HomeMy WebLinkAboutCROSSVIEWAn rz1,',/f.
.L TH|S rrEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY-t
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS 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 January 11, 1993, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
Consideration ol:
1. A request for a work session for the establishment of a Special Development District, a
CCI exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, a zone change, and an amendment to
View Corridor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A, B,
C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc.iVail Associates,
Inc./Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc.Planner: Mike Mollica/Tim Devlin
2. A request for a work session to amend Chapter 18.32 and Chapter 18.38 of the Vail
Municipal Code relating to uses allowed in open space zone districts.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Jim Curnutte
. A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of
single lamily homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase lli1480 Buffer Creek
Rd.
Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty
Planner:Andy Knudtsen
4. A request for the establishment of a new zone district called Ski Base Recreation ll.
Applicant: Ron Riley
Planner:Mike Mollica/Tim Devlin
5. A request lor variances for site coverage and setbacks to allow the remodel of a
residence located at315 MillCreekCircle/Lot2, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Howard and Judy BerkowitzPlanner: Shelly Mello
6. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4, Cascade Village Area A, Millrace lll to
amend the approved development plan to allow for one single family residence and
one duplex located at 1335 Westhaven Drive, more specifically described as follows:
3
+
A part of the SW 1/+, NE 1/+, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of
the 6th P.M., described as follows;
Beginning at a point of the North-South centerline of said Section 12 whence an
iron pin with a plastic cap marking the center of said Section 12 bears
S00'38'56'W 455.06 feet; thence along said centerline N00'38'56"E 122.81 feet
to the southerly ROW line of l-70;thence departing said ROW line N66"53'25"E
39.15 feet;thence departing said ROW line S81"23'19"E 165.42leet to a point
of curve; thence 122.83 feet along the arc ot a 143.20 foot radius curve to the
left, having a central angle of 49'08'51" and a chord that bears 515'57'45'E
119.10 feet; thence 540"32'10'E 3.00 feet; thence 66.30 feet along the arc of a
77.21 toot radius curve to the right, having a central angle of 49"12'10" and a
chord that bears 515'56'05"E 64.28 feet; thence S8"40'00'W 90.27 feet; thence
N38'42'24'W 224.55 feet: thence S78'10'32'W 101 .44 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
MECM Enterprises, Inc. represented by Michael Lauterbach
Jim Curnutte
7.A request for setback variances to allow the construction of two awnings to be located
at the Mountain Haus/292 E. Meadow Drive/a portion of Block 5, Vail Village First
Filing.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicantl
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
8.
9.
A request for a setback variance, at the Manor Vail Lodge to allow the construction of
a trash enclosure, located on a Part of Lot 1, Block B, Vail Village Seventh Filing/595
East Vail Valley Drive.
Preston Jump representing the Mountain Haus Condo
Association
Jim Curnutte
Manor Vail Lodge
Andy Knudtsen
Charlie Alexander
Tim Devlin
A request for a conditional use permit to allow a major arcade (family entertainment
center) to be located at the Crossroads Shopping Center, located on Lot P, Block 5D,
Vail Village First Filing/141 East Meadow Drive.
10. Review of staff policy on vending carts (ie. espresso carts).
Staff:Tim Devlin
N.V. Elenial
P.O. Box 309
Ponte Veria Beach, FL,
32004
Ron Artinian
Snowram Associates
5 Brislol Drive
Manhasset, NY 11030
Charles A. Dill
807 S. Warson
St. Louis, MO 63124
Todcl Keleske
4840 Meadow Lane, #A
Vail, CO 81657
Ronald W. Crolzer
1460 Ridge Lane
Vail, CO 81657
CROSS VIEW AT VAIL AAJACENT
PHOPEHTYO\A'I{ERS
F. Scotl and Roslynn R. Nicholas
825 Nichollet Mall
221 Medical Arts Building
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Glenn W. and Barbara S. Barnard
4500 South Downing
Englewood, CO 80110
Mervyn Lapin
232 W. Meadow Drive
Vail, GO 81657
Ronna J. Flaum
P.O. Box 309
Pointe Verdan Beach, FL 32004
Tom Fitch
The Valley
P.O. Box 3176
Vail, CO 81658
Peter Feistman
The Super Associalion
P.O. Box 3176
Vail, GO 81658
Charles and Margaret Rosenquist
P.O. Box 686
Vail, CO 81658
Steve Gensler
Robert Ullman
Parkview Realty, Inc.
5299 DTC Blvd., Suite 500
Englewood, CO 80111
Town ol Vail
Brian Doolan
P.O. Box 2182
Vail, CO 81658
U.S. Forest Service
P.O. Box 190
Minlurn, CO 81645
PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
PLANNING . OEVELOPMeNT ANALYSIS . RESEARCH
December 14, IW2
Mr. Andl' Knudtsen
Community Dev elopment Department
Town of Vail
75 South Fror:tage Road
Vail, CO 81557
Dear Andy:
Eni:losed ,vou *'ill find srinor subdivision and special development district applications for the
Crossview at Vail prrrject. In accordance with applicable sections of the Vail Municipal Code,
the fbllowing material has been submitted:
l) 20 copies of the written proposal.
2) Four complete sets of plans:. Preliminary minor subdivision plat for Tract A. Site plans of tracts A and B. l-andrcape plan for tract A. Tract B building floor plans and elevations. Cross-sections and overlays comparing proposed development with the Valley
Phase II County approval.. Grading and drainage plan for tract B
' Geologic hair,ard report for tracts A and B
3) Tiile reports for tracts A and B.
4) List ol'adjzrcent property owners
5) Four copies of stamped surveys lbr tracts A and B.
We appreciate your assistance over the past few months and look forward to working witb you
on the revierv of this proposal. As per the PEC schedule, it is our intention to present this
application to the PEC on.lar:luary I l. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions
1ou may irave.
Sinct;icl.','.
Suit€ 204, Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Hoad West . Vail, Colorado 81657 . (303) 476-7154
DATE ---"-t:::'!
, RECEIPT - The Town of Vail
: /1 -'i \| , <t /, l Ng', 469I34-'/ !ra / ul
-,l9-/-,-e'
i ::' 'l
:.)''" ^-.e L)?.' (fr1 ,-4^ n ;
Trr.r" t,Z l :t " ">fi'', '<
A i-i'r,':C'rL"
RECEIPT - The Tou'n of Vail
N9 46994
D.{TE
RECEIVED FRON{
ADDRESS
Permit n-umbers 7;i' -THow PAID-cash-Chrrd--- 0 0
1.. RECEIPT - The Town ofVail
l\. -'1 , Azzo$e 1..!L'( --// ,sJ-?.N9 46995
'6-''-/
U:
/?^t t_)1..,..,-r,-
RECETVED FROM
Police ReceiPt,Numbers
,.y'\':1_2.Lr'\--/ .
01. 07. 93 06:3b***THE ULTIMA GTPANIES P02
rff0i0,.rail d itgS
llhir har been a long and tcdlour proccfr, onc that I hopc saunom bc rceolved cxpadLtl-oueIy. If I can be of any further
January ?, 1993
llr, An ty Rnudtscn!!osa PlannerTwn of vBl,l75 S, Frontagc Roedvall. co 81657
nEt :[bc Vallry - PhErr [vot alkla Crorrvicw Prop.rtl.., Ltd.
Dear Andlz:
-fr Robert l{. Ulluann, tro-ow:nar o! crorrvlarr Proprrtlealhcrgby statss Ey aqreefrent and authorisation wiLh Steven lf.GeaalEr in the -suttittaf of a epeclat dwelopnent dLatrtet,aad a mLnos aubdlvblon plct for trorevhw Probrrtlcr.
arc{etance pleaee do not hesitata to contact ne.
9ifrperely,
4OOO CUMBERLANO FARKWAY
BUILDING 7F. SUITE C
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 3O33S
4O4-333€OOO FAX 4O4-3-F931 I
I
\
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
0185 INGERSOLL I.ANE
srLT, coLoRAoo 81652
(3O3) 8?e54m e4 HouRs)
Serptember 1B-. Lq€17
5t errs:n Een s !. er
Far-kwood lieal.L.y
5?cr9 DTC 51\.,d. i}si0ft
801 i J.
RE,1(:t lit, )i-ioa r; l:licjqi.. $urbdivi=i on
Deai- I'il'. 6tlns.[ er:
I lr;r'.'C] rcvi.€.hrttcJ thcl ssve'n r:i tes as g,h l]r..,n cn the Ecctnpi.r]yi nE rire.Ij
{cr cr-trsosu:-; c:+ Ficck i:a11 a;rd Debr-i s Flow i-e.zi c.t.l {ctt- l:!ti:' i*r..;n o'j;
\rai I " T;-' el s.even ";i t.g:: ai-e rJLtt t-.ri: the Je!::-i r-, .ir.n anri ch..:,nnr='1 -
Al. i o'l: t ir i-: n or-th:-ii-nrro!it gi tc anii iJ*1y-t: o-t the neirt ti.;o .::.r'':1 kri Lhin
'i: i,- Q i"ir:'li. iirir Roci: FaIl l-!li: rd (!:ss ;,iEgtrrrr::snvi nmq! n;iipi.
'l"he roclr 'ls,i 1 eii-se i E r'norc Sinv(irc: *ur- Lher nDrth i:han tti*;r':
but:1di n1 ::i t t-',; on ';ire crl:hilr gi da o-S T:";.c't F1i r,r!-, er- F-. i t h,:',: tiC3sn
i-c:pctt-tc;: j. n .r c':ntr.ix:n{}r'c:tTi(.:LrLr'"; L eti:::r i: l-::.r t thriy c:',tt brt cli=i 1;.'
5 t- l-:l-t't eiJ ct- ci'lhei-r.,li =e neuut;-aI i:e.:cl b:c;rr-i:ig +-he'r- ;rr- -; tt-ri n s.:": d
d i :;ccrnl: i. ilLltlLtti. The rlorll l:atai-dourg cLitcl-cp.; rnuulr hii:irnr- ;:n t,h*
hill:;iCg uili.-:l-rcC nos.ti.r,'to the r.rest, Filthcr-igh rnit:r;lt'iir:n.rt
th!-t h(:ne:r:. teg' i s Fil:rrij- 1,1$ . tl';:-Gr.rqh r.Jarr'..1 E ';r blrrii nq , I i- :r.'! nrll:
tia:-ranted clr-r:i t c.r 'the. i i:r.l r:hence o1c r-c,c!i:r reirrhi. no 't ii i-" 5i'Li:s.
Tlre c--n*rruct'.ion Lr+ theE..? urn i t:: rgi Ll. not i rt c;- c...:.::t. the i:ir::,:,i-il !Lr
o';hei- pr-crcr'- ty r:r .:tructLrrc...t:, or- 1". o pr-lbI ic rir;F,'cs-c'i:-:.J;t',',,
bui1r:lirras. r-nirciti, :::t!-eet-.s 2 Grrlse:ilr:lnt:;. r-rti -1. i ti 1,.::i tli' 'i,:\ci i it j. r'':; ,: t-
o{:hi::i" ;:r-c-,;:e:''iiell o+ }.ny iii ricj. l'hs: r:thi.:,r' ijji:e::t *r-e ni:ii: j.r; Li:i i:hirt-
of the h;r:,1,i-ci iir{niils.
I'F rlhe*rL' rtrtt GLts.5ti ons cL e:isc' ci:ntac't Ini.'.
5: r'lc1:"r:i '.'-"'frU^-/;
i'ii cn:l e-c La/i'ei r i :
Con=rti t i rrg tJco I '::g i rt
. Applicant:- Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1993
Chuck Crist motioned to table the request with Dalton Williams seconding the motion
and a unanimous vote of 6-0 tabled the request until January 25, 1993.
A request for a proposed SDD and mlnor subdlvlslon to allow lor the
development of slngle famlly homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley'
Phase ll/1480 Buffer Creek Rd.
.'.''...-
500'38'56"11/ 455.06 teet; thence along said centerline N00"38'56"E 122.81 feet
to the southerly ROW line of l-70; thence departing said FIOW line N66'53'25"E
39,15 feet;thence departing said ROW line S81"23'19"E 165.42 feet to a point
of curve;thence 122.83 feet along the arc of a 143.20 foot radius curve to the
left, having a central angle of 49"08'51' and a chord that bears 515'57'45"E
119.10 feet; lhence S40"32'10'E 3.00 feet;thence 66.30 feet along the arc ol a
77.21 tool radius curve to the right, having a central angle of 49'12'10" and a
chord that bears S15o56'05"E 64.28 feet;thence S8'40'00"W 90.27 feet;thence
N38'42'24"W 224.55 feet;thence 578'10'32"W 101.44 feet to.the Point of
Beginning.
MECM Enterprises, Inc. represented by Michael Lauterbach
Jim Curnutte
6
Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty
Andy Knudtsen
8.
Chuck Crist abstained from this request due to a poteniial conflict of interest.
Andy Knudtsen reviewed the request stating that there were three deviations from the
code.
Tom Braun, representing the applicant, gave a brief presentation. He emphasized that
the applicant did not want to request additional GRFA and would be doing further
research before the final hearing regarding that issue.
Public Inout
Neighborhood input was then requested and the first speaker was Brian Doolan' He
requested that lhe applicant look into the various Fire Department requirements and
come up wilh an alternative design.
Steve Lindstrom spoke second, discussing the differences between the County
approval and the proposed plan. He specifically requested that the PEC require Mr.
Gensler to reduce the amount of asphalt in his design.
Plannlng and Envlronmental Commlsslon
January 11, 1993
I F IL E COPY
75 south lronlage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 4792138
(303) 4792139
otfice ol community development
February 26, 1992
Mr. Jack Snow
P.O. Box 3378
Vail, CO 81658
Re: Hazard Mltlgatlon at The Valley, Phase ll
Dear Jack:
As you requested, I have reviewed the file for the development you did in The Valley, Phase ll
during the summer of 1991. This development includes one 4-plex building and one single
family residence. This development is located in Cebris flow and rock fall hazard areas,
according to the Town's hazard maps. Mitigation for these hazards has been designed by
Peter Monroe of Monroe Engineering and Steven Pawlak of Chen Northern, Inc. Stamped
drawings and letters are in the file showing the detailed conslruction plans for how the
mitigation was to be built.
lf you need any of this information, or if you would like to discuss this matter further, please
call me at 479-2138.
Sincerely'
.// /'
-rYoU,AndyYKnud\en;
Town PlanndrJ
lab
,'/ ti
l-r-<"/rf\a
I
trl
TO 2328 (7.86)
i.
Ab€Nl lo .
NO.COUNTY
PRIOR POLI
DATE OF I.AST
IHSUNTO INATS
{Mo ) (Yr I
BEISSUE LIABILIIY 3
NO CENIS)
Number Amount of lnsurance Date ol Policy Premium Agsnl Relained Fee
o**.1', o 3028$3 67 74 a2$ 360, fl$o, n0
6B ,"rPr i I ?6n iiltt 73
."r- il " ti I il i.{
s2
$ | .01 1.5C
9I)170 177
1. Name of Insured: CpCSSVlnl1 p6PERTlf5, LTD., a Color';rrlo linll'ed palinership' ni; to
nn undlr,, lded ?/1A ln-icresl', c,/o IJLTitll\ l{0lnlilcs" 4?G0 Cumberland
2. Title to the estate or interest covered by this policy et the date hercof is vested in the instrred.
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Schedule covered by this policy is Fee Simple.
FEE..
4. The land referred to in this policy is located in the County of Eanle
State of Colorado and described as follows:
LEGAL DES$IIPTIOII SET FORTTI ON SHEET ATTACHED HENETO AND BY THIS
REFERENCE IIICORPOMTED I|EREIII AND I,IADE A PART I.I5REOF.
1,c;f ;, .,s /,
usrn wr"rH ,1rrA cwNFria. n [] ourHe
^s
,t,ro ,rtr,u,L,tv.g f-']
cAT. NO. NNm315
TO l4O5.l (l'83)
scrnuofie ContInued]
0rder llo.3$3{16;*Oo 302s63
Tho tand reforrsd.ro ln thls Pot lcy ls locfifeoj In "fhe counfy C}f liaglo " S'tnfe
of Colo,-ado and descrlbod as {sl lotuttl
Two trec.tg of lanrl irr Pnrcel A, L!on's i|ldgo subdtvl$1()n, FlIIn(}
Ito. Z' e stbtltvlsl+n rocordqd in fhn'off lr:s of tho Clcrk nnd
Recordar,EogloCoun{ry"Colorado,sntdJ'vo*rff;i'$fuolngnoreperttcularly derecribstl us fcl [ous:
TRACT A:
l3egtnnlng at e polnl'orr fto ltcrttr lins of sald Percol A whencs the
t#6 t/I carner of Sscfisn 1?o Toqrrnshlp 5 $oufh, fltngo 8'? t{es* of
l'he Slxfh Prlncipel I'!crltllan boor$ l"lorth 6$d19tdln Eesf! ?80'00
foet dl s*il1';
thenco south 1s40tl?r Eatf, '14'1s foo'fl
thence 44.Sg taxl't aton$ fh€l orc of s c'rr\ts to tho letf* hovlng a
radlus of 501 .29 feet, arr lnfortor anglo of 4ol3!4ttt" and a ctrord
uhlch boars South 68"1$r59il tfegfr 44.58 fseft
tli,once Soctfh 66012t09m '#ost, ?S3.6? fect;
thenco tlorfh 21o4?r55!t !lssl', 10.00 feEti
th;ncs lisrth 3to59r58n Wost" 189.?$ foot fs s pstnt oo the llorth
tlns of sald Parcel Ai
it*i** along sal'J tlorih llne tlorth S$ottr4ln Easto 4t5'05 foc{ to
tho polnt of beglnnlng.
TRACT RI
Beglnnlng at c polnf on fhe Soufherly rlght of-uay-!tn3 of Llonrs
niiw r-o6p *enis fhs trcrfh l/4 corn6r oi ssctton 12, To'cnshlp 5
Sooit, Rango S1 Flest of flr. Slxth Prtnclpol Ftarldlan boacs lioftb
6t;ii;30'r Eo*, 544.-f6 feet dtsfanf , sald' polnt of beglnntng also
b*lng fhe tlortfresstcrly corner of Fsstern Vel lay fordctnlnit.rbs -
r+tuui Zn Ona" the Orndintnluro Flap of v?rldr l5 recorded In the
of f lce of fhe Eeglo (bunty, Colerado, Clsrh *lRd Recordo{'t
thuncu ttlo fol toitng three-coursos along fhe Eostsrly boundary of
sald Eastorn Volloy Cordcrnlnluns - Phans ?A Cno:
(1' Sorth t5"ffir05n Eas*, 23.10 foot;
t2) South 41o50t553t lileisf, 27.98 footl(3) South 4l653rila E45t, 5?.00 fsot;
fherr-o !{orth 5l ol?'' 4?r'
thsnce ?torth 89093 f 25n
therre Soufh 00406r35F
thonca Sorth 35o47t?ta
fhoncg South 30"56t?4n(bn*lnuod)
Eos'|, 35.90 fost;g€6t ?0.67 foett
Eas*n 55.40 foot;
Wes*, 250.65 fect;
Easr", ?59.96 fosf to a goint on the
ril4,r!a;i,$re drallJlir'!i':ii13 L:ijinr(]rsri:r:ir1:Bi:ir'jfr I q
cAT. NO. NN00315
TO !a05.1 (t€3)
nrf,i,
0-302863
Sc (Continued)
0rdor 11o.303857 -0
LEBAL OESC[tlFTl0l{ - contlnued
so{rtherly llm of said Farcel A, Llontc Rldgo sub<ilvlslon' Fillng !-'!o. ?, -fhsnce aicng sald Southorly ltn; ilcr+h S4o55r'lfrrt Fast, 98.4? fsot to o polnt on
tho Hssterly rlght of vay llno of Llonts Rldgs Loop'.
thence the ioltortng sadrn coursos elong sotd lfesterly rlght of uay llntotl
tt) Ncrth lo59t50n Sesl', 114.12 fsot;(2) 106.58 foef alonE tho arc of a curvs to ths
feet, an lnterlor onglo of 50"44t$0e" and a
l3o?Srlilt East 109'Tl fostl
righf hovlng a rodlug of 198.70
chord urhldr b€ars iligrfh
s rsdlus of 115.91
bears Hortlr
s radlus of 5.41.29
boers Sotrth
(5)
(4)
(5)
(6)
liorth 28o48tl0w Eestr 188.56 teot;
243.72 foet olong iha arc of a curve to fhe loft ha'vlng
foet, an Intarlor angt* of 12}"2?r?qt', ond o chord ultlch
51"25f 04n I'losf, 201 .24 foett
Sou*h 88o19t41 o lfost ?'85 foa't;
200.04 feot along tho erc of a curvo io fhe loff hsdfilS
feet, an lnferlod' angfe of ?2o07f36f'. snrl a chord tubleh
7?ol5rf5$ Hssf 2ry1.74 feerti(7) Sorth 66"1 ?r05o Hsst, ?4'05 fcet, fo tho poln't of beglnnlng"
TO 2924 CO (10-90)
ALTA OWNERS FORM Agent'l Reference No. ?t')il-r *l)
Policy Number O i$2|,'i]
OWNE RS
This policy does not insure against loss or damage by reason of the following:
General Exceptions:
( I ) Ri ghts or claims of parti es in possession not shown by the public records'
(2) Encroachments, overlaps, boundary line disputes, and any other matters which would be disclosed by an
accurate survey and inspection ofthe premises.
(3) Easements or claims of easements not shown by the public records'
(4) Any lien, or right to a lien, for services. labor, or material hereto{ore or hereafter {urnished, imposed by
law and not shown by the public records'
Special Exceptions:
('l) Taxes duer ond pi.lfi;itlic; onr! ariy
f or lrrate r or :'.{rvtei^ :lor',f i o{} j' 'tr!-
-iax, rpecliil i]$50$smon'f'i, cltar!8 or I icn Irnprost-rd
f r:rr ;ny r.rtlior ;pec! al ta)il ng d is*r lct,
2. fttgh+ Of 1'hr) PrOp!" ie1"r.r r:f .: '.trrl n gr- i.,:rde 'fn e::'lr.ect Ond rtmove hl5 crcl
1'h er ef i-cxn, shoulrj 'lhe :;aiitc irn f or.r ntl f* penellra-io or lnl"qrs'el:t 'l-hri) prQ'0l5og
herc*:y grantod' ali r {'5 cr r./.'tcl In Unl i r'r<l 5te*o:' Palonf recordeti ln Llock 9i at
Pago 4?.
3. Rlght of wty for ditchss or ,rlnnls construct*cl by the au'fhorlty cf tho tlnltsd
SfiJ'e*. nl; roscrved In llnl'f'otl SfaJ'eE Pafqnt rocordod In [!or:k 9.5 ei"Pag'e 4?.
4. Rosf r lc?lrrns, I'rh lch do not c$nt al n a f'orf elf uro or raverfar cl ause, buf
crnltl'lng resiric'l-ions, lf an',;, btso,.J on raco, r;olot-, religlotr oi^ na-llcnai
orlgln, as cct,1J'aineti ln instrum€nt r"cnordsd Septc'nber 20t 1072 ln Bocrl'i 225 a+
page Aal; Arrtr,tldmsnt rscorclod Januetry 2?, 191'4 ln ilaok ?33 tr-f Fege 55.
5" Lif I ll'iy e;:serrenl's l0 focr-f cn oech :;ldo of ai I f n"fcrloi' lr;;1' lincs dnd i5 fcctt
along al I er:'|ar | $- lol' I ines .'r nd olong al t subdlvl slon bc,undetry 1 Ino* r:s
rolrervod on 'lhe rocorde,J pla't of Llonf s Rldgo Suhdlyisloir Fi ling #2.
6. Agroenront rc5lrClnil un'Jci-ground tolonhono rronduit bo'l'lve*n Tayvol Envlronmetnfal
Lanc.l Ccmpany and l''lounfai n $'tcios Telophono arrd TelGg;'.tph 0crnpany rocordetJ
Sopl'enrber n , 1g?3 i n Doolt 251 of Pag'l 291, ln t"ih lch a i':.caf lon ls not
specl {"1 6d.
7. ltesol uJ lon I'Js. t0-'?fi of fhe lloard of Orunty C<,rnmlsslonar,' Ccunty of Err.glau
Stote of Cclora.lo recordz.rr.i tiarch 27" 1980 In [}$oll 300 a"i i'451e 757 and
l?osolufion tlo. 30-3:l rr:cc.rrdqrd June 4, t!80 ln Book 501 iii'P*ge 645 and
( Coni'lnucd )
c T. NO. NN@3t5
TO lr@5.1 (t{:}l
ScheJ?e (Gontinued)
0-30?865
DCEFTId{S - entlnuod
Resolutlon No' 80-28 reorded tuy 6, 1980 In Bo* 30? at Pago 508'
g. Rsctrlstlofts, rhlc*r do not contain o forfoltura Or r6v€rfer Cl Ouset bUt
mlttlng restrlsflons. lf eny' bosod on rrco, colot, rol lglon o1 ryt!91a1 .orlgtn, Es confalnod ln instiusltrtt recordod lifardr ??, 198S, ln Bodt' 500 af
fagi ZiS and r€.rocarded Aprtl 10, 1980 In Book 301 at Page 41 5'
9. Easstrtt ond rlght of way to construcf, oporote and nalntaln oxlsflng
facllltlss provfatng rati,r and seusr eorvlcos, as lrontoJ !y tu V.ul!ry
Vantur6" a ilolor-ado*goneral portr.rershlp to The Esgtern Vat loy 0ondcmlnlul ,Assalaiton, Phaso ?lA-$ns, a CotoraUo ncn-prof lt corporsf lon by lnstrtarent
rscorded July 10, 1981 , In Book 325 ai Pago 795.
t0. Easeloant and rtghf of nay tocosrtruct' oporqlo ond T*lnfaln s valkuoy for
podeetrlon lngnfus and egroes, os gnanieC by Tho Yalloy.Yenture, a Colorado
fO'neraf icrtnirshtp by iistrr.raont iecorded july 10, f981' In Book 525 af
Page 796.
fl. Eassront ond rfgtrt o{ woy for utlllfy purposas, as grantad by Thgla!lgy
Venture fo Holy Cposs f l;ctrlc Associatlon by Instrunent rsmrdod 0ctober
?g, l9gl, tn g;ok 511 at Page 257, In rhlct the spoctflc tocotlon of sald
sEle$ont ls mro ful ly dwcrtbod ln sold Insfrunaoi'
12. Eassoont and rlgfrt of vay for rstr llno purpos€r 95 g"*.t"d by The Yaf loy
Vanturo io Vall-Val loy Cinsottdafed Safgr 0lstrtc+ by lnstruroent recordsd
$epfenbor t5, 198t" lir goolr 345 at Pago ?85, In uhlch tha spectflc locaflon
of satd sas@n+ ts mora futly desc,rlbsd In ssld lnstrusBnt'
13. Arry loss or danogo reuftlng frqr tlro fatlure to provtde th6 06Psny' of
its authorlzea s&nt a Csrtiftcgfo of Llnltsd Portnershlp for Buffehr Creek
Tosnhonss, Ltd., 8 colordo llntted parfnershtp, dlsclosl!s th9 nues of
ttro genorot pa"iners and othcr Inforqatton raqulrod !f .t97l C.R.S.
z-6t:1 0t, st $eq., as aendodn and wldenclng the cxlstenco of sald llsrlted
partnorsh I P.
14. Deed of Trust frqt Cros$vley Propertlos, Ltd., by: Clnnmn Vettfuro, Inc. -
genoral partner, by Robec-t Ll. ullBson, trasldent, and Bufefir creek
ientronre, Ltd., a iloto"ado ltnltcd Psrtnershlp to ltre Publlc Trugtos of
Eagto Carnty tb ttre use of Eonnyaodo Proportles, -a Colorsdo.S**f11 ,paitnershtp, +c smsra $220,000.00, datod Aprtl ?4' 191! ' and recordod
Aprll 26n 199t, In Eook 55? at Paga 678.
,tir^.
P(-/
P
'J\t5.
,^7,
,1\q'.1 ,THE VALLEY CONDOMIMT]M ASSOCIATION
THE SUPER ASSOCIATION
11t178 8-5tS p-t6a lsltllg? !6:Ja p6 I 0f J f,tc
I0ililil'fiE piltLLtps EAqLE Cluilt't |LERX, ClLlilADl 15.00
February 22,7992
Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
IA
0loD0c
0.00
VTAFAX #479-2757
Hard Copy to Follow
Dear Commissioners:
Firsq we want to thank the Planning Staff for their time and effort in acquainting
us with Mr-. Gensler's _proposal. We have rltained several professionals to assist us in orir
L""i.y ofrhe.proposed changes to the approved plan. we will, of course, be happy to slmrethese in detail with the commission and-staff af a convenieni time.
After reYiewing those plans in some detail with our consultants, we believe they
represent a radical departure from the intent of the plan adopted by the Eagle County
Commissioners in 1980 and concurrently recorded as a beclaratiin of *otecting-Covenant.son the land. The purpose of both the Commissioners' action and vesting iights to the
current owners through the recorded covenants wils to insure that future development was
consistent with current development and maintained the unique character of that
development. We believe that Mr. Genslet's proposed plan reprisents a material anddetrimental clange from the previous plan and i,outO iignificantly alter the character,
useabilitv and the marketability of the piesent units.
. .We have- attempted to outline below in summary those aspects of the plan that are
inconsistent with the current Planned Unit Deveiopment ptan arird restrictive covenalts.
The conflicts between the two plans outlined herein are not meant to be exhausrive
but.merely represent some of the more obvious differences based upon our consultantspreliminary review.
Density. While Mr. Gensler bas proposed that the number of units be decreaseci,it appears that the total square footagl oi area inclucled within structures is actually
increased by about 157o. This is due, in large mea$rre, to provide garages integral to the
units which were not incorporated under the original plin. ThJ numUer oi separate
buildings isalso increased under the plan and total site cove.age ofthe building is incieased
by about 857o!
171t78 8-s75 p-J61 03/18/92 t6,ia pE 2 at s
Character. The original Plao contemplated a.condominium project of relativelysmall, affordable units wittr-veiricirtar access riom e*iiti"g -"0'r -a an iirterior qrstem o'fp,:d_?:,i:,,y:]Y1{r:,The crrrent proposal apparently iuggests a smail number'of largesmgle lamrly detacbed units with the vehicular access iroilded by a new road that wouidreplace the prior plan's q6tem of interior walhvays. - r - - '-r--- -J -
. Alfordalility. The approved plan provided smaller units that would be at a level ofaffordability ($150,000 to $igs,ooo ii rggz pricei-n"t cild;;; rhem availabre to tulr
lt-1"::t1"^*1, fr"_,PtoPosed plan would frovidi units tr,.i**ia be priced at tevels oitwo or mree tlmes those contemplated in the original approved plan.' While we wouldconcur that the profit margins worild be.signincanoi uett;iffi;; th'; proposed plan, we donot agree that this should be a determiniig factor.
Environmental Issues. It is our understanding that this plan would require the
1n::t'::r,_"j,T1ry Tor"-tull grown trees than tt " *ri""irv
"ppr"l""a prun rt. pr-u"ri"gomce bas mdicated that Mr. Gensler is annently studying thif issue in detail. ft is ahfiappare-nt that the additional access road would require i siUsiaoiiaf increase <iOni"-iiiarea of.,required paved area The siting of the hoises and the accommodation of the newroao wru requlre sizable increase in volume of the hillside ants required, as well as fills ofover L1 feet- We believe that in addition to tt e "t anliiin rtr" .ir-"]i.ter of rhe propct youproposed, these environmental impacts on the site wiii rnutoiufry una negativelfimiartittJaesthetics of both the proposed p.j."t as well as ih;;;-;f;;; ,.id"nces piot..iiaunder the restrictive covenant.
.r*,-,Y::_":gize_rhat the Town of Vail is successor to Eagle County in reviewing andi'oltl]:t:llg the planning and zoning process for the prop.ttylho*eueri*e believe iFsuch
:1119":: lt-"f_t:!gl9.d uy MI. Gensler were ro be adbpted 51i *re rorwr of Vail, that they
Y9"11 l_91_Pe permissible under the recorded couenan'rs. tiract, we betieve that undertne restrlctrve covenants'Eagle County or the Town of Vail may'retain an obligation toenforce the covenants 3n{ thus the plan_as it currently exists. Thi property is also subjectto covenants recorded in Septembei, tgTzwhich presiribe ttre apfrSvai of in architecturalcommittee prior to the commencement of any construction activitlr. To our knowledge, suchapproval has neither been sought nor received
It is our intent to coniinue to vigorously pursue our purpose of maintaining thecontinuation of the existing character and'aestnJti[;"ith. ;;d;;il .on,"rnprated by theexisting_plan. we believe that the proposal s"u-itrJ ;;pr'"rH;, i-ot gooa itanning uutmerely better economics for the deireldper.
In addition to our involvement in the political - administrative process, we intend tofully exercise our rights under the various restrictive .ournunt boit ui to possible injunctiverelief and to actual and punitive damages as provided uytt e cou.nanir. rv" woul6 certainlybe appreciative of noticl.of any pendi-ng action contemplateo bt th; Bgard on rhe -attei.In, order to-expedite such notici, pleaie contacr Tloriras Fitc'h ar 4j6-7202 anrl he willadvise our Board as appropriate.
0l
i
Wrile the Board-of Directors has approved this poliry on the matter, ir should l>e l.noted that we have a l00Vo unanimous ririitten concurrence from the individual home .owners within our association. X
-^--,- --Fot your convenience, we have include a copy of lhe restrictive covenant for your O
revtew.
On behalf of the respective Boards of Directors,
Sincerely,
>?,,..4",r' { 2 nA-"
Michael L McCune
\ra-2^-rJ
Enc.
cc: Thomas Fitch
111178 8-575 P-361 03/18/92 16:31 PC J 0F J
Suire 630
7800 East Union Avenue
Post Office Box 37090
Denver. Colorado 80237
(303\ 779-4664
FAX (303) 779-4854
MORRIS, RUDY & LOWER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Suite 210
Vail National Bank Bldg.
108 South Frontage Road
Vail. Colorado 81657
(303) 476-8865
FAX (303) 479-9773
January 7, 1993
REPLY TO VAIL OFFICE
Suire 302
Aspen Athletic Club Bldg.
720 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen. Colorado 81611-
(303) 92s-8774
FAX (303) 920-480r
Boards of DirectorsGrouse Glen Condominium Assoc:_ationand
The Val-Ley Condominium Association
Re: Crossview at VaiL: parkwood Realty, Inc. SpecialDevelopment Distrj-ct and Mj-nor SubdivisionApplications: Valley phase If
Ladies and Gent.lemen:
.As you requested, I have reviewed parkwood Realty,s proposaLto the Town of vail- for estabrishment of a Special neirelopmentDistrict, and adoption of a Deveiopment pranl for the varieyPhase rr Parcers A and B, pursuanr to Municipar code chaptei18-40.1 This letter commenting on the proDosar can be used i:1discussions with the Tov anci cf,e appiicinc as an aide coclarifying the issues.
The current proposa.L evol-ved from a reguest made early in1991 by Steve Gensl-er for modification of a deveropment piln forParcel- A approved by Eagle county prior to annexation of- the areaby Vaii in 1980. the plan approvea Uy Eagle Counry r,vas accepEedby VaiI in 1.981 by Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1981. Thatordinance specified that ,,major changes,, to the pl_an/ such as--hose proposed by Gensrer, requireci ieview by thb vaii pEC, ancithat the "proceciure for changes shal_I be in iccordance vrith
focus
Minor
' Parkwood also is proposing a Minor Subdivision for parcefailow construc!ion of two singre-famiJ-y residences, but --heof your request is Parcel B, so I have not considered theSubdivision applicati_on.
Boards of DirectorsJanuary 7, 1993Page 2
Chapter l-8.662 of the VaiJ. Municipal Code.,,
- It appears that following a series of meetings betweenGensl.er and Vail Community Development Department ('CDD" )representatives during the latter half of 1991 and Lt 1992, the
CDD representatives reconmended that the aoolicant Dropose aSpecial Development District for the propeily ,'in oiqei toprovide both review criteria and revilw broc6dur"s.,,3 Theprocedural segue, fron (a) pEC review of a proposed major changein the Eagle County plan pursuant to Ordina-nce 13 to(b) establishment of a SpeciaL Development District and adoptionof a new Development PIan pursuant to Code Chapcer 18.40, ra.i_sestwo procedural legal questions.
Fj-rst, it is arguable that Ordinance 13, Series of 1981 doesnot aIlow establishment of a Special Deveiopment Districtas to property that was annexed after approval by Eagle County ofa "planned unit development,, (pUD) that-was thereafter acceptedby Vail foJ.lowing annexation. Ordinance 13, j-n Sec. 2.a., statesthat "the Va}ley, Phases 1 through 6,,' inter g!!g, ,,shaLL bedevej-oped in accordance with the prior aqreement approvafs andactions of the Eagle County Comrnilsioneri u.. the agieemenEs,approvals and actj-ons reLate to each development or parcel ofproperty." Although Ordinance 13 also provides, ln Sec. 2.d.,that "major changes" require pEC review i;: accordance with theprocedures of Chapter 18.66, and that furcher provision almostcertainly overrides the earlier requiremenc foi deveiopment inaccorciance with county approved ptans, that does not necessarilyalLow for overlay of Special Development District s-latus. Forexample, arguabJ-y the decision on a maior chanqe such as proposedhere rescs excLusivety with the pEC, rither thin, as contlmplateciby the procedure for establishment of Special DevelopmentDistricts, with r-he CounciL.
Second, there nay be a procedural_ defect ir the pending SDDproposal. The procedure for estabj_ishment of a Special
I Chapter 1B.66 addresses ,,Adrninisrration,, of the Zoningprovisions of :ee Code, end inciudes prov:sions :elacing tonotice of hearings, etc.
3 S.. second sentence of first paragraph on page 4 of theDecernber 1992 "speciar Deveropment Districc and EnvironmentafInpact Report" prepared by peter Jamar Associates/ fnc. TheJamar report was submitted to the CDD on December 14, 1992; acopy was provided to the Associations on january 4, 1,993.
Boards of DirectorsJanuary 7, 1993Paqe 3
Development District4 is prescribed by Chapter 18.40. Section
18-.a9:030 provides that application f-or esiabli-shment of a SDD"sha1r be made on a form provided by the community DeveropmentDePartment and sha1l i-nclude" speciiied informati6ns and ibe
accompanied by submittal- reguirLments as outrined in Section18.40.050 and a development plan as outLined in Section18.40.060." I have not been able to obtain from the CDD anapplicatign for establishment of a sDD frorn either Gensler orParkwood.o Possibry the originar major modification requescdirected to the county-approized deveiopment pran evolved into anSDD proposaL without the iequired formil_ appiication for suchstatus ever being filed. Further, it does not appear that thecDD has authority to waive the code re,fuirement t-or submission ofan _apprication on the required form and containing the requiredrntormatlon.' of course, even if no apprication was fileci, that
: The Special Development Dj-strict category of zoningdistrict in vair is not a tlassic puD such as- exlsts at theCounty level and in many municipalities, but it is akin to a pUDin that it is it,serf a -oning district category that "overrays"another zoning district category and arlows-deiarture from therequirements of the underlying Zoning district withoutnecessarily going through lhe-varian6e or re-zoning process.
5 That information includes ',a l-eqaI description of theproperty, a list of the nanes and mailii.g addressls of a]]adjacent property owners and written consent of owners of arlproperty to be incLuded in the speci-ar deveJ.opment distri-cr, ortheir agents or authorized repreienrati_ve
5 vo o. o-.1-',-------*-1 my legal assistant went to the CDD to obtain acopy of the application and was informed that none coul_d befound. I have spoken wi-th peter Jamar about this issue, and hewas not certain whether a specific sDD appl,ication has beenfiled. However, it is quite possible tiril tire applicati-on itselfis in the hands of a pJ_anner working on this matllr.
7 The code does authorize the cDD to waive or modi+y the
-:ulTi!!11 requiremenrs,, in appropriate cases (see Sec.18.40.050 ) , but such submittal- resuirements are distinquished i-nthe Cocie from the above-described irformarion, as is tlie"deveropment pl-an" that the code also specifies shall accompanythe application. rn any event, it appelrs that the Jamar reportis meant to satisfy the submittal reil.rirernents and devej-opmentpran requirements. As you know, because of time rimitati-ons rhave not undertaken to determine whether or not it does meet theregar requirements ' or to assess its substantive merits.
Boards of Di-rectorsJanuary 7, 1993Page 4
defect can be cured prospecLively, and there may not be anythingin the substance of the applicacion that is perlinenE co yourconcerns.
In any event, assuming that it would be lawful for VaiI toestablish a Special Development District overl_ay on the propertyin question, al1 the proceduraL requirements foi suchestablishment must be followed. I have not had the opportunityto verify such procedural steps as required notices of the PEChearing on the application at the proper time to al1 the properparties, but that question wil-L have to be resolved. Further,even j-f notice by mail was given as required by Chapter 18.66,and publicat.ion was made as required by Chapter 18.66, thepossible absence of the application on the required form could bea defect in the proceedings, since an interested party cannot byreviewi-ng the file at the CDD obtain the inforrnation that shouldbe included in the appl-ication.
.Frr rn i na €-^-ru!'1.ry -.-,. nr"""ss to substance, if Vail does by ordinanceestablish a Special Development Distri-ct for the property andadopt a Development PLan, that action wilL be subject to reviewby the Eagle County District Court in a Rule 106 proceeding. Ina RuIe 106 appeal, the issue wouLd be whether Vail's action wasan abuse of its discreti-on or in excess of its authority.
In addition, even if the action by Vail withstoodreview under Rul-e l-06, it still would be subject to challengeunder state and federal constitutional provisions. WithoutattempE.ing to analyze the options for aird merits ofconstit.utionaL causes of action at. this time, I will note thatthe Col-orado Constitution contai-ns a rather unusual- provision(the scope of which has not been well-defined by the courts)allowing recovery for "damage" +-o property of one personracrr I r.i nr' € '.,-.- ^lvgfnmenta]. aCtiOn d i rcr-ted :t nr^ner-rr nfrr.\,u-LvlI \fIl-g\-Lg\t (),l- -J! \.,rlrg,l- uJ \J!another person. This cause of act,ion is markedly easier toestablish than the usuaL "takinq,, cLaim, which requiresdeprivation by governmenc action of alI economicaiiy viable useof the property. The CoLorado Constitutional actj-on ailows forrecovery of damages for mere diminution in va1ue, withour ashowing of deprivation of al1 viabte economic use. Thus if theval-ue of the property of the owners in your Associations werediminished by changes in the original, County-approveddeveJ-opment plan on Parcel B, damages coul_d be recovered by thoseowners.
Finally, I note that all property in Lion,s RidgeSubdivision Filing No. 2, of which parcel B is a part, is subjectto a detailed set of recorded protective covenants thaE woul-d
Boards of DirectorsJanuary 7, 1993Page 5
have to be met in the development of parcel B. In particuJ"ar,Sectj-on 4 prohibits construclion without review and approval ofdetailed plans by an Architectural Cornmittee. Furthei, section10 provides that trees may not be cut, trimmed or removed exceptfor construction and then only after approval in writing by theArchitectural Committee. Finally, Seclion 26 provides thatfailure to enforce any provision- of the covenants is not a waiverof the right to enforce them in the future. Any owner ofproPerty in Filing No. 2 would have standing to-bring an actj-onto enforce the covenants.
_ I will stay in touch with you as this matter proceedsthrough the PEC review process. fn the meantine, please contactme if you have any questions or conxments.
Sincerely,/f)I/,tdJ L
l\q h. \ /-,
Robert L. Morrisfor
MORRIS, RUDY & LOWER
RLM: j1e
oo
Dear Larry:
Jack Snow would like to condominiumize 5 dwelling units up in The Valley, Phase ll. The
attached letter provides some of the background for his request. The complicated part
of the proposal is that Phase ll, due to foreclosures, has been divided into three different
ownerships.
The most important planning question is can they condominiumize a portion of Phase ll
without affecting the "grandfathered'development rights which have been passed down
from the County?
The next question is which parties need to sign off on the plat, assuming they can go
fonrvard?
lf you could review their info in the next week or so, I would appreciate it.
summary of meeting with larry on thursday, 10-10-91:
It is legal to use the condo plat process to define a boundary of common area
around a condo building. lt appears that this has been done in the past to
"subdivide" certain phases of a development. Potato Patch Club is an example.
The cleanest way ol proceeding would be to require a minor sub to define the
boundaries of the land and then to proceed with a condo plat to define the
airspaces for Indlvldual ownershlp. But the two step process is not needed for
legal reasons. lf Gom. Dev. sees a need for both plats, then both should be
required. Either prooess meets Larry's legal standards for suMividing land.
Summary of meeting with Larry on Tuesday, 10-15-91, after planner's staff:
I confirmed that condo plat is the only review necessary. Larry and I and all of the
ptanners agreed that Phase ll, in its entirety, should be shown on the plat. Grouse Glen
should be broken out as Phase l, Jack Snowb property should be titled Phase ll, and
Steve Gensler's development should be Phase lll. A note should be shown on the plat,
stating that "For zoning purposes, the phasing lines shown on this map should not be
considered property lines. Development standards (such as GRFA, site covenge, etc.)
should be determined based on the development rights granted to The Valley, ll, in its
entirety." modified 11-13-91 on phone with j. snow.
Dear Larry:
Jack Snow would like to condominiumize 5 dwelling units up in The Valley, Phase ll. The
attached letter provides some of the background for his request. The complicated part
of the proposal is that Phase ll, due to foreclosures, has been divided into three ditferent
ownerships.
The most important planning question is can they condominiumize a portion of Phase ll
without affecting the "grandfathered" development rights which have been passed down
from the County?
The next question is which parties need to sign off on the plat, assuming they can go
fonrard?
lf you could review lh€ir info in the next week or so, I would appreciate it.
summary of meeting with larry on thursday, 10-10-91:
It ls legal to use the condo plat process to define a boundary of common area
around a condo building. lt appears that this has been done In the past to
"subdlvide" certain phases of a development. Potato Patch Club ls an example.
The cleanest way of proceeding would be to require a mlnor sub to deflne the
boundarles of the land and then to proceed with a condo plat to deflne the
alrspaces lor indivldual ownership. But the two step process ls not needed lor
legal reasons. lf Com. Dev. sees a need for both plats, then both should be
requlred. Elther process meets Larry's legal standards for subdlvldlng land.
Summary of meeting with Larry on Tuesday, 10-15-91, after planner's staff:
I confirmed that condo plat is the only review necessary. Larry and I and all of the
planners agreed that Phase ll, in its entirety, should be shown on the plat. Grouse Glen
should be broken out as Phase l, Jack Snow's propefty should be titled Phase ll, and
Steve Gensler's development should be Phase lll. A note should be shown on the plat,
stating that "For zoning purposes, the lines drawn between phases should not be
considered property lines, and that the development standards (such as GRFA, site
coverage, etc.) should be determined based on the development rights granted to The
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Leqal
Lot 1, Block 7
VailVillage
1st Filing
Lot 29
Potato Patch
Staff researched the building permit plans for the lots listed below and calculated the slope
which existed prior to development. For lots zoned PrimarylSecondary, there is no restriction
regarding development in areas exceeding 40%. Please see Section 18.69.040 which is
attached. Thus, these developments were allowed to be built without variances or SDDs.
MEMORANDUM
Town Council
Community Development Department
August 17, 1993
Site visit of lots exceeding 40% slope in the Town of Vail
Address Galculation*
100 Vail Road 8,200 - 8.160
(Webster House) 95
805 Potato Patch Dr. 8.620 - 8,542
(Crisola residence) 165
Lots 12 and 13, 2328 Garmisch Dr. 8,040 - 7.981
Block G, Vail das (Lampe residence) 139.4
Schone Filing No.2
Lot 19, Block H, 2337 Garmisch Dr. 8.1 10 - 8.054
Vail das Schone (DeMartin residence) 112
Filing No. 2
Lot 9, Block B, 2682 Cortina Lane 8.128 - 8.083
Vail Ridge (under construction) 126.11
Lot 7, Block B, 2662 Cortina Lane 8.122 - 8.073
Vail Ridge (under construction) 1 13.39
Slooe
42.1o/o
47.3%
42.3%
50.0%
35.7o/"
43.2o/"
*The calculation was made by taking the difference between the high and low points of the lot
and dividing that by the length of the lot.
18.69.0{0 O.r.topfres(ricted. aA. N c.r structure shall 6c built in any flood ltaz-ard zone or rcd
. o I lo rl Lp s I93 nl ! r_C f ga,13f ,aqc p q i n_s i n glelqn1] y r e s i d e n t i a l,
t rvo- fa nr i ly resid e n ti a l, or t rvo-fa m i ly-p_lln 3-D' /!!!g1qaly_.
re-cidential zone districts. Thc ternr "structure" as uscd in tltts
avalanche hazard area. No slructure shall be built on a sloNo slructure shall be bullt on a sloj)c
srffiloes- not lncluzi recrcalional structures that arc
intended for seasonal use, not including rcsidential use.
B. Structures nray be built in blue avalanche hazard areas
provided that proper nritigating measures have been takcn'
C. The zoning administrator may rcquire any applicant or
person desiring to build in an avalanche hazard zone of
influence to subnrit a definitive study of the hazard area
in rvhich he proposes to build jf the torvn's master ltazard
plan does not contain sufficient infomtation to determine
if tlie proposed location is in a red hazard or blue hazard
area. The requirement for additional information and study
shaU be done in accord rvith Chapter 18.56.
D. The zoning adminislrator may require any applicant or
person desiring to build in an identified blue avalanche
iazard zone to submit additional information or reports
as to rvhether or not improvements are required to mitigatc
against the possible hazard. If mitigation is required, said
information and report should specify the improvements
proposed therefor. Tlre required in formation and reports
ihrll be done in accordance s'ith Chapter 18.56.
E. The zonirtg adtninistrator rtray require any applicant or
person desiring to nrodify the floodplain by nll,
constructjon, channeLization, grading, or othcr similar
changes, to subnrit for revierv atr envjronnental impact
statement in accordance rvith 18.56 to estabUsh that the
rvork rvill not adversely affect adjacent properties, or
increase the quantity or velocity of flood rvaters'
(Ord. l6(1983) ss I (part): Ord. t2(1978) $ I (part).)
18.69.0{5 Designation offlood hazard zoncs and flood hazard
st ud ics.
There are two sets of 0ood hazard maps and studies designated
and adopted for the Tol'n of Vail. Thcy are:
A. All ireas designatcd as flood hazard zones in the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps, as rvcllas the Flood Insurance Study,
dated Novcmber 2, t982, are he reby dcsignated and adopted
for the areas cncomPassed by thc Torvn of Vail as of
December I, 1980.
B. Thc "Gore Creek Floodplain Information", 1975 study and
accompanying maps are hereby adopted and designated for
an ar.i described in the West Vail annexation plat, dated
December 18, 1980.
(ord. l6(1983) $ I (patt).)
H
J Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D' I
CONSULTING G EOLOGIST
0185 INGERSOLL t-ANE
stLT, coLoRAoo 81652
(303) 876-5400 (24 HOUFS)
Jt-rly 22, tqSs
Steven Sensler
Farkwood Realty
5299 DT0 BIvd' *50rr
Englewoodr CO €O111
RE: Tract A and Br The Valley Phase IIt Lionerldge FilinE No. 4
Dear l"lr. Gensl er r
Thes* sltes (Tractg A and B) are in geological 1y sensitive areaat
but the developrnent o{ these sites will not increage the haaard
to other property or structuresr or to public bulldingsr roadat
streetsr rights-o{-wayr eatetnents, utilitieg or {aciItties. AE
indicated in the January Ztnd IettErn corrective engineerinq or
engineered construction on Tract A can be accompl i shed to reduce
the danger to the pubiic health and eafety tlr to property orgtructureFr or to buildingsr rqade r streets r rights-of-way tearenentsr utllities or facilitiee.
I{ there are questions pleage contaqt me,
Coneulting Geologist
lYt
O I ffip A r'q-rr_"_r i/U 1/J F il
uTracts A and B-2 0f The Valley, Phase ll, a resubdivision of Tracts A and B, a pad of parcel
A, Uon's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2 has been approved as an Special Development
Dlstrict by thd Town of Vail, Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1993. This approval mandates
building envelope location, road/driveway alignments, building elevalions, maximum retaining
wallhelghts, and includes engineering drawings by Ray T. Davis dated July 7' 1993 and a
soits stridy by Koechlein Consulting Engineers dated June 21, 1993. These approved plans
may be amenCeO only by the Town ol Vail, per Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code."
4
-La \
0tl',1 - 41l tt-
,A,l1' , -1"l
r'\lt/tv' ft( .^t/'rJ tv,/,t'/'u
ctl'
ok
,\(f
*r
,{
P'
r / \,,,\
,/'* ,l
J
Irttf '
{-
$''\
i4
*i't
tJ'
vI
.k,
T-(
,lItAL'fl
"f/\\
tlrr " il"
,r
*r+
{Xllv
t1
*;\p'
nlu| li,'ft (* n*\{-
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
O,' " /
MEMORANDUM
,,/|
Planning and Environmental Commission - t
Community Development Department -' ' (
'l s '('
July 12, 1993
A request for a proposed SDD and a minor subdivision to allow for the
development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The
Valley, Phase lll1490 Buffehr Creek Road.
Applicant:
Planner:
Steve Gensler/Parkwood Reatty
Andy Knudtsen
INTRODUCTION /,\ I
On April 26, 1993, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) discussed the proposal
made by Steve Gensler and reached a general consensus to approve the plan. One
outstanding issue, however, involved the site work in the upper development area. The PEC
wanted a soils test provided for this area to verify that the proposed plans could in fact be
constructed. In addition, the PEC wanted to see more detailed drawings regarding the
retaining walls, driveway slope, site sections and spot elevations for the proposal.
Staff has attached the memo from April 26, 1993 as well as the minules from that hearing at
the end of this packet. In that memo, staff has provided a full discussion of the SDD criteria
and all of the issues related to these developments.
II. DISCUSSION OF SOILS REPORT
The engineers analyzing the soils for this site have determined that the rear retaining walls of
structures can be built up to 26 feet high. (Please note that this wall would be incorporated
into the building.) In their opinion, walls of this height can be built since there is bedrock on
this site. Bedrock was encountered approximately 7 feet below the surface of the earth and
continues down to the extent of the testing, which was 40 leet below the surface. In addition,
they have said that boulder retaining walls would also be allowable on this site up to 8 feet in
height. At this time, the applicant shows that 4 to 6 loot walls will be the maximum height for
all retaining walls.
Their concem is with the amount of excavalion required in order to construct a 26 foot high
rear retaining wall. In the executive summary, they cite that "the potential for encroachment
on adjacent property during construction needs to be considered." Staff believes that given
the extent of the cut, the excavation could be excessive. Staff recommends that written
approval be secured from adjacent property owners lor encroaching or that the excavation be
done with a method of "pile driving". With the "pile driving", staff understands that the
excavation will not extend ofi-site.
il. coNcLusroN
Staff recommends approval of the proposed SDD and minor subdivision. We believe all of the
issues related to the development have been discussed and documented in previous
hearings. Regarding the last area ol concem, staff believes that the soils tests have
documented that the site can sustain the type of development designed by Steve Gensler and
Randy Hodges. Given this additional information, staff believes that the proposed design is
reasonable and should be approved. The conditions ol approval from the end of the memo
dated April 26, 1993 are provided below. Statl has added one condition (#7) and partially
changed another (#B), which are shown underlined. The conditions shown in bold were
modified at the last PEC hearing.
A. Prior to.the scheduling of the proposal for first reading at Town Council, the following
changes mu$ttJe incorporated into the drawings:
1) Drawings for the automobile acoess to the upper development area shall
Ue pro{;tOeO and refined, noting all assumptions to be made regarding the
builQlng location, identitying top of wall and bottom of wall elevations,
and providing sections through each building envelope showing the
building, any retaining walls and driveway.
B. At time of DRB submittal. the aeplicant shall submit drawinqs that meet the
followinq conditions lor DRB review and approval:
1) Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be "benched-in" into the hillside and
stepped with the natural contours of the site. Site excavation should be no
more than necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Extensive
site grading to create a flat building site is not permitted. In order to ensure
compliance with the above, finished grades on the north, east and wesl
elevations of buildings should not deviate more than 4 feet from existing grade
at any Point.
2) Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be designed with the intemal hazard
mitigation recommended by Mr. Nick Lampiris in his hazard analysis dated
September 18, 1992 (two letters) and January 22,1993.
3) Buildings on Tract A-2 shall be designed with a tum-around using the apron in
front of the garage on envelope A-2. The garage and apron may be located at
any point along the southem edge of the envelope. The Fire Department is
requiring ihat 35 feet be provided between the front of the garage door and the
far edge of pavement of the driveway. There must be a minimum of 12.5 feet
of clearance for this distance.
The sod areas align with the existing sod areas of Phase ll and that the sod
type matches Phase ll.
The GRFA of the proposal must be modified to comply with the lollowing chart.
4)
c,
The GRFA allocated for each residence in the lower development area and
each envelope in the upper development area can be modified by 50
square feet. Total GRFA for each area may not exceed the maximum of
13,3141or the lower development area (Tract B) and 6,152 for the upper
development area (Tract A).
Lower developm€nl ar6a:
Base Floor Credil
Area
GBFA current
A. 1816B. 1816c. 1845
D. 2148
E. 1675F. 2157
G. 1857total 13314
Upper devslopment arga:
225
225
22s
225
225
225
225
2041
204'l
2070
2373
1900
2382
2082
garage
cr€dit
463
493
493
486
492
483
476
overage
16
16
24
0
26
21
3477
3125
'The drawings submitted at this time exceed the allowable by the amount shown in this column. At time of
DRB review, th€ applicant shall reduce the plans so they do not exceed the allowable. Floor areas may
change by up to 50 squar€ feet trom those shown in the "base floor ar€a" column. GRFA may not exce€d
the lotal shown for each area.
6) The architectural design of Building B must be redesigned so that it is
distinctly different from Buildings A or C as determined by the DRB. The
architect for Building B should revise the drawings so that the roof lines,
the entries, the materials and color are distinctly different from either
Building A or C.
7) Prior to excavation of either buildino site on Tract A, the aoolicant shall either
. adiacenl orooertv owners allowino the excavation to encroach.
C. Prior lo Town approval of the Single Family Subdivision for the lower development
area. The applicant shall dedicale access easemenls for the common driveway as
well as the pedestrian access path;
(-rt, 4 r'1 7tr'>,*J '"'n JhA
k: Z/-? J .z_.-_Ls..'t1' &-;,1", (. { 1r.tt
3
-+-. , Ku
,
/z^
I
600
600
225
225
A-r. 3252A-2. 2900total 6152
J t tt,t.\ jP,7^
.--- ?\r,t )
a'r7-r"r.-.--,U
5. A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of
single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase lll1480 Buffer Creek
Rd.
Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood RealgPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
Randy Hodges, the architect lor this project, showed the PEC draMngs addressing the
upper development area parking acoess. He told he PEC what changes had been
made to the drawings since the April 12, 1993 meeting. These changes include the
deck being cut back on Building A, the shingles being eliminated, the exterior redesign
of BuiEing B, and a revised landscaping plan. He stated that no changes had been
made to Building C.
Dalton Williams inquired whelher the building lootprint of Building B had cfianged or if
the changes were to the exterior only.
Randy stated that only the exterior of the buildings had changed, not the building
fooprint.
Dallon Williams stated that the buildings looked like the mirror images of one another
i.e. that they had the same garage and the same windows on the lower level (three
windows in a row). He commented hat he did not believe this is what the PEC
intended when they directed the applicanl to make the buibings different.
Diana Donovan inquired of the PEC board wheher they felt that the changes were
enough/not enough and whether further direction from the DRB was necessary.
Greg Amsden stated that he did not have a problem with the exteriors of the buildings
because they go along with the 'townhome concept'.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she thought that the entries, the windows and the rool
lines needed to be changed and should be addressed by DRB.
Bill Anderson stated that material changes could change the appearance of the
buildings and that he would like to see this proposal go to DRB for a final decision.
Allison Lassoe agreed with Bill's comments.
Jeff Bowen stated that he was hoping to see three notably ditferent buildings and that
he felt this was an issue for the DRB to deal with.
It was agreed that the condition that was part of the memo at the previous meeting
regarding Building B would be added back as a condition of approval. Staff read that
from the previous memo, which was as follows:
'The architectural design of Building B must be redesigned so that it is
Pbnnlng and Crytonmentsl Commbllon
Apr26, 19fi1
distinctly dilferent from Buildings A or C as delermined by the DRB.'
The PEC added hat the architect should revise the roof lines, the entries, the materials
and color so that these elemenb are distinctly different from either Building A or C.
Diana Donovan ften directed he PEC to focus on upper development area igsues.
ltistan Pdtr stated that stafi would like the drawings revised prior to going in front of
Town Council. She further statd that staff would like to try and avoid fulure varianoes
on this site.
Kathy l-angenwalter commented that there appeared to be temendous vertical cut.
Randy Hodges stated that a soils report had not been done and consaquently the
depth of excavation had not been determined.
Diana Donovan asked the PEC whether they lelt that this project was doable without
variances.
Bill Anderson stated that it sounded like they needed more information.
Dalton Williams agreed with Bill and said that he would like to see a soils analysis.
Greg Amsden siated that the PEC would see variances at this location due to the
excessive slope.
Diana Donovan stated that due to platting, he excessive slope would be a self-
imposed hardship and that would not be grounds for granting a variance.
Dalton Williams stated that hs would like to see a soils analysis, garage, wall
thicknesses, concrete grades and cuts.
Randy Ho@es stated that the relationship between the garage and the road would
remain the same.
Allison Lassoe stated that she would like to see future variances eliminated by
documenting a solution at this time.
Jeff Bowen stated that Tract B presented no problems in his mind. Conceming Tract
A, he stated that it was his opinion that the scope of the project needs lo be reduced
to one unit.
Greg Amsden commented that a cut of 25 to 30 feet seemed unfeasible. He said that
he lelt a soils analysis was ne@ssary to determine wheher the site was developable.
He said that he wondered whether the site should have development even though tho
county has sald that it is buildable.
Plrnnlng rnd Envlronmcntal Commlslonafrtll tg
Bill Anderson stated that he would like to see a soils analysis done and would also like
a strustural engineer to look at he retainage necessary for he site.
Diana Donovan wondered what the ramifications of the Eagle County approval were
and whether it was possible to build the plans lhat the applicant was proposing (i.e.
can they physically build what is approved). She asked the PEC board whether the
soils analysis and structural engineer's report would b€ adequate information for the
PEC to base their decision conceming the site's development potential and, if the
reports were favorable, if the PEC would approve he project.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the PEC needed to take a doser look at the site work,
i.e. zoning resfrictions on wall heights, driventay grades, etc.
Jeff Bowen stated that he had a real problem with Tract A and that he was not sure
whether the site was buildable.
Allison Lassoe stated that she would like to see the soils and structural engineer's
reports and see future variances on the site restricted, but that she would support the
design.
Dalton Williams stated that if it is a given hai the site can be built without variances,
then the PEC should not restrict building on the site. He said that he would like to see
soils and structural engineer reports and could support he design.
Greg and Bill concurred with Allison and Dalton.
Andy wanted a clarification about the adclitional information for the upper development
area. There was a general consensus ol the PEC that the design for retaining walls
and garage locations would be a hypothelical design. In the future, another designer
would have the opportunity to design a ditferent solulion to the siie; however, it was
the intention of the PEC to eliminate the likelihood of a variance request since there
would be information on file showing a solution that did not involve variances.
Kristan Pritz then summarized what the PEC would like to see conceming Tracl A:
.Soils analysis
.Structural engineer report
.Drawings of the retaining walls and the associated heights and cuts into the site
refined
She said that it appeared Tract B did not need further changes per PEC direction.
Kristan PriE stated that the drawings would need to be submitted by May 10th to allow
two weeks for the stafl to review if the applicant wanted to be on the May 24, 1993
PEC Agenda.
Dalton Williams made a motion to table this request for a proposed SDD and minor
subdivision until May 24, 1993 with Jeff Bowen seconding the motion. A 7-0 vote
Pbnnlng and Envlronmental Commlslon
arll 26, tcS
tabled this request until May 24, 1993.
6. A rsquost for setbaclt and wall height variances to relocale a garage in an existing
residence, located at Lot 10, Block t, vail Viilage 6th Fitingzl6 Forest Road.
Applicant: Neat EricksonPlanner: Tim Devlin
Tim Devlin made a brief presentation per the statf memo and stated that the applicant
had dropped the wall height variance request and that the proposed garage would
encroach 4 fset into the east side setback variance. He stated that staft was
recommending approval ot the east side seback variance with he condition that the
applicant dant a mix of evergreen and aspen trees per the stafl memo.
Bill Pierce, the archibct for fre applicant, statd that planting the evergreen and aspen
trees posed no problem for the applicant.
Bill Anderson stat€d that he did not have a probtem with this request, and Greg
Amsden and Jetf Bowen agreed with Bill.
Diana Donovan stated that she did not teel that there was grounds for a variance
because no hardship exists on the site.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she agreed with Diana.
Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the request for the side setback variance and
Bill Anderson seconded the motion. A 5-2 vote approved this request with Diana
Donovan and Kathy Langenwalter opposing this request tor the reasons stated above.
7. A request for a work session for a minor subdivision to vacate the lot line between Lots
A-1 and A-2, a request for variances from the subdivision road standards, wall height
standards and to allow parking in the front setback at Lots A-1 and A-2, Block A, Lions
Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 1/1139 and 1109 Sandstone Drive.
Applicant Michaet Lauterbach/The Reinforced Earth Co.Planner: Shelly Mello/Mike Mollica
The applicant, Michael Lautebach presented tre PEC with the proposed project. He
stated that the property line cunently has a 15 foot utility oasement on either side and
that he would like to have the easement moved 30 feet to the east in order to allow for
moro room to build. He said that this placement of the easement would allow tor
additional GRFA for one of the proposed units.
A generaldiscussion was hetd and it was determined that the PEC did not have any
obiection to vacating the existing lot line and associated easement, assuming that the
remaining issues conceming this project are rssolved.
Plunlng rnd Envhormentat Comml*bn
Apr$ tB, t0€10
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
April 26, 1993
Staff comments made since April 12, 1993 are made in bold
A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the
development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley,
Phase lll1480 Buffer Creek Rd.
Applicant:
Planner:
Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty
Andy Knudlsen
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to modify an Eagle County approved development plan located on
either side of Buffer Creek Road in Phase ll of "The Valley". The site is made up ol an upper
and lower area. The reason the applicant is applying for an SDD is to allow:
1. Developmenl to be located on slopes greater than 40%;2. A 10 foot setback for building A in the lower development area where 20 feet is
reouired.3. Walls, 4 feet in height, to be built in the front setback of the upper developmenl area
which exceed the height limit by 1 foot; and4. A lot to be created in the upper development area which does not meet the minimum
buildable area for this zone district;
In conjunction with the Special Development District request, the applicant has submitted a
minor subdivision proposal. The minor subdivision would create lots for the two single family
homes on the upper development area and distinguish the lower development area from
the other phases of development in The Valley. The applicant will use the single family
subdivision process in the lower development area and to sell otf individual houses as they
are constructed.
Lower development area description
The lower development area is proposed to have 7 single family homes. These will be
located on either side of a private access road. The proposed access road descends from
Buffer Creek Road at an 8% slope. The road is intended to be 22 feet wide and will provide
automobile access to garages in each home. There will be a fire truck tum-around located at
the bottom of the road. The seven homes in this area will have a GRFA which ranges from
approximately 1,700 square feet to approximately 2,200 square feet. In addition to this square
footage, each home will have a two-car garage. The ridge heights for the proposed homes
range from 27 teet to 30 feet.
Uooer develooment area descriDtion
The upper development area is designed at this time to include two single family homes,
which each have their respective building envelop€s. There would be a total of two single
family homes in the upper development area. For the westem site, there will be a building
envelope of 3,000 square feet and a proposed GRFA of 3,252 square feet. The eastem
building envelope witl be 2,346 square feet in size and is intended to have 2,900 square feet
of GRFA. Access to hese parcels is proposed to be from a 16-foot wide shared driveway.
II. BACKGROUND
The proposed development plan is part of the second phase of The Valley. The six different
phases of The Valley were approved in Eagle County in he late 1970's and the early 1980's.
On June 3, 1980, the County approved 32,909 square feet of GRFA and 26 dwelling units for
Phase ll. Some of this development potential has already been used in the Grouse Glen and
Buffer Creek Townhouse developments. Since the County approval, the area has been
annexed into the Town of Vail. The ordinance annexing this area (Ordinance 13, Series of
1981) includes a provision recognizing the County approval. The Ordinance states that any
signilicant changes to the previously approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the
Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission.
The Eagle County approved plans dated June 3, 1980 provide a benchmark lor evaluating the
proposed development statistics. Since the original approval, there has been partial
development of the site. Grouse Glen has been constructed, consisting of six dwelling units
and 6,233.8 square feet of the GRFA. In 1991 , Jack Snow completed construction on five
existing foundations which are now called the Buffer Creek Townhomes. This development
consisted of five dwelling units and 7,208.9 square feet of GRFA. The remaining
development potential includes 15 dwelling units and 19,466.3 square feet of GRFA available
for Steve Gensler to use on the rest of the site.
The following table summarizes this information:
Eagle
County
Aporoval
26 DU's
32,909 sq. ft.
Grouse
Glen
6 DU's
6,233.8 sq. ft.
Buffer
Creek
Townhouses
5 DU'S
7,208.9 sq. ft.
Remaining
Development
Potential
15 DU'S
19,466.3 sq, ft.
The Eagle County approved plans for the lower development area consisted of a centralized
parking area at the top ot tfre site, with walking paths to the dwelling units. There was no
automobile access to any of the units, and as a result, there were no garages. The units were
two to three stories in height (24' to 30') and ranged from 924 to 1400 square feet of GHFA.
The proposed development for the upper area consisted ol five dwelling units, similar in
design to The Valley Townhomes. There was no parking in this area, other than a "pull-out"
area off the north side of Buffehr creek Road. lt is important to note that the County
approved plans for the upper area located the units partially on slopes greater than 40%.
On January 11, 1993, June 24, 1991, December g, 1991, and December 16, 19g1, fre pEC
reviewed very similar plans to the cunent proposal. Steve Gensler was the applicant at that
time, also. During the 1991 review ol this project, it was determined that the proposal
involved four deparlures from Town ol Vail zoning standards. Because of these departures,
the applicant has applied for an SDD.
i=
g6valt .^at a0 -iFE id-E'a (\lc (.) (t(lr6> o
cD^ :<cas -Eq c'i =Oo c\l iN!tno'-c9)E':tg: : 6o;. = o.
?, =. ci ;
co+EH $, € 5
-. (7) (.) .X =Y,? * E =8a : # eo* :gin ^i 6 oud in 8 E
.^c8.. 8 .EEE.2 6' g Nt;iFE ; 5;'5Fd g iEEo() x xi=Ei= B EFBEO o. (l)sq6T E P:=:
A(o!rt
'i_ ts9Rob
dle q
F-
o)a,o?:
:'= Y (?,<fev).Sl -..e e Rot 9l 'l..; K . (o-
@l ol q- ^- : rnOrf OJ o *-l<l ord ' oei! F-(o o =t= F b..1 El f.. @ \o 6..; A g I olal -l r\ V5tat ,o .nor or F{.- b 5 d ' ..E5lol ; ;; @ (r or rn t.r ot to i E
(o(!
j s:()xo(!-'(/)o(orqg'+|r)(t=ro(\t(o.sl cig.^rr 57l ' =Zi ro :-EIEI s A FE il b oillEl - r- is i.i .- : ,-* Eq?l<l o co L.) oro o o oCCIC)I N c\l - (t @ @ (D
':=ci S'
6l -r Cr)
o)t ;xt @ ro6it xl
-l Xftt41ol c) = i,
-lrl o : o"-r.r tD Q (,t li Sgal Ej (o :e -;j H E, -6glEl @ :p o. : ocoll cl q c.) : a - - ;< Fc\lElJil o ; b= ar (9 r..+lOl o ; Nro cc o i\ io
;=ldd''oaO' ct@@, 6- 6 ::= ro ;*
,T i EE i? H : sH6 ;e 9.9 c) A S ocon o .' o o) Fc{o o bb i'. rt F- . )'o) -$r N il i'- b
a'-: ag v)o) E EEe 5 <J'a o) 6Es) I = EEgE = f; : ",€8-q, + = : N=o) (i R cl ;;:9:c O- J E Y'coO-
'EE
PE& ;S5a6=c)oyu)a
itE
.E
ooNJ
3/,l'6x
cl<l
otcl
trlolNI
- ir!I
s'sl8ra (')l Ot; Nto
-i r+l (')- @lF.
=-;F
J
, ;;; fls"|
E $E]3 ;lgl
-9s g3F
tv.
On January 11, 1993, the PEC reviewed the proposal at a work session. Minutes from that
meeting are aftached to this memo. A summary of the PEC comments for the lower
development area were:
1)
2)
-t,
4)
o)
7)
That mature evergreen trees should be saved,
That fill from the road should be reduced'
That the units should be clustered and some incorporated into duplexes'
That sile impacts of the development should be minimized'
That the proposal's character should integrate with the existing portions of Phase ll,
That the proposed amount of GRFA and the single family home use was acceptable'
That two Planning Commissioners said that garages and automobile access to the
homes were accePtable.
Conceming the upper development area, the Planning Commission's comments included:
1) That the building envelopes should be.reduced in size'
2) That the envelopes should be shifted down off of the uppermost part of the hillside,
3i That the envelopes should be shifted to the east and moved closer together,
4i That detailed designs of the driveway, the garage aprons and the tumaround areas
should be providel so that there would be an accurate understanding of what future
development would look like.
a) Lower Develooment Area
since that meeting, the applicant has modified the proposal. For the lower development area,
the site has been surveyed, and all aspen larger than an 8-inch caliper and all evergreens
above 20 teet in height have been identitied. There are eighty-eight trees identified in the
survey, which can be broken down into three dilferent clusters. The first is in the central part
of the site, the second is at the lower part of the site and the third is at the upper part of the
site along'the road. With the changes made since the last review, the applicant has been
able to slve the lower cluster of trees in addition to others acloss the site. This cluster is
made up ol five evergreen trees with calipers ranging from 8 to 24 inches.
In addition, the applicant has been able to reduce the length of the road by 20 feet. This in
lurn, has reduced the amount of fill that is required. Previously, the fill required ranged from
10 to .12 feet in depth. At this time, the ma(imum amount of fill ranges from 6lo I feet. For a
majority of the road, the fill is 4 teet or less. The area of asphalt has been reduced by '128
squarafeet. Heights of the buildings have been reduced from 33 feet to a range of 27 feet to
gd feet. Landscaped area has increased by approximately 700 square feet.
b) Uooer Develooment Area
Since the January 1 1, 1993 work session, the applicant has changed the upper development
area by reducing the size of the building envelopes, shifting these to the east and eliminating
the upper 10 feet of each of the envelopes. Envelope A-1 has been shifted 25 feet to the
east. Envelope A-2 has been shifted 15 feet to east. The applicant has also recognized the
Town's ownership of right-of-way in the boundary line dispute. The applicant has widened the
road to accommodate Fire Department requirements.
The applicant has drawn detailed plans of the driveway in the upper development area.
The drawings include garage locationg, garage slab elevations' parking arees,
automobile turnaround areas, or the retaining walls that are required to accommodate
the access. Sections through each envelope have not been provided. These drawings
show that acoess can be provided to the garsges without involving variances. Prior to
first reading at Town Council, staff requests that the sketches be rcfined' that all
assumptions made in the drawings be identified, that top-ot-wall and bottom-of-wall
elevations be identified for all retaining, and that sections through each envelope be
provided.
A very important addition to the proposal for the upper development area is a limitation to the
amount of site disturbance which will be allowed. In an effort to prohibit any scarring on the
back or sides of the two buildings, the proposed language will be added to lhe plat:
"Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 should be "benched-in" to the hillside and
stepped with the natural contours of the site. Site excavation should be no
more than necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Extensive
site grading to create a flat building site is not permitted. In order to ensure
compliance with the above, finished grades on the north, east and west
elevations of buildings should not deviate more than 4 feet from existing grade
at any point."
Staff believes that this proposed language will ensure that the development, which is to be
designed at a fulure date, will be well integrated in the hillside.
c)GRFA
In the previous discussions with the PEC, the applicant has proposed an additional 500
square feet of GRFA to the amount approved by the County. At this time, the applicant has
eliminated this portion of the reguest and is now complying with the amount set by the Eagle
County approval. The proposed building floor plans will have to be modified slightly to meet
this amount. At this time, the staff measured approximately 96 square leet of GRFA in excess
of what the County approved. The homes in the lower dwelopment area will need to be
adjusted so that the proposal does not exceed the amount approved. The applicant has
agreed to do this at the time of DRB application. The following table identilies the
approximate GRFA for each envelope. Staff is recommending that the GRFA lor each
residence be allowed to vary by 50 square feet from what is shown below. Tolal GRFA
for the lower and upper development areas may not erceed the totals lor each area.
GRFA may not be transferred from the upper to the lower development area.
Lower devglooment area:
Base Floor Credit
Area
GRFA current
A. 1816
B. 1816
c. 1845
D. 2148
E. 1675F. 2157G. 1957total 1 3314
UDper developmenl arsa:
225
225
225
22s
22s
22s
225
2c41
20d.1
2070
2373
1900
2382
2082
garage
credit
463
493
493
486
492
483
476
ovgra9e
16
16
24
0
26
21
3477
3125
d) Hazards
The applicant has provided additional analysis by Mr. Nick Lampiris regarding both the debris
flow and rockfall hazards. The lower development area has been found not to be signilicantly
affected by either of the hazards. Nick Lampiris specifically states that no mitigation is
needed for the lower development area. Conceming the upper development area, the debris
flow hazard will skirt the two building envelopes and does not need to be mitigated. However,
rockfall does need to be miligated. The geologist has recommended that on the north
elevations of the two homes in the Upper Development Area, that 3 feet of exposed
foundation wall, which can withstand 300 pounds per square foot of impact, be provided. This
is not to be broken up by any windows or doonruays. Based on the hazards reports and this
recommendation, staff believes the hazards have been satisfactorily addressed.
600
600
225
zza
A-1. 3252A-2. 2900lotal 6152
V.
o
SDD CRITEBIA
Design compatibility and sensitiyity to the immediate environment, neighborhood
and adiacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building
height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
Staff believes that the new design for the lower development area has improved its
sensitivity to the immediate environment and neighbohood by shifting the building
locations up out of the meadow. This has, in tum, reduced the length of the road by
20ieet, reduced the amount of fill required, and preserved the cluster of trees at the
lower end of the development. As stated earlier, these trees range in caliper from 8 to
24 inches. There is 128 square feet less asphalt in the Lower Development Area since
the road has been shortened and approximately 4 feet less fill required.
conceming the upper development area, staff believes that the building envelopes are
reasonable locations for two single family homes. The applicant has stated a
requirement on the plat stipulating that the grade on the west, north and east
elevations of both single family homes not change more than 4 feet from the existing
grade. This will insure that there is no scaring of the hillside as a result of
development and will insure that the homes are "benched-in" the hillside. The
applicant has shifted the envelopes to the east to reduce the amount of road required
and has brought the envelopes 10 feet down off the hillside.
Another significant issue regarding sensitivity to the immediate environment
involves the design for the automobile access to the two envelopes in the upper
development area. Staff has reviewed the preliminary drawings submitted by the
applicant and believes that access can be provided without requiring any
variances. We would like to have these drawings refined prior to Gouncil and all
of the assumptions involved with the building and garage locations specified on
the drawings. This is listed at the end of this memo as a condition of approval.
Staff understands that other issues raised previously in the review process have
already been resolved by the applicant. The shingles have been removed, the
design of Building B has been modified significantly so that it does not look like
A or C and the deck on Building A has been cut back by 5 feet. Given these
changes, the staff has removed all of these issues trom the list of conditions at
the end of this memo.
Building A encroaches 10 feet into the front setback. Because there is 21 feet
between the property line and the edge of pavement, there will be an apparent 31 foot
setback. Statf believes that the benefits fiat have resulted from shifting all of the
homes up out of the meadow will outweigh the few negative aspects associated with
the setback encroachment. Given the 31 teet of distance between the home and the
road, staff believes it will be acceptable.
Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable
relationship wilh surrounding uses and activity.
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
I
The proposed use for both developmenl areas is single family homes. This use is
listed in the zoning code as an allowed use lor the Residential Cluster Zone District.
We believe that the homes provide a workable relationship with the surrounding uses,
even though many of them to the west are condominiums. We believe that the use is
reasonable and that with some design modifications to the architecture and
landscaping, that the development will be compatible.
Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52.
All of the home sites in both the upper development and lower development areas
comply with the Town's parking requirements.
Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town
policies and Urban Design Plans.
The Land Use Plan designates this parcel as Medium Density Residential (MDR). As
proposed, the development will be 5.4 units per buildable acre. MDR allows a range of
3-14 dwelling units per acre. As a result, staff finds that the proposal is consistent with
The Vail Land Use Plan designation.
ldentification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the
property on which the special development district is proposed.
Please see the analysis done by Mr. Nick Lampiris discussed above and attached to
this memo. Statf has listed the recommendations from his study as conditions of
approval.
Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to
produce a lunctional development responsive and sensitive to natural features,
vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community,
Statf believes that the location of the buildings, since they have been shifted to the
east, have resulted in better open space provisions and are more responsive to the
existing vegetation. Though the road accessing the Lower Development Area will
remove a stand of trees, staff believes that any development plan in the remaining
portion of Phase ll would require removing some trees. Staff believes that, in general,
there is a reasonable balance between preserving the overall aesthetic quality of this
portion of The Valley and building out the approved density.
A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on
and off-site traffic circulation.
Vehicular and pedestrian traffic has been addressed in this design. Conceming the
upper development area, there is vehicle access to both envelopes. Concerning the
lower development area, there is vehicle access to each home site as well as a
pedestrian path that ties into the rest of The Valley pathway system. At the time the
lower area is developed, the applicant will complete a single family subdivision in order
to sell otl the homes. At that time, the common roadway and pedestrian pathway must
G.
o
be dedicated as acoess easements.
The Fire Department has approved the vehicular access plan for the lower
development area as well as the upper development area with one condition. They
are requiring the applicant to design a tum-around using the apron in front of the
garage on envelope A-2. The garage and apron may be located at any point along the
southem edge of the envelope. The Fire Department is requiring hat 35 feet be
provided between the front of the garage door and the lar edge of pavement {of the
driveway). There must be a minimum of 12.5 feet of clearance lor this distance.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order lo optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
Staff understands thst the applicant has redesigned the landscaping' shifting
much of it around to the areas between the Proposed development and the
existing development in Grouse Glen. A minor point concerning the landscaping
is to have the areas proposed for sod tie in to the existing lavfi arca of the Valley and
modify the type of sod to match the existing sod,
t. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and
efficient relationship throughout the development of the Special Development
Oistrict.
The minor subdivision that is proposed ensures that there will be a functional and
efficient relationship throughout this portion of the development and the rest of The
Valley. Easements will be shown on the plat lo accommodate both on-site and off-site
drainage. Al this time, the Town Engineer is requesting a final component of a
drainage study. As result, the staff is adding a condition of approvalthat prior to first
reading at Town Council of the SDD, the applicant provide all information the Town
Engineer needs in his review of the drainage plan lor the development. Any structures
or easements that are recommended in the drainage study will need to be provided for
in the design and on the subdivision plat prior to scheduling this development for first
reading. Easements for pedestrian and vehicular traffic will also be provided on the
ptat.
VI. MINOR SUBDIVISION REOUEST AND RECOMMENDATION
The standards for creating lots in this zone district are as follows:
Section 1 8.14.050 "The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand square feet,
containing no less than eight thousand square feet of buildable area. Each site shall
have a minimum frontage of thirty feet. Each site shall be of a size and shape
capable of enclosing a square area eighg leet on each site within its boundaries."
Though both of the proposed lots exceed the minimum size, the west lot does not contain the
minimum amount of buildable area. The requirement is for eight thousand square feet, and
the proposal, as measured by statf, provides no buildable square footage for the westem
envelope. lf the SDD is approved, this deviation from the standards may be allowed.
10
Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision. We believe the applicant has
demonstrated that two single family units can be built on Tract A. The original
development plan located 5 units in the hazard area. We believe the new plan provides
lor a much safer design. ln r€spect to Tract B, we feel it is reasonable to plat unplatted
parcels that are phases within a development.
The PEC is the approving authority for the Minor Subdivision request. However, Town
Council is the approving authority for the SDD. As a result, staff recommends that once the
plat is modified to address the Town staff concems, that the PEC make their approval
contingent upon the Town Council's approval of the SDD.
Prior to the scheduling of the proposal for first reading at Town Council, the following
changes must be incorporated into the plat:
1) The information provided in the completed drainage report must be incorporated
into the plat, including proposed improvements as well as easements;
2l All hazard areas, as designated on the Town of Vail hazard maps shall be
graphically shown on the Plai.
3) The minor subdivision approval shall be conditioned upon the SDD receiving
final aPProval lrom Town Council.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE SDD REOUEST
Slaff believes that this project meets all the SDD review criteria and is recommending
approval of the proposed development plan with the following elements ol an agreement with
the developer. Assuming that the lollowing changes can be incorporated into the drawings,
staff recommends that the PEC recommend to Town Council that this SDD be approved.
A. Prior to the scheduling of the proposal for first reading at Town Council, the following
changes must be incorporated into the drawings:
1) Drawings for the automobile access to the upper development area shall
be provided and refined, noting all assumptions to be made regarding the
building location, identilying top of wall and bottom of wall elevatlons,
and providing sections through each building envelope showing the
building, any retaining walls and driveway.
B. At time of DRB hearing, the DRB shall determine that:
1) Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be "benched-in" into the hillside and
stepped with the natural contours of the site. Site excavation should be no
more than necessary lo accommodate the proposed development. Extensive
site grading to create a flat building site is not permitted. In order to ensure
compliance with the above, finished grades on the north, east and west
elevations of buildings should not deviate more than 4 feet from existing grade
at any Point.
11
2) Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be designed with the intemal hazard
mitigation recommended by Mr. Nick Lampiris in his hazard analysis dated
September 18, 1992 and January 22,1593.
3) Buildings on Tract A-2 shall be designed with a tum-around using the apron in
front of the garage on envelope A-2. The garage and apron may be located at
any point along the southem edge of the envelope. The Fire Department is
requiring that 35 feet be provided between the front of the garage door and the
lar edge of pavement of the driveway. There must be a minimum of 12.5 feet
of clearance for this distance.
4) The sod areas atign with the existing sod areas of Phase ll and that the sod
type malches Phase ll.
5) The GRFA of the proposal must be modified to comply with the tollowing chart.
The GRFA allocated for each residence in the lower development area and
each envelope in the upper development area can be modified by 50
square feet. Total GRFA for each area may not exceed the maximum of
13,314 for the lower development area (Tract B) and 6,152 for the upper
development area flract A).
Lower develooment area:
Base Floor Credit
Area
A. 1816 225B. 1816 225c. 1845 225D. 2148 22sE. 1675 225F. 2157 22sG. 1857 225total 13314
Upoer development area:
GRFA cunenl
20/.1
2041
2070
2373
1900
2382
2082
gara9e
credit
463
493
493
486
492
483
476
overage
16
16
24
0
26
21
A-1. 3252A-2. 2900total 6152
225 34n225 3125
500
600
C. Prior to Town approval of the Single Family Subdivision for the lower developmenl
area. The applicant shall dedicate access easements for the common driveway as
well as the pedestrian access path;
12
[ttcl
M
fi
l-'oo
IW
lfr#" .l"rr' il
ffi
L' \',, il/i/lgW, u,, :::il!
W^l h**il' pp$ff fi
[$1fl
,_'Wt'ii'$*$
I'.t' ', |Jrdu,Lt I
j:-.-_:--_
'T ,:#e
lltp{gs.';,
[8*{
$
aft vanfl
tF.tI
tri:,iiir
riu
sq
}!
Ei r
'ifr
1\:
il
dt
!!iit !rt r il:ttliir!:rii !ilrirl
ii'iii
liiili
ii[!
'Iii
iii
hlit.
I
\\\l
sa
E)i\i\.,/
tlcf
t9
I.:
I
ribntl
a
.'
tt!lIrrt{
?il
,
16lti;.
(q
I
1::
>*_:---_>_
E
i1.
3.
IF
Ilii*i l'. tn
i iil
tit
;tlt
!iF'r9E{
I
*
IP
!:::
i it':
!:lt.!!rll'lt'lt. t.
!.tI
i::i
:l.i
iiii
!l ir
! r'!
,! i:!ti3l
lrii
'tl
ffiffi
,i$l$#K''.ilt'i',r,.i{;l
N
ffi\\t$\i
\x
SE:
&6F\9 aft vaufiLry'a-i.#I Il.rhodqes$' 'r'r'tt.;eYr*.s
5I
rJll
!i
FI
o ..i
I
\r.;i[r
ffi: ri
.F- (i{f->lv 't'rd l!,'lrO
i@:. -.'d
q9
ti?,
'*i€,€
$iilii'l''iiiiil
iiilr$ i i* "(i
Ilillii '. f *",qi!.I'li rl,== $!n-r."ilI [. gi_rr.". r.prr
otP r
i
\Jt
9
[J'r,.t'-o.Eg.gsiclj\os)$i A ar{-!elu vaill
'tir/'rrrr .J.-t -* ae:.',.n L- !*,. -rJ.-.viaJ. - -( s ..t a.z.-z 4.;rr"l, a.\.4)E
m
IPJ
I
D.Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.
CONSULTTNG GEOLOGIST
OI85 INGERSOLL t-ANE
stLT, coLoRADO 81652
F03) 8765100 Pl HOURSI
J e.n Lr.ar !, 2? ! 19'5-f,
Steven Gens I er
Farllurr'od Fe.-el ty,.'i?9? DTC Blvd, #grt(:l
Engl er,rnod ! CO Brl1l 1
RE: Tr.rct A, Lion's Fidge Slrbdivigion
Dea:' l*lr llerr sl er :
I have bee,n ash:erJ tc. cI ar.r- i f ir rny, posi ti on on the rocl,:f aI !.mitig.rtion I stli-lulegled in rny ltr*.,,icurs lettr_.r. I belieye tlrat oneo'f t !,JL'r r::i ti gati c,n techni eLlt-:e ig in ordc,r-.
fJne possibility is to eitht-:r- scale cr gr-ccrt loose rctrl,:s in th.eI Dt'r r:lrtc:-op clirecll'.v above tfre si.teE: betirlr j. s: to cons.trr-r.ct iirer-eilr- +cLrndati cr: rv:i1l of t- l'r r.- bt.ri l cJinr;s to or-r:t:-r_tde at lestgt thre,.-'Fere:l a.h c-ri,r= f :l rri F3,.\r:rJ qr.-1.ilr: .rn rJ trr Ir a i,r:. n r_, l.Ji nrlctt:= i rr th j. g i ntr:r,.,a.t({;-c,r ctr-ound Ie.rc,1 to ttre Loil cr.f rifre st:rain H.:t11) - This N-cIl
'-ho'-rId h;rve a str-r:nq ih of "rt 1e,:.st jr:r{:) pc,rndg psr siqL'.i.re r:r:,e t.'i'hi; r'r.r1l. r,loi-il ul crl.go ect- to pr-o{:r.rct tire hor.le in -,-h*- i:veni: .r n r:: i.r
-=hor.rl ci s.t i de: r-tp ;rg,:.i rr:.i: tlit hc,;nr:.
I-t thnt'e sr'- e. *r.rr-th.er- cLtE:ut i t:ri; plR.:-?Ei! co!-r.iirtrt i.ix.
iJiclrci
Ccn -. r.r 1
"'ftpJ
+= L{..r,=i r-i.s
i: i n n 9esr1 trq i. st
I
\.
i
:<nYl
H
bd
g
H
H
H
H
H
F
H
H
g
H
H
H
H
t
i;l
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.
CONSULTING GEOLO6IST
OiE5 INGERSOLL I-ANE
srLT, coLoaADo 81652
(313) 8765100 (2r HOUFSI
Septcrrbe:. 18, l??2
Ste'/en Eens!. e r
Filr- kr.rood l::eal t y
s-.lci9 DTC gl,./d. it:jc,lr:rt"op*c{o Eolil
/\RE:i Trr.ct It. )Lioa':': iiidce $urbdivi=icnv ---'lDc,ai- l'i:- - 6c-n:r.l er:
I lravc i- c.vi. e.'.red thci gevsn gi'c,cE EiB F.ht:..,.,t'l cn 'i-ha accJr--pi:iryi no r:s.::.ilcr- pl-lrroeu=; c4 Fi,:ck Fal. I .:lltd L\cbr-!. s F!. o r^r re.ri e.rv {crr ilr+ 'iclr,lr: o.l
Vei I " Ti':g cevc.n si tr,-'e ai-e ourt oi: 'ihE geb:i:: .f e.ir a:'rC ch.',nnr=.1 .
tll i o.;: tiic.. :ror-ttr:.i-ntnc$t si tn *nri g:er-t: ci.F the ne;.:t ti.:o are tri thi nti::.' i'ir-.di'-'.1;r !i:oc j,: Fell i-lc:e,:-C (geg accer*l..F.l-rvi ni'-rs fi::oi.
Tire rcc!: '311 I .rr!1.:. i': ncrc 5i.jl.,er gj .i:ui-they- rrorth {:h.io tl':u;e
buiId!ng :.5. tc.; Dn ';ire ci:ni:r g:i c{ci o..i T:'act Ff v.'!iere it h.',= be=.n
r-.:".por-tcr j. n a c.:nt.ji:ir.:)i'crii.:cLr..i i itti:r:r tl'::rt th,e.y csn b:.: cs::i 1i.,
Gr-cuta;J al- L-, lhiii'rJi';= ne'it'ti-ali'icrci i'r:cauiLs they .-,:-r. ti'i;-r .:::cl
d:..:l:rrni:ii:Lri:r-ls. Tire nor-il i-,.-,:: ai'-dcus cultci-op: rai-r,:h highe;- on $- h r.-.
hi11.:iCe r:!Ii .;l-rc-.C no:iti.r, ':o tne '*-s'':. filt;-.cLi?h rri t:.!a'ii cln at
ths: hene::itci i.: pi:si'ii bl e ',-hrc'r-rnh t'reL l,.l c;r brrni n.":, it is nc:l:
r.,'gi-ranied dLrc. to .!hc. lcl.r r:hencLa o.f rocilS re;1:h j.na the. sites.
The c=ns:'Lr-r.:cl.'.i c:n o'F l:hese utnitg wi 1. 1 nci i ncr-ee.sir.-' the h*:.: "ri-i:l tu-,
o1:hti- !irci:--.:rt:\,, oi- g':t"t-rci:Ltr"E.s, or- l"- o ct-ib1:c r- i q !-, i: r.-, - c.i: -1.:i\',, r
bl-ri i r:li::1.':i. r'niCj:;, ::tr"eet: s t-arlFr(.'::lii'r1lJ,:: . t.lti,:. itiSLl ;i- 'f LCii j,Lieg ;--t-
c,1:hr;" prrill:-:''i j.c.; o1: ;-:n;, ilinri. 'i iiL, giier ::ti'ies :ri-e n:ii, i.t: u:i';i,l;l'
o+- tire ha: er ci .i:li-sti.i.
I.l i: h c*r- r-. arrl qLr.:E'eicns ple:',gll cont;r.ct il:a.
':mffi,
Coneuitinc Gco l.:c i st
I
r
I
F
I
1
r
H
r
E
I
I
3
E
I
r
T
T
I
o
D.Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
OI85 INGEBSOLL I-ANE
srLT. COLORAOO 81652
(303) 8?654@ e1 HOUESI
Septeliri:c-'r- l[]r 1;,,93
Stevsn tSens L er
Par- it'scocl Re,nl i),
5?9? D'fC Flvd, *i5OCt
lingl e'rtooC , CB EOl l. !,
RE: Trect A, [..ion's R:.clgel Subrjivi::ion
Gens.l e.r :
I hsv.=; rc'r,i.el.reai t!re 'cr+o s-i'ii?l: gg ghoi,rn orr the -iccorirtrfifiiri r' c_l :nao
i:or 1:iri-poEr;i.F: oic i::o;k Fiil I eir,c ilebri E F! al.r re.ri E: r..r .:: ci- !he 'l'r:un c i
\r:ri i . Tl'r:;. tt,to gi ttis f'r er,,r: l.lerrn cl'!G':en t(] be ci-rt o-i: ald trr tfi|:.
r^rr,:.=i: oF ti-rr: dri.F.ri'i:! -!:an aii,i ch,ernsJ.. The r.i:-: i,'sr.Jay fi:usi t:nl:er end
tri'o'j.s i:hll f ..n o h oi..:elr,l-.,t' ,
The ;-cck f cr.1 I .rre.a i s n':ol'c $ E'\,F.,i- e -inr-thet- r.la.st til$n 'ghEE? '!: r,Ju
[:uri I di n,,1 ri tes r..r: il i:hu. i. ow oiri:crt:p5 &lJov[3 the::e si tns c.,-.n bc
e;r--i ly t.1r-o'-rteC oi' o'tlis'i-t.ri sr: n t'rlrt r el.l i i :d becaursa. 'che", ;rr* thiil a.nC
d j sr:crnti nLroLiE, ihsr riic;-e ha:.ir"dours uirtcr-c11,'19 rrurch hi,qher on t h r'-.
i-,i llei.dr-- uiii sireiJ fios'tl;, io il.he r.ieet. *tl thcurqir mit-i.griicn er.t
tirr=' h(-.ii:es,i t,E::: i ,j c r:-.:i:= i b: ': l:lrr"or-rch i-l.al :, :r oi- br'-.rnri n-g , i t'. ! e
r:i"at:,:rLrii, nc'i: uarr;rn'i:ed Ct-ti: to titc L t:r"r trhi...ricc. o.F r-or:ke i-=.:chi nn
ths si',:ns. Otitci-r:p !.JDr'::: pi'r:or- i:c clfnstrurrti crr ,'ri i L be.
b c.,n'iJ: i ci aI .
'l-hir: :i r.i i.n a l oc.ri.i nn !{i'l rri- (} t i-' L? i-:dfliE) =c;rtsii:ri i-rg 'iiit: sc,'-r.t'c::.j. c.'i;
i.rctrlrri: j.'-ti f :illing rr:::lls. ii:-., ..-,t gurclr sr 1cr.: 1e*rq:i i\'j.qh f eEFe'Jt tD
'r:i':r.l 'r,','l'r.-.:', i:.ir;r'l i-i]clJ:5 i.r:i 1 i r,:r.i-ll i. v rr.:';rch i:he si. i:c':l . .:fl:J , !. :: ti',e'.,
Co. r.ri -1. 1 lr *rvr:. 1,,{.rr'/ iittlst (.-.tr'latrit',/. l:jcr,.r Lt:'r= i:$b1L: i-Lrc:.':s3 ctrcl.::- iibc'/gr
i:lt:r g !:-,i.'Ee,-.-_; :l
Ths. .:l:-'ei-rric'!, i cn c'I thrgge llni'is vrilI nci*: i ncreagl' ti':.,: l-r&::Eit-d iEr
ctiri:i- ilr-cpcri''t.,/ cr gLrusti.ii'es. cr' 'to i:r..rb).ic rigir'l'e-rii:-r.J.:iy?
hurilCings.. roads! E'tri3'tl: -. c.l--Ement5. ui'.i 1i'! j.e-;g or- '!i:c!Li:ic':; sr-
citi-rsi- pi'r:ipt:rti EE if't anY l:i n'i. i-tl'l tn i'.. r::3tate thai: thg si i:s'5 are
ncl.L i n tht3 iiehri s ha::al-'i a;'s'e!,5.
5r-'i l. s erngi n'eeri nql str-tcJi, c.:.'€ .:.t t- t? I':3tr!agsr!.r-y d,-is to the Ei:eEpneg.!; o'f
th:: Ei',lcs. I'f thercr arc' q::es'iia::: p!. e;..sc: ctrr''t.i;t tic..
Qi rr r-";:.r- a I rr.4:/'t-Z' /vtal /tz.n v<-'r
lii r- ir ,.r : e= r. (r"n i : i :z
L.Jr r'J Lr.( L i I r'.1 r- -'J - !..J r -' .-
500"38'56'W 455.06 feet;thence along said centerline N00"38'56"E 122.81 feet
to the southerly ROW line of l-70; thence departing said BOW line N66"53'25'E
39.15 feet;thence departing said ROW line S81'23'19"E 165.42 feet to a point
of curve; thence 122.83 leet alongthearcola 143.20 footradiuscurvetothe
left, having a centralangle of 49'08'51" and a chord that bears 515"57'45"E
1 19.1 0 feel; thence S40"32'10'E 3.00 feet; thence 66.30 feet along the arc of a
77.21 lool radius curve t0 the righl, having a cenlral angle of 49"12'10" and a
chord that bears S15o56'05"E 64.28 feet;thence S8"40'00"W 90.27 feet;thence
N38'42'24"W 224.55 feet; thence S78'10'32"W 101.44 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
MECM Enterprises, lnc. represented by Michael Lauterbach
Jim Curnutte
8.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicanl:
Planner:
TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1993
Chuck Crist motioned to table the request with Dalton Williams seconding the motion
and a unanimous vole of 6-0 tabled the request until January 25, 1993.
A request for a proposed SDD and mlnor subdivlslon to allow for the
development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley,
Phase ll/1480 Bufler Creek Rd.
Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realtv
Andy Knudtsen
Chuck Crist abslained lrom this request due to a potential conllict of interest.
Andy Knudtsen reviewed the request stating that lhere were three deviations from the
code.
Tom Braun, representing the applicant, gave a brief presentation. He emphasized that
the applicant did not want to request additional GRFA and would be doing further
research before the llnal hearing regarding that issue.
Public Input
Neighborhood input was then requested and the first speaker was Brian Doolan. He
requested that the applicant look into the various Fire Department requirements and
come up with an alternative design.
Steve Lindstrom spoke second, discussing the differences between the County
approval and the proposed plan. He specifically requested that the PEC require Mr.
Gensler lo reduce the amount of asphalt in his design.
F Iar,n ii',o arici Eii riro nme ntal Cc i-:l:-n issicn
January 11, 1993
t
i
Sally Brainerd spoke next and described the sections that she had drawn in a prepared
report done by RKD, lnc. The Planning Commission discussed with her some of the
details ol the drawings, specitically trying to understand the amount of lill that would be
located at the lower end ot the proposed road.
Sherry Donrard was lhe last neighbor to speak and she requesled that the PEC
require the applicant to maintain the character of the area. She described aspects of
The Valley and reguested that some of these characteristics be included in the new
design.
Uooer Develooment Area
The PEC decided to discuss the upper development area {irst. Greg Amsden said that
interesting architecture was the key to an attractive development. He said that 3,600
square feet of GRFA was quite a bit for that lol. He said lhat he was concerned about
the terracing that would be required with a development in the upper area. He said
that it should be kept at a minimum. He said he wanted to see specific aspects of the
design at this time prior to any decision on the request. These would include garage
enlries, the automobile turnaround area for each home, the parking area oulside the
garage, and the access to and from each building envelope.
Dalton Williams advised the appticant to be very careful given the steepness ol the
slope. He said that the square footage of the structures was an issue but the major
issues to him were nailing down grading, cut and fill, and design review issues for the
two homes. He also said that lhe character of the local area should be preserved.
Gena Whitten said that she was concerned about the engineering that would be
required for building on a slope like this. She said she wanted to see the delails of the
driveway, the turnaround areas, the slope retention, as well as hazard mitigation.
Jeff Bowen said that he concurred with the comments that had been staled.
Diana Donovan said that design restrictions for these lots was a good idea. She also
said that the two envelopes should be moved together as well as shifted to the east.
Lower Development Area
Concerning the lower development area, Jeff Bowen began the discussion by saying
that putting garages in these homes was a good idea and that most homes in Vail
need garages. He continued by saying that lhe mature evergreen trees should be
saved. He also said that the amount ol grading proposed was a problem, especially
on lhe west end. Concerning the fact that all of the proposed homes are single family,
he suggested lhal clustering a few as duplexes would help the site plan.
Gena Whitlen concurred with Jeff's comments and emphasized thal the development
Planning and Envlronmentaf Commisslon
ianuary ll, lsYJ
I
I
o
should be clustered. She said that by clustering, some asphalt could be eliminaled
and the amount of grading needed could be reduced. She said that saving the trees
was very imporlant. Reducing the size of the units, combining driveways, and
shortening lhe lenglh of the access road by clustering would all benefit the plan.
Dallon Wlliams emphasized that he wanted to see the trees saved. He said that too
much of the vegetation would be destroyed. He also said that the design should be in
character with the existing area. He also requested that the applicanl set the buildings
into the hillside lo make them look smaller.
Greg Amsden said that the asphalt coverage should be decreased and that this could
be done by reducing the width of the road. In his own experience with the
development review process, he negotiated with the Fire Department to sprinkle the
structures and in turn, was able to reduce the width of the drive significantly. He said
that this may also help to save trees, which was an important issue to him. He said
the square foolage of the homes was not a problem but that they should be worked
into the hillside.
Diana Donovan referred back to page four ot lhe staff memo. She said thal the units
should be cluslered, that they should share common drives and yards, and that they
should be designed to save the vegelation around the development. She said that the
asphalt should be reduced and that the mature vegetation should be saved. In
general, she believed that the units should be cluslered closer together at the top of
the site to preserve the rest ol the site. She concluded by saying that since this is one
phase of a multi phase project, lhe existing neighborhood should definitely be
considered in the review of this projecl.
Greg Amsden added a last point and received general concurrence from the PEC that
the single family style of development was not an issue. However, he emphasized that
issues such as grading, tree preservation, clustering would all have lo be resolved and
the design improved before the PEC could support the plan.
Review of staff
Staff :
policy on vending carts (ie. espresso carts).
Tim Devlin
the Town's policy on vending carts per the staff memo.
that she supports the staff memo.
Tim Devlin reviewed
Diana Donovan said
Public Comments:
Susan Fritz, the Vice President of the Restaurant Association and the owner of the
Uptown Grill, inquired about the possibility of having an espresso carl at her restaurant.
Planning and Environmental Commission
w.ri,eur t It, ter.,
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Town Council
Community Development Department
August 17, 1993
Site visit of lots exceeding 4Oo/" slope in the Town of Vail
Address Calculation*
100 Vail Road 8.200 - 8.160
(Webster House) 95
805 Potato Patch Dr. 8,542 - 8.620
(Crisola residence) 165
2328 Garmisch Dr. 7,981 - 8.040
(Lampe residence) 139.4
2337 Garmisch Dr. 8.110 - 8.054
(DeMartin residence) 112
2682 Cortina Lane 8.128 - 8.083
(underconstruction) 126.11
2662 Cortina Lane 8.122 - 8.073
(under construction) 1 13.39
Staff researched the building permit plans for the lots listed below and verified that the slope
prior to development exceeded 40o/". For lots zoned Primary/Secondary, there is no
restriction regarding development in areas exceeding 40%. Please see Section 18.69.040
which is attached. Thus, these developments were allowed to be built without variances or
SDDs.
Leqal
Lot 1, Block 7
VailVillage
1st Filing
Lot 29
Potato Patch
Lots 12 and 13,
Block G, Vail das
Schone Filing No. 2
Lot 19, Block H,
Vail das Schone
Filing No. 2
Lot 9, Block B,
Vail Ridge
Lot 7, Block B,
Vail Ridge
Slooe
40Yo
47o/"
42.sVo
45.5o/o
35.7o/"
43.24/"
*The calculation was made by taking the difference between the high and low points of the lot
and dividing that by the length of the lot.
KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS
CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERS
SOILS AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED RESIDENCES
CROSSVIEW AT VAIL
TRACTS A-T AND A-2
LIONS RIDGE SUBDIVISION, FILING IiO. 2
TOWN OF VAIL, COI.ORADO
Prepared for:
Mr. Steve Gensler
Crossview Properties Ltd.
5299 DTC Boulevard, Suite 500
Englewood, C0 801f1
otppgr/ED BY THE
TOWN OF VAIL
PTANNING AND
ENVI RONMEMTAL COM M ISSION
- p'q,
Job No. 93-60
123s4 W€ST ALAMEDA PARXWAY. LAKEWOOO CO 80228 t3J3)989 1223
June 2l , 1993
TABLE OF CONTEI'ITS
SCOPE
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
SITE CONDITIONS
INVESTIGATION
sIrE (sAN$Stl&,tttAJ{
I
I
2
3
3
4
4
5
6
8
t0
10
l1
11
Fig. I
Fig.2
Fig. 3
Figs. 4 and 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
J^trrit#dofifvHx
BEL0W CRADE C0NSTRUCTION..yrr.t.t*rii.rr-}.l-.r-,t,r-*q+.? --,4 l.!\f
REf,AINTNG AND F0UNDAT{g[,rl'..LtlS
'''rlAFf*|.<ll.H.'4t.iftr|.'Ajl*..'||d-'-|9'l'
FLOOR SLABS
CONCRETE
SURFACE DRAINACE
LIMITATIONS
VICINITY MAP
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
I.OGS OF EXPIORATORY BORINGS
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
TTPICAL VJALL DRAIN DBTAIL
IYPICAL EARTH RETAINING WALL DETAIL
SCOPE
This report presents the results of a soils and foundation investi-
gation for two proposed residences to be Located in Crossview At. Vail,
Tracts A-1 and A-2 of. Lions Ridge Subdivision, Fi.ting No. 2 in the Town
of Vail, Colorado. A descrj-ption of subsurface conditions found in
exploratory borings, recomnendations for foundation construction,
criteria for design of foundations, and our reconmendations for below
grade construction are presented in this report. The report was pre-
pared based on conditions found in the exploratory borings, results of
laboratory tests, and our experience with similar subsurface condit.ions
in the Vail area. The recomnended foundation construction procedure is
influenced by the proposed type of structures and anticipated foundation
loads. Prior to construction we should review the construction plans
for the structures to confirm that our recommendations are satisfactory
for the residences as designed. A summary of our conclusions and recom-
mendations is presented in the following paragraphs.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
Subsurface conditions found in the borings consisted of 2 to 3feet of topsoil underlain by sands and clays to depths of 7 to
17 feet underl.ain by sandstone bedrock which extended to the
maximum depth explored of 40 feet.
No free ground water was found in the borings at the time ofdri11ing. However, ground water is always possible in loca1-
ized zones at shallower depths especially at the surface of the
bedrock.
1.
-2-
The residences rnay be constructed with a spread footing founda-tion system.
Below grade construction at this site requires special precau-tions as outlined in this report in order to maintain thestability of the slope and sides of excavation. In addition,the potentiaL for encroachment on adjacent property during con-struction needs to be considered. Actual slope conditions willnot be known until the excavations are opened. A representa-tive of our office rnust be on-site to observe the opening ofthe excavations.
Retaining walls may be designed and constructed for cut andfill areas as well- as foundation walls.
Slab-on-grade construction is possible on this site with Lowrisk of slab movement.
7, Good surface drainage shoul-d be maintained at all times toreduce the risk of foundation soils becoming wetted.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
At the time of this investigation plans for the residences were
preliminary in nature. We understand the residences will be 3 stories
including the basement and the garage which r+111 be at the lower level.
The structures are anticipated to be of vood frame construction above
grade and cast-in-place concrete construction below grade. Below grade
construction is planned for the basement areas, The maximum vertical
depth of excavation is planned to be as much as 26 feet be1-ow grade.
Foundation wa11s may retain up to 26 feet of soil on the uphill side if
the structures are not stepped to fit the s1ope. Rock retaining waLLs
are planned along the uphi11 side of the driveway and between the struc-
tures. These wa11s may be up to 8 feet in height.
4.
6.
t_
-3-
SITE CONDITIONS
The site slopes at about 2 to I (horizontaL to vertical) downward
in a south-southeast direction. There are small rectangular excavations
along the east side of the property. The access driveway will cross
this area. An existing drainage channel crosses the area of the excava-
tions as we11. At the time of our investigation the site was covered
with grasses, bushes and nunerous trees which limited our access for
dri11ing, 0vera11 drainage of the site is in a south-southeast direc-
tion.
INVESTIGATION
Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling 2 borings at Ehe
locations shown on Fig. 2. The borings were drill-ed on June 9, L993
using a 4-inch diameter continuous flight power auger nounted on a
tracked rig. A field engineer was on the site to supervise the dri11-
ing, 1og the borings, visually cJ-assify the subsurface materials, and
obtain samples for laboratory testing. A description of the subsurface
nalerials observed in the borings, penetration resistance values, and a
summary of laboratory test results are shovrn on the Logs of Exploratory
Borings, Fig. 3.
The laboratory investigation included visual classification of all
samples and testing of selected samples for moisture content, density,
and gradation. Results of the laboratory tests are presented on Fig. 3,
Logs of Exploratory Borings and Gradation Test Results, Figs. 4 and 5.
-4-
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface conditions consisted of 2 to 3 feet of topsoil underlain
by clays and sands to depths of 7 to 17 feet. Sandstone bedrock was
then encountered which extended to the maximun depth expLored of 40
feet. No free ground water was found in the borings at the time of our
investigation. However, ground water is always possi,bl-e in localized
zones at shallorver depths and especially at the bedrock surface.
SITE GRADING
Cut and fill will be required for construction of the driveway,
basement, and garage areas. Some difficul-ty may be encountered when
excavating the harder sandstone bedrock. hle ant.icipate heavy backhoe
equiprnent would be required and possibly blasting in the bedrock to
accomplish the excavation. The fill may be constructed from the on-site
sol1s excavated from the cuts. No gravel or cobble larger than 6 inches
or topsoil should be used in any fill area. Prior to placing fi1-1, the
area should be stripped of all vegetation and topsoil, scarified, and
compacted, The driveway will cross a drainage area and an excavated
area whj-ch periodically holds water. These areas will require extra
care to see that all soft wet soils are removed to expose firm soils
prior to placing any fill for the roadway. Fill should be placed in
thin loose lifts and compacted to at least 90 percent of the modified
Proctor maximum dry density (ASIl"t D-1557) or 95 percent of the standard
Proctor naximum dry density (ASTI'1 D-698). The placement and compaction
of fill should be observed and tested bv a representative of our office.
FOTJNDATION
The subsurface soil-s at this site consisted of topsoil over sandy
clay and clayey sand soils underlain by bedrock. The topsoil is not
suitable for support of foundations but the remaining soils and bedrock
will safely support spread footing foundation systems. Footings must be
extended at least 3 feet into natural soils in these areas. Footings
supported by the undisturbed sandstone rnay be designed for a nuch higher
naximum allowable bearing pressure. hle recornmend a spread footing foun-
dation system be designed and constructed in accordance with the fol-1ow-
ing criteria:
Footings should be supported by undisturbed natural soils
beneath the topsoil and at least 3 feet below original site
grades aE all points. Soils loosened by machine excavation
should be cleaned fron the excavation prior to placing concretefor the footings.
lJa11 and column footings should be designed using a maximum
allowabl"e soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf for footings on
sand or clay soi1s. Footings supported by undisturbed sand-
stone bedrock rnay be designed for a maxinum al1owable bearing
pressure of 8,000 psf.
Dinensions for column footings should be at least 24 hy 24
inches and for continuous wall footings should be at least 16
inches wide. The footing vidths may be greater depending onthe loads of the structure.
4. Conlinuous foundation wa11s should be reinforced, top and
bottom, to span Local anomalies in the soi1.
1.
')
-6-
If pockets of soft soils are found i-n the bottom of the excava-
ti-ons, the soft soils should be excavated to expose firm soi1s.
The bottom of the foundations may be constructed on the firmsoils or the resulting excavation may be backfi.lled with com-
pacted soil or lean concrete. Any soils placed as backfill
should be placed in thin loose 1ifts, moisture conditioned and
compacted to at least 98 percent of the standard Proctor maxi-
mum dry density (AST1'{ D-698).
It may be desirable to place some footings on compacted fill toreduce foundation wa1l heights. Any area to receive fillshould be stripped of all topsoil. The area should then bescarified, moisture treated and compacted. Fi11 should then beplaced in thin loose 1ifts, moisture condi-tioned and compactedto at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum drydensity (ASTl"l D-698).
Exterior footings of walls should be protected from detrimentalfrost acti-on. The normal depth of frost protection in this
area is at least 4 feet beneath the ground surface.
A representative of our office should observe the bottorn of the
completed excavations prior to constructing footings. All fill
placement should be observed and tested during placement by a
representative of our office.
BELOW GRADE CONSTRUCTION
Excavations of up to 26 feet in
p lannedexisting ground surface are for construction of the basement
areas. The buildings and most of
area which covers the majority of
the driveway will be within the cut
the allowed building envelope. Slope
failures of open excavations can. occur if the excavation for the base-
ment remains open for extended time without constructi.on progressing to
brace the excavatj.on slopes or if
laid back. Great care needs to be
the slope remains stable.
the excavation slopes are not properly
exercised durine const.ruction so that
5.
6.
1
B.
the vertical direction beneath the
-7-
We reconmend if at a1-1 possible that the depths of excavations be
ninimized. The slope of the ground surface on this site is about 2 to I
(hori.zontal to vertical). This steep natural slope greatly influences
the size of an excavation. In addition, the depth of the excavation and
the subsurface naterials affect the distance the cut slope has to extend
up the mountain to daylight. Cut slopes of 1 to l or 1.5 to l must be
used in the soils and vertical cuts can be used in the bedrock. Based
on the borings a greater depth of soil- occurs on Tract A-1, therefore,
we anticipate a bigger excavation would probably occur on Tract A-1.
The location and elevation of Ehe buildings should be evaluated so that
constraints of the excavation are known before construction begins and
so that the excavatj-on does not encroach onto adjacent property. Actual
slope condltions will not be known until- the excavations are opened. A
rePresentative of our of fj.ce must be on-site when the excavation
begins. The location of the sandstone bedrock will deterrnine the size
and back sloping of the open excavation. During construction, we recom-
mend that all of the following precautions be taken to reduce the risk
of slope failure:
Excavate only naterials necessary to construct the wal,ls.
Construct the wa1ls with methods and technioues that reduce
construction time.
3. Excavations in the soils for garage or basement areas should be
sloped at 1 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter to main-tain stability of the slopes. The soils classify as Type B in
accordance with 0SHA regulations. ff water occurs in the cutslope at any point, the slopes should be excavated to 1,5 to 1
1.
-8-
or flatter to satisfy OSHA criteria for Type C soi1s. Verticalcuts may be made in the sandstone bedrock.
Excavation should be performed after peak runoff periods L'hichis after approximately July 15.
If seepage of vater fron the side of the excavation isobserved, it should be reported immediately to our office sothat we can recommend methods for safely controlling the flowof water and maintai.ning stability of the s1ope.
l,le should review the proposed excavation plan prior tobeginning construction.
RETAINING AND FOUNDATION WALLS
Basement and retaining wa1ls will be constructed which will- require
lateral design pressures. I,ile understand the foundation waL1s may retain
up to 26 feet of a sloped backfill-. The existing slope is 2 to 1 (hori-
zontal to vertical). Lateral earth pressures depend on the type of
backfill, natural ground surface slope behind the wa11, and the height
and type of wa11. l^/here wa11s are free to rotate sufficiently to
mobilize the strength of the backfi11, the wal.1s should be designed to
resist the ttactivett earth pressure conditions. l./here wa11s are
restrained, which normally occurs in a basenent wal1, the r.ralls should
be designed to resist the earth pressure ttat resttt condition. Based on
available .information we recommend for design an equivaLent fluid weight
of 60 pcf be used for the I'active" earth pressure and an equivalent
f1ui.d weight of 75 pcf be used for the trat rest" earth pressure in
soi1. A uniform lateral pressure of 150 psf may be used for the portion
of va11s in bedrock. Lower lateral soil pressure values may be possible
4.
5
6.
-9-
depending upon our review of final drawings. The equivalent fluid
weights include allowance for the sloping conditions behind the waLLs
but do not include allowances for surcharge loads due to hydrostatic
pressures or live Loads. A passive equivalent fluid weight of 300 pcf
can be used to resist the wa11 loads where the soils will always remain
in place at the toe of the wa11. A coefficient of friction of 0.5 can
also be used at the bottom of the footing to resist the wal1 loads.
Backfill behind or adjacent to wa11s shouLd be compacted to at
least 95 percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density (AST11 D-
698). The backfill should be p1-aced in thin loose lifts at or above the
optimum noisture content. Placement and conpaction of the fill should
be observed and tested by a representative of our office.
To reduce the possibility of developing hydrostatic Pressures
behind retaining wa1-1s, r^'e recommend the provision of a layer of clean
gravel or a manufactured drainage system immediately adjacent to the
back of the wa11. The gravel shoul-d have a maxinum size of 1.5 inches
and have a maximum of 3 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. l{ashed
concrete aggregate will be satisfactory for the drainage layer. The
gravel drain fill or manufactured drainage system should extend fron the
bottom of the walL to within 2 feet of subgrade elevation. The water
can be drained from the gravel or manufactured drain by a perforated
pipe with collection of the arater at the bottom of the wa1l leading to a
positive gravity outlet. Typical details for wa11 drains are presented
on Figs. 6 and 7.
-10-
FLOOR SLABS
The near surface soils aE proposed floor sl-ab elevations can con-
sist of topsoil, fill , or natural soils. The natural soils will safely
support floor slabs. If topsoil or loose fill from excavati-on cuttings
occurs at proposed floor sLab eI-evations, it should be overexcavated to
expose the underlying natural soils and then backfilled wi-th conpacted
on-site soils. lrle recommend the soils be placed in thin loose lifts,
moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 95 percent of the
standard Proctor maximun dry density (ASTt''l D-698). lrre also recommend a
4-inch layer of free draining gravel be placed beneath the floor slabs
to provide a moisture break between the clay soils and the concrete
slab.
CONCRETE
The soils and bedrock found at this area typically contain soluble
sulfates. Sulfates can cause damage to concrete nembers constructed
with ordinary cement that come into contact with the soi1. Type V
cement is norrnally recornmended for high sulfate areas. However, a suit-
able alternative for Type V cemenL is a "modifiedtt Type II cement. The
"modified" Type II cement contains less than 5 percent tricalcium alu-
minate. Use of a cement rich mixture (maximum of 0.5 water/cement
ratio) and 5 to 7 percent air entrainment further increases the sulfate
resistance. This cement should be used for all concrete members (slabs,
-11-
pi-ers, foundation wa11s, curb and gutter, and sidewalks) that come in
contact with the soil or bedrock.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The risk of wetting foundati.on soiLs and soils behind the founda-
tion wall-s can be reduced by carefully planned and maintained surface
drainage. We recommend the following precautions be observed during
construction and maintained at all times after the structures are com-
oleted:
1. Wetting or drying of the open foundation excavation should be
avoided as much as possible during construction.
2. A11 surface water should be directed away from the top and the
sides of the excavation during construction.
3. The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the residences
should be sloped to drain away from the residences in all
directions.
4. hlater flowing down the slope toward the structures should be
drained around the buildings and away fron the foundation wa1ls
and the cut slope area uphiI1 from the residences.
5. Backfill around the foundation wal1s should be moistened and
compacted to at least 95 percent of the standard Proctor
maximum dry density (ASII'1 D-698).
LIMITATIONS
Our borings were spaced to obtain a reasonably accurate determina-
tion of foundation conditions beneath the sites. Variations in subsur-
face conditions not indicated by the borings are alr,rays possible. We
should review the proposed excavation and struclural plans and observe
-12-
the completed excavation to confirm that the soils are as indicated by
the borings. Placement and conpaction of fill should be observed and
tested. The recommendations and design criteria present,ed in this
report are based on t.he structure as we have anticipated it.s design and
on the subsurface conditions as observed at this time, therefore, the
criteria presented in this report are not valid until we have been pro-
vided with final construction plans and been aLlowed to eval,uate the
slope conditions.
If we can be of further service in discussing the contents of this
report, or in analyses of the proposed structure from the soils and
foundation vi-er"point, please ca11.
KOECHLEIN CONSLILTING ENGINEERS
w {t(./#*#,,?:*r{t
Reviewed ly-:f)
William Koechlein,
wNH/ek
(1 copy sent)
4cc: J.R. Hodges Architects,lcc: Andy Knutsen - Tovn of
Inc.
VaiL Community Devel-opment
xql
llJ
1""t,.tt,
\*a
))tIltll
T
il
TO SCATENOT
FIG. 1
VICINITY MAP
JOA NO. S3-60
ooz(roo
EoF
TEoJo-x
IJJ
tto
g,ooJ
Ib.9.9 tttItaF6rn
E-99.io:ti sl ?'i 15
6.)co\!.?llo'E"la oi ;t 3 35 r! E o; s3 E;s ., 6 oC!,9 6 n, hl{F.1 d i -E 5.:Trg)!ooi t ^ t*9iu g !. E;il
s?;$H.,sggEg 3 a":348_,a !J ! t, ai; # HE $$E{rii s.: u9.9H
€d E sr gEEE
59 H 8.5 i,,,
F? s if !'^n,,F - ".v x;; €e g #s 3
Ho Fr ..'J ''lz
["o*9r9 -EZli f,E ERf99-!Ed. I14 I !o o'a t)!!rrr-rTii''!idcrrttTEATSd i: i 3i ;*E t Tr' .,.: u.2; F f dr $:fiv€sgg.Ug.Ub E s $H' gFe d E l: .5:
!' - I N- o-> i - <o <ot i 3 i": S?> ! y .cr Ns i E ?. ioq g { Bi B:{ r E #: $:-x';'.erre -- E .I FEf; g 6 b. Erd s $ g SE AsI g ; I l'^e E g H Ei Eg
zulo ENNlE-EL-r-
1,33J Nl Hrdto
oli9tr1 ..r ;,i
.OJ 'LaN .cn\Oc! Irl -r t-ii-.i iir-r [ -r-{r tl>Jr. Jl 9 >Jr.,{ I \.[. jl Q \TYER :8ER igSR 3ll
-1 -.-{i tl\\r ro \r s88F 3
lF
F<
tro
o
oz
ooI'IIIIIITIIITTITTTI
l
u,J
ol,\:t!
.l,tii*
oo
=Eo
co
troF
EoJo-x
llJ
ILo
zIF
oo
o,
Go
a
(9
=o!to
o
o,o
oE
t
+O
F'
\-o-
Fou,Eotr
J
zIF
z
|lJ:
UJ
ts
=
\
I
Fo
l.z
z
oo
i
lr,o:tr it\ oz:.\ s3i\ =2rji\ ;i,Til
-f f ]l--r*f.-.I.-lJ llt r r_I r ! r I lr
12" MlN.CLAY BACKFlLL
10'1'l--:-
COMPACTED
BACKFILL
(SEE REPORT
FOR BACKFILL
RECOMMENDATIONS)
WASHED 1 1/2 INCH TO
NO..r cRAVEL wlTH LESS
THAN 3 PERCENT PASSlNG
THE NO.2OO SIEVE.
NOTE:
INSTALL EITHER
1. APPROVED MANUFACTURED
AND PIPE OR
GRAVEL WITH PIPE OR
WEEP HOLES WITH GRAVEL
MANUFACTURED DRAIN gYSTEM
PROVIDE GALVANlZED SCREEN
WEEP HOLES
CENTER
PROVIDED AT 1O'TO CENTER
/T INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC
THE DRAIN LINE SHOULD BE LAID ON
RANGING BETWEEN 1/8 lNCH AND 1/4
PER FOOT OF ORAIN AND LEAD TO A
GFAVITY OUTLET.
DRAIN SYSTEM
PIPE.
A SLOPE
INCH DROP
PO S rTtVE
2.
3.
TYPICAL EARTH RETAINING WALL DETAIL
JOB NO. 93-60 FIG.7
KOECHLEIN CONSULTTNG ENGINEERS
From Boring T'il-l clL.i feet ennveu-L5-x
suacrnv-4-0-x
PIASICTY INDEX
Sompleof
Sompleof CIJ\Y' sandyFrom Boring TH-2 at 4 feet
GRAVEL ? %
slLT&CtAY 7l %
PTASTCTWINDEX
SAND -_4,4-%UOUID LIMI
-%
g1p9 ?? %
IJOUID LIMI
-%
.m5 .009 .0i9 .037 .o74 .rag 291 .590 | t9 4.76 9.52 tg.l
crAY (PLASIC) rO SILI (NON.PI,ASrC)
.006 .oo9 .or9 .037 .o74 .la9 .297 .590 Llg 2.0 2.38 4.76 9.52 lg.t
0a?
oAr.4€Itn oF PAnrcE N MrtuMfl€ns
cLAy (P!(9r|c) tO SltI (NON-PLASIC)
JOB NO. 93-00 GRADATION TEST RESULTS
FlG. tl
KOECHLEIN CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Sompleof CIAY, sandy
From Boring TTI-2 at 9 feet
Sompleof CTAY. sandy
From Boring 'ttl-2 at 14 feet
ennvEt 8 .z
snacunv-l?-z
PIAST|cft INDEX
GRAVET 2 %
srLT&ctAY 76 %
PLASTCTTY INDEX
SAND 20 %
UAUDLIMIT-%
&qND ?? %
TJQUID LIMTI
-%
a.r6 9.52 r9.t 36 ,l
cr.AY (P|AUlc) rO S[T INON.PIASTIC)
CI.IAR SOUAAT OPTNINGS3lE' 3tA' ttl' 3'
.oo5 .oo9 .0t9 .037 .o1a .rtg .2a1 .590 l.l9 2.0 2.30 4.76 9.52 l9.l 36.t 76.2 Ql m
o.12
DIAM€IIR Of PARICTE lN Mll..llt\i€I€Rs
cLAy {PrASrCl TO SLT (NON.pLASTCI
JOB NO. 93-60
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
FIG. 5
.:'.o
CLAYEY BACKFILL
GRAVEL
(SEE REPOFT FOF BACKFILL
RECOMMENDATIONS)
4 INCH DIAMETER
PERFORATED PIPE.
12'MtN.
CRAVEL
COMPACTEDBACK FILL
AELOW GRADE WALL
MANUFACTUREO DBAIN
PROVIDE PLASTIC SHEETING OLUED
TO FOUNDATION WALL TO REDUCE
MOISTURE PENETRATION-
==
(D
12'MlN.
NOTES:
1. INSTALL EITHER:
A. APPROVED MANUFACTUREO DRAIN SYSTEM AI{D GHAVEL COVERED PIPE OR
B. SRAVEL WITH PIPE
2. ORAIN SHOULD BE AT LEAST 8INCHES BELOW TOP OF FOOTING AT THE
HIGHEST POINT AND SLOPE DOWNWARD TO A POSITIVE GRAVITY
OUTLET OR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED 8Y PUMPINO.
3, THE DRAlN SHOULD BE LAID ON A SLOPE RANGING BETWEEN 1/8 INCH
ANO 1'4 INCH DROP PER FOOT OF DRAIN.
1. ORAVEL SPECIFICATIONS: WASHED 1 1/2 INCH TO NO. .l GRAVEL
WITH LESS THAN 3S PASSING THE NO, 2OO SIEVE.
JoB NO. S3-60
TYPICAL WALL DRAIN DETAIL
FIG, 6
coq)F
F\
Nn
Nt
I
$
s
N
Af-'\r)
-$
T)
l-
\t
s\k
A
14\\{a
N
a\
rf
\
\-v
N
R
v
K
\
$sA{
Itil
\SN
ilss
J
=-?
ltl
-A$d $.1
K b-.
$J
\.
\i\l\
N
\)
\
\),
"SNAlL
!rhsr-R
\\
\.st
n
\
}.rl
.tIt
l-s{s
sxs
$;
tT
zI
oz3orL
tlo
3lll
||l4
E3bD
E5
Hz
:g
xErFsail
H6
-s*
r$
lnrL
\
F{I
\
$t
D
rrl
tt
$s\s
s
S
J
v-)
\\l
s
^kf\r)
\
{
s
i
\
ilq
N
R
\
N
i
,€
il\il[
,t ti\
;\ -:::=t
\:(l //V*v/,r\9*
\\_li,,l3",\,i'
SHST*
R F$ \.I'!rri
,u ot,B \i'\-ti
fr$i \i'li-'s
; 'o', *
={
r-Q)
\
X
!D
I,-o
t. i 'l
,.r tl'
t t.
,' o ''t -lN\\tsr]"0
srR
{+$slE
RnX
turd-
0
li
il
a.
atc
a-/
N
k
\
e -, /'7
-'N
-.r\.t Nqi' --\nl\ d ,,:l; u\b
tlUo t
L.'\lb \$t: R-!,'- s\:A' $J.
]'
' .al_
tl
$
\iN-b--
e{
<-
lPut
:$
FH
lu00
l.?
fi
Jozut
{u,)
ot-
F4d
Lr
F2
4
o-
=3
cr:lure
L+ ty2ft27 /rF'
IL
\)
l\
R.
!ri\
fo\:o'\\\ z-\\
\trur \-rr\\1--.t'
\rJ
.a- \-"-*s\
\xu\f'u
\5u\a
\}*
\*,v
\n
v
\
3
't-
i.a\\.. r-./
^)q) r'
rJ-\
+
t-,lr-
t)-t
I1.
i
IN
N
F\\xt\
ti.{
I
!
7tefr
$
sl
;?h
{\
**\
H
L{
;E
bH
H$F lrl
H6
\o
e -,hT
. GENEML STRUCTURAL NOTES EXCEPT AS NOTED
o
TYPICAL,
CROSSVIEWATVAIL, TMCTS A-1 & 4.2
FOUNDATION DESIGN ONLY
OESIGN LIVE LOADS
ROOF(SNOW
FLOOR
GENERAL
SEcfloNS AND DETAITS SHO\^/II OB NOTED APPLY TO SIMILAR CONDTTIONS ELSE\A/TIEFE NOT SPECIFICALLY SHO1AN OR
NOTED.
IFTHE STRUCTUBAL ENGINEER, AS A CLAIMANT OR A DEFENDING PARTY IS AT ANYTIME A PABTYTO LITIGATION INVOLVING
ANY CLAIM RELATED TO THE \A^fRK DESCRTBED ON THESE DBAWNGS, AND SHOULD CLATMANT NOT PBEVAIL SUBSTANTIALLY
AGAINST DEFENDING PARTY IN SUCH LITIGATION, ALL LITIGATION EXPENSES, WTNESS FEES, @URT COSTS AND
ATTORNEYS FEES INCUBRED BY THE DEFENDING PARTY IN DEFENDING AGAINST SUCH CLAIM, SHALL BE PAID BY THE
CLAII\,lANL
THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN ENGINEERED FOR CONSTRUCTION AT ONE SPECIFIC BUILDING SITE. BUILDEB ASSUMES ALL
RESPONSIBILITY FOR USE OF THESE PLANS AT ANY OTHEF BUILDING SITE.
FOUNDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WTH RECOMMENDATIONS CONIAINED IN SOILS INVESTIGATION REPORT
BY KOECHLEIN CONSULrING ENGINEERS
PFOJECTNO. 9360 DATED: JUN21'1993
SAID REPORT I.C HEREBY IVTADE A PART OF THESE DOCUMENTS AND, EXCEPT WHERE OTHERWSE SPECIFICALLY NOTED
HEREIN, ALL RE(PMMENDATIONS AND PRECAIJTIONS CONIAINED IN THAT REPORT SF!\LL BE ADHERED TO BY THE
CONTBACTOF. :
FOOTINGS SHALL BE PLACED UPON UNDISTUBBED MTURAL SOIL.
MAXTMUM DESIGN SOIL PRESSURE: 3OOO PSF FOR CI-AY AND SAND, BOOO PSF FOn BEDROCK, APPROXIMATELY 17 FEET
BELOWSURFACE
DESIGN LATERAL SOIL PRESSURE (EOUIV FLUID PRESSUBE): 75 PCF
PROVIDE PERIMETER DRAIN SYSTEM WTH INVERT MINIMUM OF 6INCHES BELOW BOTTOM OF BASEMENT SLAB. ETTEND
PERIMETER DRAIN TO DAYLIG}.TT OR TO SUMP.
SLOPE PEFIMETER GRADE AWAY FROM BUILDING A MINIMUM DROP OF ONE FOOT IN THE FIFSTTEN FEEI.
DMINAGE SWALE GRADED MINIMUM 2/" TO CABRY BUNOFF WATER WELL AWAY FBOM BUILDING.
CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOB ADEQUATELY BBACING TOP OF BASEMENT WALLS PRIOB TO BAG(FILLING
WALLS.
CONCRETE AND BEINFORCEMENT
coNcRErE SHALL CONFORM TO AppLtCABLE pROVtStONS OF ACt 3O1 (LATEST REVISION). MINIMUM 28 DAY COMPRESSIVE
STBENGTH: 3OOO PSI
TYPE II CEMENT IN CONCRETE EXPOSED TO SOIL, ALL OTHEB TYPE I.
DEFOBMED REINFOBCEMENT: ASTM A615 GMDE 60
RETNFORCEMENT SHALL BE FABRICATED AND PLACED PER ACI IVIANUAL OF STANDARD PRACTICE (ACl-315)-
SPLICES, DOWEL PBOJECTION OB EMBEDMENT SHALL BE 32 BAR DIAMETERS BUT NOT LESS THAN 18 INCHES.
PROVIDE CORNER BAFS OR CONTINUOUS REINFORCEMENT AT CORNERS AND INTEBSECTIONS.
TYPICAL FOUNDANON BEINFORCEMENT: 2 - #5 TOP & BOTTOM.
PLACE TOP REINFORCEMENI NOT [4ORE THAN 4 INCHES FROM TOP OF WALL OR GMDE BEAM AND PLACE BOTTOM
REINFORCEMENT NOT MORE THAT 4 INCHES FROM BOTTOM OF CONCRETE.
PFOVIDE 2.#5 AROUND ALL OPENINGS WTH BABS EXTENDING 24 INCHES BEYOND OPENING.
STBUCTURAL STEEL
STRUCTUML STEEL: ASTM A36
PIPE COLUMNS: ASTM A53, GMDE B
75 PSF
,IO PSF
TEBMINATE IN
(T)q)Pa\
J
=)
JUL ? 1993
Zp4 ?Jo6{NALL DESIGNConcrete Reinf oncRETA I N1987)ONCRET Elopyr i g ht ' Il.,INGoy
INPUT DATA
{eiqht of wal'l in f eet
da'l 'l thickness in Jnches
3ase thi ckness in inches
foe pnoJectJon 1n feet -----{ee'l proiection'in feet ----
Equiva'l ent f'l uld pressure Jn p.C.f. ----loefficient of slJding friction --------
Vent i ca I 'l oad i n Pounds Per f oot
{onizonta'l load in pounds pen foot
lonJzonta'l 'l oad above base in feet -----
App'l ied moment in pound feet pen foot --
I nc rement toe on hee'l
)oncrete stnenqth in P. s . i .
Stee'l yie'l d stnength in P.s
ino Steel I nst i tute
24.00
96.00
48.00
8.57
2.00
100.00
6 qn
2660.00
0.00n nn
0.00
Toe
3000
60000
)UTPUT DATA
"leiqht of wal'l ln
r,lal I thickness in inches
da'l 'l ef f ective 'd' in inches
dal -l moment in pound feet -----
r,lal'l shear in pounds
Area of wa'1 'l nei nf orcement i n sq . i n - -*
Base dimension in feet
Base th'ickness in inches
Base effective 'd' in inches
{eel moment in Pound feet ----{ee'l shean in pounds
Area of hee'l neinforcement in sq-in- ---
Toe projection in feet -----Hee'l projection in feet
D'istance from toe to nesu'l tant Jn feet*-
Distance fnom toe to midd] e half in feet
Toe soi 1 pressune Jn P. s . f .
{ee'l soi l pressure in P. s . f .
SlJdinq force Jn pounds
5l iding nesistance in Pounds
END OF RUN
24.00
96.00
sJ. cu
230400
28800
0.95
Itt.oJ
48.00/ tr qn
?460
4334
8.6?
2.OA
4.684.67 -d;;; i DErrH = 23ra flzutr Br%
o : gOCOTss
3920023731 Pnovide a shear keY
Fft t ##p:r
TOTVN OFVAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303 -479-2 I 3 8 / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303-479-2452
April 27, 1993
D e pa rt nt e nt of C ontm wriry D eve lop nte nt
Mr. Phillip H. Taylor
Montgomery and LarmoYeux
P.O. Drawer 3086
West Palm Beach, FL 33402-3086
RE: Town of Vail review of the Valley, Phase ll
Dear PhilliP:
Thank you for your letter dated April 12, 1993. I understand your concern with the proposal
maOe Oy Steve Gensler lor the remaining portion of the Valley, Phase ll. Apparently, the local
homeowner's association has not approuLd it. The Town does not require this type ol
approval as part of our review. We'have specific criteria identilied in our zoning code which
we use to evaluate proposals such as these. Based on this criteria, the Town Council will
approve or deny the request. we encourage you to express any concerns you may have
about the project using this criteria. Please see the attached code section.
I have checked with Larry Ryder, who is providing legal counsel to the Town on this project'
and he has confirmed thit we do not enforce subdivision covenants which we are not a party
to.
Thank you for your interest in the proposal. lf you would like to discuss it further' please
contact me at (303)/479'2138.
Sincerely,
,'/ /,,/ ./'//L' / // IK-^*7F**J/@nniy xh/otsen t
Town Planner
o
{
t/A I L- t I Fi[: DEF'Af;:Tl'lt:l'l I
$TF:EET lll!5I rjtl r::f.t I Tt:F: I A
5Uf4l'4Af-;Y OF SFEI-:IFIr::ATIOil(.,
FF;M'1-E DRIVEf.J/i\.! Fiti:t;1t791,- /\ i,ti.\Xil,lur"l oF : DI,JL:LLII.lr:5
f'lilX I tll.Jl'l [)f. 7::i FEEt- It.l t_L:Ntr.i-f tl
I'l 1 lJ I llt.!l,t t., I Dt | | OF- t:-l t- L:[: f
i.it_t.. ilt:f,Tl ti*ri: I)l;: IvINr.i lillFil- A[t:
tirl;:AIJt- !
l"Jl:'-f0 87. bji-tl.l0uT r_:Ot\10 ITIUt\lS
trlll * 1r:,:'. ,r)t.-L0t,r'D IJIl"H Tot,.|f.] ENriINEHI_jr sAflf .l;r,Jrr.,iil-
!, '".,,, -- l.:;::;/- l .l:lll I t f;:[it T t-lt.ltt L--l!r:i I F\l[[F:s AF.trf;:o(",ALAt.lti tl t-lF_ri f l:11) Ill;: I v I l\tr.i 5uf;:Frir::E
FFi I VAT E $]-F;:E.[:-T S: Gr;:[/\'T tjt;: l.Ftriil .r:; r FjIt- I t.t t-Ef,lrjTt_1
llEl;,:\,, I l'..Ir:i ]'101;:L: -l'l li.tll ..* DU[:1..1- i f ,lr] Uf.l I l"i:l
.,:: r F-L-t-f t'lllltllljl"l tJlnlll
f'1(\X I lJtJlt rit;:i tt)f: -
rir,'r_:tll;,,1):l I lri -f u i_ilJrrl).t '/ I sl I {-lhl F,:E.r:iuLAT I OltS I git
f-)t_.r:::lrf;'t)l ftr.:1 1,, [,t.Jt]1.. Ir-: lJUt;'li:S DE[:'AF;fM[Nl-: AZ
f-U[rLIr:: DEDIr-:Al'It) F:Oi\l): fi];/. i:iF:iiDI [.t/ii:]t,tt_Jt,l
:11 r-t:Fi I t,J r D-ilJ
I$5UE5: !,1 I t.ll fltil Ul\l(.]f,J t,,:fl40\/Al--0li :iT li:1,.[: f l:iil]F,:1,. I l.li:i
I_:T)IIV[:I;:',,; I (]I\I I)F ]rIi:I VAI E T O F,I.JL.iL J I:: F,f;;OFEF:TY
['1"- I i'l'\'T ll I;:(-)i \l)i:i :il0 I t.ili:irltr...:l- I0f.l I)l..it;,: I llrl r::Dll5-t.l;:ur::T. I0N
s[:.Er:: . 13 t.]{l I Ail ul t;: I r::l- A5 F,UtlL_ I L:: ti:oAllsr_:ol.rll:,(\r-:-l I {lt..l l,,J[].r ir\! sl-1.;: I t::T
t_0t.JEI;: 5 f At,tL)Ati:t)5
{VAIL FIRE DEPARTII1ENT
MINIMUM DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR VEHICLES
VEHICT.N 4102-W 4-W
4132-W 4-W
4II 4L2 4302-W 4-W
431
Inside Radius *Ist/ L8 l I7 5rl 201 30t 6., /36r5
33 6rl
Outside Radius 22 1/251 26 6rl 26t 6tl 37 16n /
43 | 5
37t6n
Len 28 1 2419u 2616n 25 6n 37n 451
Overhang- Front r 10|l 6l 6l 6r 6r
Overhang - Rear 7 13tl 7l 7l gr3 11r
width gr4rl g r 6,n gt4tl gr4rl 12r6
GVW 43 30 35 48 J5
Wheel Base 2L4tl 151|l 160 134rr 230rt 216ll
Road to ChassisClearance
'I r,l I Lgr l.g I lll 18 1
Heiqht II I r1r l_4 r 1,,t1 11 I 6|l 14r
Wheel load 325 psf 300 psf 300 psf 350 psf 35opsf
Outrigger point
Ioad 300, 000psf 3 00000psf
Front axle load rol\.
Rear axle load 3lK
* 40 FRONT AXLE
UPDATED January 3, 1992
o
ACCEPIAaLE _ = -..._ATEBXATIVE TOI2O' T{^MMEBHEAD
Ifit1
/
urytMuM CLEARANCE
AROUND A FIRE
HYDRAT{T
lr)l
fl"1*\l
l*[
''O'DAMETERCUL.D€.S^C'6'DI^METEHcur.DE-S^C
B - 3 TIMES A
SEMTTR^ILER WHEELTF^CKS
.8'RADIUS
HAMMEFHEAD rcCEPTAALE
ALTERNATIVE TO
I20'HAMMEFHEAO
cl
.,Fur,ror" F'RE coDE 10.201-10.204
Division ll
FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS
General
Sec. 10.201. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in
accordance with this division.
Plans
Sec, 10,202. Plans for fire apparatus access roads shall be submitted to the fire
department for review and approval prior to construction.
Requlred Access
Sec. 10.203. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility,
building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the
.iurisdiction when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of
the {'irst story of the building is located rnore than 150 feet from fire apparatus
access as measurerl by an approved route around the exterior of the building or
facility.
IIXCFI|yI'IONS: | . When buildings are conrpletely protected wirh an approved
auiomatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of this section may be modified by
the chief.
2. When access rcrads cannot be installed due to topography, waterways, nonne-
gotiable grades or other similar conditions, the chief is authorized to require addi-
tional fire protection as specified in Section 10.501 (b).
3. When there are not more tharr two Group R, Division 3, or Group M()ccupancies, the requirernents of this section may be modified, provided, in the
opinion of the chief, lirefighting or rescue operations would not be impaired.
Mole than one fire apparatus road shall be provided when it is determined by the
chief that access by a single road may be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition
of terrain, clirnatic conditions or other factors that could limit access.
For high-piled combustible storage, see Section 81.109 (a).
For open yard storage, see Section 30.102.
For hazardous materials, see Article 80.
For fire safety during construction, alteration or demolition of a building, see
Section 87. 103 (b).
Specifications
Sec. 10.204. (a) Dimensions. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unob-
structed widlh ofnot less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance ofnot
less than l3 feet 6 inches.
EXCEPTION: Upon approval by the chief, vertical clearance may be reduced,
provided such reduction does not impair access by fire apparalus and approved signs
are installed and maintained indicatine the established vertical clearance.
61
o10.204-10.302 1991 UNIFORM FIRE CODE
Vertical clearances or widths shall be increased when, in the opinion ofthe chief,
vertical clearances or widths are not adequate to provide fire apparatus access.
(b) Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to
support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so
as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
(c) Ttrrning Radius. The tuming radius ofa fire apparatus access road shall be
as approved by the chief.
(d) Dead Ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in
length shall be provided with approved provisions for the tuming around of fire
apparatus.
(e) Bridges. When a bridge is required to be used as access under this section, it
shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable sections of
the Building Code and shall use designed live loading sufficient to carry the
imposed loads of fire apparatus.
(0 Grade. The gradient for a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed the
maximum approved by the chief.
Obstructlon
Sec. 10.205. The required width of a fire apparatus access road shall not be
obstructed in any manner, including parking of vehicles. Minimum required
widths and clearances established under this section shall be maintained at all
times.
Marklng
Sec. 10.206. When required, approved signs or other approved notices shall be
provided and maintained for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads and
prohibit the obstruction thereof or both.
Division lll
FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS TO BUILDINGS
Premises identif ication
Sec. 10.301. (a) General. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on
all ncw and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible
fronr the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their
background.
(b) Street or Road Signs. When required by the chief, streets and roads shall be
identified with approved signs.
Key Boxes
Sec. 10.302. When access to or within a structure or an area is unduly difficult
because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for life-
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
(o
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Deparlment
Aprll26, 1993
Staff comments made slnce Aprll 12, 1993 are made In bold
A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision lo allow lor the
development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley,
Phase lll1480 Buffer Creek Rd.
Applicant:
Planner:
Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty
Andy Knudtsen
a
4.
I. PROJECT DESCBIPTION
The applicant is proposing to modify an Eagle Counly approved development plan located on
either side ol Buffer Creek Road in Phase ll of 'The Valley". The site is made up ol an upper
and lower area. The reason the applicant is applying for an SDD is to allow:
1. Development to be located on slopes grealer than 40%;2. A 10 foot setback for building A in the lower development area where 20 feet is
required.
Walls, 4 feet in height, to be built in the front setback of the upper development area
which exceed the height limit by 1 foot; and
A lot to be created in the upper development area which does not meet the minimum
buildable area for this zone district:
In conjunction with the Special Developmenl Dislrict request, the applicant has submilted a
minor subdivision proposal. The minor subdivision would create lots for the two single family
homes on the upper development area and distinguish the lower development area from
the other phases of development In The Valley. The applicant will use the single family
subdivision process in the lower development area and to sell off individual houses as they
are constructed.
Lower develoomenl area descriotion
The lower developmenl area is proposed to have 7 single family homes. These will be
located on either side of a private access road. The proposed access road descends from
Buffer Creek Road at an 8% slope. The road is intended lo be 22 feet wide and will provide
automobile access to garages in each home. There will be a fire truck turn-around located at
the bottom of the road. The seven homes in this area will have a GRFA which ranges trom
approximately 1,700 square feet to approximately 2,200 square feet. ln addition lo this square
foolage, each home will have a two-car garage. The ridge heights for the proposed homes
v
30 fee
tr
The upper development area is designed at this time to include two single family homes,which each have their respective building envelopes. There would Oe a totat of two singlefamily homes in the upperdevelopment area. For the westem site, there willbe a buildr:ngenvelope of 3,000 square feet and a proposed GRFA of 3,252 square teet. The easternbuildin_g envelope will be 2,346 square feet in size and is intended to have 2,900 square feetof GRFA. Access to lhese parcels is proposed to be from a 16-foot wide shared driveway.
II. BACKGROUND
The proposed development plan is part of the second phase of The Vailey. The six differentphases of The Valley were approved in Eagle County in the late 1970's ahct the early 19g0's.On June 3' 1980, the County approved 32,909 square feet of GRFA and 26 dwelling units forPhase ll. Some of this development potential has already been used in the Grouse Glen andBuffer creek rownhouse developments. since the county approval, the area has beenannexed into the Town of Vail. The ordinance annexing lhis area (Ordinance 13, Series of196i) includes a provision rccogt'iizing the County approvai. The Crc]inance states lhat a6ysignificant changes to the previously approved plans must be reviewed and approved by thiTown of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission.
The Eagle County approved plans dated June 3, 1980 provide a benchmark for evaluatino theproposed development statistics. since the original approval, there has been parli4
development of the site. Grouse Glen has Oeen constiucted, consisting of six dwelling unitsand 6'233.8 square feet of the GRFA. In 1991, Jack Snow completedionstruction on tiveexisting foundations which are now called the Butfer Creek Townhomes. This development
consisled of live dwelling units and7,208.9 square feet ot GRFA. The remaining
development potential includes 15 dwelling units and 19,466.3 square teet ot GRFI avaitablefor Steve Gensler to use on the rest of the site.
The following table summarizes this information:
range from 27 ieetto t
Eagle
County
Aooroval
26 DU's
32,909 sq. ft.
Grouse
Glen
6 DU'S
5,233.8 sq. ft.
Bulfer
Creek
Townhouses
5 DU'S
7,208.9 sq. ft.
Remaining
Development
Polential
15 DU'S
19,466.3 sq. ft.
The Eagle County approved plans for the lower development area consisted of a centralizedparking area at the lop of the site, with walking paths to the dwelling units. There was no
automobile access to any of the units, and as a result, there were no garages. The units were
two fo three stories in height (24' to 30') and ranged lrom 924 to 14OO square leet of GRFA.
The proposed development for the upper area consisted of five dwelling units, similar in
design to The Valley Townhomes. There was no parking in this area, olher than a 'pull-oul"
t
area olf the norlh side of Buffehr Creek Road. lt is importanl to note that the Counfy
approved plans lor the upper area localed the units Partially on slopes greater lhan 40%.
On January 11, 1993, June24,1991, December 9, '1991, and December 16, 1991, the PEC
reviewed v'ery similar plans to the current proposal. Steve Gensler was lhe applicant at that
time, also. During the 1991 review of this project, it was determined that the proposal
involved four deplrtures from Town of Vail zoning standards. Because of these departures'
the applicant has applied for an SDD.
-t
E g'EF€ Fr: l>IJtol"lo
ggE' $ "'
IflF gE! F
lc lg -=:"= q
ls_
@
E.Eg,E't|rtL 6-
16 lPHIF 9IEH }Fl: Et9f
IH IEllrla
"t 5SgEE
Xfg.-'olo !l
E18 6
letd $ ls tFE '.''
F-
3 i a N q iN: 3 -6.d d lslF-;$E 8ag$bi Finild ;t; Fk3 i E=€d H !n" lR'-i E [r 'EF 3{
'€
Ect
A ;.;eF9o
t\)-o6
={x5:'' t\)O, ;.
*,o
F:
$fi sE8R'
€;
sgd e E 3 FEFH g * + gBgs = I 6CL'Y (E' E5-R t ,Ea'iE =vlf
rb-:. I (Jr -{ qq 9 -(orrrvr.(oaE: s B s' te- * SFR o 6 6cD:- -r (D - 3= 9 our= v' ' I9': 6 -9 ;!F- -e E:86 'aE.cI
=
@ o, o, (.) J t\) t\J-o q o e c'lq qr co oO N x ;= ;R !po : u F9 i s3 u '- t #-,q N _.n
=ltn5o)!; X 8eid-
=gt'.
:jct 3 Bgaag E gil6PF 2 6i
=Ed i =o:=u, E a93ii= ' 23- -O ., .dtPi3 S 6q
-(/,N D) 'i< O36-3 I *9
€-5' b? I agPt\roFe. F i sD
= i s 53tp ol o x6= = - -+= S Ri -.33 B 'N gg
it cl vr=^ o .i5 a:a -o :- !9D = igP : 3qr
=':ro=6g7 ^) -B= t\) =.q *::<i qg
' JO'(/) (r)J
-r\) '(Jl qCD Cr g't\) o^t or;A?P,-
IV. MODIFICATIONS MADE SINCE THE JANUARY 11. 1993 PEC WORK SESSION
On January 1 'l , 1993, the PEC reviewed the proposal at a work session. Minutes from that
meeting are atlached to this memo. A summary of the PEC commenls for lhe lower
clevelopment area were:
1) That mature evergreen trees should be saved,2, That fill lrom the road should be reduced,3) That the units should be clustered and some incorporated into duplexes,4) That site impacts of the development should be minimized,5) That the proposal's character should integrate with the existing portions of Phase ll,
6) That the proposed amount of GRFA and the single family home use was acceptable,7) That two Planning Commissioners said thal garages and automobile access to the
homes were acceptable.
Concerning the upper development area, the Planning Commission's comments included:
1) Thal the building envelopes should be reduced in size,2) 'l nal rne envelopes shoulo oe sniited down oll of the uppermost part of the ltiilsicie,3) That the envelopes should be shifted to the east and moved closer together,4) That detailed designs of the driveway, the garage aprons and the turnaround areas
should be provided so that there would be an accurate understanding of what future
development would look like.
a) Lower Development Area
Since that meeting, the applicant has modified the proposal. For the lower development area,
the site has been surveyed, and all aspen larger than an 8-inch caliper and all evergreens
above 20 feet in height have been identitied. There are eighty-eight trees identified in the
survey, which can be broken down into three ditferent clusters. The first is in the central part
of the site, the second is at lhe lower part of the site and the thkd is at the upper part ot the
site along the road. With the changes made since the last review, the applicant has been
able to save lhe lower cluster of lrees ln additlon to others across the site. This cluster is
made up of five evergreen trees with calipers ranging from I to 24 inches.
In addition, the applicant has been able to reduce the length of the road by 20 feet. This in
turn, has reduced the amount ol fill that is required. Previously, the fill required ranged lrom
10 to 12 feel in depth. At this time, the maximum amounl of fill ranges from 6 to 8 feet. For a
majority ol the road, the fill is 4 feet or less. The area ol asphalt has been reduced by 128
square teel. Heights of the buildings have been reduced from 33 feet to a range of 27 leetlo
30 feel. Landscaped area has increased by approximately 700 square feet.
*
b) Uooer Develooment Area
Since the January 1 1, 1993 work session, the applicant has changed the upper development
area by reducing the size of the building envelopes, shifting these to the east and eliminating
the upper 10 feet of each of the envelopes. Envelope A-l has been shitted 25 feet to the
east. Envelope A-2 has been shifted 15 feet to east. The applicant has also recognized ihe
Town's ownership of right-of-way in the boundary line dispute. The applicant has widened the
road to accommodate Fire Department requirements.
The appilcant has drawn detalled plans of lhe drlveway ln the upper development area.
The drawlngs Include garage locatlons, garage slab elevatlons, parklng areas'
automoblle turnaround areas, or the retalnlng walls that are requlred to accommodate
the access. Sectlons through each envelope have not been provlded. These drawlngs
show that access can be provlded io lhe garages wlthout Involvlng varlances. Prlor to
flrst readlng at Town Councll, staff requests that the sketches be retlned, that all
assumptlons made In the drawlngs be ldentlfled, that top-of-wall and bottom'of-wall
elevatlons be ldentifled for all retalnlng, and that sectlons through each envelope be
provlded.
A very important addition to the proposal for the upper development area is a limitation to the
amount ol site disturbance which will be allowed. In an eflort to prohibit any scarring on lhe
back or sides of the two buildings, the proposed language will be added to the plat:
'Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 should be "benched-in" to the hillside and
stepped with the natural contours of the site. site excavation should be no
more lhan necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Extensive
site grading to create a llat building site is not permitted. In order to ensure
compliance with the above, finished grades on the north' east and west
elevations of buildings should not deviate more lhan 4 feet from existing grade
at any Poinl."
Staff believes that this proposed language will ensure that the development, which is to be
designed at a fulure date, will be well integrated in the hillside.
c)GRFA
In the previous discussions with the PEC, the applicant has proposed an additional 500
square feet of GRFA to the amount approved by the County. At this time, the applicant has
eliminated this portion of the request and is now complying with the amount sel by the Eagle
County approval. The proposed building floor plans will have to be modified slightly to meet
this amount. At this time, the statf measured approximately 96 square feet of GRFA in excess
of what the County approved. The homes in the lower development area will need to be
adjusted so that the proposal does not exceed the amount approved. The applicant has
agieeO to do this at the time of DRB application. The following table identifies lhe
af,proximate GRFA for each envelope. Statl ls recommendlng that the GRFA for each
resldence be allowed to vary by 50 square leet from what ls shown below. Total GRFA
for the lower and upper development areas may not exceed the tolals for each area.
tl
GRFA may not be transferred from lhe upper to the lower development area.
Lowgr developm€nl area :
F loorBase
Area
Cr€dir GRFA
2041
2041
2070
2373
2122
2382
208/
current
overa9e
9ara9€
cr€d il
A.
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
G.
lotal
1816
1816
1845
2148
1897
2157
1859
13314
.163
493
493
485
492
483
476
600
600
16
16
24
3
26
21
225
225
225
225
225
223
225
225
225
Upper d€velopm€nl area:
4.1.
A-2.
lotal
3252
2900
6152
3477
208A
d) Hazards
The applicant has provided additional analysis by Mr. Nick Lampiris regarding both the debris
flow and rockfall hazards. The lower development area has been found not to be signilicantly
atfected by either of the hazards. Nick Lampiris specifically states that no mitigation is
needed lor the lower development area. Concerning the upper development area, the debris
flow hazard will skirt the two building envelopes and does not need to be mitigated. However'
rocklall does need to be mitigated. The geologist has recommended that on the north
elevations of the two homes in the Upper Developmenl Area, that 3 feet of exposed
loundation wall, which can withstand 300 pounds per square loot of impact, be provided' This
is not to be broken up by any windows or doorways. Based on the hazards reports and this
recommendation, statf believes the hazards have been satisfactorily addressed.
j
V.
A.
SDD CRITEFIA
Deslgn compatlblllty and sensltlvlty to the lmmedlate envlronment, nelghborhood
and adJacent propertles relatlve to archltectural deslgn, scale, bulk, bulldlng
helght, bufler zones, ldentlty, characler, vlsual lntegrlty and orlentatlon.
Siaff believes that the new design for the lower development area has improved its
sensitivity to lhe immediate environment and neighborhood by shifting the building
locations up out ol the meadow. This has, in lurn, reduced the length of the road by
20 feet, reduced the amount of fill required, and preserved the cluster of trees at the
lower end of the development. As stated earlier, these trees range in caliper lrom 8 to
24 inches. There is 128 square feet less asphalt in the Lower Development Area since
the road has been shortened and approximately 4 feet less lill required.
Concerning the upper development area, statf believes that the building envelopes are
reasonable locations tor two single family homes. The applicant has stated a
requirement on the plat stipulating that the grade on the west, north and east
elevations ol both'single family homes not change more than 4 feet from the exisling
grade. This wrli irtsure that there is rlo suarrirtg of tlre ltiiiside as a result of
development and will insure that the homes are "benched-in" the hillside. The
applicant has shifted the envelopes to the east to reduce the amount ol road required
and has brought the envelopes 10 feel down off the hillside.
Another slgnillcant lssue regardlng sensltlvlty to the lmmedlate envlronment
Involves the deslgn lor the automoblle access to the two envelopes In the upper
development area. Stafl has revlewed the prellmlnary drawlngs submltted by the
applicant and believes that access can be provlded wlthout requlrlng any
variances. We would like to have these drawings reflned prior to Councll and all
of the assumptions lnvolved with the bullding and garage locations speclfled on
the drawings. Thls is listed at the end of thls memo as a condltlon of approval.
Stafl understands that other lssues ralsed prevlously In the revlew process have
already been resolved by the appllcant. The shlngles have been removed' the
deslgn of Building B has been modified slgnlflcantly so that lt does not look llke
A or C and the deck on Building A has been cut back by 5 feet. Given these
changes, the staff has removed all ol these lssues lrom the list of conditions at
the end ot thls memo.
Building A encroaches 10 feet into the lront setback. Because lhere is 21 feet
between the property line and the edge of pavement, there will be an apparent 31 toot
setback. Stalf believes that the benelits that have resulted from shilling all ol the
homes up out ol the meadow will outweigh the few negative aspects associated with
the setback encroachment. Given the 31 feet of distance between the home and the
road, stalf believes it will be acceptable.
Uses, actlvlty and denslty whlch provlde a compatlble, efflclent and workable
relationshlp with surroundlng uses and actlvlty'
B.
t
The proposed use for both development areas is single family homes. This use is
listed in the zoning code as an allowed use lor the Residential Cluster Zone Dislrict.
We believe that the homes provide a workable relationship with the surounding uses,
even though many ot them to tre west are condominiurns. We believe hat the use is
reasonable and thal wilh some design modifications to the architecture and
landscaping, that the development wiil be compatibte.
Gompllance wlth parklng 8nd loadlng requlrements as outllned In Chapter 18.52.
All ot the home sites in both the upper development and lower development areas
comply wilh the Town's parking requirements.
Conformlty wlth appllcable elements of lhe Vall Comprehenslve Plan, Town
pollcles and Urban Deslgn Plans.
The Land Use Plan designates this parcetas Medium Density Residential (MDR). As
proposed, lhe development will be 5.4 units per buildable acre. MDR allows a range of
3-14 dwelling units per acre. As a result, staff finds that the proposal is consislenl with
The Vail Land Use Plan designation.
ldentlficatlon and mltlgation of naturaland/or geologlc hazards that affect the
property on whlch the special development dlstrict ls proposed.
Please see the analysis done by Mr. Nick Lampiris discussed above and attached to
this memo. Staff has listed the recommendations from his study as conditions of
approval.
Slte plan, bulldlng deslgn and locatlon and open space provlslons deslgneo to
produce a functlonal development responslve and sensltlve to natural teatures,
vegetatlon and overall aesthetlc quallty of the communlty.
Staff believes that lhe location of the buildings, since they have been shifted to the
east, have resulted in better open space provisions and are more responsive to the
existing vegetation. Though lhe road accessing the Lower Development Area will
rernove a stand of trees, staff believes lhal any development plan in the remaining
portion ol Phase ll would require removing some trees. Staff believes that, in general,
there is a reasonable balance between preserving the overall aesthetic quality of this
portion ol The Valley and building out the approved density.
A clrculatlon system deslgned for both vehlcles and pedestrlans addresslng on
and oft-slte lratflc clrculation.
Vehicular and pedestrian lraftic has been addressed in this design. Concerning the
upper developmenl area, there is vehicle access to both envelopes, Concerning the
lower development area, lhere is vehicle access to each home site as well as a
pedestrian path that ties into the rest ot The Valley pathway system. At the time the
lower area is developed, the applicant will complete a single lamily subdivision in order
to sell oft the homes. At that time, the common roadway and pedestrian pathway must
I
c.
D.
E.
F.
G.
I
be dedicated as access easements.
The Fire Department has approved the vehicular access plan for the lower
development area as well as the upper development area with one condition. They
are requiring the applicant to design a lurn-around using the apron in lront of the
garage on envelope A-2. The garage and apron may be located at any point along lhe
southern edge of the envelope. The Fire Department is requiring that 35 feet be
provided between the front of the garage door and the far edge of pavement (of the
driveway). There must be a minimum of 12.5 leet ol clearance for lhis dislance.
Functlonal and aesthetlc tandscaplng and open space In order to optlmlze and
preserve natural features, recreallon' vlews and functlons.
Stafl understands that the apptlcant has redeslgned the landscaplng' shlftlng
much of lt around to the areas between the proposed development and the
exlstlng development In Grouse Glen. A mlnor polnt concernlng the landscaplng
ls to nave the areas proposed for sod tie in to the existing lawn area of the Valley and
modily the type of sod to match lhe existing sod.
Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and
efficlent relationshlp throughout the development ol the Speclal Development
Dlstrict.
The minor subdivision that is proposed ensures that there will be a functional and
etlicient relationship throughout this portion of the development and the rest of The
Valley. Easements will be shown on the plat to accommodate both on-site and off-site
drainage. At this time, the Town Engineer is requesting a final component of a
drainage study. As result, the slatl is adding a condition of approval that prior to first
reading at Town Council ol the SDD, the applicant provide all information the Town
Engineer needs in his review of the drainage plan for the development. Any structures
or easements thal are recommended in the drainage study will need to be provided for
in the design and on the subdivision plat prior to scheduling this development lor lirst
reading. Easemenls for pedestrian and vehicular traffic will also be provided on the
prat.
a
H.
vt.
The standards tor creating lols in this zone dislrict are as follows:
seclion 19.14.050 "The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand square leet,
containing no less than eight thousand square feet ol buildable area. Each site shall
have a mlnimum frontage of thirty feet. Each site shall be of a size and shape
capable of enclosing a square area eighty leet on each site within its boundaries.'
Though both of the proposed lots exceed the minimum size, the west lot does not contain the
mininium amount ot-UuitOaOte area. The requirement is tor eight thousand square feet' and
the proposal, as measured by stafl, provides no buildable square footage tor the western
envelope. lf the SDD is approved, this deviation trom the standards may be allowed.
10
o
Staft rec€mmends approval of the mlnor subdlvlslon. We belleve the appllcant has
demonslrated that mo slngle famlly unlts can be bullt on Tract A. The orlglnal
development plan located 5 unlts In the hazard area. We belleve the new plan provldes
for a much safer deslgn. ln respect to Tract B, we leel lt ls reasonable to plat unplatted
parcels that are phases wlthln a development.
The PEC is lhe approving authority lor the Minor Subdivision request. However, Town
Council is the approving authority lor the SDD. As a result, staff recommends that once the
plat is modified to address the Town slalf concerns, that the PEC make their approval
contingent upon the Town Council's approval of the SDD.
Prlor to the schedutlng of the proposal tor flrst readlng at Town Councll, the followlng
changes musl be Incorporated lnto the plat:
1) The information provided in the completed drainage report must be incorporated
into the plat, including proposed improvements as well as easements;
2) All hazarrl areas, as deslgnated on the Town of Vall hazard maps shall be
graphically shown on the plat.
3) The minor subdivision approval shall be conditioned upon the SDD receiving
final approval from Town Council.
VlI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE SDD FEQUEST
Staff believes that this project meets all the SDD review criteria and is recommending
approval of the proposed development plan with the following elements of an agreement with
the developer. Assuming that lhe following changes can be incorporated inlo lhe drawings,
staff recommends that the PEC recommend to Town Council lhai this SDD be approved.
A. Prior to the scheduling ot the proposal lor lirst reading at Town Council, the lollowing
changes musl be incorporated into the drawings:
1) Drawings tor the aulomoblle access to lhe upper development area shall
be provided and refined, noting all assumptions to be made regardlng the
building locatlon, identilylng lop of wall and bottom of wall elevations,
and provldlng sectlons through each bulldhg envelope showlng the
bullding, any retalnlng walls and drlveway.
B. At tlme ot DRB hearlng, the DRB shall determlne thatr
1) Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be 'benched-in' into the hillside and
stepped with the natural contours of the site. Site excavalion should be no
more than necessary to accommodate the proposed developmenl. Extensive
site grading to create a flal building site is not permitted. ln order lo ensure
compliance with the above, finished grades on the north, easl and west
elevations of buildings should nol deviate more than 4 feet trom existing grade
at any Point.
11
Lo o
2)
3)
4)
5)
Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be designed with the inlemal hazard
mitigation recommended by Mr. Nick Lampiris in his hazard analysis dated
September 18, 1992 and January 22, 1993.
Buildings on Tracl A-2 shall be designed with a turn-around using the apron in
lront of the garage on envelope A-2. The garage and apron may be located at
any point along the southern edge of the envelope. The Fire Department is
requiring that 35 feet be provided between the front of the garage door and the
far edge of pavement of the driveway. There must be a minimum of 12.5 feet
ot clearance for lhis distiance.
The sod areas align with the existing sod areas of Phase ll and that he sod
type matches Phase ll.
The GRFA of lhe proposal must be modified to comply with the following chart.
The GRFA allocated for each resldence In the lower development area and
each envelope ln lhe upper development area can be modlfled by 50
square feet. Total GRFA for each area may not exceed the maxlmum of
13,31 4 for the lower development area (Tract B) and 6,152 for the upper
deveioprrrenr area (Tract A).
Lower develoomenl area:
A.
E.
E,
r.
G.
lolal
Upper development area:
Staz
6152
Credit GRFA
225 3477225 208/
Base Floor
Area
1816
r 816
1845
2148
1897
2157
t tqo'iFg1a
curenl
overage
16
16
24
3
26
21
9ara9e
c rectil
463
493
493
486
492
483
476
225 2041225 20{1225 2070225 2373225 2122225 2382225 2084
A-1.
A-2.
tolal
600
600
c.Prior lo Town approval of the Single Family Subdivision for the lower development
area. The applicant shall dedicate access easements for the common driveway as
well as the pedestrian access Path;
't2
T
i:
u
||
{
tl
$
!t,,
lt
t
D
i:
i.'r
09
h)
H III
FllitiF
*Iil
tt
>-7+$tt
!!
ll::l!l::i:iii
iiiir
r.tI
F iiiii' lllrl:iiiil;i
ffi
il
t''1 iill tlll I l r
iiI
ffiN N
N.\\\}i
['Kil Nr r''.
[r*nlls'
Ioj
\i
Gt
I
.+(a{!l.D-
fi'$
ITit
tf.r'=
tit't*
if;iffir
qffi
B
€:
ffii
$n,n
firu
[tqEEgs'IGIJ\NNre
I ff.il',9,r:n+t-..! E3Fk e.--
__n
VAiJiI.t /U' -4
at
{::i,:-i
il'"it7
II
i, rp.
'r 'JF*lr"ill5iil
iI HI
:::::::'r.!liiiirlatt:tit!rii!!:l
!;ii!ii!
! l$irH liilffi
i,hirilid | fig
Igt{ftll" IiHtiiilrii l 5t?f tnlJ
!frt Ir t$ilt ilt $ url
ii' t niifit *'ril=
**,$
:4.t.5
l:rr ll
l!:ti:
llrir i
'iiit
!
III
IIIa
I
I
r^ll
I
(
:i
!i
i
iGmos$/Kt Fi3ir. r.?-8,r, a .t l!:,5,-rr-Jr-,!H' r'-.!
: jlc{, Jv+(, @
-,:-?- -r-.-:i.-_ \'{r::_:'::,.-}
'-Jl.
,..!7
[r rlpqgs.sil}!.ltl'.\ :\aft vanfi
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.
OONSULNNG CEOLOGTST
OT85 INGERSOLL I.ANE
a|LT, coLoRADO Elt52
glt't6.e Br Hounsl
January ??, 1993
Steven Gensl er
Parkuood Real ty5?99 DTC Bl vd, *SO(J
Engleuroodr CO 80111
REr Tract A, Lion'g Fidge Subdivision
Dear l'lr 6ensl er:
I harre bee,n a.El':ed to clarify' rny position pn the rockfallmitig.:rtion I suqgested in rny previeurs letter. I believe that one
r-, i L r.rr,-, rri i-:i. g,eLi u,ri teclin.i e Lrk.::, is ilr c,r-de,t- -
One possibility is to either scale cr gror-rt loose rocks in ifre
lr:r.,r olttcrop di rectl i, a.bove the ei te!-=.: better i s to cons.trr-rr:t thererlr +cLlnd.rti on r.rall o{ the br.ri lcjings to orotrude at least three
f *et abcrve f i. ni she.d qr.rcle and to have na r.ri ndong i n thi s i ntervaL({i-cin qround level to the top o.l. the steln trall ). This trr-ill
shc'irl d h"r'se a strength of a.t I e.e,st SDCI poL(nde per eqLr.are f not.Thi; t+all troi-tl d also .act to pro+:erct- the home in the event sncr^r
ehor.rl ci sI i de lrp a.rgni nsi: th::, home..
I-i ttrnr-e *rr-o ir.rr-ther- ctrestir;is F l l=:glEr? cor-rtsct n,,-.
Di lr = ei' e.I r, ./M4/H
ui-nci:'s L#ciri.s
Ec:r=.rr1 Ei ng Eec,l oEi st
I
TI
t
I
It
t
i
I
I
I
E
I
t
I
t
I
I
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph
OONSULTING GEOLOGIST.OIE|' INGEBSOLL I-ANE
stLT, @LOFADO 81652
m l?65.0 e. HouFsl
Seotc!-.rbcr 1A, 7992
Steven Eensl er
Par- l:r.rcod Feal '. y
5t91) DTC Blvd, ii5oct
EngIer.rooC, C0 8O111
RE: Tract A.' Lion's Ridge Subdivision
Dear l'l;-. 6ensl er:
f have revi. r.rt.,,ed the t''lo =ir:or piri-prose= o'f F:ocll Fa11
\r:li i . 'ihir tt.to 9i tes have
u;e:'i: of thc dr:l-.,i-i .,;! ';:an a'.n'j
i::-i':.:j i:hr 'f :,n " hDl.:e"\'t-,'l'.
'l'lr i r, :j Fi j.
---i., -..-i-,i .:r. t-.1 L g't I r. i ... r
i !-,r 1 1i; 1 r1.-,
clo . r.r i I I
tit-: g. t-,i.'!c
'li?l; aE Ehorrn orr alhe rlccotlrDdit)'i ng inao
srnC ilebris Fl l-=,.., re.zi et,l ':: oi- the 'l'ot'tn ot
bec:n clic.Een to be ci-tt o+ a:1d tD trie
ch;i:-rn:ll . The dr: vetrl.l.u rius'. cnter End
The :-gc k {at I area i E n'ot-r gE'\'s'rE *'-'.rthc'r t+est !r- h s.n ih*ga '!vlp
buri l cJi nq :i tes e.rr,j thu' I ow oittcrcoc clbove thesc si tes can be
ea3i ly qrro:rte:l oi- otfir:i-t'ri se ne'Lttt-e:l i:=d bec.ruse they .ere thie .rnC
d:sconiinLtoLts. The ncre ha:.-rr-dctus c)uttrt-cpg murch hiqher on the
hillsid:'r.riii si-r:id mg:tt!1'to the t'r:rgt. lilthor-rgii niii'igaiicn at
tirp llc.i-,ree,i t,-=s is po',i:ibi c r:hrcrlgh ilal js oi- bs.'rmi nc; - 1t ie
r-;:-o!iib.1.5' noi, r.r:irrarltc:d Clte io tirc. lctt chi..nCc' oF rocl:g r=actring
thc si i:r:s. Btltc;-c'p l'ii:'i'!,: Pi-i o;- 'Lo con=trutctlcn r'l i I I bc
bcnet:ici;rl .
n ir J oc;.tion !$h cri-..': t,he riC.-c', =crte'ini nqr ':Jl'tc E:crrr'l-cE c'l
{l-,1i iFtr: r.:rl',s. i',5 .-rt :it-tqir a ler'J 1e'rl'1 rr'i'th :-elpect i:c
'l' jl:.t r-nclr:i l^: i l.i !-ili-{-'iv ,-a.$ch -"ht:- si i:c'9. ;rrJ: i'i ti'e',.'
havc .,,1rr-y iii,tLrr cnirl'q'/' f:el'; u;r=i:g'.b1.c i-oc jlg cccl.:i- :rbc'zs
Tire. Ca:-,eirurc.ii :rii C: -I the.-:u' Llni t!; r.t'i I I not: i nCrc'.-.gg t;':L: l-'&::a't'J til
othi..;- pr-ope;-t'z ci- gtructiji-e5: cr to i:ubl i c ri gh'cs-c f -wi'r':
br-ri lCin0::_. ro.aCE, s'iir?3'!.j. c'}.sEtnentg. ui.il, i.':ies or 'f ;tcilitic:-, ci r-
utiic:- proper-'|-i es if'f any t,: i nC - Let rne r':Etate tha't the =i te'= are
noi: :n thL- :icbri c ha:a:-d a;'ei"s'
Sr-,i I s engi n::eri rrq stutdi es .3rc! nscsgsary d'-rs to the steePnas.s o+
tile rri ::c.i. I"t tiierc ar c' que9Jii o;tc pieaEc contact r'tr"
$i 6gc--;sl r,r .-,zil,4,-
rii cior a= L(r"pi ;-: s
Congul.i,i ng Cesi ogist
I
\
*Fl,fa;1. t-*t
-H-?. I. sil
!
H
FI
H
E
F
T
j'I
E
ti
E
I
3
I
I
L
I
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. O
ciONSULTING GEOLOGIST
OI85 INGERSOLL UNE
srtT. coLoRADo E1652
s tto5.@ g. Hounsl
Septembe:- l8, l9?2
Stqven Gensl er
Farkr.rood Rea! ty
=3?9 DTC Ell ..,d. #5O0
Dea.r l'11-Gencl er:
I h.-,r,c rcvi. c'ued tht? seven c,i tcs c1B 9h r-'l.,n cn the e-rcc3l--p.anyi n-E c!:1!-J
'i:c.,r' purcoscs, c{ tir--c f.: i:a1l ::nd Debri s Fl ow rsvi etl f o:- tha' Tc',ln o{
V.ri I - Ti:e s.cvc.n e:i tEr: ;.i- e orrt t:}+ !hE deb:'i r: f nrt anli channcl .
A.t ,. o i 'i:iic :rcr-ttr:.i'nr:lcjrt gi tc anrl i:ar- i: o'i the neil t t'.'lo iii"El l'r i 1.l-r I n'li.'r' i'ir-':jj '.1:i .q.oci:: Fsl : :-la:i,:-d (Ees !,ccc.ir'';anvi nmg r::tpi.
'l-ir e rock 'f .ri I *ri'ce i g morc sevtrrs {ur+-i1er north than thu=c:
t:r.r: Idi;r1 :.i Lc,.i orr thi= c,i:hi:r- sjiCa o* T:-;.et F1 vJhere ii: hre i,eEn
i-.:rpc,r-tL-ri: i n .r c rn'i r ii:!r.)i ir,ri (..rrtru:: l t:ti:g.r th:rt thr'y c.1n ba.t cir!i 1',.'
nrr:-r'tc-:J rl- c!hu'rr.li -e neuutral i:cici bgcauig's' +.he'y are' thin ;.::d
cJ::::rrrn'i: i ilLri:Lr,i. Ti:e rlo:-er h.-,:ai-dcus cutct-cps much hi qher orl th..j
hil. 1giCs,:.r!1i:;hcC:rloE,tii.'to the.t:eE{-. ftlthcurgh mii.iga'ricin a1t
t!rr: hcns:iitee i.l [:o:'i:b1Er'thracrgh r't.rl ],5 si- bcrrminr; r it i:i nc:t
k.,r'-,i- r- i.rt t sd cllr:: to lfiE isr.: r:hancc a'f :'ocll= FEircl-tinp the' sitcc.
Ttlqr csng::rr.rcl:.i cn oi: 'cht:5c. utnitE will not i nci-e.tge the heic.;-iJ to
ol:hri- p:-cr=r-t), oi- att'uctttt-c:s.' ot- t:o :ru:bl ic ri n h i: s-c'i -'.raY ,
br-ri i iij :rcr: i r-nJrci:-:, ::tt-eet:, t:elsu-Jrtot'1t:; . t.it: L i ti r: €i- 'f aci i i ti e'-: ct-
ol.h:):'- ;:r r;:::.:-ti c.: o'; ;.rry irinti. Th!-' otii:'r !;i'i:J3 glre nr: i' t'; sj:hrr:-
oJ; the hr:.ri'ci .:r i- e ;r, :: .
I'? Lhsrc arL. 6Lr:.Eti one cleelSc csnt:1ct rl:l5.
Congr-ritinq Gsol ;9iet
soo.38'56'l / 455.06 feet; thence along said cenlerline N00'38'56'E 122.81 ledt
tb the soutnerf ROW tine ot 1-70;then-ce departing said BOW line N66'53'25"E
tr
I39.15 leet; ttre-nce departing said ROW line S81'23'19'E 165.42 feet to a Point
of curve; thence ,.22f3 feel along the arc of a 143.20 foot radius curve to the
left, having a centralangle of 49'08'51'and a chord that bears 515'57'45'E
11d.1O teit;thence S40-.92'to'E 3.00 feet;thence 66.30lset along the arc of a
77.2'l loot radius curve to the dght, having a oentral angle of 49'12'10'and a
chord that bears 515'56'05'E 64.28 feet;thenca S8"40'00'W 90.27 feet; thence
N38.42'24.W 224.55 feet;thence s78.10'32aV 101.44 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
Applicanl:
Planner:
MECM Enterprises. Inc. represented by MichaelLauterbach
Jim Curnutte
TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25,1993
.
Chuck Crist motioned to table the request wilh Dalton Williams seconding lhe motion
and a unanimous vote ot 6-0 tabled the request untrl January 25, 1993.
g. A request lor a proposed sDD and mlnor subdlvlslon to allow tor the
deveiopment ot'slngle tamlly homes located on Tracts A gnd B, The Vslley'
Phase |U1480 Bufler Creek Rd.
Applicant:
Planner:
Steve Gensler/Parkwood RealtY
Andy Knudtsen
Plannlng and Envlronmental @mmlsslon
JanuarY 11,1993
Chuck Crist abstained from this request due to a Potential conflict ol inlerest'
Andy Knudtsen reviewed the request stating that there were three deviations from lhe
code.
Tom Braun, representing the applicant, gave a brief presentation. He emphasized that
the applicant OiO not *a-nt to request additional GRFA and would be doing further
research before the final hearing regarding that issue'
Public Inout
Neighborhood input was then lequested and the first speaker was Brian Doolan. He
iiqJ.rt"O init tde applicant look into the various Fire DePartmenl requirements and
come up wilh an altemative design.
Steve Undstrom spoke second, discussing the differences between the Counly
approval and the proposed plan. He.specifically requested that the PEC require Mr'
denster to reduce the amount ot asphalt in his design'
L Sally Brainerd spoke next and described the'sections that she had drarrn in a prepared
teport done by RKD. Inc. The Planning Commission discussed with her some of the
details of the drawings. specitically hlng to understand the dnount of fill that would be
located al the lower end of the proposed road.
Sherry Donrard was the last ne'lghbor to speak and she requested that the PEC
require the applicant to maintainlhe character of the area. She described aspects of
The Valley and requested that some of these characteristics be Included in the new
design.
Uooer Develooment Area
The PEC decided to discuss the upper development area'lirst. Greg Amsden said that
interesting architeclure was the key to an attraclive development. He said that 3,600
square teet ot GRFA was quite a bit for that lot. He said that he was concerned about
the terracing that would be required with a development in the upper area. He said
that ii shoulc, be kept at a minimum. He said he wanted to see specific aspecis ot the
design at this time prior to any decision on the request. These would include garage
enlries, the autct"nobile turnar.und area for each hcme, the parking area oulside thc
garage, and the access lo and from each buiEing envelope'
Dalton Williams advised the applicant to be very careful given the steepness ot the
Slope. He said that the square footage of the structures was an issue bul lhe major
issues to him were nailing down grading, cut and fill, and design review issues for the
two homes. He also said that the character of the local area should be preserved.
Gena Whitten said that she was concerned about the engineering that would be
required for building on a slope like this. She said she wanled lo see lhe deiails of the
driveway, the lurnaiound areas, the slope retention, as well as hazard mitigation.
Jeff Bowen said that he concurred with the comments that had been stated.
Diana Donovan said that design restrictions for these lots was a good idea. She also
said that the tvvo envelopes should be moved together as well as shifted lo the east.
Lower Develoomenl Area
Concerning the lower development area, Jeff Bowen began the discussion by saying
that puttin! garages in these homes was a good idea and that most homes in Vail
neeci gatagJs. ie continued by saying that the mature evergreen trees should be
saved. He also said that the amount of grading proposed was a problem. especially
on the west end. Concerning the lact that all of the proposed homes are single family,
he suggesied that clustering a few as duplexes would help the sile plan'
Gena Whitten concurred with Jetf's oomments and emphasized lhat he development
Plannlng and Envlronmental Commlsslon
January 11, 1993
o
should be clustered. She said that by dustering. some asphalt could be eliminated
and the amount of grading naeded could be reduced. She said that saving the trees
was very imporlant. Reducing the slze of the units, combining driveways, and
shorlening lhe length of the access road by clustering would all benefit the plan.
Dalton Williams emphaslzed that he wanted to see h€ fees saved. He said that too
much of the vegetation would be destroyed. He also said that he design should be in
characler rvith the exisling area. He also requesled that the applicant set he buildings
Into the hillside lo make them look smaller.
Greg Amsden said that the asphalt coverage should be decreased and lhat this could
be done by reducing the widlh of the road. In his own experience with he
development review process, he negotiated vrith the Fire Department to sprinkle the
struclures and in turn, was able lo reduce the width of the drive significantly. He said
that this may also help lo save trees, which was an important issue to him. He said
the square foolage ot the homes was nol a problem but lhat they should be worked
into the hillside.
Diana Donovan referred back lo page four of the staff memo. She said that the unils
should be clustered, lhat they should share common drives and yards, and that lhey
should be designed to save lhe vegetation around the development. She said that the
asphalt should be reduced and that lhe mature vegetation should be saved. In
general, she believed that the units should be clustered closer together at the top ot
lhe site to preserve the rest of the site. She concluded by saying that since this is one
phase of a multi phase projeci, the existing neighborhood should definilely be
considered in the review of this project.
Greg Amsden added a last point and received general concurrence from the PEC that
the single family style of development was not an issue. However, he emphasized that
issues such as grading, tree preservation, clustering would all have lo be resolved and
the design improved before the PEC could support the plan.
Review of staff policy on vending carts (ie. espresso carts).
Staff:Tim Devlin
Tim Devlin reviewed the Town's policy on vending carls per the staff memo.
Diana Donovan said thal she supports the stafi memo.
;
Public Comments:
Susan Fritz, the Vice President of the Restiauranl Association and the owner of the
Uptown Grill, inquired about the possibility of having an espresso cart at her restaurant.
Plannlng and Envlronmental Commlsslon
January 11,1993
l
,t\,
9.
PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
PLANNING . OEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS . RESEAFCH
April19,1993
Mr. Andy Knudtsen
Community Development Department
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Valley Phase II
Dear Andy:
Enclosed you will find additional submittal material regarding Tract A of the Valley Phase II. As
per the PEC's request, Randy has prepared a revised site plan based on a hypothetical design
solution for the two brulding envelopes. This plan indicates garage slab elevations, spot
elevations for the A-2 driveway, retaining wall locations and heights, and re-grading. In
addition, a south elevation ofTracts A and B has been prepared.
As 1'on recrirll from the PEC meeting, there were a variety of opinions regarding how this
inftrrmation should be used. It is our position that this material simply conveys one design
altenrative for how these sites could be developed, and that the purpose of this maierial is to
dernonstrate that access to the sites can be designed without the need for variances to retaining
rvall height, driveway slope, elc. We are nol proposing that this material be madg a part of the
development plan for the SDD, nor do we want to see this materi:rl be directly tied to the
apprirval of T-ract A. As was discussed at the PEC hearing, we see this material as a future
rcsource for the staff, PEC and owners of the property. For example, in the event that a future
owner docs reque$t avariance, this material wilt ti on file and may Ue usal by the staff to
demonstrate hon'the site could be developed without the need for a variance.
In hope's ol eliminating as many conditions of approval as possible, it was <.rur intention to
submit revised plms addressing conditions discussed by the PEC regarding Tract B, These
include:
. Elimination of shake shingles on exterior walls. Redesign the west elevation of Building B 0o create greater distinction between A and C. Morjilications of the landscape plan to create additional snow storage area and to establish
a stronger landscape buffer between Buildings E, F and G and Grouse Glen (by
relocating proposed landscape material). Redesign the deck on Building A to mainlain a 5' setback
Due to time constraints, these revisions will rct be completed until later this week. There are
frvo alterna.tives for dealing with these fc'tur issues - the staff's recommendation t-or approval can
be conditional upon these issues being addressed at a later date (cs was done for the last PEC
meeting), or we can submit rnaterial depicung these modifications by Friday (in which case there
Suile 204, Vail National Bank Buiiding
108 South Frontage Road Wesl . Vail, Cololado 81657 . (303) 476-7154
would hopefully be no need for conditions addressing these issues). In order to minimize the
number of conditions, I would prefer the second altemative. Given lhe relatively minor nature
of these modifications, I am confident that the staff and PEC will be able to evaluate ihese
modifications during the hearing and respond accordingly at that time. [rt's discuss this afteryour staff meeting on Monday.
I summarized my concems regarding recommended conditions of approval at the PEC hearing.
As you know, we are in general agreement with all of the conditions. Our concern is thewordingof these conditions relative to how and when we demonstrate compliance. I would
suggest the following language for these conditions. I have eliminated the mndition on GRFA
because the development standards section of the ordinance should adequately address GRFA.
l. At the time a Single Family suMivision is proposed for Tract B, easements shall be
established for the co drivew4y, the pedestrian walkway between Grouse Glen
Crossview, and th&@ntion basin andrelatetfafAiinge iinlliovcinen9r- tA"udt
n anq
szt 6
,/ --v/2. Sodded areas around buildings E, F and G shall be designed to coordinate with sodded
areas on adjacent projects, as determined by the_ DRB.*
3. Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be "benched" into the hillside and stepped with the
natural contours of the site. Site excavation shall be no more than necessary to
accommodate the proposed development. Extrensive site grading to creat€ a flat building
site is not permitted. In order to ensure compliance with the above, finished grades on
the north, east and west elevations of buildings should not deviate more than four (4) feet
from existing grade at any polnt. ,Final determination of the above shall be made by the
3 -J/L= /"d"
>4. Buildings on Tracts A- I and A-2 shall be designed with internal hazard mitigation as
recommended in the hazard reports dated September 18, 1992 and January 22, 1993 by
Mr. Nick L-ampiris.
\.6. The driveway serving Tract A-2 shall serve as a turn-around area for the Fire Departrnent.
The design of Tract A-2 shall be include a driveway that is a minimum 20' wide and
provides a minimum of 35' of length as measured from the south elevation of the
structure to the south side of the main driveway. A minimum vertical clearance of 12.5'
shall be provided at all points of the A-2 driveway. The driveway may be located at any
point along the southern edge of the envelope.
,/6. The minor suMivision of Tract A shatl be conditional upon the SDD receiving final
approval from the Town Council.
This list assumes that the four issues on Tract B discussed above are resolved with the PEC. If
the the PEC or staff a.re not comfortable with what we propose, conditions addressing exterior
walls, the design of building B, landscaping and the deck on Building A may have !o be added
to this list.
\\,
l
.. ..-- -..,--.-.,.-*..,* !- rl
)
DRB.
l
Thank you again for your efforts over the past few months. Please call me after your staff
meeting so we can discuss the material on Tract A, modifications !o the Tract B site plan,
propoeed conditions and the project schedule.
Sincerely,.rG;^->cMJThdmas A. Braun, AICP
rf L E COPY
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303 -479-2 I 3 I / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303-479-2452
April 15, 1993
Mr. Tom Braun
Peter Jamar Associates
Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontaoe Fload West
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Schedule of hearings for the Valley, Phase ll
Department of Cownuniry Developtnent
Dear Tom:
It is nice to think back to Monday's meeting and realize that we now have made some good
progress on the project. I think lhat the changes that have been made address many of the
Town's concerns as well as some of the neighbor's.
Concerning the next few hearings, I want to clarify some of the deadlines. I will need
drawings of the upper development area vehicle access by noon on Monday April 19, 1993, in
orderto schedule the projectforApril 26, 1993. We are now having staff meetings on
Monday afternoons in an effort to come to decisions on PEC projects earlier. As a result, we
would need these drawings by noon the week before the hearing. These drawings should
include a site plan at |:10 scale, sections through the parking apron of each building
envelope, slab elevations for the garages, location of the garage doors within the envelope,
and detailed information concerning the elevations of the tops and bottoms of all retaining
walls that may be required.
Assuming the project goes forward on April 26, 1993, the earliest Town Council hearing for
first reading would be May 18, 1993. The second reading would be June 1, 1993 and the first
DRB hearing would be June 16, 1993. We can schedule a DRB conceptual review at any
time, afler the PEC has finished its review. I think these dates retlect the shortest amount of
time that staff needs to review the project and prepare the various memos and ordinances for
the PEC and Town Council. Please let me know if this schedule will work for you. Thank you
for the work you have put into this project.
Sincerely,
/1 / ,,/ //.,t / //
{+aL d,L, d-4'?rtz a'%//At // I
Andy Knu6tsen \-
Town Planner
At the resuest of several horneowners in r.,iqns Ridge subdivisionfiling No. 2, I Tn prepared to review the plan:; proposed by Mr.Gensler,/Parkwood neaity'as =oon -= tr" suunriti-€n"m to **. To dater have not heard frorn'Mr. s;.i; or any of his representati.ves.rt is my understanding qnat tn" lie or two meetings he has had. withthe homeor\,ners have bLeir r.,nuuii=i"ctory. tssentiatly a take it orleave it ;,rtl:itudi.._::rl-t is; wfry i*as contacted a'd asked, to reviewand;:'a"l= recommendations on tne proposed plans aE ar.l0wed for inthe protective Covenants. - ---- r
r have encl'osed a. copy of the protective covenants, and refer youto section 4-Architeifural ctrninitiee if th;]e ;;;-any guestrons orconfusion regarding the commiii;;.
Prease do not hesitate to contact- ne if you ha*e guestionsfl orrequire clarification of anll natters rtgi=;ir,g Mr. Gensrerrsproposed plan.
nvPfvlfi{{-q'='
\U."V,lylXt^[.
l111l,fd n. m\r,on, M.D., r.D.PHT:dtb I |\ r,tw,tri".o, lfrv i tl-
YfrMh
'fi n rtl
r-r-r-r-1-t-1 t t, I' & f t I I
rAotc-^-ca ^'s^ ar? .A)7 ^Acr/op. --
tE 4-tr,J THRLJuun''z'
- _.-\ |ttl
'Y- I -]l\
i1',
+zlori lltKu
UFIIT'9
t
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
April 12, 1993
A request lor a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the
development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley,
Phase ll/1480 Buffer Creek Rd.
Applicant:
Planner:
Steve GensleriParkwood Realty
Andy Knudtsen
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to modily an Eagle County approved development plan located on
either side ol Buffer Creek Road in Phase ll ot "The Valley". The site is made up of an upper
and lower area. The reason the applicant is applying for an SDD is to allow:
1. Development to be located on slopes greater than 40%;2. A 10 loot setback for building A in the lower development area where 20
feet is reouired.3. Walls, 4 feet in height, to be built in the front setback of the upper
development area which exceed the height limit by 1 toot; and4. A lot to be created in the upper development area which does not meet
the minimum buildable area for this zone district;
In conjunction with the Special Development District request, the applicant has submitted a
minor subdivision proposal. The minor subdivision would create lots for the two single family
homes on the upper development area only. lt is the intention of the applicant to use the
single family subdivision process in the lower development area and to sell off individual
houses as they are constructed.
Lower develooment area description
The lower development area is proposed to have 7 single family homes. These will be
located on either side of a private access road. The proposed access road descends from
Buffer Creek Road at an 8% slope. The road is intended tobe 22 feet wide and will provide
automobile access to garages in each home. There will be a fire truck turn-around located at
the bottom of the road. The seven homes in this area will have a GHFA which ranges from
approximately 1,700 square feet to approximately 2,200 square feet. In addition to this square
footage, each home will have a two-car garage. The ridge heights for the proposed homes
range from 27 leel to 30 feet.
Upper development area descriotion
The upper development area is designed at this time to include two single family homes,
which each have their respective building envelopes. There would be a total of two single
family homes in the upper development area. For the western site, there will be a building
envelope of 3,000 square feet and a proposed GRFA of 3,252 square feet. The eastern
building envelope will be 2,346 square feet in size and is intended to have 2,900 square teet
of GRFA. Access to these parcels is proposed to be from a 16-foot wide shared driveway.
II. BACKGROUND
The proposed development plan is part cf the second phase ol The Valley. The six different
phases ol The Valley were approved in Eagle County in the late 1970's and the early 1980's.
On June 3, 1980, the County approved 32,909 square feet of GRFA and 26 dwelling units for
Phase ll. Some of this development potential has already been used in the Grouse Glen and
Buffer Creek Townhouse developments. Since the County approval, the area has been
annexed into the Town of Vail. The ordinance annexing this area (Ordinance 13, Series of
198 1) includes a provision recognizing the County approval. The Ordinance states that any
significant changes to the previously approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the
Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission.
The Eagle County approved plans dated June 3, 1980 provide a benchmark for evaluating the
proposed development statistics. Since the original approval, there has been partial
development of the site. Grouse Glen has been constructed, consisting of six dwelling units
and 6,233.8 square feet of the GRFA. In 1991, Jack Snow completed conslruction on five
existing loundations which are now called the Buffer Creek Townhomes. This development
consisted of five dwelling units and 7,208.9 square feet of GRFA. The remaining
development potential includes 15 dwelling units and 19,466.3 square leet of GBFA available
for Steve Gensler to use on the rest of the site.
The following table
Eagle
County
ADproval
summarizes this information:
Grouse
Glen
6 DU's
6,233.8 sq. ft.
26 DU'S
32,909 sq. ft.
Buffer
Creek
Townhouses
5 DU's
7,208.9 sq. ft.
Remaining
Development
Potential
15 DU's
'19,466.3 sq. ft.
The Eagle County approved plans lor the lower development area consisted of a centralized
parking area at the top ot the site, with walking paths to the dwelling units. There was no
automobile access to any of the units, and as a result, lhere were no garages. The units were
two to three stories in height (24'to 30') and ranged from 924 to 1400 square feet of GRFA.
The proposed development for the upper area consisted of tive dwelling units, similar in
design to The Valley Townhomes. There was no parking in this area, other than a "pull-out"
area off the north side of Buffehr Creek Road. lt is important to note that the County
approved plans for the upper area localed the units partially on slopes greater than 40%.
On January 11, 1993, June 24, 1991, December 9, 1991, and December '16, 1991, the PEC
reviewed very similar plans to the current proposal. Steve Gensler was the applicant at that
time, also. During the 1991 review of this project, it was determined that the proposal
involved lour departures from Town of Vail zoning standards. Because of these departures,
lhe applicant has applied for an SDD.
t! aE
gg
a?@$dt-- 63R
ob
$+*t-
BooF9a; =oOgi s bEl i.s E R
9l q --: H- t @-Elg -s; n 'E E-lql o,t |,dil F6$s#s B:.oSlsl e ee 3 ;N; B s g i E
;= fr;ciE?oo.(os,'a lo c)gro<\l@.+@ni; .D r3 q :fX b bE c.i 6 oKi- s :-' r s =I P R RP I P I io ;
g
;oe uttog) o?
@tJ)\t g).':
(?) ...:8 b , $ i :Jtg s q€ E ? =-36 a 9'6 - 6 S Hcod ; b: aD co F -- :e)o) = ; d (! c) (t N (o oco
BgEIro ofJF ElEl
9tFl.t 6ls :ldlk Flelo =l trlJ =t olor SlOlE(!
=
d]€=ogo6o)A6@.@-d!iE lo R : .=g b zE b E o :qE ;Q Eg iJ s -o +('s cD :-' -; * A *Eo c; bb F tn !" -. :ool) ; - -ot ot c, F- t o@
s ':.,
P g $9
F F € F $gp
c) (D
; 9eEf 5 Bgfr Efo\ o a
EI. El:r
;;|; ffil
s Rl86 (olo-.8IR
=.gg (r) <,(ogq {
EA" -EC(') (9s; bP;Sc \.,t N =Oo) ol INga,Ps,EFto: : do;. s o
E=s g E
E$ $ g EgP 3 E E:? ; s eEq T fi Ego a,r d E
Esn;tE3; : EEA
tg" E& Fri
sss $^HlE sss PlEl
s FEIE :lgl
E s pls FlEt
E e:'gvrl f! -t -t -
>{olcl<l idgsS
5l 5aNINJ
PLEASE MAKE
TOWN OF VAIL
D E P A RT ;\{ E x* T O F C O lVI ]VI TJN I TY D EV E L O P }I E N T'
DATE
S,TLES ACTION FORiU
0l 00004t510 ZCTD{C fu\D ADDRESS }'IAPS
uNr.r:oR\{ B UILDI\-G co D E
U M FO R-\t P LU!'{B L\- c C ODE
0l c!$0 424 t5
or oooo rzcis
ol oo00 42.1j .l u,rnrorurl:irEcHA\'Ic.r.L coDE
0t cr000 Jt{ t5 Un*lFOtu\f FIRE CODE
ol 0oo0{2{15 | N,rnoN.cI-TLECTRJCALcoDE
ontER CODEIOOKS0t 0000 {24 r5
0t c800.il543 BLUE PRDITS O'YLAR
ol 00al {21r2 | >ltaox coplEs / sluDlts
0t 00co123?l PENA I.TY FEES / R E.1..-S PECTONS
0t 0cc0{t-132 PL,L\ REVIE1V RE.C}iECX FEE IS"{O FER, }iR.
0t 0000 42323 OFF HOURS I\iSPECTION FEEJ
CONT:I,\CTORS LICL\S ES FEES0l 0000.il{12
SlGN APPLICATION F:E
0t 0000 { 1330
.01 0000 4 t4l 3
0l 000041{13 ADDITIONA'- SIGNAGE F;E ISI.O.1 ;'ER, SO.IT.
0t 0cB0 {2{.,t0 lTC ART PF,OJECT DONAI]ON
0t 00co.lr33l PRE PAJD DESICM REVINV BOARD FEE
OIOOOO424I2 I BUILDING-CONSTRUCTION PERMIT COMPUTER DI
I 0000 41010 T X
01 0000 42371 TNVESTTGATToN FEE (BUTLDTNG) I ,oTAL ouE,
0t 0000 { l3
TloN trioRE THi"|.l t00 so.Fr
0t crl00 .r 1330
]*;
*
*
*
**
*
*
*
*'
o
tv.MODIFICATIONS MADE SINCE THE JANUARY 1 1. 1993 PEC WORK SESSION
On January 1 1 , 1993, the PEC reviewed the proposal at a work session. Minutes from that
meeting are attached to this memo. A summary of the PEC comments for the lower
development area were:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1)
2)
3)
4)
Concerning the upper development area, the Planning Commission's comments included:
That mature evergreen trees should be saved,
That fill lrom the road should be reduced,
That the units should be clustered and some incorporated into duplexes,
That site impacts of the development should be minimized,
That the proposal's character should integrate with the existing portions of Phase ll,
That the proposed amount ol GRFA and the single family home use was acceptable,
That two Planning Commissioners said that garages and automobile access to the
homes were acceptable.
That the building envelopes should be reduced in size,
That the envelopes should be shifted down off of the uppermost parl of the hillside,
That the envelopes should be shifted to the east and moved closer together,
That detailed designs of the driveway, the garage aprons and the turnaround areas
should be provided so that there would be an accurate understanding of what future
development would look like.
Lower Development Area
Since that meeting, the applicant has modified the proposal. For the lower
development area, the site has been surveyed, and all aspen larger than an 8-inch
caliper and all evergreens above 20 feet in height have been identi{ied. There are
eighty-eight trees identified in the survey, which can be broken down into three
different clusters. The first is in the central part of the site, the second is at the lower
part ol the site and the third is at the upper part of the site along the road. With the
changes made since the last review, the applicant has been able to save one of the
clusters of trees. This cluster is made up of five evergreen trees with calipers ranging
from I to 24 inches.
In addition, the applicant has been able to reduce the length of the road by 20 feet.
This in turn, has reduced the amount of fill that is required. Previously, the fill required
ranged from 10 to 12 feet in depth. At this time, the maximum amount of fill ranges
from 6 to 8 feet. For a majority of the road, the fill is 4 feet or less. The area ot
asphalt has been reduced by 128 square feet. Heights of the buildings have been
reduced from 33 feet to a range of 27 teet to 30 teet. Landscaped area has increased
by approximately 700 square feet.
a)
b)Uoper Develooment Area
Since the January 1 1 , 1993 work session, the applicant has changed the upper
development area by reducing the size of the building envelopes, shifting these to the
east and eliminating the upper 10 feel ol each of the envelopes. Envelope A-1 has
been shilted 25 feet to the east. Envelope A-2 has been shifted 15 feet to east. The
applicant has also recognized the Town's ownership of right-ol-way in the boundary
line dispute. The applicanl has widened the road to accommodate Fire Department
requirements. The applicant has not identified garage locations, garage slab
elevations, parking areas, automobile turnaround areas, or the relaining walls that are
required to accommodate the access. Staff believes this information should be
provided.
A very important addition to the proposal for the upper development area is a limitation
to the amount of site disturbance which will be allowed. In an efforl to prohibit any
scarring on the back or sides of the two buildings, the proposed language will be
added to the plat:
,- "Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 should be "benched-in" to the'" hillside and stepped with the natural contours of the site. SiteI excavation should be no more than necessary to accommodatet.'' the proposed development. Extensive site grading to create a
flat building site is not permitted. In order to ensure compliance' with the above, finished grades on the north, east and west'
elevations of buildings should not deviate more than 4leet from
existing grade at any point."
Staff believes that this proposed language will ensure that the development, which is to
be designed at a future date, will be well integrated in the hillside.
GRFA
In the previous discussions with the PEC, the applicant has proposed an additional 500
square feet ol GRFA to the amount approved by the County. At this time, the
applicant has eliminated this portion of the request and is now complying with the
amount set by the Eagle County approval. The proposed building floor plans will have
to be modified slightly to meet this amount. At this time, the stafl measured
approximately 96 square feet of GRFA in excess of what the County approved. The
homes in the lower development area will need to be adjusted so that the drawings
match the amount stated on the plans. The applicant has agreed to do this at the time
of DRB application. The following table identifies the maximum allowable GRFA for
each envelope. GRFA may not be transferred from one envelope to another.
o
Lov\rer dgveloomenl area :
Bas€ Floor Cr€dit GRFA current ovstage whichArea musl b€ oliminated.
A. 1816B. 1816
c. 1845D. 2148E. 1673F. 2157G. 1859
Upp€r d€velooment ar€a:
A-1. 3252A-2. 2900
d) Hazards
The applicant has provided additional analysis by Mr. Nick Lampiris regarding both the
debris flow and rocklall hazards. The lower development area has been tound not to
be significantly aflected by either of lhe hazards. Nick Lampiris specifically states that
no mitigation is needed for the lower development area. Concerning the upper
development area, the debris flow hazard will skirl the two buibing envelopes and
does not need to be mitigated. However, rockfall does need to be mitigated. The
geologist has recommended that on the norlh elevations of lhe two homes in the
Upper Development Area, that 3 feet of exposed foundation wall, which can withstand
300 pounds per square foot of impact, be provided. This is not to be broken up by any
windows or doonrays. Based on the hazards reports and this recommendation, staff
believes the hazards have been satisfactorily addressed.
225 2c41 16225 2041 16225 2070225 2373 24225 1898 3225 2382 26225 2084 21
225 3477225 312s
a
V. SDD CRITERIA
A. Deslgn compatlblllty and sensltivlty to the lmmediate envlronment,
nelghborhood and adlacent propertles relatlve to archltectural design,
scale, bulk, building helght, buffer zones, ldentity, character, visual
Integrity and orientation.
Staff believes that the new design lor the lower development area has improved
its sensitivity to the immediate environment and neighborhood by shifting the
building locations up out of the meadow. This has, in turn, reduced the length
of the road by 20 feet, reduced the amount of fill required, and preserved the
clusler of trees at the lower end of the development. As stated earlier, these
trees range in caliper from 8 to 24 inches. There is 128 square feet less
asphalt in the Lower Development Area since the road has been shortened and
approximately 4 feet less fill required.
Concerning the upper development area, staff believes that the building
envelopes are reasonable locations for two single lamily homes. The applicant
has stated a requirement on the plat stipulating that the grade on the west,
north and east elevations of both single family homes not change more than 4
feet from the existing grade. This will insure that there is no scarring of the
hillside as a result of development and will insure that the homes are "benched-
in" the hillside. The applicant has shitted the envelopes to the east to reduce
the amount of road required and has brought the envelopes 10 feet down off
the hillside.
Staff is concerned about the retaining walls that will be necessary abutting the
garages lor these two envelopes, to allow access. We estimate that two or
possibly three walls could be needed adjacent to the garages. Stafl is primarily
concerned about this retaining and believes that it could affect the visual
integrity of the upper area. Statl believes that this SDD Criteria comes into play
for issues such as retaining and we believe this information should be provided
prior to Council review.
Staff believesthatthesiteplanof thelowerandupperdevelopmentareas\, -,/- ,Ii,e''generally meet this SDD Criteria; however, we believe that the architectural ) . ,L
design of the lower development area could be modified to make it more
compatible to the adiacent properties. We believe the use of shingles as a
siding material is not compatible. We believe that the lhree types of materials
that should be used on the exterior include stucco, stone and wood siding.
This would help integrate it with the existing portions of Phase ll. Staff is also
concerned about the design of Building B. At this time, Units A, B, and C are
virtually identical, with one being a mirror image of the other two. These three
have been laid out so that they are lined up in a row. Stafl believes that there
needs to be more visual interest and variety with these three homes and is
recommending that the center home be signilicantly modified from the two on
either side of it.
Building A encroaches 10 feet into the front setback. Because there is 21 feet
between the property line and the edge of pavemenl, there will be an apparent
31 loot setback. Staff believes that the benefits that have resulted from shifting
all of the homes up out of the meadow will outweigh the few negative aspects
associated with the setback encroachment. Given the 31 teet of distance
between the home and the road, staff believes it will be acceptable. The deck
on this corner of the house does not need to encroach into the setback as
much as it does, and staff believes it should be pulled a minimum ol 5 feet from
the property line.
B. Uses, actlvlty and denslty whlch provide a compatible, efficlent and
workable relatlonshlp wlth surroundlng uses and activlty.
The proposed use lor both development areas is single family homes. This use
is listed in the zoning code as an allowed use lor the Residential Cluster Zone
District. We believe that the homes provide a workable relationship with the
surrounding uses, even though many ol them to the west are condominiums.
We believe that the use is reasonable and that with some design modifications
to the architecture and landscaping, that the development will be compatible.
C. Compllance wlth parklng and loadlng requlrements as outllned ln Chapter
18.52.
All of the home siles in both the upper development and lower development
areas comply with the Town's parking requirements.
D. Contormity wlth applicable elements of the Vall Comprehensive Plan,
Town policies and Urban Deslgn Plans.
The Land Use Plan designates this parcel as Medium Density Residential
(MDR). As proposed, the development will be 5.4 units per buildable acre.
MDR allows a range of 3-'14 dwelling units per acre. As a result, stafl finds that
the proposal is consistent with The Vail Land Use Plan designation.
E. ldentilication and mitigatlon of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect
the property on which the special development district ls proposed.
Please see the analysis done by Mr. Nick Lampiris discussed above and
attached to this memo. Staff has listed the recommendations from his study as
conditions of approval.
F. Slte plan, bulldlng deslgn and locatlon and open space provlslons
designed to produce a lunctlonal development responsive and senslllve
to natural features, vegetatlon and overall aesthetic quality ol the
community.
o
Statf believes that the location of the buildings, since they have been shifted to
the east, have resulted in better open space provisions and are more
responsive to the existing vegetation. Though the road accessing the Lower
Development Area will remove a stand of trees, staff believes that any
development plan in the remaining portion of Phase ll would requrre removing
some trees. Staff believes that, in general, there is a reasonable balance
between preserving the overall aesthetic quality of this portion of The Valley
and building out the approved density.
G. A clrculation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians
addressing on and otf-site traflic circulation.
Vehicular and pedestrian traffic has been addressed in this design. Concerning
the upper development area, there is vehicle access to both envelopes.
Concerning the lower development area, there is vehicle access to each home
site as well as a pedestrian path that ties into the rest of The Valley pathway
system. At the time the lower area is developed, the applicant will complete a
single family subdivision in order to sell ofl the homes. At that time, the
common roadway and pedestrian pathway must be dedicated as access
easements.
The Fire Department has approved the vehicular access plan for the lower
development area as well as the upper development area with one condition.
They are requiring the applicant to design a lurn-around using the apron in front
of the garage on envelope A-2. The garage and apron may be located at any
point along the southern edge of the envelope. The Fire Department is
requiring that 35 feet be provided between the front of the garage door and the
far edge of pavement (of the driveway). There must be a minimum ol 12.5 feet
of clearance for this distance.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize
and preserve nalural features, recreation, views and functions.
Staff believes that the landscaping in the lower development area could be
improved by adding more trees between it and the existing portions of Phase ll.
Specifically, we would like to see approximately 6 evergreen trees and 6 aspen
trees added in this area. A minor point is to have the areas proposed for sod
tie in to the existing lawn area of the Valley and modify the type of sod to l
match the existing sod.
Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functlonal
and eflicient relationship throughout the development of the Special
Development District.
The minor subdivision that is proposed ensures that there will be a functional
and efficient relationship throughout this portion of the development and the rest
of The Valley. Easements will be shown on the plat lo accommodate both on-
site and off-site drainage. At this time, the Town Engineer has nol received
t"
.t)
10
vt.
'.,. ,<:1.i: / 'l
one component of a drainage study. As result, the staff is adding a condition of
approval that prior to first reading at Town Council of the SDD, the applicant
provide all information the Town Engineer needs in his review of the drainage
plan for the development. Any structures or easements that are recommended
in the drainage sludy will need to be provided for in the design and on the
subdivision plat prior lo scheduling this development for first reading.
Easements for pedestrian and vehicular lratfic will also be provided on the plat.
MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA
The standards for creating lots in this zone district are as follows:
Section 18.14.050 "The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand
square feet, containing no less than eighl thousand square feet of buildable
area. Each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet. Each site shall be
of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet on each
site within its boundaries."
Though both of the proposed lots exceed the minimum size, the west lot does not
contain the minimum amounl ol buildable area. The requiremenl is for eight thousand
square feet, and the proposal, as measured by statf, provides no buildable square
footage for the western envelope. lf the SDD is approved, this deviation from the
standards may be allowed.
The PEC is the approving authority for the Minor Subdivision request. However, Town
Council is the approving authority for the SDD. As a result, staff recommends that
once the plat is modified to address the Town staff concerns, that the PEC make their
approval contingent upon the Town Council's approval of the SDD.
i,' i
I
"t1Lr'J (,1 t '/
' t ,( [1r.,,-'-1
Staff believes that this project meets all the SDD review criteria and is'rebommedOing
,r /f,','-''
t.-1
+
approval ol the proposed development plan with the following conditions. Assuming
that the following changes can be incorporated into the drawings, staff recommends
that the PEC recommend to Town Council that this SDD be approved.
A. Prior to the scheduling ot the proposal lor first reading at Town Council, the
following changes must be incorporated into the drawings:
1) The information provided in the completed drainage report must be
incorporated into the drawings, including proposed improvements as well
as easements;
2) The landscape plan must be amended so that the sod areas align with
the existing sod areas of Phase ll and that the sod type matches Phase
il;
v1t.
11
-g)
t/ot
The landscaping plan must be amended to add 6 spruce trees and 6
aspen trees in the area between the proposed development and Phase
il.
The deck on Building A must be redesigned so that it provides a 5 foot
setback.
B.Prior to scheduling a DRB hearing for any individual home, the applicant shall
provide documentation that:
1) Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 should be "benched-in" into the hillside
and stepped with the natural contours of the site. Site excavation
should be no more than necessary to accommodate the proposed
development. Extensive site grading to create a tlat building site is not
permitted. ln order to ensure compliance with the above, finished
grades on the north, east and west elevations of buildings should not
deviate more than 4 feet from existing grade at any point.
2) Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be designed with the internal
hazard mitigation recommended by Mr. Nick Lampiris in his hazard
analysis dated September 18, 1992 and January 22, 1993.
3) Buildings on Tract A-2 shall be designed with a turn-around using the
apron in front of the garage on envelope A-2. The garage and apron
may be located at any point along the southern edge of the envelope.
The Fire Department is requiring that 35 feet be provided between the
front of the garage door and the lar edge of pavement of the driveway.
There must be a minimum of 12.5 feet of clearance for this distance.
4) The GRFA of the proposal must be modified to comply with the following
chart; GFIFA may not be transferred from one residence to another.
Lower develooment area:
B.
c.
U.
E.
r-
G.
Base Floor Credit
Area
1816 225
1816 2251845 2252148 2251673 225
2157 2251859 225
GRFA
2041
2Ul
2070
2373
1898
2382
20fl4
Upper development area:
4.1. 3252A-2. 2900
225
225
12
t"s't The architectural design of Building B, must be redesigned so that it is
. ___9littcttvlittercnJ!r-o4
qqi6lns_s_4 9l q,as determined by DRB;
L6Yt The siding material, proposed as shingles, must be revised to siding
,," similar to that used on other buildings used in The Valley.
Prior to Town approval of the Single Family Subdivision for he lorrer AravfL p
development area. The applicant shall dedicate access easements lor lhe "''1u&ttu t
common driveway as well as the pedestrian access path; ''' +r/,
The. minor subdivision approval shall be conditioned upon the sDD receivingfinal approval lrom Town Council.
\ r ,,/\MI\.Y' z I vn\ ,'el', ('r l- r--(
\lw t\ ('/'w
13
..,/.j ,
,( t t -t/./,,,,7(
..'tr "\
",., n-'. \ -/-; )/,'.i:i <-7i.:A+nti, /
i:;-1": !l /
t'ii?!
i i;: ;:
l:e-::r
i;i;r'r (
:ilti
i:':: I
ehl
i 9::i
i$i:'{ !l /i^ i1'"ti r/ /-,
ar"o\
ti
-l
e;i..
r' | /'--)4-1 ).,----.- 1- - -n-L;. "1" ,.)72'
.ta i-,...-:.a-c..
fut${m///t
"
/ l//' ." .
"-'==:'=---\./...|
,Kru
M
('X''W
, /,, i i: tiltlli,:liilil,fi
/:t : liliillit r'//ll
Ilill
lr ltlirt
al
li
I
I
I
,_ \ ".F/ j,., i ,.'.',' o,rrlr;*rj;.;;J"i: 7'11t" ;ll'- "d\ .. . )., IlFf;lRffFllrlFt?tliB-il,. ,j
',..""''"(;,'i:ttArtiiHr*\iiiii$ilffi l|il/n, - "j\,.' :.':','::::;
":':i, n.\''. ."' i;i',,:);;ti,,ii',111,F,,,11i,,i1,i,,'.;. * \ ,,,),, ,!, ,',, i ,,y ,/,, ,/ ,,\,,,1^f ,i \i, ,,ll_1.. x',, /;!,'/:,i,:f),!',,', l,';,r,1,,\\lFii:!'i ,"r )',i,',",/,t't,f i," i,r,',',/, r' t \.^ -Wi
I
!ir ll.'l"i:tl. I
ii!:iiiti;;:
I
ts'
rFl.
if,
4II
!ii'
i
i ir
g;i::
..!i'
-ii; r: !t Ei
$
I
,ij:lq i;
4 -) 6 /^,r2l^\ra.+V[qry afr VanlJ\ IIF\,UvWU'- ' f lt &3\..F,.t.-p*+^, ffiiet,qyre $1,.'".,..s!^'L
I I it iGJc,;;ttr\-:,;.ir'i.'4 t'b t Wd?#i;:n *". ,/ \' Hr.Z&&..o,-.-
li;i
tn-@;' h',91'i .illllP-fl" :il"lti GE l
,' "illl5li]:: l|l' 'l':! ll| r
:, t!,s
iltltIFi iiirs
tliuirlrEiri'i ti'$
l$illlliilij A 5
[il}i'iit ti i$il
I i -
![B ii rrri
li rhu $ii;i\ ri.
't
//-'/'
-ot"
o-.t
s*I
itifl
"r/lt
T
'1,.,,
n*,lrr.i,rtJ
t!it tt;:r
3r'|s4"gSt@
.\o
b
^v
lw':
7n:fr
-tt
t.i
'i),1ir
\\'Jlltrtttl:r !:;'rti:l'll!l- ri:i;;!;l:ii:
iiii!iiiiif
iiiii
0!
J
@
h)
$[
itl
$i
td
5Pl({
A'l
I
-:
[$b\
t$5a
0
IJ
!lri!i
P
I
i5
t6
ib
tq
Jt
r
?--(,)
(n
:__:-
ff
m
itt-'tl
sultlul
t.' :ltt.'
.ili!
f!a!
t!i,
lli!ti-!
N
ffi T{\
>t\'ta\\\ffil\
NN
1t.4,-.4,.g"9s
L1a/t'.n etlan*
aft vanfl
oI
r\
I
.i-q,-)--
!\-&
tHrllrd
$le>fi,arl
i,tXi*i1
ll*ll$L
FrdeiiS
rlFUfd
$*liii
dt{ \UET'Fn$
L
c\
ILr.hodqes
6- r1r ii,rd..r*-ic-lrur-
€iOLtD$$J -rLf, ) It r'elG
nW7;rl.lllV(?luJ
t qvGva tu\att-
$' ff'.ijrrtg.sf*e *'
-'' 9az zat'r< at t a
Steven Gen:: I er
F.arkurnod Real ty
5:199 DTC Hlvd, *:i(xl
En q; I er,.rnod I DEI Bt) 1 I I
REI Tract A, Lion's
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph,D.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
0185 INGEFSOLL LANE
srLT, coLoRADO 81652
(300) 87S5400 (21 HOURS)
Jenuary ?3.' lFFs
Fi dge $t-rbcli vi.-:i on
Dear l'lr " llen gl err I
I harre be.e,n "a s 1.,:rlrJ tcl cl ari f y
mi 1:ig.:rtion I sugee*i:t--d in rny
o l tr,rer r.,i ti ge.t i cin tecfrn:i cllrer
my position on the rncl,:f a.l !.previ cuts l ettr:r " I beii i eve 1:lrat one
is in r'rde.t-.
Oni: pci:i:li.bi I ity i':i to c:r:i thrlr :ica1e or grot-rt I oos.e rocl:e i.n tlr,-e
1r:ur r.:r-Ltct-op cl irer:'hL.,.r abavn tfre, s:i teil; br:htri"l- j. s.. to cons...trL!.Et tirr:
t-e.-'*it- f cutnciati orr t.rcr.[ I cl: ll":e br.ri l cli nclr: to nr-r:trltde .-rt le,'.est'. thr-ee'Fr:ei ahctve l: j. rri rhc:Ll qr-acl* and tr:' h a.\,rr-l nE F,ri. ndnr,.ls i n 'Lh:i. s. i. n'hr:ri'e.|.(f i'c,n qrDt..lnd Level l:o 'l-he tcrp o.li tfre sitein walI). This r,{a11
r,hni..rl d h;rvcr a eLre:nq hh o.F .ir. t 1e,:r.st Sriri poltnds pEt- t;,gr-L*t-F .i:nclt.
Thi:; t"ra1l. lqui..rl cl ;rl.s $c{: to ;.-rrC)lt-'c1: t'.he lrorrt. in th,il t:1vri}n | .nir-r L:l L.r
t:hclr.ll d lil i rlel r.ri:r p.r:.lni. rrs.i: ttiil l-rcrincl ,
I'i Lfir.lril *.r-c iir.rr-ttrmr- nure::t hinirs FlRigtl rc!t-ri--:ict ;r':l "
il.i. lt l.- ,,.; t,L'.1. '" ,,
1,44 4n;
itii:nc;I ;i = l-i:(;:i r'- i.:.;
llgnnt-r.L i:i nn iles-rl cir::i. s'i::
r
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
D.Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.
CONSULTTNG GEOLOGIST
0185 INGERSOLL LANE
srLT, coLoRADO 81652
(303) 87C54m (24 HoURS)
tii..,'nt ci:ii: crr- l. [i " ], s,)9?
S'L i.:'r'en il*t-r s I r.: t-
r:rar- i,:f,s)f,)cl Fir::tl.'i V
:ji(7r,., DTC gl vd ' il5(:)()
ilrrglei.ioocl) CO EO111
l:1!:: l-;'-:tct A1 L.-ic:n':: l:i:.ccie ilirbdi.vi.sioi-,
Ilear- I'lr-. $en s.l. el';
l. h::.r';: r-rlr.:i ilrr'r:r il tili: L'.,,o :i ie:: :r.':; c-:ioi/:n firr 'i:hil ncctriloEii'iyj r'ct :na'l
i:r:r- g':ir;-;ir::5r::1 oir ijiu;: Il F.i',.1 i. iir,ci r,'::L:r:i * l;i.1. g'"1 i- n-lv l. tll"J ::i:i- l: l": t'l 'l- tll l"Jri il
\r.:,1i i. , -ili:+ t- trrr: :;i t r-:'; f'r,'-lv:l f, (:!i:rn t:irc-'gei:-r 'i: c-' !: i: c-ri-tt af -;: ::tnr: tl: Ll"itl
v.l e s'i: ul: l-. i-ri: di.-'h,r-i':: 'l: an .:ii-:::i i:: ft .-:', l'r i.' l. . i'lr c'.' cl;" 1\'/ll,^J:\v ini-t:i rn1:e!'- .:lf1d
ij:i- c_1i.t:::j i: l-r ii... .f i.ifi , ftcti^:ctt.Rt-.
'l lrcl i''*c l': t;rI I ,rrna I g Txcll-c $lJvcJi-c '::'*tr- L:lrcll- t.Jt'st tir;ln 'gh*'=r-r 'iulr:
L:r-tr IcJ:i n! ::i t-.i.':l :trli:j i:lre .l.crw t:rlti-cr-cD5 ibovi: t i: s."= e :;:i ti,':; r;*n bc:
[,1.:r-ji l! y t!r-O.*r'CC:l r:t r CiLf it:'i't'li:'i: nr--:ut L.r-:l] i;;:cl lttlCitutgC 'CheV it'-C' 'L.l-r i:r i"fril
ci :: si:c)n.cinLlDLl!:" -i-lr s-. rii,,::i^ c' l-rai::'.!"Ll Lt ---i citLt:i"epE nutch li i,r-:-l!ri:r i-rl-l i: n t-'
i,i.L jEj.rJ: niii siisil tn:rribl':' i:r: Litr: t.''r":g'i:, " ,lrlthoLlilii mri:i q::! ii ctn at
t i.l i.t il (jiiti:.:; j. i.: i.1.:,; :i.,s l:Jg::;:li. b.:. c,t i:.. fr r c i..t i.: l-. ','Jall. L:; c:i- l:r ltl i- iit:i. n '-,-.t ,, :;. t i'::;
r;:-'clt,ii.r|.r'|..,',rlo'i:t..t..rr.r.*l't.i:.i:lrj.:.|t.1(ij'i-.0.i:.|tr.:..].|t!,.Jciii::iriccji-)..i|-o{:l::.Ji-::::tc:lr:n
't-hr:. :s j,'i:r,rs, iJr,ltci'-i:1] .'Jtrr l,: I)l-icli- t{:) i: i::n l.rt r Lti:: t :l orl '.nt:i l L rrr':'
l:i t,t rr :,: 'i: :i. c :i ;,t .1. .
-l iri,:: :i :: i.:r ir .i aicii::i i.)t-r i{ i1{:r i- l:.1 'i:Iii:r i-:i r-ii!*, ;: ;;:t i:"li:li il {:l L:-rc'l tC,J.}-{::ti: i.-:'
r:c';citli:i.-,,.i. ;:.ii 1.t. l-rl t-r::l:!i5, i -:; ;.1: '-.; r-.lc it * l ct* .i. il"'t-': ';t j. i:h '';.il'p::i:t i-: ci'
|.!l|:!','.|'r'".;'ii.ll..i-i.i:']{':l|:j:',!:i.|.'i.l-jl'i.'':r'i'..j..:jl{::|l
(.i[J. rv.].,t i lr.,ivr.. ,,,1.:i.-';, .ii;L.1.!i i]t"rtl-n./. l: ctl'l t-tri':titli.l, i:' i-alr.::::i i:]i:i:ii:- ':',bC'zlt
i: lr :. :.; ,-. .i. L t.: "
-i-iti.: i.:c:-i:;,:l-i"ic i:i.:lt"i c. l i:itt.il.; l-li-r i. i::-,t i'ri..l. 1 tl;'.i l- i.r;crrl.r:,:t, i':,iii! l',i;:i't'd ri !l
c:,tirt:i- r:li-.-ipc.:i. l: \,/ oi' :;'l'.i- utcti.ii*u€, ::r' tc l-'r.tl:1.:ic riglt'i.::;-t.:i'-'i,.l.-'r'7't
l:ir-t:i J.:i:i nn,::. i-cr.:lr':l!:;, :.i;t-=:,'Lg. c.,:i l:l ii:i'ii€i-l t s: " t.:i: i. Ii Ii. t.,= tll- ::,:.i:! l. i.;;i e:-' l:r-
r::.i:: i-r: i.. r:)i-i:jtf a:::,.t j...?.j rt-r.F ;.rnv !,: :i r'ri. i-:i, i: iile i'::t:li:i,i:e Lh.n'l.. i: il.:: :,;i 1:€.:t ;11-t]
lilri:. i. ili:lrt: :-lrlri:lr t g ir'i::nl"i:i i;l i- ii: i\ E "
.Ii.:.i. l.::; r..t !l j. []aj(:)r'i rtt:: ,"i{:r-1,:j:i. (-:::i .rl-cl l-j|-:i:-:.}f-;:;+i-y r:.j'-.iEr L.il {'.h€: s:':rglpnn:'g.l; cr'F
i:iir., r::r. i:c':. l i tiir,'ri-: :trc ql-lctl; i: r 'J::1; i--1i. r:id E;i.':i (: ilr' i:.:"\c'L lirc?'
rli -, F, E 'F,a : \/
'r.,,1 I --/' /-/Mt '/,--1"6
rr.i F:\-r ',-- r 1""-,.i -.i -r {J. L.: lU, lri:i j.",i:\l.li,J .l . .i ;,
li$ti',:ut.1. i: i n.r t.;:--':: i c,1.l:i.:lli:
I
il
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
0185 INGERSOLL I-ANE
stLT. coLoRAoo 81652
($3) 87e54C0 (24 HOUFS)
Clr:s-r{-r:r.}rcr- lq 1i:ti,'t-..
Ste.zerr Eiensl. er
F€rr- l,:wo(]d tieal'L.y
5199 DTI ]il..rd. {!50Otio EoliJ.
r: liii (:icjtr $ubdi vi ri.,:n
Deai- lvll'. 6en 9.|. er:
I ft:,:r','$ r;.'",i. c.Werl 'L: h c'r :isvErrr *itr::: as :, !-r r'..i n cn -i:hu accirrirpi.r:-lyi. iii: ri.lr
'f or Bur-nosifl5 { f;ii:cl: ijal. I ,:rnc1 Ochr-i. s l::.1. ow ro'zi prv '{:cr- 'i:lrc i ctL.,;r: oi;
\t*li.l ., 'i';l er ,;t:vi:rr r,,itg:: ei-e ciutt g.i: 'giie :ieb:-i s 'f ;:', fi ,'*n li c h.:,1,n r' it L.
rll. i oi: 'i: ir i-: rrortharfi-nrnosL gitcl *nr::l i:la:'- L::; i, -i: tl-la neilt tt.:ct .:.i- er r,.li i:l-'i ri'i.ririr.t i'l{.r.:i i. i..liii ltfic[,: Fa] I i-li:i:,: Arri (,jlee ;i cr: or.'t::i:\t-r v i nmn n:::ipi "
The rncL,: 'l il"l. J. ai-sa i = inor^(] 5ev{:1r'Ij ',:urrti'llll- rrorrl.h i:h;in tli :lil
[:L.ri l cIi;ri:l ::.i ic'r, on 'i:iril u,i:i-rilr" ci rlc: o-l -i:-act A r'riierr: i i:: hr,:; iir.::sn
rclpOr-t*r:.1 i,n ;r cr::rnliifilf]i]i"<j:rn$if,r..rg i. c.r'L i.:er th;rt t h,l:'t c:.:ru lli: l::il,:l j. I-v
qro'-r'tci'd nr ci'l:liu..rui l,;:r nelrti^aJ.i'^:clci !"J:..-,c lruigrl '1,lr el-r, er-er 'thin ;,nci
di:;r::un1:iilr-reLr1i" 'j'iro r-ri or i.:l liai.li-dalLrg cLitcr-cljr tnuclr fr:,.iftt:li- i:it th..:
fiiI1l;iCs giIl. r::l-i r:d nogtirr, 'Lo i-ir$: r-;es*, Ail'L.l'rELl.;h fiii i::i g;t'Li c.in *i;
t!-to hcnet:i.te'ii iii [i r:!i':;:i L:t1* tl'rr.r:t..rgh r'ra iL ].:i 'J i' b!:rrtllin.p, :1.: :i.g ncil:
t+ai-t''an'i:gcl tl l-rLl i:o lfis i rf, L.r cl-liirricf i:r-I roi:l:'ii t'B&,:hi. n tiii.t :::i't cs,,
Tl're ci:n:; r:r*r..ic:i.'. i c;n o'i: i:iltlsi::, urrri t',:; r',,r:i ll. I nr:t i rtr:i-e+5t.. {: li gt iln:{ lll-iJ i:ci
ci'i:.h u.i- p:-cnr:r-"r.y nr ::.trr-rr:t L.u'r-r'.:! I i:v- i o pr..lbi:c r-i.gl-i';t"-,-o'i:-rJ,'t',',,
Lrt-ri. Li:J j. rrci:;. r-n.rclL.:, :..:trctut! I c.nsnir)ilnt:; , t,lt:. l. ii:il..tl; ,:i- i;i:tci i:i. ti n:; nr
cl.t:l,ir.,.ri.pt-r'i1:tll,..i::i.frtlii:}.i:.lnyi.l|:irid'..|'-itt.+ci.Liilr.l'-i:i.lr]rj|i'l|.|:l.nl:i.i:
of tht: h"r:;i-- ci {:1r'f.r $"
I"f i:hc.ir-c ,'.rr $ rirrilii't i sns n I s;:i.:c clnt.l.c t nil .
lJ .i rl c;::-cl i
"'
..--4-/i /t -//' M/,/h /..4w1-l
rti cn;r e': L;i6i:.r i r- i ::
Canguri t j. nc; $c..n l # c.l i $t
S00'38'56"W 455.06 feet; thence along said centerline N00'38'56"E 122.81 leet
to the southerly ROW line of l-70;thence departing said FIOW line N66'53'25"E
39.15 feet; thence departing said ROW line S81"23'19"E 165.42 feet to a point
of curve; thence 122.83 feet along the arc of a 143.20 foot radius curve to lhe
left, having a central angle of 49'08'51" and a chord that bears 515"57'45"E
1 19.1 0 feet; thence 540'32'10"E 3.00 feet; thence 66.30 feet along the arc of a
77.21 tool radius curve to the right, having a central angle of 49'12'10" and a
chord that bears 515"56'05'E 64.28 feet; thence S8"40'00"W 90.27 teet; thence
N38"42'24"W 224.55 feet; thence 578"10'32"W 101.44 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
MECM Enterprises, Inc. represenled by Michael Lauterbach
Jim Curnutte
TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25, 19!'3
Chuck Crist motioned to table the request with Dalton Williams seconding the motion
and a unanimous vote of 6-0 tabled the request until January 25, 1993.
8. A request lor a proposed SDD and mlnor subdlvision to allow for the
development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley,
Phase ll/1480 Buffer Creek Rd.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realtv
Andy Knudtsen
Chuck Crist abstained from this request due to a potential conflict of interest.
Andy Knudtsen reviewed the request stating that there were three deviations from the
code.
Tom Braun, representing the applicant, gave a brief presentation. He emphasized that
the applicant did not want to request additional GRFA and would be doing lurther
research betore the final hearing regarding that issue.
Public Input
Neighborhood input was then requested and the first speaker was Brian Doolan. He
requested lhat the applicant look into the various Fire Department requirements and
come up with an alternative design.
Steve Lindstrom spoke second, discussing the differences between the County
approval and the proposed plan. He specifically requested that the PEC require Mr.
Gensler to reduce the amount of asphalt in his design.
Plannlng and Envlronmenlal Commission
January 1't, 1993
Sally Brainerd spoke next and described the sections that she had drawn in a prepared
report done by RKD, Inc. The Planning Commission discussed with her some of the
Oetaits of the brawings, specifically trying to understand the amount of fill that would be
located at the lower end ol the proposed road.
Sherry Dorward was the last neighbor to speak and she requested that the PEC
require the applicant to maintain the character of the area, She described aspects of
fni Vattey and requested that some of these characteristics be included in the new
design.
Uoper Development Area
The PEC decided to discuss the upper development area first. Greg Amsden said that
interesting architecture was the key to an attractive development. He said that 3'600
sguare te-et of GRfe was quite a bit lor that lot. He said thal he was concerned about
the terracing that would be required with a development in the upper area. He said
that it should be kept at a minimum. He said he wanted to see specific aspects of the
design at this time prior to any decision on the request' These would include garage
entri-es, the automobile turnaround area lor each home, the parking area outside the
garage, and the access to and from each building envelope.
Dalton Williams advised the applicant to be very careful given the steepness ot the
slope. He said that the square footage ol the structures was an issue but the major
issues to him were nailing down grading, cut and fill, and design review issues for the
two homes. He also said that the character of the local area should be preserved.
Gena Whitten said that she was concerned about the engineering that would be
required for building on a slope like this. She said she wanted to see the details ot the
driveway, the turnaround areas, the slope retention, as well as hazard mitigation'
Jeff Bowen said that he concurred with ihe comments that had been stated.
Diana Donovan said that design restrictions for these lots was a good idea' She also
said that the two envelopes should be moved together as well as shitted to the east.
Lower Development Area
Concerning lhe lower development area, Jeff Bowen began the discussion by saying
that puttinf garages in these homes was a good idea and ihat most homes in Vail
need garages. He continued by saying that the mature evergreen trees should be
saved: He also said that the amount ol grading proposed was a problem, especially
on the west end. Goncerning the fact that all of the proposed homes are single family,
he suggested thai clustering a few as duplexes would help the site plan'
Gena Whitten concurred with Jeff's comments and emphasized that the development
Planning and Envlronmental Commlssion
January 11,1993
should be clustered. She said that by clustering, some asphalt could be eliminated
and the amount of grading needed could be reduced. She said that saving the trees
was very important. Reducing the size of the units, combining driveways, and
shortening the length of the access road by clustering would all benefit the plan.
Dalton Williams emphasized that he wanted to see the trees saved. He said that too
much of the vegetation would be destroyed. He also said that the design should be in
characler with the existing area. He also requested that the applicant set the buildings
into the hillside to make them look smaller.
Greg Amsden said that the asphalt coverage should be decreased and that this could
be done by reducing the width of the road. In his own experience with the
developmenl review process, he negotiated with the Fire Department to sprinkle the
structures and in turn, was able to reduce the width of the drive significantly. He said
that this may also help to save trees, which was an important issue to him. He said
the square footage of the homes was not a problem but that they should be worked
into the hillside.
Diana Donovan referred back to page four of the staff memo. She said that the units
should be clustered, that they should share common drives and yards, and that they
should be designed to save the vegetation around the development. She said that the
asphalt should be reduced and that the mature vegetation should be saved. In
general, she believed that the units should be clustered closer together at the top of
the site lo preserve the rest of the site. She concluded by saying that since this is one
phase ol a multi phase project, the existing neighborhood should definitely be
considered in the review ol this project.
Greg Amsden added a last point and received general concurrence
the single tamily style of development was not an issue. However,
issues such as grading, tree preservation, clustering would all have
the design improved before the PEC could support the plan.
Review of staff policy on vending carts (ie. espresso carts).
from the PEC that
he emphasized that
to be resolved and
9.
Staff :
Tim Devlin reviewed
Diana Donovan said
Public Comments:
Tim Devlin
the Town's policy on vending carts per the stafl memo.
that she supports the staff memo.
Susan Fritz. the Vice President of the Restaurant Association and the owner of the
Uptown Grill, inquired about the possibility of having an espresso cart at her resiaurant.
Planning and Environmental Commission
January 11, 1993
1..o
F t[-E. $$PV
TOWN OFVAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303 -479-2 I 38 / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303-479-2452
April 29, 1993
De pa ron e nt of Commun iry Deve loprnett
Mf. Tom Braun
Peter Jamar and Associates
Vail National Bank Building
',| 08 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
RE: The Valley, Phase ll
Dear Tom:
Welcome back from vacation. I thought that I would write you
speed on the PEC's lalest comments on The Valley, Phase ll.
a letter and brlng you up to
Concerning the lower development area, the PEC approved the changes to the drawings
regarding the deck, the siding and the landscape plan. Those three issues which were
formerly conditions of approval have now been permanently deleted lrom the memo. They
would like to see more changes to the architecture of Building C and they requested that the
former condition of approval regarding Building C be put back inio the memo that is lorwarded
to Town Council. lt will read as follows:
"The architectural design ot Building B must be redesigned so that it is distinctly
different from Buildings A or C, as determined by DRB. The architect shall
revise the roof lines, the entries, the materials, and color so that these elements
are distinctly different from Buildings A or C."
Concerning the upper development area, lhe PEC would like to see additional informalion
before they are comfortable approving the proposed plan. They are concerned that the
proposed building envelopes will not be able to be developed as it has been discussed in the
hearings. They would like to see a soils test as well as a structural engineer's analysis of
development on each of the envelopes. Their primary concern is the retaining wall that will be
used at the rear of each slructure. This may be as high as 30 feet and would have a
significant load put on it.
In addition to that information, the PEC reouests that drawinos for the automobite access iN
this area be refined with all assumptions regarding the build;g location noted on the plans \l
and all top of wall and bottom ol wall elevations identilied. They will also want to see the V
sections Randy has already done showing the building retaining walls and driveways. I
Page Two
April29, 1993
Braun
During the discussion with the PEc, we talked about future dates for the proiect' staff will.
need a minimum of two weeks to review the information that you submit and, as a result' the
earliest meeting that you could return to the PEC would be May 24, 1993. This in turn would
prt tirtt readiniwith Town Council on June 16th, at the earliest. Please call me if you would
iike to diScusslhese issues in more detail or if you would like to discuss the schedule'
Sincerely,
/1 "ffi9,4h{\
Andy Knudtsen
Town Planner
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
),!f frL t, f' n,
-''r..'t'',''1i
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
April 26, 1993
Staff comments made slnce April 12, 1993 are made ln bold
A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the
development of single lamily homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley,
Phase lli 1480 Buffer Creek Bd.
Applicant:
Planner:
Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty
Andy Knudtsen ;
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to modify an Eagle County approved development plan located on
either side of Buffer Creek Road in Phase ll of "The Valley". The site is made up of an upper
and lower area. The reason the applicant is applying for an SDD is to allow:
1. Development to be located on slopes greater than 40%;2. A 'l 0 foot setback for building A in the lower development area where 20 feet is
required.3. Wdls, 4 feet in height, to be built in the front setback of the upper development area
which exceed the height limit by I foot; and4. A lot to be created in the upper development area which does not meet the minimum
buildable area for this zone district;
In conjunction with the Special Development District request, the applicant has submitted a
minor subdivision proposal. The minor subdivision rvould create lots for the two single family
homes on the upper development area and distinguish the lower development area frorn
the other phases of development in The Valley. The applicant will use the single family
subdivision process in the lower development area and to sell off individual houses as they
are constructed.
Lower developmenl area descriotion
The lower development area is proposed to have 7 single family homes. These will be
located on either side of a private access road. The proposed access road descends from
Buffer Creek Road at an 8% slope. The road is intended to be 22 feet wide and will provide
automobile access to garages in each home. There will be a fire truck turn-around located at
the bottom of the road. The seven homes in this area will have a GRFA which ranges from
approximately 1,700 square feet to approximately 2,200 square feet. ln addition to this square
footage, each home will have a Wvo-car garage. The ridge heights for the proposed homes
range from 27 teel to 30 feet'
Uoper develooment area descriotion
The upper development area is designed at this time to include two single family homes,
which each have their respective building envelopes. There would be a total of two single
family homes in the upper development area. For the western site, there will be a building
envelope of 3,000 square feet and a proposed GRFA of 3,252 square feet. The eastern
building envelope will be 2,346 square feet in size and is intended to have 2,900 square feet
of GRFA. Access to these parcels is proposed to be from a 16-foot wide shared driveway.
II. BACKGFOUND
The proposed development plan is part of the second phase of The Valley. The six different
phases of The Valley were approved in Eagle County in the late 19oJ0's and the early 1980's.
On June 3, 1980, the County approved 32,909 square feet of GRFA and 26 dwelling units for
phase ll. Some of this development potential has already been used in the Grouse Glen and
Buffer Creek Townhouse developments. Since the County approval, the area has been
annexed into the Town of Vail. The ordinance annexing this area (Ordinance 13, Series of
1981) includes a provision recognizing the County approval. The Ordinance states that any
significant changes to the previously approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the
Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission.
The Eagle County approved plans dated June 3, 1980 provide a benchmark for evaluating the
proposed development statistics. Since the original approval, there has been partial
development of the site. Grouse Glen has been constructed, consisting of six dwelling units
and 6,233.8 square feet of the GRFA. In 1991, Jack Snow completed construction on live
existing foundations which are now called the Buffer Creek Townhomes. This development
consisted of five dwelling unils and 7,208.9 square feet of GRFA. The remaining
development potential includes 15 dwelling units and 19,466.3 square feet of GRFA available
for Steve Gensler to use on the rest of the site.
The following table summarizes ihis information:
Eagle
County
Approval
26 DU's
Grouse
Glen
Buffer
Creek
Townhouses
Remaining
Development
Potential
15 DU's
19,466.3 sq. ft.
6 DU'S 5 DU's
32,909 sq. ft. 6,233.8 sq. ft. 7,208.9 sq. ft.
The Eagle County approved plans for the lower development area consisted of a centralized
parking area at the top of the site, with walking paths to the dwelling unils. There was no
automobile access to any of the units, and as a result, there were no garages. The units were
two to three stories in height (24' to 30') and ranged from 924 to 1400 square leet of GRFA.
The proposed development for the upper area consisted of five dwelling units, similar in
design to The Valley Townhomes. There was no parking in this area, other than a "pull-out"
area off the north side of Buffehr Creek Road. lt is important to nole that the County
approved plans for the upper area located the units partially on slopes greater than 40%.
-: ._
On January 11, 1993, June 24, 1991, December9,1991, and December 16,'1991, the PEC
reviewed very similar plans to the current proposal. Steve Gensler was the applicant at that
time, also. During the 1991 review of this project, it was determined that the proposal
involved four departures from Town of Vail zoning standards. Because of these departures,
the applicant has applied for an SDD.
3
7
sNIN5ali*lo
l5
H
d3g fl 'o
6il6r 3ol('l --
Efg B' FEXE E
= =;r
T-rr')(nxo0roq=H€*6'6(DJJd
='=6on=,d=FY (/,d
qr=(o=(Du!
tsd P [.
Esl 3 g
E3 F .E
t t'- d
gFEPP q i E \ 86 AN J io o ,' ,^'- irtPo ;e B o) eia SHE e F s 3= s-at(r=€=: -6 '3
=-oco'(r(o:o.n att .oI
=-
b b o, ..1 (.t cD 0t lu'a 'i ' { c) o) =ol!: ;e (' g.o L.r@o ^ rocd.^ :< qr 6' :t ;SEFjE.";(/t -E= Gte -r O)oJ5-u.r@. i'
v>@^-o;F
co o) a G) ..r N lu' o o c) uro (,r @ oE ;{ x ' .^'j ;9 i\)o o N Fq e S.'! ;-@ T Vi= c^r I{llcDgbrN-trr=CD qI
is,ao, ro c,.^ qr -oF 8 ;
=Ut'
o, o)
EE5EFg3oru Ai 96393. I -:
(o=6: A N .Fs F i $fi
= ? s ;;: : e tP
=:4Gt= H tu ',r. aR * s Hd
- @ oae fi gE
1J - '1o
P : Iqt5'6(o=-o. I
N
= N S3$ ;eE6 e,- -o,(r cr5]\' 'ut qB 8Xi- oro
- o) o-+'(,-O at.'=
@c
o-!)gFE3t=t= otfrt? ;lsl= fi
lE latx: t(,l:alq' d 5='sq E
dB;'^ r^ Gt
Eluis
lFlfl :l-=-=EB ''''
l6'_'
(o
o,
(t
3 i a N g :N: 3 F.d d 8H- ; f I $^o.d F 's\ EF' i H =8.= i r"' EH tN ti' -d eR Flg-3:E=iraro
d 6 ai'- Eq ts sS! ' O at,' . Feo.-9
5gl(Do.
{a t.;<s9q.86c\Ffio) i.,8g
IV. MODIFICATIONS MADE SINCE THE JANUARY 11. 1993 PEC WOFK SESSION
On January 11, 1993, the PEC reviewed the proposal at a work session. Minutes from that
meeting are attached to this memo. A summary of the PEC comments for the lower
development area were:
1) ' . That malure evergreen trees should be saved,2) That fill from the road should be reduced,3) That the units should be clustered and some incorporated into duplexes,4) That site impacts of the development should be minimized,5) That the proposal's character should integrate with the existing portions of Phase ll,6) That the proposed amount ot GRFA and the single family home use was acceptable,7) That two Planning Commissioners said that garages and automobile access to the. homes were acceptable. S
Concerning the upper development area, the Planning Commission's comments included:
1) That the building envelopes should be reduced in size,2l That the envelopes should be shifted down off ol the uppermost part of the hillside,3) That the envelopes should be shifted to the east and moved closer together,4) That detailed designs of the driveway, the garage aprons and the turnaround areas
should be provided so that there would be an accurate understanding of what future
development would look like.
a) Lower Develooment Area
Since that meeting, the applicant has modified the proposal. For the lower development area,
the site has been surveyed, and all aspen larger than an 8-inch caliper and-all evergreens
above 20 feet in height have been identified. There are eighty-eight trees identified in the
survey, which can be broken down into three dilferent clusters. The first is in the central part
of the site, the second is at the lower part of the site and the third is at the upper part of the
site along the road. With the changes made since the last review, the applicant has been
able to save the lower cluster of trees in addition to others across the site. This cluster is
made up of five evergreen trees with calipers ranging from I to 24 inches.
ln addition, the applicant has been able to reduce the length of the road by 20 feet. This in
lurn, has reduced the amount of fill that is required. Previously, the lill required ranged from
10 to 12 feet in depth. At this time, the maximum amount of fill ranges from 6 to 8 feet. For a
majority of the road, the fill is 4 feet or less. The area of asphalt has been reduced by 128
square feet. Heights of the buildings have been reduced from 33 feet to a range of 27 feet to
30 feet. Landscaped area has increased by approximately 700 square feet.
b) Upoer Develooment Area
Since the January 1 1, 1993 work session, the applicant has changed the upper development
area by reducing the size of the building envelopes, shifting these to the east and eliminating
the upper 10 feet ol each of the envelopes. Envelope A-1 has been shifted 25 feet to the
east. Envelope A-2 has been shifted 15 feet to east. The applicant has also recognized the
Town's ownership of right-of-way in the boundary line dispute. The applicant has widened the
road to accommodate Fire Department requirements.
The appllcant has drawn detailed plans of the driveway ln the upper development area.
The drawings include garage localions, garage slab elevations, parking areas,
automobile turnaround areas, or the retaining walls that are requlred to accommodate
the access. Sectlons through each envelope have not been provlded. These drawings
show that access can be provided to the garages without involving varlances. Prior to
//lirst reading at Town Council, staft requests that the sketches be reflned, that all
/' assumptions made in the drawings be identified, that top-of-wall and bottom-of-wall
I elevatlons be ldentified for all retalnlng, and that sections through each envelope be
$\ provided.
A very important addition to the proposal for the upper development area is a limitation to the
amount of site disturbance which will be allowed. In an effort to prohibit any scarring on the
back or sides of the two buildings, the proposed language will be added to the plat:
"Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 should be "benched-in" to the hillside and
stepped with the natural contours of the site. Site excavation should be no
more than necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Extensive
site grading to create a flat building site is not permitted. In order to ensure
eompliance with the above, finished grades on the north, east and west
elevations of buildings should not deviate more than 4 feet from existing grade
at any Point."
Staff believes that this proposed language will ensure that the development, which is to be
designed at a future date, will be well integrated in the hillside.
c)GRFA
In the previous discussions with the PEC, the applicant has proposed an additional 500
square feet of GRFA to the amount approved by the County. At this time, the applicant has
eliminated this portion ot the request and is now complying with the amount set by the Eagle
County approval. The proposed building floor plans will have to be modified slightly to meet
this amount. At this time, the staff measured approximately 96 square feet of GRFA in excess
of what the County approved. The homes in the lower development area will need to be
adjusted so that the proposal does not exceed the amount approved. The applicant has
agreed to do this at the time of DRB application. The following table identifies the
approximate GRFA for each envelope. Staff ls recommending that the GRFA for each
resldence be allowed to vary by 50 square feet from what ls shown below. Total GRFA
tor the lower and upper development areas may not exceed the totals for each area.
GRFA may not be transferred from the upper to the lower development ar:al
: ,. _.-
Lo,ver develooment area:
:
Base Floor
Area
A. 1816B. r 1816c. 1845
. D. 2148E. 1897F. 2157G. 1859loral 13314
Uppqr development area:
A-1. 3252
A.Z. . 2900rolal 6152
225
225 .
225 .
225
225'
225'i'
225
2041 "20/.1 ..
2070
2373
2122
2382
3477
'2084
. GRFA cunenl
overage' '
'.|6 ,'
16 .
9arage
credil -
463
493
493
486
492
483
476
3
26
21
225
225
d) Hazards
The applicant has provided additional analysis by Mr. Nick Lampiris regarding both the debris
flow and rockfall hazards. The lower development area has been found not to be significantly
affected by either of the hazards. Nick Lampiris specifically states that no mitigation is
needed for the lower development area. Concerning the upper development area, the debris
flow hazard will skirt the two building envelopes and does not need to be mitigated. However,
rockfall does need to be mitigated., The geologist has recommended that on the north
elevations of the two homes in the Upper Development Aiea, that 3 feet of exposed
foundation wall, which can withstand 300 pounds per square foot of impact, be provided. This
is not to be broken up by any windows or doorways. Based on the hazards reports and this
recommendation, staff believes the hazards have been satislactorily addressed.
SDD CRITEFlA
Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate envlronment, nelghborhood
and adjacent propertles relative to archltectural deslgn, scale' bulk' buildlng
helght, buffer zones, identity, character' visual integrity and orientation.
Staff believes that the new design for the lower development area has improved its
sensitivity to the immediale environment and neighborhood by shifting the building
locations up out of the meadow. This has, in turn, reduced the length of the road by
20 feet, reduced the amount of fill required, and preserved the cluster of trees at the
lower end of the development. As stated earlier, these trees range in caliper from 8 to
24 inches. There is 128 square feet less asphalt in the Lower Development Area since
the road has been shortened and approximately 4 feet less,fill required.
;:: Concerning the upper development area, staff believes thatihe building envelopes are
reasonable locations for two single family homes. The applicant has staled a
:, requirement on the plat stipulating that the grade on the west, north and east
elevations of both single family homes not change more than 4 feet from the existing
grade. This will insure that there is no scarring of the hillside as a result of
development and will insure that the homes are "benched-in" the hillside. The
applicant has shifted the envelopes to the east to reduce the amount of road required
and has brought the envelopes 10 feet down off the hillside.
Another slgnificant lssue regardlng sensitivity to the immedlate environment
lnvolv'es the design lor the automobile access to the two envelopes In the upper
development area. Staff has revlewed the prelimlnary drawlngs submitted by the
appllcant and believes that access can be provided without requiring any
variances. We would like to have these drawings relined prior to Council and ail
of the assumptions involved with the building and garage locations specilied on
the drawings. This is listed at the end of this memo as a condition of approval.
' Staff understands that other issues raised previousty in the review process have..i already been resolved by the appllcant. The shingles have been removed, the
design of Buildlng B has been modilied significantly so that it does not look like
A or C and the deck on Building A has been cut back by 5 feet. Given these
changes, the staff has removed all of these issues from the list of conditions at
the end of thls memo.
Building A encroaches |0 feet into the front setback. Because there is 21 leet
between the property line and the edge of pavement, there will be an apparent 31 foot
setback. Staff believes that the benefits that have resulted from shifting all of the
homes up out of the meadow will outweigh the few negative aspects associated with
the setback encroachment. Given the 31 feet of distance between the home and the
road, staff believes it will be acceptable.
Uses, actlvity and density whlch provlde a compatible, efflclent and workable
relatlonship with surrounding uses and activity.
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
The proposed use for both development areas is single family homes. This use is
listed in the zoning code as an allowed use for the Flesidential Cluster Zone District.
We believe that the homes provide a workable relationship with the surrounding uses,
even though many of them to the west are condominiums. We believe that the use is
. reasonable and that with some design modilications to the architecture and
landscaping, that the development will be compatible.
Compllance wlth parklng and loadlng requlrements as outllned In Chapter 18.52.
All of the home sites in both the upper development and lower development areas
comply with the Town's parking requirements.
Conformity wlth applicable elements of the Vail Comprehenslve Plan, Town
pollcies and Urban Deslgn Plans.
€The Land Use Plan designates this parcel as Medium Density Residential (MDR). As
proposed, the development will be 5.4 units per buildable acre. MDR allows a range of
3-14 dwelling units per acre. As a result, staff finds that the proposal is consistent with
The Vail Land Use Plan designation.
ldentification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the
property on which the special development district is proposed.
Please see the analysis done by Mr. Nick Lampiris discussed above and attached to
this memo. Stalf has listed the recommendations from his study as conditions of
approval.
Slte plan, building deslgn and location and open space provlslons designed to
produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features,
vegetatlon and overall aesthetic quality ol the communlty.
Stalf believes that the location ot the buildings, since they have been shifted to the
east, have resulted in better open space provisions and are more responsive to the
existing vegetation. Though the road accessing the Lower Development Area will
remove a stand of trees, staff believes that any development plan in the remaining
portion of Phase ll would require removing some trees. Staff believes that, in general,
there is a reasonable balance between preserving the overall aesthetic quality of this
portion of The Valley and building out the approved density.
A clrculation system deslgned for both vehlcles and pedestrians addressing on
and otf-slte traffic clrculation.
Vehicular and pedestrian traffic has been addressed in lhis design. Concerning the
upper development area, there is vehicle access to both envelopes. Concerning the
lower development area, there is vehicle access to each home site as well as a
pedestrian path lhat ties into the rest of The Valley pathway system. At the time lhe
lower area is developed, the applicant will complete a single family subdivision in order
to sell off the homes. At that time, the common roadway and pedestrian pathway must
G.
be dedicated as access easements.
The Fire Department has approved the vehicular access plan for the lower
development area as well as the upper development area with one condition. They
are requiring the applicant to design a turn-around using the apron in front of the
garage on envelope A-2. The garage and apron may be located at any point along the
southern edge of the envelope. The Fire Department is requiring that 35 feet be
provided between the front of the garage door and the far edge of pavement (of the
driveway). There must be a minimum of 12.5 feet of clearance for this distance.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaplng and open space in order to optimize and
preserve natural leatures, recrealion' vlews and functions.
Staff understands that the applicant has redesigned the landscaping, shitting
:' much ol lt around to the areas between the proposed dgvelopment and the
I exlstlng development in Grouse Glen. A mlnor point cohcerning the landscaping
ls to have the areas proposed for sod lie in to the existing lawn area of the Valley and
rr modify the type of sod to match the existing sod'
t. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will malntain a workable, functlonal and
efflcient retationship throughout the development of the Special Development
District.
The minor subdivision that is proposed ensures that there will be a functional and
etficient relationship throughout this portion of the development and the rest ot The
Valley. Easements will be shown on the plat to accommodate both on-site and oftsite
drainage. At this time, the Town Engineer is requesting a linal component ot a
drainage study. As result, the staff is adding a condition of approval that prior to first' reading at Town Council of the SDD, the applicant provide all information the Town
Engineer needs in his review of the drainage plan for the development. Any struclures
or easements that are recommended in the drainage study will need to be provided for
in the design and on the subdivision plat prior to scheduling this development for first
reading. Easements for pedestrian and vehicular tratfic will also be provided on the
;: pl?t.
VI. MTNOR SUBDIVISION BEQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION
The standards for creating lots in this zone district are as follows:
Section 18.14.050 "The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand square feet,
containing no less than eight thousand square feet ol buildable area. Each site shall
have a minimum frontage of thirty leet. Each site shall be of a size and shape
capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet on each site within its boundaries."
Though both of the proposed lots exceed the minimum size, the west lot does not conlain the
minimum amount of buildable area. The requiremenl is for eight thousand square feet, and
the proposal, as measured by staff, provides no buildable square footage for the western
envelope. lf the SDD is approved, this deviation from the standards may be allowed'
10
Staff recommends approval of the mlnor subdlvlslon. We belleve the applicant has
demonstrated that two slngle famlly units can be built on Tract A. The original
development plan located 5 units ln the hazard area. We belleve the new plan provides
for a much safer design. ln respect to Tract B, we leel lt is reasonable to plat unplatted
parcels that are phases within a development.
The PEC is the approving authority for the Minor Subdivision request. However, Town
Council is the approving authority for the SDD. As a result, staff recommends that once the
plat is modified to address the Town staff concerns, that the PEC make their approval
contingent upon the Town Council's approval of the SDD.
Prlor to the scheduting of the proposal for first reading at Town Council, the following
changes must be incorporated into the plat:
1) The information provided in the completed drainageleport must be incorporated
into the plat, including proposed improvements as wbll as easements;
2) All hazard areas, as designated on the Town of Vail hazard maps shall be
graphically shown on the plat.
3) The minor subdivision approval shall be conditioned upon the SDD receiving
final approval from Town Council.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE SDD REQUEST
Staff believes that this project meets all the SDD review criteria and is recommending
approval of the proposed development plan with the following elements of an agreement with
the developer. Assuming that the following changes can be incorporated into the drawings,
staff recommends that the PEC recommend to Town Council that this SDD be approved.
A. Prior to the scheduling of the proposal for first reading at Town Council, the following
changes must be incorporated into the drawings:
1) Drawings for the automobile access to the upper development area shall
be provided and refined, noting all assumptions to be made regarding the
building location, identifying top of wall and bottom of wall elevations,
and providing sections through each buildlng envelope showing the
building, any retaining walls and driveway.
B. At tlme of DRB hearing, the DRB shall determine that:
1) Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be "benched-in" into the hillside and
stepped with the natural contours of the site. Site excavation should be no
more than necessary to accommodate the proposed development. Extensive
site grading to create a flat building site is not permitted. In order lo ensure
compliance with the above, finished grades on the north, east and west
elevations of buildings should not deviate more than 4 feet from existing grade
at any point.
i
,4
t,
11
2) Buildings on Tracts A-1 and A-2 shall be designed with the internal hazard
mitigation recommended by Mr. Nick Lampiris in his hazard analysis dated
September 18, 1992 and January 22,'1993.
3) Buildings on Tract A-2 shall be designed with a turn-around using the apron in
front of the garage on envelope A-2. The garage and apron may be located at
any point along the southern edge of the envelope. The Fire Department is'
requiring that 35 feet be provided between the lront ol the garage door and the
far edge of pavement of the driveway. There must be a minimum of 12.5 feet.
of clearance for this distance.
4)
5)
The sod areas align with the existing sod areas of Phase ll and that the sod
type matches Phase ll.
The GRFA of the proposal must be modified to comply with the following chart.
The GFFA allocated for each resldence In the lofrer devetopment area and ,,
each envelope In the upper development area can be modilied by 50 i,dtr-
square teet. Total GRFA for each area may not exceed the maximum of pr
13,3't4 for the lower development area (Tract B) and 6,'t52 for the upper \development area (Tract A).
Lower deveboment area:
t,i'
\t
' ,///
j-/'''
Base Floor
Area
1816
1816
1845
2148
1897
2157
1859
13314
Credit GRFA
225 2041225 20.{1225 2070225 2373225 '2122
225 2382225 2084
225 3477225 208/
/r""J ^
r ' H*'l
12
current garageoverage ctedil
Uooer development area:
U
\t
'J
)s.
{
\
\
463
493
493
486
492
48[!
476
600
600
16
16
24
3
26
21
A.
B.
c.
D.
E.
G.
tolal
.,' .s
\_t*\
\\\
:.x\
;
.\
l '\]\)
.\ l/\
\\
'f.- i v^i-\
!|rt.t1.iJ .,..i-\,g."ri
\$ r
J
'1
\
-*Ar 'i\:-
\!
A-2.
tolal
3252
2900
6152
e----4ior to Town approval of the Single Family Subdivision for the lower development
area. The applicant shall dedicate-access easements for the common driveway as
well as the pedestrian access pathf .
L ,, /^ -u' y'''*1
,; r) /'/ /5,,.r4t
[3,,,/1., 'J
/)"Lr-z.f
\(1 11,+ t. ,
L ....
/ ,,1
,/,
,/, f /,".^//, n.
&)
(., -,'. ,. i 71' t -t 7/- /rO3I
4,t'
EXHIBIT A - MINUTES FROM JANUARY 11, 1993 PE MEETING
EXHIBIT B . NICK LAMPIRIS HAZARD STUDY
F
13
ot:l::{a
il --','
l: --ar.a
t?':t !
r !r ir!Itt-l-rt!! It
!iilll
iiiitifr::ltl !!t'Itl:t
iliit
I
I
i
I
ffi';u
W'ii{l{/i,'// I . i
{ilill{/. ^o lii:iiri''|,,,,t,,i ll bv r t"Jr.
lir,iil , r- !:i:i.'!Itil,'ilt \Y
'ili,il -,,..:;:ti $ Hi. **,i,ftiffi
i t!.1. J\\Flrrsr -' lon h
i,Jl , iiiFiiit liift!
',iil'..
iFnrttr iiilliiiii$!ll'' f1$q&rep 6triih lri'liil i$I1l: ?\'1[rir'hl i; ir I! lt t:i'' {i }i
iI
Iit
ai
!i
$$
!r:$$tiuri
lsr
it$
i
i
F
$rtr
n
$r-ryUo/':
.$i'rliffi,,q.-.E#f,#,W
wffi
[r'4n.{9s.srtr,n,l"t't'.r, ,r il
ffig;s,*+aa*..}.at E 4v.fi cara@
aftvaufi
ffi
ffiil\ti
il$iNi$N
'"t.!
\ii#
ir,
\',li
r\i
fir$
ir
:T
il
!l:t
\\\
\
l!Ii!!rlr:l'trtlir
!i:ril
iiii!i
riiiti
tilir
H
z.'
GT$\
I
g
ry
hE
lr
;i$
liiil|p
xtl
E!
5F
fir-.
t
tibiiiiI
E!frFT$
t
|{al
ISii
tql\
t
>----7-----:-
6
b r.rflti
m
E I{Ir itl
rilt'ltriill
u
!l1till,iiir9l
ii:li'!t;!
t!t.t.::at-a
riti!llr
:ii:
iri:l
[t'r,[g$sgst YE?*'i'r ". -..' - ',,..- ^ .$'#'r%Ii|-,F|'ll*!51|: r'|'l1 1\r.1\t 4*
sty'da.d,',t-afr vanl
IIt.,
I
l
I
ffid
f
{€,
i'$li
i FJ;rFrNl1
i
ffiiirir
W
gI
E8[[r
rl]e$es'
trvdri frl.rt-atvaul
Oi Nicholas Lampiris, rn.OO'
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
0185 INGERSOLL LANE
srLT, coLoRAOO 81652
(30q 87e54m (21 HOURS)
January ??' 1FFS
Steven Gens I er
Farkprnod Re.el ty5??9 DTC LIvd, fJ,SCxJ
Engler,roodr CO 8Ott1
FE: Tract Ar Lion's Ridge Surbdivision
Dear l.lr. llent:I er :
I ha',re be,en asl':ed ta clal-if ymitig"rticrrr I sr-rqoested in myo{ t r,.r r: ni ti gati nn techni quree
my position on the rockf "r1 J.
pre.,ri ours I ettr'.:r. I bel i evu. that oneig in order.
One possJ.hility is to eitlrr".r scnrl e cr- gt-ourt loose roc!,:s in tlre
1r:tr r:lrtcro;r di rer:'81.,-. 'r.b o...e tfrrl si te!-: better i s to cone.trurct tire
r e.-'ar {oundation trsl l a{ t-he trr.ti ldings to or-otrurCe at least three
'f eei: ahovr: .Fi rri r.,h r:LJ qra.clr: and tn lr*ve nt: r.,r i ndr,nr- i n thi r-, i nterva.t
("f i"ern ctr-out-rd level {:o 'L}rta to;: o.f t-hr-. ::l:t:in rvall). This tvsl lgholrl d h;rve, ,a etr-eng'th of =r.t l e,rst Stltl:! Fc,Lr.ndE pEr e-qLrere f not.l'hi = n"rl l. t.tor"rld alai:r "..rc t to prol:!:rct the lrorrrc. ir-r ihsr event i;T'nr.r
ghor..tl ci s;1 i de r"tp agai n r.,l: tiil:. hc'inc:"
I'i 'ctret-e.l ar-c. .iurther- c r-r,nr:it i rr:r:; trl.l.rst: reni:.,-rct .;i,tr.
- -'l , "-Z .4L4/L //.nrl'j,'1/
i',li i:hci *c l-."ti:c i t- i. is
i--crsr.rll i:i nq !3es1 rqi =i:
f[
I
I
t
I
I
t
n
r
I
I
I
r
t
t
I
t
I
t
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.tP
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
0185 INGEFSOLL I.ANE
srLT. COLORAOO 81652
I Qq.?
(303) 87C5400 (24 HOURS)
Seotenbct- 1O,
9tevsn Eerr:iL et-
[]at- i,:r.rlod Ftela ). i;'
si?q) IITC BIvdt *i5t)t)
ling1ei..'ood r CfJ 80I11
RE: Ti"sct A' L.-ic:n's Ririqe 5i-tbtjivj'sion
Dear- i"lr". Gerrsl er:
l. hs.\'r t- s'r':i. c'it^"eC tire tir'o =if or g:iti-pn!j.,-'--j crf iio;ll l;'ti.l I(.lili.i. Tti'.: tr'lo ':itss tr:rvs:'
r,i rc g'i: o i: ti-rc d':-'F-'l-i:! -;:a.r'l iiriiC i:h.dI'!l'l:ll.
ci-ct:rll i: l-r ll 'f iin o il Dl':et'il- t- '
't r-.s es gho'n:n on t]hn :-rcctrt--rDc1il)'i ng mao
aric liebris FL s',.r reitriew ljsi- t!rl 'l'ot'tn e'i
!lr:[rn .:l-!c.Een to be ci-tt o -i: s:rd tD tfiE'
The d;- i \,/e!{av tnitsi cni:er :\nd
-l-he i-*cl.: 'f al I art:ar i g ri'orc r''€vere 'Fltrthei' r'ltlet th;:ln 'thes;l 'i l.to
L: r-r i l cJi nq ':i tc:: ::.rlii i:ht-: .L ctw ol-t i:crcns *rbi:'ze t-heso :;i tes tri{n bel
il;r=ili, r;r-o'*t'ccC Di- o'tl:!:i't^Ji:;e irslrtr':11 i:;:d b e'c:rut:ge' 'r h tl1' 'tre tlri:r '--r'rr d
d:::Uon,cinLlDLi.:. ilrgr riict^ tl !-ra:--rl-dOLis t:ittrr-CpS mutch hiqhr-'r on thf.'
i,ilisi.d:. Hiii sh!-"d rnc--'t !.;, to ';ite y.rtr'=t. l::rl thcur,Sir niitilretion eit
tir,r' ilr:,rnesii L,.:-'.; is ei::isi b.i c i':hrcr-rq:h "r.aI i:: oi- l:t-'t-mi nr.i " it !::
r:!-.(]Ir.ttl:1. ), rr rr'i: uirr|- ;irl'tc:il iJLta:' to i:ht:' i(]t"l .:h;.rriCe oF t-Ockg r:1:"cflin.j
lLh11 s j.'::n::s. 0r".ltci-i:p r'ji:jr'l':: pt-ioi- l:ct cnns:'tlutctiorr t'':i I I [: l':
li en r.. l::i c t ;,t1 .
-f!ri g :i. g i.rr lr L oCaii On !\r:1sri- tt thi:: i-i tJEi], co:rt*i:ri ng|Liic.' r:cr"-tt-cs' c-!
r:cteni: j Ji {n11it-r,; r-i::l.ls, :.---, ,--rt ::ttcft s l cl't l. e're':i r'li th i-i:'cpei:t i:s
.l:hr,: iri..i:1.-.:l i-ili.:'i i-.rcl::9; i..:i 1i I-,:ri't..l. v :-r-lcl-t i:hl: :;j. i:c.E ^ i-.itd. j. l: L;,e..'
rjo., r.ri l1 l.r'lvr.: vt:i-.7 i i'i:,t1il ilrlerci',/. Fet,j t-titgi:Lbl.c' i-Llr:::::l ot:ql:i- .itl ir'/i'!
.'. r-.: -, -- i .F,1Lll,l:, ::..r. Ll:.
'i-ir i': can,;f-r-uic'; j.:tl"i c'I tir s:-t':: Lti.rj.::; t.'i j. 11 tror: j.ncrc-'agir {:;-r|.j :-'al:i'l'rj i: ii
atirei- pr-opc.:i--.t./ ci- s'i:rlrcti.ii-!1c., cr' 'to i;Lrh). ic r ! gf i'=-l-)'l: -!'l.ii)'r
br_ri lci ng::-. :^o.ldg, E-Lr.js'Lll . e.:i !:=,neil t -: ,' iii:i I i "; j. c",g c'y- '!;rCiJ.i:io:: cr-
ci:irl:r crir.,p!:r'Li es o f J:rny !::i l-t'j ' l-ut rle r-'--:;t.rte thl"'l: t:h:l :li t:e's arc"
noL i.ir i:hl= :ic:i.lt-i:: ,'tn::al-:i si-gelg '
Ii., i l:; t:rrgina.r..:r-irr(:: :5tr-t :i r.l5 .::il'cl t-: c.]c slri:ier- y ij'-is to i: lr er =i:eePneg.s o'f
.1, i-r.: Ij. Le.j. 1F therr: .:-rr L-,' q:-l[lErii i:r'::: pl eE'.Ec r:Er'ri'.ai:t' nie.
ili r. r r-r-.: r rr
'vilJ -h*;
l'licnora= L(r,pi;-i=
Con::utL ii na Oa.::i oni st
h
g
E
u
H
6
E
H
E
E
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f,
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
0185 INGERSOLL LANE
. srLT, coLoRADO 81652
(303) E7&54@ (24 HOURS)
Septamber 18. 1992
Steveir ,.GensI er
Far- kwoad lteal t y
5?99 DTC Bt..,d. i!50(i
cD BO11J.
-iract F-l:Li on 'er 11i dce Surbd i vi ci on
Deai- l'1'Lien gl er :
I hgrve rc.vie.uled the gs,'r,en nites as gl-rolrn cn 'ths 6rccol--psrryi np nis.l:
'f or purno'sus of Fiocl: iral I ,nnd Debr-i s fjL ow re.zi ew f crr tlre 'icl.,rn o',':Vail " Tie seven gi,te,e e.i-e out El+ '!i1e Ceb:-ig 'f an .rnri ch.l,nne'l .
A1 i o'l: tiro nor-ttr.:.i'nrnol;t ei tc.t anrj ;:ar-t= cl'F the nei{t tl.t,f ;:r'e t,ti il-ri n'tht! i'k:C j. iilrr lioc l:: FeI I ilarar-d (,jee alcccr'::::rnvi 5mg n:iiFi "
The rock 'l*i 1 c,1;- {:" c'l' i s aitore Eicverg 'l:urther nort-h i:h.1n tl"irj5e
bui Id j.n.=r =iilc,; on i;fre rthrlr :.:irJe o* T:"ac't Fl FJiiers-' ii, hr:: tirlsn
repcrrtec! i n a c,:ntajnn{lraneDul; L clti:er tl':Ert thr..r cs.tt bi:' eli:: i. l !'qr-trLrteiJ nr- a''!he.rr.,ri ze ner-r'ti-al i:e:ci b::.caruige '1.lr e'y er- e' 'thi n at:d
disconi:i;rLrc-.L(.i. Tire r'r: or- ur liai:ai-dor-ts cLltcrc:p.E tnuclr lri Ehc-"r r:n the
hiL1:;ide r,riI1 r:;heC flrostiy.'lo tne.r.rc.s*j. AI'tircurgh mitiga'iic:n at
ttre hone$i te:i' i s F$E:i: b1$ tfii-ELtgh waL L'r {:r bcrrti ng t : l: i !, nol:
r..,arranted cll-ri: to tl-ie I sr.l r:lrance a'f rocii'; re;l:hi na 'i:hi: ci'Lee.
The csns;truct'.i on o{ ihese, Lu-r i t!i tri L I n(]t irrci-eage the h*:': li;'iJ tcl
othc-;- p:-oner-'ty a;- .:tructLu-c.s ! or to puiblic ri6hi:s-c'i:*'."4.r-t
hr-ti i ili r'r[l!i 1 r- ilrds, r;treet'iy Grlse::1ont:;. r.iti].ities ,:ii- 'i:aci,iitie'.: st-
crthsr. pr-crpu-:-'i-i c..5 o,; arry irind. The. o'c h i...r- $i-i.e1:; ars n:tt it'l e:ither
o{ the he: Lrcl ni-ei1!i.
I'f ths'rc' are qu:=it:i ons DI E;ise cc'nta.ct i'rrl'.
EonELriting Ocolcgist
S00"38'56"W 455.06 feet; thence along said centerline N00"38'56"E 122.81 feet
to the southerly ROW line of l-70;thence departing said ROW line N66'53'25"E
39.15 feet;thence departing said ROW line S81'23'19"E 165.42 feet to a point
of curve; lhence 122.83 leet along the arc of a 143.20 foot radius curve to the
left, having a central angle of 49"08'51" and a chord lhat bears 515"57'45"E '
119.10 feet; thence 540"32'10"E 3.00 feet; thence 66.30 feet along the arc of a
77.21 lool radius curve to the right, having a central angle of 49"12'10" and a
chord lhat bears 515'56'05'E 64.28 feet; thence S8"40'00"W 90.27 feet; thence
N38'42'24'W 224.55 feet; thence S78"10'32"W 101.44 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
MECM Enterprises, lnc. represented by Michael Laulerbach
Jim Curnutte
D'
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
8.
TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 25, 1993
Chuck Crist motioned to table the request with Dalton Williams seconding the motion
and a unanimous vote ol 6-0 tabled the request until January 25, 1993.
A request for a proposed SDD and mlnor subdlvlslon to allow lor the
development of slngle family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley,
Phase |Yl480 Buffer Creek Rd.
Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty
Andy Knudtsen
Chuck Crist abstained from this request due to a potential conflict of interest.
Andy Knudtsen reviewed the request stating that there were lhree deviations from the
code.
Tom Braun, representing the applicant, gave a brief presentation. He emphasized that
the applicant did not want to request additional GRFA and would be doing further
research before the final hearing regarding that issue.
Public Input
Neighborhood input was then requested and the first speaker was Brian Doolan. He
requested that the applicant look into the various Fire Department requirements and
come up with an alternative design.
Steve Lindstrom spoke second, discussing the differences between the County
approval and the proposed plan. He specifically requested that the PEC require Mr.
Gensler to reduce the amount of asphalt in his design.
Plannlng and Envlronmental Commission
January 11,1993
! Sally Brainerd spoke next and described the sections that she had drawn in a prepared
" ' ' report done by RKD, lnc. The Planning Commission discussed with her some of the'' details of the drawings, specitically trying io understand the amount of fill that would be
': located at the lower end of the proposed road.
Sherry Donryard was the last neighbor to speak and she requested that the PEC
require the applicanl to maintain the character of the area. She described aspects of':: The Valley and requested that some of these characleristics be included in the new
design.
The PEC decided lo discuss the upper development area first. Greg Amsden said that
interesting architecture was the key to an attractive develgpment. He said that 3,600
square feet of GRFA was quite a bit for that lot. He said that he was concerned about
lhe terracing that would be required with a development in the upper area, He said
that it should be kept at a minimum. He said he wanted to see specific aspects of lhe
design at this time prior to any decision on the request. These would include garage
entries, the automobile turnaround area tor each home, the parking area outside the
garage, and the access to and from each building envelope.
Dallon Williams advised the applicant to be very careful given the steepness of the
slope. He said that lhe square footage of the structures was an issue but the major
isbues to him were nailing down grading, cut and fill, and design review issues for the
two homes. He also said that the character of the local area should be preserved.
Gena Whitten said that she was concerned about the engineering that would be
required for building on a slope like this. She said she wanted to see the details of lhe
driveway, the turnaround areas, the slope retention, as well as hazard mitigation.
Jetf Bowen said that he concurred with the comments that had been stated.
Diana Donovan said that design restrictions for these lots was a good idea. She also
said that the two envelopes should be moved together as well as shifted to the east.
Lower Develooment Area
Concerning the lower development area, Jefl Bowen began the discussion by saying
that putting garages in these homes was a good idea and that most homes in Vail
need garages. He continued by saying that the mature evergreen trees should be
saved. He also said that the amount of grading proposed was a problem, especially
on the west end. Concerning the fact that all of the proposed homes are single family,' he suggested that clustering a few as duplexes would help the site plan.
Gena Whitten concurred with Jeff's comments and emphasized that the development
Plannlng and Envlronmental Commlsslon
January 11,1993
a
should be clustered. She said that by clustering, some asphalt could be eliminated
and the amount of grading needed could be reduced. She said that saving the trees
was very important. Reducing the size of the units, combining driveways, and
shortening the length of the access road by clustering would all benefit the plan.
Dalton Williams emphasized that he wanted to see the trees saved. He said that too
much of the vegetation would be destroyed. He also said that the design should be in
character with the existing area. He also requested that the applicant set the buiHings
into the hillside to make them look smaller.
Greg Amsden said that the asphalt coverage should be decreased and that this could
be done by reducing the width of the road. In his own experience with the
development review process, he negotiated with the Fire Department to sprinkle the
structures and in turn, was able to reduce the width of the-drive significantly. He said
that this may also help to save trees, which was an imporlant issue to him. He said
the square lootage ot the homes was not a problem but that they should be worked
into the hillside.
Diana Donovan referred back to page four of the staff memo. She said that the units
should be clustered, that they should share common drives and yards, and that they
should be designed to save the vegelation around the development. She said thal the
asphalt should be reduced and that the mature vegetation should be saved. In
general, she believed that the units should be clustered closer together at the top of
the site to preserve the rest of the site. She concluded by saying that since this is one
phase ol a multi phase project, the existing neighborhood should definitely be
considered in the review of this project.
Greg Amsden added a last point and received general concurrence from the PEC that
the single family style of development was not an issue. However, he emphasized that
issues such as grading, tree preservation, clustering would all have to be resolved and
the design improved before the PEC could support the plan.
Review of staff policy on vending carts (ie. espresso carts).
Staff: Tim Devlin
Tim Devlin reviewed the Town's policy on vending carls per the staff memo.
Diana Donovan said that she supports the staff memo.
Public Comments:
Susan Fritz. the Vice President of the Restaurant Association and the owner of lhe
Uptown Grill, inquired about the possibility of having an espresso cart at her restaurant.
Plannlng and Environmental Commisslon
January 11,1993
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Q,,- "-
y'/z L*
/) J,,1
l) s,,/".)
riK-
CommunityDevelopmentDepartment 5) /,.../,1 .,\ ( i)1,<v,<-
April 26, 1993 7 h '4<1'<- \
Staff comments made slnce April 12, 1993 are made In bold / / / t'
,
rur, ,(, ,t.rr^ .r_
A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision lo allow for the '-''" r )/, ,?
development of single iamily homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, -' -av
tz "J 1,..,,
Plannino and Environmental Commission
Phase lll1480 Buffer Creek Rd.
Applicant:
Planner:
Sleve Gensler/Parkwood Realty I t /
Andy Knudtsen n ") irL'^t'[ 1 c "v'-) ,
7,, .{
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to modify an Eagle County approved development plan located on
either side of Buffer Creek Road in Phase ll of "The Valley". The site is made up of an upper
and lower area. The reason the applicant is applying for an SDD is to allow:
1. Development to be located on slopes greater than 40%;2. A 10 foot setback for building A in the lower development area where 20 feet is
required.3. Walls, 4 feet in height, to be built in the front selback of the upper development area
which exceed the height limit by 1 foot; and4. A lot to be created in the upper development area which does not meet the minimum
buildable area for this zone district:
In conjunction with the Special Development District request, the applicant has submitted a
minor subdivision proposal. The minor subdivision rvould create lots for the two single farrily
homes on the upper development area and distinguish the lower development area frcrn
the other phases of development in The Valley. The applicant will use the single family
subdivision process in the lower development area and to sell off individual houses as they
are constructed.
Lower development area descriDtion
The lower development area is proposed to have 7 single family homes. These will be
located on either side of a private access road. The proposed access road descends from
Buffer Creek Road at an 8% slope. The road is intended lo be 22 feet wide and will provide
automobile access to garages in each home. There will be a fire truck turn-around located at
the botlom of the road. The seven homes in this area will have a GFIFA which ranges from
approximately 1,700 square leet to approximately 2,200 square feet. In addition to this square
footage, each home will have a two-car garage. The ridge heights for the proposed homes
range from 27 teet to 30 feet.
Uooer development area descriotion
The upper development area is designed at this time to include two single family homes,
which each have their respective building envelopes. There would be a total of two single
family homes in the upper development area. For the western site, there will be a building
envelope of 3,000 square feet and a proposed GRFA of 3,252 square teet. The eastern
building envelope will be 2,346 square feet in size and is intended to have 2,900 square feet
of GRFA. Access to these parcels is proposed to be from a 16-foot wide shared driveway.
II. BACKGROUND
The proposed development plan is part of the second phase of The Valley. The six different
phases of The Valley were approved in Eagle County in the late 19^70's and the early 1980's.
On June 3, 1980, the County approved32,909 square feet of GRFA and 26 dwelling units for
Phase ll. Some of this development potential has already been used in the Grouse Glen and
Bu{fer Creek Townhouse developments. Since the County approval, the area has been
annexed into the Town of Vail. The ordinance annexing this area (Ordinance 13, Series of
1981) includes a provision recognizing the County approval. The Ordinance states that any
significant changes to the previously approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the
Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission.
The Eagle County approved plans dated June 3, 1980 provide a benchmark for evaluating the
proposed development statistics. Since the original approval, there has been partial
development of the site. Grouse Glen has been constructed, consisting of six dwelling units
and 6,233.8 square feet of the GRFA. In 1991, Jack Snow completed construction on five
existing foundations which are now called the Bulfer Creek Townhomes. This development
consisled of five dwelling units and 7,208.9 square feet of GRFA. The remaining
development potential includes 15 dwelling units and 19,466.3 square feet of GRFA available
for Steve Gensler to use on the rest of the site.
The following table
Eagle
County
APProval
26 DU's
summarizes this information:
6 DU's
6,233.8 sq. ft.
Grouse
Glen
Buffer
Creek
Townhouses
5 DU'S
7,208.9 sq. ft.
Remaining
Development
Potential
15 DU's
19,466.3 sq. ft.32,909 sq. ft.
The Eagle County approved plans for the lower development area consisted of a centralized
parking area at the top of the site, with walking paths to the dwelling units. There was no
automobile access to any of the units, and as a result, there were no garages. The units were
two to three stories in height (24'to 30') and ranged from 924 to 1400 square feet of GRFA.
The proposed development for the upper area consisted of five dwelling units, similar in
design to The Valley Townhomes. There was no parking in this area, other than a "pull-out"
area off the north side of Buffehr Creek Road. lt is important to note that the County, approved plans for the upper area located the units partially on slopes greater than 40%. .:
OnJanuary 11,1993, June24,1991, Decemberg, 1991, and Oecember 16, 1991, the PEC
reviewed very similar plans to the current proposal. Steve Gensler was the applicant at that
time, also. During the 1991 review of this project, it was determined lhat the proposal
involved four departures from Town of Vail zoning standards. Because of these departures,
tne applicant has applied for an SDD. :
r
NINolo
=. t!,t t5Y tclIl>l=lat
t<lolt tooano.(DJg
ocI(D
a-o
a!)
3sd d q 3 F g 9 d g€eE- n a * 6_ F 9 * .I'ffga=: R'a= ng;=iico (o € d 5 t-
l:> s .i' d 596 or< ro t6 =aI *
f,
N.r (O
Fi F F
O
IflF aEsv= 9 g.$: lglg";i'=E ls_a9:<a-
bb 5 { o Ni1 ' { gr {Nr io a ,'@o S R c.)XgeFq :a;
-:- : c,)
= -co
IO
v,I
=
bb o) ...1 o) q, o, N'i 'i ' { o) c0 :oNr .4 \oo\ - 9.o C,)@o ^ Ea; I E F= ;e8ea;i's9.= o'o)
=(tA
U'A^-o;.
@ o) o, c) Jtu l\t
5 ;e x ' .;j ;e iuo o N) Ad o R'I; tn 32 ; n{o,9'o f9 -ut =(, (tl
ltnaO)E(noP€9i{=
=atr-
aqq)q,
R q ts s I lN: a .F.q d l9lg- ; f € $E.d F -er El6' i H .8= : frj El: t
tu o * Pa 16 l@'S : -E F"'- lE lsX 8a'l lnt'. I 96! O.r,- -- Feo.o
Elt,oo.
{t i,oF;e9q
P
!9\FTo) i,.tF#
'-
:id 5 E9>>(D O -t=pf;i 3 si
aci E. fi€3ru F 3sl=1. '" 7
=(oeg A N oo-cl 6 !u LnH-. (D J roa-- \o o- re7 y! o5(e a, o ro
=
f - _^="-t*o3 F il 'HA
a; co q=^ vt -oi:. € =A! F '1(DE I Isl
='A3a oa4
NF ru @o
= It iuaa >q5>vL 9e- .r stc^) c., tt\) in o'ia FP:- oroo,5ra6 a\''=
dBg
(D
=:o,q)(ttPtb It5t= bHE;FL= $
IE latYt Iaolq, f.-s J-r-
flEg
",*R;'olo P8tE 5
tFtd i|"=iElg 'r'!'
lFj
(o(o-@
O)
g,
*
t
I
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
++t+*lf,Elf,oRANDUU****+
Andy Knudtsen r\,\Dick Duran. Fire Chief rJtw
March 26. 1993
Upper bench of The Valley, Phase II
*+++++a++**
I just read your memo of 3/24/93, and think you overlooked a few items
we discussed during our phone conversation. T?re following is what I said we
would agree to:
1. A 16' driveway with driveable surface to be maintained year-round.
By this we mezul width maintenance.
2. The two single-family residences must be sprinklered and the
sprinkler system must be monitored.
I then said, 'We would need a truck turn-around."
You responded that "Tom Braun was not aware of the turn-around
requirement."
I said I would speak with McGee and ask about his conversation witl. Mr.
Braun. Upon my questioning McGee this morning, he advised me that he advised
Mr. Braun about the turn-around and gave him a copy of our Design Criteria and
Code Requirements (attached).
It appears we need to meet with Tom Braun and find a solution.
cc; Mike McGee, Fire Marshal
#e!ru's nctte-D5eld o-|+xcf UW
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vailwill hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail on March 22,1993, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
1. lndian Creek Townhomes - A request for a minor subdivision to vacate the lot line
between Lots A-1 andA-2, Lions Ridge Subdivision/1 129 and 1109 Sandstone Drive.
Applicant: Michael Lauterbach/The Reinforced Earth Co.
Planner: Shelly Mello
2. A request for setback and wall height variances lo add a garage to an existing
residence, located at Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing/716 Forest Road'
Applicant: Neal EricksonPlanner: Tim Devlin
3. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an "employee housing unit" on Lot
41, Glen Lyon Subdivisionll2l2 Westhaven Lane.
\
Applicant: Larry GracePlanner: Andy Knudtsen
A requesl for a proposed SDD and minor suMivision to allow for the development of
single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase ll/1480 Buffer Creek
Rd.
Applicant: SteveGensler/ParkwoodRealtyPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
5. A request for a wall height variance to allow the construction of hazard mitigation
located at Lot 16, Vail Valley Third Filing/2039 Sunburst Drive.
Applicant: Mike GrisantiPlanner: Jim Curnutte
#
N.V. Elenial
P.O. Box 309
Ponte Veria Beach, FL 32004
Todd Keleske
4840 Meadow Lane, #A
Vail, CO 81657
Glenn and Barlcara Barnard
4500 South Downing
Englewood, CO 80110
Tom Fitch
The Valley
P.O. Box 3176
Vail, CO 81658
Steve Gensler and Robert Ullman
Parkview Realty, Inc.
5239 DTC Blvd., Suite 500
Englewood, CO 80111
Ron Artinian
Snowram Assoc.
5 Bristol Drive
Manhasset, NY ''|1030
Ronald W. Crotzer
1460 Ridge Lane
Vail, CO 81557
Mervyn Lapin
232W. Meadow Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Peter Feistman
The Super Association
P.O. Box 3176
Vail, CO 81658
Brian Doolan
P.O. Box 2182
Vail, CO 81658
Charles A. Dill
807 S. Warson
St. Louis, MO 63124
F. Scott and Roslynn Nicholas
825 Nichollett Mall
221 Medical Arts Building
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Ronna J. Flaum
P.O. Box 309
Pointe Verdan Beach, FL 32004
Charles and Margaret Rosenquist
P.O. Box 686
Vail, CO 81658
U.S. Forest Service
P.O. Box 190
Minturn, CO 81645
Bf aelo3 -,*U St-I-f cr{-t $lt
A
-
THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTYt\
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vailwill hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail on April 12, 1993, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
1. A request for a work session for the establishment of a Special Development District, a
CCI exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, a zone change, and an amendment to
View Corridor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Boad/Lots A, B,
C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc.A/ail Associates,
3
*
Planner:
Inc./Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc.
Mike Mollica/Tim Devlin TABLED TO MAY 24, 1993
2. A request for a setback variance, at the Manor Vail Lodge to allow the construction of
a trash enclosure, located on a Part of Lot 1, Block B, Vail Village Seventh Filing/595
East Vail Valley Drive.
Applicant: Manor Vail Lodge
Planner:Andy Knudtsen
. A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of
single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase ll/1480 Bulfer Creek
Hd.
Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty
Planner:Andy Knudtsen
4. A request for setback and site coverage variances to allow for the construction of an
addition and a garage located at2409 Chamonix Road/Lot 19, Block A, Vail das
Schone Filing No. 1.
Applicant: Anneliese Taylor
Planner:Shelly Mello
5. A request for a conditional use permit to allow the expansion of the Dobson lce Arena,
located at 321 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail/Lionshead 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Vail Becreation District
Planner:Tim Devlin
6. A request for a setback variance, a stream setback variance, and a density variance to
allow for an addition to the residence located at 2129-B Kel-gar Lane/Lot 13, Block 2,
Gore Creek Subdivision.
Applicant: Bryan and Sally HobbsPlanner: Jim Curnutte
7. A request for an exterior alteration to allow for the expansion of the American Ski
Exchange located at 255 Wall StreeVBlock 5-C, Vail Village, 1st Filing.
Applicant: Robert LazierPlanner: Mike Mollica
8. A request for a minor subdivision to vacate the lot line between Lots A-1 and A-2, a
request for a variance lrom the subdivision road standards, and variance from the wall
height standards at Lions Bidge Subdivision/1139 and 1109 Sandstone Drive.
Applicant: Michael Lauterbach/The Reinforced Earth Co.Planner: Shelly Mello
9. A request for a wall height variance to allow the construction of a hazard mitigation
wall located at Lot 16, Vail Valley Third Filing/2039 Sunburst Drive.
Applicant: Mike GrisantiPlanner: Jim Curnutte
10. A request for wall height variances in order to construct a driveway to a new
primary/secondary residence located at 2683 Cortina Lane/Lot 7, Block A, Vail Ridge.
Applicant: Cortina Joint Venture - Bob BornePlanner: Tim Devlin
11. A request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 27 to relocate the private pedestrian
easement ("pool path") between Lots 5 and 6, Forest Glen Subdivision.
Applicant: RAD Five Limited Liability CompanyPlanner: Tim Devlin
f:Nicholas Lampiris, tn.O.O'
Steven Gengl er
Parkurnod ReaI ty$?99 DTC FL vd , fi Sr)t..r
EnqI er,rood , trO B()1 t 1
FIE: Tr.rct F'lr Lion's
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
0185 INGERSOLL I.ANE
slLT. coLoRADO 816s2
(303) 87654@ €1 HOUBS)
January ??, 1Fb-S
Ridge Surbdivi::ion
Dea:. l'lr " lienel er:
I harre bee,n asked tc, cl ar-i f ymitig,rtion I sr.r!qe=ted in myoF t rlc mitigatirn techni qlrer,
..i
rny, position on the
Slre:r.ri cuts I ettc:r.
ie in nrder-.
roc l:f aI L
I bel i eve tlrat one
Orrtl p.lstibility is; to either- gcale ar gr-ourt loose rocl::s in tlr.=
I rlr.r r:lrtcrc..,p rJi rec.lI,.v ab',ve the s:i.resl better- is to con=.trr-rct t ir r.::rersr *ourndation tvsl I n.f tl":e bt.ri lclings to pr-r:trtrde ":t I e-rst thr-ee
'F e,et'. ab ot,r': 'Fi ni sh r=.-,Ll graclr: and tn lr,:rve nrr Fri.nrJsulg i rrLhi s i ntc:rval
( f i-ein gt-ot.tnd level to the h.op of;the sitelin r.ra11). This r.r,sI1ghr-rlt1d h;rve ,a stt-r:-nqt ih o.F a.t I east StlrrJ poLlndg per sqL!.are f na'h.'1'hi r r,",r.eI l. t.t':i-rl cl al.:rr.J i,"rc t to prot:ec{: the horre in 'lh,e Evr:lnt iri,)r.r
tih c"rt..rl cl s;.1 i de lrp ;..t;,:. i ns.1: tl''!:, h c!ir'r.:."
Ii; l:trct-tl *rr'(:1 {. t.trtl'ta-,i- CLte-!;t- i '-i;1ii Lll:"lnsE c ctt-r i:,:h{: t iir,a "
lf i lrsr--.;' r-: L r'./nru4;
i'.li i:!rc 1 ,=.= l-i,-r,rri.r'-i.r:
Ccrs.Lt:L l:i nn SEro.l rrai. si:
It
I
I
I
I
I
t
n
3
I
I
t
r
E
I
t
t
I
I
Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
0185 INGEBSOLL I-ANE
srLT. coLoRAOO 81652
(303) 87+5400 P4 Hou8s)
Septci'ri:e:r- 1O, I:/9?
Stevu'n tlerrs L e"l t-
[1ar- i,:i.rsod Fiea] i1'
5i'7? IITC El vd : +i5O(1
Iingl e-i.rooC r CO 80111
RE: Tr-qct A' (,-ion's Fiidc-ie i:ii-tbtiivj.sion
Ilear- l'l:- . tierrsl e'l-;
I h n\,r-i r- c.r.:i ,=t.,,ed j;hi: 'L'rlo =.i'tt-"1: gg Ehoi,"n nrt th: :lccor;trc-ri1)'i ng inao
for p iri- p n.s L:;--r o-t i-:oc [: l:jcr11 ;lr,c i]ebris F.l a',.r r-e.zi e l'.J '::gi- ther 'l'ot'ln e'r
\1ili i. Ttri,l tr'uo 9i'css fi $\'s? lf (:€rn ci-rG':E:n i: c-.r bc' ci-tt o'i *''nd tr: 'Lhtl
ulr.: s.i: o.i: tlri:l d'::F;i-i:i -::e.n eii,j i:h.-:,1',rr::-.|. . Tlrc"' di- j \,,ilr'Ja-Y (nLlst cntcf srnd
ci-ii':r!r 'i:he f ;ln , hn'';el'eF '
-l-he ;-t-;cl.l {a11 arsa ig rrr.rr- E! .:rr:.\,ei- € *:ltrtlrcli- l.'Josi: thiln 'th*s:l 'i trlt:
bltilcling .]iti.ls e.r'l ij i:he 1ow ()it l-crcD5 ;ibilve thL":ie ::ites ':.Ln bc
t:r;rgi l!;, r.,ir- o'-t'c eC oi- cr't h r:'l- rt i se ni:urtr':'.1 i:ild !tsc:tutgo 'ihi=y a:-e 'thi:r arrJ
d:scsntinLloLiE. Tlrs: nc;-e ha:!-it-dDLis cittc:-cpt: nrutch l-righF;r on thi:
hilisidt:. l.li i j Eir::.ij rrrog't11, to i:ire ri:;"='t. l:iltli{:lt.llJii ilii iir.l:"i 3n €it
tire l'l r;;ncls; i te',:: i:-r Do'.:.;gi bi,r i:hr-cr-rc;h i'l.e l. i:; oi- l:t:i-nti n
'-.1 " :''i: i'!
r::-at:ltb.r.i, nc,i: r.l:.r r. r- arrt c: tl c r-r::: to'the lotr ch;...ricc cii t-or:i,:': i-=:'.chin'i
th€ ...ii';r.rs,, Etitci-ilp l':li-k ;:rl-:i. o;- i: ct cr:r'l:-':trlti:ti orl 'ri11 L; r':
i:rlnn'1: i c:i ;lI .
-fl.ri,.-, :,. r.:. i. lr i,. locat-iL:['1 i\::1':ri- (j '1. i-, i.i i':irJ.;i:, cc:tLliiri rrg 'i:iicl :cr'-'t't::': c'-1'
r:sterrti.-,.i {:rll irr,l t-,:rlls, j':; a1: st-tch .r 1l:l't i.*'rt:i rlith r- *:'=p e'::t 1c
.l.hr.: r, i. 'i't-...:ri, 'i-. ir;,r'i-. i-ncl::::, i..:! 1i r,'ri-r,:iv l- L'::rc h i:- h r': '.;ii:c'g" ;-.n d I j. l: ti'el"'
rlo. t.l:i j. I !-lavrj ',,, l' i- 't, i i'l:t1!l illll.lr'8'/. l:et': t-ti',g{::rb l. e i-ur,::i':= oCClir :ibf,;'/i+
tlr.-r s 1..i.'t(.1 ' :.i
j'ir i,r c an,;i i- uic ': i 3t"i c'f tire':ir Ltni'tl'j r'.r:i. I1 not: irlc:t't,lase: i:'-,..n l-ia:": iil'd i:o
gtiri".i- ;:i-o1:ei'l:.1 ci- g{:rLrcti.ii"e:l., -v' l:o l;itbl. ic riqti't-g-l-}i;-t':'.iyt
blri I. ci ng.:::.. r[]erJs, :=-.i;i-.=:...i't!:. (:.113=.|Iien{:5-., Lii'.i I i '; j. r:: s ot- 'iirc'i J j:i:i c:l *v-
r:j'i:i-r.l:'" pi-i:p::r'ti i35 ..r'f iiriy !,: :i ni. i-t:i'i tn'.i 7-:-a:ttate tha'l'- i:h* :!i i:e5 at'L,.
rrcli l iri:irll :ic:i::t'i !: '\e::i.,'I-d a;" r': !t'L'
t:;il i L :; engi rrctlr'! nc :;tcrdi es
'L i-' ij I:j.'::c5. Ii tiiclrc' srr'€:
.r.r(r f'!ecilsisat-y tJ'*i'e to tlre si:eePneg.': o't
ri i-:.e I'rj' i. o:::: p3.ea.E,c cor',tir;'t nie.
ConerlL t i n,,-r Ge::ic.'Pi st
TOWN OFVAIL
75 Soutb Frontage Road
Vtil, Colorado 81657
3 0 t -479 -21 3 I / 47 9-21 39
FILE COPY
Departnent of Community Deoclopmcnt
January 20, 1993
Mr. Tom Braun
Peter Jamar and Associates, Inc.
108 S. Frontage Road, Suite 204
Vail, CO 81658
FAX number-179-0467
RE: The Valley, Phase 1l
Dear Tom:
Since I met with you, Jay Peterson, and Kristan Pritz on Monday of this week, I have spoken
with Greg Hall and Mike McGee and have found out the specific issues involved with their
requests. Below is a detailed list of their concerns as well as discussion of some of the items
we covered in our meeting.
, , t '|*'-"^lL r
Fire Deoartment Concerns: , I ,.,i'
, ., 1- ,,".n.
,/' l1. r' Please provide fire flow calculations. These may be provided by either an engineer or
the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District. These calculations are needed
to determine how many fire hydrants will be required as well as their locations.
2. -/ Please show the existing fire hydrant locations.
f}Q. For the upper development area, please show a proposed pedestrian accesst-\
t^\N','\ 1
I
\
connecting a hypothetical staging area on Buffer Creek Road to the building
envelopes. Please provide speci{ic drawings showing how a pedestrian access would
cross the ditch and go through the retaining walls that are located adjacent to the road.
Public Works Concerns:
1. I i tnere is an existing forty-two inch diameter culvert that is shown within the existingI utility easement. This culvert actually extends further to the east than what is identified
and it should be shown on the survey.
2. 1n{On the site plan, identify the specific swales that will convey drainage for both off-site- - and on-site flows. This conveyance route should tie into the natural drainage swale at
on top of the property to the west.
" !
3. 1 , Once the drainage swales have been identified, easemelts should be created for' them. This may, in some cases, align with the existing utility easement. In other
cases, the drainage appears to flow outside the easement and new easements will
need to be defined. \ , /'-' i <
4. , Please ask your drainage engineer to contact Greg Hall so that he can finalize the
report. Greg had some detailed questions that need to be answered by the engineer.
5. ,'Greg Hall requests that the existing road alignment, specifically the two angles within
the alignment, be made curved to better accommodate traflic.
6. Driveways at two locations (building envelopes A and E) have slopes at approximately
ten and twenty percent. Please revise lo a maximum of eight percent.
7. ,1. l* - Please show how the retaining walls can handle drainage running over them.
8. Revise all finished grades to a maximum slope ol 2:1.
Minor Subdivision lssues:
Mike Brake has reviewed the plat and has the following comments:
t. i ,l fne iltle of the plat should reflect a new name for the development and should list the
former platting information below that. Currently, only the former platting information is
shown.
2. i[ The Town believes that lhe overlap of Tract A onto the Buffehr Creek Road right-of-
way is not valid and that the plat should be amended to show that there is no claim to
the Town's right-of-waY.
Letter to Mr. Tom Braun
January 21, 1993
3.ldentify the legal descriptions fora) west of Tract A-1,b) north of Tracts A-1c) east of Tract B-2.
monument will be set
PT of curve 1,
PC of curve 4.
/,
adjacent properties at the following locations:
and A-2,
,r/haredb.
Give a complete description of what monument was found at the N1/4 corner of
Section 12.
Show what
a)
b)
ldentify, on
driveway.
at the following locations:
the plat, the access easements for the
Hazards:
Please provide site plans showing
the upper and lower development
€pplied_lo_Ihe-su bdivision plat. . I n
mitigation. We would like to know
they are needed or not.
Ownershio lnformation :
f,;lease provide documentation from the Crossview Properties, Ltd. Partnership showing whov' has the authority to sign development applications. Also, please provide documentation
showing who holds the remaining 1/1 0 interest in the property under review. Please have
Steve Gensler sign the Minor Subdivision Application. r;.
The concerns listed above are technical in nature and need to be addressed prior to
publishing this request for a Planning and Environmental Commission hearing. There are also
other concerns that the four of us discussed in our meeting earlier this week which involve
. ' ,,tV t
; '( )\
,^, rll ir' '
private road and private s
\
the extent of both rock fall and debris flow hazards for both \ :
areas. These graphic representatio-nq ryilLne-gd-lS-qe r,l ' . (
=_ _'
-
addition, pleaSe have Mr. Lampiris discuss hazard A " )
the detailed options available to the developer and whetherl ..,. { 1,.
I -- c''"' i
. . (""
o
Letter.td Mr, Tom Braun
Janu{ry 21, 1993
\___--
design concepts. I understand that we may have less agreement on these issues; however,
in an attempt to keep track of our discussions, I have identified the recommendations the staff
is making regarding the design for both development areas at this time.
Uooer Develoomenl Areal
1. Shift both building envelopes to the east as we agreed during our site visit on
Wednesday, January 20, 1993. We understand that the eastern envelope will be
shifted ten feet and the western envelope would be shifted a total of 30 feet to the
east. Thirty feet would exist between the two envelopes.
Z. ,r/ Aeauce the size of each building envelope by shifting the northern envelope boundary
to the south by ten feet.
Provide cross sections of the road identifying all retaining walls {hat are needed.
ldentify the garage locations for both building envelopes--_
ldentify the elevation of the garage slabs for both building envelopes.
Show the parking, turning and backing area for each garage.
Put the language on the site plan (and eventually on the plat, once the PEC has
approved the concept) stating that the finished grade of the proposed development
shall not differ from the existing grade by more than four feet at the perimeter of the
foundation and shall not differ from existing grade more than one foot at any location
eight feet from the foundation.
3.
'At.'
.5.
,6.
7. "
Lower Development Area
The staff continues to believe that the PEC's comments about the impacts should be
considered and that some redesign is warranted. We believe that the mature evergreen trees
should be preserved as much as possible. We would like to see the amount of fill required for
the road reduced, and we ask that you look at clustering the homes so the struclures work
into the hillside better and are more compatible with the surrounding character of the
neighborhood. Staff will proved copies of the PEC minutes to further clarify the issues once
they have been approved.
o
Letter to Mr. Tom Braun
January 21, 1993
Process
As we discussed, the statf is expecting that revised plans and lhe answers to these questions
would be submitted two weeks prior to a Planning and Environmental Commission meeting.
This will provide staff with enough time to route the information to the other departmenls and
verify that the concerns raised by other sta{f members, as well as the PEC, have been
addressed.
We have tried to be thorough in this list of issues. We hope that wilh this kind of
documentation, our communication will be as clear as possible. Thanks again for meeting us
on the site to look at Tract A. lt was very helpful. Once you get the survey of the evergreens,
we would like to look at Tract B. lf you would like to discuss this letter in more detail, please
call me at 479-2138.
&4Andy Knudtsdn
Town Planner
Jay Peterson
/\l1
{,j."] - /
f
;
:rl
i
I
i
I /-
I
I
I t-
II
i
Ij-
I
-I
I
-r
II
:
I
FF-
I
/
-
*m"THTliffL!il^,
lox 37t, YAtt cotoRAllo, !165t 90il a?etr2t
RESPONSE TO PROPOSAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT'REPORT
-and
CONSTRUCTION IMPACT STUDY
Tract B, Parcel A, Lionsridge Filing 1
Vail Colorado
prepared for the Homeowner Associations of the Val:ey and the Grouse Glen
Condominiums
January 9, 1993
ot
RI(g AND KRT'SEN DESIGN
ARt IIIECTURE AND DEIIELOPMENT
lox J3r& yAIt, cotoRADo. n6$ wt ctgzt
Responsa to Proposal and
Environmental lmpact Report
Tract B, Parcel A, Uonsridge Loop, Vail, Colorado
January 7, 1993
Aooroach
This document is a direct response to the proposalentitled Crossview at
Vail. Soecial Develooment District and Environmental lmoact Reoort,
prepared by Peter Jamar Associates, December, 1992. We do not
believe that the author and client of this document meant to intentionally
mislead the Town of Vail Staff, but there are certain areas where we
would like to add to, or rebut, their statements.
Relationshio to SDD Desion Criteria
We have the following responses to the nine SDD Design Criteria:
A. Design compat:bility and sensitivity to the immediate environment,
neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural
design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity,
character, visual integrity and orientation.
Resoonse:
While the overall GRFA of the proposed project is similar to the
existing proposal. The identiw and orientation are vastly different
(due to the roadl. The design of the buildings proposed for Tract
B are clearly llcomoatible with the scale and bulk of the buildings
found on the adjacent site. The remainder of the development is -composed of a community of small Townhomes and
Condominiums.
B.No Response.
c.
D.
t;
No Response.
Conformity with applicable element of the Vail Comprehensive
Plan, town policies, and urban design plans.
Resoonse:
The applicantstates: "The development plan fcr Crossview at Vail
is based on the premise that market demand is for single-family
homes and not the multi-family cluster development concept
reflected in the County approved plans." Of the two closest
developments: Buffehr CreekTownhomes (a contiguous property)
and Buffehr Creek Chalets (used as an example by the applicant);
the former had all five units under contract w:thin one month of
completion, while the laner has sold just one of three in close to
two years.
No Response.
Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions
designed to produce a functional development resoonsive and
sensitive to natural features, veoetation anri overall aesthetic
oualitv of the communitv.
Resoonse:
The question of the insensitive approach is best dealt with in the
Construction impact study; however there are in several areas in
the applicants response we must take excepticn to. The applicant
justifies the hillside approach design by sta:ing: This solution
represents a far more sensitive site planning alternative than
spreading development and roads throughout the site." True
enough. This insensitive design is indeed better than an even less
sensitive design. The.main point of the homecwners contention
is thatdtrere are a number of other far more sensitive development
alternajtives. The existing plan is just one example. The argument
that the county plan requires a large parkir'g lot is no longer
applicable; The 44 space parking lot was to serve The Ridge at
Vail and the Aspen Grove Homes units, this is no longer
necessary. The required parking for the site will be determined by
the new development's density. The reduction of the parking load
should be viewed as an opportunity to in:prove an existing
successf ul development.
Functional and aesthetic landscaping and oper space in order to
optimize and preserve natural features, recr3ation, views and
function.
E.
F.
t
I
/
H.
Resoonse:
ifri-ilfrc"nt again uses in unneeded parking lot as an example.
ln faa, if this were measured against the needed parking the
paveO surfaces increase from 9,993 square feet to 1 1,300 square
ieet. Furthermore, the imp€rvious surface increases from 15'408
to 21,08O square feet.
OTHER AREAS OF CONCERN WITHIN THE REPORI
Page three: "lmportant Elements of the Proposal"; Paragraph Four'
we tate excepiion to the statement that "u:rits on tract B have
been sited to minimize impacts on mature vegetation and the
steepestportionsofthesite..Wefee|theconstruction|mpact
study and the cross_sections clearly show this to be false.
Lower DeveloPment Area (tract Bl
D. ldentify on the site plan all trees which will be saved' The plans
donotappeartodistinguishbetweenexistingandproposedtrees.
Please make this distinction.
Resoonse:
The applicant respond that"...the vast majority of the heavily
woodedhi|lsideuphi|lfromunitsA,B,andCwillbeundisturbed
during construction." The site plan me:y show this' but
unfortunatelytherealtiesofconstructionwi||notpermitthis.The
section through building "C" allows for a 24" uphill leg of the
footinganda24"|orthesettingofform-work.Bothofthese
assumptions are absolute minimums for such .a hillside' The
disturbance is then drawn at a 111 slope. This clearly illustrates
site destruction to, and most likely beyond, the property line'
C. Please reconsider the aesthetic appearance of the shingles to be
put on the sides of the proposed homes' \['e believe it would be
more posltive if the'homes reflect more of the "Valley"
architecture in style and materials'
ELesoonse:ffio-|' completely with the commer.t and feel that in a
broader sense the proposed proiect should be pan of the "Valley"
i..-t tn. area incompasing The Valley Condominiums' The
l.r,"i^- Valley Condomin-ums, and the ' Grouse Glen
Condominiums) community as in architecture' planning' and
character.
ro
RICS AND IRUSEN DESIGN
ARCEIIECTI'RE AND DEVELOPMEI{Tlox 3371, vNL, COLOR^DO, n6tt go3) {7691:E
Construction lmpact Study
Tract B, ParcelA, Lionsridge Loop, Vail, Gotorado
January 7, 1993
Notes and Methodoloov:
A number of criteria were used to evaluate 2 different construction
scenarios: The Original Proposal, circa. 1980, and tre 1992 Crossview
Properties Proposal. The intent is to objectively quantify the impact of
the two proposals on the site, with particular attention paid to the effect
on, and damage to, the heavily treed hillside. Fo: consistency, both
analyses are based on proposed changes to the toptgraphy as it exists
in 1992.
The Scenarios:
1. Orioinal Prooosal. Revised -
The original project, which was prepared ard approved around
1980, shows 6 buildings with 9 units,'in a pedestrian area.
Parking tor 44 cars was located on the uppe: bench, at the east
end of the property. The parking was originally proposed with
two wings, north and south. The north win3 has been built as
shown.
The Revised Original Proposal takes into co:rsideration the fact
that the south wing of the parking area is no longer required. The
original concept tor The Valley included the a:eas now known as
the Ridge at Vail and Aspen Grove Lane. Tt.e parking for these
units necessitated such a large parking area. Since the Ridge at
Vail and Aspen Grove Lane are no longer goveined by this P.U.D.,
and their parking already exists entirely on their own sites, the
required parking for the Revised Original Prcposal would be 18
spaces. (There are 9 units of less than 2,000 sq. ft. GRFA each.l
{
This assumed 'revision' to the Original Pioposal is thought to be
valid, as it would not be logicalto construct, nor would the Town
of Vail permit, a parking lottor 22 spaces that is not required. For
the sake of simplicity, we have assumed that t;te south lot would
simply be deleted, and that the remainder of the Original Proposal
would stay intact. (Of course, the site disturbance of the Original
Proposal could be further decreased by relocating some of the
buildings up on the east bench, where the south lot was to have
been, but this analysis is to deal exclusively with the Original
Proposal versus the Crossview Properties Proposal')
2. The Crossview Prooerties Prooosal -
This plan was submitted to the Town of Veil in December of
1991, and represents 7 buildings and 7 units, with automobile
access to all units.
Cateqories of Analvsis:
Number of Euildinos -
This category could be important, because of the fact that the
Original Proposal was based on a designed P..J.D. Although the
number of units is smaller in the Crossview Pr:posal, the number
of buildings has increased.
Site Coveraoe -
This category consists of four numbers: First, the building
coverage, using only the outside of the fourdation lines, (i'e',
excluding decks and overhangs.) Second, the area of new paving
and impermeable surface. Third, the total of these two, ancl
fourth, the total area of these which occurs rvithin the surveyed
tree line.
Cut and Fill -
tnis was analyzed on a 1OO square-foot griC and calculat"g -il
absolute terms; i.e., 2 cubic yards of cut and 2 cubic yards of fill
equals 4 cubic yards of site disturbance. Th: overall balance of
cut and fill is not part of this study. cut anJ fill amounts were
tabulated overall, and within the surveyed tree line. Ngle: this
number does not include areas of cut and fill under the building
footprint.
Maximum Cut and Fill
This number indicates the greatest amoun: of cut and of fill
located in each of the ProPosals.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
rl
Area in Excess of 4 Feet of Site Manioulation -
While 4 feet is an arbitrary number, is was felt that it represents
'intense" site work. One to three feet are often needed to satisfy
drainage requirements, and it is reasonable to assume that at least
some trees can be protected and maintained. Beyond 4 feet, the
maintenance of existing trees and vegetation is virtually
impossible. This number was tabulated qver the entire site, and
within the surveyed tree line. Note: this number does !9! include
the building footprint,
Total Area of lmoact Within the Treeline
This number indicates the sum of paved areas, areas of over 4
feet cut or fill, building footprint, and an 8-foot area around the
foundation. lt is felt that on a site of :his steepness, the
requirements of excavation and scaffolding justify the use of 8
feet as a conservative margin for construction.
BEVISED ORIGINAL cRossvlEw
6.
CATEGORY
Number of Buildings 6
Site Coverage (sq. ft.) - Building 5'415
Asphalt 9,993
Total 15,408
Total w/in treeline 2,850
Cut and Fill {cu. yds.) Total
Total w/in treeline
859
446
7
9,780
1 1,300
21,080
9,000
2,559
1,507
6.5
11.5
5,100
4,250
14,O70
Maximum Cut & Fill (ft) Cut
Fill
Area in Excess of 4 ft.
cut or fill (sq. ft.) Total
W/in Treeline
Total impact w/in Treeline (sq. ft.)
I
6
500
500
8,685
Lr
M-t-t-
iI
Irl'l
rf
I
rl
rl
i
rl
i'l
rl"l
rf-lI'lI.II-lI'lt-lt"lt-l
o -t.rRt--
\l- -,
).
/,l,t\\."\\l:
t:If
$il{lililssilg'jgit d(.lflilol !{
PI Jl,l rI
BIII:t 3la
w%?:l
tirqit
t'
1,
tt
.rA,,tc-z', t 4,,t a* c,u; ^rro/o?. -
aqbJ'l{?t)uufi'z'
C
,^, -a-f'^l,--. _. I t -l'
n-*".,/; y'''\t7^'t i' "' .J.
e)-*.|.,q.!'-- |.i,tr,(!!rl tr--..-) |
+z.nod 'l]lKU
UNIT'L
o
January 7, 1993
Planning and Environnental ConroissionTosn of Vail75 Soutb Flontage Road WestVail, CO 81557
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As spokesmen for the condomisiuro asEociations whoEe menbersare most affected by the proposal of Parkwood Realty ofEuglewood, Colorado for establishnent of a Special DevelopmentDistrict aud adoption of a Developruent, Plaa tor The Valtey PhaseII, Parcel B, we wish to subnit for your consideration somegeneral conments concerniug the proposal.
First, we note that our associations have retainedconsultants to assist us, aE well as the Commission and Community
Development Department staff, iu addressi.ng tbe questious raisedby the proposal. We understand tbat at the Conrnission meeting at2:00 p.m. on Monday, JaDuary 11, 1993 Parkwood Realty will be
maki.ng a general presentation on its proposal.. Subject tohearing that general information, and to information ne nayobtain from a meeting between Parkwood represeutatives and ourrepresentatives scheduled for this afternoon, we have somewritten conments to submit at this time. Attacbed to this fetterare: a construction irnpact'study, a response to the Decenber 1992Special Development District and Environmental Inpact Reportprepared by Peter Jamar Associates, Inc. for Parkwood, and aletter from our counsel . As noted, all of these consuitant
corunents are subject to further developmenE of the details of the
pending proposal, and we point out in particuLar that we obtaineda copy of the Jamar Report only last Monciay, so we have not hadthe opport,uniry to 6tudy it fully.
By way of general additional comment on the Parkwoociproposal (which, as you know, goes back to early 1991), we
enclose a copy of our February 22, 1992 Letter cornrnenting on theproposal as it was structured at that time. In addition' weoffer the following summary thoughts:
our Obiectives: It is not our objectj.ve to prevent
developrnent in the area, but nerely to have it conform with the
basic plan that bas been in place for the area since 1980.
fndeed, two projects consistent with that pIaD have cornmenced(one successfuJ.ly cornpleted; without any opposition from theresidents. Those overaLl plans were of record as a part of the
approval process by the Eagle County, and they were accepted bythe Town of Vai] in ordinance 13, Series of 1981. Thus they qtere
justi-fiably relied upon by purchasers and owners in the Valley.
While we certainly recognize Mr. Gensler's rights as a Property
-v o
owner to u'e big land, we also feel we have tbe right to rely onthe development pJ.an approved by governing-b;ai";:
r-_ - : Altbough !tr. Gensler, whol::-:::i_"fe pf9ponetrt of tbe devetopmetrr proposal Eince irsrsceptron i! 19911 hae isdicated tbal tne lroiits fron unite thatconform to the origiaal ptan wouta be ineuiiicieat, we uaderstaudtbat the economics were latj,sfactory oD the receutiy conpletedunits - The original pran arso coatiruptates units tirat w-ourd benore affordabre to rolai r""id"or", aid altboutb ruxury sinfr-
I3T-i1{^:iits^night be more protiratte to the D5nver deielop6r,Etrat doe8 not belp provide iffordable housing for localE. -
Further, we have doults that higher priced single frni ly unitsEelL aE well as rhe units conteiplatba-ty tle-6iigina1 ilan. Forexanple, tbere are no units currlnt].y a,riiraori-Ii eitair tbeva|ley or Grouse Glen and the new units have sold out.Yi:?*11.tely, the rhree specularivery Uuirt "iogf" fanilydetacbed units have not shired tbe saiue fate.
. .?he PJ.an: What we object to is not so much the ultimate
9:l:1.V,. although we feet lhe addition ot g.iig;" nareriatlychanges the nassing, but rather the change-in Eharacter of Lhen]33 trgg a-project thar would have inteiior peaestrian walkwayswith vehicurar access fron tbe streets to jusl another largesingre farnily project built on a cul- de sai. The trassforiationwould be less objectionable if it did not reguire the destructionof virtually atr-the trees in tire area, subsianti-ar cuts and atleast twelve feet of fill in places.
. In surnmary t w€ do not believe that the plan proposed issensitive to the originar pran and the restrictio-ns ihat wereplaced on the land ai the time of the orj.ginal p1an. Further,and perhaps tnore inportant, we feel that fhe prbposed plan issinpry too destructive of the site for considiralion ai goodplanning. while we are sympathetic to Mr. Gensler,s desires to
]nplove the economics, we-d-o not. believe that any significantharciship is. imposed by the original plan and tnai tir6 additionalprofits anticipared by this proposed-p1an just.ifies rhe negarivermpacc on the current honeowners by changing the plan upon whj_chthey relied.
- As our previous letter staUed, we have a 100t concurrencefrom the affected honeowners within our associations. Suchconcurrence has been reaffirmed.
r
reIy,
r Grouse G
,TU =:lJ l15.
-,,4.,r$l-I lr TIfE VAITRT COI\TDOMIMI'M ASSOCIATIONIIIE ST'PER ASSOCIATION
1il178 E-SIS p-J61 0J/t8/92 !6:J1 pt | 0f J nfc
l0ililIEnE pililups EAiLE Clltfit cLEnr, clLnAlo /.s.oo
Fcbruary 41992
Plaaning aod Em'ironmcntal Comnissiou
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
VaiL CO 81657
rc(?slo00c
0.00
VIAFN(#479-2157
Hard Copy to Follow
Dear Commissioners:
FinL we w:rnt to thank the-Planning Staff for thcir timc and cffort in acquaintingus with Mr- Gensler's proposal. Wc havc rEtained several profesionals to assist rjs in oui
l:ri"y ofrhe proposed changes to thc approvcd plan wc will, of course, be bappy to slnrethese in detail with the cornmission and-staff af a convcnicnt tiurc.
After reviewing those plans in some dctail with our consultants, wc bclievc theyrePresent a radical-dePanure from the intcnt of thc plan adopted Uy itrc Eagle CounryCommissioners in 1980 and concurrcntly recorded as a Declaratiin of tiotcctingtovenant.son the land. The purpose of both th-e Commisioners' actiou and vesting rlghts to thecurrent owners through the recorded covenants was to insure that future dcicto--pment wascoruistent with current development and maintained the unique charactir of that
development. We believe rhat Mr. GensleCs proposed plan represents a Eaterial anddetrim.ental c]r1nge from the previous plan arid woula iignificantly alter the characrer,useabiliry and the marketabiliry of thc plesent units.
. .We have. attempted to outline below in summary those aspects of the plan that areinconsistent with the curreDt Plauued Unit Devclopmcnt plan aird rcstrictivi covenaurs.
The conlUcts between the two plaru outlined hercin are not mcant to be exhausrivebut merely reprcsent some of the more obvious diffcrences based uoon our consulrurspreliminary review.
. Density. While Mr. Gensler has proposed tbat the number of units bc dccreased,it appears- that the total square footagl o-f arca included wirhin structurcs is actually
increased by about lSVo. TEis is due, in large mcasure, to providc gamges integral to rhc
units which were not incorporatcd under the original plin. ThJ numUcr of separate
buildings is also increased under the plan and total site coverage of thc building is incicased
by about 857o!
,ri#uu tsr6t orrr./e2 r6:ra pc 2 ar r
Charactea The origu3f plan coutcmplated a condominjum project of relativctysmalt affordable units wit-veuidtar accc"-lf". ""'itfi-r;"4;; an intcrior qntcm ofpcdestrian walhrara.
- Tbc ctrrcnt pta;;rl appareutty suggests a small number of largesingle family dctacbed. uuis*tu-rn'c i5ii*r- acccs prwided by a ncw road that wouidrcplace tbe prior plan,s systcm of interior warKwa)6.
Affordabilitv' Th. pgqpt ptaa pro'ided smaller units rhar would bc at a lcvcl of
ltrordab$ity ($15i;m0 t" iiijino ii'Sfj pri*O that could malcc them arailabtc ro tulltime residents. Tbe ?:ryr"!-pt"l*oorJf,i*iol urris tu"t "-ii ue 6cea at revers oftwo or thrce times tiosi contimplatea in'ttre *igi*r "pi."JJ'ir*. whilc we wouldooncur that thc ppf! n?r-ins *oria bc sigttmcanrry bener under the proposed pran, wc donot agree that tbis should bc a dctcrnriniig factor.
Envircnmental Issu-es-- It ls our undcrstanding that this plan would rcquirc thedestn:ction of manv morc fu[ qp,tt;;cr tb;n the qrrrenrry approved ptan- Thc prennisgoffrce has indicatei th|t Mr. 6"^lliir-ril.ntty studying this issrc in detail. It is alsoapparent that thc additional acccss road wouta riquiiaeilbiaiffitcr.*. eyvo) inthearea of.required paved- ar.ea- Thc siting oithe houses and the accomrnodation of dre ncwroad will requirc sizable incteasc in voiurue of tilliilsii; "iili'"it.a, as well as fills ofover 11 fcer- we bclievc that in "aaitid" to ti.iit-"i'jJJ; d;#;"er of rhe project youproposed, these cnvironmental impacts onthi sirc wirj maierially u,o n"gari"cly impaa theacsthctics of both thc proposcd irolcct as ilti; i;;;;;;;;; residcnccs protectcdunder thc restrictivc covenant.
We recognizc that the Town of vail is successor to Eagle County in reviewing and
ilfr 1iii'Flli:i'itt1,T,1?H',.','$:','"';;i:r:,i',",L?[*:"*Tt,:'ffi jl'J:]
would not be permisible uoder the rccorded covcnanb. h r"cq we bclieve that undeithe resuictive iovenantg.efsii-id"-oi-,-lt" ro*r of vail mav rerain an obligation roenforce the covenants and this thc pla'n as ii *rt"ntty exists. rt i piop.rry is atso subjectlo covenants recorded in scptembei, tg72wtrich prisirib; th. ;il|;l of an archirecruralcommittec prior.to the commeucement of any conitruction activiryl To our knowledge, suchapproval has neither been sought nor rcccived.
It is our intent to conrinue to vigorously -purslg our purpose of maintaining thccontinuadon of the cxisting character an,i
""s-trtitil- oirr,r ptoj#l,l'contcmplated by thecxisting plan we bcricvelhat rhc proposJ*br'inJd 6i.;-."u, itt gooo ptanning, butmerely better economics for the dei,etdper. -
In addition lo our involvement in tbe political - administrative process, we intend totullv cxercise our riehts under thc vari"*i.it"i.ii"i i"r;;;;;iil; i" possible injunctivcrelief and to actual ind punitiue oarnales rrl-r*ia.o uy tr,. .ou.nuJr. rv" would cenainlybe appreciative of noticeof any pcndi'ng ..tion .ont.rnplated bv the Bqard on rhe marter.In order to_expedite such noticl, pte"i, .onia; 'I]rffi; Fr i"lali hs-1202 and he wlladvise our Board as appropriate.
'A
$l
o
t.t:aaWlrilc tbc Board of ffrccton bas rpprovcd this policy on fti ,thc matler, ir should be ti.?1.^d_,1-11]"-lg: " r00zo unanimous riiittcn concurcncc rr", dliJii"ia""iiffi:c?0lowncrs within our association 3{o'
,.ui.*.fut
your convenicncc, wc havc includc a @pf of thc rcstrictivc covcnant for your - '
9n bchalf of tbe rcspectivc Boards of Dirccrors,
Sinccrcly,
202.,/ { >oL,t
Michael L McGrnc \'*>'4J
Enc.
cc: Thomas Fitch
1t1178 E-575 t-t6a Nl$/92 l6:3t P6 J 0F J
(ro
Suitc 630
7800 East Ulioa Avenuc
Post Office Bor 3?090
Deaver, Colorado 80237
QO3) 779-4664
FAX (303) 779-4854
MORRIS, RUDY & LOWER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Suite 210
Vail Natioaal Baat Bldc.
10t South Frourage Roa-d
Vail, Colorado E1652
(303) 476-8865
FAX (303) 479-9773
ilanuary 7, 1993
REPLY TO VAIL OFFICE
Suit 302
Aspcr Atblctic Club Bldg.
720 E. Hymaa Avctue
Aspcn, Coloredo 81611
(303192s-8774
FAX (303) 920-.0E01
Boards of DirectorsGrouse Glen Condominiun Assoclation
aDd
The vaIley Condorninium Association
Re: Crossview at Vail: parkwood Realty, Inc. SpecialDevelopment District and Minor SubiivisionApplications: Valley phase II
Ladies and Gentlemen:
. .. As_you requested, I have reviewed parkwood Realty,s proposalto the Town of vail for establishment of a special oeielolne-ntDistrict, and adoption of a Deveiopment plan', for tbe valiey
llu:: {r Parcels A and B, pursuant, ro Uuniciiral Code Chaprei18.40.' This retter conmenting on the propoia-r can be uied indiscussions with the TOV and t[.e applicini as an aide toclarifying the issues.
The current proposal evolved frorn a request made early in1991 by steve Genslei for nodification of a-develoDnent plin forPar_c-el_A.approved by Eagle county prior to annexation of-the areaby vail in 1980. The plan approveb uy Eagre county was accepredby VaiI in 1981 by Ordinance-No. 13, 3eri6s of 198i. Tharordinance specified that ,major changes" to the plan, such as
llose. proposed by Gens1er, r-quired ieview by thi vail pEC, andthat the "procedure for changes shall be in iccordance with
' Parkwood also is proposing a Minor Subdivision for parcelA' to al'l.ow construction bf two single-family residences, but thefocus of your request is parcel B, io r have-not considered theMinor Subdivision apolication.
(orsBoards of DirectoJaDuary 7, L993Page 2
Cbapter 18.662 of the VaiI Municipal Code..
It appears that following a Eeries of neetings betweeaGensler aud Vail. .Comunity oeieloprueut Departnent (.CDD. )represeatatives during tbe latter-harf of'1991 aud'in tggz, tbecDD representatives recottrueDded that the appricant propose alq:"|:i Developmenr Disrrict for tbe propeii.y-;;;-o-dei toprovicle botb review qriteria and revilw lrocidures..3 The
?lo::9o::1.seque, fron (a) pEC review of-a proposed najor changein the Eigle County plan pursuaDt to Ordina-nce 13 to(b) estabrisbraent of g-speciat Development Dist;ict and adoptionof a.new Developmetrt plaD pursuaDt to-code clapi-r 1g.40, riisestr.ro procedural legal questions.
First' it is arguable that ordinance 13, series of 19g1 doesnot al'low eEtablishnent of a Special Developlaent Districtas.t9 Property that wa6 annexed after approval by Eagre county of
-a "prggngd unit development" (puD) thar,-ias tberEaft6r accept,adby vail. fol_rowing annexation. ' oriliaance 13, in sec. 2.a., itatesthat."tbe Valley, phases 1 tbrough 6r. inter glh, ,shall bedeveloped in accordance with the-prior agreenEtapprovars audactions of the Eagle county conmissioner5 as tire a'gieenents,approvals and actions relate to each deveropnent oi parcel ofproperty." Although ordinance 13 also provides, in 3ec. 2.d.,that "major changes" reguire pEC revi-ew-ii accordance with theprocedures of chapter 18.66, and that further provision arrnostcertainly overrides the earrier reguirement foi deveiopment iDaccordance with county approved plans, that does not nicessarilyallow- for overlay of speciar oevllopmenE Disrrict status. Forexample' argiuably the decision on a-major chan-oe such as proposedhere rests exclusively with the pEC, rtther thin, as contlmpiatea!y th9 procedure for establishnent of Speciai DevelopmenuDistricts, with the Council.
Second, there rnay be a procedural defect in the pending SDDproposal . The procedure for establishrnent of a Soeciil.
-'. Chapter 18.66 addresses,,Admj_nistration,, of the Zoningprovisions of the Code, and includes provisioas relating tonotice of hearings, etc.
3 See second sentence of first paragraph on page 4 of theDecenber 1992 "Specj-al Developnent, Dislricl ana gnvironrnental
Impact Report' prepared by peter Janar Associates, Inc. TheJanar report was submitted to the CDD on Decernber !4, L992; acopy was provided to the Associat.ions on January 4, 1993.
to
Boards of DirectorsJanuary 7, 1993
Page 3
Developnent District4 is prescribed by Chapter 18.40. Sectioa18.40.030 provides that application for establishraeat of a SDD'shall be made on a form piovided by the Cormunity pevelopnent
Departmeut and sbal.l include. specifled iafomatioue and 'beaccompanied by subruittal requir-nents as ciuttiued ia Section18.40.050 and a developroent plaD as outlined iu Section18.40.060." I bave Dot been able to obtain from Lhe CDD anapplicatign for establisbroent of a SDD from either Gensler orParkwood.a Possibly the original major nodification requestdirected to the County-approved developnent plan evolved into an
SDD proposal without tbe regulred formal apptication for suchstatus ever being filed. Further, it does not appear that the
CDD has authority to waive the Code requirement for Eubnission ofan application oir the reguired forrn and containing the requiredinformation.' Of course, even if no application was filed, that
4 lbe Special Development District category of zoningdistrict in Vail is not a classic PIID such as exists at the
County Level and in many municipalities, but it is akin to a PUDin that it is itself a zoning district category that "overlays'another zoniag district category and allows departure from thereguirements of the underlying zonilg district withoutnecessarily going through the varj-ance or re-zoning process.
s That information includes "a 1ega1 description of the
Property, a list of the narneE and nailing acidresses of alladjacent property owners and written consent of owners of alI
Property to be included in the special development district, ortheir agents or authorized represenEatives. "
6 Yesterday my legal assistant went to the CDD to obtain a
copy of the application and was informed that none coul.d befound. I have spoken with Peter Janar about this issue, and he
was not certain whether a specific SDD application tras beenfiled. However, it is quite possible thal the application itselfj.s in the haods of a planner working on this matter.
? the Code does authorize the CDD to waive or modify the
"submittal reguirernents" ia appropriate cases (see Sec.18.40.050), but such subnittal requirements are distinguished inthe Code from the above-described inforrnation, as is the
"development plan" that the cgde also specifies shall acconpanythe application. In any evend, it appeirs that the Jaruar rePortis meant to satisfy the subrnittal requirenents and developmentplan requirenents. As you know, becCuse of time linitations I
have not undertaken to detennine whether or not it does meet tbe
lega1 requirements, or to assess its substantive merits.
(
Boards of DirectorsJanualy 7, 1993
Page 4
defect can be cured prospectively, and there may Dot be auldhiag
in the subetance of the application that is pertinetrt to your
coDcerns.
ID aDy event, assumiag that it would be lavful for VaiI to
estabtisb I Special Developnent District overlay on the ProPertyiu guestion, -all the procedural reguirements for such
est;blishnent muat be- followed. I -bave not had tbe oPPortunity
to verify such procedural stePs as required ootj.ces of the PEC
bearing -on the lpplicatiog at the proper tiroe to all tbe ProPerpartieS, but tbai-question will have to be resolved. Furtber,
iven if'notice by riail was given as required by chaPter 18'66,
and publication was made as reguired by Chapter-18.66' tbe
possible absence of the applicdtion on-tbe iequired form could be
i defect in tbe proceedinli, since an interested party cannot by
reviewing the fil-e at the CDD obtain the infor-natioD that snoulo
be iocluded in the aPPli.cation.
Turning from process to substance, if vail does by ordinance
establish a-speciai Development DiEtrict for the, property and
adopt a Develbpment PIan, Lhat action will be subject to.review
Uy ttre Eagle c6unty District court in a Rule 106,proceedlng' rn
a'Rule 106 appeal , the issue would be whether Vail.'s action was
an abuse of ils discretion or in excess of its +uthority'
In acidition' even if the action by vail withstood
review under Rule 106, it. sti1l would be subject to challenge
uncier state and federal constitutional provisions. without
attempEing to analyze the options for and merits of
const-itutional cauies of aclion at this time, I will note that
the colorado constitution contains a rather unusuaf provision
(tbe scope of which has not been well-defined by the courts)
allowing- recovery for "danage" to ProPerty -of one person
resulting fron governmental action directed at proPerty ot
another ferson.- This cause of action is ruarkedly easier to
establisir than the usual 'taking" claim, which requires . -deprivation by government action of all econonical'ff v1pr9 113of'the properlyl The Colorado CoastitutionaL act.ion allows tor
reco.ret! oi aainages for rnere diminution in value, without a-irowing'of depriiation of a1l viable econonic use. Thus if the
value 5t tUe lroperty of the owners in your Associationg were
dirninished by-ci:ingei in the original, county-approved
J;;;G;;"nr if.n oi parcel B, daiages could Ee iecovered by tbose
owners.
FinaIIy, I note that a1l ProPerty in Lion'6 Ridge . - ^--,-j^-r.Subdivision-i'i:.ing No. 2, of whicb Parcel B is a Part' is auDlecE
to a detailed set-of recorded protective covenants that woulcl
o
-^.v
Boards of DirectorsJanuary 7, 1993Page 5
have to be met in tbe developneut of parcel B. In particular,section_4 prohibits coostruclion without review and-approval ofdetailed -prans by an Arcbitectural conmittee. Furtheil sectionr0 provides that treeg may Dot be cut, tritnned or removed exceptfor construction and then-oury after ipprorrir in wriiing by thiArchitectural cowsittee. rinitty, seciion 26 lrovides €tralfailure to enforce any provision-6t tle .onenuits is not a waiverof the right to euforLe-then in the future. Any owner ofProPerty in Fii.ing No. 2 would have staadiag to-bring an acti.onto enforce the covenants.
I.will !!1y iu.touch with you as this marter proceedsthrough the PEC review process. rn the mean--ime, |lease contactne if you have any _ques-ions or conmenrs.
Sincerely,
1/,rr 2 '
Robert L. Morrisfor
MORRIS, RUDY & LOWER
RLM: j Ie
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMOBANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
January '11, 1993
A request for a work session to discuss a proposed SDD and minor subdivision
to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B,
The Valley, Phase lll1480 Bufler Creek Fld.
Applicant:
Planner:
Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty
Andy Knudtsen
Proiect Overview
The applicant is proposing to modify an Eagle County approved development plan located
on either side of Buffer Creek Road in Phase ll of 'The Valley". The site is made up of
two separate areas. The upper area, located north of Butfer Creek Road, is proposed to
have two single lamily homes on it. The lower area, on the south side of the road, is
proposed to have seven single family homes. Detailed descriptions of each area will be
orovided later in the memo.
The reason
1.
2.
3.
the applicant is applying lor an SDD is to allow:
One lot to be created (on the upper area) which does not meet the
minimum buildable area for this zone district;
Development to be located on slopes greater than 407";
Additional GRFA that exceeds the amount approved by Eagle County.
il.
In conjunction with the special development district request, the applicant has submitted
a minor suMivision proposal. The minor subdivision would create lots for the two single
family homes on the upper development area only. lt is the intention of the applicant to
use the single family subdivision process in the lower development area and sell ott
individual houses as they are constructed.
Backoround
The proposed development plan is part ot the second phase of The Valley. The six
different phases of The Valley were approved in Eagle County in the late 1970's and the
early 1980's. on June 3, 1980, the county approved 32,909 square feet of GRFA and
25 dwelling units for this phase. Some of this development potential has already been
used in the Grouse Glen and Bufler creek rownhouse developments. Since the County
approval, the area has been annexed into the Town of Vail. The ordinance annexing this
area (Ordinance 13, Series of 1981) includes a provision recognizing the County approval.
The Ordinance states that any significant changes to the previously approved plans must
be reviewed by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission.
The Eagle County approved plans dated June 3, 1980 provide a benchmark for evaluating
the proposed development slatistics. Since the original approval, there has been partial
development of the site. Grouse Glen has been constructed, using six dwelling units and
6,233.8 square feet of the GRFA. In 1991, Jack snow completed construction on five
existing foundations which are now called the Bufler Creek Townhomes. This
development used five dwelling units and 7,208.9 square feet of GRFA. The remaining
development potential includes 15 dwelling units and 19,466.3 square feet of GRFA
available for Steve Gensler to use on the rest ol the site.
The following table
Eagle
County
Aooroval
26 DU's
32,909 sq. ft.
summarizes lhis
Grouse
Glen
6 DU'S
6,233.8 sq. ft.
information:
Buffer
Creek
Townhouses
5 DU's
7,208.9 sq. ft.
Remaining
Development
Potential
15 DU's
19,466.3 sq. ft.
The character of the County approved plans is quite similar to the previous phases of The
Valley, which have been built out. The plan for the lower area consisted of a centralized
parking area at the top of the site, with walking paths to the dwelling units. There was no
automobile access to any of the units, and as a result, there were no garages. The units
were two to three stories in height (24'to 30') and ranged lrom 924 to 1400 square feet
of GRFA. The proposed development for the upper area consisted of live dwelling units,
similar in design to the rest of The Valley. There was no parking in this area, other than
a "pull-out" area off the north side of Buffehr Creek Road. lt is important to note that the
County approved plans for the upper area located the units partially on slopes greater
than 40%.
On June 24,1991, December 9, 1991, and December 16, 1991, the PEC reviewed very
similar plans to the current proposal. Steve Gensler was the applicant at that time, also.
During the 1991 review of this project, it was determined that the proposal involved three
departures from Town of Vail zoning standards. Because of these departures, the
applicant has applied for an SDD.
ilt.Detalled Descrlotlon ot the Cun€nt Prooosal.
Lower develooment area
The lower development area is proposed to have 7 single family homes. These will be
located on either side ol a private access road. Four of these homes will be located within
the existing grove of trees on the site. Two of the homes will be located in the meadow.
One will be located in tre existing parking lot. The applicant has tried to design this area
so that two existing stands of trees (approximately 4-5 aspen) can be preserved. We
believe the design can be modified to save more trees.
The proposed access road descends from Buffer Creek Road atan 8/o slope. The road
is intended to be 22 teet wide and will provide automobile access to garages in each
home. There will be a lire truck turn around located on he bottom of the road. The lower
end of the road will be constructed on approximately ten feet of fill. There will be one
series of three relaining walls which are located at the lower end of the road to support
the fill. The walls are three feet, three feet, and four feet in height.
The seven homes in this area will have a GRFA which ranges from approximately 1,700
square feet to approximately 2,200 square feet. In addition to this square tootage, each
home will have a two car garage. The ridge heights for the proposed homes range from
27 teet to 33 feet in height. This area is attecteO by both rockfall and a debiis flow
hazard. A drainage study has been completed for this site and a detention pond will be
provided at the lower end of the development.
Upoer development area
The upper development area is designed at this time to include two single family homes,
which each have their respective building envelopes. There would be a total of two single
family homes in the upper development area. For the western site, there will be an
envelope of 3600 square feet and a proposed GHFA o13,424 square feet. The eastern
envelope will be 3,100 square feet in size and is inlended to have 2,775 square feet of
GRFA. Access to these parcels is proposed to be from a 12-foot wide shared driveway.
This area is also affected by rockfall and debris flow.
Please see the reductlons of the deslgn In the attached submlttal materlal prepared
by Tom Braun, of Peter Jamar and Associates, Inc.
aE(!
j,,Es $rvo-@i_6 fi$El FiE .^ -; i-ElurEl fi b E$ * ;ElilEl R s E'6 ; i 88l5l8l e e R Re B e b b 3-
.gEr atocgqeoolo@ro- oi(Y) (')
r-Oo-o;aSc! Aioor
€=
ciq.n u,O) a?@r');;- P-
:;c'l'--,Et g b ,, fr = ,L: glnl 'P bQ -# F a :B
= =l= ElHlEl 3_ n P =, F ;e *ggqg 3l6ldl o, P = RE I E F io ;8
rzr Ol d)
= C\ Ox{ (olo:- rlat- @lF-
4- Ju !-*99 io;8 R:or-r(od F3 i, R: gata sis#s B5e; 61818l e e 3 ;N; B N H i E
:=
dl
cccc(E(U(EGo_ o. o. cLttjj(l)o)ooEE!E
oooo{cLAO-O-C
EI
9l=t ol 9l ; cEri aol ol (E (!g,g il3 F l' 3518_ :la -, E c €
PlSSlslf;l PsaE
9EooJt-ce ;-o) E E6
.Ee $ g t8E'- i E'h e€8.'6 F k 6 #'5e
(/,oEE'
.ft>-9€trqE3n;6oy@o
^g E +ga @YN ,;Ei s.E: R3? b€S S =Of- ,F .3
6.2gcD
E€.!HE_o9o
=-96 .r, .g;E E E :eB ei g efi; ; n ;go. cL X =s 6-E
H* s Sg:
EF. E sBE
gi € EEE6{ E P:=!
ks
=.D9o=€()NEs
p6rD CLoov,Iccf,olx
.gltrl<l :dd;+(DEl .=' &6l b6NINJ
t
V.Evaluation ol Kev lssues
1. GRFA
Statf sees that the request for additional GRFA is a primary issue. previous to thisspecific design, Mr. Gensler had proposed to include a restricted employee d1yelling unitand reduce the number ol units as part of the project. The request for Ldditional GRFAhas not changed since the previous work session; however, the provision of an employeehousing unit has been deleted. The two issues are tied together, in statf's opinion. Webelieve that without the employee unit, the additional GRFh request is not appropriate.staff believes that the GRFA of the proposal should be reduced by 500 squaie ieet to
comply with the Eagle County approval.
2- Hazards
Staff believes that the hazards affecting the site, particularly the upper development area,are important factors to consider. we request the survey and site plan be updated to
reflect the extent of hazardous areas, as shown on the Town's adopted hazard maps.This is particularly important, in staff's opinion, as it atfects the location of the envelopeson the upper development area. In addition, statf requests that the geologist who
evaluated the hazards provide additional information. The geologist should discuss thegrouting in more detail that is referred to in the report stating how often it needs to bedone and who is responsible for doing it. Staff would also like to know more about thepotential for mitigation. lt is referred to in the report, yet not recommended. Please seethe report from Nicholas Lampiris, which is at the end of the packet submi$ed by the
applicant.
3. Lower Develooment Area
Staff is concerned that the proposed design of the lower development area is not
compatible with the existing natural setting. Primary areas of concern include the amount
of fill which is proposed for the site, the way that the fill will disturb the site, and the
amount of trees that will be lost as a result of the site disturbance. Of particular
importance are several old evergreen trees. Staff believes these should be identified onthe site plan and that the development should be altered to preserve them. In some
cases, this will involve slightly shifting the proposed houses. In other cases, like the
access road alignment, this will mean signilicant changes.
Staff is also concerned about the style of architecture which is proposed. The forms of
the homes are relatively square and are not integrated into the hillside as well as hey
could be, in staff's opinion. We believe that the homes could be broken up to reduce the
apparent mass, could be worked into the hillside better, and could be shifted slightly topreserve significant stands of trees.
Statf believes that alterations should be made to the proposed site plan. This may include
a-'
a variety of ideas and staff is not recommending one altemative above another. Some
of the changes that would address staff concerns include clustering the homes, shifting
them down the hillside, out of the trees, reducing the amount of access road, shifting the
access road to the north, or adjusting the homes around existing trees.
Staff would like to emphasize some of the numbers that were listed above in the zoning
analysis. When one evaluates the amount of site coverage and impervious surface, one
can see that the proposed plan exceeds the County approval significanUy. There would
be approximately 6000 sguare feet ol additional site coverage and approximately 12,000
square feet of additional impervious surfaces. Staff believes that modifications like these
could be approved, only it the revised development was sensitively placed on the site.
The key issues in the lower development area for staff are the removal of trees due to the
current design and the fill of the road. We believe the applicant should rework the plans,
adjusting the buildings and road so that all major evergreen trees are preserved. We
understand that both development plans would have removed trees and we think that at
this time, if all the evergreens can be preserved, that the development character will
improve. Staff also thinks that the lill of the road will significantly alter the character of this
area. We believe the till should be minimized.
4. Uoper Develooment Area
Staff feels that there has been improvement in this plan since the last work session. The
applicant has decreased the number ol dwelling units proposed in this area, and as a
result, the applicant has been able to reduce the width of the road lrom22 feet to 12 feet.
This, in turn, has reduced lhe amount ol cut and lill and the number of retaining walls.
Stalf believes that the new 12 foot wide road is a much better solution.
Staff continues to be concerned about the size of the building envelopes and the length
of road. We understand the applicant's desire to provide latitude within the building
envelope to future architects who develop these envelOpes. HOwever, we are concerned
about the damage that could be done to the steep hillside. We believe that the envelopes
should be made smaller. We would also like to see the length of the road reduced and
the envelopes shifted to the east, if possible. We understand that the hazards will atfect
both of these issues, and would like to see the hazard information, as discussed above
before we make a linal recommendation. At a minimum, the distance between the
envelopes could be reduced to accomplish this goal.
We believe that the applicant, in addition to making the envelope more specific, should
identify a distudoance area. This would ensure that the future development of this area
would not involve architectural designs that require large areas of sile disturbance. We
believe that the homes in these two envelopes should be 'benched-in'on the hillside and
that excavation to the sides and rear of the envelope should be prohibited. This is a
similar condition that was applied to the Zneimer property, which is Phase Vl of The
Valley. Staff requests that the applicant provide cross sections of the road showing the
resuliing slopes on either side. At the time, we understand that no retaining walls are
needed. However, we would like to verify this with the cross sections'
.i-
vil.
Another issue which needs resolution in he upper development area is the location of the
property line. The surveyor has identified two front property lines: one is based on the
original plat of the area and the other is based on the title information lor the property.
Stafl researched this issue with tre Public Works staff and found hat at the time of
platting, the road right-oFway was created with large tracts of land around it. The parcel
currently under review was separated out trom the larger pieces at a later date. From this
preliminary information, it appears that the right-oFway line has a senior position to the
boundary line shown in the title report. Staff requests that the applicant either provide
information that justifies a different conclusion or modity he survey and site plan to rellect
the Town's position.
SDD Crlterla
Staff will evaluate these criteria at a later date when the project is scheduled lor a final
review. At this time, staff recommends that the applicant locus on some of the issues
listed above which relate to the criteria.
A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood
and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height,
butfer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52.
D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town
policies and Urban Design Plans.
E. ldentification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the
property on which the special development district is proposed.
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.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and
off-site tratf ic circulation.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
l. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and
efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development
district.
vil.
The Fire and Public Works Departments have the following concerns:
Fire:
1. The lower area, as shown, needs hydrants. wih he addition of hydrants, the road
layout appears to meet the Fire Department standards.
2. The upper area, as shown, must be modified to provided access which conforms
with the Fire Department standards. A range of options is available to the
applicant including sprinkling, shortening the driveway, and/or providing pedestrian
access from Buflehr Creek Road.
Public Works:
1 . Two portions of the lower access road include 10% and 20% slopes. These must
be reduced to 8%.
Drainage calculations need to be reworked to look at off-site flows. Ensure that
the ditch on the west property line is adequate to handle the impacts from the
project.
Show how the retaining walls on the lower plan can handle drainage running over
them.
Bedesign all finished grade slopes in excess of 1:1 to a maximum of 2:1.
2.
e
4.
Vlll. Minor Subdivlsion Criteria
The standards for creating lots in this zone district are as lollows:
Section 1 8.1 4.050 The minimum lot or site area shall be lifteen thousand square
feet, containing no less than eight thousand square feet of buildable area. Each
site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet. Each site shall be of a size and
shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty leet on each site within its
boundaries."
Though both ol the proposed lots exceed the minimum size, the west lot does not contain
the minimum amount of buildable area. The requirement is for eight thousand square
feet, and the proposal, as measured by staff , provides no buildable square footage for the
western envelope. It the SDD is approved, this deviation from the standards may be
allowed.
Public Works staff has reviewed the plat and needs to see easements added to it. These
include an access easement lor the road in the lower area, pedestrian access easements
for any paths which connect it to the rest ol The Valley, and a drainage easement. The
drainage easement should tie into a legal drainage easemenl created for the
developments below.
The PEC is the approving authorig for the Minor Subdivision request. However, Town
Council is the approving authority for the SDD. As a result, stafl recommends that once
the plat is modified to address the Town staff concems, that the PEC make their approval
conlingent upon the Town Council's approval of the SDD.
lV. Goncluslon
Statf believes lhat the applicant should pursue an alternative design for the lower
development area. We believe that a compromise between the 1980 County approval and
the current proposal is appropriate. We believe that some automobile access is
reasonable, particularly for lire truck access, but lhat with the currenl design, there is too
much fill, too many mature evergreens removed, and too much site disturbance. We
believe that the applicant has a variety of components in the design that could be modified
to improve the compatibility of the proposed development with the surrounding setting.
We suggest one or more of the following: clustering the homes, shifting the homes,
reducing the amounl of roadway, clustering parking, reducing the amount of fill, adjusting
the building lootprint and architecture so that it is more sensitive to the site, or other
changes which will make the proposed development more compatible with the existing
terrain and conditions.
Please see the attached mlnutes lrom the previous PEC meeting, the submlttal
Informatlon prepared by Tom Braun of Peter Jamar A$soclates, Inc., and comments
prepared by the nleghbors.
o Cn"l'C:'
0 I __.-
-\('JPlannlng and Envlronmental Commlsslon
December 9, 1991
PRESENT
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Kathy Langenwalter
ABSENT
Ludwig Kuz
Gena Whitten
Work Session
STAFF PRESENT
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Shelly Mello
Betsy Rosolack
1. A work session to allow a change lo an approved development plan, Tracts A
and B, a part of Parcel A, Llons Rldge Fillng No. 2, commonly referred to as The
Valley, Phase !-
Appllcant:- Crosgview at Vail Propertles, Inc./Steve Gensler \Pianner: -----1-*
Kristan Pritz presented the proposal for Andy Knudtsen, staff planner, who was ill. Kristan
showed site plans for both the lower portion south of Buffehr Greek Road and the upper
portion which is north of Buffehr Creek Road. She explained that the allowable GRFA
approved by Eagle County in 1980 was 32,909 with 26 dwelling units. The remaining
development potentialwas 15 dwellings units and 19,466.3 square feet of GRFA.
A table in the memo compared zoning allowed by the County approval in 1980 with that
allowed by Residential Cluster zoning and was also compared with the current proposal. The
Residential Cluster zoning analysis was done by the staff using an in-house slope analysis.
Another table itemized the GRFA per unit. The staff believed that it was fair to give each of
the Besidential Cluster units 225 square feet per the current zoning code, for the development
was annexed with the assumption that credits would be added to maximum GRFA stipulated
in the development plan. Those credits would have been overlapping staircases, mechanical
areas, airlocks and garages.
A lengthy discussion followed regarding how to count the allowable GRFA. Diana questioned
whether the current proposal should have more GFIFA than the County had allowed. Kathy
Langenwalter asked to see how the County had arived at the final GRFA figure.
Kristan continued the review with the statf analysis of densig, employee housing, access
roads (with a concern about the height of retaining walls), site planning, landscaping, and
olher issues.
P€C ,tl;ro l.s /2,?, ? |
RICII AI{D KRUSEN DESIGN
ARCIIITECTIJRE AN{D DEVELOPMENT
BOX 33?t, VAIL, COLORADO,8165t 1303141G9n8
Response to Proposal and
Environmental lmpact Report
Tract B, Parcel A, Lionsridge Loop, Vail, Colorado
January 7, 1993
Aooroach
This document is a direct response to the proposal entitled Crossview at
Vail. Special Development District and Environmental lmDact ReDort'
prepared by Peter Jamar Associates, December, 1992. We do not
believe that the author and client of this document meant to intentionally
mislead the Town of Vail Staff, but there are certain areas where we
would like to add to, or rebut, their statements.
Relationshio to SDD Design Criteria
We have the following responses to the nine SDD Design Criteria:
A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment,
neighborhood and adiacent properties relative to architectural
design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity,
character, visual integrity and orientation.
Resoonse:
While the overall GRFA of the proposed project is similar to the
existing proposal. The identitv and orientation are vastly different
(due to the road). The design of the buildings proposed for Tract
B are clearly incompatible with the scale and bulk of the buildings
found on the adiacent site' The remainder of the development is
composed of a community of small Townhomes and
Condominiums.
B. No Response.
I
c.
D.
E.
F.
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
No Response.
Conformity with applicable element of the Vail Comprehensive
Plan, town policies, and urban design plans'
Response:
The applicant states: "The development plan for Crossview at Vail
is based on the premise that market demand is for single-family
homes and not the multi-family cluster development concept
reflected in the County approved plans." Of the two closest
developments: Buffehr Creek Townhomes (a contiguous propertyl
and Buffehr Creek Chalets (used as an example by the applicant);
the former had all five units under contract within one month of
completion, while the latter has sold just one of three in close to
two years.
No Response.
Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions
designed to produce a functional development resoonsive and
sensitive to natural features, veoetation and overall aesthetic
oualitv of the communitv.
Resoonse:
The question of the insensitive approach is best dealt with in the
Construction impact study; however there are in several areas in
the applicants response we must take exception to' The applicant
justifies the hillside approach design by stating: This solution
represents a far more sensitive site planning alternative than
spreading development and roads throughout the site." True
enough, This insensitive design is indeed better than an even less
sensitive design. The main point of the homeowners contention
is thatlhere are a number of other far more sensitive development
alterndtives. The existing plan is iust one example. The argument
that the county plan requires a large parking lot is no longer
appf icable; The 44 space parking lot was to serve The Ridge at
Vail and the Aspen Grove Homes units, this is no longer
necessary. The required parking for the site will be determined by
the new development's density, The reduction of the parking load
should be viewed as an opportunity to improve an existing
successful development.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to
optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and
function.
' (-/
D.
Resoonse:
The applicant again uses in unneeded parking lot.as. an ".1ut?ll-
In fact, if this *"r" t"".ured against the needed parking the
p"u"O .rtt""es increase from 9'99-3 square feet to 1 1 '3OO square
feet. Furthermore, tn" itp"t"ious surflce increases from 15'408
to 21,080 square feet.
Page three: "lmportant Elements of the Pro'posal"; Paragraph Four'
We take exception to-tn" statement that "Units on tract B have
been sited to minimize impacts on mature vegetatio.n and the
r*p"tip"rtions of the site.'' We feel the Construction lmpact
Study and the cross-sections clearly show this to be false'
Resoonse to Staff comments and concerns
t-o*"t DeveloPment Area (tract B)
ldentify on the site plan all trees which will be saved' The plans
do not appear to distinguish between existing and proposed trees'
Please make this distinction'
Resoonse:
The applicant respond that""'the vast maiority of the.heavily
wooded hillside ,pnifiJtot units A,B'and C will be undisturbed
during construction." The site plan may show thj:' 3.u'
unfortunately the realties of construction will not permit this' The
section through nulrOinl iC"
"llo*' for a 24" uphill leg of the
i""ii"g ano J 2a" fir ihe setting of form-work' Both of these
assumptions are aUsotute minim]ums for such a hillside' The
disturbance is then drawn at a 1:1 slope' This clearly illustrates
site destruction to, and most likely beyond' the property line'
Please reconsider the aesthetic appearance of the shingles to be
prion the sides ot tn" proposed'homes' We believe it would be
more positive if the 'homes reflect more of the "Valley"
architecture in style and materials'
Resoonse:
We concur completely with the comment and feel that in a
broader sense tne p-pot"O project should be part of the "Valley"
(as in the area in"o-niptting The Valley Condominiums' -The
Eastern Valley Condominums, and the Grouse Glen
Condominiu-"t "o.trnity u" in architecture' planning' and
character'
c.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
RTCH AI\TD KRUSEN DESIGN
ARCHITECTI]RE AND DEVELOPMENT
BOX 3378, VAJL, COLORN)O, 81658 (303) 4769228
Gonstruction lmpact Study
Tract B, Parcel A, Lionsridge Loop, Vail, Colorado
January 7, 1993
Notes and Methodoloqv:
A number of criteria were used to evaluate 2 different construction
scenarios: The Original Proposal, circa. 1980, and the 1992 Crossview
Properties Proposal. The intent is to objectively quantify the impact of
the two proposals on the site, with particular attention paid to the effect
on, and damage to, the heavily treed hillside. For consistency, both
analyses are based on proposed changes to the topography as it exists
in 1992.
The Scenarios:
1 . Original Proposal. Revised -
The original project, which was prepared and approved arouncl
198O, shows 6 buildings with 9 units, in a pedestrian area.
Parking for 44 cars was located on the upper bench, at the east
end of the property. The parking was originally proposed with
two wings, north and south. The north wing has been built as
shown.
The Revised Original Proposal takes into consideration the fact
that the south wing of the parking area is no longer required. The
original concept for The Valley included the areas now known as
the Ridge at Vail and Aspen Grove Lane. The parking for these
units necessitated such a large parking area. Since the Ridge at
Vail and Aspen Grove Lane are no longer governed by this P.U.D.,
and their parking already exists entirely on their own sites, the
required parking for the Revised Original Proposal would be 18
spaces. (There are 9 units of less than 2,000 sq. ft. GRFA each.)
{
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
This assumed "revision" to the Original Proposal is thought to be
valid, as it would not be logical to construct, nor would the Town
of Vail permit, a parking lottor 22 spaces that is not required. For
the sake of simplicity, we have assumed that the south lot would
simply be deleted, and that the remainder of the Original Proposal
would stay intact. (Of course, the site disturbance of the Original
Proposal could be further decreased by relocating some of the
buildings up on the east bench, where the south lot was to have
been, but this analysis is to deal exclusively with the Original
Proposal versus the Crossview Properties Proposal,)
2. The Crossview Prooerties Proposal -
This plan was submitted to the Town of Vail in December of
1991, and represents 7 buildings and 7 units, with automobile
access to all units.
Gateqories of Analvsis:
1. Number of Buildings
This category could be important, because of the fact that the
Original Proposal was based on a designed P.U.D. Although the
number of units is smaller in the Crossview Proposal, the number
of buildings has increased.
2. Site Coverage -
This category consists of four numbers: First, the building
coverage, using only the outside of the foundation lines, (i.e',
excluding decks and overhangs,) Second, the area of new paving
and impermeable surface. Third, the total of these two, and
fourth, the total area of these which occurs within the surveyed
tree line.
3. Cut and Fill -
This was analyzed on a 1OO square-foot grid and calculated in
absolute terms; i.e., 2 cubic yards of cut and 2 cubic yards of fill
equals 4 cubic yards of site disturbance. The overall balance of
cut and fill is not part of this study. Cut and fill amounts were
tabulated overall, and within the surveyed tree line. Note: this
number does not include areas of cut and fill under the building
footprint.
4. Maximum Cut and Fill -
This number indicates the greatest amount of cut and of fill
located in each of the proposals,
:)
I
I
Area in Excess of 4 Feet of Site Manioulation -
While 4 feet is an arbitrary number, is was felt that it represents
"intense" site work. One to three feet are often needed to satisfy
drainage requirements, and it is reasonable to assume that at least
some trees can be protected and maintained. Beyond 4 feet, the
maintenance of existing trees and vegetation is virtually
impossible. This number was tabulated over the entire site, and
within the surveyed tree line. Note: this number does not include
the building footprint.
Total Area of lmoact Within the Treeline -
This number indicates the sum of paved areas, areas of over 4
feet cut or fill, building footprint, and an 8-foot area around the
foundation. lt is felt that on a site of this steepness, the
requirements of excavation and scaffolding justify the use of 8
feet as a conservative margin for construction.
CATEGORY REVISED ORIGINAL cRossvlEwPROPOSAL PROPOSAL
5.
t
6.I
I
I
t
Number of Buildings
Site Coverage (sq. ft.) -
Cut and Fill (cu. yds.)
Maximum Cut & Fill (ft)
Area in Excess of 4 ft.
cut or fill (sq. ft.l
Building
Asphalt
Total
Total w/in treeline
Total
Total w/in treeline
Cut
Fitl
Total
W/in Treeline
6
5,415
9,993
15,408
2,850
859
446
8,685
1
6
7
9,780
11,300
21,O80
9,000
2,559
1,507
6.5
11.5
5,100
4,250
14,070
500
500
t i_r
Total impact w/in Treeline (sq. ft.)
I li': !::
=MJt-
f :r
Fr--|(|?t<
{'-J
E
=f
(lF
(' -
$rF .z-'y a:
_!)
I
tt,t
!i
\a
dE,r!itri
(
t
$lal6lrlrl
olq
BIold.l
"j
Y
1l
{|a,l
;lttl
{t
,rl
I
%
illl{t
E
,al
l
ilsl(l$lctl{l;lil(l
'.1IalTI
W
January 7, 1993
Planning and EnvironmentaL CommissionTown of Vail75 South Frontage Road WestVaiI, CO 81657
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As spokesmen for the condominium associati-ons whose membersare most affected by the proposal of parkwood Realty ofEnglewood, colorado for estabLishnent of a Specj-al bevelopmentDistrict and adoption of a Development pl-an tor The valrey phasefI, Parcel B, we wish to subnit for your consideration somegeneral comments concerning the proposal.
First, vre note that our associations have retainedconsuLtants to assist us, as weil as the commission and commun j-tyDevelopment Department staff, in addressing the guestions raised-
!f-tne proposal. we understand that at tb; Commission meeting at2:00 p.m. on Monday, January J.L, 1993 parkwood Rearty wiil bemaking a general presentation on its proposal. Subiict tohearing_that general information, and to informatioi we mayobtain from a meeting between parkwood representatives and ourrepresentatives scheduled for this afternoon, we have somewritten connents to submit at this time. Attached to this retterare: a construction impact study, a response to the December 1992special -Develcpment District anci Environmentar rmpact Reportprepared by Peter Jamar Associates, Inc. for parkwood, and aletter from our counsel". As noted, all- of these consuitantconments are subject to further developmenc of the detaii-s of thepending oroposal, and we point. out in particurar that we obtaineda copy of the Jamar Report only last Monday, so we have not hadthe opportunity to study it fully.
By way of general additional_ comment on the parkwoocjproposal (which, as you know, goes back to earl_y 1991), .,,,re
encrose-a copy of our February 22, 1992 retter lommenting on cheproposal. as it was structured at that time. In addition, weoffer the following summary thoughts I
Our Obiectirrcc' r'l- i c nnr- ^ur obiective to oreventdevelopment in the area, but merely to have it co-nform vrith thebasic plan that has been in place ior the area since 19g0.incieeci, txro projects consist-ent rvitr trat pran have commenced(one.successfurly completed) withouc any opposition from theresidents. Those overarl plans were of retord as a part of theapproval process by the Eagle Counry, and t.hey were accegted bythe Town of r'/aiL in ordinance 13, Series of 1081. Thus irey ',,rerejustifiabry relied upon by purchasers and owners ir: the varley.Whiie we certainjw re.nrrni 7c \r' Gensle-,q ri r-rhrc 69 a pfopertry
o\'tner to use his land, we aLso feel we have the riqht to rery onthe devel-opment plan approved by governing bodies.
. . NecesFitv For Chanqinq The plan: Although Mr. Gensler, whohas been the proponent of Etre aevetopment proiosa.L since itsincepti-on in 199L, has indicated thal the proi:-ts from units thatconform to the originaj- pran wourd be insufficient, we understandthat the economics were satisfactory on the recently completedunits. _ _The original plan also cont6rnplates units tLat would bernore affordable to locai_ residents, and although luxury singlefamily units might be more profitable to the Denver developer,that does not heLp provide affordable housi_ng for locals. -
Further, we have doubts that higher priced single fanily unitsseIl as well as the units contemplatla ny the original_ plan. Forexample, there are no units currentlv avlilable in either theVa1ley or Grouse Glen and the new units have sold out.Unfortunately, the three speculatively built single familydetached units have not shired the same fate.
The PIan: What we obiect to is not so much the ultimatedensity, although we feel ihe aciditj-on of garages materiallychanges the massing, but rather the change-in character of Lheplan from a project, that would have inteiior pedestrian walkwayswith vehicular access from the streets to iusl another largesingle family project built on a cul de sa6. The transforriationwourd be ress objectionable if it did not require the destructionof virtually all the trees in the ...", suUsdantial cuts and atleast i-welve f eet of f j-11 in places .
.In sunmaryr we do not believe that the plan proposed issensitive to the original ptan and the restrictions Lhat wereplaced on the land at the time of the oriqinal plan. Further,and perhaps more important, we feel that the proposed pJ.an issinply too destructive of the site for consi_dlration ai goodplanning. while we are sympathet.ic to Mr. Gensj.er,s desires toimprove the economics, ;ue-d6 noc bel_ieve char any significancrarciship is imposed by the originaj- pian anci tnal the additionajprofits antj-cipated by thj-s proposed plan justifies the negarive:mpacE on the current homeowneri hw r-hanrr.i nrr -;a nian upon whichthey relied.
As our previous letter stated, we have a 100t concurrencefrom the affected homeowners within our associ-ations. Suchconcurrence has been reaffirmed,
LvLI,
r Grouse Gl-en Condo ium Association
or The Va ey Condominium A5blJ(--LCtUl(-,,rr
&,
lTIMA
Mr. Andy Knudtsen
Town Planner
Town of VaiI
75 S. Frontage RoadVail, CO 81657
RE: The Valley - Phase
HOLDINGS.LIMITED
January 7, 1993
Two, a/k/a Crossview Properties, Ltd.
Dear Andy:
I, Robert M. UIImann, co-owner of Crossview Properties,hereby states my agreement and authorization with Steven M.Gensler in the submittaL of a special development district,and a minor subdivision plat for Crossview Properties.
This has been a long and tedious process, one that I hope cannow be resolved expeditiously. If I can be of any furtherassistance please do not hesitate to contact me.
4OOO CUMBERLAND PARKWAY
BUILDING 7OO, SUITE C
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30339
404-333-9000 FAX 404-333-9311
COP YFII.T
TOI/YN OFVAIL
75 South Fronttge Road
Vail., Colorado 81657
t 0 t -47 9-21 1 I / 47 9 -2 1 t9
3.
16.
18.56.050.8
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
18.56.050.E -
Department of Community Deaelopmcnt
August 24,1992
Mr. Tom Braun
Peter Jamar Associates
108 S. Frontage Road West
Suite
Vail, CO 81658
RE: The Valley, Phase ll
Dear Tom:
I thought it would be helpful for me to put our telephone conversation into writing, regarding
the applicable components of an Environmental lmpact Report for The Valley, Phase ll. After
reviewing the sections of the zoning code which list the components of the ElFt, I believe that
the following should be addressed and submitted with the SDD application:
18.56.040.4
Geologic Conditions
Visual Conditions.
Project Boundaries,
Present and Proposed Uses of the Site,
Present and Proposed Zoning of the Site,
Quantitative information.
List of specific regulalions which will apply to the project,
Development Plan.
General discussion of the impacts of the development.
ir
Mr. Tom Braun
August 24,1992
Page 2
Wth this information, I believe that the lssues will be adequately addressed. Because other
requirements listed in the Code regarding atmospheric conditions, biotic conditions,
transporlation conditions, etc. would seem to apply to devetopments of a larger nature, the
staff is not requirlng you to address them.
ff you have any questions about the use, please call me al479-2138.
Sincerely,
&;#ft'4\
a
@g May n._ t t99p
April 27, 1992
Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, GO 81657
Memorandum re: The Valley Phase ll
Dear Commissioners,
Acting on your suggestion, Mr. Gensler did meet today with
concerned parties of The Valley and Grouse Glen. The purpose of this
letter is to summarize the meeting and inform the Commission that there
was frank dialogue on both sides.
Mr. Gensler presented essentially the same plan as was presented at
the last Gommission hearing concerning the development. Using an overlay
of his proposed plans, now drawn to match the scale of the 1980 approved
plan, he restated that his development impacts the surrounding environs
less than the 1980 plan. He also stated that the amount of paving would
be less.
Questions consistent with our concerns as outlined in our letter of
Feb. 22 were then posed. Specifically, where the areas of cuts and fills
would impact, which trees or groups of trees would be affected, and
questions concerning drainage. We also asked for a reconciliation of
square footage under roof comparing the two plans, as well as paved
areas, not only between the proposed and approved plan, but also the
minimum paving needed to satisfy the parking requirements.
Unfortunately, these figures were not available, nor were the drawings
conducive to answering these questions.
Alternative ideas to the proposed plan were presented by some of
the residents but these were inconsistent with Mr. Gensler's desire to
build exclusively single family homes, He explained that the economics
were such that single family worked out best for him.
I
Page Two
Mr. Gensler agreed to our request to have another meeting, where he
can present drawings which will highlight the above areas of concern, as
well as other drawings and figures which may help us understand his
position.
We thank the planning staff and commission for their concern and
want them to know that we are endeavoring to find an accommodation
benefiting all parties as well as the Vail Community.
On behalf of the residents of
The Valley and Grouse Glen
SincerelY,
Brian J. Doolan
FE3 e4 ,92 15:34 ffie.F REH-
o
P.L/3
._-;-^
EI;U rE.u Z 5199tITTTE VAIJEY COII{DOMINIIM ASSOCIATION ,. -...'r-fiIE sIrPEBAssocIATroN "k I 1\ ''
, n rf\' ,l/,1" >* .\. ilv' \ ^ 1,+. {'" p 1. A{\ ,,_rl /\ ll'r ft rir ,t5
. ., * ,-f ')' "f ' .,*\Ft ,,"f tn - ''r, l'. uu''F.*urYn^$ez
{,-o' "'i; ,n }'' ),, .l ,
planning a,ud F.nvlronmcntar comdsioo
t V' ?"' )t-*n"o*nn no* , - ,\
PS""dY*"*e Rord b ., '' \ ,n\ Hard copv toroitoy Y \v"tci6'ii6ff"*-
i4|\ . ,\
,.,,
'f u'\ _,
Dcarco-missiorers: l\\ t t""l ,'/ nl* / / - t'\.1* ,r-'\Firal' wc want to tbank 1[e Planning StaE for their timo ald cffort ln acoualntlnqus Y"th lvlr. Gcnsleds pr_oposal We brw rirained several profcssiouls to secist is tn ouirevlew of the.propgsej dangq to the ap-prov-ed plao wo will, of courbc, bo happy to sharethesc in detail wilh tbo csmmlssiou anil-staff ad a com'onicni timc.
Aftcr rcvicning thosc plans in soue detail witb our'6s$rltrntg, wc bellcvo rhoyrjprcsgnt a radical-dcparrure ftom thc tntcut of the plan adop,ted by the Eagle couori,
Coumissions$ in 198{lanil concurruntly rocorded as a foctantiirn of t{otccing-Covcnantion the land, The purpose of both thl ComissioucrC action and vcsting rtltrrs ro rtocureut owners through thc recorded owctrarts was to insure tbat futurc develo-pmeut qiBs
consist€ut with currcut developmcnt and mefutahcd the unique charactrir of thaidcvelopmcnt -Wo beliove tlst l!tr. GeoslaCs proposed plaa rcpriscus a materlal soddetrimcntat *q"gt frgm tbc prcvioru plan and woutO iUnificairtly altcr the characier,usoability and the marketabltlty of thc plcscDr udtr.
. .Y. have- angmptod to.outline b€l6w iE *m"ry those aspectr of tho plan that aro
Inconsistcnt wiih thb currcut Flanncd Uait Dwolopment plan aid rcsnictvdcovenanB.
Tte conflists betwecn thc two ptans outlincd herein arc not raeatrt to b€ clrhaustleobut.mercly rcPrcscnt some of thc m6re ohviors diEerences based upon our consultankprclirninary revlew.
. Dcnrlf. Whtlc Mr. Gensler has proposed tlnt the numberof unlts be dcqreaso{It appcaE tbat the total Fquare footage of arca included withiu structures is acfudh
increascd by about l5%. ?Jtrts is du6, illargp oroasure, to prorride garagcs lntegrat to ini
unils which were not incorporalcd undcr the original plao. firc numbcr of scparato
_bui{ings ls -qko incceased utder tbe plan aud total ri-te cov-cragc of thc building is indeascd
by abort 8!i7al
rLE C.l =c' lJ.q) Fr\rJl-tt t\EFt- r:rrrrrq
l
*ruffi il#fu',ilHJi##::T#*t#ffi ,xT#tis'Hil$il.Iffi mwonffi ffi,[*t*';';1ffi mi,f ';frjreprsGo t[e Ftor plan's qptem of intcrlor wlkwan.
,""*n ,aT;ffiffidl3ffiH*H$tiHffiy"hiloiJil.lif
lTe rc^$Snts.- rtrc_ProPosctl plan would provido unlts that world bs priccd at lcvclr oftc'o ot tnrce liBes thosa costempl&tGd ln-thc origioal approvcd olan.- White c|g wouldthat-the ppfi! margine wu'ld be signiticanrtiuittiiii,n"i trie:pfuo5;6 pt*, ;;;Eot agrcc that tbb shouldbc a dctcnuintrq Grcror.
ErvhonDontal rcmc$ It h qr undcrgtauding that thh plan woutd ,*uiro tlldwtntction of manv morerull g_roc4 trgcs than ttc orfentty ,pp.dueo piau tl-rrpti""ilEoffice has inautoa that irlr. GildilA;;-dy eruotng'urii isi,rrJfi oetair. Ir b ats6appargpt that tho addhlonal scaess rosdwsulo regircir dustautiut locrcase-tmzfnEiarq of--1equlr9d pavcd area- Tho striqg of tbc horircc and rd sccot iliaUoi oi tirJ nlwroad wul roquir€ sizabl,e incrcaso $ volury of tbe hillsidc cuts requir€d, as well as fills ofovcr 11 fcel Wc bch'cvo that in additlon tir tte ihaugcs ltr rhe ctraiactetlt tne proioct vouprogoscd, thtse cavironncnral lmpacts on the sir€ wttj oateriauv ana rlead"ii,-fi;;;fiuaesthcrics of borh thc proposert projp"t as wcu as tilse;l;ffiilffiid"dr;;;'"tHundcr tho roshietivc o&caanr
^,_,_,Y-u_I:Tryff 4t rh. Toq'o of Vail ir sucoessor to Eaglo Courrty in rwiewirg and
ff ffi :r#Jff &hffi,#Hffnffi"f '#:.6,fr ffi Hfl*:i#f,#i#
lYould Toj F pcrudtsiblc uador thc recordad covcnan-ts. rn fact, we'bellevc tlat unOeiuo rcstrtstiv€ covenantsn Eaglc County m thc Tum of Valt may retain aB oblisatior tocnforcc the corrcnatrts and ibus the pl6 as it eurrpntly easrs. m; ;;tart" i- iiiil*uiolto ctlvcnante rocorded iu September, UZ ivbtch prcsiribc tbc apprtrai of in architc&iiatcomnittcg prior]g th9 corninncsmint or auy conitrucrioo activt&i iolr" uo*tilg", ilfrapproral has ncltber bccn sougbt nor tdeiicd.
It ls our lntcnt to oontiruc to vtgorouelv pursuc ortr putpose of rnaturalnfns thecoatlnuadon of the existiug.chargcter aniiacstlitih of trJprojecf as c"atc-pt"tcd fy iiilcristing.plau wc bottcve-th?! thg prgposar rubrnittcd ropid;rs: ;d s;od bt"ili";& fiimerely bcttEr ocomrics for the deickipcr.
- Iu addition to our iavolvement in tbo political - aaniutstativi proccs$ wc intcnd rolll"ll5{ru oy {suq undcr rhe various rrsrrictiytcov;nafi b"tii ; i;;Asiure ro;unairli
Iclicf and !o .acnral and punitivc damagps as proddcd by thc owenants Wc would ri:nainlvDc apprcciativc o{aotice of any pcndlng aalon oonreiplated by the Board on ttre grattsi,
m. oroet lo_exP€dite $tch noticc, please contact llronas Fitc.b at 476-72A, and he willadvl8€ our Board as appropriate.
l'nt
\ilhlle thc Bffid.of Dfucctorr bar apprwcd tHc poricy oD tho matter, it should bouoled tbat cD haYc a tWo ''-animoG ffittc" con4ur?Ence fron the indivirluEt hornew[cE wlthlrr Our associadon
- For your convendcnco, wc bmo racludo e 6opr of tbc rostdctivc orrcrs5t foryornratic'rt'
Q.n bc,batf of tbe respective Boards of Direcb,$, .
Sircoreh
7ue*/ { >
Mich&l L Mc0uc
Thomas Eitch
rEtr L .,-;u ifiuJ;l
o
;,
t
Bnc,
OG
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Valley, Phase ll File
Andy Knudtsen/Mike McGee
February 13, 1992
Fire Department Standards
There must be a fire truck turn around at the end of a driveway which is longer than 150 feet
from the public way. lf a house is located more than 150 feet from a fire truck accessway, it
must be sprinkled. lt appears that The Valley could be modified in such a way to P,rovide
paths lrom a fire truck staging area in the parking lot which do not exceed thc 150{€otlenEth.
The parking area would have to be modified to provide a fire truck (T-td m) turn around in the
lot. This presumes that fire hydrants would be distributed through the development as per
code. This would have to be the case in any development scenario.
6 ,k rrn-t-/
$ 1a 9,.,...2.
a ruECOPY
75 south fronlage road
vail, colorado 81557
(303) 47+2138
(303) 479.2139
oftice of community development
January 30, 1992
Mr. John Menkes
Webb, Zerafa, Menkes, Housden
'1801 Avenue McGill College
Suite 501
Montreal. Quebec H3A 2N4
CANADA
Fe: The Valley, Phase ll
Dear Mr. Menkes:
Thank you for your letter regarding the proposed plans for The Valley, Phase ll. I understand
your point of view concerning the relationship between the existing Valley development and
the proposal currently under review. When the Town annexed this area, the annexation
ordinance included a section, "grandfathering" in the Eagle County approvals and establishing
the process for amending the previous approvals. Staff believes it is reasonable to allow a
developer to request to modify a previously apprcr,,ed plan. However, what the planning staff
is trying to determine is the extent to which the plan should be changed. The Town is trying
to find the answer to that question, and work out a balanced solution which represents the
developer's interests, as well as the neighborhood's.
I am sure that many of your neighbors share your concerns. I encourage you to stay involved
in this review process. I understand that, living in Quebec as you do, you may not be able to
attend the public hearings. I will be sure to pass on any additional letters you send to the
Planning and Environmental Commission to help them make their decision. I will also try to
send a copy of all public notices to you so that you can stay on top of the schedule of this
item.
our code does not require the developer to obtain prior approval from an adjacent
condominium association for the proposed plan. However, we do notify adjacent
condominium associations of public hearinqs and worksessions.
o
Mr. John Menkes
January 30, 1992
Page 2
I look forward to working with you and your neighbors more on this project.
you have any specific questions or suggestions.
Please call me if
lab
QC'/: .i, , ..
Webb Zerata
Menk6s Hou3den
Architecles
1801 Avonue McGill College
Suits 501
Montreal, Quob€c
H3A 2N4
(514) 84s-2291
Fax (514) 84s-8539
Montr6al, Toronto,
Calgary, Vancouver
Januarv 08. 1992
Ms. K. Pritz
TOWN OF VAIL
Community Development Dept.,
75 S. Frontage Road W.,
VAIL, CO 81657
TJ.S.A.
Dcar Ms. Pritz,
I have owned a condo in the Valley Cor.rdominium on Buft'ehr Creck Roael lbr the l)lstthree (3) years. I purchased thc unit at thc timc in fult knowledge of the altproved
development plan, which hail not then becn totally completed. Recently, the But't'ehr
Creek townhouses were added. and as you know they fully respect the originally
approved footprints,, location, and density, of the dcvclopnlent plan. Thc pro.ject u.rrs
well executed, and I was enticed to sell my existing unit, and to purchlsc one ol'the rrcu
larger ones.
Having just completed this transaction, I am horrified to learn ol'tl.re ltossitrility ol'ir
change to the development plan for the balancc of thc unbuilt units. The proposul
which I understand would create bulkier units, moved higher up the hill to accornurotlare
a new access road, and cut more trees, is certainly not ircceptai)le to mc.
I assume that as in most communities, the rezoning of an area particr.rlarly wherr tl.rey arc
linked by condominium relationships must secure the prior approval of these owner'; or'
face consequential damages. Clearly, the balance of the property should bc developer.l
as planned for the reasons previously mentioned, and so I respectfully urge the Town ofVail to reject such major zoning changes as being detrimer.rtal to all present propcrty
ow ne rs.
There is absolutely no reason tbr the developer in question to be grantecl any changcs
to his original development plan.
Yours t ru lv.
N/\rE ' t \s^)-\>l
John Menkes
JM/cleb
DArE: iAlzlqt
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LoT
ADDRESS:
OWNER
ARCHITECT Pr*-,/, lr/ttL'^ro PHONE
ZONE DISTRICT
PROPOSED USE
**LOT SIZE
7$""rnn.
l.+
PldtI
ir,,ii'ru^'r,' "*,"!, )
)
\9rr-, ', t, ,,,.;,.*J :y { I
a- tttl)' t'r1 ,."-- rt hE a
V'1Lb 4 h tz '/
L 1-} ,1 € ""'
k" ,r.rrh srJ?
waLls Ey.. r'ktw< c*. auf?q >,,L, v
ZONE CHECK
roR
SFR, R, R P/S ZONE DISTRICTS
fbu fka* T4)-L.11
BlRlck Filing
.'r.i f<.1 .satte r,7 "/
A/lJ1l5
az
t)
uExistihq
(l
-S.( l,uJ.z_ot14 (trii:.\_- \
h pne
/a zov
or-
tfn l* c s;* {,,f
@lI . zz_
t/'
L-\,t t
?4
s1
Yny)
77zt
zY
<t
Allowed
(30) (33)
t44 I?d 5
Proposed Total
33 J3
-25-
zv
+ 425
+ 425
Front
Sides
Rear
20t
15'
l,5 t
(30) (s0)
3 2,3\<z
3' /6'
/2. s\lt\ - rY Reqrd
Yes
1)
(300il?-o0i1(900) (12001 La,u -x'tti six hu'l.^tts14
Permj.tted Slope -Q! Actual Slope '7-8/'
Date approved by Town Engineer: t'''ed. NartZ-|
N<t_ Zt zzz
Ftood Plain L.14_<
Percent Slope in.. tl.o^ 46/.
Geologic Hazards
1)[Previous condit.ions of approval (check property filel z oA.
Does this request involve a 250 AddiLion?/L.o
How much of the allowed 250 Addition is used with this request? tLf,we**Note: Under Sections 1,8.12.090 (B) and 18.13.080 (B) of the MunicipalCode, Iot.s zoned Two Family and Primary/Secondary which are less than
151000 sq. ft. in area may not consLruct a second dwelling unit. The
Community Devel-opment Department nay grant an excepLion to thisrestriction provided the applicant meets the criteria set forth underSections 18.12.090 (B) and 18.13.080 (B) of the Municipal Code includingpernanently restricting the unit as a long-term rental unit for fulf-time employees of the Upper Eagle Valley.
2',)
3)
7J'totat GRFA
Primary GRFA
Secondary GRFA
p!Setbacks
6iz- water Course Setback
OV SiEe Coverage
6i!. Landscaping
QpReLaining wall Heights
0L Parking
6lL earage Credit
0lL orivez
0(view Corridor Encroachment:
Environmental /Hazards :
a) Snow Avalanche____________ !e__b) Rockfall ffi
10
-W.
6o('+
t
) tza-ct'6---._-
AK c (tti")/i)= bqqb l rrs
0 (t nsu)(') : tQ{b
eDs
zF (zqt{(z)-- 4&b( f.or
(^ (z z*)0\ = zzcb 4tr
----
/t, ot'1
Ll,a> ff (zz s\(-t) = - Itt f
14424
.t I
U p-{>lt 9l*t-
. t,
jfDD *>zt - 777{
4.oa _ 4s.D = u3.7{b
bszs
ToH
b52t -t t44Lq' z_o4{4
N.V. Elenial
.hO. Box 309
Ponte Veria Beach, FL 32004
Ron A'linian
Snowram Associales
5 Brislol Drive
Manhasset, NY 11030
Chades A. Dill
807 S. Warson
St. Louis, MO 63124
Todd Keleske
4840 Meadow Lane, #A
Vail, CO 81657
Ronald W. Crolzer
1460 RUge Lane
Vail, CO 81657
F. Scott and Roslynn R. Nicholas
825 Nichollel Mall
221 Medical Arls Building
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Glenn W. and Barbara S. Bamad
4500 South DornirB
Englewood, CO 80'110
Mervyn Lapin
232 W. Meadot{ Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Ronna J. Flaum
P.O. Box 309
Poinle Verdan Beach, FL 320(X
Peter Feistman
The Super Associalion
P.O. Box 3176
Vail, CO 81658
Charles and Margarot Roserquist
P.O. Box 686
Vail, CO 81658
Sleve Gensler
Roben Unman
Paftview Realty, |rc.
5299 DTC Blvd., Suite 5fl)
Englewood, CO 80111
Town of Vail
Brian Doolan
P.O. Box 2182
Vail, CO 81658
ir\c{ttt
*9,- )rt*-
NOTICE lS 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 December 9, 1991 at 2:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
1. ( PM) Joint worksession between Town Council and Planning and Environmental
Commission to discuss Forest SeMce land ownership adjustment.
Presenters: Rich Phelps/Mike Mollica
2. ' A request for a change to an approved development plan, Tracts A and B, a part of
ParcelA, Lions Ridge Filing N0.2, commonly referred to as The Valley, Phase ll.Applicant: Crossview at Vail Properties, Inc./Steve GenslerPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
3. A request for a conditional use permit for an outdoor dining patio for the Gallery
Building (Russell's Restaurant), located in the Commercial Core lzone district,228
Bridge StreeVa part of Lot A, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing.Applicant: Ron Riley/D.R.R., Inc.Planner: Mike Mollica
4. Discussion with Telluride Planning Commission and statf conceming planning issues.
5. Any items tabled from the November 25, 1991 Planning and Environmental
Commission meeting.
Information on the listed items is available at the Community Development office in the Vail
Municipal Building during regular otfice hours.
TOWN OF VAIL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Published in the VailTrail on November 22. 1991.
I. This procedure l_s reguired foror for a reguest for-a district
PETITION FO
A CIIANGE IN D
A. NAI4E OF PETITIONER
ADDRESS
B. NAME OF
ADDRESS
C. NAME OF OI,INER
STGNATURE
ADDREss ftCf I)r<
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAI
ADDRESS
LEGAI-, DESC
E. FEE $zoo.oo - pAI0
Petltlon Date
TO THE ZONING ORDTNANCE
btNv
any amendmant to the zoning ord,inanceboundary change
A+b YATPT+tP4P
ft"y4,\rFata lili"br I
)
)
3
ol
F. A list of the names of owners of ar.r. property adjacent to thesubject property, and their uailing aaarJssei.
4!".')" & c>,!^l
'\ ,?1 'T--
D B",a^i E.,lo-- - ?'oE^- zl&L lto'L, C'- Elcv'
2) C\{*-y^f C-f.^s<- G'r-,os- 3 Ly.,.. RJ' F^\ lc.^.-Ji G'f,oro
-ToL ^ J fr"nt" F--,*r[b- - ?rrr Pu.^t:h^u- p1. t-fh.^,-"J,G]otr.,
(ot/ER)fi rt-t.r.r,"'4e n,a i t
l) G^u* ^-.J ,&.,-., l}o,Fs'.,r - '1"o1oS-,1( Cl,.rFs*l , GTlt-.oJ, 6 to//oD Glis,r-.,..\ G.r.ot L.r^.lJo; - lq&r E^(k^eo.L €J a.ia yatL,k [tz,s^Za)futa&Jl P o fl-1 tL/l th'-(, G €,ds-r'
Dy,+<-.,^fut-Z-tLe
z)
,1 qa.(- -D^,-- ,fh //," 4. /,a"(, /u lyarl
D ft *, -k/ h. / y' Lat:7"'.. A,,ofn7, 4 . ^A. Ayr, /o .o<6^. b-1. l-7',h',,
e"o*rWA -
PETITIONER' S REPRESENIATIVE
t4-1
(print or tvpe)A-t-r*' al /A;( /n"no^nl<., -T.un-
l.'/ c1 ,*.'4 ,lD?- o,^g-.,
p,.-.o!,,4(,.o- dett PEONE 75r - ft lf
r)-7-orr F;td^ - P- o,R--' 3 n 6, /a i(,G, Jrcsu
"'' Petition-f,orm ro" aif 'to zoilng ord or n"qo.stor chanse i' uo[i$iri""
II. Four (41 copies of the following.inforruation:
A. The petition shall include a suunarl, of the proposed revisionof the rggrulations, or a cornplete description ol the pioposeachanges in district boundari6s and a nap indicating tie-Eiisting.and,proposed district borurdaries. Appfieant aust subruit rritten and/oigraphic Daterials stating the reasons for request.
III. Tirne Reguirernents
The-Plannlng and Environmental- Comnrission meets on the 2ndl and 4thuondays of each non_th, A-petition with the necessary accompanyingT:terial must be submitted four weeks prior to the Eate of-tfr3-rneet-ilq. . Following. the_ Planning-and snviro-rurental Comnission meeting,all a.nendruents to the zonilrg ordinance or district borurairy-;h;9"must 90 to the Town Councit for final action.
Your proposa'l will be reviewed for compliance with Vail's Conprehensfve plan.- IV.
If thls appllcatlon requiles a separate review by any local. State o!federal agency other than the Town of Vail, the appllcation fee shall be
increased-by 5200.00. Examples of such review, may include, but are note
limlted to: Colorado DePartnent of EighHay Access Permits, Army Corps of
Engj.neers 404, etc.
The applicant shall be responsible for paying any publishing fees which
are in excess of 50* of the application fee. Tf, at the applicant's
request, any matte! Ls postponed for hearing, causing the matter to be
re-publishedr then, the enti.re fee for such re-publication shal1 be paid
by the appllcant.
Applications deemed by the Cornmunity Development Department t.o have
significant design, Iand use or othe! issues which may have a significant
inpact on the conununity may require review by consultants other than town
staff. Shoufd a determlnation be rnade by the town staff that an outside
consultant ls needed to review any appllcation' the Comrnunity Development
may hire an outside consultant. it sha1l estimate the amount of money
ne-cessary to pay him or her and this amount shall be forwarded to the
Town by -ttre ipplicant at the time he files his applicalion with the
Community Oevelopment Department. Upon completion of the review of theapplication by the consultant. dDY of the funds forwarded -by t!'te
appricant for palrment of the consuftant whj,ch have not been paid to the
consultant shall be returned to the applicant. Expenses incurred by the
Town in excess of the amount forwarded by the apPlicant shall be paid to
the Town by the applicant within 30 days of notification by the Town.
6. A request for a modification to an apDroved development plan for The Vallev. Phase
II/1480 Buffehr Creek Road.
Applicant Steve Gensler
Planner: Andv Knudtsen
Kristan Pritz summarized what was being presented, stating it was similar to what Ed
Zneimer had brought through a few months previously. Staff would like to see more mix in
the type of housing built.
Randy ??? explained the difficulties in the current development plan. One problem is that
there are some units which have their parking 400 feet away from their units, which makes
them very difficult to sell to either visitors or locals. Another difhculty is that under the
current plan, one lot is just too steep. Randy said the developer would prefer to forget an
increase in GRFA and instead reduce the density from 9 to 7 units, pull those units closer to
the access point, and be located further from the Grouse Glen project. Randy indicated his
preferences on a map of the area.
Ludwig Kurz asked if the developer wanted all the units along one side. Kristan Pritz
answered that they didn't necessarily have to be that way, but staff and the developers were
struggling with access and garage issues. Randy said a lot of vegetation would be affected,
but if the number of units were decreased, that would help avoid some of the problems.
Kristan asked if Steve Gensler would asree. Randv said it was clear the site could not handle
28
additional GRFA.
Jim Shearer asked if they had investigated accessing the area from above. Randy said they
had. and it would be even more difficult.
Diana Donovan was concemed that all the sites seemed to be located where there were groves
of trees. She indicated her preference for individual units over a complex, but was not sure
how to develop the area without desroying it in the process. Jim Shearer was convinced that
if the units were relocated to avoid some trees, the project and values for the units would
benefit.
Jim also wanted to know if the number of units could be reduced, either with a corresponding
drop in GRFA or without it, but keeping in mind the cluster was an important factor. He
suggested the developers use the trees to their advantage. He commented the plan looked like
it was made without regard to the topography of the site. Randy agreed that the major
problem was the grade overall, and that not too much could be done with it. He said the best
idea the developers had devised was to move the project closer to the road.
After a discussion of fire access concems, neighbor Tom Fitch asked about the possibility of
providing common carports. The carports would still result in a walk, but it would be much
shorter. Randy replied that option was not acceptable. Jim asked the developers be limited
to a 2-car garage per unit. Nancy Robbins, a neighbor, asked how overflow parking was
29
going to be addressed. Randy indicated they had investigated a couple options, but no final
determination had been made.
Diana Donovan said she did not like houses on both sides of the street. She preferred a
cluster off a single driveway, and strongly requested the developers not destroy the best part
of the sites--the trees.
Kristan asked the Commissioners to define a direction for the developers. Jim Shearer was
favorable to the developers' intent, and said the less disturbance created, the better. Diana
Donovan asked how the Commission could help the process. Randy asked for an
endorsement in the reduction of units. and the consensus of the Commissioners was in
agreement. Diana concluded by saying she believed the developers could come up with a
olan and show that it was the best.
Tom Fitch concluded the worksession by saying, "save the trees!"
'7 . A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a snow dump on the
propertv generallv located west of the Town of Vail Shops.
Mike Mollica explained the issues surrounding the request. After the presentation, Chuck
Crist asked if the Colorado Department of Highways was to require a left turn lane for the
access permit, would the bridge to the golf course be affected. Mike said it would, but that
30
MEMORANDUM
ll FileTO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
The Valley, Phase
Andy Knudtsen
October 23, 1991
Notes
After staff meeting today, the Town has the following comments regarding the proposed
development for The Valley, Phase ll.
1. Primary concern deals with fitting the development into the site. Specifically, the
architectural style does not seem to be appropriate.
2. The Fire Department must approve the road design. Could alter design significantly!
3. Staff is concerned about the preservation of the trees. We need to see the site staked
as soon as possible. ldentity which trees will be removed and which trees can be
saved.
4. The size of the units on the north side of Buffehr Creek Road appear to be too large.
We need to see elevations, floor plans and a site plan for this area. We are concerned
about how much of the site will be altered with both the driveway and buibing
footprints.
5. Randy Hodges number - 468-5871
6. We would like to see one employee housing unit included within one of the structures
on the north side of Bulfehr Creek Road. In addition, we would like to see one unit
included within the uppermost structure on the south side. Steve Gensler appears to
have accepted the requirement on the north side, but would like to discuss the south
side unit further.
7. At this time, all structures meet height limitations.
8. Must provide drainage easement.
4-1
U
Breakdown of Development:
South side:
North side:
Total:
..7 units, 16,153 sq. ft. of GRFAr, \ units, 7,500 sq. ft. of GRFA z
23,581 sq. ft. ol GRFA
/,
,( 11(. t!','' .i\'
f\i"
1"
iy \rl
I ' j-'J" ')\' *\l/r\'
'\'ff \'t'1',L\\
,//
,v
i.\
\.-/
rrl
"+
//.. TICOR TITL€
=it TwSURANC€Commitment for Title Insurance
flOORTITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, (a stock company), a California corporation, herein called the Company, fora valuable
consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or poilcies of title insurance, as identrfied in Schedule A, in favor of the
proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land described
or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A
and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof.
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies
committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company, either at the time of the issuance of this
Commitment or bv subsequent endorsement.
This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and obligations
hereunder shall cease and terminate one hundred eighty (180) days after the effective date hereof or when the policy or
policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provrded that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the
fault of the Comoanv.
This Commitment shall not be valrd or brnding untrl countersigned below by a validatrng signatory of the Company.
TICOR TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
President
Attest Secretary
Validating Signarory
COPYRIGHT I966 - AMEFICAN LANO TITLE ASSOCIATiON
By
TO 1423 {12-891 Ame.rcan Land Tlrls Assocrsrion Commrrmenr - I966 cAT. NO. NNO03:4
cAT. NO. NNOO4a5
fO f 58q (l-841 Am.rlcrn |lnd Tltlc Atiocl.tlon Commltmlnt lor Tluc lntur.nc.-1966
v
Schedule A
303867-C6 |
Your No.
Bon nymede/U | | man n
Prepared for: Val l/Lionshead Real EstateJMts Attn: Sue Dugan '
511 East Llonshead Mall
Vail, C0 81657
Inquiries should be directed to:
Kammv S. Wa lters
1. Policy or Policies to be issued: Amount Premium
(a) D nure owners Policy - Form
-
-1970 $ 560,000'0f 1'011'50
Proposed Insured: cRoSsV lal pRopERTlES, a Colorado I lmlted partnersh lp and BUFFEHR
OREEI(TO4'NHOI4ES,LTD.,aColoradolimltedpartnership
{u} flaura Loan Polici,'igzo, iArn"naid'1o/17liol $ 2?n}000.0p 50.00
Proposedlnsured: BONNYi4EDE PROPERTIES,
a Colorado general Partnersh i P
2. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is a Fee Simple.
FEE
3. Title to said estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in:
BONNYI'EDE PROFERTIES,
a Colorado general Parfnersh lP
4. The land referred to in this Commitment is located in the County of
State of and described as follows: Eag I e
Co lorado
LEGAL DESCRIMION SET FORTH ON SHEET ATTACIIED HERETO AND BY THIS
REFERENCE INCORPORATED HEREIN AND MADE A PART HEREOF.
CCrs to:
Vail/Lionshead Real Estate
Addt l charges: $ Robert ul lman and sfeven Gensler
Tax Certiflcafe: $ 20.00 Parkwood Realfy, Inc.
Maur lce Ne I son
E scrow
T0TI{- CIIARGES: $1 ,071 .50
The Premium specified in Schedule A is the entire charge for the Title Search, Title Examination and Title lnsurance.
cAT. NO. NNOO334TO 1 444 (1 -84)o
schedule n - (Continued)
COMMITMENT NO.
303867-C6 Plat l.D. No. L-35
The land referred
Eagle , Staie of
fo ln fhls Commifment is located in the Countv of
Colorado and described as fol lows:
Two tracfs of land ln Parcel2, a subdivlsion recorded in
Eagle County., Colorado, sald
descr I bed as fol lows:
TRACT A:
A, Lionts Ridge Subdivision, Fll ing No.
the office of the Clerk and Recorder,
two frac1's being more partIcu|ar|y
Beglnning at a poi nt on the North line of said Parcel A whence the
Nor+h t./4 corner of Sectlon 12, Township 5 South, Range Bl West of'fhe Slxfh Principal Merldian bears North 88'19t41rr East, 280.00 feet
d lstanf;
thence Soufh 1o40t1gtr East, 44. l0 feet;
thence 44.39 teet along the arc of a curve -fo the left having a
radlus of 601 .29 feel , an lnferlor angle of 4o13t49tt, and a chord
rvh lch bears South 68olBr59tt Wesl', 44.3B feet;
fhence South 66o12r05rrlt{est, 283.62 fee};
fhence I'lorth 23"47t55trllesfr 10.00 feet;
thence North l5o55t58rt tdest, 189.78 feet to a point on the Northline of sald Parcel A;
thence along said North line North 88"l9t4irrEast, 415.05 feet to
fhe polnt of beglnning.
TMCT B:
Beglnnlng at a pol nt on the Southorly righf of way line of Lionts
Rldge Loop whence the llorth |/4 corner" of Sectlon 12, Torvnsh ip 5
South, Range 81 West of fhe Sixth Prlnclpal fr'leridlan bears North
67"14130n East, 344.46 feet dlstant, said point of beginnlng also
belng the Northeaster.ly corner of Eastern Val ley Condomln iums -
Phase 2A One, the Oondominium Map of rvhlch ls recorded in the officeof the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder,
'l-hence the fol lowlng three cor:rses along the Easterly boundary of
sald Eastern Val ley Condominiums - Phase 2A One:
(l) Soufh 15o09r05?'East, 23.10 feeti(2, South 41o50r55n l{est, 27.90 feet;(5) South 41 o53t31r' East, 52.00 feet;
thence North 5'l "121 42n East, 55.90 feeti
fhence North 89"53t25rt East 70.67 feet;
thence South 00"06r35rr East, 35.40 feet;
thence South 13"47121?t West, 230.65 feeti
thence South 30o36t24tt Eastr 255,96 feet to a point on the Southerlyline of sald Parcel A, Lionrs Rldge Subdivlsion, Filing No. 2,
thence along said Southerly line North B4o55t16rrEast, 98.42 feet to
a polnt on fhe tt/esterly righf of way I lne of L lonts Ridge Loop,(Contlnued)
caT..No. NNOO334TO 1444 (l.94)o
Schedule
A
- (Gontinued)
coMMlrMENr No. ,03ffi7 _C6
LEGAL DESCRIPfI0N - contlnued
thence the fol lowlng seven courses along said Westerly right of way llne:
(l) North 1"55150n h/est, 114.12 feeti
Q) 106.58 feet along the arc of a curve to fhe righ'f havlng a.radlus of 198'70
feef, an interioi angle of.50o44f00rt, and a chord whlcfr bears North
13o26110rr East 105.51 feet;(5) North 2Bo48t10r' East, 188.56 feeti(4) 243.i2 feet along thl arc of a curve to the left havlng a radlus'of 115.91
feet, an interloi angle of tl2oo28t29]t, and a chord whlch bears North
31"26104n West, 201 .24 feet;(5) South 88o19r41tr West 2,83 feeti a radtus ot 541 .29(6) 2Og.O4 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having
feet, an inferloi angle of 22o17t36tt, and a chord which bears South
77o15t531t West 207.74 teeti(7) South 66012r05rr llest, 24.05 feear, to the poi nf of beginning.
c^T. NO. lNqlg1l
1. The following are the requirements to
1. Instruments necessary to create
delivered and duly filed for record.
be complied with:
the estate or interest to be insured must be properly executed,
general partnership to Crossvlew
and Buffehr Creek Townhomes, Lid.,
N0TE: Asslgnmenf of Parl'nership Interesf perports to asslgn the Interest ofEdward [1. Fal len fo David F. l{Illis and Frank p: Dickson, Jr.
B. certlficate of Llmlfed Partnership for Buffehr. creel< Townhomes, Ltd, a.Colorado tlmited partnersh ip, disclosing the names of the general partners andother lnformaflon required by 1973 c.R.s. 7-61-101 , et seq., as amended, andevidencing the exlstence of said llmited partnershlp prior fo the flme ltacquires tltle to subject property, must be flled in the offlce of theSecretary of state for the state of colorado, but need not be recorded.
C. Evldencs satisfactory to fhe Company or its duly aufhorized agenf thaf fhetfreal estafe fransfer taxrr imposed by Ordlnance l,.lo. 2d, series ol 1919, of theTown of vall, colorado has been paid, and thaf the llen imposed by seciion 11thereof has been ful ly satisf led.
(Continued)
TO 1423 &t P (1{,1) Amorlc tsnd lltl. A3sochllon
Ultmont
lor Tt o Inr{ranco. tg66
Part l, Schedule B
Deed from Bonnymede Propertles, a ColoradoProperfies, a Colorado llmiJ-ed partnershlp
a Colorado limlted parfnership.
pre, Duly execufed real property transfer declaratlon, executed by eitherfhe Grantor or Granfee, to accompany fhe Deed rnenfloned above, pursuant foArtlcle 14 of House Blll No. 12BB - CRA i9-,l4-102.
NOTE: Trade Name Affldavit or Partnership Agreement for Bonnymede Propertles,a coforado General Partnershlp, a colorado partnership, recorded December 30,1982, ln Book 351 at Page 184, dlscloses that the names and addresses of thepartners of sald partnership are as follows:
Maur ice 0. Nelson
301 E. ProspectFort @l I ins, C0 80525
Karl K. Carsonll19 Parkwood Dr.Forf @l llns, C! 80525
Steven H. Smlth
514 Clarkslev Road
Manltou Sprlngs, @ 80j25
Edward M. Fallen
5 South Tejon, Sulte 321
Colorado Sprlngs, C0 80903
See Part ll, Schedule B (following)
car. No. NNoo334TO 1444 (1.84'
B-tSchedule - (Gontinued)
CO[,n\rfTMENr No. 303e67 -C6
REQU IREMENTS - contlnued
D. Deed of Trust from Crossvlew Propertles, a Colorado limited parinershlp and
Buffehr Creek Townhomes,Ltd., a Colorado llmited partnershlp to the Publlc
Trustee of Eagle County for the use of Bonnymede Propertles, a Colorado
general parfnersh lp, to secure $220,000.00.
E. Certtftcafe of Dlsmlssal, issued by the Clerk of the Court, ln ClvlI Actlon
No. 91-CV-156, In the Dlstrlqf Court ln and for Eagle County, Colorado,
enfltled Crossvlew Propertles, Inc., Plalntiff(s), vs. Bonnymede
Properfles, a Colorado general partnershlp, et al ., Defendant(s). tlotlce
of Lls Pendens recorded Aprll 5, 1991 , ln Book 550 at Page 965.
' c T. t{o. N||qII2
TO laa &2F $40 Anrclcan IJB ffth Arsochr|on CgIglt D.tt to. TtU. tnJu.r'lc! . tfftrochtlo.r
Tlnra.tt
to. Ttt!. tnJu.lrc! .
Pail ll, Schedule B
Commitment No. :O:eOl-C6
ll. Schedule B of the policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to tfre following matters unless the
same are dlsposed of to the satis(action of the Company:1. Defects, llens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in thepublic records or attaching subseguent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the proposed
Insured acquires fqr value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment.2. Standard Exceptions:
(a) Hights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
(b) Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
(c) Encroachments, overlaps, boundary line disputes, or other matters which woutd be disclosed by an
accurate survey or inspection of the premises.
{d) Any lien, or right to a lien, lor services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter fumished, imposed
by law and not shown by the public records.3. Special Exceptions:
(a) Taxes due and
posed for wafer
b. Rlght of fhe Proprietor of a Vein or Lode.to extract and remove his orefherefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premlses
hereby granted, as reserved in Unlted States Pafent recorded ln Book 93 af
Page 42.
c. Rlght of way for dltches or canals consiructed by the authority of the UnlfedStates, as reserved In United Sfates Pafenf recorded In Book 93 at Page 42.
Resfrictlons, .whlch.do not contaln a forfelture or reverter clause, but
on lftlng resfrlctlons, lf any, based on race, color, rel lglon or. naf ionalorlgfn, as contained in lnstrument recorded September 20, 1972 ln Book 225 al
Page 443; Amendment recorded January 22, 1974 in Book 233 at Page 53.
Uti lity easements 10 feet on each slde of al I inferlor lot llnes and 15 feetalong al I exferlor lot llnes and along al I subdlvlslon boundary llnes as
reserved on the recorded plat of Llonrs Rldge Subdivlsion Flllng #2.
payable; and anyor sewer serv ice,
fax, speci al assessnenfs,or for any other special
charge or lien im-
+axing district.
d.
e.
t, Agreement regarding underground felephone condull' between Tayvel
Land Conpany and lvlountaln Sta+es Telephone and Telegraph Company
September 27, 1973 ln Book 231 at Page 291, In which a loca+lonspeclfled.
Env i ronmental
recordedls not
S. Resol uflon No. 80-20 of fhe Board of County Commissioners County of Eagle,Sfate of 0olorado recorded lrhrch 21 , 1980 in Book 500 at Page 757 and
Resol utlon No.80-12 recorded June 4, 1980 In Book 505 at Page 645 and
Resolution No. 80-28 recorded llay 6, 1980 ln Book 302 at Page 508.
h. Restrlctlons, whlch do not contain a forfelture or reverter cl ause, bufonitf lng restrlctlons, lf any, based on race, color, religion or nationalorlgln, as contained ln lnstrumenf recorded March 27,1986, In Book 100 af
( Conf I nued )
See Part l, Schedule B (preceding)
caT. No, N NO'O334TO 1444 (1 ,84 )
B-tl
Schedule - (Continued)
COMMITMENT NO.303867 -C6
EXCEPfIONS - contlnued
Page 758 and re-recorded Aprll 'l 0, 1980 ln Book 501 at page 415.
Easenrent and rlght of way to construcf, operate and maintain exisfingfacilif ies providing water and sewer serv lces, as granted by The valleyVenture, a colorado general partnersh ip to The Eastern Val ley oondcminiumAssociafion, Phase 2-A-0ne, a colorado non-proflt corporatlon by instrumenfrecorded July 10, 1981, in Book 325 at page 795.
Easemenf and rlght of way fo @sntruct, operafe and malntain a tvalkway forpedestrlan lngress and egress, as granfed by The val ley Venfure, a coioradogeneral partnership by lnstrument recorded July .|0, 1981 , ln Book 325 aal
Page 796.
I
Easement and righf of way for utlllty purposes,.as granted by The ValleyVenture fo Holy Cross Electrlc Assoclation by lnstrument recorded Ocfober28, 1981, ln Book 331 at Page 257,.In which the speclfic locatlon of saldeasemenf ls more fully described in sald instrumenf.
Easement and rlght of way for wafer llne purposes, as granted by The ValleyVenture to Vail Valley Consolidated Water Dlstricf bv instrument recordedseptember 13, 1982, ln Book 345 at page 785, in which the specific locatlonof sald easement ls more fully described in said lnstrument.
Any and all unredeemed tax sales.
NOTE: upon receipt of a certlflcate of raxes Due evidencing thaf there areno 6xlstlng open tax sales, the above exception wlll not appear on thepol lcles fo be Issued hereunder.
i.
j.
k.
m.
Andy Knudsen
Community DeveloPme
Town ol Vail
75 S. F. R,
Vail, Co, 81657
Nov 7, 1992
Re: Gensler DeveloPment Plan
,nit,iJi.'li;,' i '.. 1990
I
nt
Hi Andy,
on sept. 25, 1gg2, representatives of The Valley and Grouse Glen, condominiums had
" r""iing set up with supposedly, Steve Gensler, Peter Jamar' and Jay Peterson. This
meeting *"r ".it"O by Gensler himself . Most of our people had to take off of work
early oidrive up from Denver for this meeting, We had seven representatlves present
and on time. of the other side, only Jay Peterson showed (twenty minutes late)
Gensler and Jamar apparently blew it off completely'
For the most part, the meeting was a waste of time, as the key players weren't even
here to present thetr plan or answer questions. lt was good to talk with Jay' About all
fhat really came out of the meeting, however, was Jay agreeinglo meet rvith us no less
than threb times prior to funher pu-blic meetings with the PEC' This, to give us an
opportunity for pertinent input into his proposid plan for developing The Velley Phase
2, Jaywas to then conlirmthis in writing to us. once again, nothrng has happened'
Thera has been no further communication from Jay or Gensler'
I write to you only to keep you abreast of any and all correspondence (or lack of)
between the two partles. We remain adamant in our concern for the development of
this parcel, and feel that we have a strong legal basis providing for our input into the
plan, or lor requiring adherence to the original 1980 approved plan if necessary'
itl.rr. undersiand that we really are willing to negotiate in good faith on any
reasonable plan presented, and that we in no way expect this land to not be
developed. All we want, is lor it to fit with the buildings, forest' environment, and look
that currently exists,
Ihaveincludedacopyof myDec. 1991 letterthatoutlines,onceagain,mostof our
concerns. Please "ontinu"
io keep me updated on any and all further actions between
vour office and Mr, Gensler,
Tom Fitch
The Valley
PO 3176
Vail, Co. 81658
476-7202
cc: Peter Zwiebach, Mike McCune, Jack Snow,
for The ValleY Phase 2, Tract's A & B
Nancv Fobbins
r/ta /7^o/
&r-r'*,fit a'4Lz
?,t-"/rj-
z<t-ZL -La-<4-
' .r7 ,'--zt<7L H-A'd4-<-,'t4-
(l-azt <z>-e,- 4-at-aA. l'*a----2./-
Z4/,2-,e/
il; /z/rz-.et /Zz.' e'4't4-4-e.'L/
hrZzzZz-tt-e{ ,
ry,LLZz- l,zl<Za-) /?V-A-'€-'/-tt.44-L-
///{_,L2; - ; i-or-u,!#-*-""-/
/4-L, zZU !<te/-&uo,or-rt -/2'4(-' 4-"4'-Whe-Otz*t--- -/'1'41'7 .&-'z;-W4- t
/C;2"-.2 azt-a--ty' Zz /rz-,
4,4,Le./ zt <-il-,/z-'t-, g-z/t*j- .'
),,u
/.5-a e
M
.7f" 7/ azQ'4-Z/a/4 Crt.
,/
I*Fn r . .,,I{.r- ,
Planning and Envi ronmental Comnissionc/o I ofin or varr
75 S. Frontage RC.
Vail, CO 81657
Januarv 10' 1992
To Whom It May Concern:
I am wriLing to express my sincere concern and distress regarding the modifications
proposed for the Planned Unit Development knovn at The Valley, Phase II.
I^fhen I att.ended Lhe P.E.C,work session on June 24, 7991, T noted that Lhe conrnission
had definite reservations regarding Mr. Gensler's proposed changes. Nor'r I undersbandthat l,rith only minor differences from the plan presented in June, l.tr. Gensler'sproject is all but approved. What happened beLi^reen June 24 and notr to chang'e your
minds?
TtLose of you who were oresent at the June 24 meeting might remember Lhat Tom Fj-tch
and I voiced our concerns regarding the remova 1 of many of bhe old trees and other
vegetation in order for Mr. Gensler to accomplish his goal of single family homes at
The Valley, Phase II. Further, we sLated our support for the E.U.D. that is currentLy
approved, which would incorporate clustered living units into the existing landscape,
and ubilize r,rallc,rays from a centralized parking area near the road. In addition, I
personalLy expresseC my inberest in the progress oF bhis project by requesbing thab
The Valley Condominiums be notilied of any subsequent worl< sessions, hearings, etc.,that concerned T'he VaLley, Phase IT. We did not hear anything about bhe project fora long time, but I did notice that during the fall the property ruas listeC for sale in
the classified sections of the Vail Dailv anC the Vail Trail.
Suddenly the proj ect, is on again. I^lith a reduction in size by tr,ro units and Lhe offerof a designated employee housing uniL, Mr. censler seems tc have gained Lhe approva Iof lhe planning staff and the conrnission.
First of all, I would like to comnent on the reduction in the number of units. This
change does not seem to alter the amount of veqetation lhat will be destroyed, nor
does it change the fact that fhe Vallcy, Phase II rsill resemble a suburb of a large
metropolitan area rather than a neighborhood in a smal1 mountain community. 'When we
purchased. our condominium at The VrLley we \'rere under the impression thaL the neighbor-'irood'rrould remain simiLar to vhat \ras all ready there. The approved PUD seemed to sholv
an understanding and appreciation for the surrounding area, and was designed with thabin mind, The proposal put before you by Mr. Gensler is a signiSicant deoarLure from
Lhe PUD approved by EaEle County, anC in my opinion, does not enhance the neighborhood
in any fashion. Even five unibs in the currently proposed configuration r,rrou Ld not
significantLy reduce the damage to the land.
One suggesti-on f r,rould offer as an alternative tc an unsiqhLty parlring lot near Lhe
road is to approve a plan that is more si,milar to the current PUD, and then build a
berm near the road thab camoufLages a continuous series of garages under one roof.
This could be one or two cars deep depending on the alailable space. A driveway from
the main road around behind the berm rrrould allow access to vehicles. hhile this maynot be the perfect solution to the centralizeC parl<ing question, T believe bhat it
does show that with a little imagination there are other options; and T feel that
Mr. Gensler's plan to build single family homes ',rith attached garages is not appro-priate for the site he has chosen.
trl
I'r.rould also like to address a comnent macie l:y a member of the P.E.C. at tbe June 221
r^rnrrr qoqci ^n 'l-rn.r cri, Flr;ff FLri nri-ri nr'l rlr:ci^n Fnr Tq-ro 1/:l16\/ ph:qa -T i.: enl- i..rtr:FOar -t9!trqr vs'J I l' r
and that peopLe would not buy a uniL if bhey had to ',vall( in f- rom bhoir pdrl<ing space,
as opposed bo having an atLached garage. I find this assumption ridiculous since The
Valley has secn a JreaL deal of activity on the rcrl estate marl(eL in recent years,
and the prices have been rising steadily for the past three. As a member of the
Board of Directors, I have the opportunity to speal( to ne',!r or,/-ne rs f rom time to time.
l'Jlt i 1c parl<ing is important to them, their surrounclings are uppermost in their minds.
Availability of parl(ing is more importanL Lhan proximity. We purchased our unit at
The Valley because of bhe quiet. the iroods, and beinq able Lo be so close bo so muclr
natural beauty. tr{ost of our neighbors are here for the same reason. I thin!< that if
ne had wanted to live in a more sullurban setting, we r"/ould have purchaseC a home closerto Denver rabher than in Vai1,
qar.,.rr.r] 1 \, T An n^+ r r,.-- *nderstand how an employee housing unit is even feasible in this
LocaLion. It Mr, Gensler were qcing to oi,n, or inhabit Lhe primarv living space T
cculd see hori it might worl<. But trhen the projecb is being done as a "spcc", ib just
doesn't seem reasonable to asl< an extraordinary amount of money for a home, and thenresLrict the use of 500 square feet of living space. If I were goinl bo pay haLf amillion dollars for r home, T certainly r.rou ld not 'cuy Lhab one. Then, if you Co sell
the house with a careLaker unit, who viLl monitor whebher or not the unit is rentedat a reasonable rabe to someone who actually worl(s in bhe Vail I/al1ey?
Another question I have regarding Lhe employee housing unit is one of access. During
the June 24 ror'..: session I spent a good deal of time listening to a presentation by
Mr. Shapiro, i'rho vas applying for a special development Cistrict for a nerv home that
he wanbed to build. One of the quesLions :hab \{as raised reqarrlipg his employee
housing uniL was "How vrilL the employee got bo and trom worl{ Iiving Lhab tar arvay
irom a lcus stop?" I have the same question about Mr. Gensler's unit, T'here is no bus
service on Buffehr Cree]< Road now, and from what we have been told, there is not likeLy
ever Lo be ar'ry. ilr3 nearesL bus sLup is a1:1:roximabeiy orre Lo orle and a iralF ntiles
from Mr. Gensler's proposed employee housing unit. Enployee trousing should be 'ruilt
so that employees can geL, to and from \ror'l< without having to drive. 'l'hey should havc
easy access to the 'rus sysLem; and easy access does not mean wall(inq over a miLe to
the nearest bus stop, Many of our employees need bo r^/orl{ tvo jobs iust to mar(e ends
meet, and even then maintaining a car may not be in their budqet. I bhin': that in
this instance, while a desi"gnated employee housing unit migllb satisiy a technical re-
ciui rement / it may not serve the intended purpose in the best rray
I feel iL important to also menLion the iacL that Mr. Gensler seems to have suggestedthat he has been in contact with his neighbors throughouL bhe past nine months. As a
member of the executive board at The Valley Condominiuns. I am aware of only one timethat l4r. Gensler contacted our representative to the Super Association, and then did
nob fo1lov through with supplying plans thab he had promised bo provide, I do not
consider this r,rorking irith your neighbors. Do you?
In conclusion, I ask you as members of the Planning and Environmental Corunission to
re-evaluate Mr. Gonsler's proposed development aild asl( yoLrselves three very importantquestions: 1) Does changing the current PLID serve the best interests of the neighborhood
and Lhe conrnunity; does iL significantly improve any aspect of the area? 2) Is the
prornise of a designated employee housing unit reasonable, viable, ancl functional for the
purpose intended for employee housing? 3) Is the loss of a siflnificant amount of
maLure foresb, and the flora and fauna surroundinq it a fair pric3 tc pay for a dcvelop-
ment that turns a mounbain conununity into suburbia; and just ]-ncause a ieveLoper wants
l-rt mrr.o .-r I2r-^ n//rf il- nn a qnp.ltl .t.i..r1 VentUfe?
l2)
Piease reconsider Mr. Gensler's proposal
and come back lrith a new plan that shows
wishes to build.
Thank you for your time and attention to
and ask him to return
more consideration for
this matter-
to his drawing board
the area in r,rhich he
P.O. Box 3751Vail, C0 81657
(303) 416-2413
cc: file
Tom Fitch
Peter Zwi eback
Peter Feistmann
f3l
i,o
Januarv 08- 1992
Ms. K. Pritz
TOWN OF VAIL
Community Development Dept.,
75 S. Frontage Road W.,
vAtL, co 81657
U.S.A.
Dear Ms. Pritz,
I have owned a condo in the Valley Condominium on Buft'ehr Creek Road lbr thc past
three (3) years. I purchased the unit at the time in full knowleclge of the ap1'rroverl
development plan, which had not then been totally completetl. Recently, the But'lthr
Creek townhouses were added, and as you know they fully respect the origirrirlly
approved footprints, location, and density, of the development plan. The project was
well executed, and I was enticed to sell my existing unit, and to purchase one of the ncu,
larger ones.
Having just completed this transaction, I am horrified to learn of the possibility of a
change to the development plan for the balance of tlre unbuilt units. The proposal
which I understand would create hulkier units, moved higher up the hill to accommodate
a new access road', and cut more trees, is certainly not acceptable to me.
I assume that as in most communities, the rezoning of an area particularly when they are
linked by condominium relationships must secure the prior approval of these owner; or
tace consequential damages. Clearly, the balance of the property should be tlevelopetl
as planned for the reasons previously mentioned,, and so I respectfully urge the Town of
Vail to reject such major zoning changes as being detrimental to all prescnt prollcrty
owners.
There is absolutely no reason for the developer in question to be granted any changes
to his original development plan.
Yours trulv.
.\JvjL
-/rtf",
.tXUtL,\l/A)',u -'\'
John Menkis
JM/deb
!, ( r 47 tf tv/'7 L
.)Y ',' \r_lL I 1..\ r ;Y\"''-' i*t 1801 Avenue McGill collegel i Suite 501.1'
.,..,,- ' | .r. H3A 2N4
i" t' l. $14) 845-7291
, ,-i i . Lu' ', Fax (514) 845-8539\ ,I:'
,.: " ,,7 Montr6al, Toronto,
\,i".,1 , calgary, vancouver
,Y'.lt\ !t.,'i" N
trhe Planning and Emrironmental Commiesion
The Tovrn of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Vail, Co. 8165?
Decerdcor 26, 1991
O I t'1- v^
baf,, ,/l i'|,*,t'
)r.(n^ pn*" ,A r '^ r.,)r't
I would like to put in wriLing for you 6oms-of our concerns
regard ing the propoe ed deve lopment ior the lower trrcrtion of Tho
Va1ley phase 2. iaany ot the ownere hers at The Val1ey
Condominiumgpurcha6-"atr,"i'lromeswiththerr.rrd.erstandingthatthis land, wfren aeveioped, would be developed in euch a way that
would bo in keeping with the concept and.look of"the exisLing
condominiume in tfrir "r"". We fitl tfre idea of traving parking ,
n€arer tho road and in open area6 where tr€es need not be kj-lled
for aephalt. w" iit " thi footpaths to tha homee and the opennesE
arrd. feel tf,tt tn"y prorride' WL feel that the original concepE aE
rcrovided for by tshe county lme gound and ehould not be eo easily
hiecounted by the PEc or the developer'
Here are several consideratione that we feel deeerwe your
att€ntion: rirst, ihe origi'nal 1980 plan makee it trrceeible to
eave wirtual Iy any trees that aron't 1n the way of the buil"dings
themeelve€. ffhe i*:-t t can all be made to go anound the tre€6 ' A
24 fl-. road, ae Gentzler proposes, will wipe out.al 1 tre€s in ite
way. s€cond, trr" rrrifaitl" -"* be placed Lo minimize the sut of
the hillside with the original p]-an-, Gentzler',e ptan forcss them
"J"*i" irr" nitt"ide in ordar to make room for ths road' Tfhe qut
will be uneightly and more trses will have to go' Third' with th€
original plan, cfreie ie not the added nass of garages on each
unit. ctentzlar is aeking for an additional 3500 sq' ft' for
garagq6. Fourtlr' €lentz16r's road will require a coneiderabls
anount of fill whi;h will make it massive and uneightly. walkways
require no f ill. --iirtrr, r,ve f ee1 that the6o troueee would fi,sarf the
"di""""t condominiume and would not fit in with ths natural
eurrounding, "r.a-"iirtir.g condominiume. sjrct,h, in that the6e 1ot6
havs no wiews and little, if any, sunehine' w€-havs concorns ttrat
if $400, ooo hom€6 are built here, the poeaibility exiete that'
once again, we could end up with a project ??S"l and ngver
completed.Weallknowwhat".".'-anurr]ruiltfoundationcanbe.;;l;" project isn't viable, we could be stuck with it for a very
long time.
Additionally, I think that up-grading thie proj€ct to a:cpensive
eingle family housss when all the lola1 headlines and politicos
are crying rot "iiota.ble housing ie ironic at best ' Fsw r'vorking
]ocalewouldbeabletoaffor.dtoowrrorrerxtoneofth€ae}rorreeg.
And finally, I draw your atlention to the project analysie written
for the ilun€ Z4,-iigi PEC me€ting by tho planning etaff:
ostaff believes the propoeed plan impacts the hilLeide
and m€ado$r more than the couniy approrral ' We beliewe the
county approval of clustering the houses and acceselng
th€m ;ith pedeetrian walkrrvaye ltas moro integrated into
the exieting environment. Staff ie concerned al:out the
inpact tlae access road will have on the area' Not only
is: the amount of aaphalt increaeed, but fill will be
requi.red to htuild ttre r<>ad" -
Novr, make no mietake, we don't necoeearily feel that the alrytroved
plan of 1980 r,llas the beet of all worlds, but we do feel that the
Loncapt ie eound and can easily be improved upon'- For example'
the 1;8o plan ehows parking toi as carer' oloviouely, for nine
unite, orrly about Ig or so Bpaces rapuld be needed' so that opsne
up coneide:Lrte epace for ad]ueting building locations, parking.
locatione, otc. lt nny even- al1ow for eaving more of the hitleida
ttran in th€ 1980 P1an.
please conBider the6e iteme carefully, We',11 see you on '"Tan ' 13'
Granted, two of the houses
how€ver, T don't feel that
resolved'
Tom Fitch
The Valley Board of Directors
PO 31?6Vail, co. 81,658
a'7 6 -7202
were eliminated f rom that PIan,this planneret concerns were adequately
- &(ec. Committee
Robbins; F{ike Mccun€;
; cAE cHtLDzcstcc: Peter Zwiebach; pete Feistmann; Nancy
Stevs Lindetrom; Brian Doolan; Peter Rrdy
FII. E COPY
hwn
75 soulh lrontage road
vall, colorado 81657
(303) 4792138
(303) 479.2139
December 20, 1991
Steve Gensler
Parkview Realty Inc.
5299 DTC Boulevard
Suile 500
Englewood, Colorado 801 1 1
and
ofticr of communily development
Mr. Randy Hodges
P.O. Box 1297
Dillon, Colorado 80435
RE: THE VALLEY PHASE II
Dear Steve and Randy:
Since the most recent Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) work session on Monday of this
week, slatl has tried to consolidate lhe various commenls. Part of what makes development review
diflicult is trying to address the diflerent comments which are generated. Statf has tried to gather the
comments f rom the two PEC worksessions, the Public Works Department, the Fire Department, as well
as the planning stall, and bring them together in lhis letter. What is important lo remember is that the
issues lisled below are technical in nalure and do nol involve lhe total amount of GRFA. Thal issue, as
we have discussed with each of you, is resolved, and staff is in agreement wilh you. However, the
PEC still needs to approve the development plan. The outline below is a list of the remaining issues
we are able to identify before reviewing the site staking. Statl requests that you please address each
issue so that none are outstanding belore we go back to the PEC lor a linal hearing.
1 . Upper Development Area.
a. Show the design ol relaining walls along road, keeping in mind lhat walls wilhin the fronl yard
selback (20') cannot exceed three feet in height. lf the walls exceed lhree feet, a wall height
variance would be necessary.
b. Provide a stamped, signed survey oJ lhis area since the cunent survey is not starnped.
l.\\ |
',i:i
c. Provirje the background as to the conecl tront property line, explaining why the plat ard title
intormalion do not kjentily the same line lor the kont ol the prcp€rty. Please provide
documentation of any vacation process that may have been done. Resolulion ot lhis ditference
. must be reached prior to final hearing.
d. Provide information as to lhe debris flow hazard and drainage area on the eastern erd of the
upper development area, including the extent ol the mitigation which is expected to be required
Jor construction in this area. This informalion is necessary in order to locate the fuilding
envelopes in the best location.
e. Statf believes that it may be wonhwhile lo pursue allemative designs to the 22-foot wide road
proposed for the upper d€velopment area. The current design does not meet the standards of
the Public Works Departmenl or lhe Fire Depanment. To keep the design you rurrently have
proposed, the center line radius of the road will have to b€ increased to 50 leet. The road
could be reduced io 20 teet in width under this scenario.
Another option which may be worth taking a took at is to design the rvestem home wilh direcl
access lo BuJfehr Creek Road. This would require the garage to be built at the property line, at
an elevation much lower than the rest of the house. This type oJ conslruclion is otten done in
the Forest Road area and may be worth considering for this project. The eastern home could
continue to be served by the access drive. The driveway, however, could be reduced in width
to 12 feet and could have a maximum slope ol 10%. The cenler line radius of lhe road would
have to be 20 teet. These changes would dramalically reduce lhe impact to this area ard
could be made as long as the drive serves a maximum of two units.
A third option is to reduce the number ol dwelting unils to a total of two. The road could be
redesigned to meet the Town's private driveway standards and would reduce the impacl
signilicantly.
l. In an eflort lo shorten the length of lhe access road and reduce lhe impact to the hillside,
please analyze how the eastern envelope coutd be shifted to the easl and/or down the hillside.
S. Reduce lhe size of bolh envelopes 10 a more specific, yet reasonable size.
h. Statl believes lhat lhe proposed GRFA on lhe weslern building envelope is quite huh given the
sleepness of the lot. Given that this arnount ol GRFA would allow a siruclure larger than the
hornes currently under construction in Phase Vl of The Valley, lhe stafl believes a smaller
structure would cause less dislurbance to the hillside and be more environmenlally sensitive.
i. One ol the important issues involved with development of this area is the extent of site
disturbance. Please idenlily on the site plan an "envelope'which would be lhe outer limil ol all
construction aclivity.
2. Lower Develoomenl Area.
a. Consider localing the enlrance to lhe developmenl over lhe easement, then shitt building
envelopes A, B and C to the northeast. This would allow more of the loresled hillside to
remain. This shilt may require locating one of the buildings in lhe selback. Even lhough a
variance woutd be necessary and stafi would have to publish for lhal, lhe overall site plan may
be improved. The enlrance does not necessarily need to line up direclly wilh Aspen Grove
Lane. The Town Engineer reviewed the proposal and believes the c€nter lines may be ofl-set
by either 20 leet or approximalely 110 feet. Stall believes that showing the entrance to Aspen
Grove.Lane and lhe two altematives on the sile plan would be helplul to better understand
whal lhe besl alignmenl would be.
With units a, b, and c shilted, slalt believes unit a could then b€ npved to lhe norlh, over lhe
exisling loundation. Statf believes this would reduce the arK,unt of excavalion required as well
as site disturbance.
b. Show the correct Grouse Glen developmenl on the site plan and include all hrildings lhal have
been conslructed.
c. Draw the road at the conecl width. Staff underslands that lhe minimum necessary (as well as
the maximum desired) is 22 teet.
d. ldentify on the site phn all trees which will be saved. The plans do not appear to dislinguish
between existing and proposed lrees. Please make this distinction.
e. Provide landscaping belween lhe development and the southern-most curve of Butfehr Creek
Road.
l. Remove guest parking (in conjunction with the modilications lisied in "a").
S. Indicate where dumpster location will be or how trash service will be provided.
h. Please have the survey lor the lower area signed as well as stamp€d.
3. Stakino.
Stafl would like to visit the sile on January 2, 199210 belter understand what the development
impacts will be. Please slake each ol the building toolprinls for ihe lower development area, as
well as both ol the building envelopes lor lhe upper development area. In addition, please
have lhe cenler lines ot both the upper and lower roads staked. Finally, please identily any
clusters of lrees that will remain. Slaff will assume lhat all other trees will be cut down excepl
lhose behind the boundary ol development aclivity, which is alrcady slaked with the yellow
tape.
Stafl would like to see the staking reflect lhe changes requesled in this letter, However, il you
do nol have time to incorporale these nbdilicalions inlo the design before a survey crew has lo
start work, staft would still like to see lhe sile staked according to the cunent plan thal the PEC
has reviewed. Please be aware lhal slaif may have nrcre @mments afler we see the stakirE.
4. Other lssues.
a. Please idenlify how you plan to subdivide the property. Slaff would like to work with you in this
area.so that the development plan thal does get approved is one that you can work with
linancially when it comes lo subdividing and selling ott parcels. We do not believe you will be
able lo meet the suMivision standards lor RC Zoning on the upper tract. An alternalive is lo
do a single family subdivision; however, thal process requires lhat the foundations be
constructed prior lo platting. ll is intended that this process be used for proiects where the
developer builds each home in the development. Please explain how you would like to proceed
in the subdivision phase of lhis project.
b. Please oornpare the heights of the proposed structures to the heights of the structures that
were approved by Eagle County. Some PEC menbers requested a cross seclion to strour lhis
@mparison. Each cross sec{ion should show the slope of the grade in relation to the height ot
the homes. llhink that the ctoss section would be most helpful il it were drawn through th6
area in which homes A, B, and C are located in your proposal. Commissionets were also
interested in the height ol the homes on the upper development area. A section thrcugh a
lypical home in lhis area may also be helpful.
c. Please reconsider the aeslhetic appearance of the shirEles lo be pul on the sides of the
proposed homes. We believe il would be positive il the homes reflect rnore ot the adiacent
'Valley" architecture, in style and malerials.
d. Please provide a drainage study for the site. This should address how the drainage from both
lhe upper and lower areas will leave the sile and conlinue on down the rest ot The Valley.
e. Please show where lhe drainage easement will be dedicated, as recommended by the drainage
study.
f. Please provide an updaled Title Policy. The one the Town has is daled April 16, 1991 and
shows thal Bonnymead Properties, Crossview Properties and Bulfehr Creek tovrnhomes as the
proposed owners. lf lhe current owners are Limiled Partnerships, please provide
documentation as lo who has lhe authority to sign the application for this proiec{. All individuals
identilied musl sign the application.
S. Please show all easements as listed on surveys, and as lisled in the title woft on the
deve lopment plans.
I understand thal there are many items on this lisl which need to be addressed. ln addition to these
items, stafl is working on several olher issues that were raised during lhe work sessions. Statt is trying
to help you to be able lo answer all of the questions that the PEC may bring up. Staff believes that it is
imporlant to have all ot the information requested above submitted to the Town by Oecenber 30, 1991.
That will leave lwo weeks for lhe statt lo review it and wrile a final memo to the PEC. lf you cannot
make that deadline, stafl believes it may still be wodhwhile to go to the PEC on January 13, 1992 for a
woft session. Parlicularly in light of the position on GRFA discussed with each of you, the work
session may be beneficial to bring the PEC up to speed.
Thank you for your cooperation on this proiect. We leel we are making qpod progress given this
proiecl's complex history wilh the annexations and deannexations. We hope that with a little
perseverance, we will soon be at a final PEC hearing.
Sincetrly, /. , ./ ,/ /,,v'qp*' #6-I
Andy K\dl+n \Town PlanHr
o
totaf,r x. t ?hlrl(;llfftftEt{ G. tltT,cH a. Jrx'p
D, 'ATNI
il(|g}|
uN!.t u. gltoull
!E IC6 r. R rir
LAW QfFr(:!.i Or
FRENCH, WEST, \TOOD &. DROIVN, P. C.
a@ agrjt fll f,rrrt - Flrrrl 2lt4
P. c'. l(tt lta
BRF-CEENRIDGE. @IT'8 AT'O 8 O{24
ttcl) {:lt4gol
,Iune 12, 1991
TB}ECDIIII
€qD .]'r'oltB
TRANSUTTIff,E|' vrA rAx - 479-21
Andy Knudtsencoununl"ty oev€Iotrnent Departnent
Torrn of, vall
75 Eouth Itontage RoadVaIl, CO 81657
Rrl ltecta A and B, The vauey Phaae II
Dsar ltrr. Xnudtsen:
I reprrrrn! Crossviev Propertiee, Ltd-, whlch is a co-ouner of
Tracts A -and B, The Valley Phlse II. f have been asked to rrrlte
yOU conc€fnLnE tha Constf,u-etiofl rights of Buffehf cr€ek llownhones'
ita. (the othlr co-tenant) upon a portion of $ract B.
Buffehr Creek Townhonf,s, ttd. ie enti.tled' ag a natt€r of
right, to utluz€ 7, ooo aquart feet- of GRFA. aalcrrlatecl in
aciorilance uith the fo-rrorulas uttltzed by thr llown of Vail ln 199O.
It is ny underetarrcling that the Town hae noil' aalopted new rulee
governinlg the calouLatLon of GRFA, wtrlch have affcctrd t-he Egugre
iootage 6t Cnpa attrlb,rtabLe to Euffehr Cr€elcra-propo€ld !tr9l39-t,I undesstand that the eurrent aalculations indioate tlrat tho
proJ+ct consumea 7t25,4.9 eqluere feet of GRFA.
one of tuo poes:LbLlltiee exists regardlng Buffehr Creeltra
abitltv to utilizl 7,254.9 square feeu of the GRPA allooated ts
iract B. First, Lf thc utlllaation of 7125*,9 aquare feet of GRI|A
by Euffehr Creeir doeE not rcsult in a net loas of GRFA that oan be
u-ttftaeA upgn thG rernaLndcr of Trccut A and E_r thsn. Buff€hr Creck
ts entitldd to utlllze its 7,254.9 square feet vithout furtsher
dLscusslon. for €xaryl€. lf tha origlnal Trooo tquare f6at is
tnflated tt1 7,254.S sgiard feet merely b;esurrl of new nathernat:Lsal
iornufal betng used -by the Town, and if the reuraining square
footage of GRFA that l-s allocated to the renainder of the Trast
would-be slnllarly lnflated through the application of tltegc ncw
fotf,tulas. then thire is no resulfing detriment to Crosevler and
BoJ tzo NHOHS t OOOrl 'IS3t1 'H3N3JJ e6t0 €Et 80S 6t:EI Bt-90-166[
Buffehr greek doee not nccd Croeeviewrs congent to procead wlth ltg
p1ans.
!!he seoond poesLbility is that the inorease from Trooo to
7 rzs4:i equArE t'eet of GR-FA results in tho dlrnlnutlon l.n t'he
rinatninE tquare foofago of GnFA that can be utlllaed upon th€
ienainaei of tractg I alna A- If such is ttre case' CtoEsvl.ew has
prewloUaly agrecd to seLl the extra 254.9 square fcet of GRFA to
ifottefrr cLeek at a price that tras been agreed upon bebreen the
partlee. Buffehr -creek is entitled to the benefit of thie-tiutsaotton. but it wilr be neeegeary for Euffehr Creek and
Ci"ls"iJt{ i6 adJuet nattrrs between thene-elves before Buff,ehr Creek
can proc€ed wlth lte projcct.
At thiE point, f do not ltnow enougtr about.the chanEe
calculatl,ona -or the epecifLce of Buffehr C"9el<ts proposed
to tcii ]rou wfricn of tlhe two poselbilities dLEausgedt sbove
to thle rituatlon. Hopefully, hort€ver, the faate lcnosn
regardlng thll natter will enable \ou to. (letcnine whethar
criek le-entitled to proceed at th\e Bolnt.
g
l-n GRFAproJectappllcsto you
Buf fellr
ir 9lood
JBIY; sf ecc: stevell Gensler
ilaclc SnowGrant Riva' Esg.
3320.01
zoJ eeo NI'|BUS 3 0BOt1 'IS3t1 'HCN3H_J e6[0 05h EoE 95:5[ ?[-S0-t66[
o
75 south lrontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 479-2138
(303) 479-2139
ollice ot community development
April 1-5, 1991
Mr. Steve Gensler
Parkwood Realty, Inc.
5299 DTC BIvd.Suite 500
Englewood, Colorado B01l-1
RE: Phase II The Valley
f)aar Qf arra
After our discussion on Friday, I'tlarc}: 22, 1991, I feel that it is
necessary to clarify the options available to you in order todevelop the above tract of fand.
The first option would be to proceed with the development plan
approved by Eagle County and accepted by the Town of Vail upon
annexation of The Va11ey area. Thj-s option would a1low for theconstruction of qly what was approved. Any minor design changesto the plan would be reviewed by the staff and may need to be
reviewed by the Planning and Environmental- Commission and Design
Review Board.
Option 2 would entail changing the approved site development planwhile continuing to work with the approved development standards.This would be reviewed by the staff and PEC. Under thisscenario, the development standards of the annexation agreementmust be met.
Option 3 woul-d be to request a Special Devel-opment Dist.rict - I
have enclosed information regarding the establishment of an SDD.This process would set up a new development plan and could enableyou to subdivide the lot prior to construction.
st,)'
Mr. Steve GenslerApril 1.5, L99I
Page 2
option 4 would be to subdivide the property into individual lots.
this would allow for the development of each phase independent of
the other, however it. would also change the development rights to
the underlying zoning of residential cluster. Alf development
rights established by Lhe annexation agreement would be
relinquished.
P1ease keep in mind that each option entails its own criteria and
review pro-cess, The following outlines Lhe necessary reviews for
each option:
Option 1Option 2Option 3Option 4
4.*possibly
yes
yes
yes
.nrrnn i l nRR*
vAQ
'
vv
yes2 readings yes
-I -"
*The council may call up any DRB or PEC decision for further
review.
In addition, al1 reviews wiLl be based on the entire Phase. This
incl_udes the parcels on the east and west sides of the right-of-
way.
Should you have any questions, pLease contact me or Andy Knudtsen
aL 4'79-2L38 - I hope thj-s summary is helpfuJ- to you.
cerelyt
}y MelloPlanner
[tv!+-
SM:1rd
cc: Andy KnudtsenLarry EskwithKristan Pritz
75 ,odh trontrye road
vall. colorudo 81657
(3olr) 47$2138
(3di) 4792139
ottlce of communlty dev€lopment
July 18, 1991
Mr. Steve Gensler
Parkview Realty, Inc,
5299 DTC Blvd.
Suite 500
Englewood, CO 80111
Re: The Valley, Phase ll
Dear Steve:
I wanted to make sure that the review process for The Valley, Phase ll stays current. The
Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the proposed development plan at a
worksession on June 24. Attached to this letter is a schedule of the PEC meeting dates.
Please let me know when you anticipate planning to go back for a final hearing. In addition,
you and I should review the PEC comments made during the worksession so that you can
incorporate them into the site plan. I am available to discuss the project with you at your
earfiest convenience. Please call me at 479-2138.
1*.4
n#y xnuttsJn
/-.ll*-^,
Town Planner
/ab
Enclosure
FI!. T COl]Y
75 south trontage road
vall, colorado 81557
(303) 47$2138
(303) 479.2139
otlice ol community development
June 14, 1991
Mr. Jack Snow
Buffer Creek Townhouses
P.O. Box 2651
Vail, CO 81658
Mr. Steve Gensler
Parkview Realty, Inc.
5299 DTC Blvd.
Suite 500
Englewood, CO 801 11
Re; The Valley, Phase ll
Dear Jack and Steve:
The Town of Vail wants to clarify the division of GRFA in The Valley, Phase ll. We
understand the most recent plan was approved in Eagle County on June 3, 1980, with 32,909
sq. ft. of GRFA. We understand that Grouse Glen has been constructed, is part of that
County approval, and has been built out at 6,233.8 sq. ft. of GRFA. We understand that Jack
Snow is proposing to construct 7,208.9 sq. ft. of GRFA on existing foundations in Phase ll.
We understand that lhe remaining development potential is 19,466.3 sq. ft. of GRFA.
Similarly, we understand that Grouse Glen has used 4,143.3 sq. ft. of site coverage. We
undersland that the foundations that Jack Snow intends to build on will use 4,075.3 sq. ft. of
site coverage, and that the remaining site coverage for future development in Phase ll is
32,386.52 sq. ft.
It is also important to point out the fact that Steve Gensler's conceptual site plan shows a
building footprint in the same location of Jack Sncw's parking area. The Town understands
Jack Snow will be able to acquire 12 spaces in the existing parking structure from the Grouse
Glen Condominium Association. lf efforts to secure spaces in the existing struclure are
unsuccessful, the perimeter of the existing parking lct must be thoroughly landscaped so that
Mr. Jack Snow
Mr. Steve Gensler
June 14, 1991
Page 2
it is screened from public view. The landscape plan will require Design Fleview Board
approval. Steve Gensler should also be aware that, if the parking lot does become
permanent, a new location must be found for the proposed building footprint. At this time, the
Town of Vail has not approved Steve Gensler's proposed site plan, dated January 29, 1991
by Intermountain Engineering.
,1,
o*,q,.q{r
Planhel
4<tr^Andy
Town
/ab
C
l>
i
'..\,
-r,-y',rr" t
lrnrl {lJ.lll l :aull r/
75 soulh frontage road
, air. coidr irdo ci 16:;
t303) 479-21 38
(303) 479- 2139
\._
Inwn nl
October 29, 1990
Mr. J.R. flodgesP. O. Box L297
ni l1/\^ na) a^-l?tr
RE: Lions Ridge Subdivision Tracts A and B, Filing #2also known as Phase II, The Valley
Dear Randy:
The planning staff discussed your letter of October l_2, l_990 andhas concl-uded that of the three GRFA and density scenarios youprovide, the Town must adhere to the most restrictive one, Becauseseverai of the developrnent proposals in The VaLley \dere approvedin the Crunty and then annexed to the Town, the current Town zoningdoes noc always match the I'grandf athered" development rights. Ihave included a l-etter frorn Kristan pritz, dated February 1l_, l_985,providing the detaiLs of the past approval_s. BriefIy, let rne telIyou that a rnaxirnurn of 26 units \"/ith 32,909 square feet of GRFA iswhat the Town wiLl allow.
I did not mention in my phone callha.le opti-ons, such as a rezoning,potential. on the site. I want to beprocess is avail-able to you if you
Town has strong reservations aboutYour time may be best spent workingfor the property at this tine.concerning site planning issues.
ollice of community developmenl
to you this morning that youthat would increase the GRFAsure you know that this revieware interested; however, thej.ncreasing the GRFA potential.wrth the approval that existsPlease see Kristants letter
If you have any other quest,ions, please contact me or Kristan atthe planning department aL 479-ZL3B.
Sincerely,
t#!,,'/.^.t&-
Andy KnudtsenTown Planner
-ill
'l rl
, {,.^&fi..
Fi.n,hf,
t6\L'.'l,^^tj
13faer5!t?
75 south lrontage road
vail, colorado 81652
(303) 476-7000
February ll, .l985
of f ice of communlty development
Pei.er FeistmannP.0. Box 2438Vail, Colorado 81658
Re: Phase iI, The Valiey
Dear Peter,
I or rvriting to confirm the information that I gave you over the phone
concerning Phase II, Tract A of the VaiIey Planned Unit Development. nec- ."--Accordingtoourrec0rds,PhaseII,A.isapproximatehegib.,1JJaU'Jc
Phase IlA and B was originally approved for 28 units having 33,714 squarefeet of GRFA. This information is l isted in a letter dated March 10, 1980.In a document dated February i9, i98i, "Proposed Zoning for l,Jest VailAnnexation Area," Phase ll, Tracts A and B was approved for 26 unitswith an allor.red GRFA of 32,909 square feet. The VaiI Community Development
Departnent considers these figures to be the accepted development statjsticsfor Phase II. Our records do not show a breakdown of units for Tracts
A and B which make up Phase II. Town of Vail records also show that
6 units have been constructed on Phase II and are presently called "GrouseGlen." Six foundations also exist on Phase II.
The Valley was developed as a Planned Unit Development that used ResidentialCluster zoning as a guide. The intention of this project was to developmulti-family dwell ings using a clustered site plan approach. In general ,the subdividing of an individual phase of a planned unit deveiopment'is not encouraged. In answer to -vour question of whether or not 'it vrould
be possible to subdivide Phase II, Tract A into two primary/secondaryiots, the planning staff would l ike to see a more detailed site plan
in order to determine if this would be appropriate. The staff rvould
be concerned that the project constructed on Phase II, Tract A vrould
be compatible with the remaining portion of Phase II, Tract B located
across the road. The idea of a planned unit development is that theproject shou'l d vrork as a vrhole and also reflect a continuity in the
architecture and site planning found arnong a1 1 the phases of the project.
The staff does not encourage the subdividing of individual phases.
However, g'iven the fact that Phase II, Tract A is across the road from
phase Ii,-Tract B, there may be a possibility that it could be developed
separateiy. in tne report iated April l8' 1929 addressed to Jeff Burleson
cohcerning the drainage on Phase II of The va1 1ey' it is.evident that
some type of.drainage-system would have to be constructed on Tract A.
At thi;'time it is impoisible to determine what kind of drainage worL
would be needed for Ti^act A without a detai'led site pIan. The most
imporiant point is that drainage work would_probably have to be completed'
anb it would need to functjon in a compatible way with Tract B across
the streei. P'l anning and Environmental Commission approvals would also
be necessary if it were determjned that it would be a feasjble idea
to develop Tract A seParatelY.
I hooe this informatjon wil'l be helpful to you. unfortunately, our
filei do not provide detai'l ed p'l ans that could answer all your questions
at thjs time.' If you have further questions, please g'ive me a call.
Sjncerely,
.ll
n ,'-- ii, .''i..: | . .-'
Kristan Pritz
Town Planner
KP: br
.dFtte;.'.-
l!'\i' ,':.|l:t t:)' 'i: -'t
i-t:-:..:;. .-l',i;
$
\$
\
f,\
-.:q,
\l
NFo
$
,-..
. i !',
Ir I
i.;..
t: I{ n1,:,s'-e.JO
\l
ri5l
I.. .{
\\\\5
\h
fF
P) F.r/)
$.. N
,lIqs
h.u +
'l'
^i(: f-
::-
t, i
3Jtd\)e fr-NT
lll
sflt{p
?
lii
I I'o& fi-,11Saur5
ar.'-d.,^,g t, $^^qto'rY;u"tl U
75 south frontage road
vail, colorado 81857
(303) 476-7000
February ll, .l985
of f lce of communlty development
Peter Feistmann
P.0. Box 2438
VaiI, Colorado 81658
Re: Phase II, The Va11ey
Dear Peter,
I am writjng to confirm the information that I gave you over the phone
concerning Phase II, Tract A of the Va11ey Planned Unit Development. Oet^,nn^According to our records, Phase II, A js approximately#lC-pr: -t tvt*trutr4)
Phase IIA and B was originally approved for 28 units having 33,714 square
feet of GRFA. This information is listed in a letter dated March 10, 1980.
In a document dated February 19, 1981 , "Proposed Zoning for West Vail
Annexation Area," Phase II, Tracts A and B was approved for 26 units
with an al'l owed GRFA of 32,909 square feet. The Vajl Community Development
Department considers these figures to be the accepted development statjsticsfor Phase II. Our records do not show a breakdown of units for Tracts
A and B which make up Phase II. Town of Vail records also show that
6 unjts have been constructed on Phase il and are presently called "GrouseGlen." Six foundations also exist on Phase II.
The Valley was developed as a Planned Unit Development that used Residential
Cluster zoning as a guide. The intention of this project was to develop
multi-fam'i 1y dwell ings using a clustered site plan approach. In general ,the subdividing of an individual phase of a planned unit developmentis not encouraged. In answer toyour question of whether or not it would
be possible to subdjvide Phase II, Tract A into two primary/secondary
lots, the planning staff would like to see a more detailed site p1 an
in order to determine if this would be appropriate. The staff would
be concerned that the project constructed on Phase II, Tract A would
be compatible with the remaining portion of Phase II, Tract B iocated
across the road. The idea of a planned un'it development is that the
project shou'l d work as a whole and also reflect a continuity in the
arch'itecture and site planning found among al 1 the phases of the project.
The staff does not encourage the subdividing of individual phases.
Peter Feistmann
February ll, 1985
Page Two
'll.. 1
1 '.'t'
Kri stan Pri tz
Town Planner
KP: br
However. qiven the fact that Phase II, Tract A is across the road from
Phaie-li,-Tract B, there may be a possibility that jt could be developed
sepaiatejy. In the report iated April 18' 1979 addressed to Jeff Burleson
concerning the drainage on Phase II of The va1 1ey, it is evident that
some-tVpe"of drainage system would have to be constructed on Tract A.
At th.i;'time it is impossible to determine what kind of drainage worl'.
would be needed for Tract A w.i thout a detajled site p] an. The most
imporfant point is that drainage work would probably have to be comPleted'
and it wouid need to functjon jn a compatible way with Tract B across
the sireet. Planning and Environmental Commission approvals would also
be necessary .i f it were determined that'it r+ould be a feasible idea
to develop Tract A seParatelY.
I hooe this information will be helpful to you. unfortunately' our
fifes-ao not provide detailed p1 ans that could answer all your questions
at inis time.' If you have further questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
THE VALTEY
JOINT VENTURE . LAMAR PROPERTIES INC
CUNNINGHAM CONSTRUCTTON ANO DEVELOPMENT CO
POIIER 0F .\.TT0RIJE"'
I(I'IOI.I ALL PERSONS BY TIIISE PIIESNi'ITS L]TAC VALLI'Y ASSOCIATIS 'LTD.,--n-colorodo lirnited partnership (cire "ParEnership"),
has made, consEicuted and apPoinued ancl by thcse-prcsents
do., *rk", constitute ancl appoinr I^lILLiAl'{ J. POST ("PosE")
ir-ir. Erue anrl larvful attor;ey in fact, and to act in' ics
;;t";; pi."." and sEead in any ti;,'in r'rhich ic couLd acr if
f"r"onltLy present, with fuil pbrver and authority to do Ehe
follorving- atts and Eo exercise the following powers ' and -theiricrr"triiip intends that Post's powers shalL be consErued in
Ehe broadesc Possible manner:
1. To execuLe, file and record in Ehe records of the
Clerk ancl Recorier's Office for Eagle gogttI: Colorado
ili't" "Ci"tk's Recor,ls"), a final plar (the "PlaE")
l)tloteUy the Partnership certifies- iLs orvnership-of
certain real properCy iocated in Eagle County, Colorado,
as more fully'deicriLed in tixhibir A aCtaciled herero
andmade.p"'tlrereof,asalsodescribedonthePlat'and subdivides ancl plars porrions of sucli real property
into lors as shown bn Che- Plat and dedicates portions-
of such real property Eo che public use as sholvn on the
PlaE.
The auEhority an<l power contained hereinabove shal1 be
evidenced by'a sigirature block on the PLac as follows:
VALLEY ASSOCIATES , LTD. , A COLOMDO LIIIIT]]D PARTNERSHIP
P. O. BOX 9I5, VAIL, COLOMDO 8L65]
.1 J . POST, P. 0.
AS ATTORNEY II{ FACT FOR VALLEY ASSOCIATES, LTD,, A
COLORADO LIMITED PARTNURSIIIP
Post's execution of the Plat in such signature block sl-rall be
conclusive evidence of tl're authority and power granted herein.
2. To execuce, file and record in the Clerk's Records
any and a1I Subdivision Improvements AgrcemenEs (rhe
"Agreements") entered into rvitir Elre County of Eagle,
Stlte of Colorado, as a condition of approval of tl're
PIat pursuant to Section 30-28-L37, Colorado Revised
Statutes (L973>, as amended, for the real propert-y
described in Exl-ribic A hereto, whereby such real
?rr-nnorrrr r.r'i l I lra <rrlr i anrr.d t-o f lrc Aot-eemonFs -l,rvt/s! L/ rar!! errv rr(>!
'r't- ^ -.,F1.^+i Fr, ^--1 nn'.r,.r .nr.rr:.1 ;nnrl ltef CitfabOVC SIaII beILltj dl-rLtl\-,r! l-LJ dlL\.r ir\J\vlJl- \- U I L L (.r J- r r (j Lr
^"i,.1^^^^J L., ^ ^i rynnr-rrya h1,r,-1. .''' fhr. AFrcemcnf s in EheEVr-!lgltu(:\r r,JJ d. Sl.6rrdLlr! s Ur\-rLr\ \-./ r. r uLrr;
same form a! set iorth on the Pl-at. Post's execution of the
Agreements in such signaEure block sliall be conclusive
eiidenc" of the autho;itry and power granted herein.
3. To execuEe, fiLe and record in the Clerk's Records
a DeclaraEion of ProrecEive Covenants (Lhe "DeclaraEion")for the real property described in Exhibit A hereco,
rvhereby sucli rcal propcrcy rvill hc subj ectcd toprot,ecLive covenanEs .
'r'1.^ -"Fr,^*; t-', ^^.1 no\{rtrr eonrrinorl lrCf ein:tbOVe SlrUIL bCrllg cr rf Ltllr! rLJl c[rr\-r [,vrvs- r- \-,, r l L < ! r- r r (- u
evidenced blr a signatllre block on Lire Declararion itr tlie
same form as set fortir orr the PLat. Post's e,'tecutiou of che
Declaration in sucir signaEure bLock shall be conclusive
evidence of rl're authoritv and Dorver granted irerein.
, COL
4. To execute, file and l:ecord in the CLerk's Records
a Planned UniE DevelopmenL Plan (the "Plan") for the
real property describlci in Exhibit A hereEo' whereby
sucll reai ptirp"tly rvill be subjected to a planned unic
develoPmenc Plan.
The authority and power corrtaineci i-rereinabove shalL be
""ia""""a by'a sighature block on Lhe Plan in tl-re sante form
as se. forth "" ifi" pt^t. Post's executiotl of Ehe Plan in
"""n-tig"ui"t" Uiocf. shaLL be conclusive evidence of the
auchoriEy and power granted herein'
Giving and granring unto Post full pol'ler and authority
to do-".tJ !utforil al1 an.l ev.ry act and tlii.g-\.tharsoever
requisite, - rl"""""..y or desirt6lu to be done in regard Eo
rhd foregoing, trere6y ratifying and confirmlng all thac Post
in fact i-ras [one or taused to be do.e, shall do or cause Eo
be done by virEue of these presents.
This power and authority shall continue in full force
and effect until it is expreisly revoked in ivriting by
instrument executed by th-e Partnership and evidence thereot
is duly recorded in Eagle County, Colorado'
Ii.l I^lITtlESS WIIEREOF, Ehis instrument is execuEed effective
as of June 18, 1980.
VALLEY ASSOCIATES, LTD., A
Colorado limited PartnershiP
_ \ D r:A.l-,,
..
STATE OF COLOMDO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
BY:LA]4AR PROP
Delaware cogeneral
BY:
IllC. , an, its soleor
l
\
T\e,,foregoing instrumenL rvas acknorvledged before me
rhis /-/tr'/l da; of-June, 1980, by Peter l(alkus, as Vice
Presid6c of Lamar Properties, Inc. , a Delaware corporaEion,
as sole general parcnei of Valley Associates, Ltd., a Colorado
limited partnership.
Witness my hand and official seaL'
Ilv comr,rission exDires :
ter r.dIKus,ice Presidenr
-2-
,
l
F\(f,
@
3
F
LU-_)
&
...{l
?l
(\lrl-l
LUF
F
=E
IJ.J
z
z
7Zc00
=z
CL!
J
."<5
=re;;g
t itlL-l
qt
o
q,
rt,
3r-
E>
c>
o
o
o-zoFU
E.rFa,z
o()
.-(----\/'-,;--A/ ,.,ii=
I It cta
\, '/ lE\---a-./ e-EI
-t;l
"l
z
F
Eaf
|-ll
< - / - ----14
= * - . r ll
a7a-A
=q7 '1_<a t r
-!r'/ -
.:!".-:
<a -Jrr:<
NO[Vn]VA
:<E
;ZZtL
F ^ 6z
: I zYE 3 o Extt O C!(Uz>-OFQ o l{l o.
(!<
auJ:.:ceii:>_ (J
\H N (,
=(!N
zg;<Ez<
T^ao
co tr.J G-=
<oz@z-
z
=tt
5(D
F)
dt(\.1
CJ
(q
o-
I
o
.t'
(I,
-cF
l.rJ
z
a
z
oo
a
c
i cu
ulqoo
Io-
tr(-)
o
+)o
P
o
.u
Lo=
E
oq
1
Io"
a(-)
G
Eoo
aE &tr
a
6
1=
I
2c
oc
r0-
a
E
LIJz
=
F()
LUFr
E
-rO<F
u.r <ze.(nz
<o(JF
l.-<
-L
Zr-
=f!z
<;:lF7().f<
-t-:
>Y
d
=(JZ
orO
J<O(1 A
L! llJJO
trFtl
o
g-
9
o
5r!
.]
Eo
ct
2iz
o
(,
=zo
z
(J
=o
- = _ e.:
:!:F:
-14.t
=eF.!=2-.-r
1.)>r
'.r^-?:a /. a=:
.?|-^^ri:::
l<- <:3=:i1F..',..C> -(,<a -Jj.;.l=<
c'
r.
U\
\
\
a
LU
LUu-t-
=e
LU
III
tl
$r
I
Y
a
E
ca
Iozoa:)
CD
(,
:f
z
(,
c.
(J
=
(Jz
l]c
=l
c
9
O
Lrl
;
t(,
G
oG
cc
=>tllGz9
6
a
o-
o-l
rnIUuJu-
=
LU
J
F
F
::
1?
=
=
=
NO[Vn 1r,/A
g.o\
=::zuooo: ^ 6z:5 ;e- o oi
o, o oa
^ ;r .,/,lJzXu<(a_) (!J,f,S
F-O;iN(J
i?s
\
\
(\
.J
R
I
F
l
F
o-l
(|.
F
(l
a
g.
zo
oc
:
tr
;
tlttlltttttltrtttlE".,=izz6 ;g 5F(/)Oo-6,"i5ap.eB{i!g
=9i.10iY:ETF;iU UUiEoa<coc@z)rlltlltttttlllllll
,^ rh Zt 6 u't5 < tr?F9 9=d;j<=is.F,gEE H::
z
F):
z
l
?G
LUI \
o
a]
E
o
;
F
FIoz
&
=
F
z
(-)
(!
z
9I
?f-
0q
\
"\
TN\
o-
t-
x*\c
.e*\x
qdXlo
/
m
0o
I
tt-t
h+-t\
o
LIJ
c
LUF
o
.Jz
z
z7c9o>z
O- tL
J-J.{<. .'
_r<t
-- -: Luconi=
uUtl
.q,
(|)
E
EoU
F
E
LIJ
TL
{-I
()
trF(nzoO
F
(!t!o-
LL
LIJ(L
F
o =J
LL
co
F)
\.t
vh\*\N.\-
\
\
N
tU
z
co
1
t!
z
coo
I
h g
E
o
a
Io-
trQ
R
\J-\b
\
=E-
o(oo
a
\
Io-
a =clii
(loo
Ia
ac E
;co
ro-
Lc ;
o-
-at
o
a
To-
i(J
fiz
F
F
LLIL_t-
(J
<F
L!<
<oOF
:<
;l-d6l
c(,o
>i
]Fi=
<x
3?
-\J
Eonii
!ff
(JZ
J<O
-rO
c,
E
(t
iaF
E
BUITDING DIVISION OF
EAGTE COUNTY. p. O. 80X 179
CoURTHOUSE, EAGLE CO. - pH. (303)328-6339
pERMrr ro Construct Dupl ex {_) sroRy(TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT) NO. '
BUILDING
PERMIT
Or-fnhan O onoATE \rvl,vtst J, ro oUo"".,.on, Morgan construction i6'.' -:fr-Ebx-z'frfr-v-ul,
. VA LIOATION
PERMTT No 18 3 7
(sTREET)
NUMEER OFOWELLING UXITS
lcortn's trcer,rsEl
two(PRoPo5Eo !sE)
G
d)
o
ozt
o|,.
SUBD IV IS ION .o, Oarcel "$.* IXXXXXEX4ff.r ract
AUILOING IS TO BE
-
FT. WIOE BY
-
FT.LONG AY
-
BASEMENT VITALLS OR FOUNOAT tOt,
FT. IN HEIGHT AND sHALL coNFoRM III coNsTRUcTIoN
TO TYPE USE GROUP
or otherwi r" rJi[g'.tuteato contr
ESTTMATED cosr $_
Plan Check see Permit #I743'
(cuBrc/ sau^RE FEEr)
Valle Venture
(Alfidovit on roverso side of opplicotion lo be compleled by oulhorized ogent of owner)
=--q49q;9q-ffgutr s 289'oo 'Recei pt #7043 ./,-t' ./1
Z^
o<>|r
AT (LocAT IoN )
{STREET)
(cRoss 5rREErl
Valle L i onsri d
BUILDING O€
Ds,-5] AGA Qz-6c1Rer iew ancj return to the ()ount'r Off ici.ri within 6 vrorking daysAG3
Bu ilding
P larrning: Complies with:
Subdivi sion Regul ations
Zoning Regulations
Site Pl an (Landscaping)
Corr'lmentS l
-Cr
Reviewec,
Recomme, :C Approval :
'll
No
Erfn
Yi;s
tJI]!l
iE
County Engineer: Roa<:is !trtr
tr Recomrnend Approval :
Grading f]r)rainage l-l
County Heal th: \Uater
S an itat ion
Perc. test
tl
tl
Er
xnuD, Recomme r'd A
-----T-r=,-
Final Inspect ion: Landscapi
Recommend Aooroval
Commerrts:
ng!l
c/o
F inal
lssued
Filing Date
oy
R[CIIV[D.
SEP u - i9B0
!Npt. ot planning & Dcvqli
Eagto, County, &lO
Orro, PerrnsoN & Posr
ATTOENEYS AT !AW
POST OFFICE BOX 3149
vArL, oolonADo 81057
September 3, 1980
07 932
VAIL NATIONAL AAN K BUILOING
(3O 3) 476 - OO92
EAG LE.VAIL PRO FESSIO NAL BU ILDIN G
{3O31 949 -5 3AO
FREO ERIC K O GREEN
OF COUNS EL
FR ED ERIC X S. OTTO
!,,AY X. PET ERS O N
WILLIAM J. POST
The Eastern Valley Condominiuni
Association
Phase 2-A Onec/o F & L DeveloPment, Inc.P. O. Box 1861Vail, Colorado 8L657
Dear Gentlemen:
The purpose of this letter is to set forth a
proposed plan ior'the use and control of the recreational
Lmenities'and parking located on Tracts C and D, Phase VII
of rhe Valley.
As used in this letter, the following terms shall
have Ehe following meani-ngs:
Valley Associates Lrd.
c/o PeterP. 0. Box 188
Florham Park, NJ
P-I
P-2A-1
P-II
P- III
r-v
Pool
The Valley Condominiumsc/o Paul JohnsonP. 0. Box 7Vai1, Colorado 8L651
The Vatley Condominiums, which
consists of 30 condominium units
The Eastern ValleY Condominiums,
Phase 2-A-One, which consisEs
of 3 condominium units
Eastern Village At The ValleY
Condominiums, to consist of
28 condominium units
Phase III of the ValleY, to con-
sist of l0 condominiums or townhouses
Phase V - The Valley, which consists
of 8 townhouse units
The swimming pool 1oc.1 ted on Tract (1 ,
Phase VII of The VallcY
Valley AssociaEes, Ltd.
The Valley Condominiums
The Eastein Va11ey Condominium Association
September 3, 1980
Pase Two
Tennis Courts
West Lot
Garage
As sociation
The cennis courts located on Tract C,
Phase VII of The ValIeY
The vehicular parking lot located on
Tracu C, Phase VII of the ValleY
The vehicular parking structure located
on Tract D, Phase VII of The ValleY
A non-profit corporation to be organized
to or,rn and control Tracts C and D,
Phase VII of The ValleY and the
recreational and parking amenities
thereon,
I propose that the Association be incorporated in
the State of'Coiorado for the purpose of managing and
controlling Tracts c and D (the."Tracts"), Phase VII of The
Valley. Tf,e Tracts would be made subject-to a declaration
(Che i'Declaration") thaC would automatically make the no.-
profir corporations controlling P-1, P-2A-I, P-II and P-III
and the iniividual owners of P-V members of rhe Association,
with use of the TracEs subject to such members paying assessments
to the Association. The Tracts would be quit claimed to the
Association by the record owners, Val1ey Associates, Ltd'
and The Valley Condominium Association, Inc.
Because P-II, P-III and P-V have not as yet been
developed and sold, these projects may initially be made
subjeci: to declarations that \,rill require their conCrolling
ass6ciations or individual owners, as the case may be, to be
members of the Association and to pay assessments thereto.
However, P-I and P-2A-I have already been created and will
need to amend their declarat.ions to require their controlling
associations to be members in the Association or will have
to bind themselves to the Association by long term contract
wich the Association.
Valley Associates, Ltd.
The Valley Condominiums
The Eastern Vallev Condominium Association
September 3, 1980
Page Three
The Declaration
composed of the following:
l4ember Group
P-I
P -2A-TP-IIP-III
P-V
would require a Board of Directors,
Ilember of Direcrors
(elected bythe 8 individual members)
provide for the exclusive
E,he Tracts by the membersforth beLow:
1
L
use of
1i s ted
Pool Tennis Courts
The Declaration wouldthe amenities locaEed onunder each amenitv as set
A11 Otherof the Tracts
P-I
P-2A-I
P-V
P-I
r- 1J\- LP-IIP-III
P-V
Garage West Lot Parts
P-I P-I
P-2A-IP-II
P-I
P-2A-IP-IIP-III
P-V
The Board of Directors pursuant to the Declaration
would determine a seDarate annual budsec for the maintenance.
and manasement of eaih one of the aboie listed amenities and
one for Ehe general costs of running the Association. Based
on the total number of dwellins .units of a paiticular member
usi-ng a cerLain amenity (or th6 number of pbrking spacesallocated) divided by the total number of dwelling units ofall members using such amenity (or the total number ofparking spaces available), Ehe members of the Association
would be assessed the following proportionate shares of the
various budgets of the Association:
Valley Associates, Ltd.
The Valley Condominiums
The EasEein Valley Condominium Association
September 3, 1980
Page Four
Pool
(41--Unics)
P-l 7y/"P-2A.I T/"P-V 2C/"
tr^lJP: cvtcc: Brian Haas
P-r 3tr/.
P-zA-r 4%P-II 35%P-III ]-3%P-V Ltr/"
P-r 10d/"P-r 3V/"
P-2A-r .4%P-II 35%P-III T3%P-V LV/;
Tennis Courts
BUDGETS
t1 ^- ^^ ^\tcu- qtsrs
(54T[5ces)
P-r 46.tr/"P-2A-r L5.V/"P-rr 3f/"
All
I,iesc IoE of
Other E>cpenses
the AssociaEion
In addition, the DeclaraEion would contain three
special provisions. One provision would exemP_t proportionaEely
any membbr from being assessed-on any budget for unfinished
awetling units unEil-such dwelling units have been issued a
certifiEate of occuPancy. The second provision would
require that P-II, P-ff1, or-P-V not be rePresented on the
Boird of Direccors until such time as at least one dwelling
unit for rhe parcicular phase in question be-completed and
have a certificare of octupancy issued therefore. The rhird
provision would require the Association at the,request of
ttl" p-f member to ionstrucc up to 15 additional parking
spaces in the West Lot at the sole cost of the P-I member'
This letter is only a basic outline of che proposed
control of the Tracts and I Eherefore solicit any suggestions
you may have. However, because-P-II and P-V are presently
in Ehe development phase, I would request your PromPtreview and reiponse so that I may coordinate the develop-
mental documents of these new phases with the Association
documents.
Thank you for your cooperaEion in this matter
Very truly yours,
William J Pos t
box l oo vail, colorado'8 r 6s7 ios.o76-s613
August 21, 1980
Jerry Best
Eaglb County Building Dept.
Eagle County, Co.
Re : llew Construction in the Va11ey Project
Dear Jerry,
As result of an on-site inspection of the new construction in the Va1 ley
Project, the Vail Fire Protection District wishes to express an opinion
as to treatment of wood siding, roofs and spacing between buildings.
A research project was initiated by the Vail Fire Department in refer-
ence to wood shake shingies. The project was started in May of 1980 and
continued until Juiy of 1980. The project was very extensive and conducted
by Jin Spe11 and Mike McGee of the Vail Fire Department. A total of 250
man hours was spent in compifing data.
The results of the study showed some interesting facts and brought thestaff of the Vail F'ire Department to some decisive conclusions. These
conclusions are being wrjtten jnto ordinance and are currently adopted
po1 icy. Specificly, they are;
1. l,Jood shake shingles are a major hazard to fire and life safety,
2. Wood shake shingles that are treated with fire retardant are still, at
best only a Class C roof,
3. As a stop gap measure, the Vail Fire Department recommends and wil'l
require as of next spring, that all nen rcofs with wood shake shingles
and any re-roofing jobs will incorporate 40 lb. asbestos felt in the
sys tern ,
4. All wood siding shall be treated with fire retardant,
5. tlhen possible, wood shake shingles will be prohibitted from usage
in roofs over 3500 sq. ft.
In'l 'i ght of the conditions'in the Valley, being that they are not, I
repeat, not'in the fjre district, and due to the inadaquate water supply
and the recent failure of the water supply system durring a fire in that
area, and due to the lenghty response time for the Vail Fire Departmentfire apparatus, it is our recommendation that the afore rnentioned policy
be adopted by the Eagle County Building Department.
Please contact either Capt. Michael McGee or Tech. Jim Spell for more
details and information . Typed copies of the report and a vidio tape
are available.
Sj ncerely,
<=.42--+--//-at-a"---"---'-.,-;raz'rlaz':-'t/-'<-i-..'- -2"
Io
. BUILDING DIVISION
P. O. BOX 179
PHONE: 328-6339
DATE
rNsPE&roN FtEo"{LV
EAGLE, COUNTY
JOB NAME
I pnnrral.LOCATION
. MON
READY FOR INSPECTION
WED THUR
W,pp RovED florsneeRovED
I ueonr rHE FoLLowrNG coRRECToNS:
CORRECTIONS
I nerNsPEcr
' BUILOING DIVISION
P.O. BOX 609
PHONE:328.7311
rNSPE&rclNlo
onre a0 - Jo - +O JOB NAME
TIME RECEIVED- AM PM CALLER
FIEO "$:J-r1t&+t?roigt oF EAGLE,, q t\/ ':)
''b or*.*
MON
PARTIAL.LOCATION
l:00
FRI
AJ
ONffi\5/THUR o'@
READY FOR INSP
WrirpRovED f] orsnppRovED ! nErNsPEcr
LJ UPON THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS:
CORRECTIONS "
INSPECTOR ' -
Rp*rrff coNnucTtoN pERMtT AuLtcATtoN
t/' ' 11 4 \ Jurisdiction or EAGLE COUNTY
Iof3
IISF Ti ': FORM WHEN APPLYING FOR ANY OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING PERMITS:
crRcLE rHosE rHAr AppLY- [A ] Building IB] PlumbinS tCl Electrical ID] Mechanical
tEl RoadCut/RightofWay tF1 lndividual SewageDisposal System IG] Grading IH] Sign
slrE PLAN MUST BE INCLUDED wtrH THts APPIIQAMN: exceptions are tisted in
Eagle County Building Resolution. For site plan preparation instructions refer to Eagle Countypublication "Graphic & Submittal Requirements for Site plans.,.
Applicant to complete numbercd spaces only'
3ir;S Y\a-"t=t- 6 fl,t1, t/a'tlc1 Pz-rtfz. n a\ A L, ons-, $qr.f;?-_:ot',
THc= IALL€y t f?- UAtc Br 4,s146 i3t&1 5 r fsEE ATTACEEo sH€Er r
OIYNER MA|L AooFrss lr* pHoNE
2 i,/.-L&^-, Uz'h^- Q.o, B"x &A r o Ve,t, 9V9- Sli-o
3 A1 o rR-Gnn,L"Osa I o. P a. f3 ay UA, r"o*'2ArO ?Cr-,SZSo
TLCENSE NO
-^Z;;il"-s - L. u^ L-',, "''^"""'i1',-u t. g--,,.1-'"' KLs -v.*g "lT
ENGINE€
5-LICEN5€ NO
o si-ol D o^^u p,-JL / I| - 1- <-V\z- O <I e*- u <,-- L"t Ma,",
7 R Sgr SeuEe O* t,.,r Unrs 1o1-
8 Classof worK: g-TVfw tr ADDITIoN D ALTERATION U REPAIR o MOVE n REMOVE
I Oescribe ranrk:Laaslnrnct ro4 9G 9.,..p r ' t
10 Change of use from tl
Change of use to KIA
ll Valuation ol work: $ S2 O OO-l4 Total floor area oJ slructure: 7;LEA fi
12 Acreageorsq.footageoltot: tJ f ftaG+- pu.D s,ie-15 Height of structure above finish grade: 7 Z
13 Sq. lootage of lot coveraqe: I ZtO d
I
16 Special conditions andAddirionat Informa'rion: Tnrt o ( { t"{ tJr^-l\ <_,,, ,ik tla,, \ d 6.
PuD.
17 | HEREBv cERTrFy rHAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMTNED THtsAPPLICATION AND KNO'A' THE SAI\,1E TO AE TNUE ATO CORRECTALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THISIYPE OF WORK \I]ILL AE COMPLIEO WITH WHETHER SPECIFIEOHEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMII DOES NOTuutsJ r\t (, IPRESUIi€ TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANC€L THE -.\ \PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STAT€ OR LOCAL LAII] REGULAIINGCONSTRUCTION OR THE P€RFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. S(;NAIUR
R '?-1 - c6o
APPIICAT ON ACCTPTTO TiT PlANS CHECKED BY APPfi J! E o f oR f ssLaNc, urA-n rr;E-?.l) Z.
INSPECTOR Blue Copv,APPLICANT Gft:en C.rpy ENV RO\MENTAL TtEALTH
,,
,;.+ fr j041
69TSTRUCTION PERMIT FEES
3 of 3
BU ltDlNG V,o,-.r." 6ns i {-a '
fS<,x Zzt oa d. \ ,6- tlbsl
ELECTRICAT ,zrl4zTo4!\)ot l1<,t,.6 tt/4#
sy' ul'zc/"t .Z aFE-/4'/z/4'/T
B ING fie-",." <.).; Q- 19r----tJ \l MECHANICAL
Perm it Fee
ptrc4.h:ffFe,J- rlLt)
Building Total Fee
Permit Fee
Additional Cha
Electrical Total Fee
Permit FeeSEWAGE
Percolation Test
System Total Fee
T/RTGHT OF WAY Permit Fee
Additional Charges
Roadcut Total Fee
, PERMIT FEES Fuel: Oit I Nar. cas ! LPG E
PERMIT FE ESTyp€ of Fixture or llsm
WATER CLOSET (TOI LET)
Air Cond. Units - H.P. Ea.
LAVATOR Y (WASH BASI N)Units - H.P. Ea.
KITCH€N SI NK & OISP.Gas Fired A.C. Units - Tonnage Ea.
DISHWASHER Forced Air Svstems - 8.T.U. M. Ea.
LAUNORY TRAY Gravitv Systems - 8.T.U. M. Ea.
CLOTHES WASHER Floor Furnaces - B.T.U.
WATER H EATER Wall Heaters - B.T. U.
Unit Heaters - B.T.U.
DRINKING FOUNTAIN
F LOOR - SIN K OR DRAIN
SLOP SINK
GAS SYSTEMS: NO. OUTLETS
WATER PIPING & TTEATING EOUIP.Air Handlina Unit-
WASTE INTERCEPTOR
VACUUIVI BREAK ERS
LAWN SPRIN KLER SYSTEM TOTAL FEE $
TOTAI FEE
TOTALlDATE:
BUI LOI N
ENVI RONMENTAa rreolr, oerr.INEERIN
\ vhrl€ coov-tNsPEcroR alua copv APPLIcANI G'''n coDv-ENvrRo\MENTAL HEALTH canary cooy-ASsESS6FT pnkcopy-ENGTNEERTNG Gordan,o.j copy-EXTRq
\
R
o
F
t!'_)
&.(L
LUF
o
hE
UJ
I_]L[]
Jzo
z.
z?
>z
O- ll-
zo\,F'' l
() -':':f,tu,F0z.oO LZ."XoZdz
ei,
q,
E
o
q)
:J l-:>
o;i
orr*o
a;'s>
q);-
:!\-z
1t-.. <=-*, FF-.?'!"iI:i< '7i
<:.- ^
:^IY.;;.i>
-. ^,71,V';=
tFi.-31
<-aI=,; ! Z';
:i-:;!a<-
:F- <.(3> _4<a:tJ !c !<rz<t-:
zl.n
lolo<l z
t-lJ
Xl (J l<retzt=,rl "i li9l { t6
;t d t>NOTLVnTVA
. lo 9ll -
zz
|:o-q:rZFooaoz>-oo<)z
oo-u?; (-)
F.)
z
;
=.(J
oa
z.
-E
9s.<: -\)
=@(v
z
<d6fI^a9=
(iLUE
;o:; (-)<oz@za)
z
t
I t-Jo-
(,z
2
:<J
F
t
s
\s
N
N
LU2
^<z
o)I
\
)
\
'_l
;l
\
naClCl
\
\
Io_
tt)a!
C
-d
=&i
o:oo
=
G
Eoo
=
Io
t:c'n
ul(roo
?5
croo
Ic
L E
aoc
a
T
tr
G.tlJz
F
u_JF
I
E
<F
rlJ <
L! l-
O
<oOF
:- .{;l
0a
zr
=d
(!O
<xYF2<)-<+(Y
5Y
o:
t ;,.
FF
-]- "<O.59
---.l o
J{l
/) / to=u rrvd?ecnoN REouEST.
OF VAILrj
CALLER
DATE
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:
JOB NAME
MON ruEs @
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBlNG:
flFOUNDAION / srEEL
tr UNDERGFOUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
E ROUGH / WATERtr FRAMING
O INSULATION
tr SHEETROCK
D GAS PIPING
D POOL / H. TUB
FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER D HEATING
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
O FINAL tr FINAL
tr APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
D DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
-/ lf .?.t- -.-,/ /
t7'(:<-,.i--.' .t-./
DATE INSPECTOR
.l
(7)
@r--{
oz.
oUJ
t
r'{ |@lrlo1c!lrl
I
I
t!
o
o-zol-E(J" EqJE ']gF€aZEo E=O EE/<---\ : t,/ --;--A o *( .IEE F\. i/trE :-r_l--l c= E:-Fea:
F
=Eu.l
=z
.4=
=<(D0>z
O- LL
J-)<< a)
\-,/ \J =7eto
_-1 ': LLJ6il>
: tt-rf
-
a
z
E
e.
IJJ
'7:.^,
Zt2i:
'tz'<4
=22-)7 = - =/!F-:I
": = Zl
r€:-<
-=-,:-2<tl<=
-!? FF
<:.r;
NOrlVn'lVA
1-9
=(D(\
z
Y-)co
oan
at'
a-
I
o
,6
F
LU
=,z
_-a
aoo
?
)
z
-
C-:
E
too
I
trU
c
+,rc
=!.t-
(J
!
=
g
coo
=
Io-
-c ctr
o
?
;
I
=(-
oo
I
i ry
(loo
-=s
I
:O
aa
EL!z
=
FOL!:I
c
<F
LIJ <zE
(,1 z
(.)
<o
-<
^E*t
E
zt-
z&
i=
O
<-
::F>a
=<+r
Q=
>U
E
o2 o
J.<()(nA;r!fo
TAL]
z7 ,;14i: :. . 2 ''1iii2"4
=:;+7
z:zt1'/7?<&1/ ri?!'1,r.e\nzy />==a= )
i!1'#
c<J!
I l<ji ,rlai 12
o '<lz3 loloo lzl zI ;t t
NOrlVntVA
xe.o3ZZU-
i o, 6z:l>YleoEthot
=>tlxx Y nio:ioF-6q r?H6 s+;(J
= iS
=coN
z
;Y<E6f,I.^o<;uJOUJG
-=>lE9<oz@z)
w(oect
cort@
:h
z
F()
uJ"'l
E(L
I
coltlol(!lrlFll
I
I
ujF
F
=
z9 ,a.') n:-E I-
=v>crY8F
ol!
E ' _r'r I
tr>EFoctC'
azoO
{8" -
rEf Jzoz,^o
=<>z
.L LL
,.ig
=r3coil>
Et?''
L]TT
-
z
u-
YJ
F)
tt)E
co
oo.tt
e
I
b,
't'
o
F
ui
=.z
-
qo
=
,
=z
o-
=
:
tr
lu
o
I
=
co
.lJ(,5L.},oEooc
IE('to
=
=E
oo
=It
G
LIJg.oo
g.
Go
a ca
|!
ll.l
oo
=
E
oo
<
:co-
i
I.JJz
=
F
tuEr
<F(!OL!<z.EulF(nZ
<o(JF
-<
=z-a
>Y
=sf,FJZt!o
O
<;:JFZQ<*
Y,z
=g
E
t i\
b="1- I;uJ:o i'
lgr!
BUILDING DIVISION OF
EAGLE COUNTY, P. O. BOX I79
couRTHousE, EAGLE CO. - pH. (303)328-6339
BUILDING
PERMIT
oArE October 9. ts 80o"".,.nn, Morqa n 6ons tructi on Co. ------l*"rl--Tox 2 I1{-, -Vir- I
NUMBER OFOWELLING UNITS
(CONIR'5 LI CE N5E )
fourPER M rr ro Construct 4-Plex
(TYPE OF IMPROVEMENI)
(-l sroRYto.I PROPOSEO USE]
Ar (LocArroN) 1508 Lionsridqe Lo4_!L1yg____!_l_dg_._Vl zoN t G
o tsTR tcT(xo.){sTREET)
BETWEEN ANO(CROS5 STREET){ CR055 STREET)
suBDrvrsroN The Vallev at Vai'l
BUILOING IS TO BE
-
FT. WIDE BY
-
FT. LONG BY
LOT
LOT
-
BLOC K
-
S IZE 1..
FT. IN HEIGHT ANO SHALL CONFORM IX CONSTRUCTION
TO TYPE USE GROUP BASEMENT WALLS OF F OUNDAT ION (TYPE)
FrFMARkq. "A1 1 exposed soils areas must be reseeded, sodded, or otherwise revegetated
to control soil." =
)lan Check Fee $174.50
AREA ORVOLUME EsrrMArEo cos, $ 278 000. 00 eenurr g 878.00
(CUAIC/SOUARE FEET}
owxen Vallev Venture
rooness Rnv 22i 0, Va i 'l , Cl Rl 657
Receipt #7043^7057
'ti'id,:',ii cn r3rzersa side cf oppliccticn lo bo completed by outhorized cqant cf orvncr)
.x\ . f
-CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT APPLICATIONN .l -,.t
.nt/[ -n4'\ r\ t v "/ I rr Jurisdiction of EAGLE COUNTY\
USE THIS FORM WHEN APPLYING FOB ANY OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING PERMITS:
crRcLE rHosE rHAr AppLy - [ A ] Building IB] Plumbins tCl Electrical ID] MechanicaltEl RoadCut/RightofWay IF] Individual SewageDisposal System IGl Grading IH] Sign
loi3
Appticant to complete numbered spaces only. lsog Q4^<-, O-.p L . .p D.""^t'Qo sE-T^q\) a llo.. ,A+ Uz*\ ?^-? P^" r9-l AL.o^i-,eo
I o€scF
LOr N\J
7A e U,A LLEI 4r V*rL lg" IrDr s? - /g60 -cr 6 y'- A2^!a'1E-Js^t'"
z l^11'z-,
MAI! AODFESS ZIP
P,o'Box re/D l+,e 9/9-s?aoU
coNrRAcroF I
3,NloD G4.^)
ESS
Or.-.j. e" . Bor AA ro r,la, c
PIION E
? vt- s7> o
L CENSE NO
r f n' r\ n vArt AolFEss PH.NF4 (-JL,\ JzL--...-- \--..y. !2^ , q lqt' 5 i- T)o-,e--LICENS€ NO.
YzE J'1*tS
ENGINEER PNONE LICENSE NO
5
s Ig+.,4 @^,t<,,.-\1\ + (].-, ,p "-Jo- t <.- (-- -R.*,-tGr+-te t*a.
7 f{.-!rFF^r}'A\-
8 CIASSOf WOrK: W1tr'EW D ADOITION tr ALTERATION N REPAIB ! MOVE tr REMOVE ,,
g Describe ranrk: ( 6,,t-st--.,^. c-t . ,, -. e,P € o* . r I .a--\\
I
10 Change of use from \J {
Chanse of use to Ni {
ll Valuationof work: g Z1K O@-14 Totaffloorareaofstructure: <6OOfi
12 tureage orsq. footage of lot: \ A si*e PaD 15 Height of structure above finish gnde: 'L'( '
13 Sq. lootageoflotcoverage: Z1-l-l fr
'16 Special conditions and Additional Information:P^.t o o *L- vatl.,a Ph< sa-S 6 a. f..tD
RFfFn r-'-----:E r ._i-l_j_
hot..".,;'u r\l(/
qlTE qLAN MUST BE INCLUDED WITH THtS APPLICATTON: exceptions are
Eagle County Bu ilding Resolution.
publication "Graphic & Submittal
listed in JsDr. .,r c,-
Easre counsf, ;#;l i;.,,,For site plan preparation instructions refer to
Requ irements for Site Plans".
Wh rL. Copy - |OR Blue Copy-APPLICANT Green Copv ENVTR AL HEALTH
17 t HEneev cERTrFy IHAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMTNED THtsAPPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT.AIL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THISTYPE OF WOR|( WILL AE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECTFIEDHER€IN OR NOT THE GFANTING OF A PERI\4IT DOES NOTpBEsuME To GtvE AUTHoR|ry ro vtoLATE on caruceL riEpRovrsloNs oF aNy orHER srATE oR LocaL law neoutArrrucCONSTRUCIION OR TH€ PERFORMANCE OF CONSIRUCTION
V-"rt- lo- ,r -to
R OR AIJ ' HOF IZSO AGENI.II OATE
3r/,OER| 0AT t
PLANS CAECKED AY APPRov€o FoR lssuANcr", P EPJn r_T-4 /
Crnrry Co;ry ASSESSOR Prnk Copv- €NGtNEERtNG Got.tenro(t Coov-EXTRA
,/7 u4:,-3of r,
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FEES
BUILDING
l-1 on cl a,. cz,'.".s t d. -
Fo*t?-zrc-rUa.r (--o- ?(6('1 ?'t(- 't1 Lg
Permit Fee
ty/'r-^.b {tyl +tt.t I
Building Total Fee
ELECTRICAI T Permit Fee
Additional Ch
Electrical Total Fee
SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM Permit Fee
Percolation Test
System Total Fee
ROAD CUT/RIGHT OF WAY
Additional Charges
Roadcut Total Fee
Fuel: Oit fl Nar. Gas fl LPG E
PERMIT FE ESType of Fixrure or ltem
WATER CLOSET (TOI LET}
Air Cond. Units - H.P. Ea.
LAVATORY (WASH BASIN)Units - H.P. Ea.
Boilers - H.P. Ea.
KITCHEN SIN K & OISP.Gas Fired A.C. Units - Ton
Forced Air Syltems - B.T.U. M. Ea.
LAUNDRY TRAY Gravity Systems - B.T.U. M. Ea.
CLOTHES WASHER Floor Furnaces - B.T. U.
WATER HEATER Wall Heaters - B,T.U.
URINAL Un it Heaters - B.T.U.
DRINKING FOUNTAIN
FLOOR. SIN K OR DRAIN
Ventilation Fan
GAS SYSTEMS: NO. OUTLETS
WATER PIPING & TREATING EOUIP.Air Handlinq Unir-
WASTE INTERCEPTOR
VACUUM BR EAKERS
LAWN SPRIN K LER SYSTEM TOTAL FEE $
TOTAL FEE
PTUMBING S.-t^e-..&MECHANICAT
EUILDI NG OEPT.
ENVIRONMENIAL HEA LTH O€PT.
ENGINEERI
Sn,t. Copv - | NSPECTOF arue Cooy APPLICANT Green Copy-ENVIRONi.IENTAL HEALTTT Cinarv Coov-ASSESqOq p,.k Copy -ENGtNEERtNC G:l.jr...d Corrv_EXTRA
/s3l
l?28LoCat ion
---?
z-Z=z-=7"
/1 /)ky
Hi einnir rg Commission File
Permit No.
No.
Ps-51 AGE (ttfc1 l\G3Rev iew and reiurn to the Count'7 Building Off ici.rl within 6 vrorking days
' :V--Planning: Complies with: yr:s No Reviewec
/ t Subdivision Resulations t_] [l
' ! -.- Zonine Regutaiions If trSite Ptan (Landscaping) t] niEnRe
Co rrrmer rts ." 4.Se-ZaU--g__^<i
Recomme' id Approval :
County Engineer: Roatls
Grading
. Drainage
,.)omnrents:Recomrnend Approval :
nDtrn
nuT
iiLiul/._
County Health: Water
Sanitation
Perc. test
Comments:, Recommend
L]nulx
nil
nDrn
/:=ao</;4_,/
/^ t> -,t'/\.// t-Y -
Final lnspect ion: C/O
Recommend Approval
Corrments:
Firral lnspect ion: Landscapi
Recommend Aoorova
Commerrts:
ngntr
Final FilinS Date___
a__
DaieC/o lssued by
EAG LE G@UN TV nnterof f f, cG nne nnerand-unn
To:
Morgan Constructjon Co.
Subject:
Buildinq Permit Application
From:
Eagle Co. Building Dept.
File No.:Dat€:
Oct. 16, 1980
Pl ease si gn , date ,and return the enclosed application
Eagle County Building Dept.
P. 0. Box 179
Eagle, C0.81631
EAGLE COUNTY
Eogle, Colorodo
OFFICIAL RECE,PT
Date &ot./ ,rcea
CASH
ITEM AMOUNT
9!ilirngl?e'mit Fee
Application For
9ubdrvision Ap ptirlffi
Zone Change
Conditional Use
Special Use
Variance
Appeal Fee
Code: (Bui/ding)(Zoning)(Subdivision)
Ie-tglr8eceived
Atl rtems-E 60
no'paymen t of
Ng
recetved for
any rtem.only and th|5 rece ip t cancelled for
7 057
RECEIVED
- n c\./ov k?.-.>1224*{/__=__---
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION lof3
Jurisdiction o{ EAGLE COUNTY
USE THIS FORM WHEN APPLYING FOR ANY OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING PERMITS:
ctRCLE rHosE rHAr AppL./ - [ A ] Building IB] Plumbins tcl Electrical ID] Mechanical
i;i'-Rffi;uiinig6iotviav'tel.tnlividu;lsewage.Disposalsystem IG] Gradins IH] Sisn
Applicant to complete numbered Waces only'
publication "Graphic & Submittal Requirements for Site Plans
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINEO THIS
APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE ANO CORRECT]alr pnovstolts oF LAWS aND oRoINANcES GovERNING THls
TVFE oa woRK wtLL BE coMPLlEo wlrH WHETHER sPEqlFlEoiinEtr.r'tiii Nor. iH€ cRANTING oF A PERMTT DoEs NoIiEesuME-rb ctve lursontrY To vloLATE oR caNcEL THqpRoVisroNS oF ANy orHER srATE oR LocAL LAW REGULATING
CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION'
SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTOR OR AIJTHORIZEO AG€NT
S]GNAIUF€ OF OWNER iIF O!1'NE6 Bt.]ILDEFI
wt;te Copv-tiiICTOR Eluecopv-APPLICANT GreenCopv-ENVIR AL HEALTH
canarv coov-AssESSOR Pink Copv-ENGINEERING GoldenrodCopv-EXTRA
3 of 3
'r-
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FEES
Permit FeeBUITDING
Building Total Fee
ELECTRICAT Permit Fee
Additional Charges
Electrical Total Fee
SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM Permit Fee
Percolation Test
Svstem Total Fee
ROAD CUT/RTGHT OF WAY
BEST COPY
AVAIIABtf
Permit Fee
Additional Charges
Roadcut Total Fee
Fuel: Oit E Nat.Gas ! LPG D
PERMIT FEESType ot Fixturs or ltam
WATER CLOSET ITOILET)
Air Cond- Units - H.P. Ea.
LAVATORY (WASH BASIN )Refrigeration Units - H.P. Ea.
Eoilers - H.P. Ea.
KITCHEN SINK & DISP.Gas Fired A.C. Units - Tonnaoe Ea.
Forced Air Systems - B.T.U. M. Ea.
LAUNDRY TRAY Gravity Systems - B.T.U. M. Ea-
CLOTHES WASHER Floor Furnaces - B.T.U.
WATER HEATER Wall Heaters - B.T.U.
UR INA L Unit Heaters - B.T. U.
ORINKING FOUNTAIN
FLOOR . SINK OR DRAIN
SLOP SINK Ventilation Fan
GAS SYSTEMS: NO. OUTLETS
WATER PIPING & TREATING EOUIP.Air HandlinE Unit- C.F.M.
VACUUM BREAKERS
LAWN SPRIN KLER SYSTE l\il TOTAL FEE S
PLUMBING
QATE:I-EE TOTAL:
DATE:REC'O.8UI LOING DEPT.
DATE:REC'O.ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OEPT.
DATE:REC'O.ENGINEERING NFPT..-
Ymrre copv-lNSPEcroR Blue cor,y-APPLtGANT Green?v-ENVTRoNMENTALHEALTH Gnarv coo"-assessoFiCanarv Copy-Copy -ENGIN EERING Goldenrod Copy EXTRA
/YJtr
BUILDINd DIVISION
P.O. Box 1179 )PHONE;32S2311
D^r\- z
EAGLE COUNTY
JOB NAME
TIME RECEIVED- AM PM CALLER
INsi]'ECTIctN FTEOUEST
n orsen
MON
COMMENTS:
n penrrnl. LocATroN
READY FOR INSPECTION
THUR
V'APP ROVED florsnppRovED E netNsPEcr
I upon rHE FoLLowrNG coRRECTToNS:
CORRECTIONS
BUILDING DIVISION
P.O. Box 179
PHONE: 328-7311
DATE l-1
TIME RECEIVED 9I IS AM PM CALLER
f, ii'i n
IN=iPECTIclN TIEOUEST
EA€LE'COUNTY
JOB NAME
! ornen
MON
COMM E[iTS:
'4
WED
E pnnrral.LOCAT ION
R INSPECTION
THUR
V.APP ROV.E D
I upor,r.lse
CORRECTIONS
I orsnePRovED
FOLLOWI NG CORR ECTIONS:
n nerNSPEcr
t
1?"l
tt
'..{fl
K
----..
June 3, 1980
GRFA Increased Units
MORGAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
General Contractors
Proposed Development
VALLEY PHI\SE II A & B
7 A Units @
12 B Units
5 C Units 0
2 D Units @
1327 sq.
G 1127 sq.
1392 sq.
1568 sq.
ft. u
ft.
ft.
ft.
9,289 sq. ft.
13,524
6,960
3,136
32,909
Al I square footage rePresented
Maximum alIowable GRFA square
is 33,714 sq. ft.
Decrease in square footage of
Decrease of 2 uni ts
Oecrease of 5 Parking sPaces'
'is calculated bY
footage aPProved
805 sq. ft.
GRFA requirslents.
by the CountY
I tif I '?') l.\ '- \./ | a' i '(:' '.; 1
EAGTE COUNTY
C.JnnulFltg Deve lo pment
P. O. Box f79
EAGLE, COLORADO 81631
TELEPHONE 303i328.731 |
BOARD OF COUNTY
coMM r55toNERS
Exl 241
ADM IN I5T RAT IO N
Ext 241
ANIMAL SHELTER
949-4292
AS5E550R
Ext 202
BUILDING IN
INSPECTIONExt 226 or 229
CLER K &
RECORDERExt 217
COUNTY
ATTO R N EY
Exl 242
ENGINEER
Ext 236
ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH
Ext 238
EXT ENSI O N
AGENT
Ext 247
LIBRARYExt 255
PUBLIC H EA LTH
Eagle Ext 252
Vail 476-5844
PLANNINGExl 226 ot 229
PURCHASING/PERSONNELExt 245
ROAO & BR IDG EExl 257
SHE R IFF
Eaqle Ext 2l I
Basalt 927-3244
Gilman 827-5751
50C IA L SERVICES
328-6328
TREASURERExt 201
3 June 7980
I4organ Construction Compang
.T; n M^rd.n
P. O. Box 2 210
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re.' Amendment to the PteTiminarg PUD
The val.l,eq II
['/e have reviewed gour propose\ad justnents to The va77eg Phase II
(Su-6-79-P) which incfudes; (Jp'a reduct-ion in number of units from
28 to 26; (2) the addition oi a swinning.zpooT; (3) a shifting of the
parking 7ot (4) a minor tefocaxion of dweTling unjts,' (5) a change
in the unit mix. (see enclosute). We find these proposed changes
to constitute a minor change to the PD and herebg apptove this
adninistrative change conditionaL upon submittaT of finaL site plan,
rf gou have ang questions, please contact this office.
Y--7fr-Thomas Boni
/Mfr;M
TerriLi *riiglt/
Assjstant Ditector of Planning
TB,tkp
Ditector of Pfanninq
;tr t'a,q{i ,ar #
June 3, 1980
'' GRFA Increased Units
MORGAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
General Contractors
Proposed Development
VALLEY PHASE II A & B
-lAUnits0-- LZ B Units 0
5 C Units @
2 D Units 0
r/1327 sq. ft., ./ll27 sq. ft./
1392 sq. ft. V -/.
1568 sq. ft. /
9,289 sq. ft.
13,524
6,960
3, 135
32,9O9
GRFA requirements.
by the County
;: -\:' A]l square footage represented is calculated by
l,laximum allowab'le GRFA square footage approved
is 33,714 sq. ft.
- -Decrease in s.quare footage of 805 sq. ft. .
/--,-Decrease of, 2 urt'its ._ /'
-.)ecrease of 5 parking spaces. l, 7 FA Ur""rzo
.A //
'//el 1 .)F| 4,D ;/./f
',l.fuU'*D t'/''
q$
Post Office Box2210 o Vail, Colorado 91657 o (303) 476-4697
EAGTE COUNTY
EAGLE, COLORADO 81631
TELEPHONE 303/328-731|
BOARD OF COUNTYcoMMtSStoNERSExt 241
ADMINISTRATION
Ext 241
ANIMAL SH ELTE R
949-4292
ASSE550R
Ext 202
BUILOING IN
i NSPECT IO N
Ext 226 or 229
CLERK &
RECORDERExt 2l7
co u xTY
ATTO R N EY
Ext ?42
ENGINEERExt 236
ENVIRONMENTALHEALTHExt 238
EXT EN5ION
AG ENTExl 247
LIBRARYExt 255
PUBLIC HEALTH
Eagle Ext 252
Vail 476-5844
PLAN N I NGExt 226 or 229
PURCHASING/
PERSONNEL
Ext 245
ROAD & ARIOGE
Ext 257
SHERIFF
Eagle Ext 2l'l
Basall 927-3244
Gilman 82 7-5 751
SOC IAL 5E RV ICES
328.6328
TREASURER
Ext 20 |
May 27, I98O
Board of County Commissioners
Eaqle County
EagLe, Colorado 81631
Sixty feet of public right-of-$ray appears to be acceptable
along Lion's Ridge Loop road in the area immediately adjacent
to Phase Ir, Tract A of Lion's nidge Subdivision No- 2. The ' -'
submitted drawinq describes a length of 283-62 feet with a
bearing of N66" 12' 05" E and this is the only length of the '.- "';a
subject roadh'ay along which a decrease in R-O-W. width from
70 feet to 60 feet will be acceptable. ?" "=+
Yours trulY,
& ,/a 4J- t////U//e"dC- ,O/zk,t4'
I
Itelton E. Athrell
Eagle County Engineer
MEP./jh
cc: Tom Boni
Board of County Commissioners
/Ji:^ tlorgan, Morgan Construction
^{,t,/4 Rf CEI\,/:.D
Aril I iJS0
D6!r Jt i,.,r,r.rrd ll oavsl.
:rglr, Coltltv, Cdt
box 100 vail, colorado 816s7 303.476-5613
Apri 1 7, 1980
Terrill Knight
Pl anni ng Department
Eagle County
Re i The Valley Project
Dear Si r:It has come to our attention that some units at the
Val l ey Project are being occupj ed under dangerous condj -tions. I am not sure wether or not the unit(s) in question
have been i ssued Certi fi cates of 0ccupancy. However ' theunjt we inspected at the request of the Sheriffs 0ffice,
Uni t C-28, had several seri ous probl ems.
The tenants were living in the unit for 22 days withoutheat. The company called to service the boiler, Ski CountryServices, reported that the piping to the boiler was loose
and was in need of being re-worked. In addition, the naturalgas supply piping was not installed in accordance wjth applica-
bl e standards . The exhaust vent has numerous hol es i n i t.llater leaks inside the walls and ceiling vlere evident throughout the unit. Light fixtures were not'i n place and the wiringfor the fixtures was hanging out, unprotected, in numerouslocations. 0ne of the two fireplaces has a space of I/2" of
exposed plywood runnjng the length of the'hearth at the edgeof the hearth itself. Coals were found 'i n the space alongthe entire front. The other fireplace had water running outof the hearth and onto the fl oor.
The down stairs bathroom has nejther drywall on the ceil'ingnor fire tape on the wal'l s. No bathroom circuits have GFIprotecti on.In so much as the Valley Proiect is not in the Vail FireProtection District, our jurisdictjon in these matters islimited, The main hazaed to the area exist in the lack of
adaquate fire flow. The water main for that area is only 6"in diameter. and as of last summer, had no more than 30 lbs.of res'idual flow. Being a dead end nain, we do not have the
option of hitting two hydrants in,the event of a structurefi re.
Perhaps your office might look into this matter and take theappropriate actions necessary to protect the I ives and property
of the res i dents of the Va1 I ey Proj ect.
Sincerelv. '/r._A---2--t-.ff---'<2.-.-Capt. Mi chael McGeeVail Fire Department
EAGTE COUNTYCommunity Development
P. 0. Eox ]79
EA9LE, COLORADO 81631
TELEPHONE 303/328.731|
BOARD OF COUNTY
coMMtSSloNERS
Ext 241
ADMINISTRATION
Ext 241
ANIMAL SHELTER
949-4292
ASSE550 R
Ext 202
BUI LDI NG IN
I N SPECT IO N
Exl 226 ot 229
CLER K &
RECO RDERExt 2l 7
COUNTY
ATTO RNEY
Ext 242
ENGINEERExt 236
ENVIRONMENTAL
H EA LTHExt 238
EXTENSION
AG ENTExl 247
LIBRARY
Ext 255
PUBLIC HEALTH
Eagle Ext 252
Va il 476-5844
PLAN N ING
Ext 226 or 229
PURCHASING/
PE RSONN ELExt 245
ROAD & BRIOGEExt 257
SHERIFF
Eagle Ext 2l 1
Basalt 927-3244
Gilman 82 7-5 751
SOCIAL SERV ICES
i28-6328
TREASURERExt 20 |
March 20, .|980
James Morgan
Morgan Construction Co.
P. 0. Box 22.10
Va il , Col orado 8.l657
Dear Jim:
i apologize for not attending our pre-arranged
meeti ng.
In revjewjng your proposed changes to Phase II of
The Valley P.D., the Planning Department considers thoseto be of minor character and request that you submitfinal revised drawings showing these changes for ourrevjew. We are in general agreement with the concept
you presented.
Our records show that the original approval was for
28 units and 33,714 sq. ft. It is also our understandingthat your drawings will show the deletion of two units
and an increase'i n the gross floor area of between 200 -
300 sq. ft.
Please submit parking plan including d'i spos'i iion of
spaces within structure.
Respectfully yours,
ff ZZ".,
Thomas A. Bon'i
Asst. Director of Planning
TAB/ncm
l_=aGr"t l-= nact_=/A\\zLlL= \rV NTV
Interofflce mncnn@ramdumn
To:
Memorandum to the File
Subiect:
Parkinq space Count
From:
Tom Boni
File No.:
Valley Phase ff
Date:
February I, 1980
Units available
Upper Level
Mid Level
5
f0
in parkinq structure for Phase Jf.
spaces Existinq
spac e s
44 on p. o.
59 on drawinqs and in building.
7O spaces required for 28 units.
11 spaces (additional) will be required
which were not included in the plans
at,,*-; - ^l^ --r urur rr!9 r ro.r" i
to be provided
submitted by
Jim Cunningham
Ron Lustig