development District No.22 for the property.The requested changes generally improved the subdivision and would allow for a more architecturally pleasing development of the property.The conditions of approval for the Special Development District and Major Subdivision were listed in the staff memo.It was also deemed very positive that employee housing was being added. Chuck Crist questioned whose responsibility it was to work the parking problem out with Solar Crest.Kristan responded that staff had suggested that Dauphinais work with Solar Crest. However,it was not a requirement.The problem was Solar Crest's.They had been parking on the applicant's land. 9 •• ,'. , Kathy Warren asked for clarification of the GRFA regarding the employee units.Was it in addition to allowed GRFA with the site coverage andany other requirements still intact?Kristan replied that she was correct.Kathy then asked when the employee units were required to be built?At build-out?Kristan answered,"yes".Kathy then commented that there was a possibility that the project could never reach build-out and therefore the Town would never have the employee units .Pat stated that he would be happy to put some type of restriction on phasing of the employee units for example 1 per 4 free market units. Kathy then expressed concern over the drainage plan.Pat explained that his and the Town's engineers felt they had found a better solution.They had revised the plans to take all mitigation off-site by diverting the water back behind Buffer Creek.Agreements would be in place prior to final plat approval.He could not pull any permits until a down payment or a letter of credit had been issued for his financial responsibility on the drainage plan. Buff Arnold,architect,explained that they had increased setbacks on the lots on which they were asking for additional cuts.They increased the lots bordering the highway side and increased 35 to 55 I setbacks off the ridge. Dalton asked what the reason was behind the setback encroachment of 5 ft.for the decks and Kristan explained that generally, decks were allowed to encroach 1/2 into the setback (normally 7 1/2 feet).The staff felt that it would be reasonable to allow a 5'deck (at grade,unenclosed)encroachment under the circumstance. Buff Arnold explained that there were only 2 issues in which they were not in agreement with the staff.The first was the additional road cuts.The staff had quoted Public Work's concern with safety as the main reason for recommending denial of this portion of the proposal.Buff explained that for safety reasons, they would be able to make room for maneuvering to allow a driver to pullout onto Lionsridge Loop.The driveways would be level so as to avoid any sliding/stopping hazards. Kathy Warren asked if they would consider combining access to two lots.A driveway every 60 feet didn't allow much room for snow removal,storage,or landscaping.Pat explained that there were two driveways close together and then a large distance between the others. Dalton commented that the street (on the new public cuts on Lionsridge Loop. kids would have a safe side of the road)if they allowed the 4 new road He felt this would be safer. 10 • ORDINANCE NO.11 Series of 1990 AN ORDINANCE RE-ZONING LOTS 3,4,AND 5OF VAIL VALLEY THIRD FILING,APARTOF SUNBURST REPLAT,TO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO .24,IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OFTHE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE AND SETTING FORTH THEDETAILS IN REGARD THERETO. WHEREAS,Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes Special Development Districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility in the development of land;and WHEREAS,application has been made for Special Development District approval for a certain parcel of property within the -- Town known as Lots 3,4,and 5 of Vail Valley Third Filing a replat of Sunburst;and WHEREAS,there is an identified need for affordable housing in the community;and WHEREAS,the Town of Vail has not adopted formal policies to encourage the development of affordable housing units;and WHEREAS,the Special Development District provides for creativity and flexibility to allow for the development of affordable housing;and WHEREAS,in accordance with section 18.66.140,the Planning and Environmental Commission held a pUblic hearing on the proposed SDD,and has submitted its recommendation to the Town council;and WHEREAS,all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the appropriate parties;and WHEREAS,the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of the Vail Municipal Code. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCILOFTHE TOWNOF VAIL,COLORADO,THAT: Section 1. The Town Council finds that the procedures for a zoning amendment as set forth in Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal code of the Town of Vail relating to zoning amendments have been fully satisfied. •• section 2. The Town Council hereby rezones Lots 3,4,and 5 of Vail Valley Third Filing a replat of Sunburst,to Special Development District No.24. Site plan dated February 8,1990. Site/Landscape plan dated May 8,1989. Roof ridge height study and building elevations for Lots 3,4,and 5 numbered A1,A6 and A7. Floor plans for Lot 3,dated January 29,1990. Floor plans for Lot 4,dated January 22,1990. Floor plans for Lot 5,dated January 31,1990. 4. 5. 6. Section 3. The Town Council finds that the development plan for Special Development District No.24 meets each of the standards set forth in section 18.40.080 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail or demonstrates that either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved.In accordance with section 18.40.040,the development plan for special Development District No.24 is approved.The development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Junge Reich Magee AlA,and consists of the following documents: l. 2. 3. Section 4. Development standards for Special Development District No.24 are approved by the Town Council as a part of the approved development plan as follows: A.SETBACKS: Setbacks shall be as indicated on the site plan set forth in section 3 of this Ordinance. B.HEIGHT: Building height shall be as indicated on the elevations and roof ridge plans set forth in Section 3 of this Ordinance. •• C.COVERAGE: Site coverage shall be as follows: 1.S ite coverage on Lot 3 shall not exceed 2595 square feet. 2.site coverage on Lot 4 shal l not exceed 3726 square feet. 3 .site coverage on Lot 5 shall not exceed 2878 square feet. D.DENSITY: Development in SDD No.24 shall be limited to 1 primary/secondary structure each on lots 3 ,4,and 5. Gross Res idential Floor Area within SDD No.24 shall be as fo l lows: 1.GRFA on Lot 3 shall not exceed 3300 square feet. 2.GRFA on Lot 4 shall not exceed 5500 square feet. 3.GRFA on Lot 5 shall not exceed 3550 square feet. E.LANDSCAPING: The area of the site to be landscaped shall generally be as indicated on the landscape plan set forth in section 3 of this Ordinance. F.PARKING: Parking in SDD No.24 shall be met in accordance with the off-street parking requirements as specified in section 18.52 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail,and as generally indicated in the site plan as set forth in section 3 of this Ordinance. S ection 5. The following are conditions of approval for Special Development Di strict No.24: 1.The use of the secondary units on lots 3,4,and 5,as indicated on floor plans referenced in Section 3 of this Ordinance,shall be permanently restricted to long term employee housing rental.An agreement outlining this restriction shall be submitted by the owner to the Town of Vail and said agreement shall be reviewed, approved and recorded prior to the issuance of any •• temporary certificate of occupancy on this project. Section 18.13.080 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail shall be used for the wording of this agreement, except that the units shall be permanently restricted to employee housing rentals.The Town of Vail shall be a party to this agreement and the agreement shall be recorded by the Town of Vail at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's office.Restrictions concerning the use of these units shall run with the land. 2.The owners of Lots 3,4,and 5 shall submit an annual report to the Town of Vail demonstrating that the lot's secondary units are rented and occupied as stipulated in Condition #1. 3.The pool area on Lot 4 shall be permanently restricted to a pool.A declaration shall be filed of record in the office of the Eagle county Clerk and Recorder in a form approved by the Town Attorney. section 6. Amendments to the approved development plan may be granted pursuant to section 18.40 .100 of the Municipal code of the Town of Vail. section 7. The Town Council hereby finds,determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health,safety and wel fare of the Town of Vail and inhabitants thereof. •• Section 8. If any part,section,sUbsection,sentence,clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid,such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance;and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance,and each part,section,sUbsection, sentence,clause or phrase thereof,regardless of the fact that anyone or more parts,sections,sUbsections,sentences,clauses or phrases by declared invalid. s ection 9. The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued,any duty imposed,any vi olation that occurred pr ior 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 reenacted.The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance prev iously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. section 10. All 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 day of ______________,1990,and a public hearing shall be held on this Ordinance on the day of __________________,1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building,vail, Colorado.Ordered published _______________,1990 . ATTEST: Pamela A.Brandmeyer,Town Clerk this day of Kent R.Rose,Mayor INTRODUCED,READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of 1990 . Kent R.Rose,Mayor ATTEST : Pamela A.Brandmeyer,Town Clerk '.~-\~"(fYY)~vt.....1 .v d '1:\-') ~q \~,-+- --).,\"S-:'\If "'~\"" C\-,-~..J Sf,lh}~"'il'6'~q..,;>c.H 5)L\<...S-.~~'1\)O\q~ 4'Oc;Q~-:.-'\j -d 'z;-9 ~-- (~'>")')--C-r"I 1..''ur'\")"<z)?~J "\c,.\,g.\ ",'no~""-..>1.------ -.\1-.-.....1 0 ~ (e J !"'f r ":"'.P-'f~t Lh --tIrf'nr "f')cjt L?>t.'"l '>\'"'''0 ~-o t-)(")J I ...v.l;-'-j..~~~"\'(""1 .)-."c'''''J ''-t J - .(1./)P)(,2.)\"01)"--l~'1"..w - ~-Av J f2.T <;f 01'"~~'"l""l)~""""\- .51 --:'-~ll')~,..~~.....w b -lr'll '(L.s- -"l'l>L ~~lif~8-')~\,,~\7' (~""''''''-lvJ -~'R '17 I ~"""'If ~""'<;-')~s)\.,\7'(.,.\j':)Z)A)'O'~~~~ 8s D)'I ;\f -3,»-9 ~c.,,~~~Il~0<'~)-'~ -\~ \e,)'.",~<;~1''\'''''~1J''"7 L ~~("\')~) -,>\"a"O ~-? 4'>\"')'?I .p<T)-!'r'l '-,,4-J.lfs !>tS" (1..1)(,bL)(~-z) \~---r'-'>\ I ),"t~~~~5"~"'-~,..~~).x;»; , f7..Q f 5"):<,~'.rv)'a f'~"V\<"'~l 1'1:1)5 S \-:';f'~~'? ~~h f 'o"l\ T Lb'7 :~'.~~~~'W -S.\°7 • -\S[- Lh ~1. -"(),..-;~v J 8 £b 1-/AJ'JO'...n)r'j /RS 5)OJ b b t \1.ll '.\1dB-:? -~I 'U"'f "::>~__s,'2 ""<Ill'(",..uP' '.\!:::i"Z1--l)0'-\e 1-- [ -.5 -1~1 - --\~-\<:-j - ~-\"l - "Lh 8 <' )-,"\\,<---- -~y"l.t --C,~S \)C iO "'Z.) ~'bh~ -----L\<.s ~ \S L - (9 J-.\+- c.l5 - -I + VT~~')'""J)-'7>4»>+5 L? 0'''~""'"J~).5 ~-t ~"f "'"")-r rt j ...,""/ ~,,-'!'2f u-y-vtQ.'f ""'J'rp l't-L rn-prT '-J )s LLI .\1:::1 tl / ~f",r<>e ~'(orr?t :/~<;)",,4-.1'''1-;ll/(bh)7),)(<>2 " -",¥'''{v::'?.>L "C}4~"/'f,"1 vvo /~vo90 -cr ~R C){\"fN)O~r+--v;W 5 -\"., ..,• •DATE:Harch 22,1990 TO:Town Planning Co mnission TO\~n of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail,CO 816 57 FRO M:Junge Reich Magee AlA Architecture &PlanningP.C. SUBJECT:A request foraSpecial Design District rezoningprocessto rezonethe overall 47,972 s.f.sites 3,4and5ofVailValley Third Filing toall ow a greater footprint and allowable floor area forthe residence on the center site -Lot4. JUSTIFICATION:The Town of Vail will benefit with three employee housing units in a perfect location,mixed into a single familyhousing nei ghborhood;one ofthemajorgoalsofthe Toy,".In additi on, the Town will benefit by the development of three very attractive luxuryhouses at the golf club location rather than the more usualprimary/secondaryduplextypeof project. I.DESCRIPTION OF THE THREE SITE PROJECT Warner Developments,Inc.has acquired anapproximate1.1acreparcelto construct three luxury single family homes.Each home will include a small (650 -750 s.f.)employee housing unit per Town of Vail's regulations anda large four bedroom,two-level custom primary rest dence.Eac h resi dence includesa three auto mobile garage and a guest/secondary unit parkingspaceon site. The site slopes down approximately10to 12 feet from SunburstDriveto thewesttowardthe golf course .Thisallowsthedesignofthe homes to be one-level as viewed from the front elevation from SunburstDrive,with a "walk-out"garden lower-level ontothe rear yards,making the structure only two stories when viewed from the golf course;much less "bulk"than couldbedeveloped. II.DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The total site coverageallowed on the parcel,when calculated as three individual sites,is 9,593 s.f.Only 9,299 s.f.is covered on the overall parcel;thereby resulting 294 s.f.less coveragethan permitted. The gross residential floor areaallowed on the overall site is 11,546 s.f.The total proposed is 12,350 s.f.,resulting in 804 s.f.of floor area greater thanallowed.Thisarea is in theenclosed swimming pool room withinthe center residence (Lot4)andtherby does notaddtothe actual "livable"floor area;nortothe mass ofthehouse. The total paved driveway and parking site coverageforthe three homes is 6,525s,f.Thi sis 13.6%site coverageofthe overall parcel.The housesandgarage footprints cover 19.4%ofthe site.This leaves 67 %- (just over two-thirds)ofthelandareaaslandscaped open space.This is over 10 %greater thanthe minimum allowable. •Town Planning Commission Town ofVail Page Two I II.SPECIAL DEVELOpr4ENT DISTRICT ZONING S.D.D.zoning is aconceptofan "overlay"zone district to"encourage flexibility and creativity"in order to: 1).Promote it's most appropriate use. 2).Improve thedesign character. 3).Improve quality of new development. 4).Further the overall goalsofthe community. Inorderforadevelopertosubmitforany "contract"zone di stri ct, there must bea benefit forboththe Town andforthe Applicant.Under this approach theAppllcant must developthe three homes withina set of performance cri teri a estab 1ished by the TO\m that creates a far better end result of less mass andbulk. IV.REASONS FOR THE S.D.D.REQUST The applicant desires todevelop smaller housesthancouldbeallowed on either side ofthe center resi dence,whi ch is proposed 1arger;thereby involvinga residential floor area density transfer tothe center house. The two side residence footprints are also less in site coverage, transfering that additional coveragetothe center house footprint. The "net"result is that no additi ona 1 overall site coverage by the structures (footprint)is requested.No additional actual living area is requested,as it is the pool areaof 804 s.f.that adds tothegrossarea asthe code is now written. This additional pool room area is located completelybel 01'1 ground, beneaththegarageand below the first floor levelofthe resldence;thus not contributing toan oversize structure.An outdoor pool facing the go If course ~Ii ththerequired security fence woul dbeafar more visua11y impactingelement,thus becoming less desirable. All setbacks arein conformance and,in fact,all three buildings height and bulkare considerably less thanwhatcouldbedesignedas full two story structures.Houses 3and5 have been approved by the Design Review Board at theconceptual level. V.S.D.D.APPROACH The S.D.D.zone district is a bona fide rezoningconceptfora single family district,solongasthe intent ofsucha change creates favorable results forthe community and is notonlyforthe benefit ofthe applicant.The applicant must achieve his purposeorhe would have no reasontosubmittothe additional restrictions ofthe S.D.D. Simply becauseanS.D.D.hasnot been processedfor thi stypeofs i ngl e familyarea is notareasonnottoallow it here. e • Town Planning Commission TOIm of Vail Page Three VI.S.D.D.VALUE The S.D.D.approach makes all sorts of sense.It is a sound method to "encourage"more attractive housing on theVailGolf Course of less bulk, more landscaped open space,a cluster ofcompatiblydesigned buildings of similar roof slope,exterior materials and colors. When the three parcels are considered as one 1.1acresi ng1 efamily parcel zoned for three detached residences,theproperplanningapproach would beto: 1).Orient each home tothe best view andprovide solar access. 2).Keep thehousesas low in profile asposib1e. 3).Have the house designsbe luxurious single family residences similar to other VailValleyluxuryhousing. Thishas been accomplished.Moreover,the overiding community benefit is intheprovisionof three employee housing units.The proposal accomplishesboth.Each house includes the employee unit and each home appearsas anattractive estate residence;notthe more typical 60/40 split two family individually owned duplexes.--- This is consistant withthe community's standard of "suitability", "consistant withmunicipal objectives"and "promotes a viable nei ghborhood"(communi ty);the criteri afor as.D.D.approval. IX.CONCLUSION The additional house area requested on Lot4has no visual impact whatsoever on the scale and massing ofthe stucture,asthespace is util izi ng what woul dotherwisebe crawl space.A1so there is abalance ofcoverage across the three houses when analyzedasa single site;and theonly extra area requested is the under-building pool room itself. The three houses have ample open space,arenotmassive,andthe center house will have onlya minimal appearanceofbeing larger.Any possible visual impactofthe center residence being larger is offset because it is flanked by the other housesbeingdeveloped simultaneously thus screening any perceived size increase ofthe center house. Additionally,the owner willagreetoprovidethe three secondary rental employee uni ts asa benefit tothe community.The e1 imination ofthe secondary units wou1 dreducetheovera 11 area,thus maki ng there be no need for this S.D.D.;yet these employee units is one ofthe Town's goals. The three 1uxury house development will bea welcome addition totheVail community with their designmeetingthe spirit ofthe Town of Vail's development guidelines,andis exactly what the S.D.D.processshould promote: We respectfully request yourapprovalof this reasonable request, James S.Junge,AlA J£J/el a JUNGE REICH MAGEE AI .. March 22,1990 CHITECTURE &PLANNING P ESSIONAL CORPORATION Tom Braun Senior Planner Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail,CO 81657 RE:LOTS 3,4 &5-VAIL VALLEY THIRD FILING Warner Developments,Inc.is now willing to reprocess the S.D.D.for the three lot single family development with the stipulation that each house will include a separate employee unit.David Corbin of Warner Developments,Inc . will work with the Twon of Vail on what technical information is needed,should this approach be doable. The enclosed three page report has been updated and is submitted as the applicant's reasoning for this S.D.D. approval with the three employee units and the overall land use design solution,I believe the test for compliance for the S.D.D .rezoning has been met . Let me know if you need any addi ti onal documentati on for this request. cc:Bob Warner David Corbin 4141 ARAPAHOE AVENUE BOULDER,COLORADO 80303 303 444-2987 --------'~PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MARCH 12,1990 Present Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Connie Knight LUdwig Kurz Jim Shearer Kathy Warren Dalton Williams Staff Kristan Pritz Tom Braun Shelly Mello Penny Perry The Planning and Environmental Commission meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m.by Diana Donovan,Chairperson. Item No.1:Approval of minutes for January 22.1990 and February 26.1990. Ludwig Kurz stated that he had removed himself from the board on Item No.5,the Glen Lyon Office Building project,of the January 22,1990 meeting and that this had not been noted in the minutes. Kathy Warren stated that it was herself and Connie,not Diana and Connie,that had voted in favor of denial on Item No.6,the Vail National Bank Bldg.project in the February 26,1990 minutes. She also stated that,on the same item,the 3rd condition of approval should state "Five spaces rather than 4 spaces be "purchased"",not "leased". On the last page,5th line,the word Colorado should be replaced with Vail when commenting on private views. Motion for approval of both sets of minutes with correction was made by Chuck Crist and seconded by Kathy Warren. VOTE:7-0IN FAVOR Item No.2:A request for a front setback variance for Lot 7. Block 6.Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant:Riva Ridge South Condominium Association Ludwig Kurz excused himself from the Board due to a conflict of interest. Shelly Mello presented the project explaining that the Riva Ridge South Condominium Association is proposing to construct an elevator on the north side of the building in the 20 foot front setback.She continued to explain that the project had previously received approval in September but that the plan was not feasible and that they had to go back to the drawing board. Shelly explained that because the building already encroaches into the setback,the staff is recommending approval of the variance. Craig Snowdon,the architect for the applicant,stated that since the last approval,the contractor had pointed out many problems with placing the elevator where it was originally proposed. Dalton questioned whether this would provide handicapped access and Craig replied it would. Craig Snowdon stated that the existing foundation is 16 feet from the asphalt of the road.The elevator is proposed 2 feet beyond the existing cantilevered element.The elevator will be inside of the tree.However,they will need to transplant the tree.It is possible that they will transplant the tree and provide an additional tree. Kathy Warren asked if there was anywhere in the back that they could relocate the elevator?Craig replied no,that there would be no access to the main common areas if the elevator wer top be located anywhere else. Diana Donovan asked if the edge of the plans was both existing and proposed. existing pavement does not change. pavement shown of the Craig replied that the Connie Knight asked if the proposed building was 10 feet from the pavement.Craig replied yes. Chuck Crist asked if the entrance was the same?Craig replied no that it would not be out as far,that they were upgrading the planter and changing the timber walls to stucco. Motion for approval per the staff memo with the condition that the tree would be relocated or replaced was made Kathy Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE:6-0-1 IN FAVOR WITH LUDWIG KURZ ABSTAINING Item No.3:A request for a minor subdivision on Lots 1 and 2. Block I.Lionsridge Filing #4. Applicant:Todger Anderson This item was discussed during site visits. Motion for approval per staff memo was made by Kathy Warren and Seconded by Dalton Williams VOTE:7-0 IN FAVOR Item No.4:A request for a Special Development district in order to construct three primary/secondary structures on Lots 3.4.and 5.Vail Valley Third Filing. ..•• Applicant:Deborah W.and Robert Warner Tom Braun presented the project explaining that this is an application to rezone three undeveloped Primary/Secondary lots to a Special Development District.The proposed development for the SDD includes three primary/Secondary structures.The purpose of the request is to permit GRFA on one of the 3 lots (Lot 4)to exceed that which is permitted under existing zoning.In addition,site coverage on this same lot is also in excess of what is permitted under existing zoning. He explained that one of the criteria to be used in evaluating the proposal is the suitability of the proposed zoning.He continued that it is important to understand the purpose of Special Development District Zoning which is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use.The purpose of this proposal is not consistent with the overall purpose of the Special Development District.with the exception of GRFA,there is nothing about the proposed development plan that could DQt be accomplished under existing zoning.An SDD should not be used simply as a tool to allow for density increases with no pUblic purpose as described in 18 .40.010. Tom stated that it is difficult to point to extreme impacts. However ,no justification can be found to grant the SDD being proposed .The SDD is proposed solely to satisfy the needs of the applicant,with little to no benefit to the community.The staff encourages the Planning Commission to recommend to the Town Council to preserve the integrity of the existing zoning and the SDD process by denying this application. Jim Junge,architect representing the applicant,handed out a memo from Junge Reich Magee AlA describing their view of the proposal.He explained that he can understand how Tom and the staff could come to the conclusion that the project was solely for the benefit of the owner.However,for a different reason, they believe that the SDD criteria of intent has be met. They believe that criteria #1,suitability,has been met.They view the project as one 49,900 square foot site rather than 3 individual lots.That three houses are appropriate and they had been considerate in reducing the density/site coverage by placing Mr.Warner's proposed home in the middle. In regard to criteria #2,is the amendment presenting a convenient,workable relationship within land uses consistent with municipal objectives,Mr.Junge believes they did.They are proposing 3 employee units instead of secondary units that could be sold as duplexes.This is for the community's good. •• criteria'3,does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly,viable community,Mr.Junge believes this is the intent of the SOo.They were careful to have Warner's proposed house placed in the middle and to reduce the mass and bulk as Tom pointed out.They were careful to design a one story/two story walk out basement.With the slope of the lot,they could have simply planned to build two story homes. As far as the nine design criteria,Junge felt that emphasis should be place on criteria letter o.The goal of the Land Use Plan to "encourage the development of employee housing at various sites throughout the community".He felt that the applicants' willingness not to sell the Secondary unit as a separate entity was "super important".In reference to design criteria letter G, traffic circulation,he stated that they would be more than willing to work with the Planning Commission on the number of driveway cuts.They would be willing to add more landscaping or if necessary,they would reduce the number of driveways to 1 each lot. Regarding the five items of SOD purpose listed on the last page of the memo,Mr.Junge felt that they have accomplished no.1, the creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use.No.2,to improve the design character and quality of new development within the Town is being accomplished by proposing a Primary residence with a 600-700 square foot employee unit rather than a duplex.No.3 is not applicable. No.4,to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space, he feels is exactly what they are doing.And regarding No.5,to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the comprehensive plan.He believes the goal for this area is Single Family development,and he believes they have enhanced this. Junge pointed out on the colored site plan that the density transfer,bulk overage of 800 square feet is primarily in the enclosed swimming pool which is completely underground. He feels that what they have done is exactly what the SOD process if for. Jim Shearer complemented Junge on the great looking structures. However,if the Commission starts to allow the SOD for no purpose,the next one may not be so nice.He stated that the Commission has a duty to protect the integrity of the SOD purpose and existing zoning. Kathy Warren stated that she concurs with Jim Shearer and the staff. Chuck Crist commented that it is some of the best designs he has seen.However,he feels that it is not appropriate to use the SOD process in this case. •• Dalton Williams concurred with the rest of the Commission and the staff. LUdwig Kurz also concurred. Diana Donovan concurred with the rest of the Commission and the staff.She felt that they were not proposing anything that could not be done within existing zoning. Motion was made to recommend denial to the Town Council per the staff memo by Kathy Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. Discussion continued briefly by Diana stating that the Town usually gets something in return for a SDD,and she didn't see this anywhere. VOTE:7-0IN FAVOR OFA DENIAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL. The conversation continued after the vote. Junge stated that the Town would be losing employee housing. Kristan stated that the permanent employee housing is not actually what was proposed.That simply agreeing not to sell the secondary unit as a duplex is not stipulating that it would be used for employees.This is not the same. Junge stated that he supports the Town's mass,height,and bulk ordinance. Dalton stated that he is simply afraid of setting a precedence. That too often,since he has been on the Commission,he has heard this as an argument for approval by applicants. Diana asked if there was any other Commission business. Kristan reminded the board of a joint work session with the Town council on March 27th. Motion was made by to table the Marriott project to March 26.1990 by Kathy Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist. VOTE:7-0IN FAVOR. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 4:15 •<rJUNGE REICH MAGEEAlA CHITECTURE &PLANNING P DATE:r4arch 12,1990 TO:Planning and Environmental Commission Town ofVail 75 SouthFrontage Road Vail,CO 81657 -ESSIONAL CORPORATION FROM:Junge Reich Magee AlA Architecture &PlanningP.C. SUBJECT:A request foraSpecial Design District processtorezonethe overall 47,972 s.f.sites 3,4 and 5ofVailValleyThird Filing to allowa greater footprint and allowable floor areaforthe residence on the center site -Lot4. I.DESCRIPTION OF THE THREE SITE PROJECT Warner Developments,Inc.has acquired the three site parcelto construct t hree luxury single family homes. Each home willincl ude a small (650 -750 s.f.)employee hous i ng uni t secondaryresi dence anda1argefour bedroom two-level custom primary residence. Each resi dence incl udes a three automobilegarage and a guest/secondary unit parkingspace on site. The site slopes down approximately 10 to12 feet from SunburstDriveto thewesttothe golf course.Thisallowsthedesignsofthe homes tobe one-level as viewed from the front view ofSunburstDrive and consists of a"walk-out"garden lower-level ontothe rear yards,making the structure only two stories when viewed from the golf course. II.DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The total site coverageallowed on the three sites is 9,593 s.f.Only 9,299 s.f.is covered on the overall parcel;thereby creating 294 s.f. 1esscoveragethan permi tted. The gross residential floor areaallowed on the overall site is 11,546 s.f.The total proposed is 12,350 s.f.There is 804 s.f.greater than allowed.Thisarea is theenclosed pool room withinthe center residence (Lot 4). The total paved driveway and parkingcoverageofthe three homes is 6,633 s.f.This is 13.83%site coverageofthe overall parcel.The houses and garage footprints cover 19.38%ofthe site.Thisleaves 66.79% (two-thirds)ofthelandareaas open landscapedspace.This is 11.3 % greater thanthe minimum allowable. III.REASONS FOR THE S.D.D.REQUST The applicant desires todevelop smaller houses on either side ofthe center residence which is proposed greater in floor area,butnot greater incoverage;therebyproposinga residential floor area density transfer tot he center site.The two side residence footprints are also less coverage,transfering that allowableareatothe center site. 4141 ARAPAHOE AVENUE BOULDER,COLORADO 80303 303 444 -2987 "JUNGE REICH MAGEE AI CHITECTURE &PLANNINGp eFESSIONAL CORPORATION Planning &Environmental Commission -Town ofVail Page Two The "net"result is that no additional overall coverage by the structures (footprint)is requested.--No additional actual living area is requested as it is the pool areaof 804 s.f.that addstothegross area. Thisarea is totally below ground underthegarage and underthe first floor levelofthe residence. All setbacks are met and there is no increase tothe structures mass or bulk, All three buildings height and bulkare considerably less thanwhatcould bedesignedas full two story structures. Houses 3 and 5 have been approved by the Design Review Board. IV.JUSTIFICATION FOR THE APPROVAL The additional center house area requested on Lot4has no visual impact whatsoever on the scale and massi ng ofthe stucture,asthespace is utilizing what would otherwisebe crawl space.Also there is abalance ofcoverage across the three lots when analyzedasa total three lot program,and theonly extra area requested is theunder-bui 1di ng pool itself . The three houses have ample open space,arenotmassive,and infact the center house will not have any appearanceofbeing larger.Any potential visual impactofthe residence on Lot4being larger is offset that it is flanked by thehouses on Lots3and5being developed by the applicant and theywillscreen any perceived size increase ofthe center lot. Additionally,the owner willagreetoprovidethe three secondary rental employee units asa benefit tothe community.The elimination ofthe secondary units reducesthe overall area,thus making there be no need for thi s excepti on totheunderlyi ng ordinance;yet is notconsi stant with one ofthe Town's goalsof providing affordable housing. The three house development willbea welcome addition totheVail community with their designmeetingthe spirit ofthe Town of Vail's development guidelines. ctfully request your consideration of this request, A 4141 ARAPAHOE AVENUE BOULDER,COLORADO 80303 303 444-2987 JUNGE REICH MAGEEAlA Harch 9,1990 CHITECTURE &PLANNING P ESSIONAL CORPORATION Tom Braun Town of Vail Planning Department 75 South Frontage Road Vail,CO 81657 RE:RESIDENCES -LOTS 3,4 AND 5-VAIL VALLEY Iam pleased at the positive response we received on ~Iednesday from the Design Review Board (D.R.B.)conceptual review of the residences proposed for Lots 3 and 5.From this initial review it is my understanding that we could now apply for final D.R.B.approval,as wemove along in the process.Aswe discussed,I would like to schedule for final D.R.B.on ~Iarch 21,tentatively;pending the results of the March 12 Planning Commission Hearing and subsequent direction from our client. To first address the D.R.B.,I recognized that the overall site and architectural designs are approved at the conceptual level,and that we need to now respond with the submittal materials for final review.These will include final landscape plans from a landscape designer which will be improved from our intent document to specify materials and present a more defined entry statement as suggested by D.R.B.These will also remove the wall and berming adjacent to Sunburst Drive per the report from Art Mears in response to the engineering concerns.We will also provide the remaining technical information at the time of our next submittal,including final area analysis for the two residences. With re.gard to the Special Design District (S.D.D.) process t n q ,it is my understanding that the rezoning request will be presented to the Planning Commission with staff recommendation "for denial"on the basis that the S.D.D.processing is not intended for this type of request and that the basis for the existing zoning ona per site basis remains valid.Again,we will aim our presentation at the concept that the additional Lot 5 house area has no visual impact on the scale and massing of the structure, as the space is utilizing what would otherwise be crawl space.Al so there is a bal ance of coverage across the three lots when analyzed as a total three lot program,and the only extra area requested is the under-bui 1 di ng pool itself.Additionally the owner will agree to provide the three secondary rental employee units as a benefit to the community.The elimination of them reduces the overall area,thus making there beno need for this exception to the underlying ordinance;yet is not consistant with one of the Town's goals of providing affordable housing. 4141 ARAPAHOE AVENUE BOULDER,COLORADO 80303 303 444-2987 JUNGE REICH MAGEEAlA CHITECTURE &PLANNING P FESSIONAL CORPORATION Ton Braun RE:Residences -Lots 3,4 and 5-Vail Valley Ivlarch 9,1990 Page Two The accompanying area analysis has been revised by this offi ce based upon the now morecompl ete hardl ine desi gn development documents for the houses and upon my better understanding of the format you have used in your calculations.As I understand,the S.D.D.process if approved,will specify these final areas to identify the allowed development on each of the lots.I understand the need to have these numbers exact .Please review these at your earliest convenience so that I can makeany format revisions in time for the formal exhibit for the Planning Commission. On behalf of Warner Developments,Inc .,I thank you for your conti nued assi stance wi th the processi n9 of these projects.I am confident that the end results will prove to be worthy of all of our combined efforts put forth. GGM/ela Enclosure cc:Bob Warner Gary Marner 4141 ARAPAHOE AVENUE BOULDER,COLORADO 80303 303 444 -2987 JUNGE REICH MAGEE AI CHITECTURE &PLANNINGp eFESSIONAL CORPORATION VAIL VALLEY RESIDENCES -LOTS 3.4 &5 Ma rch 9,1990 SITE COVERAGE SITE COVERAGE NET GRFA GRFA NET ALLOWED PROPOSED DIFFERENCE ALLOWED PROPOSED DIFFERENCE LOT 33,072 s.f.2,695 s.f.-377 s.f.3,786 s,f.3,300 s.f.-486 s,f. LOT 43,196 s.f.3,726 s.f.+530 s,f.3,914 s.f.5 ,500 s,f.+1 ,586 s.f. LOT 53,193 s.f.2,878 s.f.-315 s.f.3,846 s.f.3,550 s.f.-296 s.f. -162 s.f.+804 s.f. 4141 ARAPAHOE AVENUE BOULDER,COLORADO 80303 303 444-2987 MAR 15 '90 13 :31 JUNG EREICH MAG EE P .l JU i'.jGE RE ICH iVi f1 G EE I,IA ARCHIT€CTURE &I;l U ~N N I N G P I~OFES5 [Oi~Rl CORFO (,r-lT IC U FAX TRANSMITTAL DATE:h.\(,\9l..=.0__ SENDING TO -COMPANY:~!F w,j~_ -ATTENTION:~~'--_ RECEIVED FROM:~.M~_ PRDJEC~/RE:~Ler.~'#:a 'V~\~ We ~re sending you ~pages including this cover sheet.Our FAX number is (303)444-5085. Addition.l Comments:~~le-rrll'll" ,I r •• r -MAR 16 '90 13 :32 JUN G4liEICH MAGEE •P.2 /1/.!r ''''-. AR'J'HUJ{I.MEAKS.P.E"lNC, NaI Ula ll-bda Coiuult4l'ltt--n2 Eu1 Colhic An .e-.....C<>I.,.J<,812)Q 'OJ ·641·3236 /11).G ("Il>1 (Il ~ll for lX ;("~~?)444-·~tflJ..". ~rr.r In "()/'''Itt ! 1-11 0V(I·t v.'e l//~ri -flv r rJt I £tP /.wl'<.($,,';"prf.l.lIS f OI l"On '3 ,a JI,Md oS o.,ur l"f ~rl 1tv rv l!otu ,'l/f ~VfP I/i r/("OIl 1,r!J.I1/~.' ).~I lv ~)o J n c:/t.r O (,k f~11 ho'!!IJ tel /.J.j .'11 fu,m ,-hptl'lnl ~'llll ply hy 1/1 '01;1,,,N t'''}' 11l.!r~vvu'(r/o vc-)o ld :r rll t''''(H'{t f1Jl'ld II ~6v.'lclir7tj rI'I.!'Y/'IJ ,-1/tJ)rt'c./;:','(/I/ u/t]!'(lid br d,,.tr,,!nl '1~W(irJ (l.,}ld O·!lttl p uvart'0 1 Pv/,!t(PJr;/JI't'fY l ..t·'•• J t/I/f (.(J J (;1't''J;QJJ ,0 1 t PV/l'Nd~, 2 ,F"/r",1 (j''(I?I,..i ,'o .1 to -«~i rhF(J j 1 Of ~':Jf(,)q.Ct'l'l r/,bN J F'0 w .~(!,1,(-••~:; ..Jc.laIJ,(.I/J.J tv.'1/ix·PftA',1cJ ,q/tJl -iT)Svt'lb vl''!'i Duw ((In C:lc:C' :'~(.'.~f)(·:.,C'd t lU:{d1(19'~tu iU ~f'to It,!f J :s /t?l P 11 bt ('t.~e.',\~fo n ~'1 f €')I.ft>se~uph ill l rJt2ilJ ant!~'/h"flI ~Y.fJ.?S(.'(i ~Ur(t?l".j ro r ti)qr!'lt:--k too I",;(1-.11c l •b .(l vo ,"I~f t{j ;(j'~W~Q..:/Qlfld-. 1 w bu,'I dII v1 9~~u...t ,l ~'I~j Clff C,d c!p6t ':J r tOJf/J 01'~n o t1-(J V ~/t?III 4.~" 1'0 t \Cl\'~0-/(J,(>(,''1 0./(1 0,-fVl,lt~PlfJ ().'f'f;IIdllt'I t'N I ~r.;'rL/~I'C';{'I7 LM f;se.1r..'. 'I ,'i't-.p '!)/i l;'/(b"r l11 s :shtu.m O J f or -I""bv /1 d NfJ 0!-/~!(n(f~1l. I(\~(~aJ Je(G"d u;1\\"0 I .sD flllJ Wi'hi '-s r ~w I ~r;4 r:ccl!t OJ ~Ii (l tv 0 ()VtiJri?i-1" ()V{l 11{~I I ~'\v"o Iar 1~V1 Of Va.'r 01 cI il-7/H1GJ.O}tvr -s hol,l N b/l e /"/'I//I'()r.I o r c.·11 (,\,oliff tl , f>.ri Y\o.J J P S r,'~(\lor.J:s r ·o;~)/I :Idr'i1?J ('(111 bl 'c/(lv('hfi.Rd w,"I'h m sr» Inf'of '1}1rd <0.1 n('vv·t e &,,'o..f I.Orl V ,'UfI,J I R...lc., • 75south frontage road vall .colorado 81657 (303)479-2138 (303)479-2139 March 1,1990 Mr.Glen Magee Junge Reich Magee 4141 Arapahoe Ave. Boulder,CO 80303 Dear Glen: • officeof community development Enclosed you will find application material for the Design Review of the Warner project.In addition,the following list summarizes our discussion of February 28th regarding additional submittal material: 1.Two copies of a stamped topographic survey of the three lots -to be submitted A.S.A.P. 2.Completed Design Review Board applications -to be provided at the March 7th meeting. 3.A preliminary title report -to be submitted a minimum of two weeks prior to final Design Review Board meeting. 4 Completion of the utility ver ification form and location of utility service on the project site plan - to be submitted a minimum of two weeks prior to the final Design Review Board hearing. 5.Roof plans of each structure showing finished roof elevations -to be submitted A.S.A.P. 6.A revised site plan indicating heights of the proposed retaining walls. 7.Complete elevations of the proposed structures -to be submitted at the March 7th Design Review Board meeting. "•• Aswe discussed,I will need additional informat ion on the snow avalanche and geologic hazards affecting these lots.I have enclosed a copy of the Town's hazard ordinances and highlighted sections pertinent to this request.To summarize,we will need a written statement from a qualified engineer stating that the proposed development will not increase the hazards of rockfall and debr is fallon adjacent lots and R.O.W .In addition,the t wo lots affected by snow avalanche will require mit igation. Ideally,I would like assurances that any required mitigation can be accomplished through the design of the structure,and will not require the construction of large berms on the south side of the lots. Thank you for your response to these request.I look forward to seeing you on Wednesday for the Design Review Board meeting. Si ncerely, /~[fY'v~~f\~~ Tom Braun To wn Planner TB/pp Enclosures ~.~E II 1 6:'-,,:,'1 _-3•• ARTHUR I.MEARS,P.E.,INC. Natural Ha.zardl Consultant$ 22Z Eut Colhic Avo. CuMr"""Celowlo 81230 303-641·3236 F '.a;::.1:2 Mr.Hark Cadmus Brandess-Cadmus Real Estate,Inc. 281 Bridge Street Vail,CO 81657 February 7,1988 DearMr.Cadmus: At your request,I hav e co mpleted a re con naissanc e of snow-avalanche,debris- avalanche,debris-flow,and rockfall hazard Bt-the 5 -Vail Lots dis CUSSed below .~The work reported here constitut "81te-s e fic "appraisals of these lots 'n th respect to the geologic h azards listed above .Othe r geologic hazards or development constraint s,if any,have not been consider ed as part of this study. HAZARD MATRIX FOR THE 5 LOTS The5 lots studied are listed in the left c olumn in the mat rix b elow.The lots are affec ted by various c ombi nations and severitie s of the 4 .geologic hazards listed above.Snow avalanche,debris flow,and rockfall s rc rated as "mod erate",or "high"hazard.In accordance with criteria adopted by the Town of Vail.,d ebris-avalanche p o tenti al i s identifi ed ("Yea"or "No"),but not b roken down into high and moderate categories. HAZARD MATRIX Lot /I Snow Aval Debr fs Aval Debris Flow Rockfall No Moderate No No Moderate Moderate No Hoderate Moderate No Moderate Moderate #6,10th Filing Moderate Yes No Moderate Study of the hazard mat rix indic ates that n one of the 5 lot s are affected by high ha~ard snow avalanche,debris flow,or rockfall;only Lot 6,10th Filing is affected by deb ris avalanche. HAZARD DEfINITIONS Snow avalanche ~l,,<--Moderate Hazard:Reach ed bysnow avalanches with return periods of 25'r,JJb/yea rs or more,.and aval anches pro duc Lng i mp act pres sur es of 615 lbs/ft 2 or f:(/less.tl.\U..ltlt~&-1-s erm1t cd but avalanche defense design and/or structural reinforcement ~a be needed. ..".• .. .i t.' ~.: ~[~I?[;J [;J 1f mJ §~U @)[? (£@]Gl]mJ [ill ~0V 'V ~~~@[b@][?ml~G:]lf ~~~*~~~SALES ACTIO N FO RM ~~~~~~~ COST .TOTAL ACCOUNT U .ITE!.!NO.EA .AMOUNT 0 1 0 0 00 4 1330 CO M.DEY.APPLICAnON FE=:S I l (00-{t><J._f- 0 1 0000 41 540 ZONING AND ADD RESS MAPS II 5.00 0 1 00 00 424 15 1988 UNIFORM BUILDING CODe:I 50.00 •~U"I.""........-""",,~...._- 10 100 00 4 2415 1988 UNIFOR!.!PLU!.I8ING CO DE 36.00 01 0000 42 415 1988 UNIFO RI.i MEC HANICAL CO DE I 32.0 0 0 1 00 00 42 415 1988UNIFORM FIRE ccoz 010 0004 24 15 1987NA 1l0NAL ELECTR ICAL CO DE 30.00 01 0000 42 415 alli ER CODE BOO KS .-, 01 0000 415 48 BLUEPRINTS (MYlARS)7.00 01.0000 4 24 12 XEROX CO PIES I SWDI ES .25 01 0000 42371 PENALTY FEES I RE-INSPECllON 01 0000 41322 OFFHOURSINSPECTION FC=: 01 0000 4 1412'CONTRA CTO RS UC ENSE5 'ne.:>I. 0100 00 41330 alliER FEES 0100004 1413 .SI GN APPLICATIO N 20.00 \ CO MI.!Ems:tv-a.v J1 ..r,/()~lr--'C ("0 YJ ~,-TOTAL {OL....- S D D <t A1TJ1<-(r~~+(o ...... {'(J •• Miscellaneous Cash .. 02-15-90 11:37:03 ........-~----Receipt #041042 ~ccount #CK #009237 I}.I~RHER C,EI)ELOP t'lENTS '~PP FEE ~mount tende~ed >100.00 Iterll pa id 0100004133000(1 Change retu~ned > ~Il\oun t paid iee.ce THRNK ......OU YOll~cOishier 5 T F EB --14 -90 WED 16:0 3 ,.. .,.•• Snow avalanche (cant) ~8V -High Hazard:Reac hed by sno.....avalanches \l i th return periods of les's than 25 years,and/or a valanches produc ing impact pressures of more than 615 lbs/ft 2 •TheTo.....n of Vail do cs not per mit building in this avala nche zon e. Debris Avalanche -Because debris a vala nche s consi st of water,wet snow,mud,rock,and organic debris,they can bedes tructive all the way to their outer edges. They also stop in short distances in the r unout zones,thus high and moder at e hazard zon es cannot be defined .Haza rd zones can be shortened by bUilding energy-dissipating barriers (berms or dams),perpendicular to the flo w direction ,thus a voiding encount er altogether. Debt'is FIO\~ -High Haza rd:These a re a s can e xperience severe structural damage a nd possible loss of life through impact of mud,rock,a nd de b r i s .Building is usually not permitted in these a reas b ecause structu ral prot ection is, in general,not fea sible. -Hoderate Haza rd:These areas can ex peri ence prop erty da Ir.age through flooding,erosion and impact of muddy vaeer ,aoil,rock,and debris. Building is permitted by the Tovffi of Vail be c ause protection of bUildings is easily achicved through various c ombinations of low barriers, r einforce~lower foundations and walls ,and avoi dance of window openings at grade. Rockfall -High Hazard:These aress arc located on or below steep slopes that produce Or maintsln destructiv e rockfall.Rockimpact with structures is likely to cause severe damage,including pe~etrat!on of building walls. -Hoderate Hazard:These areas are located near the outer limits of . rolling rocks and will rarely be reached by rockfall.S uctura l protection o f buildings,if necessary.is easi ly accommodated into design. ~----- SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CO NSTRAINTS ON LOTS The following opinion s on the constraints to development on the 5 lots re sult from my field inspections of the Lots conducted on January 8and February 6, 1988and from experience gained on analysis of av alanch es,debris flows,and rockfall in the Vail area during the past 15 years.S e clflcd si n criteria used f the safe constr uction of ex oged s u ures I ncludin desi n loads, cannot be Id d -the pre'3 cnt roe .Such desi gn cri teria requires knowledge of: -Structure location and orientationj -Structure size and shape;and -Structure details that may affect th e g eologic process. .. PUBLICNOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental commission of the Town of Vail will hold a pUblic hearing in accordance with section 18.66.060 of the municipal code of the Town of Vail on March 12,1990 at 3:00 p.m.in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.Consideration of: 1. 2. A request for a minor subdivision on Lots 1 and 2,Block 1, Lionsridge Filing #4. Applicant:Todger Anderson A request for a major amendment to Special Development District #7 (The Marriott Mark)in order to add 60 timeshare units and 5 employee housing units. Applicant:Marriott Corporation A request for a Special Development District in order to construct three primary/secondary structures on Lots 3,4 and 5,Vail Valley Third Filing. Applicant:Deborah W.and Robert Warner 4.A request for an exterior alteration,stream setback variance,site coverage variance,and conditional use for a deck enclosure and new outdoor patio for the Red Lion Building. Applicant:Frankie Tang and Landmark Properties 5.A request for a front setback variance for Lot 7,Block 6,Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant :Riva Ridge South Condominium Association 6.A request for a side yard setback variance for Lot 9,Block 3, Vail Rowhouses (Unit #9) Applicant:Walter Gramm 7.A Work Session to review the 1990 Recreation &Trails project schedule. 8 .A request for an exterior alteration to the Vailglo Lodge on a portion of Lot 1,Block 2,Vail Lionshead Third Filing. Applicant:craig Holzfaster The applications and information about the proposals are available for pUblic inspection in the Community Development Department office. To wn of Vail Community Development Department Published in the Vail Trail on February 23,1990. , • Vail Valley 3rd Fil ing ,Lot 1 ,Unit A: J ohn Russell and Elaine St an ley 140 Cypress Station Drive Hou ston,TX7 7097 Vail Valley 3rd Filing,Lot I ,Unit B: Maria Elena Za rate Bolanos P.O.Box 5 330 Avon,CO 81602 VailValley 3rd Filing,Lo t 2,UnitA: Ronald L .and Marsha P .McK im 5963 So .lo la Wa y Englewood,CO 80111 Vail Va ll ey 3rd Fi l ing,Lot 2 ,Uni tB: Har o ld a ndSan dra Letven Ber trand A.an d Cindy Ma rcono 726 Santa Mo nica Boulevard Santa Mon ica ,CA 90 40 1 Vail Valle y 3rd Filing,lot 6,Unit A: J.V.Saeman Company 43Ban tala Place Cas tle Rock,CO 80104 Vail Valle y 3rd Fil ing ,Lot 6,UnitB: Sohrab Cerami 23 20Nor t h Orange Avenue,Suite 201 Orlando,Florida 3 2804 Vail Valley 3 rd Filing ,Trac t A: Town of Vail 75So .Fron tage Rd . Vail,CO 81657 Vai l Valley 3rd Filing,Tract B: Town of Vail 75So.Fron tage Rd . Vail,CO 8 1657 Schedule 1t21948 Schedu le 1t2 1949 Schedule 1/9612 Schedu le 1/9611 Schedule 1/8717 Schedule //8718 I v , Date of APp.tion ~~.I~)I~o APPLICATION FORM FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT ' DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN I.This procedure is required for any project that would go through the Special Development District Procedure. The A. B. application will not be accepted until all information is submitted. NAME OFAPPLICANT O~~AAH W.f ~~W~c~J~. ADDRESS ~~~%~~f:1~~~C.PHONE <::141·4~~o ;s........~.....,~lop..AoDe> NAME OFAPPLICANT I SREPRESENTATIVE JUN6e ~e.1d-4 ~~e.)rIA ADDRESS 41+1 A~pA"'oe (3oe>uLc::>erz.,cPo &~e>90 PHONE~4 ..z.~-e,1 CctJ"'f.A.&l:~e:.tJtJ s:t-1A6-eE- C.AUTHORIZATIONOF PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE~~ ADDRESS =C:~~A-VD~co D.LOCATION OF PROPOSAL . ~~!3..~t c:,VAIL VALLEy ~nLII.J6-.PAI2-r'ct='"__ p.e.~L.A""~f ~""'e.u~'" ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION _ E.FEE $100.00 PAID ..y;7-l tf 0 ~1N 0-1-Jv..- F.A List of the name of owners of all property adjacent to the SUbject property and their aailing addr es s es , II.Four (4)copies of the following information: A.Detailed written/graphic description of proposal. 'B.An environmental impact report shall .be submitted to the zoning administrator in accordance with Chapter 18.56 hereof unless waived by Section 18.56.030,exempt projects; c.An open space and recreational plan SUfficient to meet the demands generated by the development without undue burden on available or proposed public facilities; (OVER) '\:Application ~1 Special Development Di~ct Development Plan D.Existing contours having contour intervals of not more than five feet if the average slope of the site is twenty percent or less, or with contour intervals of not more than ten feet if the average slope of the site is greater than twenty percent. E.A proposed site plan,at a scale not smaller than one inch equals · fifty feet,showing the approximate locations and dimensions of all bUildings and structures,uses therein,and all principal site development features,such as landscaped areas,recreational facili- ties,pedestrian plazas and walkways,service entries,driveways, and off-street parking and loading areas with proposed contours after grading and site development; F.A preliminary landscape plan,at a scale not smaller than one inch equals fifty feet,showing existing landscape features to be retaine or removed,and showing proposed landscaping and landscaped site development features,such as outdoor recreational facilities, bicycle paths,trails,pedes trian plazas and walkways,water feature and other elements; G.Preliminary bUilding elevations,sections,and floor plans,at a scale not smaller than one-eighth equa ls one foot,in sufficient detai l to determine floor area,gross residential floor area,interi circulation,locations of uses within buildings,and the general scale and appearance of the proposed development. III.Time Requirements The__Planning and Environmental Comm~ssion meets on the 2nd and 4th Mondays of each month.An application with the necessary acco mpanyin~ material must be submitted four weeks prior to the date of the meetir NOTE:It is recommended that be fore a spec ial develop ment district application is sub mitt ed,a review and co mm ent meeting should b e set up with the Department of Community Development. FE B-14 -90 ~JED 16:04 ..~.~.' • .'. FO ..()•.-1- Lot 7,3rd Fil1n~u1l1 be exposed to light flow and/or.,powder blast from the "Clubhouse Gulch avalanche path during major dry-snow'avalanche conditio ns. Debris flows may also rfiRch the site,but will con,ls~,only of muddy wathr and f Loa t Lng vegetative matter of insufficient mass to create structural damage.The avalanche hazard can be mltieated by proper building orientation,windo~~and door design,and possible local reinforcement.This additional work would probably constitute a small percentage of the total building cost.Debris-flow mitigation roay not be required but in an case could easily be accomplished throug anilscap ng,L...-;-~-.-._...~"Z ~~~~s flow sirn~that affectins Lot 7, similar miti ation,if an.The building site s Loca t.ed on an pro ably would not require structural Lot 3.3rd Filing is exposed to debris flow and rockfall similar to Lots 4 and 5.as described above.This lot is,hoveve r,closer to the same aval anche path that affects Lot 4.Consequently,avalanches here,although also rare (estimated 25-co-50 year return period),Q,efin1.tely'require structural mitigation.Mitigation call easily be accomplished through attention to building form,strength,orientation.and ocation. Lot 6.10th Filing is exposed to slnall snov aval anches,minor rockfall,and debrLs ava lanehes.Snowava Lanc hea have reached to wi thin app ro xLea t e Ly 150 feet of Fairway Drive above the western portion of Lot 6 .quring the past sevcro.l Winters.Larger avalanches can cross the road.Rockfall haa also occurred and deposited on the steep slopes approximately 200-300 feet above Fairway Drive,and could reach the building site,partiCUlarly if the forest "..ere removed Or destroyed.Debr ds avalanches,during extreme conditions, will also deposit in Fairway Drive.Joint structural mitigation of the snow~ avalanche and rockfall hazard is feasible here.Debris avalanches c an probably be stopped before the building site is reached,thereby eliminating ' the hazard.The form and shape of the bUilding will determine is mitigation is feasible on thiS lot. The site reconnaissance conducted for this study indicates that development is feasible,with some restrictions.on all 5 lots considered ..Plesse contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Arthur I.Mears,P.E. P.2 '-------"......_------ o I \, '".....'-... \ \, \ I I I I I I I \ /---'--.:..--\","<:! \ \, \ \ \ I I ",, -' \ \ I ", / I' I' I I,10 •I\I I ..L II I=\I I \)I 1'1---- ~,; ,;.., , \, I, I r I """........ .....--- ......,........._---, ,, \ \ \ I/\I __I \\/1 '',-""4........_--.!~-.....\"J:f ........, -~---...-.~----- -------- .·JUN-3E REICH MAGEE AI February12,1990 Tom Braun,Senior Planner Town ofVail Planning Department 75 South Frontage Road Vail,CO 81657 CHITECTURE &PLANNING ESSIONAL CORPORATION RE:VAIL VALLEY HOUSING -LOTS 3,4 AND 5 I am submitting herewiththe application and documents forSpecial Development Di stri ct revi ew forthe three si ngl efamilysi tes we discussed on Monday, February5,1990,andfor which we have had ongoing discussions dating back to October of1989.I woul d1iketotake thi sopportunitytoprovide you wi th this written description oftheproposalasa part ofthe application. As you will recall,it is the intent ofthe owner,Debby and Bob Warner,to construct three single familydetached residences onLots3,4and5ofVail ValleyFiling#3.The homes on Lots3and5 will be built as "for-sale custom residences"andthe home on Lot4 will become Mr.and Mrs.Warner'spersonal residence. As a part ofthe program fortheLot4 home,alower level indoorlap pool has been included into thedesign-a therapeutic requirmentfor Mrs.Warner.In doingsuch,andin further respondingtothe program fortheWarners,theLot 4 residence currently contains 1,133 greater square feet than technically allowed.As we have discussed previously,the owner is negotiating withthe Town ofVailtodetermineaprocesswherein this overageof finished areacan be approved inatimely manner.Based upon these ongoing discussions it appears that theonly realistic approach is toapplyfor SDD processing. What seems tobethemajor SDD consideration regarding the analysis ofthe three lot program asone "entity"containing three residences,is thephysical effect ofthe additonal proposed areaof house #4as it relates tothe scale and mass oftheproj ect when revi ewed withinthe context ofthesurroundi ng neighborhood. The design concept,when considering all three lots,has been toscale-down the size ofthe homes onLots3and5bothin footprint size and total living area,to off-set the additional size goal for Lot4.While we have accomplished this based upon the enclosed areareview analysis;what is of greater issue,is the fact that theaddi ti ona1area requested fortheLot4 house realistically has minimal impact on the scale and massingofthe project.In fact thedesign solution merely utilizes subterranean space below thegarage level which would normallybeunexcavatedor slab-on-grade.This approach thereby eliminates any visible apparent size increase forLot4. As theareaanalysi sindi cates,Lots3and5houses together have been downsized to compensate forthe up-sizing oftheLot4house.The aggregate result of this is a proposed development with actually 190 s.f.less site coverageand no increase requested of overall finishedareathan mi ght have resulted by developing all three homes eachto .the maximum area allowed. Another method for analysis fortheproposalcouldbe structured this way: 4141 ARAPAHOE AVENUE BOULDER,COLORADO 80303 303 444-2987 ,JUN6E REICH MAGEE AI ~CHITECTURE &PLANNING Tom Braun RE:VailValley Housing -Lots3,4and5 February12,1990 Page Two ESSIONAL CORPORATION ll,Totallandarea 47,972 s.f. 2).Assume 3equal lots @ 15,990 s,f. 3).Max.coverageper lot 3,198 s,f. 4).Max.coverage3 lots 9,594 s.f. 5).Max.area perhouse: 25 %of 1st 15,000 s.f.3,750 s.f. 10%ofremainder 99s.f. Mech.room @ 50 s.f./d.u.100 s,f. Vestibule @ 25 s.f./d.u.50s.f. Storage @ 200 s.f./d.u.400 s.f. Max.allowedareaper house 4,399 s.f. Max.allowedarea @ 3houses 13,197 s.f. Max.coverageproposed =9,303 s.f. Max.areaproposed =13,196 s.f. While this,in affect,may seem tobean"aroundabout way"to justify the deve 1opment approach,it does set forth the groundwork ofa"densitybalance" justification foran SDD review.Again what is more germane tothe situation, however,is the question ofthe potential affect ofthe additional areagoal of house #4 on thephysicalimpactofth e house.By analyzing thelower level floor planoftheLot4house,it becomes evident that the entire pool area, andan additional 364 s.f.ofspacecouldbesimply revised to become crawl space which would allowtheLot4 development to conform tothearea limiting restrictions withthenLots3and5being less thanthe maximum allowable areas.The question therefore is,doesthe integration of this spaceas finished area change thephysical scale ofthe house?We believe the answer to this is absolutely no.The additional finished space also has no affect whatsoever on theimpactoftheneighborhood,because it is developedonlyas ancillary space-not another density unit or increased spacefor more bedrooms.The house remainsa single family residence orfour bedrooms,fewer than many housesof less square footage. It is the desire ofthe owner to include asecondary,employee apartment unit in all three housesashe recongnizes theneedforsuch facilities intheVail Valley.Mr.Warner is wi 11 i ng to commit toprovidi ng these one bedroom secondary units and is willing to enter into a restriction agreementwiththe Town ofVail that theynot become subdividedsecond "for sale"duplexes more typical ofthe resort-type,primary/secondary unit development. The landusedesignconceptof all three homes is to present a one story facadetothe street and utilize the natural slopeofthelandto accomodate a wal k-outlower1evelfaci ng the golf course.The homes aredesi gned tobe compati b1e wi ththe predomi nantone story character ofthesurroundi ng neighborhood and will provetoblend into theareaasawhole;creating a positive low scale architectural character. It is theowner's position that the three homes work well together,will not be obtrusive tothe neighborhood and;in fact,demonstrateahigh level of design efficiency in utilizing space which increases theuseofthe homes without impactingthe visual quality ofthe development.The exteriors will becompatibletothe area,usingtantonesof stucco,redwood siding and similar sloped cedar-tone concrete tile roofing. 4141 ARAPAHOE AVENUE BOULDER ,COLORADO 80303 303 444 -2987 •JUNGE REICH MAGEEAI CHITECTURE &PLANNING ~F E SS I O N A L CORPORATION Tom Braun RE:Vail Valley Housing -Lots3,4and5 February 12,1990 Page Three The three lots will alsobelandscapedandgradedto minimize the "single lot" appearance by blending tree typesand natural landscaping throughout the open space.The exisiting abandoned service drive between the golf courseandthe rear ofthe lots will be removed and revegitated to become a continuous green space at the perimeter ofthe course.Thi s wi 11 benefit the community asthe golf course is public and this landscape will enhance it's appearance. We respectfully request your consideration ofapprovalofthe overall design concept particularly withregardtothe fact that the deviation requested still providesa project which maintains the scale andmassing desires and goalsofthe Town of Vail.We recognize that the SDD process may betheonly vehicle toallowthe Town to consider this request ina positive light and we sincerely trust that thereviewprocess will allowfora realistic analysis of the minimal impactofthe request. Magee,AlA GGWela Enclosures cc:Bob Warner 4141 ARAPAHOE AVENUE BOULDER ,COLORADO 80303 303 444 -2987 .JUNGE REICH MAGEE AI CHITECTURE &PLANNING ESSIONAL CORPORATION WARNER DEVELOPMENTS INC.January31,1990 VAIL GOLF COURSE HOUSING AREA REV I EWS TOTA L RENTAL SAL EABLE UNIT AREA PE R ~1A X IMUt·1 LOT #3 HOU SE AREA SIZE TOW NCODE ALLOWABLE ADJUST ME NT Coverage:2,726 s.f.3,072 s.f.-346 s.f. MainLevel:1,845 s.f.1,770s.f. Lower Level:1,9 45 s ,f.669 s,f.1,803s.f. Total:3,790 s.f.3,573 s.f.4,336 s.f.-763 s.f. LOT #4 HOUSE Cover age:3,716 s.f.3,228 s.f.+488 s.f. (i nc 1ud es183 s,f.sky1i te f orpool) ~la i n Leve l:2,516 s.f.2 ,448 s.f. Lower Level:2 ,488 s.f.625 s,f.2,3 80 s.f. Pool Area:1,031 s.f.944 s.f.+364 s.f.res. To t al:6,035 s.f.5,774 s.f.4,464 s.f.+944 s.f.pool 1,308S.F.Total LOT #5 HOUSE Coverage:2,8 61 s.f.3,193 s.f.-332 s,f. f4ai nLevel:2,103 s.f.1,925 s,f. Lower Level:2,077 s.f.703 s.f.1,926 s.f. TotalFloor Area:4,180 s.f.3,851 s,f.4,396s .f.-545 s.f. NOTES: 1.Total saleable areas include lower level mechanical and storag e space measured to outside of exterior wall-not including garages. 2.Building coverage meas ured to outside of exteriorwallsN.I.C.cantilevers. 3.Area forto wn code measured to inside of exterior walls-including cantil evers. 4 .Sta i rw aysincludedinlowerlevel area. 4141 ARAPAHOE AVENUE BOULDER,COLORADO 80303 303 444-2987 JUNGE REICH MAGEE AI'-CHITECTURE &PLANNING :Oebruary 5,1990 Tom Braun,SeniorPlanner Town ofVail 75 South Frontage Road Vail,CO 81657 SSIONALCORPORATION RE:LOTS 3,4 &5-VAIL VALLEY 3RD FILING AT VAIL GOLF COURSE Thank you for your addressing the three lot luxury house density issue which we discussed1ast Thursday.We are at an impass how to best move forward on processing the density transfer from Lots3and5to Mr.and Mrs.Warner's own home on Lot4. The three significant points which totally mitigate any possible negative end result are the following: 1).Because all three houses ~I i 11 be constructed at the same time,the"smaller" homes on either side ofthe "larger"one will totally screenthe apparent size difference,if any. 2).The slopeofthe lot permitsadesi gn ofthehousesofa low profil e when viewed from theroad;andonlya "walk out"garden level ranch house when viewed from the golf course;-rn5tead ofthe more typical two story design. 3).The total floor area is within the three lot guideline maximum as is the footprint and also thecoverageofthe site -open space is in conformance. As Imentioned,thedesign objective is toprovideanindoor pool intheLot4 house.Greatcarehas been takento locate it "under"the house and garageto el imi nateany additi ona 1 mass tothehousej if it was outdoors "thearea situati on would be far less. Junge Reich Magee AlA haspreparedstudy models to illustrate their design character.Each ofthehousesareofunique design,but will include the same roof slope,roof tile and exterior stucco and wood coloration to create aunique three home cluster. Each home also includes a small one bedroom rental apartment,intended solely for employee use,which is so greatly needed in Vail;and is notthe more typical 60/40 "duplex"split of two resort units on each lot. The problem is how to best move forwardwithwhatever vari ance is requiredof Vail's regulations.The Town Design Review Board shouldunderstandourapproach and support theconceptsofour solution.We totally understand Vail's regulations andsupport them;and we believe these three homes are in total harmony withthe intended goals. cc:Bob ~Jarner 4141 ARAPAHOE AVENUE BOULDER,COLORADO 80303 303 444-2987 }Af'l 2 3'9D D:3:32 J Uf4 GE F:EI CH 1'1AGEE p ,1 FAX TRANSMITTAL /oATE:Ild;y'GO SfN DING TO -COMPANY:J(wnd'vaU -ATTEtJT10N:UI.,£to.n Pr~ R ECEI V!D I"RO ;'!;..;ifU;.r IF}rn~ We are sending you ~pages including this cover sheet .Our FAX number is (303)444-5085. Additional Comments: 41~1 ARAPAHOE "ENUE B OUlD ER ,COLO.O 80303 3 03 4 .i4 .29 a7 WARNE R DEVEL OP MENTS INC ~ ·t'(_lIl._""-"."'-----.••.',"-- JR r'l 2 3 '90 0:3:34 JU~lGE R::r CH t-lRGEE January 22.19 90...........-_... P .~ FAX TRANSMITTAL DATE:/.62/00 SENDING TO -COM?AN Y :~7C4d~::::.:.n~r;f_.Jo:..0.l:01:L2::.U_·_ -AT TENTION:VIS/an pr~4 7q ·21C/) RECEIVED F'ROH:gt..g.nO ((J9.fI'£ P ROJ ECT/RE:vaLl ~L<:t.u".u h'a40g -??c{;Q 1:gL1J LI.lf We ar e sending you ~pages including this cover sheet .Ou r FA X number is (303)444~50as. Additional Comments : .I 4]<:1·1 ARAPA HOE AV ENUE BO U lDER .COL OR ADO 80303 303 ·:t~4 ·298-} J Afj 23 "30 08:24 J Un GE REICH 11AGEE F'.2 WARNER DEV ELOP MENT S INC . VAIL GO LF COU RS E HOUS i NG AREA REVIEWS January 22,1990 LOT #3 HO USE .>.>21 .LCoverage:I ~~~~2,726 s .f. 1,730 s.f. 66 9 s .f .1,807 s.f. 3,537 s.f. Main Le ve l: Lower Lev el: Total: TO TA L SA LEAB LE AREA 1,845 s.f. 1,945 s.f. 3 ,790 s.f. RENTAL UNIT SI ZE AREA PER TOW "CODE MAXII4UM ALLOWAB LE 3,072 s .f . 4,336 s.f. ADJUSm ENT -346 s .f . -799 s ,f. t 358 s ,f.rss• +9 44 s.f .po c1 1,302 S.F.Total 4,464 s.f.5,766 s.f. 3,716 s.f .3,228 s.f.+46 8 s .f. (includes 183 s.f.sky1ite fo r pool) 2,448 s.f. 625 s.f.2,374 s.f. 944 s.f. 2,5 16 s.f. 2,488s .f . 1 ,031 s .f . 6.03 5 s.f. LOT #4 HOUSE ..3:bSCoverage:,;,~'l L (I",~)'d:r r~a 1nLeve 1 : Low er Leve l: Poo l Area : Tot al: Total Fl oor Area:4,180 s.f. LOT #5 HO USE -.sGooCS"t 5 ~'"'{bCoverage: Main Lev el: Low er Leve l: 2 ,1 03 s .f. 2.077 s.f. 2,861 s.f. 1,967 s .f . 703 s.f.It,.9.26 s.f. 3,893 s.f. 3,193 s.f. 4,396 s.f . -332 s .f. -503 s .f . NOTES: 1 .Totalsal eable areas i nclu de l ower level mechanical and storage space mC:!asured t o outsideof ex terior wa ll-notincludinggarages. 2 .eu ilding cov erage me asIr edtooutsi de ofexte rior walls N.l.e.cantilevers. 3 .Areaf or town code meas ured to ins ide of exterior wa lls -including cantilevers . 4.Stairway s in cluded in lower levelarea • •• JUNGE REICH MAGEE AI ,January 17,1990 CHITECTURE &PLANNING PecESSIONAL CORPORATION a Kristan Pritz,Senior Planner Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail,CO 81657 RE:LOTS 3,4 &5-VAIL VALLEY THIRD FILING/SUNBURST VAIL GOLF COURSE ~lJ JAN 2 :3 1990 Enclosed please find the final designs for the three houses to be constructed on these sites by Bob Warner of Warner Developments,Inc.The residences on Lots 3and5wi 11 be "for sale"and the center home onLot4wi11be constructed for the Warner's personal use.As we presented earlier,and your October 27,1989 letter responded (attached);that the "S.D.D."approach is not appropriate;anda minor subdivision to "balance"the lot sizes with the proposed house sizes wouldbecome the solution for this circumstance. While this may,infact,be the only "doable"approach,we respectfully request a conference prior to suchaformal application to review our viewpoint.The rules,as we understand their purpose,is to limit site coverage and the mass (bul k)of houses to protect open space on the si te and to not have the structures "overpower"the lots. The houses on Lots 3and5 are 1ess than the 1imi ts to the extent Lot 4 is greater;thereby making only Lot 4 the "excess"problem.However,because of the design solution of all three residences,the three lot cluster is lower in profile and thereby nestles into the sites in amanner to offset any potential negative impact.Almost all of the additional space requested for the Lot 4 house is to provide an enclosed pool,which will be primarily located in space under the garage,therby making it undi sti ngui shab 1e in thi s context.The "coverage"overage consi sts of the "3rd"automobile of the oversized garage anda skylight above the pool projecting only 2'to 5'above grade,thereby not significantly adding to the house massing. All three houses reflect aone level appearance from the road anda"walk out" garden level two story home from the golf course;each with attached three auto garages.They are not high profile bulky designs,but rather a "ranch house"design statement maximizing north views of the GoreRange Mountainsand southern exposure.Also each of the houses include a true small onebedroom "employee"rental dwelling unit and not developed as two resort residential properties on each site;a real benefit to the community. We most appreciate you considering an alternative review approach,suchasa "variance"or other public process whereby the end result is the same;yet the means are being appropriate. Enclosures 4141 ARAPAHOE AVENUE BOULDER,COLORADO 80303 303 444-2987 TIM Owners Form 2312 •e File No.V14220 SCHEDULE A POlicy~.AZ942005 Amount $1,325,250.00 Address 1.Policy Date: 2.Name of Insured: January 16,1990 THROUGH BOOK 521 AT PAGE 257 WARNER DEVELOPMENTS,INC.,A COLORADO CORPORATION AS TO LOTS 3 AND 5,AND ROBERT WARNER,JR.AND DEBORAH W.WARNER,ASTO LOT 4 3.The estate or interest in the land described in this Schedule and which is covered by this policy is: A Fee Simple 4.Title to the estate or interest covered by this policy at the date hereof is vested in: WARNER DEVELOPMENTS,INC.,A COLORADO CORPORATION ASTO LOTS 3 AND 5,AND ROBERT WARNER,JR.AND DEBORAH W.WARNER,ASTOLOT 4 5.The land referred to in this policy is situated in EAGLE County, Colorado,and is described as follows: LOTS 3,4 AND 5,VAIL VALLEY THIRD FILING,ACCORDING TOTHE RECORDED PLATTHEREOF,COUNTY OF EAGLE ,STATEOF COLORADO. Page 1 This Policy valid only if Schedule B is attached. TIM Owfier Form 2313 .Fi 4t No.V14220 SCHEDULE B ~liCY No.AZ942005 This policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following: 1.Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the pUblic records. 2.Easements,or claims of easements,not shown by the public records. 3.Discrepancies,conflicts in boundary lines,shortage in area, encroachments,andany facts which a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the public records. 4.Any lien,or right to a lien,for services,labor,or material theretofore or hereafter furnished,imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5.1990 TAXES NOT YET DUE AND PAYABLE. 6.LIENS FORUNPAID WATER AND SEWER CHARGES,IF ANY. 7.RIGHTOFPROPRIETOROFAVEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THEPREMISES AS RESERVED IN UNITEDSTATES PATENT RECORDED June 29,1903,IN BOOK 48 AT PAGE 495. 8.RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN AFORFEITUREOR REVERTER CLAUSE, BUT OMITTING RESTRICTIONS,IF ANY,BASED ON RACE,COLOR,RELIGION,OR NATIONAL ORIGIN,AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED August 30,1977,IN BOOK 259 AT PAGE 68. 9.UTILITY EASEMENT AS GRANTED TO VAIL WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 5,1969,IN BOOK 214 AT PAGE 612 AND RECORDED OCTOBER 20,1969 IN BOOK 216 AT PAGE 217. 10.UTILITY EASEMENT OVER THE SOUTHEASTERLY 10 FEETOF SUBJECT PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON THE RECORDED PLATOFVAIL VALLEY THIRD FILING. 11.UNDIVIDED 1/2 INTEREST IN AND TO ALLOFTHEGAS,OIL AND OTHER MINERALS, SOLID LIQUID AND GASEOUS,OF EVERY KIND AND NATURE,INCLUDING URANIUM,IN ON AND UNDER ANY AND WHICH MAY BE PRODUCED FROM THAT PORTIONOFSUBJECT PROPERTY IN SECTION 10 OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION HERETO ASEXPECTED AND RESERVED BY PETER E.KATSOS IN DEED RECORDED MAY 3,1960 IN BOOK 165 AT PAGE 227. Page 2 TIM Owher Form 2313 .F ~No.V14220 SCHEDULE B ~licy No.AZ942005 12.UTILITY EASEMENT AFFECTING THE NORTHWESTERLY LOT LINES OFSUBJECT PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON THEPLATOF VAIL VALLEY THIRD FILING. (ITEMS7 THROUGH 12 AFFECTALLLOTS) 13.UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT THROUGH THE NORTHERLY TENFEETOFSUBJECT PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON THE RECORDED PLATOF VAIL VALLEY THIRD FILING. (AFFECTSLOT 3) 14.UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT THROUGH THE SOUTHERLY TENFEETOFSUBJECT PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON THE RECORDED PLATOF VAIL VALLEY THIRD FILING. 15.DRAINAGE EASEMENT THROUGH THE NORTHERLY 7.5 FEETOF SUBJECT PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON THE RECORDED PLATOFVAIL VALLEY THIRD FILING. (ITEMS 14 AND 15 AFFECT LOT 4) 16.DRAINAGE EASEMENT THROUGH THE SOUTHERLY 7.5 FEETOF SUBJECT PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON THE RECORDED PLATOFVAIL VALLEY THIRD FILING. (AFFECTSLOT 5) 17.MANHOLE,ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER PAD AND 3 MOUNTAIN BELL RISERS AS SHOWN ON IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE BY MERRICK AND COMPANY,JOB NO.058-6062VA DATED OCTOBER 3,1989. (AFFECTSLOT 3) 18.WATER VALVE AS SHOWN ON IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE BY MERRICK AND COMPANY,JOB NO.058-6062VA DATED OCTOBER 3,1989. (AFFECTSLOT 4) 19.ENCROACHMENT OFASPHALT AND LANDSCAPING AFFECTING SUBJECT PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE BY MERRICK AND COMPANY,JOB NO.058-6062VA DATED OCTOBER 3,1989. 20.WATER VALVE,ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER PAD,CABLE T.V.RISER AND MOUNTAIN BELL RISER AS SHOWN ON IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE BY MERRICK AND COMPANY, JOBNO.058-6062VA DATED OCTOBER 3,1989. 21.MODERATE HAZARD LINE AS SHOWN ON IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE BY MERRICK AND COMPANY,JOB NO.058-6062 VA DATED OCTOBER 3,1989. Page 3 TIM Owner Form 2313 .Fi_NO.V14220 SCHEDULE B ~licy No.AZ942005 (ITEMS 19 THROUGH 21AFFECTLOT5) 22.DEED OFTRUST DATED January 11,1990,FROM WARNER DEVELOPMENTS,INC.,A COLORADO CORPORATION TOTHEPUBLICTRUSTEEOF EAGLE COUNTY FORTHEUSEOF FIRSTBANKOF AVON TO SECURE THE SUM OF $1,153,553.00 RECORDED January 16, 1990,IN BOOK 521 AT PAGE 255. 23.ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS AND OTHER RIGHTS RECORDED January 16,1990 IN BOOK 52 1 AT PAGE 256. Page 4 -:• 75 south frontage road vail,colorado 81657 (303)479-2138 (303)479-2139 off ice of community development October 27,1989 Mr.Jim Junge 4141 Arapahoe Avenue Boulder,Colorado 80303 Re:Special Development District for Lots 3,4 ,&5,Vail Valley Third Filing,a Resubdivision of a part of Sunburst Dear Jim, On behalf of the Town of Vail Community Development Department,Iam writing to confirm for you that lots 3,4,&5,Vail Valley Third Filing,a resubdivision of a part of Sunburst are platted lots according to our zoning map. :n respect to your question concerning a Special Development District for these three lots,the staff at this time can find no reason to support applying Special Development District zoning to these three lotfi.The purpose of a Special Development District is: 18.40.001 Purpose. The purpose of the Special Development District is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to p~omote its most appropriate use;to improve the d~s~gn character and quality of new development within the Town;to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities;to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas;and to furthe~the overall goals cf the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan ... Our understanding of your LeqUp.st is that the main purpose for the Special Development District is to increase the GRFA and site coverage for Lot 4 by deducting GRFA a:1d site coverage for the other two lots. In our opinion,this request has no relationship to good site planning which is based on develoom<~nt bei:1g related to the size of the lot . CU-.€:r alternatives to ac;ol~plish the same obi ec t Lve which would relate the devp.lopment to the size-of thG lot would be to request a minor • subdivision.You would subdivide the lot so that the corresponding development you wish to have for each lot relates to the lot size.You could also propose to remove a lot line and combine two of the properties to get the size of house your owner wishes. It is also important to note that these three lots are in moderate debris hazard,severe rockfall hazard,and perhaps a possible avalanche influence zone.The possible avalanche influence zone is somewhat difficult to determine due to the configuration of the road on our zoning map versus the avalanche map. If you have any questions about our opinion on your proposal,please feel free to call me. Sincerely, ~~ Kristan Pritz Senior Planner KP:lr cc:Peter Patten • TO:Planning and Environmental Commission FROM:Community Development Department DATE:March 12,1990 RE:A request to rezone property from Primary/Secondary to a special Development District for Lots 3,4,and 5, Vail Valley third filing,part of replat of Sunburst. Applicant:Debra and Robert Warner,Jr. I.DESCRIPTION OFTHE REQUEST This application is to rezone three undeveloped Primary/Secondary lots to a Special Development District. Development proposed for the SDD includes three Primary/Secondary structures.The purpose of this request is to permit GRFA on one of the 3 lots (Lot 4)to exceed that which is permitted under existing zoning.In addition, site coverage on this same lot is also in excess of what is permitted under existing zoning. with the exception of increases in GRFA and site coverage to lot 4,the development proposed by the SDD is consistent with the underlying Primary/Secondary zoning.Setbacks, building heights and parking are all consistent with Primary/Secondary development standards.The following table summarizes the development proposed for these three lots. Permitted Proposed site Parcel Permitted Proposed GRFA sitesite Coverage Size GRFA GRFA -±L.=.Coverage Coverage +/- Lot 3:15,364 3,786 3,300 -486 3,073 2,595 -378 Lot 4:16,641 3,914 5,500 +1,586 3,328 3,726 +398 Lot 5:15,967 3,846 3,550 -296 3,193 2,878 -315 TOTALS:11,54612,350 +804 9,594 9,299 -295 As indicated by this table,proposed development on lots 3 and 5 is below GRFA permitted under existing zoning by 782 square feet.Lot 4 development exceeds permitted GRFA by 1586 square feet.Collectively,proposed development on the three lots would exceed the total allowable GRFA by 804 square feet.site coverage on Lot 4 exceeds permitted site coverage by 398 square feet.Collectively,all three lots are 291 square feet below permitted site coverage. • Each of the three lots will be developed with a small secondary unit.The applicant has agreed to enter into a restriction agreement with the Town so that these units will not be subdivided and sold off as would be permitted by existing zoning. Two sets of criteria are to be used in evaluating a rezoning request of this type.The first of these are 3 criteria designed to evaluate the appropriateness of the zone change . Secondly,the Special Development District zoning includes nine design criteria.These nine criteria address specific issues relative to the proposed SDD. II.CRITERIA TOBEUSED IN EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL A.Evaluation of the Request: 1.Suitability of the proposed zoning. It is important to understand the purpose of Special Development District Zoning when evaluating the appropriateness of this request.As stated in the zoningcode,the purpose of SDDs is to: 18.40.010 Purpose: The purpose of the Special Development District is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use;to improve the design character and quality of new development within the Town;to facilitate the adequate and economic provisions of streets and utilities;to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas;and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan.An approved development plan for a Special Development District,in conjunction with the properties underlying zone district,shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District.The elements in the development plan shall be as outlined in section 18.40.060. As stated,the intent of this zoning request is to permit development on one of the lots to exceed what is permitted by existing zoning.This purpose is not consistent with the overall purpose of the Special Development District.with the exception of GRFA, there is nothing about this proposed development plan that could not be accomplished under existing zoning. While SDD's have been proposed and approved for many different reasons,they have generally not been used simply as a tool to allow for density increases with no pUblic purpose as described in 18.40.010. • 2.Is the amendment presenting a convenient.workable relationship within land uses consistent with municipal objectives. The residential use proposed by the SDD is identical to what is permitted under existing zoning.wnile this proposal is generally consistent with municipal objectives,the rezoning is no more consistent than what would be accomplished by the properties existing zoning. 3 .Does the rezoning prov ide for the growth of an orderly.viable community . The proposed rezoning will not further the growth of an orderly,viable community.If approved,this rezoning could represent the gradual deterioration of Vail's low density residential neighborhoods.One may consider this request and conclude that the uses and development are generally consistent with what is permitted under existing zoning.However,it is important to understand that zoning in Vail has been adopted in order to establish consistency between neighborhoods. The amount of GRFA allocated to a lot has a direct relationship to the size of the lot.the 'proposal conflicts with this basic principle of zoning for the Town of Vail.In order t o preserve the overall fabric of these areas,it is important to maintain the integrity of the existing zoning.This proposal,by virtue of its deviations from the development standards of the underlying zoning,is inconsistent with this criteria. III.SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DESIGN CRITERIA A.Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment.neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to the architectural design.scale.bulk. building height.buffer zones.identity.character, visual integrity and orientation. This proposal is generally consistent with this criteria.While the level of development on Lot 4 greatly exceeds allowable GRFA,the design of this structure is sensitive to minimizing bulk and mass. Each of the three structures are in compliance with Primary/Secondary height and setback requirements. Development on lot 4 does,however,exceed permitted site coverage by 398 square feet and GRFA by 804 square feet. • B.Uses,activity and density which provide a compatible. efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Uses proposed for these three sites are consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and the Primary/Secondary zone district. C.Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. This project is consistent with the Town's parking requirements. D.Conformitv with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan,Town policies and Urban Design Plans. The goal 5.5 of the Land Use Plan "encourages the development of employee housing at various sites throughout the community".The applicant's commitment to restrict the subdivision and resale of each of the three secondary units is a positive step towards providing employee units.In order to fUlly comply with this goal,deed restrictions limiting t he use of these secondary units to long term employee rentals should be established. E.Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the Special Development District is proposed. A site specific analysis of these properties has been completed.Lots 3,4,and 5 are located in moderate debris flow and rock fall zones.Lots 3 and 4 are located in a moderate snow avalanche zone.The Town's hazard ordinance requires mitigation of the snow avalanche hazard.Mitigation is not required for development on the lots impacted by rockfall and debris flow hazards.However,this development must be done in a way that does not increase the degree of hazard on adjacent property or Town Rights-of-way. A geologic hazard analysis of the proposed site plan has been completed.All hazards can be mitigated by structural reinforcement of the proposed residences. SUbject to the removal and/or redesign of proposed landscape walls along Sunburst Drive,this development will not increase the degree of hazards on adjacent lots or town rights-of way. • F.Site Plan,Building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The proposed development plan is consistent with these considerations. G.A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. Each of the three units have been designed with two driveways,resulting in 6 driveways over approximately 290 feet.six driveways to serve three lots is unnecessary and decreases the amount of area that could be dedicated to landsca ping. H .Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation,views and function. The proposed open space and landscaping is consistent with what is typically found in primary/Secondary development. I.Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable,functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the Special Development District. A phasing plan has not been proposed as a part of this SDD. IV.STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation for this request is denial.The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with the purpose of the Special Development District and is also inconsistent with the three criteria used to evaluate rezoning proposals. The development standards established by the Town's zoning ordinance are in place for a reason.These development standards are the primary tool used to ensure proper and orderly development throughout the Town.with the exception of GRFA and site coverage on Lot 4,this development proposal does not deviate from established development standards.However,thatis not justification to grant this request. •• Special Development District zoning has been approved by the Town Council 23 times.Each o f these rezonings have occurred for specific reasons relative to the development proposed for these sites.Reasons for SODs have related directly to the purpose of an SOD (as stated before): 1.To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use. 2.To improve the design character and quality of new development within the Town. 3.To facilitate the adequate and economic provision of streets and utilities. 4.To preserve the natural and scenic features of open space. 5.To further the overall goals of the community as stated in the comprehensive plan. This SOD is proposed solely to satisfy the needs of the applicant,with little to no benefit to the community.In essence,the SOD process is being utilized to achieve a density variance.The staff encourages the Planning Commission to recommend to the Town Council to preserve the integrity of the existing zoning and the SOD process b y denying this application. RE:LOTS 3,4 &5 -VAIL VALLEY 3RD FILING PART OF REPLAT OF SUNBURST SSIONAL CORPORATIONCHITECTURE&PLANNING P Kristan Pritz SeniorPlanner Town ofVail 75 S.Frontage Road Vail,CO 81657 JUNGE REICH MAGEEAI OCtober 23,1989 Attached please findaneleven sheet sketchplanreviewforthe three -lot single-family "Community Development Plan"whereby Lots3 &5are developed to 1essthan thei r maximum areas allowed,and Lot4 is developed toa greater amount thannormallyallowed.The enclosed two Site and House area summaries demonstratethe intent.The total allowable areas ofthe three lots remain the same,thereby creating onlya density transfer situation from the two exteri or sites tothe two i nteri or sites;and no overall increase inei ther the floor areaor lot coverage. The 440 s.f.of additional lot coverageonto Site 4 includes 128 s i f'.of sloping skylite,which is only two to five feet above gradetopermit light into thelower level pool.820 s.f.ofthe1,230 s.f.residential floor area transfered from Lots3 &5toLot4 is to include an820 s.f.lower level indoor pool which extendsunderthegarageto minimize any impactontothe site only 282 s.f.ofarea is located on the main living level. The typical house section throughthe lot indicates the low profile ofthe one levelhouseswiththewalkoutgarden levels.Thiswillmaintainaone story streetscape as viewed from SunburstDrive.Also the one story garageswith no living space above will reflect a low scale ofthe exterior design;nestling the houses into the site.The southe1evati on ofeach house further demonstratesthe character ofeach house eliminating any undesirable scale or massivenessbecauseof this request.The low stonewall at the street will tie the three sites together with all three houses incorporating the same dark greyroof tile of similar slope and redwood and stucco exteriors. We respectfully request the Town's reviewof this with Warner Developments' intent of moving forward on all three residences immediately throughthe Town of Vail's Design Review aswellasthe technic al approval. Respectfully submitted, James S.Junge,AlA JSJ/ela Enclosure cc:Bob Warner 4141 ARAPAHOE AVENUE BOULDER,COLORADO 80303 303 444-2987 ~ JUNGE REICH MAGEEAI.CHITECTURE &PLANNINGp eESSIONAL CORPORATION WARNER DEVELOPMENTS INC.October23,1989 VAIL GOLF COURSE HOUSING AREA REVIEWS LOT #3 HOUSE Coverage:2,822s,f. Allowed per Town ofVail 3,072 s.f. Adjustment -250s,f. Main Level:1,770 s.f. Lower Level:1,786 s.f. TotalFloorArea:3,556 s.f.4,336s.f.-780 s.f. LOT #4 HOUSE Coverage:3,668 s.f.3,228 s.f.+440 s.f. (includes 128 s.f.skylite for pool) Main Level:2,464s.f. Lower Level:2,410s .f'. Pool Area:820 s.f.+410 s .f'.residence TotalFloorArea:5,694s .f'.4,464 s.f.+820 s.f.pool 1,230S.F.Total LOT #5 HOUSE Coverage:2,913 s.f.3,193 s.f.-280 s.f. Main Level:1,946s.f. Lower Level:2,000 s.f. TotalFloorArea:3,946 s.f.4,396 s.f.-450 s.f. NOTES: 1.Buildingcoverage measured to outside of exterior walls N.I.C.cantilevers. 2.Buildingarea measured to inside of exterior walls -including cantilevers. 3.Stairwaysincludedin lower level area. 4141 ARAPAHOE AVENUE BOULDER,COLORADO 80303 303 444-2987 jUN~E REICH MAGEEAI.CHITECTURE &PLANNINGP VAIL GOLF COURSE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 3rdF1Jlng-Vall Primary/Secondary Residential District October 23,1989 ESSIONALCORPORATION Totalland area: Maximum site coverage 20%: (including garage) 3 autogarage area: Maximum main floor footprint Gross residential floor area: A.25%of first 15,000 s.f. B.10%ofremainderof lot C.Mechanical room 50 s.f.each D.U. LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5 15,364 s.f.16,641 s.f.15,967 s.f. 3,072 s.f.3,228 s.f.3,193 s.f. 720 s.f.720 s.f.720 s•f. 2,352 s.f.2,508 s.f.2,473 s.f. 3,750 s.f.3,750 s.f.3,750 s.f. 36 s.f.164 s,f.96 s.f. 100 s,f.100 s.f.100 s.f. Primary Unit Maximum Allowable Area 3,636 s.f. D.Vestibule 25 s.f.each D.U. E.Storage 200 s.f.each D.U. TotalAllowable Residential Area (not including garage) Second Unit: 50 s.f. 400 s.f. 4.336 s.f. 700 s.f. 50 s.f.50 s.f. 400 s.f.400 s.f. 4,464 s.f.4.396 s.f. 600 s.f.700 s.f. 3,839 s.f.3,696 s.f. Hei ght: Frontyard: Sideyard: Rearyard: 33'from lowest natural gradeto ridge 20' 15'each side 15' Areas measured to inside of outside wall. Basement areas areincludedin allowable areas. Attic areas arenotincluded under 5'-0"high. Crawl spacesof 5'-0"high may beusedfor storage. Cantilevers do notcount on lot areacoverage,however do count against total square footage. 4141 ARAPAHOE AVENUE BOULDER,COLORADO 80303 303 444-2987 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (303)278-2232 •• LOTS 3,4,&5 SUNBURST DRIVE VAIL,COLORADO Koechlein Consulting Engineers Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 10198th Street.Suite 101•Golden,Colorado 80401 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Job No.89-57 •• SOILS AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RESIDENCES LOTS 3,4 &5 SUNBURST DRIVE VAIL,COLORADO Prepared for: Warner Developments,Inc. P.O.Box 958 Avon,Colorado 81620 Attention:Mr.GaryMarner November 5,1989 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SITE CONDITIONS SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SITE GRADING FOUNDATION FLOOR SLABS FOUNDATION DRAINAGE LATERAL WALL LOADS SURFACE DRAINAGE LIMITATIONS VICINITY MAP LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS GRADATION TEST RESULTS TYPICAL WALL DRAIN DETAIL TYPICAL EARTH RETAINING WALL DETAIL • 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 6 6 8 9 Fig.1 Fig.2 Fig.3 Figs.4 thru 5 Fig.6 Fig.7 I I •• I I SCOPE I This report presents the results of a soils and foundation investi- gation for three proposed residences to be located on Lots 3,4and5on tions found in exploratory borings,recommendations for foundation con- struction,and criteria for design of foundations are presented in the I I Sunburst Drive in Vail,Colorado.A description of subsurface condi- with similar subsurface conditions in the area.The recommended founda- SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS tures and anticipated foundation loads.Prior to construction we should and recommendations is presented in the following paragraphs. The report was prepared based on conditions found in thereport. exploratory borings,results of laboratory tests.and our experience tion construction procedure is influenced by the proposed type of struc- are satisfactory for the buildings as designed.A summary of conclusions review the plans for the buildings to confirm that our recommendations I I I I I I I I I I 1.Subsurface conditions at the sites consisted of silty to clayey sand,gravel.and cobble to the maximum depth explored of 20 feet.No free ground water was found in the borings at the time of this investigation. 2.The residences may be constructed with spread footing foun- dation systems.Footings should be constructed at least 3 feet below the existing ground surface. 3.The subsurface soils will safely support a slab-on-grade with low risk of movement. I I I I •-2-• I I I I I 4.Drainage around the structures should be designed and con- structed to provide for rapid removal of surface runoff and avoid concentration of drainage adjacent to foundation walls. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION At the time of t his investigation,oneandtwo story residences were anticipated with possible walkout basements.The residences will be of wood frame construction and will likely have garages.Slab-on- grade floors are anticipated in the garages and basements.Due to the The lots for the structures are located on the west side of Sun- SITE COND I TIONS those normally associated with light residential construction. beneath the floor slab.Some foundation walls may be used as and act as Maximum columnand wall loads were assumed to be burs t Drive.Thes ites slope downward to the west at about 5 percent. where a dry irrigation ditch exists anda15 foot square,3 foot deep The slope of the site was relatively uniform with exception of the area a retaining wall. slope of the site the driveway or garages may have 6 to 8 feet of fillI I I I I I scattered across the entire site surface. aspen trees along the east and north sides.Cobbles and boulders are some of the nearby lots as well as the adjacent lots to the north and pit was excavated.Single family residences have been constructed on Vegetation consisted of natural grasses andweeds with somesouth. I I I I I I SITE GRADING Due to the gentle slope of the site,cut and fill may need to be done for construction of the driveway and garage areas.The fill may be constructed from the on-site silty and clayey sandand gravel soils excavated from the cuts.No gravel or cobble larger than 6 inches should be used in any fill area.Prior to placing any fill,the area should be stripped of all vegetation and topsoil,scarified,andcom- pacted.Fill should be placed in thin loose lifts and compacted to at least 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTH D- SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions were investigated at these sites by drilling 4 exploratory borings at the locations shown on Fig.2.Logs of Explor- atory Borings are presented on Fig.3.The soils found in the borings were relatively consistent.The soils consisted of loose to very dense silty and clayey sand,gravel,and cobble extending from the ground sur- face to the maximum depth explored of 20 feet.The upper 2 to 3 feet of dark brown sandand gravel was generally loose and the lower soils much more dense.Typical soil samples obtained in the borings were tested in our laboratory for gradation.The results of the gradation tests are presented on Figs.4and 5. No free ground water was observed in the borings at the time of drilling.However,the soils may become very moist to wet during peak runoff times or wet periods of the year. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •-3-• I I •-4-• FOUNDATION tested bya representative of our office. designed and constructed to meet the following criteria: 1557)or 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTH D- In our opinion,a spread footing The placement and compaction of fill should be observed and 2.Wallandcolumn footings may be designed using a maximum allow- able soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. 1.Footings should be supported by undisturbed soils at least 3 feet below the existing ground surface.Soils loosened by machine excavation should be cleaned from the excavation prior to placing concrete for the footings. The near surface soils were loose sands underlain by dense to very 698). densesand and gravel.Themore dense soils belowa depth of 3 feet will safely support foundations. existing ground surface.The spread footing foundation system should be footings should be supported on natural soils at least 3 feet below the foundation system may be used to support the proposed structure.The I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.The minimum dimensions for column footings should be at least 24 inches square and for continuous wall footings should be at least 16 inches wide.The footing widths may be greater than the minimum depending on the loads of the structure. 4.Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced,top and bot- tom,to span local anomalies in the soil. 5.Pockets of soft soils may befound in the bottom of the excava- tions for footings.Where soft soils are found they should be removed to expose firm soils and replaced with lean concrete or compacted soils.The on-site soils or approved imported granu- lar fill are acceptable for compacted fill.The fill should be placed in thin loose lifts,moisture conditioned,and compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •-5- density (ASTM 0-1557)or 100 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM 0-698). 6.The foundation soils contain cobble and boulder size material. Removal of cobbles and boulders from the bottom of footing excavations can result in rough excavation surfaces.If this cond ition develops during construction,the depressions in the bottom of the footing excavation can be filled with lean con- crete or compacted fill.The fill should be placed andcom- pacted in accordance with recommendat ions presented in the preceding 5. 7.Exterior footings should be protected from detrimental frost action.The normal depth of frost protection in the area is 4 feet beneath the exterior ground surface. 8.The foundation excavations should be inspected bya representa- tive of our office to confirm that the subsurface conditions are as anticipated.In addition,the placement and compaction of fill or backfill materials at the site should be observed and tested bya representative of our office during construc- tion. FLOOR SLABS Slabs-on-grade are anticipated for basement and garage levels.The subsurface soils at floor slab elevations may consist of loose to medium dense silty or clayey sand and gravel.These soils will support the proposed floor slabs with low risk of movement.We recommend a 4-inch layer of granular free draining material be constructed beneath all floor slabs to provide a moisture break and uniform support for the slabs. Fill may be required beneath the garage floor slabs or in excava- tions caused by removal of large cobble or boulders during excavation. The fill may consist of on-site silty sand and gravel,or approved imported granular fill.No gravel larger than 6 inches should be placed LATERAL WALL LOADS Basementand retaining walls may be planned which will require lateral design pressures.Lateral earth pressures dependon the type of backfill and the height and type of wall.Where walls are free to in fill areas.The fill should be placed in thin loose lifts,moisture conditioned if needed,and compacted to at least 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557)or 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-698).The placement and compaction of fill should be observed and tested bya representative of our office.We suggest evaluating the cost of placing and compacting fill versus a concrete structural floor slab. FOUNDATION DRAINAGE Surface water frequently flows through relatively permeable back- fill adjacent to the residence and collects on the surface of relatively impermeable soils occurring at the foundation elevation.This can cause wet or moist basement conditions after construction.To reduce the accumulation of surface moisture adjacent to basement walls,we recom- mend provision of a foundation drain.The drain should consist of a 4- inch diameter perforated pipe encased in free draining gravel.The drain should be sloped so that water flows to a sump where water can be removedbypumping,or toa positive gravity outlet.Recommended details for a typical foundation wall drain are presented on Fig.6. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •-6-• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •-7- rotate sufficiently to mobilize the strength of the backfill,the walls should be designed to resist the "active"earth pressure conditions. Where walls are restrained,which normally occurs in a basement wall, the walls should be designed to resist the earth pressure "at rest" condition.For design,an equivalent fluid weight of 35 pcf should be used for the "active"earth pressure,an equivalent fluid weight of 50 pcf should be used for the "at rest"earth pressure where sloped backfill conditions exist,andan equivalent fluid weight of 45 pcf should be used for the "at rest"earth pressure where level backfill conditions occur.A passive equivalent fluid weight of 300 pcf canbe used to resist the wall loads where the soils will always remain in place at the toe of the wall.The equivalent fluid weights do not include allowances for surcharge loads due to hydrostatic pressures or live loads.A coefficient of friction of 0.4 can also be used at the bottom of the footing to resist the wall loads. Backfill behind or adjacent to the wall should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D- 1557)or 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D- 698).The backfill should be placed in thin loose lifts and compacted. Placement and compaction of the fill should be inspected bya represen- tative of our office. To reduce the possibility of developing hydrostatic pressures behind retaining walls,a drain should be constructed adjacent to the wall.The drain may consist ofa manufactured drain system or gravel. fill or manufactured drain should extend from the bottom of the wall to SURFACE DRAINAGE precautions be observed during construction and maintained at all times planned and maintained surface drainage.We recommend the following •-8-• 2.The ground surface surrounding the exterior of each residence should be sloped to drain away from the residence in all directions.We recommend a slope of at least 12 inches in the first 10 feet. 3.Backfill around foundation walls should be moistened andcom- pacted to at least 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557)or 95 percent of the standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D-698). 1.Wetting or drying of the open foundation excavation should be avoided as much as possible during construction. The risk of wett ing of the foundation soils and developing hydro- within 2 feet of subgrade elevation.The water can be drained by use of typical detail for a retaining wall drain is presented on Fig.7. a maximum of 3 percent passing the No.200 sieve.Washed concrete aggregate will be satisfactory for the drainage layer.The gravel drain weep holes in the wall or a perforated pipe with collection of the water at the bottom of the wall leading to a positive gravity outlet.A If gravel is used,it should have a maximum size of 1.5 inches and have static pressure behind below grade walls canbe reduced by carefully after each residence is complete. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I foundation viewpoint,please call. (5 copies sent) •-9- We should observe and test the com- • 1J~ll~~~ William H.Koechlein,P.E.,President Reviewed by tested.The design criteria and subsurface data presented in this If we can be of further service in discussing the contents of this report are valid for 3 years after the date of this report. Although the borings were spaced to obtain a reasonably accurate pleted excavation to confirm that the soils are as indicated by the borings.The placement and compaction of fill should be observed and WNH/gk determination of foundation conditions,variations in the subsurface LIMITATIONS conditions are always possible. report or in analyses of proposed structures from the soils and I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •• I \ I v A IL ~GO LF I COURSE NOT TO SCALE I PROPOSED I SITES I GOLF COURSE I CLUBHO~ I C/lc: I z c: :II C/l I -l C :II I I I I I I I VICINITY MAP I JOB NO .8&-157 FIG.1 FIG .2 • EXISTING HOUSE I I I I TH-4 PROPOSED RESIDENCE COURSE • LOT 5 r -----r---'APPROXIMATE LOCATION:'70F EXISTING EXCAVATION I I I I I I I I I IL--' ------,------ LOT 4 LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS TH-2 •I • LOT 3 r-----.------..- I I • I I EXISTING HOUSE JOB NO .88-&7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FIG.3 LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS 1.Exploratory borings were drilled on October 18,1989 with a 4-inch d iame te r continuous flight power auger. 3.No free ground water was e ncountered at the time o f dril ling . 2.These logs are sub1ect to the explanations,limitations and conclusions as contained in this report . 4 .-200 -indicates percent p assing the No.200 s ieve. NOTES : LEGEND: ~SAND,s ilty,claye v,g ravell y ,mo ist,l oos e,dark brown fj;~1 SAND,silty to claye y,g ravell y ,mois t,medium dens e t o very d ense,b rown ~PRl VE SAMPLE.Thesymbo l 6/1 2 indica te s that 6 blows of a 140po und hamm er falling 30 inches were requ ired to drive a 2 .0 i nchO.D.s a mp ler 12 inches. ••TH-4TH-1 TH-2 TH-S 0 0 6/12 8/12 8/12 5/12-200=47 34/12 .":.'.1 1/12 10 /1 2 .~.o ••14/12 '.~:-:::-200=315:.•.5~·;3·.~;:::~".. ~~~;: ",;.'~~~;~~...".. ".'.-....... ,;.~'.:~....•... I-e.;~.•....:::;",~:I-g}..'~":~)III :~~:.~.....III...• III :.~:>:.'!••••III U.t-s.34/1 2 .~.:.::~.~~~';"~':u. ,"..:'.3 9 /12 :~.~~5 0/4 '/:~.":.;50/6 zz10..•~.~.~:.,-200 =1 7 \';.~~10:~:':.::.."::;'~".'!. ::J:......::.:::.~...:...~~L:::J: I-:~;:=~:':~::. .,lJ"~'I-,.;.....D.D.~..:':.':',,;~~,:..... III .....~i~).·.:.1~.:III 0 :/.:::.~:::.~0....•'.-::.:.....'.... .~.;~~):~~~..;'::t\»:;.; :~~:.~;30/12;~"30 /1 2 ,..... .',:'....-,15 .::~:.:~.-200=23 ......:-15 ?{].....:\:}.:....:..-.::- :·:.i .~~:~~.\.~ :.•....~•.~.;:::..,':;..•..... ~'.:' 20 35/12 5 4/12 32/1 2 20 JOB NO.89-157 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •• KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS o 30 10 GRAVEL 13 %SAND 4 0 % SLT &.CLAY ~%UQUO UM IT __% PLASTIC ITY INDEX % co II.2 02 Je '16 952 ,..36 .162 '27 200 '52 CLAY ,SAND Y,GRAVE LLY TH -2 at 2 Feet 005 009 019 037 014 ,4\1 C LAY IPI,,\STlC1 IO IOU (NON.J>lASlCl sample of ---"~_:_'_~":'_"_.w--"-"'''-'-'".......c.>..-------- From __---=-"-~~_=___'_"''''-''-_ 00.002 .,60 ....9 .........,....-,..'n •f't "11IIO-10 "",n"'4 Jill'JU'.,...S '•, (Xl I I V I I • I j.--Ieo:V ::70 ./-r I !00 ~. /I I I 50 ~::: 4()I I I 30 ..7,, I I I 20 :::'0 I I I 0 I •• I I I I I I I I o 30 80 70 o FIG ,4 GRAve.37 'lit SA/II)46 'lit Sl.T &.ClAY ---.lL-'lit lJQUI)UMfT __'lit PlAST1ClTY1NOEX 'lIt SIEVE ANAlYSIS (Xl "9 2.02.31 416 952 '9.'36.t 76.2 '27 200 .~ U 10 SIMIlJAAO S£RtES FNE GRADATION TEST RESULTS 1\1 is M ill 00 MIN .'9 M....4 MIN .1 MN '200 '1(Xl '50 '40'30 "6 ',o'e "Ji 8'J I"''h-J '5',8 I I V !·I I I 1/I ::/: I !/I I J,.V I :...V:: I V I I I . :....---~I I,.::: I I I.t ClAy (PIAS11C)10 SU (NClO+4'l.ASllCl Sompleof SAND.GRA VELL Y.SILTY FromTH-2 at 9 Feet o 00'002 HYDROMETEIl ANAlYSIS 70 '0 80 20 30 JOB NO .80-151 I I I I I I I I I I I ••KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEER to JO 20 o 90 20 FIG.5 JO IlO 70 GRAVEL 30 'X.SANO 4 7 'X. SllT8<ClAY -.1L'X.lIQUIDUMIT __'X. PtASTiCfTV INDEX 'X. GRAVEl 18 'X.SA/'()51 'X. SIJ atClAY JL'X.LlQUOUMIT __'X. PlASTlCITY I'CIEX 'X. SIEVE ANAl.VSlS 00 119 20 2 J&4 1S 9 S2 '9 ,35 ,7S 2 '21200 '52 00 119 20 2.31 476 952 19 •35.'762 '27200 '52 US .STNCWIO_ u 5 SIANOAAO S(/lIfS GRADATION TEST RESULTS 005 009 019 03 101 4 '49 005 009 019 037074 .WI1 ,ilO ...'9 ....4 .........'2 III ••II 'a ·..•a "0''4 W·:w".y,-"S'•" I I ~V-I··VII"I::V : I I /!I · I /'"'I I ~":: /'"I I I·1~··I I I::: I I I·•·, Sample of SAND •GRAVELLY,S ILIT,e LAYEY From TH-3 a t 14 Feet HYOOOM ETffi ANALYSIS ,..60 ~'9 M~4 MIN •M ...."200 "00 'SO '40 '30 "S "'0'&'4 318"314",Yo"J "S"•& I I ,....,!a ··-----, I I ....V I :lAI"":0 I V !I··,,?'i I /::: ~i"""I I I··· I I I ::: I I I·• CLAY IPlAS11C 1 10 SIlI II'OOt+"lAS11C) a 00'002 ClAy (I'I.AS11C )10Sl.1 1 ~11C 1 a 00'002 SompIe of SAND,SILTY •CLAY EY.GRAYELLY Fnxn TH-4 at 4 Feet '0 10 20 JO 20 JO JOB NO.88-57 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THE DRAIN SHOULD E LAID ON A SLOPE RANGING BETWEEN 1/8 INCH AND 1/4 INCH DROP PER FOOT OF DRAIN. -PROVIDE PVC SHEETING GLUED TO FOUNDATION WALL TO REDUCE MOISTURE PENETRATION. CLAYEY BACKfILL FIG .8 DETAIL INSTALL WASHED 1 1/2 INCH TO NO.4 GRAVEL WITH LESS THAN 3~PASSING THE NO .200 SIEVE OR AN APPROVED MANUFACTURED DRAINAGE SYSTEM. BELOW-GRADE WALL NOTE: DRAIN SHOULD BE AT LEAST •INCHES BELOW BonOM OF TOP Of FOOTING AT THE HIGHEST POINT AND SLOPE DOWNWARD TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING. • DRAINWALL 11"..... GltAYEL 12"MIN. TYPICAL COMPACTED BACKFILL z 2 • •Cl 4 INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE. JOB NO .88-57 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2.GRAVEL WITH DRAIN PIPE 3.WEEP HOLES WITH GRAVEL 1.APPROVED ~U'NUFACTURED DRAIN SYSTEM FIG.7 GALVANIZED APPROVED MANUFACTURED DRAIN SYSTEM • WEEP HOLES PROVIDED AT 10' CENTER TO CENTER 4 INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED pvC PIPE . THE DRAIN LINE SHOULD BE LAID ON A SLOPE RANGING BETWEEN 1/8 INCH AND 1/4 INCH DROP PER FOOT OF DRAIN AND LEAD TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY OUTLET. ) TYPICAL EARTH RETAINING WALL DETAIL COMPACTED BACKFILL 10' • " CLAY BACKFILL NOTE: INST ALL EITHER WAS HE01 1/2 INC H TON O.4 GRAVEL WITH LESS THAN J PERCENT PASSING THE NO .200 SIEVE. JOB NO.88-67 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EASEMENT NOTES I .Right of pr opri etor of av ein or lode to e xt ra ct and r emove his ore th e refr om should the same be f ound to pen etrate or int ersect t he p r emises as r es erved in United States Patent Record edJ une 29,1903,in Book 48 at P age 495 . 2.Restrictive c ovenants which do not contain a forfeitur e or rev erter clause,but omittingr estrict io ns,if a ny,bas ed on race,color,rel ig ion,or na tional origin,a s co ntained in i nstrumentr ec orded August 30,1977,in Book 259 at p age 68 . 3.Utility ea sement as granted to Vail Water a nd Sanitation Distri ct in in strume nt recor dedFebru ary 5,1969,in Book21 4 at P age 612andr ecorded on Oct ob er 20,1969 i n Book16 at P age 217. 4.Un divid ed 1/2 int eres t in an d to all o f t he ga s,o il a nd ot her miner als,so lidl i quid a nd gaseous,of eve ry kind an d na tu re,in cl uding uranium,in o n an du nd er a n a ndwh ich may be produced from t h at por tion of sub j ec tp roper ty in Secti on 10 of l e gal desc riptionh er e to a s expecte d and reserved b y Pete rE.Ka tso s i n deed recorde dMay 3,1960 in Book 165 a t Pa ge22 7. 5.Agreemen t betwee n V,Associ at es,Lt d.,A Colo r ado limi ted partnershi p and Ga sFa ci liti es,Inc.,A Co lor. C c r~or .t ion record ed Ju ly 24,1964i n Book '8 3 a t Page 157. (Te rmi n at ed in d ocu ment reco rde d Apri .Ie ,19 69 in Book 2 14 at P age 9 99,Eagle County r 'erk a ndRecord er's Of fi ce ). 6.Bearing are base d 0\he re arl ot lineo f Lo ts 5 ,6 ".• 7 o fVail Val ley-Thi rd F iling (a r e subdi vi siono f p art of Su n burs t>a s being N53°19 '24"E. I her eby c er tify th at thi sI mprovement Loca t io nCertificate was pr ep aredfo rLeo Brandes s,t h at it i sno taLand Survey PIa t o rI mprove me nt Surve y Pl a t,an d tha t i t is no tt o b e re l ie d upo n for the esta blishment o f fence ,bui lding ,or other f ut ure imp rovement lines.1 furt her cer tify th at the impr ovements o nt hea bovedes cr ibed p ar cel o n th is d ate, 10-3 -89,e xce pt u ti li ty connec tions,are e nt i re ly within the bo u nda r le s o ft he parce l,exce pt a s s hown,that there a re no en c roachments u po n the desc ribed prem ises by improvemen ts on any adjoi ning pr emises,exce pt as ind icated,and that the re i sn o apparent evidence or sign o f any easement crossing or b u rd e nin g any part o f sa idp ar cel,excep t as noted . Pertinent Exc eptions F rom Schedule B-2 CE RTI FI CATION STATUTE OF L IMITATION S LOTS 3,4,5and7,Vail Valley Third Filing,EagleCounty , Colorado. Containing 1.613 acr e s,mo re or less. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION This su rvey does not con stituteat itle s ea rch b yMerri ck & Com panyt o d ete rmin e ownership or ea sements of r e co rd.For all informati on r e gar ding ea se ments,rights-of-way and titl e o fr ecord,Merrick &Company relied u pon Title Commi t ment No.V11240,pr epared byLand Title Guarantee Com pany da ted Sept emb er 18,1987 at 8:00 a.m. NOT ICE:Acco rding t o Co lorad oLaw y oumus t commence a ny lega l actio n base d upon an y defe ct in t his survey wi thi n t hre e years afte r yo u firs t di scov er such defec t.In n o eve nt mayany action base d u pon any d efe ct i n thi s su rv eyb e comme nce d mor e tha nt enye a rs f rom the dat e of th e ce rtifica tion s ho wnh ere on. -- L1 =19°00'00" R =107.54 I CH=544 °21 '29"W C=35.50' L =35.66' I ,....)rr:,'/'-_....I :-) ~.... nm NO.5 RE8 ARW/CAPL S 131 55 FND NO.5REBAR W/CAPLS 22100 LEGEND o "CABLET.V.RI SER •FNDNO.5R EBAR W/CAPLS 2183 &.t:W NO.5 REBAR,NOCAP o MH M/\NHOLE o WVWATER VALV E o ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER PAD o MOUNTAIN BELL RI S ER -------------/ I 1,--_--1 N35°19'2 4''E: 5 .00' I I I ION S / L1 =22°31'1, R=144.95' CH=542°35'42"W C=56.61' L =56.98' /-:--1 5 53°5/:?9 'W /500 ' L1 =11°00'00" R=106.85' CH=521°51 '29"W C=31.59' L =31.10' 530°21 '29"W 55.00' L1 =10°50'14" R=115.6/' CH=535°4636"W C=21.83' L=21.81' L1 =11°58'34" R=144.95'1-----!---jT---l CH=522°2/24"W C=45.29' L=45.48' k-----t----+----~__l513°2/'29 "w 4.5 0' /">..--,"\...t .. / .>- I1,-__- I \, SITE MAP / N.T.S. T.5S.,R 80W,6 TH P.M. -: / / VICINITY ...., ./.- 9) \ 4 I I),- !..-'--/ L1 =23°04'49" R=165.00' CH=N41 °46'59''E C =66.02' L =66.41' 30'SANITARY SEWER _~I EASEMENT.BK.2/4,PG.6j \ L1 =24 °5 3p1" R=108.81 CH=N 26°08'28''E C=4 6.94 ' L =413/' L1 =16°33'06" R=165 .00' CH =N21°58'o2''E: C=41 50' L=4161' ~.\:/. 8 / / ///J~/ / I ~~/ ~""/ //// / 1012)0