HomeMy WebLinkAboutDAUPHINAIS MOSELEY FILING 1 COMMONTOWN OF VAIL
PermitFee f75'oo
l+4,.I f!! r-lr |'. i il-' n,,.,r|!Flq'{l'r- ," ! ." lD
!'.
PERMITNO. 002735
Contractor's copy to bo kept on lobslte.
lftr$c 2
t rtcflsosec)r-
r*nlf({Mll.tiln Longt a Ercavatlon
PUBLIC WAY PERMIT
1.
2.
2
Horaine llrive
te Excavatl"on. P.O. Box 894, Avon
Bill to:
Paid:Dabble Roaland
(PubllcWolks)
INSPECTION REMARKS:
SKETCH PLAN OF WORK ATTACHED
i, ' .'!,, ." ):
.lt'
.t-r r .lr --r e r'
APPLICATION FOR
TOWN OFVAIL
PUBLIC WAY PERMIT
Job Name
r/g /,'t :, rt (lt Wtrsc )TOTI.N OF VAIL
la rrt,tt.
F-- - +S.t. lfr'
Egl
or
Legal Description l'" - Street AddressDtldLPt(t N 4(-,5
c-r
4.
Slart Date
Work is for lcircle onel i Watgt Gas Electric Telephone
Temporary Site Access
Completion Date
Sewer cAw
Trench-width
(min. 4')
Landscaping
f'-:{ NF
7.
L""sth N//+ o"rrn N /rt
BondAmounr * e\ 0t-l permitFee $ ?5. dO rotalPermit ree g K . A(t
ALL MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT, AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES MUST BE ON THE JOBSITE BEFORE THE
JOB IS STARTED.
Rubber out-riggers are required on excavating equipment when working on asphalt.
Asphalt surfaces underneath the bucket shall be protected at all times.
A signature below indicates a review of the area and utility locations and approvals. Once all utility company
signatures are obtained, permittee has option of routing application through the Public Works office to obtain lhe
necessary Town of Vail signatures. Please allow one week to process.
Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation (476-7480)
Public Service Company (1 -800-922-1 987)
PSCO-Natural Gas Group (468-2528)
Holy Cross Electric Company (949-5892)
U.S. West (1 -800-922-1 987)
TCI Cablevision of the Rockies (949-5530)
Town of Vail:
I rrigation (47 9-2'l 61 )(479-2171)
Public Works (479-21 58)
THERE WILL BE NO TOTAL STREET CLOSURES! A construction trafiic control plan must be approved by the
Public Works Departmeni prior to issuance of the permit.
All excavation must be done by hand within 18" of utilities - (Senate Bnl 172).
Permittee must contact Public Works Department at 479-2158 24 hours prior to commencing bacKill operations.
Failure to notify the Town will result in forfeiture of bond money. Scheduled inspections which are not ready may
result in the Town charging the contractor a reinspection fee.
I certify that I have read all chapters of Title 12 - Streets and Sidewalks, of the Vail Municipal Code and all utility
compqny agreements, sBned by me, and,will abide by the same, and that all utilities have been notilied as required.
ti
7':7 'i4
Date of Signature
L , j-J .-, ' ,, '{t I t-' '' tt. '
ATTACH PLAN OF WORK, INCLUDING CONTRUCTION TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
Show streets with names, buildings, and location of cuts. USE DASH LINES FOR CUT.
THIS IS NOT PUBLIC WAY PERMIT!
White - Public Works Yellow - Finance Pink - Community Developmenl Gold - Contractor
10.
11.
9.
12.
t-T
OF VAIL
o
BA]K
17 VA|L ROAD VA|L, COLORADO 81657 303-476-5686
October 6, L993
The Town of Vall
75 S. Frontage Rd., West
Vatl , Co 81657
RE: L€tter of Credit #855-822I, on behalf of
DAUPHINAIS -ITOSELSY CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Orlglnal Date:
orlginal Amount:
Extended Amount:
August 2L, L99O
$121,775.00
$ 37,94s.00
Present Expiration: September 30. 1993
Gentlemen:
lle have agreed to extend the above -mentloned L€tter of Credit for an
addLtlonal year. AlL terne of thls L€tter of Credlt renaln the same,
except the explratlon date ls hereby extended to Septenber 30, 1994, and
the total amount avallable on thls credlt ls $37,945.00.
A11 drafts nust be negotlated no later than Septenber 30, 1994, and
shall not exceed the total amount of THIRTY-SEVEN-THOUSAND-NINE-HUNDRED-
FoRTY-FrVE AND No/100 DorJ.ARs ($37,945.00).
If you have any questlons, please contact me.
1y,
tov
Vlce Presldent
MRR/ks
T-TBA]K
OF VAIL
t* t' tfirt.
17 VA|L BOAD VA|L, COLORADO 81657 303.476-5686
Septenber 1,6, L992
The Town of Vall
75 S. Frontage Rd., West
Vail , C0 81657
RE: Letter of Credit #855-822L, on behalf of
DAUPHINAIS-MOSELEY CONSIRUCTION, INC.
Orlginal Date: August 21, 1990
Original Amount: $121,775.00
Extended Amount: $ 37,945.00
Present Expiration: September 30. 1992
Gentlenen:
We have agreed to extend the above - mentioned Letter of Credit for an
additional year. A11 terns of this Letter of Credit remain the same,
except the expiratlon date is hereby extended to Septenber 30, 1993, and
the total amount aval1ab1e on this credit ls $37,945.00.
A11 drafts rnus t be negotiated no later than September 30, l-993, and
shall not exceed the total amount of THIRTY-SEVEN-THOUSAND-NINE-HI,TNDRED-
FoRrY-FrvE AND N0/100 DoLr.ARs ($37,945.00).
If you have any questlons, please contact me.
Executive Vlce President
MRR/kn
.l
TOWN OF VAIL
75 Soutb Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
t0t -479-2t t I / 47 9 -21 t9
FIL E COP Y
Department of Commanity Deaclopment
August 26,1992
Mr. Pat Dauphianis
Mr. Jay Peterson
P. O. Box 1515
Vail, CO 81658
RE: Letter of Credlt for Dauphlanls/Mosely Subdlvlslon lmprovements
Dear Pal and Jay,
I am writing to request that you update he improvement agreement and extend the letter of
credit for the remaining improvements for the Dauphianis/Mosely SuMivision. Our
understanding is that this letter of credit will expire on September 30, 1992. Attached to this
letter, is a memo that Greg Hall sent to me which states his acceptance of the public
improvements. lt does state that the olFsite drainage and future bus shelter have not yet
been completed. For this reason, it will be necessary to extend the letter of credit. I would
appreciate your attention to this matter as soon as possible so that we can avoid a time
crunch around September 30th.
Please let me know if I can help you out with anything to get this going. I appreciate your
attention to this matter.
Community Development Director
cc: Greg Hall
Shelly Mello
t
TOI|IN OFVAIL
75 Soatb Frontage Rotd
Vail, Colorado 816J7
t0t -47 9 -2 t t 8 / FAX t0l -47 9 -2r 66
D ep artment of Pil lic ll/ork s lTran sp ortation
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORTNDOM
Kri afan Pri|.z
C'Zg" f;r-F+f
August 20, L992
Daphinais-Mosely Subdivision
The Town of vail Public works Department accepts the publlc
improvements with the Daphinaj-s-Mosely Subdivision. The one year
warranty period sha1I begin on this date.
The off site drainage improvements and future bus shelter have not
yet been completed.
If you have any questions please contact me at 2160 -
l. -.'-t"
gnr'f ,.
?* ti,'
Executive Vice Pres ident
ftTBAN(
OF \A]L
August L2, L99L
Town of Vail
P.0. Box l-00
Vail, CO 81558
RE: Letter of Credit #855-822I for
the account of Dauphinais -
Moseley Construction, Inc.
dated August 21, 1990 in the
amount of 3121 .775.00.
Gentlemen:
We have agreed to extend the above mentioned letter of credit for an
additional nineteen monEhs from February L9, L99I . The terms of the letter of
credit shall remain the same except that the expiration date is hereby
extended to SepCember 30, 1992 and the tocal amount available has been reduced
to $37,945.00. A11 drafts nust be negotiaced no later than September 30, L992
and shall not exceed the cocal of THIRTY SEVEN THOUSAND NINE HIINDRED FORTY
FM AND NO/L00 DOLLARS.
If you have any questions regarding this, please do not hesitate to contact
ne.
17 VA|L ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657 303-476-5686
l.
,,{ t-
l^"
.4 1t"t It''
MRR/wc
75 Soatb Frontage Roail
Vcil, Colondo 81617
,0t -479-2r t 8/ FAX t0t -47 I -2 1 66
D ep artm ctt of Pab lic Work s lTrmgofittion
MEMORAT{Dt]M
Subdivision Agreement Remaining
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Hl;'i:'i'iED44
March 2, LWz
Dauphinais-MoselyCollateral
As far as I can tell, the Town is holding $37' 945 for the following
items:
Bus StopOff-Site Drainage Improvements
10E Revegetation Work
10& of Road & Sidewalk Work
$ 6, 000.00
$22,075.00$ s00.00s 9, 370.00
$37, 945.00Total
If you have
GH/sIh
any questions, please contact me directly.
HAY_29_92 FFT I 15 P-A2
UppeR Eeele Vlu-ev ConEouoare'o
Slntrrflor BlErnlcr
l.o Fonsgi co^0 . v.l|., coLorlallo 0r65t
t5qrt.ta.t.ao . rAx (totl.ti.loat
Mey 29, 1992
Mr. Pat Deuphlnals
Dauphlnaie-Mo3.Iey construction
P.O. Borl 1615Veil, .Golorado 91558
RE:Flnal Acceptance of Water and Sewer Mains
DauphlnalsllaoseleY subdivision, val'l , co
Dear Pet:
ThlsletteElstolnfornyouthattheabovereforcncedu'aterand
Eew€r tlalne were forrnally accepted bY the Upggr Eagle -Y?rltYConiollglatect Santtatlon District and tht Vail Valley Coneolldatecl
water Dlstrict at the respestive neetings dufing the Bonth of May.
lhank you for your patience ancl cooperatl,on through thls lenEthy
E Foce3g.
ginccrely,
\^rOS. [dr0rr-
trred 3, Easfee
Regulatlons Adminlstrator
cs: Internountaln gnglne€ring
Ta!fln of Vail
Cuitoiler Fl16
,/
MAirdar tor rH! FOLLOwltio Warti DltYtlct3i
rtthowltc,Ao Mflrc {vllcn . gEa rcx Cr|CCX tl€tlo war6n ' lrcnaY CAC€( elreo rnNtH
t^gl€-v^r! Mtrxo walLh . cow^fE$ Mclttg wAlu. 't^xrl cartlx vc^o<lwll watcrl
uPrEr tao|-e alorolllL rtatCi UlFOR|lv. vat|- v LlcY CONgOLtOAtt0 WAltn $\'
oz
E
=t
UI
A.
o
o
o,l -{N
o
uJllju.
E
=E
UJo-
<b/sr /L e6
&t4aot tr A/
ltu
to
rtr[!o
l(5z
ct
uJF
e.
F
FIz
zz
<t,ulFoz
z
!
t0
.U
ozz6
1!Jul.lt
I
lt
.E
F
Fzoo
Eo
@
|.n\o
!f]@
rnq1-r Ozc)HXo.. aq F-lCJHEO<AA>
H
z
El
Ff(J
o
E
o)E
-g.o(!
.9
o-o(d
-g\
ojLa
(!5
s
o
o
E
(!
n)
o
o,
==
co
E
o
=tr
d!)
!
.9
E
'6
oD
,lioEo(,
'6
.=atl)
ol
p
6
(')
'=
_aN
3i-o
k_
()
!
o
CD
.s
(too
o
o
to
.2
=.o
o
(t
./i
'(t
o
G
o
D
(lt
oooc(5
.g!t
3oF
(o
=]
6
o.
-9o.
E
(rt
o
G
.s
o.c
=]
o
Eo
q,
t
o)6
EEE'5E
g:
EE
EEF'=:ct;q)cL'-ooo€9
=ig>
cP'- o,ico.9
E6OE*o
cC
e'eg=
cL (g
-(E-- -c
Eg
-(!E6o!tr-c
{roi;-c6-a(60
s*E:;Eo.!
:E*(!('0>gtt(l)pa
OEr-o
-(J
rnrnN
\o\o rn fi)
+
F
=
u.l
z
x
IIJ
z
)
o
u,
tu
oz
ao
-)
z
llJ
=
uJ
uJ
z
tr
LU
()
uJ
oE
&q
;i
7,tp
z;
-9.
an
rlJ
z
3()
x
F
Iuo
at,
[Uu,l!
tr
=E
uJo-
J
FoF
ozo
CO
J
9e.
()
UJ
lrJ
z
co
=f
c
z
uit
F]
F
H
NOtlVntVA
al
Fl
?
N
XE:
;U:
=*o,-i
=2:<
C. r
CJ!2<
oLl<&
27
=>G
--otltr,S
=CD(\l
zz99F^Axft90
.nO6ba)z
!L<o*uJ r.iCUFO.;(\i
dzH
F.l
(.)q)
z
Ff
cz
z
tr
J
{
tr
loe.0
uJ
F
C.l
UJ
z
Eo
'{X
z
tr
luF
-
uJz
tllltltl
cz)zQ s.4
<oe1
i ,.8Rtrdc;<z
aFz.
Oz
do3EOI
lll
J
tr
U)
uJzY
i
z
tr
U'z
I
z
z
--.t-
=
=F
uJ
3
u)
_l
il
zl
2l
.. >l
ut
ululz
F
uJ
o-)
z
E
I
z
trU')
&
CD
Lr)
LOtf)OO
c\Ic'l(n
\o
v
F,
zo
zH
g,F
o
v,z
Ft
lrJ
tsooo1zo
Fo-
uJY
IJJo
oF
tr
cE
uJ
o-
tto
o-oo
I
llJFoz
t4
H&
ZE,.o FYE <
=<4
=z^f :) c')-io o(L tr- $
trtrtr
J..i5\/v=
=-r'=:oi
dd=
E
ul
l!
UJoz
U'L
F
E-o-
JFuJ3h=1to- t!>[Ot!9oE trt;d:>ilFJ
tt
uJdl
co
Er$s€
*
E
E
8
\:
:6
;E!t
=o;!
2>E()6
HH
E
=e.
UJ
o-zoF()
EFazoo
ldrl-l
Itsl
l$llol
:;< |t*l
rlH I
IA-rlD
i13il otzL--e#
XEF
a
F]ut&
H
z
x
ii
=zooI
E
UJ
z
X
FE
U1
!,1
J
a
=
ln
I\o
F\.d.
iq-
FlH
E =tr
aa
llJ
o
=
q
-
()zH
E
=
u--
Irn
ciz
otuIlE
J
al>l
t!
ol
z1
31
9/FI
!nrtl
@
I\o
F\\+
l{l&H
c)z
=tr
z
('
ul
J
t!oz
=o =tr
=
tr
:
IIJI
tl<t>i
t!ol
zl
3l
YI =tr
ol
=.1out
5
sl
IIo
zl
=l9l
u,
uJ
E,
UJz
3o
F(J
uJt
G
E
-rO<FoaQIIJ <zE
lJ.ll Ft4Zo
JE<o(JF
E3
S?F-zff
EgP
=#f,Fd6o
*5YF.
=3AFd=
=u
CE
Eirul
-E FOz<()qH
I
FF!
c;z
ts
:E
UJo-
(\
oss
or\
o
o\i
Ye t
\
att
uJu,l!
E
=
uJ
o-
'v)
,in
UJFoz
oz
$
il'i\j:
-\J
\.r(J
I't?
I
rl
Nr
)i
NH
6
I
I
rl
\l\r
.-$TE|rlz3o
lll
F
z
tlJu,o
=
Eott
Eo
.E
uJz3o
lt
l|l
)F
J
3
J
D
I
E-'rti
cho
2
q
c
ctl
E.Elro
Ee8*
5.8
EE
.€Ellc+tbk
Rg
ot-rc.}otl|
s
eb!5oo
trDcC(g
E€oo8oqt EI)
o.5
-!
EE
att E-b'==
Ef
=!'.9o9-aEO,e(!
sr -gEi
d:g(D-6
Eo('t
sbE
EEg
€sEef:
=gFg>=
c96
3Et
EEE-oO
5rsF! i.Y- (6
o. a0 clSE;sr- cLE*:E;:
E E.bo6=
EE E- o..Y
6 6-=.c; o
- b-c
st:oi]
'6>.9 6 -o.
J:E3i ei.ie9Eo5tr!'
.L O Ct)
-o(t
o
a
\n
\
o
o-
a\
d\c,
\\
t
a
N
t.\
A\-t
o
1
a\
s
i\
\)
F
T
gJ
(9z
J
I()
llJ
z
J
o
C)u,
gJ
(,z
ao
J
J
oz
ttlE
ult!ttz
F
ul
C)uJ
F
v,o
u,
z
gJJ
x
F
u,(tf
olu
UJlt
tr
=g
LlJFxFo
0
=oJ
CO
J
IGFoItJul
z
@-
z
:Eou,
=.
6j
l
ao€
vrbrffirt^
zgi
stsooZt-89r!<o1H6;oFO
-ici
zo
F
=J
l!
CE,ri
o-
o
(J
UJ
F
IJJ
J
z
F
lltlllll
tz
z9o<oo<o*
=Pxtoo<2
oi<F
9=
d6}E
u,l
gJzxI
tu
F
zI
J
a,z
q.llb
3
5
<l
uJlII
t-
(,
F
JI<l
-l
=l
zl
.. >lo
uJo
uJutz
U'F
ul
J
z
9
=o
+
z
F
o
=Y
d
z
gJ
FJ
3g,z
:
-)
ar{t-tt-fl
-t
I
I
I
UJF
o
uJ
tr(t,
(D
o')zo
F
uJv
ut
rD
oF
b
tr|
lr.o
o
I
IJJFoz
zo9zz
=z
dP
J
oozG
3b
=uJ@u,
F:
e.l!
lto
UJoz
oIoF
Itr
JFllJ -!:=
dil
=o-Olr9oi u.rxo-:>
l.f l-lLl
JJtt
ul.o
oF
co
Eao
oto!
'E
aE'
E
IJ
o
go
E
oao!
g
FI
=lE, Ilrl L
o-zIFO-
#5
-jJ,C6
#o
!!
c,,
-5
G>
\
!
J
9z
o
uJ
=.::
t!l
J<l
E3,
$€q=
1-
$.tl
-l
E
=s
E
dJ\fl
xq
rq
ivl.4ul
0adac-{
-
v\a9A
\,
ct.,>j
s
<J
J
tr()
?s
.tJ
D
(f
<$
\)
a
t4tttr4o!act
J
=
rq
I
c{-:r-ro-
6
A
l*vIffiflttlW
sl.,
lLl'lqfi
g
{J
g
':f,
q.rl
2l3
...J1
dE
I:s
tl^r'
/1,(2
i-
^z.l
oi
uJl
:l
<l>lr!q
2l
3lolFI
ln1"4.71
tn.Y
?
ui
J
UJF
s.1
Jq
IIJ
l
I
Fd
(t
utl
:l
>I
rl|q
zl3olH
lriJulF
q
1
I
J
Ill!t_
i-91
' eilgl
ll
slElol
flE
*
3
I
=l
EI
I
Ill
I
ItoKIt(,lt uJl
ll<t>l
t!lol
zl3lolFI
urJt!F'
ulI-
Ga
Eu,z
=o
Fou,F
G
-lO<FG()uJ<zEUJFo6
C)
JE<o()F
;5
HEt
gF
s3
=Fd.3()
3E
=3g6
oE,h
=o2 o()
iciqEn!
Project Application 5a.vz
)cC[rl*'/prxtJ /- Architecl. Address and Phone:
Owner, Address and Phone://?4/ s
szz "cantbc,r'' ald"L
)a/s -///agl cha>u //2c
4za -foss
Filing
sOp
z.,ne fula. 22Legal Description: Lot
Com ments:au//A" r'-
Aep /s /ac(.f.
Utl
iil
D^1" 5.do;72
Motion by:
seconded ,r, fr,/ ,*rr'z-:r/"n
,
APPROVAL
krrt qbrt
6o*zr%z,za
v.
Design Review Board
D ISAPPROVAL
de renkd #z
Town Plan ner E Statt Approval
KICHLER LIOHTING
'Windrcrlantenrs ffiS
In the tradition of Great Britain and the gaslights which surround
its famous landmarks. These outdoor fixtures are cast aluminum
with a weather resistant finish. Choose between formal black
\.r t
N'tr$ii,
K-9940 ELACK VERDIGRIS
Cl€ar bev6l€d glass post and
K9530 pedostal mount adaptor).3.llght,40-W. Max. (C)
K-9i7{1 BLACK @6s K-9:741 VERDIGRIS
Clear beveled glass panels. 3-light,40-W Max, (C)
Hgt. 18r/e'f Widlh 9'l Extension 10r/t'. Hgl. from center of
wall opening 15%':Dia.9r/a', Hgt.2Ot/t\
.*
... 1.j-:...,. fA
TAV.revised 9lll9l
rowN oF \rilrl"
MAY A gSA
---. '.'-;5 * . --
D.
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED :
ADDRESS:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LoL 3t-Block
Subdivi.sion
attach to this aPPlication.
ZONING:
^OD
If propertY is desciibed bY
destription, Please Provide
a meets and bounds
on a seParate sheet
egal
and
LOT AREA: If required,
stamped survey showing
NAME OF APPLICANT:
Mailing Address:
applicant1ot area.
nust Provide a
Phone
NAME OF APPLICANT, S REPrylS TATI
Mai-1ipg Address:
NAME OF OWNERS
STGNATURE (S) :
vailinq AddreSs:
Condoninium Approvat if applicable'
ensure ihe ccrrecl fee is Paid'
DRB FEE: DRB fees, as shown above, are to be-paid at
li.; ii;. of submit.tal of DRB applicarlon. Later, when
"iirvf'"s io. " building permit, please identifv the
accurate valuatlon of in-e proposat ' The Town of VaiI
will adjust the fee accordlng to the table below' to
Phone
hone
J.
K,
RTDO
DAUPHINAIS.IIOSELEY CONSTRUCTION,
P.O. BOX t5l5 PH. S-S{0416. vAlL CO 81658 ('- '.Z]{"'"''W
5 5 ?:l EEil'il.OO e ? :l Ar. ':r! l0 I I0 l S l9r!
current
FEE SC]jEDULS :
NA!,IE OF PROJECTI(%I^IAA IYUA'UF
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT-3!L BLOCK
STREET ADDRESS:
DESCRIPTION OE- PRO.]ECT :
The(tollowing information is
before a finalReview Board
BUILDING MATERIALS:
Roof
Siding
Other WaI1 Materials
Fasci-a
Soffit s
Windows
Window Trim
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck Rails
-TfiIJI.I ClF IJF I L
l'liscel lareous Csh
i'i+-,)l:1--!l:
A.
required for submittal to the Design
approval can be given:
TYPE OF MATERIAL CO],ORilii- ta*ua?
-\Whrlc-
hr'+
16':52:14
i -1,,;;4 r n i. i+ tJtEi;;r:
i:ir:t:-i'r. ini. S [lr: * r-Ff,2
iit:il.rF,r"iii,.iFli5-t4rlr5Er 5',, r:.:ul.{5T...,IiE5IEt,t EEl,tIEtJ E
:- ji;F;i:l
;-irirrrr r-r r_. i.ende r*,_1 .: lEff. 68
Common Name Ouantitv Size*
ffi(xrg
ItFm p€id
,:i : F!f: jr:'t[1,+ ;. f: j l. EtEl!:t
,...ir.::,1-,1r t+ t Lrt-ng,i :'
Rmowrt paid
.TBE. BE
'.-j J-f,-:,
THJAF{}f \/DIJ
r:,:rr. I r- :.:r---r'i1r:r :,-iEFHFil']IF
SUBDIVISION
J
t
l'-l
\
M
hl
{
M
l.-.
A
2
d
AI
(f.
I
I,IINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
APRrL 16, 1991-
7: 30 P.M.
A regular neeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday,
April Lo, 1,991, it z:30 P.M., in the Council chambers of the vail-
Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TOT{N OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Kent Rose, Mayor
Tom Steinberg, llayor Pro-Ten
Lynn Fritzlen
Merv Lapin
Robert LeVine
Peggy osterfoss
Jin Gibson
Ron Phillips, Town l"lanager
Larry Eskwith, Town AttorneY
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
The first itern on the agenda was the ten-year employment
anniversary award for Todd Scholt of the Public Works FIeet
Maintenance Oivision. Ron Phil1ips, Pete Burnett, and Kent Rose
nade remarks concerning Todd's tenure with the Town and Mayor Rose
thanked Todd for his work.
The second itern on the agenda was citizen Participation. chuck
crist, with vail- Mountain Rescue, expressed thanks. frorn that group
for previous noneys the council has contributed to the
organization, aLso notifyi.ng Council they .had just been
re6ertified. secondly, l,terv tapin introduced GaIina Kozlova, fron
the Soviet Union, wn6'is the interpreter for the Russian hockey
team currently visiting Vai1.
Iten No. 3 on the agenda was Debbie comerford in a request to
address the Town couicil. Debbie expressed her appreciation of
Councilrs tirne and asked for any Comments or suggestions the
councit night have in regard to thL upcorning school board election
and the conduct of th;t school board. In response' -severalsuggestions were given. First, the school board must be very
=p66iti" as to wh-ere the rnoney goes 9na- !!is. should cone in a
rladily understandable format. Pebple feel the.board does not have
a handle on how the rnoney is being-spent. Furthermore, the board
itself rnust understand t-he budget and each of its line iterns' A
breakdown by schools or smaller segrnents, also known as site-based
nanagenent, was discussed. Secondly, regarding-the state funding
j_ssue, a pro active stance by the board would neet with voter
appio"af.' Debbie, if elected, was asked to cone back to this
Ctirncil, as well as to other councils and boards throughout the
school district, to get support at such tine as they may be
appearing before the state t6listature. The third itern sugqested
h;a to ?o with before and after school programs, weekends,
holidays, and so forth, that coul-d be sponsored by the- school
distrilt. Debbie then asked the board how they fe1.t about an
educational foundation and endowment for the school district and
the council responded in a positive manner'
Iten No. 4 was the Consent Agenda.
A. Ordinance No. 7 ' Series of 1991, second reading' an
ordinance arnending Section 9.34.030 of the Municipa-} Code
of the Town of vail , to provide that it shall be unlawful
for any person under the age of twenty-one years to have
itt hia -possession any iermented nalt beveraqe and
arnending -section g.34.OeO of the Municipal Code of the
Town of vail to nake it unlaltful for any person to sell
any fermented nalt beverages to any person u-nder the age
of twenty-ott" y"uts and sltting forth details in reqard
I
thereto.
B. ordinance No. 8, Series of 1991, second reading, an
ordinance amending Chapter 12 of the Municipal Code for
the Town of VaiI to provide for changes and additional
conditions relating to street openings, excavations, and
pavernent cuts and setting forth details in regardthereto.
Both Ordinances 7 and 8 had titles read in fuII by llayor Rose.
Merv Lapin moved to approve the Consent Agenda, with the second by
Ton Steinberg. A vote r'ras taken and the rnotion was unaninous, 6-0.
Item No. 5 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1991., first
reading, an ordinance repealing Chapter L8.71" Additional Gross
Residential Floor Area of the Town of Vail- Municipal Code and
setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title
in fu1l. Kristan Pritz presented the staff and zoning code task
force recomrnendation to repeal the 250 Ordinance at the April I PEc
rneeting. The PEC voted 4-1 to deny the ordinance to repeal the 250
Ordinance, with the recommendation to Council that the 25O
ordinance be retained in a rnodified form.Explanation of the
Planning Comrnission action followed. The staff response to the PEC
recommendations centered around the purpose of the ordinance, demos
and rebuilds, variances, and site irnprovenents. Individuals frorn
the audience commenting on behalf of maintaining the 250 ordinance
were as foll,ows: Jirn Morter, Bob Ruder, John Tuschmann, Chris
Neuswanger, Hermann Staufer, Chuck Crist, Frank McKibben, who read
a letter from Ben and Celine Krueger, and entered into the record,
Howard Rapson, and Larry Agneberg, representing the Board of
Realtors. Following cornments frorn the public, the Town .:ouncil
made cornments. At this point, Rob LeVine moved to deny ordinance
No. 9, Series of 1991-, with a second corning from Kent Rose. A vote
was taken and the motion passed 4-2, with Merv Lapin and Tom
Steinberg voting against this motion.
Iten No. 6 on the agenda was Ordinance No. 10, Series of LggL'
first reading an ordinance repealing and reenacting Ordinance No.
13, Series of 1990, also known as the Dauphanais-Mosely
Subdivision, to provide changes to Special Development District No.
22, tharL certain lot size and corresponding GRFA, ernployee dwelling
units, and architectural guidelines, and setting forth details in
regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in fu1]. shelly Mello
stited the appLicant was requesting a number of changes to the
approved sDD. Those requests included changes to GRFA and s j-te
"ov"rag" in addition to thanges to the architectural guidelj,nes.
The staff recommendation r,tas to approve requested the amendments
since the request cornplied with sDD criteria. PEc voted 5-1 to
recomrnend approval of the request as per the staff recomnendation
with the followinq conditions:
1. Al1ow the transfer ofprinary unit to enployee
. No credit allowance wil-l
. Al1ow 15 enployee units.
200 square feet ofunit.
be given to ernployee2
J
GRFA frorn
unit.
300
rl
A1low 600 sq. ft. for primary unit garage and
sq. ft. for an ernployee unit garage.
Initially the staff had recornrnended denial of the request. The
applicant had since amended his request and the staff was now
rLcommending approval of the request, therefore, a1l requests and
amended requesii were beneficial to bringing this project under the
current CnFe regulations. Rob LeVine rnoved to approrre Ordinance
No. l-o on first-reading as per the staff recommendation, with the
following conditions:
1. A 4' roof encroachment be allowed on Lots 1-24 if the
rear setback is increased by 4 feet.
2. Al1ow transfer of up to 300 sq. ft. frorn primary unit to
secondary.3. Up to 24 enployee units allowed.
-2-
Garages be reducedprimary unit and an
an enployee unit is
to 600 square feet allowable foradditional 30o sq. ft. of garage if
provided.
The rnotion was then seconded by Lynn Fritzlen. A vote was taken
and the motion passed 5-1, vrith all but Merv Lapin voting for the
motion.
Item No. 7 $ras Ordinance No. 1L, Series of 1.99L, first reading, an
ordinance rezoning three tracts from hillside residential zoning,Section l-8.09 to greenbelt and natural open space zoning, Section
L8.38 within a parcel connonly referred to as Spraddle creek,located north and east of the main Vail interchange and east of
Spraddle creek Livery. Mayor Rose read the title in ful1. Kristan
Pritz stated this rezoning was an irnplementation of the final PECsubdivision approval . The PEc had voted unanimously to recommendapproval of this rezoning to Council. Merv Lapin requested a
clarification on taxes regarding this open space and requested that
Jay Peterson and Larry Eskwith look into the actual ownership of
the land at issue. Merv Lapin moved to approve the ordinance, with
the second coming from Peg Osterfoss. A vote was taken and the
motion passed 5-0-L, with one abstention by Kent Rose.
Item No. I was ordinance No. L2, Series of 1991, first reading, an
ordinance directing the Town Manager to sign an agreement regarding
a former strip of right-of-way. Mayor Rose read the title in fuI1.
Applicants were the Town of Vail and Manor Vail. Andy Knudtsen
stated that in 1977 the Town conveyed a section of right-of-way to
Manor Vail. The land conveyed was a 5O-foot wide strip extending
from Vail Valley Drive east past the front entrance of Manor VaiI
to the pedestrian bridge leading to Ford Park. When the Tov,tn
originally conveyed the 1and, it conditioned the deed with six
restrictions, including the requirement that Manor VaiI dedicate a
pedestrian easement through this area to the To!'rn. Ho!'/ever, a
clause in the deed limited the restrictions to twenty years.
Therefore, after ]-997, the Town would not have a pedestrian
easement to Ford Park. He explained the proposed ordinance would
direct the Town Manager to sign an agreenent which would release
some of the conditions, and would make the pedestrian easement
permanent. Ton Steinberg requested that signage be allowed at both
ends of the easement, which was agreeaple to the applicant. Merv
Lapin moved to approve Ordinance No. L2. Peg osterfoss seconded
that rnotion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously,
6-0.
rtem No. 9 was Resolution No. 10, Series of I99L, a resolution
increasing fees for certain Conrnunity Developnent services. Merv
Lapin moved to approve this resolution, wj-th the second coming from
Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the rnotion passed 5-1, with
Lynn Fritzlen voting against this resol-ution.
ftem No. l-O was the Neuswanger appeal of a PEC decision to deny a
wa11 hei-ght variance reques€. Ji11 Kannerer stated the applicant,
Chris Neuswanger, had requested PEC approval of a front setback and
waI1 height variances for the Neuswanger residence located
within the primary/secondary zone district at 2642 Cortina Lane,
Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision. The PEc had approved the
front setback variance in order to allow the construction of GRFA
in conjunction with a garage within the front setback and had
denied the wall height variance request. In response to questions
frorn Council, chris indicated the proposed wa1] heights in excess
of 3,-0rrwere required and were not strickly an aestheti.c issue.
The waIl height had to do with drainage for the actual lot because
of the severity of the slope of that lot. Sorne members of Council
did not believe a physical hardship had been presented and thought
a break up of walls, more terracing, and landscaping with three
foot rnaxirnurn height in the wa1ls, would be more appealing.
-3-
a
Merv Lapin restated his belief that the tevel of design and grading
work done to date htas conceptual and needed to be investigated in
more detail to see if the need for a wall height variance and the
drainage problems could be eliminated through alternative design
solutions. Peggy osterfoss noved to conceptually approve thevariances, based on the fact the need for a wall height vari-ance
utas a physical hardship resulting from the grade of the site.
Because of the slope of the lot, Peggy did not believe the high
walls would be highLy visible if the wall were terraced and
properly landscaped. She conditioned her approval with the request
the waII be in a minimum of two sections, four feet apart, with
ample landscaping between. Tom Steinberg seconded this motion. A
vote was taken and the results ended in a tie with Rob LeVine, Lynn
Fritzlen and Merv Lapin voting against approval, wich means the
motion failed. Upon further discussion, it was recommended to
staff and Mr. Neuswanger he return to Planning Commission and
attempt to achieve a settlement through the Planning and
Environmental commission.
There being no further business, Merv Lapin moved to adjourn the
rneeting at l-0:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
ATTEST:
,.....-\ '
Parnel.a A. Brandmeyer, Tovtn CIerk
-4-
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
Wqttot$l ,ry,f^i'rw(Wi(YORDINANCE NO.32
Series of 1991
AN ORDINANCE AIIIENDING ORDINANCE NO.10, SERIES OF 1991' {^,
TO PROVIDE WPOGRAPHICAL AND WORDING CORRECNONS -""
"
1-
FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.22, Ut/l.T '
AND SETNNG FORTH DETAILST IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1991 repealing and re-enacting SDD No. 22 was
approved with c€rtain typographical and wording enors; and
WHEREAS, the Town Councilwishes to correc{ those errors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
Section 4(AXO) -Sebacks of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1991 is hereby amended to read
as follows:
Minimum sebacks shall be as indicated on the approved site development plan by Amold/
Gwathmey/Pratt Architects, dated March 22, 1990. A 4 foot roof overhang shall be allowed in the
front setback for Lots 15-19, provided the rear setback is increased by 4 feet. A 4 loot rool
overhang shall be allowed in the ,€er6$?.)etfiack of Lots 20-24, grovided tre front setback is
increased by 4 feet. Roof overhangs shall be allowed to encroach up to 2' into the required side
sehack of 10' for each lot, An undosed, unroofed, deck or patio within 5 feet of finished grade
may encroach into the rear setback by 5' for Lots 1-14 and 20-24. No other setback
encroachments shall be allowed.
Section 2
Section 5(G) - Conditions of Approval of Ordinance 10, Series of 1991 , is hereby amended
lo read as follows:
The development of Special Development District No. 22 will have impacts on he
available employee housing wifrin the Upper Eagle Valley Area. ln order to hslp meet this
additional employee housing need, the developer of Special Development District No. 22 shall
provide employee housing on site. The lollowing restrictions shall apply to allemployee dwelling
units within SDD No. 22:
The developer shall build a minimum of six employee dnvelling units within the subdivision.
Each employee dwelling unit shall have a minimum square footage of rt00 squars toet not to
exceed 500 square feet and is allowed to have a kitchen. the GRFA and number of employee
units shall not be counted toward allowable density or GRFA for Special Developmenl District No.
22. The developer may ctroose to transfer up to 300 sq. ft. of GRFA from the primary unit to the
employee unit. The GRFA transferred will be deducted from the total allowable GRFA of the
w<At-
S*,*primary unit. The developer may provide up to
requir€d dwelling units if so desired.
drelling units including the 6
The employee dwelling units may b€ located on any of the lots within the subdivision
providing all the development standards are met for each lot. Only one employee dvelling unit
--->\
shall be allowed per lot witr a maximum it q?.,"-{)tits allorved. An employee dwelling shall be
incorporated into the struc{ure of tho primary residence and shall not be allowed to be separated
from the primary unit. Each employee dwelling unit shall have one enclosed garage parking
space. This parking space shall not be detached from the single-family garage or structure. The
employee dwelling unit shallbe prohibited lrom having awood buming ltreplace. Each phase of
construction shall include a minimum of one employee dwelling unit until six employee drelling
units are constructed and available for renlal.
The employee drelling unit shall be permanently restricted as a rential employee dwelling
unit. The employee dwelling unit shall not be leased or rented for any period of less han 30
consecutive days, and that if rented, it shall be rented only to tenants who are full-time employees
in the Upper Eagle Valley. The Upper Eagle Valley shallbe deemed to include the Gore Valley,
Minturn, Red Clitf, Gilman, Eagle-Vail, and Avon and heir sunounding areas. A fulFtime
employee is a person who works an average of 30 hours per week. An employee dwelling unit
shall not be divided into any form ol time-share, interval ownership, or lractional lee ornership.
The employee dwelling unit shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed separately from the single
lamily unit.
The owner of each employee dwellirq unit shall be required to declare in writing on an
annual basis to the Town of Vail that the employee dwelling unit has been rented as a long term
rental per the requirements outlined in lhis section. This declaration shall include a writtsn
statement from the owner listing the rente/s name, place ol employmeni, and length of time the
unit was rented. The declaration shall be required to be sQned by both the lot owner and renter.
A declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be ltled on record ln the office of the
Eagle County Clerk and Recorder in the form approved by he Tourn Attomey for the benefit of
the Town to snsure that he restrictions herein shall run witt the land before a building permit is
released for the construction of any employee drelling unit. The Town of Vail shall be a party
to fiis employee housing agreement.
Section 3
lf any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not etfect the validity of tlle remaining portions of
o
have passedthis ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares lt wouE this ordinance, and
each part, ssction, subsection, sentsnce, clauss or phrase thereof, regardless of he fact that any
one or more parts, sgctions, subssctions, sontencos, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 4
The Town Council hereby flnds, determines and declares thatthis ordinance ls necossary
and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the Inhabitants thereof.
Section 5
The repeal or the rep€al and reenactment ot any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as
provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right whidr has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occuned prior to he effective date hereof, any prosecution @mmenced, nor any
other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed
and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any
ordinance previously repeated or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 6
All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are
repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not b€ construed to revise
any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, heretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
ONCE lN FULL, this_day of 1991. A public hearing shall be held hereon
on the _ day of 1991, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of he
Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building ot the Town.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
day of , 1991.
ATTEST:
this
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Glerk
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
N\r^.- ' osF# 0o't1CI0/r:'rd 'nf gt""q i/i
rlt!rlrta*- ..l:l
it NkN -' mF# &nnoc.rned rnl q^fts,^q i/i
i YWYt io Wq I
I ,004 at1A di^ru@ \*r.d To W
^I uvxqh-"t- l'sst'#* \Nhdt oo,{c[ii gq U ds-AL to &r_a-q rn''t,,t ?6sWiii
tillt ?W EAW ';,i I
- i,'n-, ,t rrill Vnh - *1^n.^lt- q" | ^ -n 'll t
,,r r-''-rv. -- YWnV+ WM/t: vue 6hor'U Q 4.Xt"0'4;l ,p{ r\^or<,iir I Ii,l \./_,,i.
i.i SA^+ - a,U'6rN .@t .61AL , MI4AAtuil^N\!4^f-ii u ,Mt l# 2n- 24 6L'"b1li _
'()ij \-/' l'l ' -'
li l:/n^^L tt1\n nt,f ^ -1r ^
I
^i, *u# ICVM AhV- /br 24 UMY T\/AAfs
ii: u'rf^sA 2 a'V W-^\+7
rOWN COUNCIL AGENDA F€OUEST
Request form must be given to the Secretary to the Town Manager
by 8:00 a.m. Thursdavs.
DaLezfulffulp Dept.:9.98_@j_ Meeting Date: October 1, 1991
Work Session:_ Evening Meeting:-'.[
Approximate length of time item wiII reguire: 15 Minutes
I. Itcn/Topic: Amendment to correct one typographic error
one error in wording in Ord. No. 10, Series of 1991 for
No. 22 - Dauphinais Mosely Subdivision.Applicant: Town of Vail/Dauphinais-Mosely
Action Requeated of CounciJ': Approve/deny amendment
request.
III. Background Rationale: When the amendment to SDD No. 22 was
made in April and May, 1991, there was one typographic error
and one error in wording. This amendment is necessary tocorrect these items. No development standards will beaffected by this amendment.
IV. Staff Recomendation:Approve amendment
V. Assurances (_Legal, Engineering, _Finance,Outside Professional)
and
SDD
IT
Employee
FILE
PIANNTNG Al{D ENVIRONUENTAL COMUISSION
January 28, 1991
o
StaffKristan Pritz
Jill Karnrnerer
Andy Knudtsen
SfieIIy Mello
order at 3:3oPtt by Diana Donovan,
COP Y
Present
chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Jim Shearer
Kathy Warren
Dalton Willians
Ludwig Kurz
The meeting rtas called to
Chairperson.
I.
Jin Shearer moved and
minutes as presented.Crist abstaining.
2. A recruest lor a
Connie Kntght
The vote rtas
seconded the
6-O in favor,
approval of thewith Chuck
shelIy MeIIo explained the request and outlined the points which
staff were recomnending and not recorornending.
The Applicant and the staff requested several amendments to the
SDD which will brl-ng the SDD into conformance with ttre Townrs new
site coverage and GRFA regulations, and also rrfine tunert the
architectural gruidelines. These consisted of:
L. changes to lot sizes,
2. Setbacks - allost the front roof overhangs to encroach
4t into the front setback on Lots 4-14 and L5-24. In
turn, the Applicant will increase the rear setback on
L,ots 4-14 bt 4' . In addition, staff and Applicant
reguested a cl.arification of what tlpe of deck meets
the term rrat grade deck. rl
Site coverage - Applicant requests site coverage to
neet the new definition. Site coverage will not exceed
25 percent of the total lot area.
Architectural Guidel ines
Roof - Applicant reguests deletion of the
reguirenent for a clipped gable roof, but retain
8/L2 to L2/L2 roof pitch.
3.
A request for a nalor anendnent to Special Pevelopmentn{ Gt;l l"!f Na- 22- r'l:,a lcnatrn as the Daunhanais-Itloselev SDD,
Applicant: Pat Dauphanais
a.
ot
l;, tn'r tl i t; "f!
r ;..U i ,li
b. Secondary fascia and netal railings above thefirst floor - appllcant would like to delete thespecific reference to nuted red, blue and green,
and specify that the railings and secondary fascia
above the first floor to be a nuted color, with
review of such color to be performed by the Design
Review Board.c. Walls - Applicant reguests that vertl-cal woodsidlng be allowed l-n addltion to the approvedhorizontal wood siding.d. outdoor lighting - Applicant reguests direct,exterior lightlng to be physically attached to thebuilding, and to be reviewed by the Design Review
Board on a lot-to-lot baslE.e. GarageE - applicant requeets that the garage onIpt 24 be allowed to face Moraine Drive.5. Conditions of Approvala. Enployee Houslng - there are four requested
anendments to the requirenents for caretakerunits. These conEist of: 1) each would receive
1OO sg. ft. of GRFA to conpensate for the loss ofcredits due to the change to GRFA effective
January 1, 1991, 2) be able to use up to 300 sg.ft. of GRFA fron the prinary unit to add a second
bedroom to the caretaker unit, 3) allow caretaker
unl-ts to be constructed on all 24 Lots, and 4)
increase the allowable GRFA fron 500 to 500 sq.ft.b. Add Iot 5
Staff believes that thepositive with regard to
setback on these lots is
to Phase f of the Phasing Plan.
setback changes on Lots 4-14 would besite coverage, as long as the rear
increased accordingly.
With regard to the caretaker unit enlargement, staff feels that
there would be a negative inpact on the overall proJect if theunits are allowed up to 700 sq. ft. fnstead, staff beLieves that
smaller units on all lots would be a benefit to the Town in their
stated goal of providing more pernanently restricted, available
employee housing units.
Staff recommends specificallY:1. Lot size changes be made, adding 425 sq. ft.2. 4r front roof encroachnents on Lots 5-14, llith
corresponding increase in rear setback on those lots.3. Clarify grade on decks and patios to read rrunenclosed,
unroofed decks or patios within fl-ve feet of finished
grade may encroach up to 5 feet into the rear setback
on Lots l-14. rl
4. Site coverage be defined aB per sJ.te coveragedefinition effective ilanuary 1, 1991.
5. Changes to Conditions of Approval:a. 1) Allow transfer of 300 sq. ft. of GRFA fron
prinary to secondary unit to provide for
eecond bedroon.2l Allow uP to 24 caretaker units.3i Grant r-oo sq. ft. of GRFA to caretaker unl't
to conpensate for deletlon of credit system.
b. Add Iot 5 to Phase I of phaeing plan-
Staff reconnends denial of the followlng atnendment requests:
1. 4 foot roof encroachment on Lots L5'242. Increase allowable Bquare footage of caretaker unit to
6OO sg. ft.
Recomnend,ation of denlal of these reguests ls based on items 1, 2
and 6 of the SDD crlteria.
The discussion was broken down into separate I'ssues facing the
Cornrnission. The first issue was adding spaee to the caretaker
unit.
Kathy Langenwalter explained her concern that she believed the
commission has approved enployee housing, not caretaker unLts.
Applicant agreed-Ltrat tne -econdary units are emplolee housing
units. oisiussion then centered on size of the units on ttre
lots, and concern that the buildings were too large. Staff
clarified that credits were never counted into the GRFA when the
plans ltere approved previously. Dalton Willians stated that he
believed the pnc and Town Council were not aware that they were
approving GRFA plus credits. The PEC was very concerned that the
eifa numfers did not also include creditE. Conmissioners were
concerned about the nassive aPPearance of the existJ-ng unit.
Diana Donovan asked for clarificatlon on the employee units of
whether the SDD ordinance called for 5OO sq. ft. maxirnun feet, or
500 feet of GRFA. Her understanding was that it sas 500 sq. ft.
Applicant expressed to the Cornrnisgion that 500 sq- ft. was only a
2b1 x Zot building, and his request was to add 100 sq. ft. to roake
it a more liveable unit, and 1OO sg. ft. for nechanical .
Staff then asked the Cornrnission to addreEs the concerns regarding
garage space. Shelly asked whether the space should be included
in enrar-or if excluded, vhat naxinun should be placed on the
size of the unit. shelly Mello suggested that a cap be placed on
the garage of 9OO sq. fe-t for 3 spaces. Jiu Shearer stated that
he wis c5ncerned thJt a second bedioon on the employee unit would
create problems with parking, including the issue of curbside
parking.
I
Diana Donovan clarified the Connission consensus as allowing forcredits on the prinary unit of 425 eq. ft., capping the employeeunit at 500 sq. ft., and allowing for 900 sq. ft. (3 spaces) of
garage space lf there sere a prinary and employee unlt built on a
Iot, or 600 sq. ft. (2 spaces) if one unit is built.
Discussion then ehifted to the issue of setbackE. Appllcant
explained his position on noving the homes on Lots 4-14 attay from
the rJ-dge and allowing for a 4r roof overhang to encroach lntothe front setback, Diana Donovan asked Applicant to clarify that
he would not change the footprint of the building itself to
encroach on the front eetback. He indicated that it sould be a
roof overhang encroachnent only, and would consist of 4r naxinun.
Connission consensus uas that LotE 1-14 could have a 4r roof
encroachment into the front encroachment. The rear setback would
then move up 4r to the north on Iots 1-14. No encroachnent would
be al-lowed on Lots L5-24.
Corunission then turned their attention to the issue of roof type.It was decided that a rrclipped gable' gable or hipped roof are
nandatory, with a 8-12 | to t,2-t2 r pitch requirenent. Dormers are
architectural features, and as such, will be reviewed by the
Design Review Board.rl
Finally, the discussion regarding the enployee housing units was
conpleted. consensus of the Connission sas that a second bedroon
would be allowed on the enployee unit. 2oo sq. ft. fron theprinary unit may be transferred into the secondary unit, but that
it wouLd not specifically be for the provision of a second
bedroom.
Dalton l{illiarns moved and Chuck CrLst seconded the notion that:
1. SDD 22 be allowed 90O sq. ft. of garage space if two units
are built, or 600 sq. ft. of garage space if 1 unit iEbuilt;2. The enployee housing unit be a maximum of 500 sq. ft.,
except that 2Oo sq. ft. fron the prinary unLt is
transferrable .to the secAndary unit;3. The prinary unit will receive 425 sq. ft. of GRFA credit;4. There nay be a 4r roof overhang on Lots 1-14 if the rear
setback is increased by 4r, and that a deckwithin 5r of
finished grade will be allowed to encroach 5r Lnto the rear
setback of Lots 1-14t5. Direct, outdoor lighttng wlll be subJect to DRB revLewi
6. A clipped gable, gable or hipped roof is nandatory. Otherroof forrns for dor:mers vlll be subject to Deslgn Revlew
Board approval;7. The garage on Lot 24 may face Moraine Drive
8. Lot 5 will be added to Phase 1 of the SDD; and
9. The reguir€ment on secondary fascia sill be changed from
allowing nuted red, blue and green only to muted colors to
be approved by the Design Revlew Board.
The vote was 6-1 in favor, with Kathy Langenwalter opposed due to
the size concerns she ex;lressed above.
An additional notlon r1as nade by Kathy Iangenwalter and eeconded
by ??? that a maxirnrm of 15 enployee housing units be allowed in
ttris SOp. The vote wag 5-2, w-lth-Chuck Crist and J|n Shearer in
opposition, statlng that they beJ-leved 24 nould be acceptable.
The ConnisEion proceeded into a 5 nlnute recess' reconvenl'ng at
5:45P1.1.
3. Work SessLon - A recruest for eetback. landscape. and site
coveraoe varl.ances and an exterior alteration to the
Lifthouse Iodcle at 555 East Lionshead Circle/ Lot 3. Block
1, Vail Lionshead l.st FilincrAnplicant: Robert T. and Diana Lazier
Jill Kannerer e:<plained the staff had the foJ-lowing concerns
regarding the development proposal:1. The hipped roof at the entry to the Banner Sports
conmercial space2. Landscaping issues3. Pitch of roof4. Cedar shake roofing naterial5. Roof overhang6. Transparency of facade7. Setback variance8. Connection of the additionts roof to the exlsting
structure.
Staff indicated the Lionshead Design Considerations recornmended
against using gable roof foms in Lionshead. The development
proposal calls for a gable roof at the entrance to the Banner
Sports retail space. Staff believes a peaked (sbed) roof over
tle entrance to Banner sports would better relate to the
architecture of the exisling stmcture and would be ln keeping
with the Lionshead Design ConsideratLons. Staff further
reconrnended the proposed roof pitch natch the roof pitch of
Montaukts restauranl, the proposed roof overhang be a rnininun of
3rr, and the applicant connbct the addition to the existing
Uuitaing at tle floor level of the second story balconies. The
applicant indicated all proposed roof overhangs will be 6rr.
The Conmission firet discussed setbacks. There was concern on
the part of Kattry Langenwalter, Ludwig Kurz, Diana Donovan and
Connie l(night regarding the 1O'r encroichment into the reguir-ed
1o' setback. Under th- proposal, the additlon would encroach
into the setback up to tne propeity tine. fn particular, Ludwig
Kurz and Diana Donovan were concerned with the addition
encroachment at the aouthweet corner of the site, and the impactthis encroachment vould have on vlews from the nall to the
stage/fountaln area. Dalton t{illians indLcated that he had a
problem with a eetback encroachnent sithout the provl,sion ofadditional landscaping and, further, that he would llke theaddition to maLntain a eetback fron the property line, but was
not sure what that should be. Jiu Shearer and Chuck Crlst did
not have a problem with the proposed eetback encroachment.
However, Jin would llke to aee Eone articulation/undulation along
the west facade. JLm ras concerned wlth the J-ropact the addltion
would have on the Peddle Powerr/Vail Ski Tech comnercial space.
He was concerned the shop vould be iburied.' In response to aquestion raised by Ludwig, tbe appllcant indicated the area underthe high roof was not usable. ltlria being the case, Ludwig
indicated he thought there was too nuch roof and lf the space was
not bel-ng used, the appllcant should bring the roof down. Daltonalso expressed a desire to see the roof height come down.
Roof pitch was also discussed. It was expressed that thebuilding scale needed to cone down to a nore pedestrlan scale.
This could be acconplished in part by nodifylng the roof pitch to
decrease the height of the roof. Kathy further stated she felt
cedar shlngles were totally inappropriate, and that a metal
roofing naterial should be investigated. Jim Shearer was in
agreenent sith thls.
A suggestion was nade by Dalton Willians to include display
windows along the west facade of the Etructure to l-ncrease
building transparency and pedestrian level interest. Kathy
supported this suggestion.
General concern by the Corunission was expressed regarding theentries to the Lifthouse Lodge Condoniniuns and the Pedal
Power/Vail Ski Tech conmercial space. Jin, Diana, Kathy' Dalton
and Ludwig felt these entries should be addressed at the sanetine the Banner Sports facade is redesilmed. It was suggested
alternatives be explored, which nay require a site coverage in
addition to setback variances to eolve the problem of the Banner
Sports addition obscuring visibility to these other two entrances
and to the stage area. Traffic flow through the area was
addressed by the applicant, with the suggestion that the planter
be rnoved and the project re-designed to allow for better access,
and additional landscaping overall. The applicant agreed to work
with the Lionshead Merchants Association and Vail Associates to
devetop a new landscaping plan. Staff also agreed to look at
landscaping plans which night include Town property. The general
consensus of the Connission uas the plan needed more greenery.
concerns were raised regarding the architecture of the addition.
Kathy Langeruralter did not like the nrustic" architecture of the
plan, and would like to see nore contemporary architectural
treatnents. She felt the appllcant should explore sonething
hlgh, nore sculptural. at the Banner Sports entrance. Jin agreed
wlth Kathyrs connents regarding the architecture of the entrance.
Dlana Donovan also orpressed her opinion that the architecture
was not appropriate for the area. She did not feel the
architectuie Lad to be Tyrolean to be warm. Connie Knight
disagreed witlr Kathy. Connie etated bavarlan (ntstic)
architecture night be Just what Llonshead needed. Jl'm Shearer
also liked the look of the addition as proposed, but encouraged
the applicant to try to better tle in the addltion to the
existing building. Jin felt the existJ-ng structure was stark and
would not tife to Eee the addition enulate thls starkness. ilin
clarified his stateroent regardlng undulatLng the facade. Ile
thought a better word choice night be graduated. In other words,
the western facade should be tapered so that the northwest corner
of the structure encroaches lnto the plaza area rnore than the
southwest corner of the structure. Jitn felt he uay support a
site coverage variance if the Peddle Poner and Lifthouse
Condoniniun entrances were addressed.
Applicant e:rpressed concern over designing around the snow dump
aiea. Staff indicated the Publlc Works departnent had requested
an !8-wheel truck, which is used for na]l snolt renoval , continue
to be accornnodated. Applicant agreed to work around thisprovision. fn addition, appllcant agreed to provide photographs
of tne Gondola Plaza area to the Connission for review.
Diane wanted to see increased transparency of the western facade,
the roof pitch natch the pitch of ltontaukrs (unleEs the architect
did something with the entrance, as Kathy had suggested), the
roof connection point be at the floor level of the second story
deck, and sone additlonal landscaping. she further indicated she
felt the existing planter should not be torn out and that the
setback variance, landscape variance and landscaping were.all a
trade off. The variances would not be an lssue with her if the
problems inherent sith the building were solved.
4. Work Session - Stephens Park. Revlew of proposed Stephens
Park ltaster Plan. Site iE located on the southeast corner
of South Frontaqe Road West and KinnickLnnick Road.
Applicant: Town of Vall
Diana proposed, and the Connission agreed, to review the plan
without a staff presentation.
Connie fnight asked when the proJect would start, if noney had
been allocited, and if the proJect would take money from the
Vlllage Transp6rtation CentLr landscaplng fund. Todd Oppenheimer
said that construction would Etart as soon as snow melted, that
the park money had been allocated in the 1990 and 1991 budgets,
and that it was conpletely separate fron the Transportation
Center funds.
JLm Shearer expreaeed concern over Frontage Road traffLc andparking. Todd lndlcated that there would be no parklng along the
Frontage Road, and that iNo ParkLngi sLgns would be set up and
enforced. As parking sas a general area of concern for the
Corurnission, staff eaid they would look Lnto additional parkingpossibilities. staff said that it nay be possible to add a few
spaces to the lot, but that the landscaping around the lots,
especially in front of the reEtrooms, strould not be removed.
Dalton Willians expressed a desire to loop the western path as
close to the xinnickinlck bridge as Possible. fhe conmission
discussed the pros and cons and reconmended tbat the path split
one fork to the bridge and the other to the intersection.
Applicant indicated tbat the bike path would be eventually
extended through the park. ConmiEEion asked that Todd draw a
Iine representing the nost likely route for this path on theplan. Staff thought it would be a better idea to describe the
options with text on the side of the plan. Chuck Crist askedthat the paths be measured for those people wanting to know the
exact distance around the loop. Connie Knight indicated she
would like to see a station, par exercise course to be laid out
within the park. Todd said he would examine the costs associated
with that possibility.
staff detalled the plans for ornanentation in the park. Wooden
sculpturat aninals will be placed ln the park, to be built ln-
house by Town carpenters. The Coronission expressed concern over
the safety of the larger aninals, and Applicant agreed to ensurethat these aninals would be safe to clinb on.
Andy l$udtsen presented the site specifie bazard report which had
been done on the property. The park site is in avalanche, debris
flow, rock fall and flood plain hazard areas' but the hazard
report found the danger to be acceptable for this use. There
woula be a possibility of a moderate debris flow reaching ttre
childrens' play area, but not an extreme danger. The site
specific haiard nap is a nodificatlon to the Town hazard naps dueto tne faqt that lt is a tnore detailed study. The Conmission
expressed concern over the avalanche.danger, which Applicant
indicated vould be nitigated by posting signs in the area. The
Conmission concluded lts dl-scussLon by requesting that aII
information on hazards be provided in the packet when the project
comes back to the PEC for final approval .
Kristan Pritz requested the Connission return their attention to
itern 2, the Dauphanais-Mosely SDD, in order to further clarlfy a
point irnicn had not been speclficalty addressed in the previous
I
discussion. She explained that staffrs reconnendation also
lncluded changlng the ordlnance fron regulring a rock base
underneath the deck overhangs to allowing that surface to be
stucco, with landscaplng and ber:m required. The consensus of the
Con'niesion was that the above provisLon was acceptable and the
ordinance would be changed.
Kathy Langenwal.ter noved and JLn shearer eeconded a notion to
table iten 5, connonly known aB Spraddle creekr -untll February
11, 1991. lthe vote was 7-O in favor of the uotlon.
lltre neeting was adJourned at 7:30PU.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEIIORANDUM
Town Council
Community Development Department
April 11,1991
Major Amendment to SDD No. 22 - Dauphanais-Moseley
On January 28, 1991, the applicant requested an amendment to SDD No. 22. The
amendments included requests to amend the GRFA and site coverage for the project to
conform with the recently passed GRFA and site coverage ordinances. In addition, the
request included changes to the architectural guidelines and development plan.
At the time of the PEC review, the staff did not support all of the requested amendments. The
applicant has since amended his request to meet all of the staff concerns. He has withdrawn
the request to increase the allowable GRFA of hs caretaker to 600 sq. ft.
The PEC voted 6-1 to recommend approval of the request with conditions. Kathy
Langenwalter voted against the request because she was not comfortable with the overall size
of the buildings.
The PEC made additional amendment recommendations to lhe Council which were not
included in the applicants request or the staff's recommendations. The first amendment
would allow a maximum of 600 sq. ft. for the primary unit garage and 300 sq. ft. for the
caretaker unit garage. Previously, the applicant was allowed a maximum of 1,200 sq. ft. for
the garage. The second amendment is that the applicant would not be required to install a
stone veneer below decks if lhe area is sufficiently screened by landscaping.
Attached are two charts. One chart indicates he positions taken on each amendment
request. The other chart details the GRFA for the project under each amendment request.
PEC
RECOMMENDATION
STAFF'S
RECOMMENDATION
EXISTING SDD
same as existing SDD24 primary +
24 employee =
48 units
24 Primary +
15 Employee -
39 units
19 Primary/Sacondary
=38 units
68,202 primary+
7,500 employee +
10,200 credits =
85.902 sq, ft.""
68,202 primary +
12,000 employee +
12,600 credits =
92,802 sq. ft."'
68,202 primary +
7,500 employee +
6,600 credits -
otal Availabls
GRFA
84,906 +
20,900 crEdits =
105,806 sq.ft.'
'Based on 550 sg. ft. of cr€dits per lot. (storage, mechanical, airlock)
" Based on 275 sq. ft. of credit for primary unit only.
'" Based on 425 sq. ft. of credit for primary and 100 sq. ft. for employ€e.
'"' Based on 425 sq. ft. of credit for primary unit only.
Lot Sizes Change to reflect plat same same
GRFA Def.Per recently adopted
ordinance, 425 sq. ft.
ol GRFA allowed for
each primary unit.
same
as applicant
same
as applicant
Garages No Request No Request 600 sq. ft. for primary
300 sq.ft. for employee
Setbacks
Lots 5-13, 15-24, 4 ft.
roof encroachment into
front setback with
increase of rear
setback by 4 ft.
same
Lots 1-24 4 ft. roof
encroachment into front
setback if rear setback
is increased by 4 ft.
Density Allow up to 24
employee units
allow up to 24
employee units
15 employee units
Site Coverage Per new ordinance same same
Roof Allow for pitched roofs
at a minimum ot 8112,
maximum 12112. Allow
for dormers.
Allow for pitched
rools at a minimum of
8112 and maximum of
1212. Allow for
dormers.
Allow for Clipped,
clipped gable or hipped
roofs and dormers with
a minimum pitch of 8/12
and a maximum ol 12112.
Secondary fascia
and metal railings
Delete reference to
red, blue, green
same to be
reviewed by DRB
same to be
reviewed by DRB
Stone No stone will be
required under decks
where substantially
concealed by landscape
same same
Outdoor Lighting Outdoor lighting will be
allowed. DRB shall
review individual light-
ing plans.
same same
Garages Allow garage on Lot 24
to face street.
Same - Garage door shall
be screened by
landscaping.
Same - as staff
ir;
Section G
(Employee Housing)
- 1 .Add an additional 100
sq. ft. of GRFA to
allowable GRFA for
employee unit to com-
pensate for loss of
credit system.
2. Allow for the transfer
from primary of 300
sq. ft. for 2nd bed-
room in employee unit.
same 1. No allowance for
credit system
2. Allow for the trans-
fer of 200 sq, ft.
from primary unit.
Section J
(Phasing)
Add Lot 5 to
Phase 1
same same
'Reflect applicant's amended request atter PEC meeting,
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning and Environmental Conmission
Community Development Department
January 28, 1991
A request for a major amendment to Special Development
District No. 22, Dauphanais-Mosely Subdivision, Filing
No. L, Iocated to the south of the 1600 block of
Lionsridge Loop.Applicant: Pat Dauphanais and Dauphanais Mosely
Construction
DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST
The applicant is requestj-ng to amend Special Development
District No. 22. It was initially approved by the Planning
and Environmental Commission in August of 1988 and was
adopted by Ordinance No. 23 Series of 1988 by the vaif Town
Council. In April of 1990, Special Development Dlstrict No.
22 was amended further to include a maximum of L5 caretaker
units with a maxj-mum GRFA of 500 sq. ft. each, an open sPace
tract, setbacks ranging from 1 foot to L75 feet, limited
curb cuts on Lionsridge Loop, and a ner^t public road, Moraine
Drive. Total size of Lhe existing Special DevelopmentDistrict is 10.69 acres.
The original zoning allowed 19 primary/secondary lots for a
total of 38 dwelling units, with a total allowed GRFA of
84,905 square feet. The approved SDD reduced the number of
dwelling units Lo 24 and decreased the GRFA by 91203 square
feet. The total approved GRFA is now 75,702 sguare feet,
including caretaker uniLs.
Both the major subdivision and the final plat have received
approval from the PEC. After working with the approvedpIan, the applicant is requesting to amend the plan in order
to "fine tune" the document, The request includes changes
which address the GRFA and site coverage ordinances
effective January 1, 1991- and changes to the architecturalguidelines of the project. Below are the requested changes
to the sDD per the applicant and staff. The staff requested
amendments are proposed in order to rnake the SDD compatible
wi-th recent code chanqes.
.AITIENDMENT TO I,oT SIZBS AND CORRESPONDING GRFA PER I'.OT:
Slight changes occurred to sone Lot sizes between tbe
approval of the SDD and the recording of Final PIat.
These changes did not affect the allowable GRFA. The
allowable site coverage will be affected because it is
a percentage of the lot area. In additionr the chart
below indicates the changes to the available GRFA due
to the Town's neld regulations for GRFA' which adds 425
sq. ft. to each allowable unit to compensate for the
detetion of the credit system.
Lot
1
2
3
4
E
7I
9
10
11
L2
13
T4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
ApprovedLot Size Proposed
11,805
L6,248
11, 50 011,805 LL,76L
L2, L97
11, 50 0
11,543
LL | 02L
11,456
LL,97 9
10,803
L2,98L
15, 159
11,151I, 494 8,538
8,494
8, 494
L0,062
9,148
9,801
L0 ,237
9, 409L0,324 9,L48g,496 L0,629
Approved
GRFA
2,293
3,t11.3,L7!
2,293
2,293
3,L7L
3, L?L
3rL1L
3, L7L
3,1?1
3,L?L
3tL7L
3tL7t
3, L1L
2,293
2r293
2,293
3, L7L
2,293
3,L7L
3,L7L
2,293
3, L7L
2,293
68,202
7, 500
75,'102
Total Available
GRFA WiTh
.Ian l, 1991 Ord
2,7L8
3, 595
3,596
2,7L8
2r7L8
3,595
3, 596
3,596
3, 595
3, 595
3, 596
3, 595
3, 595
3,596
2,7L8
2,7L8
2,7L8
3,595
2,7t8
3,596
3r 596
2,7L8
3,596
2,7L8
78, 402
Total approved caretakerunit GRFA for 15 units
The changes to the lot sizes wifl not have any impact
on the overaLl site planning of the property. The
changes are necessary because the reconfiguration ofproperty lines were necessary for easement dedication.
2. SETBACKS
Roof Overhanqs
Roof overhangs are allowed to encroach two feet into
the side setbacks under the existing approval . In
addition, the applicant requests that roof overhangs be
allowed to encroach four feet into the front setback
for Lots 5-13 and 15-24. The applicant in turn is
willing to further increase the rear setback for Lots
4-13 by four feet (see chart).
Approved Side Rear ProPosed
Lot Front Setback Setback* Setback Rear
L202r3 10
4-13 10't *
L4 1015 14**L6 L4**L7 l-5**18 15**19 15**20-23 35
adjacent toLionsridge Lane
10 9710 varies from
35 - 1?510 varies from
35 - 1?5 39-L79
10
10
10
10
10
10
L0
45
1
1
10
10
10
24 15 10 r-0
*Roof encroachments are currently all-owed to encroach 2 feet
into side setbacks.
** Applicant request that a roof encroachment of 4 feet be
allowed for Lots 5-1,3 and 15-L9, and the rear setback
for Lot.s 5-13 be increased by 4 feet.
Decks
The staff and the applicant are requesting the
following clarification on what type of deck neets the
term "at grade deck.rr we woufd like to define "grade"as referred to in "unenclosed, unroofed decks andpatios aL qrade may encroach up to five feet into the
rear setback for Lots 1-14." The requirement would be
revised to read 'unenclosed unroofed decks or patios
within five feet of finished qrade may encroach up to
five feet into the rear setback for Lots 1-14. This
description is based on Section 18.58.050 of the Town's
zoning code which allows decks within five feet of
grade to encroach 7.5 feet or one half the required
setback whichever is more restrictive and Section
18.58.060 which aIlows decks more than five feet above
grade to encroach five or I/2 the setback whichever is
4.
more restrictive. The staff would like to have the SDD
wording on decks be consistent with the code's wording
on decks within 5 feet of grade rather than referencingttat qrade deck encroachments. tt
3. SITE COVERAGE
The applicant wishes to use the new site coverage
definition. Site coverage shal1 not exceed 25 percent
of the total site area. "site coverag'e" sharr mean theratio of the total building area on a site to the total
area of a site, expressed as a percentage. For the
purpose of calculating site coverage, "building area"
shall mean the total horizontal area of any building as
measured from the exterior face of perineter building
wa1ls or supporting columns above grade or at ground
leve1, whichever is the greater area. Building area
shall include all buildings, carports' porte cocheres,
arcades, and covered or roofed walkways. In addition
to the above, building area shall also include anyportion of roof overhang, eave, or covered stair,
covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or coveredpatio that extends more than four feet from the
exterior face of perimeter building wa1ls or supporting
columns. this is i.n accordance with the recently
approved definition of site coverage.
ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES
a. ROOF
The applicant would like to defete the requirement for
a clipped or gable roof, but leave the requirement for
a minimum 8/10 and a maximum L2/L2 roof pitch in place.
SECONDARY FASCIA AND METAL RAILINGS ABOVE THE FIRST
FLOOR
The applicant would like to delete the specific
reference to muted red, blue and green and leave in
place that the secondary fascia and metal railings
above the first floor be of a muted color. The review
of the specific colors would be the responsibility of
the Design Review Board.
WALLS
The applicant would reguest that vertical wood siding
be allowed in addition to the approved horizontal wood
siding.
b.
d. OUTDOOR LIGHTING
Currently, exterior lighting is allowed at the entry of
each unit. The applicant would like to add additional
exterior lighting that would be physically attached to
the building. Specific lighting fixtures would be
reviewed by the Design Review Board on a lot by lot
basis.
e. GARAGES
The SDD does not allow any garage doors to face
directly onto any street. Due to the configuration of
Lot 24, which has roadway on three sides, the ability
to orient the garage so that it would not face a street
would create a number of site planning problems. The
applicant would request that the garage on Lot 24 be
allowed to face Moraine Dr. (See attached site plan.)
5. Conditions of Approval
a. Emplovee Housing
There are four requested amendments to the requirements
for the caretaker units. Changes are necessary to the
total available GRFA of the Caretakers Units as a
result of the new regulations. It is requested by the
staff and the applicant that each caretaker unit
receive 100 sq. ft. of GRFA to compensate for the loss
of credits.
For example:
Approved
Lot24 # !:#
As of Jan 1, 1991 + 425 +l-00
Proposed Total Avail- 2,71.8 600
abLe GRFA as of
Jan 1, L99L
Second, the applicant would like to be able to use up
to 300 sq. ft. of the primary units allowed GRFA in
order to add a second bedroom in the caretaker unit.
For example:
Allowed Caretaker Total GRFA AIIowed
GRFA GRFA with CaretakerLot l- 2,7]8 up to 500 sq. ft. = 3,2L8
Proposal 2,4L8 up to 800 sq. ft. = 3,2L8
if 2 bedrooms are
provided
Under this scenario, 1 additional parking space would
be required. This need can be provided for under the
current unit plans. The totaf GRFA on the lot will
remain the same.
The third request is to allow caretaker units to be
constructed on any lot. Current.ly, a minimum of six
and a maximum of 15 caretaker units may be provided.
This results in a total of 24 caretaker units.
The final request deals with increasing the allowable
GRFA for each unit fron 500 to 600 square feet of GRFA.
The foltowing details the changes to the overall GRFA
under each scenario. 100 sq. ft. woufd be added to the
requested 600 sq. ft. to compensate for the credits.
This results in a total caretaker GRFA of 700 sq. ft.*
GRFA indicated does not include the additionaf 425 sq. ft.
for the primary unit or 100 sq. ft. for the caretaker unit,
which is being proposed to compensate for the deletion of
the credit system.
Original GRFA allowed by
Existj-ng SDD = 24 primary+ l-5 caretaker units(at 500 sq. ft.):
Proposed SDD : 24 primary
+ 24 caretaker units(at 500 sq. ft.)
84,905 sq. ft
75,702
80,202
82, 602
zonrng:units
units
Applicants request:. 24 primaryunits + 24 caretakers units(at 600 sq. ft.)
The applicant requesLs that Lot 5 be considered as part
of Phase I. Currently the development of Lots 11 2, 3,
4 and 24 are part of Phase I.
II SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
itiv
rhproperties relative to architecturaf desiqn,
scale, bulk, buildinq heiqht, buffer zones,
identitv, character. visual inteqritv and
orientation.
The existing SDD details the general design of the
project. The applicant's and staff's requested
amendments will "fine tune" the architecturalguidelines and bring the project into conformancewith the recentfy approved GRFA and Site Coverage
regulations.
The request to increase the rear setback for Lots
5-13 will decrease the visual impact along the
south ridge of the property because the
development will be pulled back an additionaL four
feet. Moraine Drive will be impacted by allowing
the roof eaves to encroach 4 feet into the 10 foot
front setback however, the positive impacts ofpulling the building off the ridge outweigh theadditional impacts on Moraine Drive. The staff
finds that the request to al1ow four foot roof
encroachments without adjusting the rear setback
on Lot.s 15-19 will have negative i-mpacts on both
Lionsridge Loop and the open sPace to the south.
Currently all slte development, except the alLowed
side setback encroachments, must be within the
setbacks. By allowing the roof encroachmentswithout the setback adjustments, the houses wiII
be all-owed to increase in size because the roof
overhangs wilL no longer be within the setbacks'
and the building will therefore be allowed to
expand up to the setback.
The adjustments to the architecturaf guidelines
will al1ow more flexibility in terms of detail
elements. The guidelines will sti1l encourage
consistent roof maLerial, roof forms and
substantial landscaping which will all benefit
both this project and adjacent property oldners.
The applicant also reguests to amend the maximum
GRFA for the caretaker unit from 500 sq. ft. to
600 sq. ft. and increase the alfowable caretaker
units fron 15 Lo 24. The net allowable GRFA of
the caretaker units with this proposal, including
the staff recommendations to add 100 sq. ft. to
compensate for the loss of the credit systemt
would be 700 sq. ft. we support the request to
increase the number of a1lowable caretakers
because it will increase the number of units of
dispersed caretaker units available to the
community. The staff recognizes thaL even by
increasing both the number of units and the GRFA
for the caretaker units to a total available of
700 sq. ft., the project would stiLL be under the
allowable GRFA of the underlying zoning. However,
we feel that. both an increase in density and an
2.
increase of overall GRFA (beyond the L00 sq. ft.
compensation for the credits) are not acceptable
because of the subsequent increases in mass and
bu1k. We find that the increase in the number of
units will have a greater benefit to the
community.
Uses, activitv and densitv which provide a
le. effwith surroundinq uses and activitv.
With the request to increase the nunber of
allowable caretakerts from 15 to 24 units,
assuming the developer builds afl of the caretaker
units, the overall a11owable density of theproject will increase from 39 to 48 units' and theproject wilL then be 10 units over the originally
allowed 38 unit amount. Enployee units are
proposed to be located over the garages in all
units. The developer is providing dispersed,
permanent.ly restricted employee housing units
which have been deemed by the Town's Affordable
Housing Study as very attractive. The staff
believes that even trit.h the increased density, the
project will still be a very compatible, efficient
and workable project in relationship to the
surrounding uses in the area.
A11 parking requirenents will meet the Town ofVail standards outfined in Section 18.52 of the
Town of Vail- zoning code. Each employee dwe)-J-j-ng
unit wiLl be required to have one enclosed parking
space. In the case where 300 sq. ft. of GRFA is
transferred from the prinary unit to the caretaker
for the provision of a second bedroom, one
enclosed and one unenclosed parking space wilL be
provided.
The proposal is in compliance with the "AffordableHousing Study. "
Plans.
The site is not located within any geologic hazard
area.
The increase in the rear setback on Lots 4-13 willfurther mitigate the impact of development along
the ridge line by moving the houses back. The
request to allow the roof encroachments on
Lionsridge Loop wiII have a negative impact on the
overall aesthetic guality of the community.
circulation.
No changes have been proposed to Moraine Drive
which will be a public road.
No changes have been proposed to the landscape
plan.
The staff has no problem with adding Lot 5 to
Phase I of the project. The developer has
cornpleted all of the site improvements associated
with Phase r, except the entry landscaping, which
will be completed this summer.
III.@
The staff recommends the following amendments for approval,
as the request complies with the Special Development.
District Criteria:
7.
Functional and aesthetic landscapinq and open
space in order to optimize and preserve natural
features, recreation, views and functions.
6-
9.
Identification and mitiqation of natural and,/or
of the community.
L. Lot Sizes:Changes to lot sizes;
Setbacks: A11ow a 4 foot roof overhang encroachment
into the front setback of Lots 5-13, provided that the
rear setback is increased by 4 feet;
Clarify "grade" as referred to in "unenclosed, unroofed
and patios at grade" to read "unenclosed, unroofed
decks or patios within five feet of finished grade may
encroach up to 5 feet into the rear setback on Lots 1-
L4.";
Site Coverage: Site coverage shal1 be defined as per
the recent definition effective January L, l-991.
Architectural Guidel-ines :
a. Delete requirement for clipped or gabled roof;
b. Delete reference to red, blue or green accent
colors for secondary fascia and metal railings;
Muted colors wilI be required;c. Add vertical siding to the allowed wal-l material;
d. AIIow exterior lightinq in addition to the entry
Iighting,'e. AIIow the garage
5. Changes to Conditions
on Lot 24 to face Moraine Dr.
of Approval:
a. 1-) Allow the transfer of 300 sq. ft. of GRFA
from primary unit to caretaker in order toprovide a second bedroom;
2) Allow up to 24 caretaker unitsr'
3) Grant 100 sq. ft. of GRFA to caretaker unit
to compensate for the deletion of the credit
system. Primary units wi]1 receive 425 sg.
ft. Square footage will be transferabl-e.
However, the caretaker will not be allowed to
exceed 600 sq. ft. unless a second bedroom isprovided. If a second bedroom is added' the
carelaker unit shall not exceed 800 sq. ft.
b. Add Lot 5 to Phase I of the phasing plan.
The staff feels that the requests recommended for approvalwill have positive impacts on the project or its surrounding
area. The recommended amendments will bring the project
into conformance wit.h the January 1, 1991 GRFA and sit.e
coverage amendments, which we feel is very positive.
The staff recommends denial of the following amendment
requests:
1. Setbacks: Allow roof overhang for Lots 15-19 to
encroach up to 4 feet into the front setback;
10
2. Conditions of Approval: To allow the maximum GRFA for
the caretaker unit to increase to 600 sq. ft. This
would not include the 100 sq. ft. of GRFA being granted
to compensate for the deletion of the credi! system. A
maximum GRFA of 700 sq. ft. would result from the
approval of this reguest.
The staff recomrnends denial of the request because we find
the they do not comply with the following SDD criteria:
1. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate
environment, neighborhood and adjacent propertiesrelative to architectural designr scale, bulkr building
height, buffer zones, identity, character, visualintegrity and orientationi
2. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible,efficient and workable reLationship with surrounding
uses and activity; and
6. Site p1an, building design and location and open spaceprovisions designed to produce a functional development
responsive and sensitive to natural features,
vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the
community.
11
Ii^t
j'sL {nt
ulH i$l
i$$s + !+
'lES t-st
It:$; e!
j sEfr4+EsFr$
l.rn
\S t$\5
ffi:--.t
v--
s r--7
EI
\€{s\J!
SE
I
$
s)D6
s
/
I[tl'! r^rirf; : ;;391
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED
APPLICATION FORM FOR SPECTAL DEVEIOPMENTDrsrRrcrrEvlr,opMgxa prrAN n - /".
tlll nlor Li'rn+b '*t lb' bK(ft/st
This procedure is requiredtor any project thaL"would gothrough the Special Developnent District Procedure.
The application will not be accepted until atl informationis submitted.
(PLEASE PRrNT ORA. APPLICANT
MAILTNG ADDRESS
uv)
I.
B.
c.PROPERTY
orNERrE g IGNATURE
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL!
STREET ADDRESS tuAls -
L,OT_BLOCK_SUBDMSION FTLING
APPLICATTON FEE $5OO.OO PAID_ DATn CHECK #
A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent tothe subject property and their mailing addresses.
Four (rl) copies of the following information:
A. Detailed written/graphic description of proposal;
B. An environrnental impact report shall be submitted o thezoning administrator in accordance with Chapter l-a.56hereof unless waived by Section l-8.56.O30, exemptproj ects;
C. An open space and recreational plan sufficient to meetthe dernands generated by the development without undue
burden on available or proposed public facilities;
D. Existing contours having contour intervals of not norethan five feet if the average slope of the site istwenty percent or less, or with contour intervals ofnot more than ten feet if the average slope of the siteis greater than twenty percent.
E. A proposed site plan, at a scale not smaller than oneinch equals fifty feet, showing the approxirnatelocations and dimensions of all buildings andstructures, uses therein, and all principal site
development features, such as landscaped areas,recreational facilities, pedestrian plazas andwalkways, service entries, driveways, and off-streetparking and loading areas with proposed contours aftergrading and site developrnent;
/rtq,
47( Earr
MATLTNG mow,ss Rorr /f rf , Urt,-, C.. //4 ff
APPI.,,ICANT I S REPRESENTATIVE
ADDREss BOr 6t{ l)t''
F. A preliminary landscape plan, at a scale not snallerthan one inch eguals fifty feet, showing existingIandscape features to be retained or removed, andshowing proposed landscaping and landscaped slte
developrnent features, such as outdoor recreatlonalfacilities, bicycle paths, trails, pedestrian plazas
and walkways, water features and other elements;
c. Prel.irninary building elevatJ.ons, sections, and floorplans, at a scale not smaller than one-eighth equalsone foot, in sufficient detail to determine floor area,gross residential floor area, l_nterior circulation,locations of uses wlthin buildings, and the generalscale and appearance of the proposed development.
IIf. Time Requirenents
The Planning and Environmental Cornrnission neets on the 2ndand 4th Mondays of each nonth. An applicat,ion wlth thenecessary accompanying naterial nust be submltted four weeksprior to the date of the neeting.
It ls recomnended that before a Special DevelopmentDLstrLct apptication is submittedl a revJ.ew anb commentmeeting should be set up with the Department of
Cornmunity Development.
NOTE:
rl -U
TO:
EROMs
DATE:
lrtlI t,
t;)
SUhTECT: A request for a naJor anendnent to Special DevelopnentDistrict No. 22, Dauphanais-Mose1y Subdivision, FiIingNo. 1, located to the south of the 15OO block ofLionsridge Loop.Applicant: Pat Dauphanais and Dauphanais lilosely
. Construction
I. DESCRIPTTON OF TIIE REOUEST
The applicant is requesting to amend Speclal DevelopnentDistrict No. 22. It was initially approved by the Planning
and Environmental Cornnission in Augrust of 1988 and was
adopted by Ordinance No. 23 Series of 1988 by the Vail TownCouncil. In April of 1990, Special Developnent District No.22 vas amended further to include a nraximum of 15 caretakerunits with a maxinum GRFA of 5OO sq. ft. each, an open spacetract, setbacks ranging'fron 1 foot to 175 feet, linitedcurb cuts on Lionsridge Loop, and a new public road, MoraineDrive. Total size of the existing Special DevelopmentDistrict is 10.69 acres..
The original zoning allowed 19 prinaryr/secondary lots for atotal of 38 dwelling units, with a total allowed GRFA of
841905 square feet. The approved SDD reduced the number ofdvelling units to 24 and decreased the GRFA by 9,203 squarefeet. The total approved GRFA is nolr 751702 sguare feet,including caretaker units.
Both the rnajor subdivision and the final plat have receivedapproval frorn the PEC. After working with the approvedplan, the applicant is requesting to amend the plan in orderto Itfine tunerr the document. The request includes ctrangeswhich address the GRFA and site coverage ordinanceseffective ilanuary I, 1991 and changes to the archltecturalguidelines of the project. Below are the reguested changesto the SDD per the applicant and staff. The staff requested
anendrnents are proposed in order to nake the SDD compatiblewith recent code changes.
o'
Ncrw,
prannins and Environmentat ." !J"?"P
Conmunity Development Department
ilanuary 14, 1991
\
o
Slight chdnges occurred to some lot sizes between the
approval of the SDD and the recordlng of Flnal Plat.
These changes did not affect the allowable GRFA. The
allowable site coverage will be affected because it isa percentage of the lot area. In addition, the chart
below indicates the changes to the available GRFA dueto the Tonnrs new regulations for GRFA, which adds 425sg. ft. to each allowabl.e unit to compensate for thedeletion of the credit systen.
1.
Lot
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
L6
L7
ApprovedLot Size Proposed
1l,805
L6 r248
11,500
11r 805 LL176L
L2 tt97
11, 5OO
11, 543
11, 021
11, 455
LL,979
10, 8O3
L2,98L
15, 159
11, 15L9,494 8 r 538
I ,494I ,494
LO t062
9r148
9r801
LO 1237
9 ,4O9LO,324 9,L48
9,496 LO,629
Total Available
GRFA aF€f u{Jan l. 1991 orU.
2 17L83,596
3,596
2,7L8
217L8
3,596
3 t596/
3,596,/
3,596//
3 '596t3r596
3,596
3,596
3,596.
2,7L8
2,7L8
2,7L8
3,596
2 r7183,596
3,596
2 ,'7 ),8
3,596
2.718
78 ,4O2
Approved
GRFA
2 r2933,L7L
3 rL7L2,293
2 r2933,L7L
3 rL7L
3,L7L
3,L1L
3,L7L
3,L7L
3,L7L
3r171
3,171
2 r293
2 r2932,293
3,L7L
2,293
3 rI7L3,L7L
2,293
3, l-7L
2.293
68,2O2
7.500
75,702
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
Total approved caretaker
unit GRFA for 15 units
The changes to the lot sizes will not have any iropact
on the overal.I site planning of the property. The
changes are necessary because the reconfiguration of
property Iines were necessary for easement dedication.
2. SETBACKS
Roof Overhanqs
Roof overhangs are allowed to encroach two feet into
the side setbacks under the exlsting approval . In
additl.on, the appllcant requests that roof overhangs be
allowed to encroach four feet Lnto the front setbackfor Iatsff-l3 and Ls-}f2Qthe applicant in turn iswilling tb further increade the rear setback for lots
4-13 by four feet (see chart).
Approved Side Rear ProPosedI,ot Front Setback Setback* Setback Rear
L202r3 10
4-13 10**
14 10 10 4515 14** 10 x
15 14** 10 1
L7 15** 10 5
18 15** 10 10
19 15** 10 10
20-23 35 10 10
adjacent to
Llonsridge Lane
10 9710 varl,es from
35 - 17510 varles frorn
35 - L75 39-L79
rtRoof
into
**
24 15 10 10
encroachments are currently allowed to encroach 2 feet
side setbacks.
Applicant reguesl that a roof encroachnent of 4 feet be
allowed for LotsT\-l3 and 15-19, and the rear setback
for Lots 4--13 be increased by 4 feet.
Decks
The staff and the applicant are requesting the
following cLarification on what tlpe of deck meets the
term rtat grade deck. rr we would llke to define ttgradetr
as referred to in rrunenclosed, unroofed decks andpatios at crrade may encroach up to five feet into the
rear setback for Lots 1-14.'t The requirement would be
revised to read rrunenclosed unroofed decks or patios
within five feet of finished crrade may encroach up to
five feet into the rear setback for Lots 1-14. This
description is based on Section 18.58.050 of the Townrs
zoning code which allows decks within five feet of
grade to encroach 7.5 feet or one half the reguired
ietback whichever is more restrictive and Section
18.58.060 which allows decks nore than five feet above
grade to encroach five or L/2 the setback whichever is
4.
more restrictive. The staff would like to have the SDD
wording on decks be consl-stent with the coders wording
on decks within 5 feet of grade rather than referencingrrat grade deck encroachments. rl
3. SITE COVERAGE
The applicant wishes to use the new site coveragedefinition. Site coverage shall not exceed 25 percentof the total sl.te area. Lrtsite coveragerr shall mean theratio of the total building area on a site to the total
area of a site, expressed as a percentage. For the
purpose of calculating site coverage, rrbuilding arearlshall mean the total horizontal area of any building as
measured from the exterior face of perineter buildingwalls or supportlng columns above grade or at ground
level , whichever is the greater area. Building areashall include all buildings, carports, porte cocheres,
arcades, and covered or roofed walkways. In additionto the above, building area shall also include anyportion of roof overhang, eave, or covered stair,
covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or coveredpatio that extends more than four feet frorn the
exterio4 face of perirneter building wal1s or supporting
colunns.) This is in accordance with the recently
approved-definition of site coverage.
ARCHITECTUR.AL GUIDELINES
a. ROOF
b. SECONDARY FASCIA AND METAL RAILINGS ABOVE THE FIRST
FIOOR
The appJ.icant would like to delete the specific
reference to uruted red, blue and green and leave in
place that the secondary fascia and metal railings
ibove the first floor be of a uruted color. The review
of the specific colors would be the responsibility of
the Design Review Board.
c. WALLS
The applicant would request that vertical wood siding
be allowed in addition to the approved horizontal wood
siding.
l,/
t. . ^^,nCA- 1rn" applicag! would like to delete the requirement for
f IAJVU""C ,,(a clipped a{ gable roof, but leave the requirement for\J la nininun 8/10 and a maximum L2/Lz roof pitch in place.v
Ar' d.dv OUTDOOR LIGHTING
cubrently, exterior llghting ls
each unii. ftre aPPlLcant ldouldff:';li'd1#-4. 'ievfewea by the-b"tfg" Review Board on a lot by lot
allowed
Caretaker
500
+100
600
Total GRFA Allowed
with Caretaker
= 3 r2L8
= 3 rzLg
at the entry of
add additional
e.
basis.
GARAGES
The SDD does not allow any garage doors to face
directly onto any "ii""t.- 6ue to the configuration of
r-t-zal'"nictr tra-s ;;;&;i on thr"e sldes' the abll-itv
to orient tne garai;-;;-fh;' it would not face a street
would create " ,roti"t-of site plannlng problems' - The
;ilii";;a-"ouia i"qo""i-tltat !|e-earase on Lot 24 be
allowed to face ltoi"itt" o"' (See attiched site plan')
5.Conditl-ons of Aporoval
a. EnrPlovee Housinq
There are four reguested amendments to the requirements
for the ""r.["X"i-'units. Changes are necessary to the
iotal avail-able GRFA of the Caretakers units as a
result of trrE-ne"
-i"g"i"tions. It is requested by the
staff ana tnl ipliri"i"t that each caretaker unit
receive roo
-sgl-ii. ot GRFA to compensate for the loss
of credits.
For examPle:
T,ot 24
As of Jan 1. 1991
Proposed Total AvaiI-
able GRFA as of
;Ian 1, 1991
Approved
GRFA
2 r293+ 425
2,?LB
L,Ot 1
Proposal
Second, the applicant would like.to be able to use up
to 3oo sq. ft- or-[ii" fiim"rv unl'ts allowed GRFA in
order to add . t""Jtta ["ai""it in the caretaker unit'
For examPle:
Allowed Caretaker
GRFA GRFA
2JLg uP to 500 sq. ft'
2-,4L8 uP to 8OO sq. ft'
if 2 bedrooms are
Provided
"$h?,)d;,il^
Under this scenario, I additional parking space would
be reguired. This need can be provided for under the
current unit plans. The total GRFA on the lot will
renain the sane.
The third reguest is to allon caretaker units to be
constructed on any lot. Currently, a mininum of six
and a naximum of 15 caretaker units may be provided.
This results in a total of 24 caretaker units.
The final request deals with increasing the allowable
GRFA for each unit fron 5OO to 600 Equare feet of GRFA.
The followlng details the changes to the overall GRFA
under each scenario. 100 sq. ft. would be added to the
reguested 5oo sq. ft. to conpensate for the credits.
This results in a total caretaker GRFA of 700 sq. ft.*
't GRFA indicated does not include the additional 425 sq. ft.
for the prinary unit or 100 sq. ft. for the caretaker unit,
which is being proposed to compensate for the deletion of
the credit systen.
Original GRFA allowed by zoning: 84,905 sq. ft.
Existing SDD = 24 Prirnary units+ 15 caretaker units(at 5oo sq. ft.): 75,702
Proposed SDD = 24 PrimarY units+ 24 caretaker units(at 500 sq. ft.) 8O'2O2
Applicants reguest2 24 Prinaryunits + 24 caretakers units(at 500 sg. ft.) 82,602
b. The applicant requests that Lot 5 be considered as part
of Phase I. Currently the developroent of Lots L' 2, 3,
4 and 24 are Part of Phase I.
II. SPECIAL DEVEI,OPMENT CRITERIA
1. Desicrn cornpatibilitv and sensitivity to the
immediate environment, neiahborhood and adiacent
scale, bulk, buildino height, buffer zones.
identity. character, visual intecrritv and
orientation.
rhe existins sDD detalls the -sener?l-d::f-ql-:l.th"i'"I: !!il --ri"-'ppticint
' " - ?"1::q:Ii?-::*::t"u5i!iE J"t"-rni-fiiine tune" the. archiE:!:I*
ilie;If;"s and bring the proJeqt into conformance
wLth the recentlt afproveb enpa and sLte coverage
regulations.
The reguest to increase the rear setback for Lots
x ll{3 wfll decreise trre vlsual lnpact. along thet G""irt--iiage or the properlY- becaute the
;;;f.pt;it tiri u"-pu!19a- uack an additlonal four
feet. uoraine iti""-tfif be funpacted by- allowing
the roof eaveEi to-"tt".otch 4 feet into the 1o -footfront setbacl< trowever, the positlve inpact-t 9-fp"iiing ttre uuiicling 6tr the ridoe outweish the
additlonar rtp".[" 5n Moraine Drive' The staff
finds that the i"q""tt to allow four foot roof -
encroachmentt wlifr-"t aal"tting the rear setback
on Lots 15-19 tiii-tti"" iegative impacts on both
iionsriage L,oop and the-opin space to the south'
Currently atf 'site developrnent, excep! !I" allowed
side setbacx encroachmentl, must be within the
setbacks. sy allowing the roof encroachnents-
witbout tne sefiaci-idjustnents' the houses will
be allowea t" i""i"a"e-in size because the roof
;;";;;; wr:'r-no-ionsgl be within the setbacks'
;;- -d;;-;,tiraittg witl -therefore be allot"ed to
expand uP to the setback'
Ttre adjusturents to the architectural guidelines
will alrow tot" ii"iiufrity-fu-r terns of detair
eiernents. The guidelines will still encourage
consistent roof material , roof forms and
substantiar raiascilG; which will all benefit
;;h-ahi" project ana iaiacent property owners'
The applicant also reguests to amend the maxirnum
GRFA for tne ciieiaief unit frorn 5oo sq' ft' to
600 sq. ft. ana-ft"t"tt" the allowable caretaker
unlts from 15
-["-ia. The net allowable GRFA of
the caretaxer units with this Eropg?af including
the staff recornmendations to add 100 sg' ft' to
cornpensate for the loss of the credit system'.
would be 7oo sq. ft. We support the request to
increase the nrinber of allowabLe caretakers
;;;;;; it wiii increase the nurnber of units of
aiiptrs"a caretaker units available to the--miuunity. rne-staff recognizes that even by
in"i"ltiitg uo[h ihe nunber-of- units and the GRFA
for the caretJiiei-ttnttt to a-total available of
7oo sq. tt., liiJ-pioject-would still.be under the
atlowible GRFA of-thE underlying zoning. However,
we feel tnat Uoin an lncrease in density and an
2.
increase of overall GRFA (beyond the 100 sg. ft.
compensation for the credits) are not acceptable
because of the subseguent increases in mass andbulk. We find that the increase in the nunber ofunits will have a greater benefit to the
conmunity.
Uses, activitv and densitv which provide a
compatible. efficient and workable relationshipwith surroundinq uses and acti.vitv.
t{ith the request to increase the number of
allowable caretakerrs fron 15 to 24 units,
assuming the developer builds all of the caretakerunits, the overall allowable density of theproJect will increase fron 39 to 48 units, and theproject will then be 1o units over the originally
allowed 38 unit amount. Employee units are
proposed to be located over the garages in allunits. The developer is providing dispersed,
permanently restricted employee housing units
which have been deened by the Townrs Affordable
Housing study as very attractl-ve. The staff
believes that even with the increased density, theproject will still be a very compatible, efficient
and workable project in relationship to the
surrounding uses in the area.
Compliance with parkincr and loadincr reouirements
as outlined in ehapterj8.52 -
A11 parking reguirenents will neet the Town ofVaiI standards outlined in section 18.52 of the
Ton'n of Vail zoning code. Each eurployee dwellingunit will be reguired to bave one enclosed parking
space. In the case where 300 sq. ft. of GRFA is
transferred from the prinary unit to the caretakerfor the provision of a second bedroom, one
enclosed and one unenclosed parking space will be
provided.
Conformity with applicable elements of the VaiI
cornprehensive PIan. Town policies and Urban Desion
PIans.
The proposal is in conpliance with the "AffordableHousing Study. rl
3.
4.
5.
6.
Thesiteisnotlocatedyithlnanygeologichazard
area.
No changes have been proposed to Moraine Drive
which witt Ue a Public road.
of the conrnunity.
The increase l-n the rear setback on Lots 4-13 IJitI
iiiitttlii nitigate the lnpact of development llottsItE."iast liie by novin-g-the houses back' The
ijquest-to allow-the roof encroachments on
Lionsridge Loop toiit rt".t" a negative Lmpact on the
;;;;1i-l"ttn"iic quarltv of the conrnunitv'
7.
No changes have been proposed to the landscape
plan.
Ptrasino nlan or subdiYisigB elen that 'rgillar ?na erffcienl
. develoPment of the
Eildeveroproent district'
The staff has no problem with adding Lo! 5 to
pnase I of the project' The developer has
.oiii.["a-.i i-"i- tt" - r it. irnproveme-nts as soc i ated
with Phase I, except the entiy landscaping' which
will be conPleted this sunrner'
III. STAFF RECOM}TENDATION
The staff reconmends the following anendments for approval'
as the ""q".ttEotJrf.t with the special Development
District Criteria:
8. Functional and aesthelig land?capino and"gpen
Preserwe natural
3ea*-::res, re- , ttiews and functions'
9.
circulation.
1. Lot Sizes: Changes to lot sizesi
2. Setbacks: Allow a 4 foot roof _overhang encroachmentinto the front setback ot. Iotsgf-l3, provided that therear setback is increased by 4 'feet;
cLarify ngrad€rr as referred to in rtunenclosed, unroofed
and patios at grader' to read rrunenclosed, unroofed
decks or patios within five feet of finlshed grade may
encroach up to 5 feet into the rear setback on Lots 1-
14.ri
3. Site coverage: Site coverage shall be defin'ed as per
the recbnt definition effective January 1, 1991.
4. Architectural Guidelines:
Delete requlrement for clipped or gabled roofi
Delete reference to red, blue or green accentcolors for secondary fascia and metal raJ-lings;
l,tuted colors wiII be required;
Add vertical siding to the allowed wall naterial;
Allow exterior llghting in addition to the entry
Iighting;e. Allow the garage on Ict 24 to face Moraine Dr.
5. changes to Conditions of Approval:
1) Allow the transfer of 3oo sq. ft. of GRFAfron prinary unit to caretaker in order toprovide a second bedroomi2) Allow up to 24 caretaker units;3) Grant 1OO sg. ft. of GRFA to caretaker unitto compensate for the deletion of the credit
system. Prinary units will receive 425 sq.ft. Square footage will be transferable.
However, the caretaker will not be allowed to
exceed 600 sq. ft. unless a second bedroom isprovided. If a second bedroon is added, the
caretaker unit shall not exceed 800 sq. ft.
b. Add l,ot 5 to Phase I of the phasing plan.
The staff feels that the requests reconmended for approvalwill have positive lnpacts on the proJect or its surroundingt
area. The reconmended arnendments will bring the project
into conforrnance with the January 1, 1991 GRFA and site
coverage amendnents, which we feel is very positlve.
The staff recornmends denial of the folloving arnendrnent
requests:
Allow roof overhang for r,ots rs-&4to
up to 4 feet into the front setback;
a.
b.
c.
d.
a.
Setbacks:
encroach
1.
10
2.Conditions of Approval: To allow the maxinrum GRFA for
the caretaker unit to lncrease to 600 sq. ft. This
would not include the 100 sq. ft. of GRFA belng granted
to conpensate for the deletion of ttre credit system' A
rnaximum GRFA of ?oo 8q. ft. would result from the
approval of this reErest.
staff reconmends denial of the reguest because we find
they do not comply with tbe folLowing SDD criteria:
Design conpatibility and sensitivity to the irnlnediate
enviionnenl, neighborhood and adJacent properties
relative to- architectural design, scale, bulk, building
height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual
l-ntegrity and orlentation;
Uses, actlvity and denslty which provide a compatJ-ble,
effiiient and-workable relationship with surrounding
uses and activity; and
Site plan, building deslgn and location and open sPace
provilions designea to produce a functional developrnent
responsive and sensitive to natural features,
vegetation and overall aesthetic guality of the
connunity.
The
the
1.
2.
6.
11
6
Egrt
$
o
t
q
Fs$.TE
N{
f,:
{'F
J
...}1'-;A
t
=-'
-NI
T
=q,
t
\
t;JI
5r.Nr
FE!
s'
F
il{llI'f'
i
sgisNt$
xoaSS\s-SsFI
B+.EJ.os
<-b:
*:T
S-+
N
srl
\L
B-tL
=o= g
J$\rS
++ s
{$r- gI
$FS
Fa)
ls
o
[ . ?)e 1\
Tueqartfuh'ff--
o
o
ry
ew
oA,d
ffiIarf frrn tiW
#tr"w6)/
" ffi! ct \u \\ w,'gu,6n /r
d\i[r+ \A+&td A!^d.;\3 +o \DQ_ v&L
it *# ,ffif ,^ qw didwtul
fl
W t*tffi'/> Ya'he'ta-LY
Odq 1l,b &qobo ffi
o
ry
*a{t-
00,/\LWr"( iS
Co^t+alb-t p1-a%o
ndt- gLstndat\W ,"^rffi"h) I^U,Ld u
rut bK?t
f\ .t-Wvow- W+ +walr th{0 n., A ,rr -J-a,qlA ll\fif
Y\a'^4 -*
0,O,xdt?_pr _Avwrlrla,lfifm# +raAW eL
c&,ilE a,xL l,Uddrt/'a-ddyt}gd, W
)qA,w{,k-'# 4zs
o
o
o
oo
W -' 6\r,^!"d yf b4- irw bK€k 7,
ry W 3 \nfo rYv-lr sFK
(ffi/
frfV - Uneg n^t wWW {a . QKr- Ya/AxWbWout/a4 % W-t-atrY: vl/Jw%vq^mrrof _fu mry( wrut(
?,r
N^ft^#:1( *(* e rywrE
Jm- rtn W rnl W% d.FurlN biln,o
tr
&tt^;u - a6\M/Jk1ol^s tS /+
Ww tT' Ury* ucl Vaad, gociharzr
Doerz*n- +^* vb btu u&, M ULWa.
e*WM fu*o1ffi l
- obtJzu,l- g^{?elt
o
Vanq - \^)\zd
l/,$w - 600
f%-T,"*^|ffi" ry
brruur"rwd'-td/ W\/*^8tu*
DtrdL+
^-f.'.)--.-a.2tl.I?r/./,( tV AUcS2v- - s-' -l
-v
o
oo
(A - dlJ<bw/+
\(
I
t(
t(
\hw*q 'rffir- Tooe 1*
ZJ,ltrN . d)O vrlo"{
ZUo F W $Wntrtttr<zt'
+?b o\d)f eA Dn{nwT
dtAl, vV
Wvk v^rer\rv/"\a l- l1 fnq,<-M uyrut4 q+bq@L
8ff4.A b-l .
g6jd*or Uq$^fi ja W
ds"f rv\o{'6 +o dRS
rt.rf
o
' Sxt,AW].D
l,t;,,il qDD
I \^'il ADD
qlS.ndrJ[ fv".. *{
.\- do,JL fr r\4
?b4 I - tL+- 4$,( {."'"+
SOD r^6x aDD {ra-?ri ^ I r^rl'o,tut1\y *d t+
__
PIS qn,?De5 artdor'-V\\t.g,
Ro{ S^*^r tH, fl*, clippJ cab0l
fu^gr l\oocor^s oL
\MCbbr tN
!
l) .fltlt*'tr Hft'YN- c\u''L-rg^au'r^rt"
SLNS+
TO3
FROI{:
DATE:
FILE COPY
Planning and Environmental Cornmlssion
Connunity DeveJ.oprnent Departnent
lYl
January a{, 1991
SUBTECT: A request for a maJor amendment to Special Developltent
oistfict No. 22, Diuphanais-Mosely Subdivision, Filing
No. 1, located to the south of the 1600 block of
Lionsridge Loop.applicani: Pat DauphanaiE and Dauphanais Mosely
Construction
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST
Ttre applicant is reguesting to anend Special Developnent,
oistrilt No. 22. I€ was initlally approved by the Planning
and Environmental Conmission in August of 1988 and hras
adopted by ordinance No. 23 series of 1988 by the vail Town
couircil. In April of 1990, Speclal Development District No.
22 was amended- further to include a naximurn of 15 caretaker
units with a maxinum GRFA of 500 sg. ft. each, an oPen space
tract, setbacks ranglng fron 1 foot to 175 feet, linited
curb cuts on Lionsriage Loop, and a nert public road, Moraine
Drive. Total size of the existing special Development
District is 10.59 acres.
The original zoning allowed 19 prirnary/secondary lots for a
total oi se dwelling units, with a total allowed GRFA of
841905 sguare feet. The approved sDD reduced the nurnber of
dwelling units to 24 and decreased the GRFA by 9,203 _squarefeet. ihe total approved GRFA is now 751702 square feet,
including caretaker units.
Both the major subdivision and the fLnal plat have received
approval fron the PEC. After working witb the approved
piin, the applicant is requestLng to aruend-the plan in order
Lo rfi.ne tune" the document. The request includes changes
which address the GRFA and site coverage ordinances
effective January l, 1991 and changes to the architectural
guidelines of ttre project. Below are the requested changes_
fo the SDD per tfre-appficant and staff. The staff reguested
amendments are propo-saa in order to make the SDD conpatible
with recent code changes.
1.
I i- t i
,ri t ,a . I
IUENDUEN! TO IO 8IZE8 AND CONNESPONDING GRFA PER LOTS
Slight changes occurred to sone lot sizes between the
approval of the SDD and the recording of Final Plat.
These changes did not affect the allowable GRFA. The
allowable site coverage vill be affected because it is
a percentage of the lot area. In addition, the chart
below indicates the changes to the available GRFA dueto the Townrs new regrulations for GRFA, which adds 425sq. ft. to each allowable unit to compensate for the
deletLon of the credl-t system.
LotI
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
24
Totalunit
Approved ApprovedLot Size Proposed GRFA
111805 - 2,293L6,248 - 3 rL7L11,500 - 3,171
11r805 ttr76L 2,293
L2,L97 - 2,29311,500 - 3 rL7L11,543 - 3 rL7L111021 - 3 rL1L11,456 - 3,L7LLr,979 - 3 rL7L
10, 803 - 3, 171
L2,98L - 31 171
1.5r 159 - 3,L7L
11,151 - 3,L7L8r494 8r538 21293
8,494 - 2,293
81494 - 21293
10,052 - 3,17L
9rL48 - 21293
9,801 - 3,L7L
LO,237 - 3 ,L7L9,409 - 2,293
LO,324 9,L48 3r171
9,496 tO,629 2,293
68,2O2
approved caretaker
GRFA for 15 units 7,5OO
75,702
Total Available
GRFA as of
Jan I. 1991
2,7L8
3r595
3,596
2,7L8
2 r7L83,596
3r596
3,596
3,596
3r596
3 r5963,596
3,596
3 t596
2 17L8
2,718
2 r7L8
3 15962,7L8
3,596
3, 595
2 r7L83,5962.7t8
78,4O2
The changes to the lot sizes will not have any impact
on the overall site planning of the property. The
changes are necessary because the reconfiguration of
property lines were necessary for easenent dedication.
2. SETBACKS
Roof overhanqs
Roof overhlng; are allowed to encroach two feet into
the side setbacks under the exleting approval . In
addition, the applicant regueste that roof overhangs be
allowed to encroach fou4,feet lnto the front setback
for Lots 4-13 and 15-t9.4The applicant in turn is
willing to further increabe the rear setback for Lots
4-13 by four feet (see chart).
Approved Slde Rear ProPosed
Lot Front Setback Setbackrr Setback Rear
1
213
4-13
20
10
10**
10 9710 varies from
35 - 17510 varies from
35 - 175 39-L79
24 15 10 10
*Roof encroachments are currently allowed to encroach 2 feet
into side setbacks.
** Applicant reguest that a roof engroachment of 4 feet be
allowed for iots 4-13 and J'5+|Aand the rear setback
for Lots 4--13 be lncreased by 4 feet.
Decks
The staff and the applicant are reguesting the
following clarifLcatlon on what type of deck rneets the
term rrat grade deck.rr We would like to define ttgraderr
as referred to in rrunenclosed, unroofed decks and
patios at qrade may encroach up to five feet into the
iear setback for Lots 1-14.rr The requirernent would be
revised to read rrunenclosed unroofed decks or patios
within five feet of finished qrade nay encroach up to
five feet into the rear setback for Lots 1-14. This
description iE baeed on Section 18.58.050 of the Townrs
zoning- code which allows decks withln flve feet of
grade to encroach 7.5 feet or one half the reguired
ietback whichever ls more restrlctive and Section
18.58.060 which allows decks nore than five feet above
grade to encroach five ar L/2 the setback whichever is
L4 1015 14**
16 14**L7 15**
18 15**
19 15**
20-23 35
adjacent to
L,ionsridge Lane
10 4510 1
10 1
10510 xo10 1010 10
4.
Dore restrictive. The staff would like to have the SDD
wording on decks be consistent wlth the coders wording
on decks within 5 feet of grade rather than referencingnat grade deck encroachments.rr
3. SITE COVERAGE
The applicant wishes to use the new site coveragedefinition. Site coverage shall not exceed 25 percent
of the total site area. nsite coveragerr shall mean theratio of the total building area on a site to the total
area of a sJ.te, expressed as a Percentage. For the
purpose of calculating site coverage' Itbuilding arearlsnatt mean the total horizontal area of any building as
neasured fron the exterior face of perineter building
wal-ls or supporting colurnns above grade or at ground
Ievel , whichever is the greater area. Building areashall include all buildings, carports, porte cocheres,
arcades, and covered or roofed walkways. In additionto the above, building area shall also include anyportion of roof overhang, eaver or covered stair,
covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or coveredpatio that extends nore than four feet from the
exterior face of perineter buitding walls or supporting
columns. Ttris is in accordance with the recently
approved definition of site coverage.
ARCNTTEEruRAL GUIDELINES
a. ROOF
The applicant would like to delete the reguirement for
a clipped or gable roof, but leave the requirernent for
a minimum 8rl10 and a roaximum L2/Lz roof pitch in place.
SECONDARY FASCTA AND METAL RAILINGS ABOVE THE FIRST
FI.OOR
The applicant would like to delete the specific
reference to nruted red, blue and green and leave in
place that the secondary fascia and metal railings
lbove the first floor be of a muted color. The review
of the specific colors would be the responsibility of
the Design Review Board.
WALLS
The applicant would reguest that vertical wood siding
be allowed in addition to the approved horizontal wood
siding.
b.
c.
d.
e.
OUTDOOR LTGHTTNG
Cubrently, exterior tighting ls allowed at the entry of
each unit. fne appllcint would llke to add additional
exterior llghting-that would be physically attached to
the butlding. Speciflc lighting fixtures would be
reviewed by-the besign Review Board on a lot by lot
basis.
GARJAGES
The SDD does not allow any garage doors to face
dlrectly onto any street. Due to the conflguration of
Ir,t 2|r-which ha3 roadway on three sides, the ability
to orient the garage so that it nould not face a street
would create a number of site planning problems. The
applicant would request that the ltaraqe ol t9! 24 -beaiiowea to face Moialne Dr. (see attached site plan. )
5.Conditions of Approval
Approved
GRFA
Lot- 24 2,293
As of Jan 1, 1991 + 425
Proposed Total Avail- 2r7LB
Enplovee Housincr
There are four requested amendments to the requirements
for the caretaker unlts. changes are necessary to the
total available GRFA of the Caretakers Units as a
result of the new regulations. It is reguested by the
staff and the applicint that each caretaker unit
receive loo sg. it. of GRFA to conpensate for the loss
of credits.
For example:
a.
caretaker
500
+L00
600
able GRFA as of
Jan 1, 1991
Second, the applicant would like to be able to use up
to 3oo sg. ft.-of the primary units allowed-GRFA in
order to add a second bedroolr in the caretaker unit'
For example:
Allowed Caretaker Total GRFA AIIowed
GRFA GRFA with Caretaker
Lot 1 2r7L8 uP to 500 sg. ft. = 3r2tB
Proposal 2r4LB up to 800 sq. ft. = 3r2lg
if 2 bedroons are
provided
5
Under this scenario, I additional parking space would
be reguired. This need can be provided for under the
current unit plans. The total GRFA on the lot will
remain the same.
The third request is to allow caretaker units to be
constructed on any lot. Currently, a rninimum of six
and a maxinun of 15 caretaker units may be provided.
This results in a total of 24 caretaker units.
The final request deals with increasing the allowable
GRFA for each unit fron 500 to 600 square feet of GRFA.
The following details the changes to the overall GRFA
under each scenario. 100 sq. ft. would be added to the
requested 600 sq. ft. to compensate for the credits.
This results in a total caretaker GRFA of 700 sq. ft.*
rt GRFA indicated does not include the additional 425 sq. ft.
for the primary unit or 100 sq. ft. for the caretaker unit,
which is being proposed to compensate for the deletion of
the credit systen.
original GRFA allowed by zoning: 84'905 sq. ft.
Existing SDD = 24 Prinary units+ 15 caretaker units(at 500 sg. ft. ) : 75,702
Proposed SDD = 24 Primary units+ 24 caretaker units(at 500 sq. ft.) 8O,2O2
Applicants requestz 24 Prinaryunits + 24 caretakers units(at 600 sq. ft.) 82'602
b. The applicant reguests that Lot 5 be considered as part
of Phase I. Currently the development of Lots L, 2, 3'
4 and 24 are Part of Phase I.
II. SPECIAL DEVEI-,OPMENT CRITERIA
1. Desiqn cornPatibilitv and sensitivity to the
imrnediate environment. neicrhborhood and adjacent
scaIe, bu1k. buildinq heiqht, buffer zones,
identitv, character. visual inteqritv and
orientation.
o
The existing SDD details the general design of theproJect. The applicantrs and staffrs reguested
arnendrnents wlll rrflne tunerr the architectural
guldelines and bring the proJect lnto conformance
iittr ttre recently approved GRFA and Site Coverage
regulatlons.
The reguest to increase the rear setback for Lots
4-13 will decrease the visual. lnpact along the
soutlr ridge of the property because the
developrnent witt Ue-pulled back an additional four
feet. Moraine Drive-will be funpacted by allowing
the roof eaves to encroach 4 feet into the 10 foot
front setback however, the posltive impacts ofpulling the building off the ridge outweigb the
laaitional inpacts on Moraine Drive. The staff
finds that the request to allow four foot roof
encroachments without adjusting the rear setback
on lots 15-19 will have negative impacts on both
Lionsridge Loop and the open space to the south.
currently all ;tte developnent, excep! ttt. allowed
side setLack encroachments, must be within the
setbacks. By alloning the roof encroachnents
without the ietback adjustnents, the houses wiII
be allowed to Lncrease in size because the roof
overhangs wiII no longer be within the setbacks'
and the building will therefore be allowed to
expand up to the setback.
The adjustmente to the architectural guidelines
will allost more flexibility in terrns of detail
elenents. The guidelines will still encourage
consistent roof material, roof forms and
substantial landscaping which wiII all benefit
bottr this project and adjacent property owners.
The applicant also reguests to amend the maxiroum
GRFA for the caretaker unit fron 500 sq. ft. to
600 sq. ft. and lncrease the allowable caretaker
units from 15 to 24. The net allowable GRFA of
the caretaker unLts with this proposal, including
the staff reconnendations to add 100 sq. ft. to
compensate for the loss of the credit system,
would be 7OO sq. ft. we support the request to
increase the nunber of allowable caretakers
because it will increase the nunber of units of
dlspersed caretaker units available to the
corntnunity. The staff recognizes that even by
Lncreasing both the nunber of units and the GRFA
for the ciretaker units to a total available of
7Oo sq. ft., the proJect would still.be under the
allowibte GRFA of the underlying zonlng. Holdever,
we feel that bglb an increase in density and an
increase of overall GRFA (beyond the 100 sq. ft.
conpensation for the credits) are not acceptable
because of the subsequent increases in mass andbulk. We find tbat the increase in the number ofunits witl have a greater benefit to the
comrnunity.
2. Uses, activitv and densitv which provide a
compatible, efficient and workable relationshipwith surrounding uses and activitv.
With the request to increase the number of
allowab1e caretakerrs from 15 to 24 units,
assuming the devetoper builds all of the caretakerunits, the overall allowable density of theproject will increase from 39 to 48 unJ.ts, and theproject wilt then be 10 unl.ts over the originally
allowed 38 unit amount. Ehployee units are
proposed to be located over the garages in aIIunits. The developer is providing dispersed,
permanently restricted eurployee housing units
which have been deemed by the Townrs Affordable
Housing Study as very attractive. The staff
believes that even with the increased density, theproject will still be a very conpatible, efficient
and workable project in relationship to the
surrounding uses in the area.
3. compliance with parking and loadinq recruirements
as outlined in Chapter 18.52.
Al). parking reguirernents will ureet the Town ofVail standards outlined in Section L8.52 of the
Town of Vait zoning code. Each enployee dwellingunit will be required to have one enclosed parking
space. In the case where 300 sg. ft. of GRFA is
transferred frorn the prinary unit to the caretakerfor the provision of a second bedroom, one
enclosed and one unenclosed parking space wiII be
provided.
4. conforrnitv with applicable elenents of the VaiI
comprehensive Plan. Town policies and Urban Design
Plans.
The proposal is in conpliance with the rrAffordable
Housing StudY. tt t
No changes have been proposed to Moraine Drive
whLch will be a public road.
subdivisian Ia that wil.t
5.
6.
The site is not located within any geologic hazard
area.
Site plan, buildinq desicrn and location -and.gpen-
@qned to Drgdgce a fungtiolal
develonrnent resnonsive and Eensitive to ?atural ..ffiand overall aesthetic cruaritv
of the communitv.
The increase in the rear setback on Lots 4-13 witl
further nitigate the inpact of developnent along
the.rldge line by moving the houses back. The
reguest to allow ttre roof encroachments on
Lionsridge Loop will have a negative impact on the
overall iesthetic quality of the conurunity.
7.
8. Functional and aesthetic landscapinq and open
space in order to ontimize and preserYe natural
Feitures. recreation. views and functions.
No changes have been proposed to the landscape
plan.
The staff has no problem with adding Lot 5 to
Phase I of the project. The developer has
completed all oi the site improvernents associated
witir pfrase I, except the entry Landscaping, which
will be conrPleted this sunner.
III. STAFF RECOI'IMENDATION
The staff reconmends the following amendnents for approval'
as the request complies with the Special Development
District Criteria:
9.
Identification and rnitloation of natural and/ol
circulation.
1. Lot Slzes:changes to lot sizesi
2. Setbacks: Allow a 4 foot roof overhang encroachrnentinto the front setback of Lots 4-13, provided that therear setback is Lncreased by 4 feet;
clarify ttgradert as referred to in rrunenclosed, unroofed
and patios at graderr to read rrunenclosed, unroofed
decks or patios sithin five feet of finished grade may
encroach up to 5 feet into the rear Eetback on Lots 1-
14.!ri
3. Site Coverage: Site coverage sha1l be defined as per
the recent definition effective January 1, 1991.
4. Architectural Guidelines:
Delete reguirernent for clipped or gabled roof;
Delete reference to red, blue or green accent
colors for secondary fascia and netal railings;
Muted colors will be reguired;
Add vertical siding to the allowed waII material;
Allow exterior lighting in addition to the entrylighting;e. Allow the garage on Lot 24 to face Moraine Dr.
5. changes to Conditions of Approval:
1) Allow the transfer of 300 sg. ft. of GRrAfron prinary unit to caretaker in order to
provide a second bedroomi2l Allow up to 24 caretaker units;3) crant 100 sg. ft. of GRFA to caretaker unitto cornpensate for the deletion of the credit
system. Prirnary units wiII receive 425 sq.
ft. Square footage will be transferable.
tlowever, the caretaker wiII not be allowed to
exceed 600 sg. ft. unless a second bedroom isprovided. If a second bedroom is added, the
caretaker unit shall not exceed 8O0 sq. ft.
b. Add l,ot 5 to Phase I of the phasing ptan.
The staff feels that the requests recomrnended for approvalwill have positive inpacts on the project or its surrounding
area. The recomroended arnendnents wiII bring the project
into confornance with the January 1, 1991 GRFA and site
coverage amendments, which we feel is very positive.
The staff recomrnends denial of the following amendrnent
reguests:
1. Setbacks: Allow roof overhang for Lots 15-19 to
encroach up to 4 feet into the front setback;
a.
b.
c.
d.
a.
10
2. Conditlons of Approval: To allow the uaxinum GRFA for
the caretatcer un-it to lncrease to 600 sq. ft. This
would not lnclude the loo sq. ft. of GRFA being granted
to conpensate for the deletl'on of the credit system. A
naxinnn GRFA of 7OO 8q. ft. would result from the
approval of this request.
The staff recomends denial of the request because we find
the they do not cornply sLth the following SDD criteria:
1. Design conpatibility and sensitlvity to the irnnediate
enviionnenl, neighborhood and adJacent properties
relatlve to-architectural design, scale, bulk, building
height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual
lntegrlty and orlentation;
2. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible,
effiiient and-workable relatlonship with surrounding
uses and activity; and
6. Site plan, building design and location and open space
provilions designed to produce a functional development
iesponsive and sensitive to natural features,
vegetation and overall aesthetic guality of the
cornmunity.
11
6p
G($
\rt
\l
\)'
I
Ilrlc,,{!cta.m
3
it
FlIOl
Ililt1
qgi
s-NtS
Il3\l-SsFIsq
--r'os
.*r:g:
T
S
d
5
I
T
BtE
='e'-s3 aJS\rs
r+ f,i$r
= gI
$FS
=r 'c
FBZF
i_3#
'l .'
(zl/
Acfet-
,';Wcblr.,4&' {W*'^/Ftt
bT' i l'"1" *
sy
ORDINA}TCE NO.13
seriea of 1990
AN ORDINA}ICE REPEALING Al{D REENACTING ORDINAI{CE NO. 23'
SERTES Or 1988, IO PROVIDE CHAI{GES AO SPECIAL DEVEIOPI,IENT
DTSTRIqT NO. 22 TIIAT CONCERI.T I'T SIZE AND CORRESPONDING GRFA'
AND CURA CUTS ' A}{D EI,IPIOYEE DWEIffNG T'NITS ' ATD ARCEITESN'RAL
GUIDEIJ ES, Al{D SETIING FORTII DETAII,S IN REGAAD TIIERETO
!{BER8,AS, chapter 18.40 of the vall }lunlcipal code authorizes
Special Dev€loprnent DlatrlctB rlthin the Tou:li and
WHEREAS, The Towrr councll approv€d ordl,nanc€ No. 23, Series
of 1988 speclal DevelopDent Dlstrict No. 22; and
?|IIEREAS, Dauphlnala-Uoeeley Con6truction bas requested to
anend the exlEtLng special Developnent DiBtrlct No. 22t and
IiIIEREAS, there iE an identlfied need for affordable houslng
In the co@unlty t and
I|HEREAS, the Torrn of, Vall has not adoPted fonal pollcies to
encourage the developnent of affordable houslng unit6 t and
WIIEREAS, the SpecLal DevelopDent Dletrict provldeE for
creativity and flexibility to a1low for the developnent of
affordable hou8ing t and
WITERE.AS, The Plannlng and Environnsntal CoDDLsgion baE
recoDDended that certain changeB be Dade to special Devel.opEent
Dlstrlct No. 22r and
lfitgRaAs, The Torn councll coneldere that lt la reaaonable'
appropriate, and benefLcLal to the Tottn and its citlzena,
inhabitante, and visitors to r€peal and reenact ordinance l{o. 23,
series of 1988 to provide for Buch changeg in special Devel'opnent
DlstrLct No. 22, Dauphlnaia Subdivielon.
NOW, THEF.EFORE, BE IT ORDATNED Bv TIIE Totll{ COI'NCTL oF TltE
TOtfN OF VAIL,, COIPRADo, THAT: ordlnance llo. 23, serlea ol 1988 Is
hereby repealed and reenacted to read as folLous:
sectLon 1. tmend[ent ProcedureB Fulf l-lled ' Planninq CotrDiEsion
Report
The approval procedure preacrlbed ln chapter L8.4o of the Vail
ilunlclpal cod€ have been fulfll.led, and the Town councll has
received the report of the Planning and Environnental conDiEEion
recoDDendl,ng approval, of the proposed developuent plan for
sp.cial Developlent Dlstrlct \o. 22.
section 2. sFecl.al Dev€loE:pent, Dlgtrlct No. 22
speclat Developtrent DlEtrlct No. 22 (sDD22) and the dev€Iopnent
plan th€refore, are hereby approved for the developDent of Lots 1
through 19, Block 2, LionEridge Subdlvlsion Flling 3 uithln the
Toirn of vall consisting of 10.69 acres.
.-l ,Jr
, L,*
o rhidr ,.t4
(')
W
Section 3. Purpo6e
Speclal DevelopDent Dlstrlct 22 ls establiBhed to enaure
conprehenaLvs develop[ent and uee of an area that wlll be
hrnoniou3 wlth ths gen€ral character of the Town of VaiI. Th€
d€velopDent ls r€garded a8 conpleDentary to the Tor'| by tho Toun
CouncLl and [eetB all deaigm Btandard8 and crlteria as a6t forth
,.n SectLon 18.40 of the Uunlclpal code. There are aiEnLfLcant
aspects of Speclal D€velopment Dlstrict 22 that are dlfflcult to
8atLsfy through the lDpoBitlon of the standards of the und€rlying
prlnary/aecondalT tone dlstrl.ct. Special Dev€Iopn€nt Dlstrlct 22
allous for greater flexlblllty ln tbe dcveloprent of the land
than eould be poealblc under tbo curr.nt zonlng of the prop€rty.
The BDaIfer elngle-fanily lots provlde the opportunlty for a
coD[on open Bpace for the gubdivislon ac well aa the ueang to
preserve tho Eoutherly ridge lln€ of th. property. Special
DevelolrD€nt Dlstrl,ct 22 provldea an approprlate developlent plan
to preaerin€ the vl.eual qual,lty o! the 3lt fron uithin the
eubdl,vislon as e€ll as adJacent propertlee ln the conaunity !.n
general.
SectLon 4. Developnent Plan
A. Ih€ developlent plan for sDD 22 Ls spproved and ehall
conatitute th€ plan for developnent wltttln the Speclal
DevelopDent Dietrict. The d€v€lopDent plan 18 coDprlaed of
thoee plans subDitted by Dauphinal3-lloseley Constructlon and
conglrts of the folloulng docunent! shlch $lLl be fLnalLzed
at th6 [aJor subdlvlslon flnal plat revl.ew:
1. Slte developnent plan, Llonsrldge Recubdivislon of Iots
1'19, Vail, Colorado, Arnold/cwathDey/Pratt Architects,
dated Harch 22, L99o.
2. Conceptual land8cape plan, Arnold,/Gnathn€y/Prrtt
Architects, dated Uarch 20, 1990.
3. Final plat of Lionarldge Subdivigl.on Flllng No. 5, a
r.rubdivi.lon of Iota 1-19, Block 2, and Llonsrldge
Ln6, Ll,onBrldge Subdlvlalon Flllng No. 3, Town of
Val1, Eagle County, colorado aheets 1 and 2,
,2l433:""taln Engincerlng r'.lDlted, q1G6rlprtF,}
/- L9e9 - )
4. \T666€6ctlon, gradlng and draln.ge dralr1ng6 for a
reeubdivl,elon of IotB 1-19, Block 2, and Lionsridga
Ian€, LlonBrldge Subdlvislon Flling No. 3, Torn of
Vall, Eagle county, Colorado, hterDountain Englnccrlng
LiDlted, Bheetg 1-8, dated llarch 9, 1989 to be
flnallzed at the flnal plat ravlen for the subdlviglon.
5. Solla and Foundatlon fnvestlgation for Iota 1-24,
LionBrldge 5th Flling.
o
I
o
))
6. Llonsrldge color Prlett€, Arnold/Gwathney/Pratt
Arcltltecta, ltarch 1990.
a. ltte d€velopDent standarda shall be as follore:
1. Agf3lset The total acreaqe ol this glte ls 10.69 acrea
or {651650 aquar€ f€et.
2. perrLtted uEcE: tfh€ p€!illtted uaea for sDD 22 ahall
be:
a. singl€ lanlly reEldentlal dwellings
b. open space
c. Publlc roadE
d. Enployee dwelllng unltE al deflned in sectlon 5,
paragraph G of thl! ordlnance.
3. conditLonll UgeE!
a. Publlc utillty and public service uses
b. Publlc bulldlnge, grounda and facilltles
c. PubI lc or prlvate scttoolB
d. PubI lc park and rccreatlon facilltleg
4. lccessorv UBess
a. PrLvate greenhouaca r toolaheda, playhou8es'
garagaa or carporta r swluting Pools, patloa, or
recreatlon lacllltles cuatoDarlly lncldental' to
elngle-fanily uEea.
b. BoDe occupatlons, eubJect to igEuance of a ho[e
occupatl,on penlt ln accordance rlth the
provl.slone of s€ctlons 18.58.130 through
18.58.190.
c. Other usea cu3toDarlly lncl'dental and accesBory to
penltted or condltional uEeE, and neceesary tor
the operatlon ther€of.
5. Lots glzea and uaxlnun GRFAa !
D|AXIl,fitl,lSIZE GRFAro[
1
23_
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
131l
15l5
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23 I
P+:t| ./'
11, 8O5
L6 ,244
2 r2933.L7L
11, 500
11, 543
11r 021
11,455
11, 979
10,803
12 r 981
15, 159
11, 151
I ,1948,194
8 ,494
10 , 062
9r148
9, 801
LO .2379,409
11,500 3,171
i];i3i \vt z- 3:33i:
3r171
3,L7L
3.L71x,L?l
3,L?l
3,171
3,177
3r171
3,t7L
2.293 -:
2 ,293'2r29{
3 rLzL
2 ,29?---
3, 171
3 .l7t
2 t 293--'LOr321 3,l7L-i',igi wutn ,j""F;*^
O^*
rr\Ahf Y\'ur 6'
,o
S€tbacks: l{lnlnun setbacks gtrall be ae lndicated on
tbe approrred alte develotrnent plan bl,
Arnof d,/enath!€ylPratt Archlt€cts, dat.d Uarch 22, 7990.
*" flfruL. r*fftc rillnffi'!3(l*
'{ln
tho cntrr. proporty. A llntru! ot 6 €Dploye. ir.tit"Un N""
unltr ehall be !.ncorporated lnto any 6 of thc alngle- r
farlly unlta. A larluul of 13 .qrloyee dvelll.ng unLta
( lncludlng tlre rl.x requlred oDloyc€ untta) uay be
lncluded vlthln 15 of the alngl.-faDlly unlt. ll
d€slred by tbe developcr or lndlvldual lot ouner.
Bul.ldl.na H6loht! Por a tlat roof or Danrard root, the
h.lght ot thc bulldlnE aha1l not .xc.ed 3or. For a
aloplng roof, the helght of thc bulldlng rha1l not
exc€ed 33r. Tbe b€lgbt calcu!,atlon 3ha11 b. nad. by
leaauring fro! the exletlng grad. ar lndicated on th€
Intenountain EngLneerlng Topogrraphlcal sur:'rrey dated
Uarch 13, 1990 or tlnlehed grade. Holght 3haU be ,n$
Parkln6! Parking ahall be ar rcgul,rod .ln Scctlon 18.52 f aot the Vall l{unlclp.l cod€. Eaclr .[pIoye. duelllng V
unl,t ahall be requLred to hava at leaat ona enclosed
garrge parklng apace.
DegLon GuLdell.neg: Sc dcvcloplsnt of cach lot .baf1
be gulded by the archltsctural rnd landscap€ deslqrn
guldelines .a approved aa part of the gp.clal
Itav€loplent Dlgtrict llo. 22. lttre guldellner ar. r.
follorE:
a. ArchLtectural. fh. arcbltectural deslgm of th€
bulldlnga upon tb€ slt. rttlll be Buclr tlrat
bulldlnge relate harnont ourly to cach oth€r. llhlg
ie not to lDp1y tbat .ach bulldlng luBt look
exactLy El,ll,Iar to thoa. rround lt, but that
conprtlbillty be achleved tlrrough the ure of
3cal€, lat rlalr and colorr, and bulldlng drrpe
and fon. ftrc ovorrldl.ng conoarn Ls that, uPon
coupletlon, the Specl,al D.v€l.ottlcnt Dlrtrlct,
b€cau3a of, tbe clu.t.r.d nltur. of the sDall
ringle fanlly lot! sltuatad around coDBon open
!pac€, alrould appaar to b. an lntegratad
developlent poaro3.lng a coDon archit.ctural
quallty, chrrrctar, and app3aranca. To thl3 3nd
tbe folloulng gencral deeign crlteria thall be
folloned by th. devcloper and lndlvldual lot
ognerg:
7"aL
wv
b\I1'!AU'{J
g,rrt (\ ,1\-- u
Vd. avtr e -,-J>
V\.rrAA e.1/t'T-./rD4'+l/\' r'ntD
Po,rr' * vun at- 7' 7'
(,o.v9
ND
lif ulEoof€.r; w o.) o/l,Jo t,rE${pF#I#L#+{ *reT-_:frFtt#Tr n _ \,n nsitt : Approvrl of thlr d.v.Iopuent plan .hall "U ,,,ln it)
pcrnlt ! total ot 24 slnsle-tarlly duatllns *i*-:ldlriil,rtl
8.
9.
10.
11.
catculated per srction 18.04.1?0 o! tbc *"i.i*i"*.. I!S,\
flltp cor.€ncre: Alpou:s''0;
Parkln6! Parking ahall be ar rcgul,rod ln Scctlon La.52' 'l
-.
A palette of cc. ]rs rnuX. as 6et forth - .) the
Llongrldge Color Palette fron
Arnold/cwathney/Pratt dated llarch 1990. color6
are Lndl.cated for the use on dlfferent tl4res of
bulldlng naterlals and el€ments such aE stucco
colorB, sldlng colora, netal flashlng, wlndows,
accent colora, etc. Tt|e palette of colors
indicate a laDlle of acceptable color8 ln order to
encourage sinllarlty on one hand, but algo
dlverelty vlthin the acceptable lelgg.
I t6v1
it. The folloslng bulldlng standardE and uaterLals
6hall be adhered to :
(1) Be9jL The roof pltch BhaII be a DinIDuD 8/1,0
and a uaxlnun of,. r2/L2. A -€++fPdo! nipP€d -
@tery; The rooflng
fuvnar+ 7
-st_aggered butts.
,kt*A,Orf A EICIU e.) chtrnnevs. rh€ chinneya sharl be arucco rrith
chinney capE of rreathered copPer.
(3) F1ue6. All flues sltall be galvanized or
trpaLnt LolBr Bheet [etaI, painted to uatch
the roof.
(4) llaln Faecla. The nal,n fascia 5ha1l, be a
tolid color etain, rtith brown ' taupe, or
gray.
- ^ . t /-. (5) secondarv Fascia and uetal Railincrs above the
[fu]Ll-L ,A,O;fl'C ULor' Fl'rat Floor' Bhe secondary faecla and netal
- ., r l.l v , l -.ts rail-ings above the fl'rat floor eball be an
o
(.l
oi
, !l t , . P ralllngs aDove Ene r
Shd -loat'ufr 0'v"'*t accent trlD coror or
^ r\t\ 1
, \i oLt, \ ,r V'-{\
#)-u''At' u
AY\lv
(6) 9alJ6--ra\14 Ehall be of stucco and
dil")<- g 4=H:Z:f"l'llr;",:::'T"::':il,i1""
colors shall be gray, brorrn or tauP€.
stone. Regldences s111 have a ni.nLroun of a
trlo foot hlgh stone rrainscot ln ralnbow ulx
with a
the structure.
(8) Windows. Wlndows be receeaed a tlininun
of tso inchee froD the outBide sall plane and
have a be nhl
taupe or browrr. -VW'WL('\W,A|/W tw' Y/
(9) outdoor Liqhtind. outdoor tighting shall be
lndlrect with a concealed source ercePt for
an entry chandelLer rhlch t[ay be €xPo6ed
globes wlth a flxture of black or ueathered
lfy* rook netar. +W\m'W tic{*e a 0"h1'l
"GAfeSeE- No garage doorsy'shalla dlrectly face
Wlutr( Vf^1
of
(10)
the atreet. a/g<t'V't lL-t 2+.
o,o(11) A resident -I addresE/naBeplate lf de! ,ted by
the owner Bhall be located on the ald€ of the
garage faclng the access point to the lot.
b. L.ndscape. I{hen t}re lndlvldual landecape
Dlane are d€Blgned for lndlvldual lota,
rpecial care .hall be taken ln the desLgm of
etde yard landecaping ln order to provide
adequate ccreening betwsan Btructures.
12. Recr.atLonal AnenltLes Tax: The recrcation
anenltles tax ehall be a3sesacd at th€ rate for e
sl,nEle-faDl,ly realdential zone dlstrlct.
Special ElevelopDent Dlstrict llo. 22 Ehall not b6 €tfacttve
until the uaJor aubdlvlelon Ic approved by the Planning and
Environtlental Coui6slon and Ls r€cord€d by th€ Tosn of VrLl
at the Eagl€ County Clerk and R€corders office.
B. / Ttre uaJor aubdivlslon shall be record€d at th€ Eagle County
cl.€rk and Recorder I s olflce befor€ a bullding pernlt le
releaaed for any conatruction on th€ gubdivlElon lncludLng
couon iDlrroveoentB aE r€ll as LndLvldual residences.
c. / me Town of v.ll Engineer rhall have the right to revles and
.pprov6 ttte flve (naxi!u[ nrnber) curb cutg for lota 15-23
acc€Bsing off of Llonsrldg€ lpop to enaure proper drlveuay
orlentatl,on, IandEcaplng, vl8lblllty, and drainage before r
bulldlng pertuit ia releaaed for any of the unlte on these
lots. Back out drlveraye are prohlbited for theee lots.
The developer ahall eubnlt a landBcaplng, signage, and nall
deelgm for tho entry to tlre subdivialon for revLaw and
approval by the Town Engln€er beforc flnal Deeign RevLeg
Board approval.
o
@
E. rh€ d€velope" "h"?,"prAl,U cbq€tdoralk along the north or
ffi. the devoloper rlry con8truct
F.
Eouth Bide of
th€ €ntlre glderalk under th€ Phaae I bulldlng perult or Day
conBtruct th€ sld€salk Ln subsequent phasea of constructLon.
As e.ch lot Ir daveloped, the portl.on of the Eldesall
adJacent to the lot Bhall be conEtructed aubEequent to the
isguance of a bulldlng pernlt and prlor to tbe lEaulnc€ of a
teuporaty certlficate of occupancy for the unit on the lot.
Itre developer ahall be responelble for constructlnq a bua
shelter on the weat or eaat alde of th€ €ntry lnto the
subdlvision lf and nhen the ToLn of VaiI deene it ig
approprlate to provlde bus gervlce to propertlea adj acent to
Lionerldge I6op and/or If tbe school Dlgtrlct detenlnes Lt
ls approprlate to provlde bus eervice for Lionerldge Ioop
property osnera. fhe bus shelter deslgn ahall b€ [utually
acceptable to the developer and Town of ValI. Thc bus
shelter shall al3o be requlred to r€ceive approval fron the
Deslgn Review Board.
o
c.(. the o
developDent of specla. Developnent Distrlct No. . '!ri11
o
have inpacte on the aval,Iable enployee housing sithin the
Upper Eagle Valley Area. In order to help neet this
addltlonal enployee houalng need, the developer of speclal
DevelopDent DlBtrlct No. 22 shall provlde eDployee houting
on alte. The folloslng - reEtrictlonE Ehall apply to all
eEployee dvelling unite withln sDD lfo. 22:
The developer sha1l build a ninluurn of sLx eDployee dnelllng
units nlthLn the eubdivLslon. t clr a!Ploy3. drtelllng unlt
3hr11 hav. r llniru[ lquar. footag3 of loo aquaro feet not $0,h fi I ^ ( lr nll_l,e_- anall nava a llnIDuD tquara looEag3 or .uu B!lu.r3 EE3E neE 109l/gL.y-K q to .xc..d 5oo .qurr. t..t and Lc alloued to hav€ a kltchon. Z
L/' The GRFA and nuDber of eDproyee unlts Ehall not be counted
tAlLd 1^rz(c +
i E ^K
q /i''orw ort'^
Ft?t- + toward atlosable density or GRFA for sPeclaL Developuent
'Ao*,
^XighM
Di6trLct No. 22. The d€v€loper lay provide uP to 15
7'-,- .'. "r i euptoyee dwelling unlts lncludlng the 6 reguired dnelllng
^llk"rt,\t''Lr i.lli:n",T
u'"'fi,u,lt ,10^"' li ,i:'-tt f rLr'r t., l-,4
The enployee dweltlng units Day be located on any of the
Cr,-
a/vtk-("%
tots vithln the eubdivlslon providing all the developnent
rtandards are Det for each lot. onLy one enPloyee drtelling
unit sball be allowed per lot. An enployee dselLlng ehall
be lncorporated into the structure of the prinary reeidence
and 6hall not be allowed to be Eeparated fron the priuary
unit. Each eDployee dwelllng unit Ehall havE one encloBed
garage parklng epace. Thle parking space shall not be
detached froD the single-fa[ily garage or structure. The
employee d\relling unit tha1l be prohibited from havlng a
wood burning flreplace. Each phase of construction shall
include a ninfunun of one enPl.oyee dnel.ling unit until slx
enployee dwelllng unl-ts ar€ conetructed and available for
rental .
Tbe eDployee dwelllnq unlt shall be reBtricted as a rental
enployee dwelling unit pemanently. The euployee dvelllng
unlt shall not b€ leased or rented for any period of leas
than 30 consecutLve dayB, and that If rented, It shall be
rented only to tenants vho are full-tLDe eDployees in the
upper Eagle valley. fhe Upper Eagle valley ehall be deeDed
to include the Gore vatley, llinturn, Red cllff, Gilman,
Eagle-vaLl, and Avon and thelr eurrounding area8. A full-
tiEe eDployee ls a person sho sorkB an average of 30 houra
per seek. An enployee dwelllng unLt shall not be divLded
into any form of tlne-share, l-nterval ownerehlp, or
fractLonal fee onnership. The enployee d$elllng unit BhaII
not be Eotd, transferred or conveyed Eeparately fron the
elngle fanily unlt.
fv\','
.tt
"il^l^:t,\' ,,,'l
,7'\
ral=
! L.ttl'
)q
,\Cr'\ C'
'11,r
*t,'o
a Th€ onner or .ach sDproye ar"!|* unlt ahart be rcr- Ircd
to declare ln wrltlng on an annurl baele to th. To$n ot val}
that the enployo. dvelling unl.t haE been rentod a! r long
terD rental per the requl,rcuente outllned ln thlr rectlon.
fhla declaratlon rhall include a urltt€n atltcrent fro! the
orner lleting ttrc renter I g naD€. placc of enDlol7lsnt, and
length of tiuc th. unlt uaB rented. Tbe declaratlon rhall
bc requlred to bc .lgned by both tha lot onn.r and rant6r.
<- A dechratlon of covenrnts and rcrtrLctLons ghall b€ fll.d
on r6cord In ths officc of tbe 8agl. county cl€rk and
Recorder Ln the for[ approved by th. Tonn Attorncy for th€
benallt of the lown to ensure that the roetrlctionE bcrcin
shall run uLtb tlre land b€fore a hrlldlEs_p3:ra:lljlg--relrr8ed
for the constnctLon of any GDttloye. dltalr ing u'lt. Tttc
Tosrr of vall ahall be a -party to thlr e8ploy.e houBlng
agro€Dent.
The dav€Ioper and Tosn ahall entar lnto a doveloperr B
agr€enent uhlch shall provlde that no final Dlat tor
eubdlvlsion ahall be slgned by th. Totn unle8. recurl.ty la
provlded by th€ d€velopcr to ensurs coDpletlon of tho
requlrcnente eet f,orth ln Conditionr D, E, and F. lfhe
eecurlty eet aelde for the bua shelter Ln soctlon 5a shall
be revlesed by the corDunity DevelopDent DepartDent aftcr
tuo y.ars fron tlre dat€ the final plat La record€d to
determine lf the bu8 sbelter ahould b€ con.tructed. lltre
co@unlty D€velopnent Departnent ehall requlrr that the
eecurlty be 3xtended an addltlonal tuo years lf the
CoDunity Dev€lopDent D,epart!3nt d.tatrlnes lt lry be
nec€s3ary to construst tho bus sh.ltsr aft r thc f1r3t 2
year pertod.
The archltectural and landacape d.31gn gul.dellnea shall be
Lncort orat€d lnto the aubdlvlelon cot ananta bafor. th€ fl'nal
plat 1r record.d at the Eagl€ county clerk and Rccorder I a
offlc€. lfhe forn of Vall rhall be party to th33e
agraaDenta.
24, proj ect entry plan copletion, flnal grading of coD[on
op€n apace, and revegetatlon of natlve graaB€B on all
'dlcturbed portlonB of the eubdLvLalon, pavJ'ng of +i'€fitrtdE€
Lan., aIl utlllties conttructed and stubbed to lndivldual
Iot., a8 sell aa dralnage inproveuenta.
.l
Ihe gecond through flftlr phaseg shall lncluds constructlon
o
\q W^h
",r;riu^'6
w
,/0D 6M^^t {
H.
The flr8t pbas6 of conttructlon lor the gubdlvlslon shall
---- include constnuctLon o! rgeLdences on Lots L, 2 ' 3 , 4 , and
t ,,1
tL/\
T
f\.
[untf
.(Y
tv/-'| //'
fl,] tL'[
li,
l
r.)l \lt\i'\r
uka ' "':': "!ffiii:Jtfr, ffiY,:;';;' f'',(,. iLt I*ltd'
(px"i'u
l
^+'
of4to O.
': s"l; 6. r-"rrd'".t"
lnendrenta to spechl DevelopDent District No. 22 shall follor
th€ procodur€B contalned ln Seetlon 18.i10.1o0 of the vall
uunlclpal code.
section 7. ExpLretion
lhe applicant r!u6t begln conetructlon of th€ special D€velopnent
Dlstrlct ulthln 3 y€arE froD the tlne of ita flnal approval, and
continue dlligently touard coupletlon of th6 proJect. If the
applLcant does not beELn and dlligently t ork toward the
coDpletlon of the speclal DevelopDent Dlgtrlct or any atage of
the SpecLal DevelopDent Dlgtrlct slthln the tiDe linlta lDposed
by the precedlng subsectlon, the Ptanning and EnvLronDental
comleslon ahall rsvLen the speclal Developrent Dl8trlct. Th€y
BhaII racom€nd to tha Tosn council that either the approval ot
the Speclal Developnent District be extended, that the aPProval
of the special Dev€lopDent DlBtrlct be revoked, or that the
speclal Developrent DlBtrict be aDended.
Section 8.
If any part, eectlon, eubsectLon, sentencer clause or phrase of
thle ordinance iB for any reaaon held to b€ Lnvalid, auch
decielon ahall not affect the validity of the renaining portiona
of thls ordlnancei and the Torrn council hereby declare8 it would
have paEsed thiE ordlnance, and each part, EectLon, Eub8ection'
aentence, clauBe or phrase thereof, regardlese of the fact that
any one or [ore parte, sectlons, subEectione, aentencear clauaes
or phrasea by d€clared lnvalld.
Section 9.
f'he Town councll hereby flnds, detenln€E and declar€B that thi8
ordinance Le neceeeary and proper for the herlth, safety and
uelfare of the Towr| of vaIl and inhabit.nta thereof.
sectlon 10.
The repeal or th€ repcal and reenactu€nt of any provJ'clone of
vail tluniclpal code as provlded in thle ordinanc€ shall not
affect any right whlch has accrued, any duty luposed, any
violatl.on that occurred prior to th€ €f,fectl.v€ date h€reof, any
proaecutLon couenc€d, nor any other action or proceeding as
colDenced under or by virtue of the provislon repealed or
lepealed and reenacted. The r€peal of any proviai.on hereby Ehall
not revLve any proviaLon or rny ordlnance prevlouely roPealed or
Buper3ed€d unless expregaly atated hereln.
S€ction U.
AIl bylaua, orders, reBolutions and ordlnanceB, or parta thereof,
Lncongl,gtent bercrlth are hereby rePealed to the extent only of
such lnconsiBtency. This repealer rhall not be construed to
revlee any bylaw, order, rs3olutlon or ordlnance, or Part
thereof, h€retofore repealed.
Or ,l -)
rNTRoDucED, READ AlfD PISSED oN FIRSI nEN)ING mlIS -3sL day ol
_As4f-, 1990,. and a publlc hearlng shall be held on thls
ordlnance on ths -,,lI!L day of , 1990 at 7!30 p.D.
ln tha councll charbsr of the vrll l,luniclpal Buildlng, vall,
Colorado.
Ord.red publlahad ln full thle 3rd day of 1990.
t7.* '. ),
Xont R. Roae, llayor
PaDaIa A. Erandr.yar, Iown Clark
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECIND RETDING A}ID ORDEREDpttBLISHED ln full thlr lTrh day of Aprll , 1990.
ATrEST:
ASIEST:
l,:l:VW
L .ri W^4 ,ahlT\'i,lntrf (^-tc ' r
PaDola A. Brandneyer, Town Clsrk
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SU&'ECT:
Lots 1-19, Block 2, L,ionsridge FiIinS #3.Applicant: Mr. Pat Dauphinais, Dauphinais - ltoseleyConstruction.
r. pEscRrprroN oF rHE REouESr @f^l;1'*'k'rrh0tgi-c
The origina-l zoning allowed 19 prinary/eecondary lots for atotal of(38$welling units. Total allowed GRFA ryas 84,905
aquare feEtl The approved sDD reduced the number ofdwelllng unita to 24 and decreased the GRFA by L6,7v\ square Yfeet. itre totat alproyea cnr4_is W-sqriie tigti d f= ,nwyatzu,fti' ,1bR- tltal ant it'al^Uotra-p '7*.b +{eW?r.?fr+ ;: a,teo arr^ila'bU' ,The najor subdivision plat also rebeivba finat approval fron i-the Planning Comrnission. However, the final plat has not <been recorded. The developer is requesting changes to themajor subdivision plat which will require prelirninary plan 6review as sell as final plat review fron the PlanningCornnission. The following changes are reguested:
The slight changes to the lot sizes and corresponding
GRFA per lot'are listed below:
It\
*z',u.. , ,tl
.?
7
41. NTENDMENT TO IOT STZES AND CORRESPONDTNG GRFA PER IOT: T
1.*{.t
*t
t>
F
f
PFF
€
)
'\-r"rc
l-]'tjt
i'I5't
i-(:',.vv
d
zL! Ct4t | \ .'\ <-4\
*vr* i)lllz tlil
',-'( - {i<)o zv$ .
L Nf ft
.A
ii','1 ttt /t- rL\ r'
fl" lutat 1.Y':r=rl,'Ltjl.*, i,.,,, J,1['i, !r-
\
J
'',-'
N&e, -WT
(1, ru'61-t;y t.,1. rud {-A-o' \) J 'i fd, cir jr$'N.
/t^ *A*;]f tOc tcr&rirt
Planning and Environmentar con,nission $Ut"{1ffittr4-c^,ry i,1'
.
Department or con:nunity Devetopurent C+::Pq"S4"'eo'i'bt;it
tfarch 26, Lggo t, t'' *-.,*a
A request for a Major subdivision and "r"nukL'';ofl"-h!.d#"^Special Developruent District No. 22r'resubdivision of- t'"t 'Yf"'*t'
1988 and was adopted by, 9_ltiFqDCA.?No;1_-23 Series of 19S$ by 5.j-. ,!, t ndatpe vail Town eouncit^7p9ti&L\et'b6Veriilnenmistrict-No. 22.,,"a, "tnil L\
Jrrr'LitlW4 sinsle fauilv lots, an open Epace
Tbe developer is reguesting to make adjustnents to the najor/Dlr'Fl., subdivision and Special Development Dist_rict- No. 22 for this -W--.:il property. Special llevelopnent District-No. 2-2 uas approved .'ph.+I by the Planning and Environmental connissIof4+*Augusllof Yry1988 and was adopted by,,gf$ipa4gg.rNo.-_--23 Series of 1989 by )'j-.
ttr@4 slngle F:pllf,lngs, an open Epace' tract, and a new public road, Li6Hl8frg*"lane. !e$f-E+z€\of the existing Special Developnent District is 10.59 acres.
r\ 'iY l-'
,nl
,m2
.'at'
'L10
'LoN
, ttt* .
'+5 t
,ilot
')15
2I2
2
2Ll2lt 19t
20t
28*
28t
27*
29t
28t
2
25t
26
19t
25
25t
26*
8*o0
;800
;831
,?45
,'tte
'48
,11,
.tf
a3t
'LL,J'
,)tb
')to
J44
tt
24+
2L*
9;
28
7*
27t
t
32t
LO,9L9
%L48
LO,OLg
\0,019
Dss3__
LO,454 )9,58/
8
2
4
3
,r4
3
29
2
29t 2
1t
4t
At this tlne, the developer is not proposlng specificnodels for the entire eubdivlslon. phase I developnentincludes conEtnrction on four lots. These four lotswilL use either llodel A or ltodel B. The total GRFAproposed (681202 sguare feet) ls alnost the sane as theoriginally approved GRFA of 681204 square feet.
2. CE}I{GES TO SETBACKS:
The. original-called'g #;ffiirilibetween the original.ly approved developnent plan and
a.fThe SDD wording calls f,or a 2Or front setback.
1l'be developnent plan drawing indicates a 0 | setback fortlrese lots'.
Changes to the setbackE are requested to allow for auore realietlc siting of the houses on each property.Site coverage, GRFA, access, and parking have beenconsidered wlth the proposed setbacks. No encroachmentsare allosed into the approved setbacks for rooi
overhangs or decks. An access stair to the euploygglrousing uni-t-nay be 3li6EEd@ i
- inio-trre rleuirla siaeJet-u.ffi
encroachnen€-ts - ority" allohGa-. f or -an extei.ior -"ungnclosed )stair' (-r*iiu sdtld'ddj , '-
31
2,/aOO
,94O
2/350
;v5].
2,(aoo
,800
0
2.AOO
,800
00
00
,
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
€_153!-r -*Sq..''d*t- drLL-oi 4UU
-vFront Setback
201
',! 14'
URear SetbackLot
1
2-L3
L4
15, 16
18
19
20-23
15 1L7
15 1
15 1
351
Adjacent to
Lionsridge Lane
15 1
r',','r i-Cil ii 10 |
.i;i1,. i1,r:.i
",".1
,,
"(:'10 1
10 1
10r
201
lOi- tI r,
)--'!1r i -r\
Side Setback
10r
10 1
.L
, '";[ i. lt ,: I t]
10f
10 1
Appx. 97'
See Development Plan.Varies fron 35r-751in order to nininize thevisual inpact of houses
along the ridge area.
451
1l
Lots back-up to conmon
open sPace.
5lLot backs-up to
oPen space.
10r
10t
201
conmon
L0|24
.. j"ii-\ il
I
I
15 1
North side adjacentto Lionsridge T.,oop
3. CITRB CU:IS:
Five curb cuts are reguested off of Lionsridge Loop for
Lots 20-23. At this tine four road cuts accessing off
of Lionsridge Loop are approved for Lots 15-19.
4. EI.TPIPYEE DI{EILN.iG I'NITS:
The developer will be required to provideunits on lots having an allowable GRFA of-{r1
feet. Up to 15 ernployee dwelling units i
required six enployee dwelling units nay be locatedwithin the larger homes if future 1ot owners so desire.
Each enployee units shall rneet the following units:
A. . GRFA range of 400:500 aguare feet.
I:;r :': .:one enclosgd_ (gagage) parking space.
the unlf shall'le plinanentiv'restricted as an
employee dwelling unit and sha1l neet the
requirement in Section 28.13.080 BLO a-d of the
Town of Vail zoning code.
No wood-burning fireplaces shall be allowed in
these units.
:.B..
c.
D.
The owner of the property Ehall be reguired to
docunent on an annuaL basis to the Town of Valtthat the units have been rented as long-ter:nrentals to persons neeting the reqr:irements inSection 18.13.080 B1O a-d of the zoning code.
The enployee dwelling units shall not count
towards density or GRFA for the project.
,,5. . ARCHTTECTURAL GUTDELTNES:
The developer proposes that the Architectural DesignGuidelines be incorporated into the subdivision
agreement which will be recorded at Eagle County. Thegruidelines will also be incorporated into the Special
Developnent District. These gruidelines are as follows:
E.
F.
I.Architectural . At the tine of review of specificarchitectural plans provided for any developnentof single fanily structures within Special
Developnent dj.strict No. 22, t-l;.e Town of VaiI
Design Review Board shall, in addition to the
Design Guidelines set forth in Chapter 18.54 ofthe Vail I'funicipal Code, consider the fotlowingguidelines in the review and approval process.
The architectural design of the buildings upon thesite shall be such that buildings relate
har:noniously to each other. This is not tothat each building nust look exactly sinilar
those around it, but that courpatibility be
achieved through the use of scale, rnaterialscolors, and building shape and fora. Theoverriding concern is that, upon conpletion,Special Developnent district, because of the
clustered nature of the sma1l single farniJ-y lotssituated around comnon open space shoul.d appear to
be an integrated developuent possessing a conmonarchitectural quality, character, and appearance.
To this end the following general design criterLashall be folLowed:
lnplyto
and
the
G, A palette of qorols shall be as set forth\--t -Uel6O-and preJent-ea to the Desigm Review
Board for their review and approval . Colorsare indicated for the use on different tlpesof building naterials and elenents such as
stucco colors, siding colors, netal flashing,
windows, accent colors, etc. The palette ofcolors indicate a EUSIS of acceptable colorsin order to encourage sinilarity on one hand,but also diversity within the acceptable
B!!gc.
o.O*. foltowing'building ,n" and naterialsshall be adhered to :
1. Roof. The roof pitch shall be a nininun
8/10 and a naxirnum of L2/L2. A clippedor hipped gable roof shall be nandatory.
The roofing materiaL shall be cedar
shake shingles with staggered butts.
2. Chinneys. The ctrinneys shall be stuccosith chinney caps of weathered copper.
3. FIues;--AlI flues shall be galvanized orilpaint I.of$ sheet netal, painted to
matdE--EEe roof.
4. Main Fasia. The nain fasia shall be asolid color stain, with brown taupe or
gray.
5. Secondanr Fasia and ltetal Railinqs abovethe First Floor. The secondary fasia
and metal railings above the first floorshall be an accent trirn color of mutedgreen, red or blue.
6. WalLs. I{alls shall be of stucco and
horizontal wood siding. Stucco colorsshall be gray, beige or off-white. Wood
siding colors shal1 be gray, brown or
taupe.
zz---r(stone.r Residences will have a minimum-b-f-a-'two foot high stone wainscot in
rainbow uix with a sandstone cap around
the periueter of the structure.
Windows. Windows shall be recessed a
minimun of tro inches fron the outsidewall plane and have a sandstone sill.
Trirn shall be white, taupe or brown.
outdoor Lightinq. outdoor lightingshall be indirect with a concealed
source except for an entry chandelier
which may be exposed globes with afixture of black or weathered cooper
Iook metal .
7.
8.
9.
10. carages. No garage doors shall. direct\y ^_face the "at""gJriii L:.'f ir,'i)t l1r'n-7,', L()ntlqt@6Y
11. A residential address/naneplate if
desired by the onner shall be located on
the side of the garage facing the accesspoint to the lot.
II. Iandscaoe.. At the tine of review of landscapepfal: provided for any developnent of singlefanily structures within the Special Developrnentdistrict No. 22 the Torrn of VaiI shall, in '
addition to the landscape gruidelines set forth inChapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code, considerthe following gruidelines in the review andapproval process:
a. Entrv Landscapin<r and liqhtincr: A planindicating the Iandscape treatnent of thenain project entry shall be subnitted andapproved. The goal. of such a plan shal1 bethe following:
1. Present an identifiable entry point tothe subdivision containing plantrnaterials, Iighting, and signage of ascale appropriate for the size of the
3.
developrnent.
Provide appropriate screening to therear yards (along Lionsridge Loop) ofLots 20-24 which blends in with theentry treatment.
Provide appropriate screening along thewestern edge of Tract C.
When the individual landscape plans arepresented for individual lots special careshall be taken in the design of side yard
landscaping in order to provide adequatescreening between structures. Active outdooruse areas should be located within front andrear yards.
The concern of the Board shall be to inprovethe natural appearance of the Subdivision andthe naintenance of such appearance. otrners
and their representatives or builders wiII berequired to:
1. Mininize disruption from grading.
2. Revegetate and restore ground cover forerosion and appearance reasons.
3. Use indigenous species of plantnaterials.
Select the uan-uade elements that blend
and are conpatible with the land.
Use existing or natural drainage paths
whenever possible.
Conserve and protect topsoil, rock
formations and unique fandscapefeatures.
c.
4.
5.
6.
6. PINSTNG PI.AN
The first phase of the Development District (1990-91)
sha1l include the followlnq improvenents:
-Lots 2-3 (I.rodel A)
/ I'n cr,ll.il- ")fv':v:> 1
-Lots L, 4, 24 (Model B)
-Project Entry Plan Conpletion-Final Grading of Cornnon Open Space and Revegetation of
Native crasses in all Undeveloped portions of theproJect.
-Paving of LLonsridge Iane
-A11 underground utillties in place and stubbed toindividual lots as well as drainage improvements.
The second through fifth phases (1991-1996) of the
Developnent District shall include construction of 4 to
5 units per year until the proJect is built out.
II. EVALUATION OF CRITERTA FOR Ii{AJOR SUBDIVfSION, PREIJTUTNARY
PI,AN REVIEW
The najor subdivision section of the zoning code in
L7.16.110 PEC Review Criteria states:
rrThe burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to
show that the app).ication is in cornpliance with theintent and purposes of this chapter, tbe zoning
ordinance, and other pertinent regulations that the PEc
deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given tothe recommendations made by public agencies, utility
companies, and other agencies consulted under Sectiont7.t6.090. The PEC shaLl review tbe application and
consider its appropriateness in regard to town policies
relating to subdivision control , densities proposed,
regulations, ordinances and resolutions, and other
applicable documents, environmental integrity, andconpatibility with the surrounding land uses and other
applicable docunents, effects on the aesthetics of the
town, environmental integrity and compatibility siththe surrounding land uses.n
ft is inportant to reaLize that the proposal is a
resubdivision of 19 existing duplex lots. A Speclal
Developnent District and Major Subdivision have already been
approved by the Planning Connission and Town Council which
alloved the developer to resubdivide the 19 exlsting duplexlots into ze single fanily lots. In general , the changes to
-..,.the proposal do not have any uaJor inpacts on the
1fl subdivision criteria. Due to the fact that the proposal
.l llrepresents a resubdivision of an exLsting approved
lllsubdivision, a reduction in allowab1e density, has no'l Isignificant environrnental irnpacts and is cornpatible with
lllsurrounding low to nediun density residential uses, the'proposed plan is supportable.
III.
o
ENVTRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Staff did not require an additional environmental inpactreport for the changes reguested. The proposed changes donot necessitate a revLsed environmental inpact report.
IV. SPECIAL DEVEI€PIIIENT DISTRT T CRITERTA
1. Desicrn conoatibilitv and sensitivitv to the irnnediate
$\,'e'
intecrritv and orientation.
The existing SOO has actually been inproved in respectto the design of the project. The increase in setbacksalong the ridgeline on the south side of thesubdivision will inprove the visual lntegrity of theproject. The previous SDD called for only a 15r rearsetback. Under the new proposal setbacks will rangefrom 35 to 75 feet.
The developer is also lncluding specific architecturalguidelines for the SDD. The gruidelines have been
reviewed by the Design Review Board and have receivedconceptual support. These Guidelines will encourageconsistent material , roof forns, and substantial
landscaping which will benefit this project as welladjacent property onners.
-._.4
t over
\$'\'F"',bt-
.,.1{b - -
d-
As with the previous proposal , the project does deviate
from the standard regrulations governinlt nass and bulkfor the single fanily residential zone district.
tl Horrever, the staff feels that these deviations are
ll acceptable due to the overall density reduction and the
llprovision of a large comnon open space which can be
fJused by residents within the project.
2. Uses. activitv and densitv which provide a connatible,efficient and workable relationship with surroundino
uses and activitv.
With the arnendments to the SDD, the density rernainsessentiallv the same except that the developer is
h' i r l':i;@p 1
-oyee-dwEi r ing- un iTq j-iE-o theproi ect .- - The- develt oDe r- nav a t J6. EuiLAlE -€6;-t o-Eef o f-if€tFTovee -aiAillng-units- ig rre so desiiEEl fi---
previius-kp-e-c-i. alf-Def e I oprffi 1 s, thestaff has never counted enployee dwelling units for
GRFA or density purposes. As that the devel
builds 6 enployee dwell uni€sstill-be-tl-ndFr the prev
=as . If the developef 15em@ong witb the 24 -ingle fqnrlv
fJ .xn
,{$}"}'
Ja
units, the proiect will be onlv 1 dwell-inE-Eh:ithe oriqinb-ttilapprbved 0D nni€ anount.-"._-- .-
t..or \J above the garages-9n-tJts__!9!s; having the larger.GRFA
lLq2?'L'r allotnent*-o-f 3,171 square-fedt. The developer isu providinq tFd=-tvrr€ of-e-n6lovee-hou5ifrq tir-tt:wtriett tras-\ ieen deeied veri-a€tlJctirre- as there iJEi;maf-:--np-ac-\ ueen deened very- l€tractive- as there is ni;i;af:Apacry
\ o-njhe-nei-ghborhood-andthe-eDlloye@---- dispersed'ihrougho-u€-{arge -area.- staff believes that
thElevelop-dr EEs pfloposed a very conpatible,
oo
Enployee dwelling units are proposed to be located
efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding
uses in the area.
Compliance with parking and loadino requirenents asoutlined in Chapter 18.52.
All parking requirements will neet the Town of Vail
standards outlined in Section 18.52 of the Town of Vai
d zoning goge._ Eacll eupl_oy_ge_qq9:rli-ng-xnit-uill-be
T ri_t]r"lj" jt.ye-eng earaEe. parkinll€p1le.
4. Conformity with anplicable elenents of the Vail
Comnrehensive Plan. Town policies and Urban Desiqn
Plans.
parcel as one
whi dentialnuses.
Th el good
3.
K
$s
i1
the
asityare applicable Iandproposal:
sites in the
use policies
rs
applicable to the
ial
t
L.Lzr Vail should acconmodate rnost of the
additional growth in existing developed (infill)
areas.
5.1: Additional residential growth should
continue to occur prinarily in existing, platted
areas and is appropriate in new areas where high
hazards do not exist.
Affo 1eI be
*-€f vai1,
e
slity,
nediuf ifoll
5.
6.
The site is not located within any geologic hazardarea.
tion
the
7. A circulation svstem desiqned for both vehLcles andpedestrians addressino on and off-site trafficcirculation.
is
Lane which
be iredto neet Town of Vail standards
a and the Fireplat review are necessary.
Staff strongly recornnends that the four additional road-cuts along Lionsridge L,oop be denied. Public Works has
concerns with the existincr five road cuts off of
I-,ionsridge Loop for Lots 15-19. However, due to thefact that these nere approved during the original SDD
review and having these lots accessed frorn Lionsridge
I.ane vould destroy the
also r the
\lexisting five road cuts approval wiII be necessary in
\lorder to review the grades, orientation of the cut,
Ilproposed landscaping and drainage, and site distancellfor each cut.
Public works lras cited uaJor concerns about the fouradditional cuts due to inadeqqq-te visibillty q
No changes have been proposed to Lionsridgewill be a public road. The deyeloper will
5$grI
\ , ^ e\.\-r r,4\,r.(. ' 4--vJ.J.J. eI r.'+.
-,t^r\'Tnf,rt on_qoltirg-trglqfug-fton-.eacfr-nefu;=ffift?6€es-a
61Vtt*Mv\ v ,ii, safetv probleur. Access off of Lionsrldge Lane wlll also
\Yr \t' "wY-filEnEotrraoe site olannincr and architecture that willfr)v . f.Us :i€l.|.t3LY P! lirlJJ.lilr]. Atr\rED> t ll l, J- I'|J.9IrDI l'Il9g lclllg WIIJ,
\Y_., \t' .,.n5ry|rlirEnEofrage site planning and architecture that will
?^. (#1S{. break-up tbe-.nass and bulk of structures along(t) .'d^Lt\ Lionsridge r,oop. rnstead of having qlne-hpneqY b'"u ^:\-orientinq towaras_r,iE{:riasd E€p;=gI- fiv.e-Aiu face
r,'0\*\,r nofth. ihe-renainLng rour nomes wi-IT-l-{ce south. -iFE-e
.,6ri,1^r'ttr"\,t-.) 'devEl-oper is constructing a public road to serrrice theU)*.,,.?d proposed 1ots. It is sinply good planning to requirel 1
,rg,tb\l7q_ these lots (20-23) to utilize the road within the llLlili{l'" ^ subdivision. This solution in no rray coupromises thel
tlv "^.$S cornruon open space.
'- t,.d'\:--
0$,$lh
\Jl
special developrnent district is proposed.
Slte plan. buildincr desicrn and location and open space
veqetation and overall aesthetic cmalitv of the
cornmunitv.
rffi
n,$t. - primarv concern with thls proiect is that the site will
f '' i l,y, -Le,-rev6getated_E<=--..-soo;--aEEslfSrm
l(V!,ilry,,lLandscaping between residences ngs!-be substantial :rnd
v;d^:ifr; . not- slmietiicar rolive .a -noi@'d|'l' the'sirbtfiVisio-ni A qqgc-ps.gr-tic-.,Egli-exl,-of,-+he
Iandscapincr for eacIlGEE wirT occur by the DesiqnIandscaping for each sLte will occur by the Design
._jelltell-gdE:iu.
-
9. Phasincr olan or subdivision plan that will naintain a
8.
rt is o? rrnu"rstanding that the oni-ers of the property
are working with solar Crest Condorniniums to resolvetheir parking and access problem. Staff feels that itis only reasonable to lggpst a solution fron the
developer and not recnrire a solution as the problen istruly an issue which reguires cooperation on the part
the Solar Crest ownerg.
Functional and aesthetLc landscapinq and open space inorder to optimize and preserrre natural features,recreation. views and functions.
The landscape plan is generally the same for the conmon
space as sas approved under the original SDD. Ste.SfJs
Staff has no problem with the phasing plan proposed.
1,r*We encourage the developer to quickly pave Lionsridge
Tl Iane and revegetate the entire site that was disturbed' t-+brough the grading process approved last year.
STAFF RECOMMENDATTON
The Department of Coumunity Developnent recommends approvalof the prelininary plan for the major subdivision and the
revisLons to Special Developnent District No. 22 for thisproperty. The requested changes generally irnprove the
subdivision and wilt allow for a Dore archj.tectural pleasing
development of the property. The conditions- of approval forthe SpeciaL Development District and Major subdivision are
as follows:
The Special Developnent District shall be required to
include 6 enployee dwelling units. The developer nay
provide up to 15 enployee dwelling units if so desired.
The enployee dwetling units shall only be allowed onlots 2,31 61 7r 8r 9, 10, ].L, L2, t3, 14, L8t 2Or 2L,
23 that each have a GRFA of 3,171.
An enployee dwelling unit shall have a nininun of 400
square feet and a naxirnuro of 500 sguare feet.
An employee dvelling unit sha1l be incor2orated into
the structure of the prinary residence and shall not be
allowed to be separated fron the prirnary unit.
workable. functional and efficient relationshio
throucrhout the developnent of the special developnentdistrict.
v.
Each a^oyee dwelling unit snallOre one enctosedgarase parkins space.l$ \ !L SlorltN'
The enployee dwelling unit shall be restricted on apernanent basis as employee housing and shall meet therequirementE of Section 18.13.080 B 10 a-d of the Townof Vail zoning code.
Enployee dwelling units sball be prohibited fron havingwood-burning f ireplaces.
Enployee dwelling units shall not be counted towarddensity or cRtA for the subdivision.
Each owner sha1l be requLred to prepare an euployeehousing unit agreenent for Town approval and -ecording
at Eagle county before a buildlng pernit ls releasedfor the proposed residence.
The owner of the lot shall be required to document onan annual basis to the Town of Vail that the unit hasbeen rented as a long tetm rental per the reguirementoutlined in Section 18.13.080 B1O 1-d of the Town ofVail Zoning Code.
2. The requested four additional curb cuts shall not be
approved.
llhe Special Developnent District will not be effectiveuntil the ltajor Subdivision is recorded at Eagle
County.
The ltajor Subdivision shall be recorded at Eagle Countybefore a building pernit shall be released for anyconstruction on the subdivision including conmon
inprovements as well as individual residences.
The Torm of Vail Engineer shall have the right toreview and approve the five approved curb cuts for Lots
15-19 to ensure proper driveway orientation,
landscapinq, visibility, and drainage before a buildl-ngpernit is released for any of the units on these lots.
Ttre landscaping, sigmage, and wall design for the entryto the subdivision must be reviewed and approved by the
Town Engineer before final DRB approval .
W\\c-l-t 5r[o-- 161 o(dLcL.
These conditions of approval shall be addressed before afinal plat is subnitted to the Planning and Environmental
Connission for approval .
3.
4.
5.
6.
'',#d*f,Lionsridge Lane shall be reoriented to a 9O degree
angle where it intersects Lionsridge Loop.
A 20 foot roadway having a naxinum 4 percent gradeshall be constructed at the rnain entry into the
subdivision.tffie
o
3,*,.1r There stiall be a 20 foot tangentCJV'I curve at the access point to the
obefore the
subdivision
vertical
begins.
4.. ,4q-The drainage plan shall be revised to relate to the new
56r\e drainage criteria outlined in the report titled TR #55,
'\ dated June 1986.
5.'{\\lA revised drainage study shatl be subrnitted which
updates the Intermountain report dated January 1989.
6..- The Lionsridge Iane roadway profile Ehall be revised to
6d/') address the changes in grade on the site due to the
approved grading plan.
7.r,iol- A paveDent design based on soil conpaction tests shall
1l'6 be subnitted for the Town Engineerrs approval .
S. c'FThe drainage ditch along Lionsridge Lane shall be
vegetated with natural grasses as opposed to cobble.
9 s{A 10 foot right-of-way along eLther side of Lionsridge
g1W t-ane shall be provided
10. " All plans for the najor subdivision shaLl be updated to
ul[ iX show the revised lot Iines and existing grades.
11. The developer shall neet with the Fire Department andverify the nunber of useable hydrants for the project.
Ir.
*.
P*d-U^orrd,IsLi.\0
WffiE,,'.* g{,luAi{
[r"v, i8,lq1 )
SEPT. 4,1990
LOT 3 BLOCK
DAU PHINAIS-HOSELEY
ARNO LD/GWATH MAY/PRATT
11500 PROPOSED USE:
FILING LIONS RIDGE #1
PHONE # 476-8055
PHONE # 476-1147
S.F. RESIIDENCE
SINGLE FAMILY
DATE:
LEGAL:
ADDRESS;
OWNER:
ARCHITECT:
LOT SIZE:
NO. OF UNITS ALLOWED ON SITE
NO. OF GARAGE SPACES
GRFA ALLOWED ON SITE
ALLOWED SITE COVERAGE
SITE COVERAGE USED
SITE COVERAGE REMAINING
LANDSCAPE COVERAGE
TOTAL GRFA USED ON SITE
GRFA REMAINING ON SITE
ON SITE
UNIT ONE
GARAGE STORAGE MECH. STAIR AIRLOCK VOID
-4 -1 1 3 0 -64 0
1
2
3171
2874.8.
2577
297.8
0
3165
CREDITS REMAINING
r *r *t t rt t t t t t r r *
P FLOOR
R BASEMENT SQ.FT.
I 1ST. FLOOR SQ.FT.
M 2ND LEVELSQ.FTR.
A 3RD LEVEL SQ.FT.
R LOFT LEVEL
Y TOTALS
CREDIT TOTALS USED
CREDITS REMANING
GRFA ALLOWED
GRFA USED
GRFA REMAINING
TOTAL
142
2333
1438
357
0
4270
1 105
_76
317'l
3165
6
GARAGE
0
604
0
0
0
9gl
600
-4
STORAGE
0
99
75
37
0u-
200
MECH, STAIR AIRLOCK VOID
47000
08989 18
07508
04300
0000
47 207 '89\ 26 ,s---TOTAL GROSS SQ.FT:' 4270
47 207 25 26
30-640U
N
I
T
v'7
,&
1u^''t
RESIDENCE
:'t ETtt : :142 0 60 n 0
I So,Ft.2035 596 100 0 83 J:'24
1 145 0 1 13.5 0 D:+n 0
Oi.ETl:r,,:::n 0 0 0 0 0
fL(:,V:0 0 0 0 n 0 n
CREDIT TOTALS USED 1042 s96 200 50 147 25 24
CREDITS REMANING 304 -13.5 -1 0 0 -14
GRFA ALLOWED 2293
'' t,i '.irvt \ '
GRFA USED 2280
GRFA REMAINING 13
4-,^./')l'"tO
Y, r\
'\'l
. /tL
, ./.\ ,.!
/"..'''',t '
'..
| "), ) )
' /'1"./ ,L i\/tv l'--,
+
a
b
DATE:
LEGAL:
ADDRESS:
OWNER:
ARCHITECT:
LOT SIZE:
*r, FAMTLY
ocr 12, 1990
LOT 1 BLOCK
DAUPHIN IS/MOSELEY
ARNOLD GWATH /PRATT
2 FILING DAUPHIN
PHONE #
PHONE #
SUB.
476-8055
476-'t147
AIRLOCK VOID
-'t4 0
,!i
\'\
REDITS REMAINING ON SITE
NO. OF UNITS ALLOWED ON SITE
NO. OF GARAGE SPACES
GRFA ALLOWED ON SITE
ALLOWED SITE COVERAGE
SITE COVERAGE USED
SITE COVERAGE REMAINING
LANDSCAPE COVERAGE
TOTAL GRFA USED ON SITE
GRFA REMAINING ON SITE
GARAGE
304
RESIDENCE-
11805 PROPOSEDSE
1
3
2293
2951
2378- 573
0
2293
0
STORAGE MECH. STAIR
-7 -11 0
$
FLOOR
BASEMENT SQ,FT.
1ST, FLOOR SQ.FT.
2ND. FLOOR SQ.FT.
3RD. FLOOR SQ.FT.
LOFT LEVEL
TOTALS
CREDIT TOTALS USED
CREDITS REMANING
GRFA ALLOWED
GRFA USED
GRFA REMAINING
TOTAL
144
2035
1159
0
0
3338
1045
-i, K t'
MECH, , STA]R AIRLOCK VOIDGARAGE STORAGE
00
596 100
0 107
00
00sdo 207,
ol
0
-1 1
I0o
-14
<0
0
21
0
0
0z
3338
21
0
00
84 39
0690
000
000
{ f'ott tsg -99'TOTAL GROSS SQ.FT.
50 1531 2s-200
(oo
596
304
a/
RE
VOID
0
I
Pf,0
0
0
AIRLOCK
CREDIT TOTALS USED
CREDITS REMANING
GRFA ALLOWED
GRFA USED
GRFA REMAINING
0
304
0
0
0
304
ffit
1ST. FLbOR SQ,FT.
2ND. FLOOR SQ.FT.
LOFT FLOOR
TOTALS
TAKER.
GARAGE/o/o
0
0
FILE
PI,AITNING AI{D EWIRONUENTAL COUMISSION
January 14, 1991
STAFF PRESENT
Krl-stan Pritz
litike l{olllcaJIII Kannerer
Andy Knudtsen
Betsy RoEolack
called to order at 2zOO P.U. by Dlana Donovan'
COPY
PRESE}{T
Diana Donovan
Connle Knight
Ludwig KurzJln Shearer
Kathy tlarren
Dalton l{illians
ABSENT
Chuck crist
The neeting was
chal.rperson.
Iten #4 was dlscussed first, ln the interest of time.
4.
2. Block 1, Vail Lionshead Third Filincr.Applicant: Vail/Beaver Creek TelevisLon Network
Jill Kannerer explained the reguest, stating the app).icant wanted
to expand an exiiting televisioir studio located wlthin the Sunbird
r,oagd in Lionshead-(in the CCII zone district).- Ielevision
stafions are an altbwable first floor uge within this zone
district, provided a conditLonal use approval- has been obtaLned.
In order to meet the conditional use criieria in CCII, television
stationE nust have a production room/studio space whlch is viEible
from the street or pedestrian mall, ind the telev_isLon statlon must
be exclusively rrclblecastrt, which would require no additional'
antennas.
The existing station was approved in July of 199O. An addition to
the approv6d floor plan- would require an. amendrnent to the
condit-i-onal use permit. JilI revietfed the consideration of factors
and findings and Etated the staff recoromended approval of the
conditional- use pernit subject to the following condltlons:
1. The windos covering on the window which petnits viewing
of the north studio area frorn the Ll-onshead pedestrian
Mall wilr remain open when fllrning'/broadcasting
activLties do not require a controlled lighting
situation.
2. Tlre 91,443.90 parking fee shall be paid to the Town of
vail piior to iown iisuance of any building permJ-ts'
BilI Perkins, applicant, was present to answer questions. Kathy
wondered vhy ttreltaff recommehded the window coverlng renain^oPPn
when possible, and was told the purpose of regulring viewing of the
,r|I
buehee and trees.
Sid Schultz, architect for the proJect, statel that Pepi would
ratlrer not ilant evergreens, but wouta le willing- to put ln more
aapen, whictr would leave nore transParency in the winter. He would
also prefer flowere rather than large plants.
Ludi stated that he would Juet ae Boon tee asPen and leave more
opennesa next to the buitding. Dalton wondered if the stairs
slould be heated because they uould not be ln sun. Pepl replied
the stalrE would be under a roof and since they are on the east
side, vould not receive nuch snow.
Kathy felt a spruce would be nice to plant, because of tlre bright
green against the yellow wall. Pepi fett the evergreen trees would
grov up and be tob close to the building. He sugges_ted .a bush
Lnstead. Kathy reptied she would give Pepi tlre name of a tlpe of
tree that grows quite slowlY.
DLana felt eomething should be planted in the planters so it would
be vielble ln the winter tine above the anolt. She aIEo encouragedpepi to put everything back ln place eo that the deck would not
toof new. Sld -replied that they would probably ball-up-the
existing landscaping lexcept the aipens) and put it back in-place
when th6 constnrttl-on-was -done. .Diana also suggested continuing
ttre planter around the corner.
Dalton uoved to approve the request for the exterior alteration per
the staff nemo, i-ricluding the two conditions in the memo, with the
modificatlon tlat athe sfruce be replaced with a very slow growing
coniferous tree. Jim Shearer seconded the motion and the vote ltas
6-O in favor.
shelly aeked to table this Lten to January 28, L99L. Kathy uoved
and J-ln eeconded to table to L/28. The vote was 5-0 in favor.
In other bueiness, Jln shearer had volunteered to be the
representative on the DRB for the nonths of January' February
l,larch.
Kristan stated Iarry Eskwith, the Town attorney, had aEked to neet
sith the DRB at a *ter date to dLscuss various issues. She also
added the Town had trrro books on bel-ng a planning commLssLoner whlch
the DenberB were encouraged to read. Dalton suggested the Town buy
a copy of each book for the board nenbers.
5.
PEC
and
t'bro nenbgg tcr:mg t|terc to explre Febnrary letl lGthy lfarren,
Dalton tfl"lllane, and Chuck Crlst. They rcre encouraged to reapply.
lllre lcctlng :adjourn€d at 2:55 P.!1.
,.F
PUBLIC NOTICE
NorrcE rs HEREITvEN that the planni.,n .fn,rironmental
Conroission of.the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section 18.65.060 of the municipal code of the
Town of Vail on January L4, L99O at 2:00 p.rn, in the Town of Vail
Municipal Building. Consideration of:
A request for a conditional use pernit in order to a1low the
expansion of an existing television station, located on thefirst floor of the Sunbird Lodge aE 675 Lionshead Place/ Lot2, Block L, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing.Applicant: Vail/Beaver Creek Television Network
A request for an exterior alteration to the Lifthouse Lodgeat 555 East Lionshead CircLe/ Lot 3, Block I, Vail Lionsheadlst Filing.Applicant: Robert T. and Diana Lazier
A request for a front setback variance in order to constructa two car garage at ]-464 Aspen crove Lane/ Lot 10, Block 2,Lionsridge 4th Filing.Applicant: Carrol Orrison
A request for an exterior alteration to the Gasthof
Grarnshammer Building, in order to construct cornmercial ski
storage, at 23L East Gore Creek Drive/ Lot I, Block 58, VailVillage First Filing.Applicant: Pepi Gramshamner
5. A request for a najor amendment to Special DevelopmentDistrict No. 22, al-so known as the Dauphanais-Mosely SDD,located to the south of the 1600 block of Lionsridge Loop/
Dauphanais-Mosley Subdivision, FiIing One.Applicant: Pat Dauphanais
1.
2.
?
4.
The applications and infornation about
availabLe for public inspection in the
Departrnent office.
Town of Vail
Cornrnunity Development Departrnent
Published in the U"tt
^t^t^\t
on December
4 6urYwv' /
.'.^^l/' \ \,,o, \fW" N N \tA"
the proposals are
communj.ty Development
28, 1990.
,.-}\$^ *
ffi@
t.
PR
AIIO ADDRESS 'STATE PARCEL NUIIBER ANO LE6AL DESCRIPTIOiI
roredor county "tr5ii:l} 04:14:ro,, olr3l]r0., i,
oLllER Lrsr -' SCll
:1,:. : ,,
00llDz , JILL S.P.0. 80x.12E8
ED}|AR0Sr C0 E1632
2105-1ZZ-O2-0?2
TAX DIST O11O
SEC -'122 TrN-RNG.-2103
800K - 0516 PAGE - 0721
LION,S RIOGE SUBDIVISION
ELOCK 3 LOT 4SQR FT
17428
ACRES
SQR FT ACRES
:36427
:li
r0T - 022
{l
21750
t/
0009447
00llDr JILL S.P.0. Box 12E8
E0llARDSr C0 E1532
CLASS.0100
CLASS
11 30
1230
ASSESS
21750
ASSESS
?1750
orrrrrori.
21750
2103-l
IAX DI
sEc -
B00K -
LION,S
B LOCK
22-O2-A?3 :
sT 0110
12? rHN-RNG -2103
0516 PAGE - .0621
RIOGE SUBDIYISION
3,!0T 5
LoT - 023
il3:
CLA SS
0100
,/
oo1!?24 ''
CORHACKT CRAIG -
tlALSHr TH0l,lAS P. e SR.
4230 SOUTH 53R0 STREET f
LINC0Ltlr llE 68506
24
2101-0e1-04-013
TAX 0IST 0103
SEC - 091 Tl{tl-Rtlc -2101 LOT - 013
E00K - 0519 PAGE - 0196
YAIL GOLFCOURSE IOIJNTIOIIES
UNIT 13 8LOG. D
?
I
0030993 /
I{HITET O0}IALD E. t PA}IELA A.:
304 BRIDGE SI.
YAILr C0 El657
SQR FT
2e045
272E
ASSESS SOR FI ACRES6780 567242E90 2211
49670 :
ASSESS
5 060
32220
---------
372 80
AC RES
2't 03-122-02-026Tlx Drsr 0110'sEc - 122 TlJit-RNG -2103 LoT
800K -:0494 PA6E - 0269
LION,S RIDGE SUBDIYISIOI{ il3
PARCEL I TOI 3 TLI 3
35r.C0XPLErE
cLr ss
.1115
1215
I
ta
PROPE
AI.ID ADORESS
) 2lorl,do t
IY OIINER
^aGounty or elcil]o+:1i:54 01-oo-io
IIST - SCHE0ULE lil;f Pag'e 2
1. -:1.1
STAIE PARCEL I{UIIBER A}ID LEGAL OESCRIPTIO}I
CANT0NT ERUCE
2475 GARl,lIStl 0RrvE
VAILr C0 81657
2103-1 2Z-O2-O27
rAx 0IsT 0110
sEc - 122 TI{N-RNG -2103
BOO( . PAGE -toT - 027
ta
CLA SS
1115
1215
ASSESS SQ*-FT1500 15256
25970 1638
----a----'-
27470
LtON,S RIOGE SUBDIYISION
PARCEL E LOT 3 8LX 3
9OX COIIPLETE
" 2103-1 22-02-906
TAX DIST 011O
sEc - 122 THN-RN9 -2103 LOT - 006
800K - PAGE -
LION,S RIDGE FIt.2
BLOCK - LOT 4
:& JINE T.
LOOP
ACRES
AC RES
AC RES
ACRES
0033025'/
HART'I RICHARD TI.
1401-LIONS RIDGE
VAILr C0 81657,
CLASS
711?
7212
ASSESS SQR FT
11250 4791613150 tE54
rorrrrr-i'
2 4400
)(
CIRCLE EUILDERST INC.
LIONSRIDGE LOOP
c0 El657
ASSESS SQR FT2'.1750 46352
a1750
./:
R ICTIARO
4e055
SPRINGST C0 E0904
ASSESS SQR FT21750 30797
2103'122-02-009
TAX DIST 011O
SEC - 122 lLl{-RNG
800K - 0512 PA6E -
LION'S RIDGE FIL.
BLOGK - LOT I
00331
F ULL
1653'
VAI Le
C LASS
01 00
0033186
llU ELL ER rP.0. Eox
COLORADO
CLA SS
0100
-2103
0367
2
LoT - 009
2103-122-02-OO7IAI DIST 011O
sEc - 122 TI{t{-Rll6
800K - 0476 PAGE
LION:S RIDGE fILi
BLOCT . LOT 3
.---------
21750
n0\0-
SQR FT
i35EE0
1870:
TOTAL NUIIBER OF NA}.IES: 9
ORDERED 8Y: ARNOLD PTATT
9,.'++"W G'r!-
-ths Ecr,/- L,A^.-
tt gg l.I. e-"fr* t--J hJ'f,F
vri\ 6l t's 1
J; O*uQw
5.1'u Gt* A*o,'
,Feh*f J=t-t-
{;€ha V 1..^Ft-l=
f, r'
Gounty of EAGL|Io4z1lt'l 01-06-90
LIST -'SCnEDULE 'M Fago 3
'i'
STATE .PARCEL NU}IBER IND TEGAT DESCRIPIION..-'''
;---------
s
2
2
11
21
BtIN
iATRICIA
lorldor
Y OIINE R
ACRES
2105-122-02-008
TAX DIST 0110
sEc - 122 rrN-RNC
B00K -: ?AGE -
LIOTI ,S RIOGE FIL.
8L0CK -'LOT 2
-2103 toT - 008
2
67206
ASSESS
11250
13160
24410
To*r^ "p V1 |
1'001 Lions Ridge LoopVall, Colorado 81657
Novenber 13, 1989
golar cre€t ocnerE
- Welnschelnk Borus Ulller;
:,3773 Cbcrry Creek.North Drlve
DenvBEr Colorado 80209
ltg. ?atstcla Gould
P.O. Box 2393Vall, C_olorado 81658
'l!s, Vivlan SlegaIg/o Vlvlal Bllstrup135 Bcllalrc 9trcet,Denver, Colocado 8021C
!!s. Lisa Park
P.Q. Box 2207Vall, Colorailo 81658
Sr. Edpard J. Sitt
siesa efiateP€c
ttexlco l0 DF IIEXICO
Ms. Carol Ann Zinneguar
c./o Cotunbla Eavlngs
P.O. Bor L7127
Denvere Colorado 80217
SR\
\l5\ns\k
o.t '..€'DD tUo zz
htrpl,aau tt/ue/,
ORDINANCE 'IIO.13
Sorlor of 1990
AII .ORDINAIICS REPEAI,ING TIID REENACIING ORDINANCE NO. 23,
SERTES OF 1988, !O PROVIDE CBAITGES rO SPECTAT, DEVETOPI,IENT
DISTRICT NO. 22 IITAT OONCERII IdT SIZE A}ID CORFASPONDING GRFA'
ATD CT'RB CUTS' ATD EXIIPI'YBB DI|EI,I,INC T'NITS; AND ARCHITEETURAIJ
GUIDETJNBS' T}ID SgTTIXG FORTH DEtrAItS IN REGARD THEREIO
lfHEREls, Cbaptcr 18.{o ol th. vtll uuntclpal cod. authorr'r33
Speclal Dov€loprent Dlrtrtcte rlthln tha fount and
lltlEREAS, Itra Tonn Councl.l approved ordLnance No. 23, SerLee
of 1988 apeclal llevelopnent Dietrlct No. 22, and
IIUEREAS r Dauphlnals-t{oaeley constructlon haa requeBted to
anend the exletJ.ng speclal DevslopD€nt Dletrlct No. 22t and
tlHEREAsi, there Lg an ldentlfled n€ed for affordable houeing
ln the coruunlty t and
IfHEREAS, the Town of ValI har not adopted fotnal pollclee to
encourage the developoent of affordable houslnE unlts; and
wItEREAs, the Speclal llevelopDent Dletrlct Provide8 for
creatlvity andl flexlblltty to allou for tbe developDent of
affordabla houeing I and
|{I|ERE,AS r fhe Plannl.ng and Envlronnental connlger'on hae
recomended that eertaln chang€3 be nade to Special DeveloPnent
Dlstrl.ct No. 22 t and
ttHEREAs, The Towrr councl.l conelderg that lt 1l reaeonable,
approprl.ate, and beneflcial to th€ Town and lte cltlzena,
lnhabitante, and vlsltora to rePeal and reenact ordlnance No. 23'
Serles of 1988 to provlde for euch changee In apecial D€velopnent
Dletrlct No. 22. Dauphl.nais Subdlvlalon.
NOI{, THEREFORE' BE IT ORDAINED BI TITE TO9I}I COUNCIL OF TTiE
TolfN OF VAILI COIpRADO' TtlAts Ordlnance No. 23' Serlee of 1988 la
hereby repeal€d and rcenacted to road a8 follows:
Sectl,on 1. A[endnent Proc€durea FulfLlled- Plannl'nd conmlaslon
Report
'lttre approval procedure prescrlbed ln Chapter 18.{0 of tha Vall
l{unlclpal code hav€ been fulfltled, and th€ forn councl'l bas
recelved tlre report ot the Plannlng and Envlromental Connlaeion
recouuendlng apProval r of thc proPoE€d dav€Iopn€nt plan for
Spcctal D.vcloprent Dlatrlct No. 22.
Gi€ctl,on 2. Sp.cLal D.veloDnent DlstrLct No. 22
spectal D€vcloplent Dlatrlct No. 22 (SDD22) and th€ developnent
plan thcrcforo' aro hcreby apProved for the dev€lopt0ent of late 1
through 19' Bloc|c 2, LlonerldEe Subdivlelon Flllng 3 wlthln the
Town ot Val.l conaletlnE ol 10.69 acr€a
a. "o
(
SectLon 3. hrrPose
Speclal Davelopnent Dlgtrlct 22'lt estabilshed to ensure
conprehenelv€ dev€Iopment and uB€ o! an lrGa that ulll be
harnonloue ulth th€ Eeneral character ot the Toun ol ValI' |Ihe
developnent la rogardcd aB corPl'Dcntary to tho fonn by the Tonn
councll and Daot3 all dealEn rtandardl and crltcrla aB Bet torth
ln Sectlon 18.40 of the uunlclPal Codc' There are alEnlflcant
aapect3 of Speclal D€vslopn€nt Dlrtrlct 22 ttrat are dlfllcult to
aatlafy through the funpoeltlon ot tho rtandardt of ttre underlylng
prinary/accondar-y zone dl'etrlct' Speclal D'eveloPDent Dlstrlct 22
alloua for greater flextbtllty ln the developncnt of the land
than rould ba polelble under the current zonlnE of the property '
the snaller tlnglc-farnlly Iote provlde tlre opportunlty for a
comnon oPen spac€ tor th€ eubdl'vl'elon aa uall as the Dean8 to
preserv€ the routherly rldlge llne of the property ' Speclal
DeveloPnent Dlstrlct 22 ProvldoB an approprl'ate developnant plan
to Preaerv€ the vleual qualtty of the llte fron wlthln the
eubdlvlelonaewellaBadJac€ntpropertleclntheconnun|'tyl'n
general.
Ihe develoltDcnt Plrn for sDD 22 ll approv€d and thrll
constltute the PIrn tor devalopnent rlthln the speclal
Developnent Dletrlct' fhe developnent PIan ie couprlsed of
tlroae Plans subDlttad by Dauphinal3-Ioseley conttructlon and
conBlEta of the follosl'ng docuDents whlch ulll be flnallzed
at the t{aJor subdlvLalon final plat rcvleu:
1. Site devalopnent PIan' Llonsrldge ReguMlvlclon of Lots
l-19' vall, colorado, Arnold,/Gwathtrey,/Pratt lrcbltects,
A.
2.
3.
dated llarch 22, L99o '
conceptual landacape pl!n, Arnol'l'/GwathDey'/ltratt
Archltects r dated llarch 20' !99O'
Flnal plat of llonsrldEc SuHlvlslon Flllng No' 5' a
resubdlvlslon o! Ipte 1-19' Block 2' and t'lonarldge
I!n., t ion3rldEe subdtlvlrlon Slllng No' 3' Torn ot
vall, Eagle County, colorado gheete 1 and 2'
InterDountalnEngineerlngl.lDlted'dat.aAprll19'
1989.
constnrct lon, gradlnE and dralnage drawlnEa lor a
reeuHlvtclon of IPIE 1-19t Block 2' and t'lonarldge
Irn., Lt'on3rldge Snbdlvlrlon Flllng No' 3' Tosn ot
val.I, 8a91. county t colorado' Int€trountaln EnElneerlng
Dlnited, Ehsets 1-8, dated llarch 9' 1989 to be
thaf tzea at the tlnal Plat rcvlcw for tho rubdlvlelon'
8olla and Foundatlon Inveetlgatlon for r'ots 1-24'
Llonerldge 5th Flllng'
4.
(5.
E.
6.
Itre
1.
2.
Lloncldge color Palott., trnold,/cvath!.y/Pratt
ArchLtects. t{arch 1990.
developnent etandardg shall be as f,ollowg:
'Acr€ao6: The totll acrerEo of thls rlte le 10.69 acr€3
or a65r650 aquare feet.
PemLtted Ugee: The pcnltted ugea for sDD 22 .hall
be:
a. Singl€ fanily rorldentlal dnolllnga
b. Op€n Epace
c. hrbllc roade
d. Enployee dwelllng unlts aa deflnetl Ln Eectlon 5,
paragraph G of thlg ordinance.
CondLtl.onal Usea:
a. Pubtlc uttltty and .publl,c retrrlcc ugea
b. hrbllc bulldlnga, qrounde and facl.Iltlas
c. Publ lc or prlvate echools
d. Publlc park rnd recreatlon facllltleg
Accegaorv UaeE:
a. Prlvate greenhougeB, toolaheda r playhouses,
garageB or carlrorta r sulnrllng poola, patloa, or
recreatl.on facllltleE cuetonarlly lncldental to
alngle-fanily usas.
b. HoDe occupatlons, aubJect to lseuance of a hoDe
occupatlon pernlt Ln accordance ulth the
provl.eJ,ons of Sectiong 18.5s.13o through
18.58.190.
c. oth€r utea cuatomarlly incldental and acceaaory to
pernitted or condltlonal us€8, and necessary for
the operatlon thereof.
Iota sLzes and ltaxLnun GRFAg:
3.
4.
(
5.
IOT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
1tl
15
16
L7
18
19
20
2L
22
23
21
SIUE
11r 805
16r 248
11r 5OO
11,805
L2.L97
11,5OO
11.543
11, 021
11, il56
11r979
10 r 803
12, 981
15, 159
1l, 151
g 1494
8. t91
8
"19410, O62
9, ltl8
9r8O1
LO1237
9,1O9
1o.321
9.196
I'iAXrilnu
-s8EA-2,293
3r1?1
3, l?1
2.293
2 12913r171
3r171
3, 171
3r171
3r171
3, 171
3r171
3r171
3r171
2.293
2.293
2.2933.t71
21293
3, 171
3rt?L
21293
3rL?L
J'-.2'21
68,2O2
o o,
6.S.tbacks: lllnlnun setbacks ahall be aa lndlcated on
tb€ approvod eltc devclgpoent plan by
Arnoldr/Gwathney,/Pratt'Archltects, dated l{arch 22, L99O.
Rool o\rcrhrngr ahall be alloued to cncroach up to 2l
lnto tho requlr.d .ld€ .€tback of tor for .aclr lot.
An unonclo3ed, unroofad, dack or patl,o at grade lay
encroach lnto thc r..r r€tback by 5r tor lots 1-14.
Dengltv: Approval ol thlr d.velopDent plan 3hal1
pcralt a total ol 2a .l.ng1o-faully dwelllng unltr on
the cntlre prop€rty. A llnhuu o! 5 eDployer drellJ.ng
unltr 3ha1l be lncorporatod lnto any 6 of thc rlngle-
laully unitc. A laxiDur ot l5 errployee drellinE unltE
(lncludlng the alx r.gulrcd croployee unlta) lay be
lncluded rl,tbln 15 ol the elngle-fanlly unlta ll
dcalred by tb. dcv.lopGr or Lndl.vl.dual lot owner.
BuLldind Hel.qht! For a flat roof or ran3ard roof, the
hetEht ol the bulldtng shall not exceed 3or. Por a
eloplng roof, the helght of the buildlng shall not
.xcs€d 33.. The hclght calculation .hall b6 Dade by
uearurlng fron thc cxlrtlng grade as lndlcated on the
tntet nountain BnginecrlnE folrographical Suney drted
ltrrch 13, 1990 or flnlehsd grrde. Helght shall be
calculated per ScctLon 18.0{.1?0 of the tlunlclpal Code.
8Lt6 coveraoe ! Not lorc than 25 percant ol the total
gl.te area on each lot 3ha11 be covered by bulldlngs.
PffElDSf Parhlng 3hall b€ ae regulred ln Sectlon 18.52
of the Valt nrntclpal cod€. Each €nployce duclllng
unl.t ahall be required to have at l€aat on€ 3nclosed
garage plrklng .pacc.
Dcgiqn GuLdellneg: The devalopnent of sach lot shall
be gruided by the archltectural and landBcaps deslgn
guldellnea aa approved aa part of th€ Speclal
D6v.lolment Dlstrlct l|o. 22. fbe guldelln.B are !3
follous:
a. ArchLtectural. lhe archl.testural dralgn of the
bulldinge upon tlta .lto slrall b€ auch tbat
buildlngs relatc harmonlously to .ach oth€r. lthle
la not to lnply that each bulldlng rust look
oxactly rl.lllar to thorc around lt. but that
copattbtltty b. aclrleved tlrrougb the u33 of
lcale, trtcrlal. rnd colora, and bull'illng 3hape
and forn. The overrldlng concern la that, upon
conpletlon, the Spacial DevslopDent Dl.trict,
becauE6 of, thc cluetered nature of thc snall
3lnEla faDlly lote gLtuated around coson open
rpaca r rhould lPPear to bs an lntcgrated
developncnt poaeosslng a coDnon archl'tcctural
quallty, cibaracter, and rPPearanco. To thi.e end
the folloulng general dealgn crlterlr thall be
followed by the develop€r andl lndlvldual lot
(
7.
8.
(
9.
10.
11.
ounerS:
l. Oprlettc of co. -irr ;hall be t" Orottr, -.lth.
llonrrldge color Palrtte troD
Arnold/cvathDey/Prrttdat.d Uarch 1990. colorB
arc lndlcated tor tbe ugc on dlfferent typea ot
bullaltng latorlala and clenents auch aa stucco
colola, rldlng colon, lstll flashlng, wlndout,
accGnt colors, otc. Tlrs prlctto of colora
lndLcate a llngg of acceptabls colorr ln ordcr to
oncourag. rhllarlty on on. hand' but aleo
dlverelty rltlrln th3 acccptable Bnge.
11. lltrc folloslng bullallng standards and Drterlal3
rhall be adher€d to :
(1) Roof. 'lh€ roof pltch rhall b. a tllnlDrr[ 8,/10
and a laxlnun oL L2/L2. A cl'lPPod or hlpped
gablc roof .ball b€ Dandatory. 'lrtre rooltng
latcrlal thall be cedar thalcs ehlnglos rlth
rtaggered butts.
(21 chlpnevB. llbe chlnnoyr 3hall ba etucco rlth
cblurey capr of reatlrcrcd coPP€r.
(3) Fluea. AIl flues Bhrll be galvanized or
npal.nt lolln rlreet Dotal ' palnted to Datch
the roof.
({) tdal.n FaecLa. Ihe laln faecl'a .hall b. a
tolld color gtaln, ulth brorn, tauPe, or
gray.
(5) Sccondarv Pagcl'a and uetal RallLnas abovc the
EtXELEilggE- The secondary faacla and letal
ralllngs abov€ the flrlt floor .hall b€ an
accent trlu color of luted ltreonr red or
blu€.
(5) tfallE. Walle rba1l bo of stucco and
horl.zontal vood aldlng. stucco colort 'hrllbe gray, belge or oft-ohlt€. Wood aldlng
oolora ahall be gray, broryn or tauPe '
(?) Elenb Recldcnces wlll have a llnlnun ol a
tuo toot hlgtr rtone ualnscot ln ralnbow rdx
ulth a aandstone caP lround tho PertDeter of
th. ttructur..
(8) nl.ndorg. wlndowc thall be reccleed ! llnlEun
ot teo I'nclree tron ttre outslde rall planr and
hava a .andston 8111. Trln lhall bs rhita '
tauPa or bronn.
(9) outdoor LLohtLnd. outdoor Ughttng rhall be
tndlreet vlth a concaal.d 3ourc. axcept lor
an .ntry e,handollar rhlch lay b. .4)orcd
globrl rlth a ll':rturr ot btrck or reath'red
cooPar look rotal.
(lo) Cgjq$f* lfo garagc doora chall dt'rectly face
th. atr.ot.
(
(
lur A reeldent -l rddresa/nau.f it del }ed by
the ornsr .hall be located dithe elde ol thr
grrage lrclng the acc.Et polnt to the lot.
IanilEclDlr . tllien the lndlvldual l.ndacaP.
plan6 .ro dcalgned for lndlvldual lotB,
rpeclal caro 3hal.1 bc taken ln the deslgn ol
rtde yard landacapl.ng I'n order to ;lrovldc
adequata rcrcenl,ng bstgsen structureE.
L2. Recreatlonal hrnl'tl'eB Trx: 'lbe r€crertlon
' alenltl'€a tax .hall be aeaolsed at th€ rate tor a
elnglo-fanlly r.sldentlal tono Alstrlct'
sectLon 5. condltLonr ol lDDro\tal
A.aPgclall,€v3loPD3ntDlrtrlctNo.223hal1notb3€ffectlv.
untl! the naJor subdlvlrlon ta approved by the Plannlng and
Envt ronnental Coulsaion and l': recorded by the Town of vall
at th. Baglo County cl.rk rnd Rrcorderl offlce'
E.lltrelaJorrubdlvlslonrhatlb€r.cord€dattheEaglecounty
clert< and R.corder r. oftica b3for3 a bulldlng pernlt lr
releaaedforanyconstructlonontheeubdlvlslonlncJ'ud1ng
co[non luproveuenta a8 uall ae lndlvldual rerldencee '
c. The Toun ot ValI Engl'neer shall havo ttre rlght to revl'cw and
approvs the flve (naxlnun nunbert curb cuta for lots 13-23
accesalng off of t toneridge IPoP to ensure Proper drivevay
orlentatl'on, landscaPlng, vielblllty, and dralnage beforo a
bulldlng penlt ls releaeed for any of the unl'te on theec
lote. Back out drivewaye are prohlblted for theae lots'
D. Tha deve}oper ghall eubuit a landscaplng, algnage, and wall
deslgn for th€ entry to the eubdlvlal'on for revlev and
aPProval by the Town Englneer before tlnal Dealgn Revieu
Board aPProval.
E. llhe developer 3ha1l conatruct a glderalk along ttre north or
eouthe.ldeofl,longrl.dgel..ne.ThcdsvelopsrDayconEtruct
the€ntlresl.der'alkunderthePhagelbulldlngPenttorDay
construct tha .ldeualk ln subsequent phaaea of constructlon '
As elch tot t'a developed' the portlon of ths eldesalk
adJacent to the lot ahall be conatructed subaequent to the
lgauance of a bullillng pernlt and prlor to the lseuanco of a
tenporary ccrtlflcate of occupanclt for the unlt on thc lot'
F. The developor tball be responalble tor constnrctlng a but
sh6lteronttreregtorcaeteldeo!theantrylntotbe
tubdivlelon 1! and uhen the Towr o! Val'l dcrnc lt lg
approprlatc to provlde bua renrlce to propcrtlee adJacant to
Llonarldge loop and/or I'f ttre gchool Dlstrtct dcterolncr I't
1r approprlat3 to I'rovl'de Lnrg senrlce for LlonsrtdEe LoP
property ornerr. The bua 3helter dealgm 'hrII be lutually
acc.Ptable to the dev'loP€r and Toun of Valt' llha bus
shelterglrallaleoberequlredtorecelveapprovalfroDthe
Deelgn Revlcw Borrd'
b.
(
(
I' G.'lhe dev$ent o! specla. tDevclopnent of"]a xo. . lvlll
have !.rnpactr on the avallable enploye€ houelng rlthln the
Upper Eagle valley Area. In.order to help leet thle
addttlonal enployee hou.ing nced, tha dcveloper ol aP.clal
Dcv.lopDent Dlrtrict No. 22 rhall provlde ruployec houalng
on,rlte. Ihe lollorlng rortrlctloD ahlll apPly to all
.Dploy€e drelllng unltg rlthln 8DD lfo. 22:
Th€ d.velopcr rhall build a llnlnun ol alx onployee dwclllng
unltc rlthln tlro subdlvlrlon. Each €Dployre duelllng unlt
rhall have a llnlnrn squaro foot gs ol aoo aquare fa.t not
to 3xe€ed 5Oo square feet and ls alloued to have a ldtclren.
Ths GRFA and nruber ot euployee unltt .haII not be count€d
toward allowlbl. danslty or GRFA for Speclal Dev.loPnent
Distrlct llo. 22. The devGloPer lay provtd. uP to 15
.nploy€e drelllng unlts Lncludlng the 6 regul'red drefllng
unlte lf ao deglred.
ths enployce dwelling unl.ts nay be located on any ot th.
lots ulthln tho subdlvialon provldLng all the develoPDent
standards ar€ Det for sach lot. only one enployee drclllng
unlt ehall b€ alloued Per lot. An et0ployes duelllng ahall
be lncorporatcd lnto th€ structure of the prlnary r"ldence
and shall not be al lotted to be separat€d fron the prlnary
unLt. Each cnPloyee dwelllng unlt chall bavc one 'nclo8edqrrag€ parklng sPac€. Thle parklng 3pace sball not bs
detached fron th€ eingle-tanily garage or structure ' Tlre
enployee dwelltng unlt 3h411 be prohlblted lron havlng a
uood burnl.ng tlreplaca. Each pb.so ot conrtructlon rhall
Lnclude a ulnl'num of one enployce dwelllng unLt untll rlx
enployee duelllng unlte are conatructed and avallabla for
rental.
fh€ onployse dwslllng unlt rhall be rcatrlcted as a rrntal
elploy€e dvelltng unlt pcraan.ntly. 'lrlrc luploye€ dsslllng
unlt ahall not be leaeed or rented for any perlod of lces
than 30 congecutlve daya, and that tl rcnted, lt shall be
ronted only to tcnanta sho lre full-tlDe e[Ploye'3 In ttre
Upper Eagte valley. The upper 8a91. valley lha1l bo dccned
to lncluda tlre Gore vallcyr tllnturn, Rad cllff, Gll!!an,
Eagl€-vall ' and Avon and thclr eurroundlng area8' A full-
tha cnployea I'r a P'erson eho uorhs an av'rage of 30 bourr
pcr r€ek. An drployee duclllng unlt rhall not be dlvldcil
Lnto any tor:! of t.lDe-lhar., I'ntsnrat ornrrlhip, or
fracttonal t.c or.n.rahLP. |!h. .Dploycc dwolling unl't rhall
not be told, tranatsrr.d or convcyed t'parately fro! tho
rlngle fanllY unlt.
I
(
rne ownerf.ach enploye drrlllng unlt rrrfe re,,- Irod
to declarc ln rrltlng on an annual baelr to the lown of ValI
that the ruployac dwelllng unlt has been rGnted aa a long
tet:n rental p.r thc regutrolents outllncd ln tlrle lectl.on.
ltrle declaratl.on rhall includr a rrl.ttcn .tateDent frou the
ornar llstlng th. rsntcr | 3 na!c, plac. ol aDployDent. and
lcngtlr of tln. thc unlt rar r.nt.d. Th. dcclarrtlon rhall
b€ rogulrod to bc aignedl by both the lot orner and r.nt€r.
A dcclaratlon of covcnant. and rcstrlct.lonr ghal.l be llled
on r.cord ln tha offLce ot Ur. l|gle County cl€rk and
Rocorder ln the lor:u approvcil by the forn Attorney for the
brnef,lt of the forn to .nrur. that thr rcetrlctlone hcrcl.n
.hall run rlth th€ hnd bofore a bulldlng p€ntt Lg released
for the conctructlon of rny fDlrloyae dvclllng unlt. Th.
Torn of vall rhrll be a Darty to thle crployec houslng
agrsslent.
ll'ho devcloper rnd Toun rhall anter lnto a d.v€loper r I
agreelent vhlch ehall provld€ that no tlnal plat for
cubdlvlelon .hall be elgned by the Toun unlssB eecurlty ie
provlded by ths developer to enaure conplotlon of tho
r€qulrenentB 8ot forth ln Condltlona D, Er and F. lhe
recurlty eet arlde for the buE shelter ln Sectlon 5F ahall
be revlewed by the CoDrunlty DevelopDant ltePartrent after
tuo year3 fron the dato the flnal plat Lr recorded to
deternlne lt the bu6 th€ltar ahould b€ constructed. The
comunlty Devolopnent DePartnent shall requlre that the
B€curlty be extcnded an additlonal two yeara if tha
connunLty DevelopDent DePartnent detetirln€a tt nay be
neceaBary to con3truct the buB shelt€r tfter the tlrst 2
year perlod.
lihe archt testural and landccape deal'gm guldcllnee .hall be
Lncorporatcd lnto thc lrbdlvlelon covtnants bafor. thc llnal
plat la racordcd at th. Bagls county cl€rk and Recorderr.
offlce. lllre Soun of valI shall b€ party to th€se
agreelents.
lthe flrrt plrar. of constructlon for the rubdlvlelon lhall
lnclude constructlon of, rarl'doncea on t t! 1' 2, 3, {, lnd
2{, proj oct .nttry Plan cotDpletl'on, flnal gradlng of couoon
open Epaca r tnd rsvegetrtlon of natlve graas€B on all
dieturbcd portlon3 of thc rubdlvlelon, pavlng of L,lonrrldge
Lne, aII utlutles constructrd and rtubbad to lndlvldual
Iots, at 9aI1 at dralnage lnprovenentr.
Ith. second through tltth phaees ehall lnclude constructlon
of { to 5 unlts Per yoar untll tb€ proJsct 1g bult't out.
(
H.
I.
.'.
h€nd!.nt. to Sprclal Dev.loprcnt Dl.rtrlct No.
I
rhall follos
tlre proc€durat contll.ned ln Scctlon 18.{0.100 of the vall
xunlclpal codG.
gcctl.on ? . Expl.ratLon
Ihc appllcant lurt bcAln conrtnrctlon o! thc speclll D.volopnent
Dletrlct rl.thln 3 year3 troL the tbe ot lts flnal approvrl, and
contlnue dtllgently torard coDplGtlon of the project. If tbe
appllcant does not b€gln and dlllgontly rork toward thc
couplctlon of tha spcclal D.v.lopr.nt Dletrlct or any .tagc of
the Epcclal Dcv.lopDGnt Dlstrlct rlthln the tlne llnltr luposed
by th. precedlng rubsectl.on, the Plannlng and Envlronnental
Counlaclon ghall revles the Epeclal Developnent Dletrlct. Ihey
Bhall r.com.nd to the ..8osr Councll that clther the apProval of
the Specl.al DGv3lopnent Dlstrict b6 €xtsnded, that th. aPproval
of the Ap€cltl Developnent Dlrtrlct be revoked, or tbat th€
sp€cial Dcvcloprent Dletrlct b. alended.
sectLon 8.
If any part, rectlon, BubsectLon, eentance, clauae or plrraee of,
thla ordlnancc le for any r€ason h€Id to be lnvalld, such
declelon shall not affect the valldlty of the renal'nlng portions
of thlg ordlnancei and the Torn council hereby declareg It vould
have paesed thir ordlnance, and Grch part, aectj.on, subsectlon,
rentenca, clruso or phras€ thereof, rogardleBa of thc lact that
any one or !!or€ parta r rectj,ona. aub8cctlons, sent€ncesr clauaes
or phraaee by declared lnvalld.
6ectl.on 9 .
The Town Councll hereby findr, dctcrmlnae and d€clar€a that thls
ordinanca ls neceasary and proP€r tor the health, raf3ty and
uelfar€ of the Torn of Vall and lnhabltante thereof-
sectl.on 10.
ftre ropoal or thc rcpeal and rclnectucnt of any provlrlon. of
vail Hunlclpal cod€ as prorrldcd ln thla ordl'nance ehall not
affect any rlght uhl.ch ba3 rcsru€d ' any duty tnpoacd, any
vl.olatlon that oocurred prlor to tbe effectlve dat. h.r.of, any
proaecutl,on cornenced, nor any othsr actlon or proca€dlng as
comencad und.r or by vlrtue of th. provl'alon repealed or
repealod and rccnacted. lthe r.PGaI of any provteion boraby ahall
not revlve tny Provttlon or any ordlnanc€ prevlouely ropealed or
euperecded unlcgr axpres.ly .tat.d hcreln.
s€ctLon 11.
AII bylarar ordara, ralolutlona and ordlnancGr, or Parts thtrsof,
Lnconglrtrnt hrrrulth are har.by r.Peal.d to tho .rtcnt only of
such lnconrlrtoncy. :lhla rcpcaler lhall not bc construGd to
revl.ge any bylau' order' rerolution or ordlnance, or part
thercof, hcretofore repealed.
o
22
Il
(
(
: t
,*:DucED, J*o pAssED oN FrRsr REjrDrNc *!l r* day o!
Aorll , 1990, and a publlc hearlng
ordtnance on tlrs -,lg! day ol
in the Counct l ChaDber of the Vall ttuniclpal
colorado.
' Aorll
Ehall b€ held on thle
, 1990 at 7130 p.D.
Bul.lding, VaiI,(
ordered publlahed Ln fuII thlg -,,fuL day of
ATTEST:
AITEST:
Panefa A. Bran&oeyer r Toun clerk
Aorll , 1990.
Parela A. Brandneyer, Tottn clerk
INTRODUCED, READ NTD APPROVED ON EECOND RE.ADING Al{D ORDERED
PUBLISIIED ln full thts _!Z!b day of _E!L,
Yl--'<-^
1990.
t..I
SUBDTVTSTON TIi{PROVEMENTS AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and, entered into this J{U U^, ot ilUA,tST ,1990, by and between DAUPHTNATS-MoSELEY coNsTREroN; 1nffiffiercalled the trsubdivider'r), and the TowN oF vArlr thereinaiter called.the rrTownrr) .
WITNESSETH:
I{HEREAS, the subdivider as a condition of approvar of the FinalPlat of Dauphinais-tt[oseley subdivision Filing No. 1, a Resubdivisionof Lots 1 through 19, Block 2, and Lion's Ridge Lane, Li.onrs RidgeSubdivision FiJ.ing No. 3, Town of Vail, nagle Ccunty, Colorad,o(hereinafter called the trPratn), wishes to enter into a -subdivision
Inprovements Agreenent; and
WHERIAS, the Subdivider is obligated to provide security orcollateral sufficient in the judgment of the Town to urake reasonableprovisions fof cornpletion of ieri,ain inprovernents set forth belowi and
WHEREAS, the subdivider wishes to provide collateral to guaranteeperformance of this agreenent, including construction of the above-referenced J.nprovements by Deans of the following:
An irrevocable letter of credit, or cash escrow in the amount of
$121,775.OO, which shall provide the security for the following:
IMPROVE}fENT
a. Road Preparation and paving*
b. Sidewalk, curb and guttent
c. Bus stoP**
d. Off site drainage***
., €. Revegetation****
* As per plans and specifications.** As per plans and specifications and costs of John Gallegos.*** Computed at 1008 of total cost of i22,O7S.OO.
**** security already provided by previous subdivision rmprovementAgreenent and related Letter of Credit.
Now THEREFORE' in consideration of the folloving nutual covenantsand agreernents, the Subdivider and the Town agree as follows:
cosT
$68,700.00
$25, 000. 00
s 6,000.00
s22, 075. 00
$ 5, ooo. oo
't
)
t. The Subdivider hereby agrees, atto furnish all equipment and naterialcomplete, on or before the following dates:
IMPROVEI,IENT
a. Road Preparation and Paving
b. Sidewalk, curb and grutter
c. Bus stop
d. off site drainage
e. Revegetation
its sole cost and expenses,
necessarT to perfora and
DATE OF COMPLETION
Octobet 1, 1990
October l-, 1990
90 days from request
by the Town of Vail
October 15, 1990
Novenber 1, 1990
The Subdivider shall complete, in a good worknanlike nanner, allpublic improvements as shown in the final plat docunents for theSubdivision in accordance with all plans and specifications for theSubdivision filed in the office of the Connunity Developrnent
Departrnent, the Town of Vail , and to do all work incidental thereto
according to and in coropliance with the following:
. a. A11 final plat docunents suburitted prior to or at the tine. of final plat approval .
b. A11 laws of the United States of America, State of Colorado,or Aown of Vail and its respective agencies, affectedspecial districts and/or service districts.
c. Such other designs, drawings , rnaps, spec j.f icati.ons,sketches, and other natter subnitted by the Subdivider to
be approved by any of the above-referenced governnentalentities. All said work shall be done under the inspec+-ionof, and to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer, the TownBuilding Official , or other official fron the Toern of Vail,affected special districts or service districts, as theirrespective interest nay appear, and shall not be deenedconplete until approved and accepted as conpleted by the
Town of Vail Connunity Deve1c;:::.nt Departnent and Public
Works Department.
2. The estirnated cost of said work and inprovements is the sunof $126 ,775.00.
To secure and gruarantee performance of its obligations /as setforth herein, the Subdivid,er agrees to provide security and collateralas follows:
l,
An irrevocable letter of credit frour First Bank in the amount of
91071450.00 on a foro acceptable to the Town Attorney or a cash
escrow in the anount of $1o7r45o.oo to be held by Land Title
Guarantee Co., as escrow agent, which in addition to the previousletter of credit for the revegetation shall provide the securityfor the improvercents set forth above if there is a default underthis Agreeuent by the Subdivider. The balance of the funds inthe amount of 914,325.00 sha11 be in the foru of a certified
check to be held by the Town.
3. The Subdivider nay at any tine substitute the collateraloriginally set forth above for another forn of collateral acceptableto the Town to guarantee the faithful cornpletion of those public
irnprovements referred to herein and the perforrarance of the terns ofthis Agreernent. Such acceptance by the Tovn of alternative collateral
sha11 be at the Townrs sole discreti.on.
4. The Town shall notr' nor shall any officer or enployeethereof; be liable or responsible for any accident, loss or danage
happening or occurring to the work specified in this Agreenent priorto the conpletion and acceptance of the sarne, nor shall the Town, nor
any officer or employee thereof, be liable for any persons or property
injured by reason of the nature of said work, but all of saidliabilities shall and are hereby assumed by the Subdivider.
The Subdivider hereby agrees to inderonify and hold ha:mless the
Town, and any of its officers, agents and eurployees against anylosses, claims, damages, or liabilities to which tlre Town or any suchof its officers, agents, or enployees nay becoure subject to, insofar
as any such losses, clains, danages or liabilities (or actions in
respect thereof) that arise out of or are based upon any perfornance
by the Subdivider hereunder; and the Subdivider shall reinburse the
Town for any and all legal or other expenses reasonably incurred bythe Town in connection with investigating or defending any such loss,claim, damage, Iiability or action. This indennity provision shall bein addition to any other liability which the Subdivider nay have.
5. ft is nutually agreed that the Subdivider nay apply to the
Town for partial release of the collateral deposited with the Tonn for
each category of improvement at such tine as such inprovenents areconstructed in compliance with all plans and specifications as
referenced hereunder and accepted by the Town. By way of example,
upon completion and acceptance by the Town of the road preparation andpaving of such road the sum of $68,700.00 shall be released.
5. If the Town detennines that any of such iraprovements as
contemplated hereunder are not constructed in cornpliance with theplans and specifications set forth herein it sha1l furnish the
Subdivider a list of specific deficiencies and shall be entitled tocontinue to withhold collateral to insure such courpliance. If the
Town determines that the Subdj.vider will not construct any or all of
the inprovements in accordance nith all of the specifications as set
forth herein, ttre Town nay give the Subdivider written notice and
unless such inprovenents are conpleted within a reasonable period of
tine based upon the anount of work necessary to complete the
irnprovements the Town nay withdraw and enploy fron the the letter of
credit or from the cash escrow such funds as may be necessary to
conplete the unfinished inprovements.
ff the Town of Vail has not requested the Bus Stop to be
constructed on or before october 15' L994, the Subdivider sha1l be
entitled to release of the security covering such construction.
7. The Subdivider rarrants a1l work and naterial for a period
of one year after acceptance of all work referred to in this Agreernent
by the Town.
8. The Town agrees to execute and record the plat inmediately
upon execution of this agreement and payrnent of recording fees by the
Subdivider.
9. The parties hereto nutually aetree that this Agreement nay be
amended frorn tine to time, provided that such arnendments be i.n writing
and executed by all parties hereto.
10. This Agreement shall be enforceable against the Subdivider
provided, however, that in the event the Subdivider sells or transfers
Itt of the subdivision, as shown in the Final Plat, the obligations of
the Subdivider under this Agreenent nay be assumed by the purchaser of
the Subdivision and Subdivider shal.I have no further obligations
hereunder. It is agreed, however, that no such assumption of these
obligations shall be effective unless the Town gives its prior
approval to such assumption, following an investigation of tlre
financial condition of the purchaser.
11. It is further agreed that the Subdivider shall at all tines
until the acceptance by the Town of the,roads offered for dedication
in the Subdivision, gtive good and adequate warning to the traveling
public of each and every dangerous condition existing in said roadway
and will protect the traveling public fron such dangerous condition.- -ff is understood and agreed that until the cornpletion of all the
inprovernents berein agreed to be performed, the roadway shall be under
the charge of the Subdivider for the PurPose of this Agreement-
DAUPHINAIS.MOSELEY CONSTRUCTTON
P.O. Box 15L5pffiz:1Va
By
SuzR^r*rg e . bAUpttr^/Frrs
S<.RerAR9
o
ATTEST:
By:
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGLE
ttt ' L/L/,(z--r'- _Notary evb\icfu1l7gi
ADaytZO ?/ez-t
ss.
The foregoing sqFdivisionbefore me this -tfr aav of rovements Agreement was acknowledged
Dauphinais as President and
, L99O by Patrick G.
of Dauphinais-Moseley Construction.4 as S;(.'€14'r<1/
Witness rny hand and official seal.
My conrnission expires on: tL/t A/qq
ss.
rne roregorng suDcttvls].olt Inprovenents
::Pj.?. ,neutnts Wfy or A3;J- ,
Agreenent g'as. acknowlBdged
1990 by /,,dLPt U, fUutK
^"6tN l'l,&rc{and- 7
of the Town of Vail .
Witness ny hand and official seal .
My conmission expires on:
srffiffiffiHis;
The foregoi-ng- fubdivisio,4 Inprovenents Agreement
1ru- lo, \qqDl
hr1\,tnb
J t\t\. $r'rperru1 (rlJ 6q'bons R'qt
I S&rmQL kr*hdso
t, [\ot^r,sn $K]h lrlocrc.,nl* Dri,rq"\
-f l(yicol R
^d
Srd''o".- add- o^,lu 0 sl^u+
U., rs ; 1q D,,*nw^q \orC,^ {.2* W \l*-t r\
itt to+v a.fl--w \*(,ry)
ilitot sntirn o\ dfid" /t'v o{ en .b
iA {ru,uW {r qp *\ru- .dS\ rPac{A {ru.uW {u xo *\ru-(1f-|(\ $.N^tl{"\%,.
q .ft''odpdat s t"urlLl*t brror-
.o^ilet Nrq4r\ +'\r^odru l*e+rytriC
fuDL€UO O
u. it* \,'ff' tot u^ffiff o*^.
; 1*-c,.,* c, Ac.oaa/Utt t;{,u:
{
:)
U, $ {\."arls W np,rL- 'ql*dt*1l o\*{
, 'IDGU.',,--'
ffi
v{0
, Uip'"t\olkr ,,-,twn $qJufr\o''
, corUt J t/fu, o(si\ii uMs.M,.eW
l, [46t4 hy * lsl r.txi a'ad c,rey\ 6Er4'
cl*l
fd{r t/D
to"l t- 13
tied: D"ll.tiu l0l,t
Pter Ju&t'Plao' LL/t' 7b
-f0e ?,tr
@*f\ IJ#V J: tD.L r,t(
a o
@@ {',rp-t
6]o\--l lD3,
A,QD AO\-/ rDrC. ..rv
(6 aoytOjr
/t
/D
lp
o
/ tuddail wa
w,rwpt{ t6fr;r/ rn / tounvJ axrfuA la fi/"&orrrrtv{ ,6rt,r{ rn / dounvJ rwt"I la fi/"'rto/,*fat': d@fu#d#fu* :i
fuaq Aa'(l-(lrntt
[
-':: '
Plp,rrut ; -rlt-l&h ii:+,d] ; J q-Y- L-<-(/(y'-4/t
:// i
Iu
,o\.
$614[tna'tl----
t
L ot\[( urol' HtW$*.t r,.,& a,u.
,L on urt -ra$^'a"vrU
tA I \nth\,'c!. F ,flU4Cn. ,, 1\'hU lxPItrR il aK
I
Vo\\,r' 2 oookrn u6 btcrno" \t -itnU,b crrk caft oh, h crr,"bt^qn[ ^ lb i D', cnrlil rr4a+ ssu{n.
n. \' - .f\
${/-^. aotY$t^^Q ud\ }D'b }tl'
U
L
n r r\\ r I r I rr | -An -^t 0 , lt[irm]I' t\rnTks ild\ oL- f\^r^JLba nllali{d % W' ururp-
1r,
{uil^,t'qr \i\aD 1 $rt,{gc\(, 0 \dilI \bL \ilg a_ h& ,{ "- ilrltLii U
6niluw0n\
0rnnlnroP-,,tnt\ oL
a\lhe& rnin. A- fne\L \S
wrlh,.. fu,v.
$t ?\ooa \ u,ri{ Jn^PM uni\
(".J^PhA- rnuri l^^vo \'.l.wy)uyu r,hi+
s
, S&xJd0L allan* uR*'Uu Lq,lt O -
'
$uo $00{er Uuo& nd!
- tr*f no{-b l'" ddac\qd-{r r^fhpudt
SDD , rruhqn: \ftnern PL@*ro^^&''L'u' eild, ffi{iD$SNd P S^d"8hsDD
D*ffi', ffiU**t lF@*
@f3r[: ffi o\ 4{a- uo\r '? 1o \t
't S\eW- \ on^?'l\arun*.
0 .{ Addd\ Qr^b 0rt0 AQln}qd
@ [W1lL o-Qr,'^a \). rdt 4, Ll^,"d6ek"{
Bw\fD U^.W 6q- 0
treli^^ Sa,n t\tfq" Nannen"
J-^t $1\\t"^r )-c
The conrnission then discussed the 1041 application. scheduled
;;iri a; rhe pubtr;;;;;G; ind-rhen pro-ceeded with Iten No. 3.
They would go uaci to rten No. 1,-ifpiovar of ruinutes at the end
of the agenda.
Item No. 3:
Kristan Pritz explained that tlre reguest was to finalize the
pi.ii*i".ry ptan- pieviousfy -approved unanirnously ol tlarch 25'
1990. The Torirn n-"gi""", tia i:iranged the sidewalk location to the
south side of tne lGaivision to.d to allow for better drainage'
The staff recommendation was for approval of ttre final plat with
conditions as found in the memo'
Pat Dauphinais explained that there would no longer be a
detention pond u"'iliiii-f"--it"-"iigi"al proposal. As explained
il;il;-d"' prerinii.rv-prlt ieviewl rhey wou-Id be addressins
drainage as "cornpierreirsivery and extensively" as possible in
conjunition with lrublic works.
Diana asked who the adjacent property owners w-ere and Pat
responded that the Aoolt Lodql las t-o the soutfr and Tract B to
the east wat e"s"tents. Pat-added that the biggest concern of
the conrnission during the last neeting w-as street cuts along
Lionsridge f,oop ana- f," aia consolidat6 ttre number down to 5 at
tfr. fott -council review of the project'
A rnotion to annrove the Finql PIat fqr a T?l?r subdivision
ror sop tlo. zz e@ ponditipng--?s fortows
seconded bY chuck Crist'
Conditions;
1.. The PEC chairperson shall siqn the ptat- when-the
;nent has-been- f inalized
ffitt .ttoitl"". attd Town Attornev'
2.
Construction.
VOTE: 7-OINFAVOR
a
Uh^t4 '-qlryL't
\"^'4
O /\n^-"$
EO:
rRolt:
DATEs
SUB..T:
Planning and Environnental Conmission
Connunity Development Department
l.lay 14, 1990
A reguest for a final plat for a major subdivision for
SDD No. 2? , a resubdlvlelon of, I€ts 1-19, Block 2'
Lionsridge Filing No. 3.Applicant: Pat Dauphinal.e, Dauphlnais-t'toseley
Construction.
I.Final Plat Review
The Dauphinais Subdivision final plat, as presented by the
applicant, substantially conforns to the previously approvedprelininary plan. Such preliminary plan was unanimously
approved by the PEC on March 26' L99o' by a vote of 7-0.
II. Staff Recomnendation
staff believes that the Dauphinais Subdivision final plat is
in cornpliance with the intent and purposes of Chapter
L7.L6. 110 of the Town Subdivision regulations (Major
Subdivision Review Criteria) and the Town Zoning code.
The staff recomnendation is for the approval of the finalplat with the following conditions:
1. The PEc chairperson shall sign the plat when the
Subdivision Ilnprovenents agreement has been finalized
and approved by the Town engineer and Tolrn Attorney.
2. The Subdivision Inprovenents agreenent shall provide
ttre lown of Vail with sufficient collateral to
guarantee construction and installation of their
iequired improvements per the Town Engineer, PEC, and
connunity Developrnent reguirenents.
TO:
FROI,I:
DATE:
suBt:
Planning and Environmental Co'nnission
Corununity Development Departnent
Uay 14, 1990
A reguest for a final plat
SDD No. 22, a resubdivision
L'ionsridge Filing No. 3.Appllcant: Pat Dauphinais,
Construction.
for a major subdivision for
of Lots 1-19, Block 2,
Dauphinais-ltfoseley
I. Final PIat Review
The Dauphinais Subdivision final plat, as presented by the
applicant, substantially conforrns to the previously approved
pretininary plan. Such prelininary plan was unanimously
approved by the PEC on March 26' L99O, by a vote of 7-0.
II. Staff Recoumendation
staff believes that the Dauphinais Subdivision final plat ls
in conpliance with the intent and purposes of chapter
t7.L6.1ro ot the Town subdivision regulations (Major
Subdivision Review Criteria) and the Town Zoning code.
The staff reconmendation is for the approval of the final
ptat with the following conditions:
1. The PEc chaLrperson shall sign ttre plat when the
Subdivislon Improvements agreement has been finalized
and approved by the Town engineer and Town Attorney.
2. The Subdivision Improvements agreenent shall provide
the Town of Vail with sufficient collateral to
guarantee construction and installation of their
reguired improvenents per the Town Engineer, PEc' and
conmunity Development reguirements.
To: Planning and Environmental Comnission
FRoM: Conmunity Developnent Departnent
DATE: February 26, 1990
su&f: Request for a worksession on Amendnents to the Final
Plat and slncial llcvelopnent DiEtrict- *22'
Resubdivision of Lots 1 - L9 , Block 2, I-,ionsridge
Filing #3.Applicant: Dauphinais-lloseley Construction
I. Backqround
Special Developnent District *22 ltas approved by the
Planning and Environrnental Commission in August, 1988,.and
was adopted as ordinance #23, Series of 1988 by the Vail
Town Council. Special Development District- #22 currently
consists of 24 single fanily lots, an open space tract, and
a nelt public road. Total size of the existing Special
Developnent District is 10.69 acres.
The original zoning ltas prirnary/secondary. Nineteen lots
were approved. The SDD reguest reduced the total number of
dweffing units by L4. Tottl GRFA allowed upon this site
under Prinary/Secondary zoning was 84r905 sguare feet. The
total GRFA approved is 68'204 square feet resulting in a
reduction of 161701 square feet.
In April of 1989, the PEc approved an arnendrnent to the
grading plan for the subdivision. Ttte applicant felt that
by regrading portions of the property, the oPen space becarne
more usable and that ttre lots became more buildable by
elirninating steep road cuts and other access problems. A
drainage plan was also subnitted in conjunction with the new
grading plan.
At this time, the Special Development District has received
final approval . The plat has also received final approval .
However, the final plat will not be recorded at the County
until the following conditions are met:
1. The Design Review Board has approved specific
design guidelines for the project, a landscape
plan for conmon area, and a specific landscape
plan indicating the entry and lighting area for
the subdivision are aPProved.
2. A subdivision agreement will need to be subrnitted
to staff for approval.
rr.
3. A topographic survey will need to be subnitted tostaff in order to compare the new topography tothe grading plan pernit. Soil reports on
cornpaction of the fill sha1l also be subnitted tostaff for apprgval . This site shall also be
cornpletely revegetated no later than the fall of
1.990. A letter of credit has been subrnitted tothe Coronunity Developnent Department and expires
on Novenbet ?, 1990 for the revegetation work.
The Recruest
following changes to the Special Development District
roajor subdivision are requested:
A. Lot sizes and rnaxirnun GRFA:
The existing Special Development District assigned
specific anounts of GRFA to each lot. The
applicant is requesting to receive approval for
two nodels which rtould be used throughout the
subdivision. uodel A has a GRFA of 3171 squarefeet and rnodel B has a GRFA of 2293 square feet.
L5 lots would use rnodel A and 9 lots would use
nodel B. 1.
The
and
Model
Model
lotslots15
9
A
B
x
x
3,L71 GRFA = 471565 GRFA
2,293 GRFA = 20,638 GRFA
B.
Total = 68,202 GRFA
Setbacks:
The setbacks are requested to be amended as
follows:
1. Lots 15-19 Lionsridge Loop from a 20 foot
front setback to a five foot front setback.
2. Lots 20-24 Lionsridge l,oop frorn a 20 foot
minimum setback to five foot front setback.
3. L,ots 1-14 Lionsridge Lane frorn a 20 foot
minimun front set back to a 10 foot front
setback.
4. Lots 15 and 16 Lionsridge Loop from a 15 foot
minimurn rear setback to 10 foot rear setback.
c.
D.
The applicant would like to have an additional
four curb cuts off of Lionsridge Loop. Presently,
only six curb cuts are apProved off of L,ionsridge
Loop.
Arnendment to the phasing plan: Below is a
description of the construction phasing for the
project:
Phase I
-Lots 2 and 3 (Model A)
-Lots 1, 4 and 24 (Model B)
-Project entry plan execution
-Final grading of cornmon open space and
revegetation of native grasses and all undeveloped
portions of the project.
-Paving of Lionsridge L,,ane (5rr asphalt).
-A11 underground utilities in place and stubbed to
individual lots.
Phase II - Phase V (1-991 - 1996)
The development district shall include
construction of 4 to 5 units per year until the
project is built out.
Major Subdivision:
The applicant is requesting to realign lot lines
for almost aII of the L9 lots. rn addition, an
easement will need to be reptated for utilities.
E.
III. STAFF COI{MENTS
A. At this tirne the staff does not have a list of lot
sizes and the corresponding GRFA for each lot.
Staff would be concerned that the GRFA is in
proportion to the new lot size.
B. Staff is requesting an updated environmental
inpact report from Peter Janar in respect to
view impacts and additional driveway cuts.
would also like to see the drainage for the
project addressed. It is our understanding
large detention pond is proposed on the west
of the subdivision. we are concerned about
appearance of this drainage solution.
the
We
that a
end
the
I
c.Staff feels strongly that specific designguidelines for the project should be developed.
The guidelines should be incorporated into the
Special Developnent District ordinance. We wouldlike to see the design standards and model typelisted per Lot. We also suggest that nore than
two models be incorporated into the subdivision.
we are concerned about the project appearing to betract housing. This issue was raised during theoriginal review when each lot was proposed to be
developed by a separate owner using specific
design guidelines.
At this tine staff can not support the additional
curb cuts off Llonsridge Loop. We believe tbat
many of the driveway cuts could be combined to
decrease the anount of asphalt.
staff is concerned about the view impacts of the
residences along the South ridge of the
subdivision and along Lionsridge Loop. When the
approved site plan is overlayed on the revisedsite plan, it appears that the units are locatedfurther to the edge of the ridge. The units
should also be staggered along Lionsridge IJoop sothat the development does not appear as a wall
when looking fron Lionsridge Loop to the soutb.
Staff would fike to see a more specific Landscapeplan that ca11s out the nunbers of naterials,sizes, tlpes and lighting. Detention pond
landscaping should also be addressed. The
Iandscape architect Ehould identify which portions
of the landscape plan are to be constructed by the
developer and which portions of the Landscapingwill be planted by private lot owners. !{ore
specifics on landscaping are needed in the right-
of-way area along Lionsridge Loop. Public workswill also need to look at the landscaping closely.
Staff is asking the developer to discuss with
Solar Crest possible solutions for parking and
access. Presently, Solar crest owners cross the
Lionsridge subdivision in order to access and
park.
This Specialto the finalthe project
Developnent
Developnent District needs to be tiedplat so that staff is assured thatwill be developed per the SpecialDistrict.
F.
D.
E.
G.
H.
'D^^N*^ VIub }?qD
o u t-a \lct,n(C V/t-.I n u
''*dm
uI Urra--
I
I
\
\I\
\ - .--' I n.. \ r \\ J^t ?. \rarl Slazunrpz* rrd.rcatt. ,,
*i
1: ?toro r.v\ N s,dz 4 vuaC tv Qe.- Spoa
\D 5ut., f*\. M*,t,^o^l
-Dtolitv-fu,v\r^+ a.\ drS--io-fL\rllnt ' u c
l#
-\lnr1 nr l'ltll. USQ- o- Wr{- qwA.u,aA- ovgW Iu dfnr'rsq7 ?ip-a- &d1ac0"."\ 1pbi6 0 u u r\
'
,,'N /,t 'lJ- W4r',tCI42 rr5
v
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SU&fECT:
Planning and Environrnental Cornrnission
Departnent of Connrunity Development
l{arch 26, L99o
A request for a ltajor Subdivision and arnendment to
Special Development District No. 22, resubdivision ofLots 1-19, Block 2, Lionsridge FilinS #3.Applicant: l,lr. Pat Dauphinais, Dauphinais - Moseley
Construction.
I.DESCRTPTTON OF TIIE REOUEST
The developer is requesting to nake adjustnents to the naJor
subdivision and Special Development District No. 22 for thisproperty. Special Development District No. 22 tras approved
by the Planning and Environmental Cornmission in August of
1988 and was adopted by Ordinance No. 23 Series of 1988 by
the vail Town Council . Special Developnent District No. 22
currently consists of 24 single fanily lots, an open spacetract, and a new public road, Licnsridge Lane. TotaL sizeof the existj-ng Special DeveJ-opment District is 10.69 acres.
The original zoning allowed 19 prinary/secondary lots for atotaL of 38 dwelJ.ing units. Total alloued GRFA vtas 84,905
sqluare feet. The approved SDD reduced the nunber of
dwelling units to 24 and decreased the GRFA by L6,7oL sqluarefeet. The total approved GRFA is 68.204 square feet.
The najor subdivision plat also received final approval fron
the Planning Conrnission. However, the final plat has not
been recorded. The developer is reguesting changes to the
najor subdivision plat which will reguire prelirninary plan
review as well as final plat review fron the Planning
Co'nrlission. The following changes are requested:
1. AUENDMENT TO I'T SIZES AND CORRESPONDING GRFA PER I,oT:
The slight changes to the lot sizes and corresponding
GRFA per lot are listed below:
IOT
I
z
3
4
t
6
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
L6
l7
L8
19
20
2L
22
23
24
2.293
3,L7L
3,L7L
2,293
2,293
3,L7L
3,L7L3,t7t
3 rt7l3,L7L
3 rL7L3,L7L
3,L7L
3,L7L
2,293
2,293
2,293
3,17L
2,293
3 |LTL
3 rt7L2,293
3,L7L
2.293
68,2O2
APPROVED PROPOSED APPROVED
I.oT SIZE I'T STZE GRFA
L4,375 11,905 2,95O
14 ,375 L6,249 2,g5O:lt,76L 11,500 2r94O
LI ,326 11r905 2rg3L
10r 454 L2 rL97 2,gOOLO,454 11,500 2,800ILr326 11r543 2rg3L10,890 LL,O2t 2,800LL,326 11r455 2,931LL,76L lr,979 2 rg40lor 89o 10r 803 2,8OO13,058 12r 981 2 r95O15,246 15,159 2 r95Oll ,326 11,151 2,931
8 ,?L2 g ,494 2, 900
7 t4O5 gt4g4 2rg0o
9 ,L47 8,494 2,800
10r 019 LO,062 2,80091148 9,148 2rg0o
10, 019 9 ,801_ 2 ,goo10,019 lO,237 2,gOO
91 583 9 ,4O9 2,90010r454 LO,324 2,80091583 9,496 2,800
68,2O4
Changes to the setbacks arenore realistic sitinq of theSite coveragte, GRFA, access,
considered with the proposed
o
APPROVED PROPOSEDPROPOSED I IGRFA GRFA,/SIZE GRFA,/SIZ8
2LZ 19t218 20*258 28+25* 19?28* 19*28* 2e*25* 27*26* 29*25* 28t2st 262262 29t23t 24219t 2L*25t 282322 27*38t 27231t 27*2e* 32231t 25228+ 32228* 31829t 24*274 31t29+ 24*
requested to allow for a
houses on each property.
and parking have been
setbacks. No encroachmeBls
setbacks for roof
Ilowever, this
an exterior unenclosed
At this tine, the developer is not proposing specific
Dodels for the entire subdivision. Phase I developnentincludes construction on four lots. These four lotssill use either Model A or Model B. The total GRFAproposed (6a,2O2 square feet) is almost the sane as theoriginally approved GRFA of 68,204 square feet.
2. CHANGES TO SETBACKS:
The original approval called for a 20! front setback, a
1Or side setback, and rear setback of 15 feet. It
should be pointed out that there was sorne conflict
between the originally approved development plan andwording witlrin the SDD for front setbacks for lots 15-19. The SDD wording calls for a 2Or front setback.
The developnent plan drawing indicates a Or setback forthese lots.
are alloned into roved
a ployee
housing unit nay allowed to encroach up to 4 ft.into the required side setback.
encroachnent is only allowed forstair.
o
Front Setback
o
Rear SetbackLot
1
2-L3
T4
15, 16
201
10r
201
14 1
15 1
15 1
15 1
35r
Adjacent to
Lionsridge Lane
15 1
Side Setback
101
10'
101
10 1
10 1
Appx. 971
See Developnent Plan.
Varies from 35r-75rin order to minirnize thevisual inpact of houses
along the ridge area.
45 1
1l
Lots back-up to conmon
open sPace.
5lIot backs-up to conmon
open sPace.
17
18
19
20-23
101
10r
101
101
10r
201
24 15r
North side adjacentto Lionsridge Loop
10 1
3.
4.
CI'RB qUTS:
Five curb cuts are requested off of Lionsridge Loop for
Lots 20-23. At this tine four road cuts accessing off
of Lionsridge Ioop are approved for Iots 15-19.
EMPI,OYEE DWELLING TINITS:
The developer wiJ.l be required to provide 6 employeeunits on lots having an allowable GRFA of 31171 squarefeet. Up to 15 enployee dwelling units including the
required six enployee dwelling units nay be located
wi€hin the larger homes if future Lot owners so desire.
Each enployee units shall neet the following units:
A. GRFA range of 400-500 square feet.
B. One enclosed (garage) parking space.
C. The unit shall be permanently restricted as an
ernployee dwelling unit and shall meet the
requireroent in Section 28.L3.080 810 a-d of the
Town of Vail zoning code.
D. No wood-burning firepJ.aces shall be alloned in
these units.
5.
E. Tbe owner of the property shall be required to
docunent on an annual basis to the Town of Vailthat the units have been rented as long-termrentals to persons neeting the reguirements inSection 18.13.080 B10 a-d of the zoning code.
f. The enployee dwelling units shall not count
towards density or GRFA for the project.
ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELTNES :
The developer proposes that the Architectural DesignGuidelines be incor?orated into the subdivision
agreement which will be recorded at Eagle County. Thegruidelines rrill also be incorporated into the Special
Development District. These guidelines are as follows:
f. Architectural. At the tirne of revieqr of specificarchitectural plans provided for any developmentof sj-ngle fanily structures within Special
Developrnent district No. 22, t\e Town of Vail
Design Review Eoard shall, in addition to the
Design Guidelines set forth in Chapter 18.54 ofthe Vail Municipal code, consider the followingguidelines in the review and approval process.
The architectural design of the buildings upon thesite shall be such that buildings relate
harmoniously to each other. This is.not to inplythat each building must look exactly sinilar to
those around it, but that cornpatibiJ.ity be
achieved through the use of scale, materials andcolors, and building shape and form. Theoverriding concern is that, upon completion, the
Special Developrnent district, because of the
clustered nature of the srnall single fanily lotssituated around comrnon open space should appear to
be an integrated developrnent possessing a conmonarchitectural quality, character, and appearance.
To this end the following general design criteriashall be followed:
a. A palette of col.ors shall be as set forth
below and presented to the Design Review
Board for their review and approval . Colors
are indicated for the use on different tlpesof building materials and elements such as
stucco colors, siding colors, netal flashi-ng,
windows, accent colors, etc. The palette ofcolors indicate a lelgg of acceptable colorsin order to encourage sinilarity on one hand,.but also diversity within the acceptable
ranqe.
ortnsb.The following building foshall be adhered to :
and naterials
1. Roof. The roof pitch shall be a nininum
8/10 and a uaximum of L2/L2. A clippedor hipped gable roof shall be nandatory.
The roofing naterial shall be cedar
shake shingles with staggered butts.
2. Chinnevs. The chinneys shall be stuccowith chinney caps of weathered copper.
3. Flues. A11 flues shall be galvanized ortrpaint Lolstr sheet netal , painted to
natch the roof.
4. Main Fasia. lfhe main fasia shall be asolid color stain, with brown taupe or
gray.
5. Secondarv Fasia and Metal Railinqs above
the First Floor. The secondary fasia
and netal railings above the first floorshall be an accent trim color of muted
green, red or blue.
6. Walls. I{alls shall be of stucco and
horizontal wood siding. Stucco colorsshall be gray, beige or off-white. Wood
siding colors shall be gray, brown or
taupe.
7. Stone. Residences will have a nininurn
of a two foot high stone wainscot in
rainbow nix with a sandstone cap around
the perirneter of the structure.
8. Windows. Windows shall be recessed a
rnininun of two inches fron tbe outsidewall plane and have a sandstone sill.
Trin sha1l be whiter taupe or brown.
9. outdoor Liohtinq. Outdoor lighting
shall be indirect with a concealed
source except for an entry chandelier
which rnay be ocposed globes with afixture of black or weathered cooper
10.
look metal .
caraqes. No garage doors shall directly
face the street.
11. A residential address/nameplate if
desired by the owner shall be located on
the side of the garage facing the accesspoint to the lot.
ff. LAndscane. _ At the tine of review of landscapeplalg provided for any developrnent of single-
lgrify structures within the bpecial Deveiopnentdistrict No. 22 the Town of vail shall, in -
addition to the landscape giuidelines sit forth inChapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code, considerttre following gruidelines in the ieview anaapproval process:
a. EntIv L?ndscaninq and liqbtinq: A planindicating the landscape treatlnent -of thenain project entry shall be submitted andapproved. The goal of such a plan shall bethe following:
1. present an identifiable entry point tothe subdivision containing plantmaterials, ligbting, and signage of ascale appropriate for the size of thedevelopnent.
2. Provide appropriate screening to therear yards (along Lionsridge Loop) ofLots 20-24 which blends in with theentry treatnent.
3. Provide appropriate screening along thewestern edge of Tract C.
b. I{hen the individual landscape plans arepresented for individual lots special careshall be taken in the design of side yardlandsc?ping in order to provide adegultescreening between structures. Active outdooruse areas should be located within front andrear yards.
c. The concern of the Board shall be to inprovethe natural appearance of the Subdivision andthe maintenance of such appearance. Ownersand their representatives or builders will berequj.red to:
1. .Mininize disruption fron grading.
2. Revegetate and restore ground cover forerosion and appearance reasons.
3. Use indigenous species of plantnaterials.
4. Select the man-nade elements that blendand are conpatible with the land.
5. Use existing or natural drainage paths
rrhenever possible.
5. Consene and protect topsoil, rockforrnations and unique landscapefeatures.
PHASING PINN
The first phase of the Development District (1.990-91)shall include the following inprovements:
-Lots 2-3 (l.todel A)
-Lots L, 4, 24 (Uodel B)-Project Entry Plan Conpletion
-Final Grading of Connon Open Space and Revegetation of
Native crasses in all Undeveloped portions of theproject.
-Paving of Lionsridge Iane
-A11 underground utilities in place and stubbed toindividual lots as sell as drainage improvements.
The second through fifth phases (1991-1995) of the
Development District shall include construction of 4 to
5 units per year until the project is built out.
II. EVALUATTON OF CRITERIA FOR !.TAJOR SUBDIVISTON, PRELIMTNARY
PI,AN REVIEW
The rnajor subdivision section of the zoning code in
17.15.110 PEC Review Criteria states:
'rThe burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to
show that the application is in conpliance with theintent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning
ordinance, and other pertinent regrulations that the PEC
deems applicable. Due consideration shalL be given tothe reconmendations nade by public agencies, utility
conpanies, and other agencies consulted under Section
17.15.090. The PEC shall review the application and
consider its appropriateness in regard to town policies
relating to subdivision control., densities proposed,
regulations, ordinances and resolutions, and other
applicable documents, environnental integrity, and
cornpatibility with the surrounding land uses and other
applicable docunents, effects on the aesthetics of the
town, environmental integrity and compatibility with
the surrounding Land uses.rr
It is inportant to realize that the proposal is a
resubdivision of 19 existing duplex lots. A special
Developrnent District and l,tajor Subdivision have already been
approved by the Planning Conmission and Town Council which
aLlowed the developer to resubdivide the 19 existing duplexlots into 24 single fanily lots. In general , the changes to
the proposal do not have any najor inpacts on the
subdivision criteria. Due to the fact that the proposal
represents a resubdivision of an existing approved
subdivision, a reduction in allowable density, has nosignificant environmental inpacts and is conpatible with
surrounding low to nediun density residential uses, the
proposed plan is supportable.
6.
III.
staff did not reguire an additional environrnental inpactreport for the changes reguested. The proposed changres do
not necessitate a revised environmental irnpact report.
rV. SPECTAL DEVEIIPMENT DTSTRTET CRITERTA
1. Desiqn conpatibilitv and sensitivitv to the imnediate
environment, neiohborhood and adiacent prooerties
relative to architectural desiqn. scale. bulk, buildin<rheiqht. buffer zones. identity, character, visualinteqritv and orientation.
The existing SDD has actually been inproved in respectto the design of the project. The increase in setbacks
along the ridgeline on the south side of the
subdivision will improve the visual integrity of theproject. The previous SDD caIled for only a 15 I rearsetback. Under the new proposal setbacks will range
from 35 to 75 feet.
The developer is also including specific architectural
gruidelines for the SDD. The guidelines have been
reviewed by tbe Design Review Board and have received
conceptual support. These Guidelines will encourage
consistent material , roof forms, and substantial
landscaping which will benefit ttris project as well
adjacent property owners.
As with the previous proposal , the project does deviate
fron the standard regulations governing mass and bulk
for the single fanily residential zone district.
However, the staff feels that these deviations are
acceptabJ.e due to the overall density reduction and theprovision of a targe connon oPen space which can be
used by residents within the project.
Uses. activity and density which provide a compatible,efficient and workable relationship with surroundincr
uses and activitv.
With the arnendments to the SDD, the density renains
essentj-ally the sane except that the developer iswilling to include 6 enployee dwelJ.ing units into theproject. The developer nay also build up to a total of
15 enployee dwelling units if he so desires. In
previous Special Developnent District approvals, thestaff has never counted enployee dwelling units for
GRFA or density purposes. Assuning that the developer
builds 5 enployee dwetling units, the project wouldstill be under the previous allowed density of 38 units
as 30 units would be built. If the developer builds 15
employee dwelling units along witb the 24 single fanilyunits, the project will be only 1 dwelling unit over
the originally approved 36 unit amount.
2.
3.
EnpLoyee dwelling units are proposed to be located
above the garages on the lots having the larger GRFAallotnent of 3r171 square feet. The developer isproviding the tlpe of ernployee housing unit which has
been deemed very attractive as there is minimal inpact
on the neighborhood and the enployee housing units are
dispersed throughout a large area. Staff believes that
the developer has proposed a very conpatible,efficient, and workable relationship with surrounding
uses in the area.
Comnliance with parkino and loading recruirements asoutlined in Cbapter 18.52.
All parking requirenents will rneet the Town of Vail
standards outlined in Section 18.52 of the Town of Vail
zoning code. Each enployee dwelling unit will be
reguired to have one garage parking space.
Confonnitv with applicable elernents of the Vail
Conprehensive Plan. Town policies and Urban Desiqn
Plans.
lhe Master Land Use Plan identifies this parcel as one
which is suitable for nedium density residential uEes.
The reasons behind this were the sitets good access,conpatibility with the neighborhood's other residential
uses, the suitable topography for medium density, aswell as the overall long-term need for more uediun
density residential sites in the Town. The folloving
are applicable land use policies applicable to the
proposal:
1.12: Vail should accornnodate most of the
additional grorrth in existing developed (infill)
areas.
5.1: Additional residential growth should
continue to occur prinarily in existing, platted
areas and is appropriate in new areas where high
hazards do not exist.
5.3: Affordable employee housing should be made
available through private efforts assisted bylinited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail,
with appropriate restrictions.
5.4: Residential growth should keep pace with the
rnarket place demand for a full range of houslng
tlT)es.
fu!-i The existing enployee housing base should be
preserrred and upgraded. Additional ernployee
housing needs should be accornrnodated at variedsites throughout the conmunitY.
fhe proposal cornplies with all of these policies.
4.
oficati
o
on of naturaf andlor
6.
5.Identi on and rnitiqatiqeologic hazards that affect the propertv on which the
special development district is proposed.
The site is not located within any geologic hazard
area.
Site p1an, building desiqn and location and open space
orovisions desicrned to oroduce a functional develoonent
responsive and sensitive to natural features'
veqetation and overall aesthetic suality of the
communitv.
The preservation of open slopes below the southern
ridgeline of the project is inportant. Staff wanted to
ensure that units would not extend down the hillside.ft should be pointed out that units will be visible
from I-70. However, the intent is to pull the
developnent back fron the ridge. The conmon open space
is also a very positive part of the project.
A circulation systern desiqned for both vehicles andpedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic
circulation.
No changes have been proposed to Lionsridge Lane whichwill be a public road. The developer will be requiredto meet Town of Vail standards for the road and
approvals fron both Public Works and tbe Fire
Departuent before final piat reviel{t are necessary.
staff strongly recouunends that the four additlonal road
cuts along Lionsridge Loop be denied. Public Works has
concerns with the existincr five road cuts off of
Lionsridge lJoop for Lots 15-19. Holtever, due to the
fact that tbese were approved during the original SDD
review and having these lots accessed from Lionsridge
Lane hrould destroy the open space, staff will not
request that these road cuts also be rernoved. The Townof Vail engineer will also require that for theexisting five road cuts approval will be necessary in
order to review the grades, orientation of the cut,
proposed landscaping and drainage, and site distance
for each cut.
Public works has cited najor concerns about the four
additional cuts due to inadequate visibility of
oncorning traffic frorn each new cut, which creates a
safety problen. Access off of Lionsridge Lane will also
encourage site planning and architecture that will
break-up the mass and bulk of structures along
Lionsridge Loop. fnstead of having nine homes
orienting towards Lionsridge LooP' only five wil'l face
north. The remaining four homes will face south. Tbe
developer is constructing a public road to serrrice the
proposed lots. It is sinply good planning to require
these lots (20-23) to utilize the road within the
subdivision. This solution in no way cornpronises the
common open space.
7.
l0
v.
It is our understanding that the onners of the propertyare working with Solar crest Condoniniuns to reiolietheir parking and access problem. Staff feels that itis only reasonable to recruest a solution from thedevgloper-and not-recruire a solution as the problen istruly an issue which requires cooperation on the partthe Solar Crest onners.
8. FuDctignal and aesthetic landscaping and open space inorder tg ooti{rize and oresenre natuial features,recreation, views and functions.
The landscape plan is generally the s€rme for the conrtonspace as was approved under the original SDD. Staffrsprj.mary concern with thls project is that the site willbe revegetated asr soon as possible. Secondly, thelandscaping between residences nust be substlntiat ananot slmmetrical to give a more natural appearance tothe subdivision. A nore specific review-6f tne
_landscaping for each site will occur by the DesignReview Board.
9. Phasing plan or,subdivision plan that wiII naintain aF.orkable, functional and efficient relationshitrl
thrgughout the developnent of the snecial dEvEloornentdistrict.
Staff has no problen with the phasing plan proposed.we encourage the developer to quickly pave LionsridgeLane and revegetate the entire site that was disturbedthrough the grading process approved last year.
STAFF RECOI.II,iENDATION
The Departnent of connunity Developnent recornrnends approvalof the prelininary plan for the najor subdivision and-therevisions to Special Developnent District No. 22 for thispr!p!r!y' The reguested changes elenerally irnprove thesubdivision and will artow foi a uore arciiteltural pleasingdeveropnent of the property. The conditions of appr6val foithe Special Development District and Uajor suUaivi-sion areas follows:
The Special Developnent District shall be required toinclude 6 enployee dwelling units. the develloper mayprovide up to 15 enployee dwelling units if so-desir3a.
The enployee dwelling units shaLl only be allowed on
lgls_ Zr 3, 9, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, L3, L4, LB, 20, 2L,23 that each have a GRFA of 31121.
An enployee dwelling unit shall have a nininun of 400square feet and a naxirnum of 500 square feet.
An employee dwelling unit shall be incorporated intothe structure of the prinary residence and shalt not beallowed to be separated fron the prirnary unit.
1.
11
!rv
Each enployee dwelling unit shall have one enclosedgarage parking space.
The employee dwelling unit shall be restricted on apermanent baEis as euployee housing and shall meet the
reguirenents of Section 18.13.080 B 10 a-d of the Townof Vail zoning code.
Enployee dwelling units sball be prohibited fron having
wood-burning fireplaces.
Bnployee dwelling units shall not be counted towarddensity or GRFA for the subdivision.
Each owner shall be required to prepare an employee
housing unit agreement for Town approval and recordingat Eag1e county before a building pernit is releasedfor the proposed residence.
The owner of the lot shall be required to docunent onan annual basis to the Town of Vail that the unit has
been rented as a long tem rental per the requirenentoutlined in Section 18.13.080 810 l-d of the Town ofVail Zoning Code.
2. The requested four additional curb cuts shall not be
approved.
3. The Special Developnent District witl not be effectiveuntil the ltajor Subdivision is recorded at Ea91e
County.
4. The Major Subdivision shall be recorded at Eagle Countybefore a building penit shall be released for any
construction on the subdivision including conmon
improvenents as well as individual residences.
5. The Town of Vail Engineer shall have the right to
review and approve the five approved curb cuts for Ipts
15-19 to ensure proper driveway orientation,
Iandscaping, visibility, and drainage before a buildingpermit is released for any of the units on these lots.
5. The landscaping, signage, and wall design for the entryto the subdivision must be reviewed and approved by the
Town Engineer before final DRB approval .
Uaior Subdivision Conditions of Anproval:
These conditions of approval shall be addressed before afinal plat is subnLtted to the Planning and Environnental
Connission for approval .
1. Lionsridge Iane shall be reoriented to a 90 degree
angle rshere it intersects Lionsridge I,oop.
2. A 20 foot roaduay having a naxinun 4 percent gradeshall be constructed at the main entry into the
subdivision.
I2
3. There shall be a 20 foot tangent before the vertl.cal
cunre at the access point to the subdivision begins.
4. The drainage plan shall be revised to relate to the new
drainage criteria outlLned in the report titled fR #55,
dated June 1986.
5. A revised drainage study shall be subnitted which
updates the Internountain report dated January 1989.
6. The Lionsridge I^ane roadway profile shall be revised to
address the changes in grade on the site due to the
approved grading plan.
7. A pavenent design based on soil compaction tests shall
be subnitted for tlre Town Engineer's approval .
8. The drainage ditch along Lionsridge Iane shall be
vegetated with natural grasses as opposed to cobbLe.
9. A 10 foot right-of-way along eittrer side of Lionsridge
Lane shall be provided
10. All plans for the najor subdivision shall be updated to
show the revised lot lines and existing grades.
11. The developer shall neet with the Fire Department andverify the number of useable hydrants for the proJect.
IJ
I
PUBLIC NOTICE
NofIcE Is HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environnental
Conmission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in
accordance with section 18.66.050 of the rnunlcipal code of the
Town of Vail on ltarch 26, 1.gg} at 3:OO p.n. in the Town of Vail
MunicLpal Building. Consideration of:
1. A Work Session on Air Quality
2. A request for a conditional use pernit to nodify_an outdoor
dining deck, an amendment to restrictions regarding two
ernplolee units, and a request for an exterior alteration, a
he-ighl variance, a site coverage variance and a landscape
variance in order to construct an addition to the Bell Tower
Building at 201 Gore creek Drive.applicant: Clark Willingharn / Belt Tovter Associates, Ltd.
3. A reguest for a Special Development District at the Garden
of the Gods on LoL x, Block 5, Vail Village Fifth Filing at
355 core Creek Drive.Applicant: Garden of the Gods, Mrs. A.G. Hill Fanily
4. A request for a setback variance for the construction of a
garage on Lot 20, Block 7, Vail ViJ.lage lst Fi1ing.Applicant: Peter Tufo
5. A request for a height variance in order to add dormers to
the upper floor of the Mountain Haus at 292 E. Meadow Dr.
(Part of Tract B, Vail Village First Filing)Applicant: Rich Brown/Mountain Haus Condo. Assoc.
6. A reguest for an amendrnent to special Developnent District
No. jz and a major subdivision for resubdivision of lots 1-
19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing No. 3.Applicant: Mr. Pat Dauphinais, Dauptrinais - Moseley
Construction
7. A request for a side yard setback variance and a stream
setbick variance for Lot 9, Block 3, Vail RohI Houses (Unit
#e).Applicant: walter Granm
The applications and infornation about the proposals are
avaitlLle for public inspection in the Conmunity Developnent
Department office.
Town of Vail
Comrnunity Developnent Departnent
Published in the vail rrail on Marc" ", :"f:r^ ,U^_ / /, ^ J \o,.(A =lt/q O\"/VTa*Id {o qdJo<o^f c4^t4\o''.^ >1 E/ tu'
-
OK 'i ia n.cct,..l.r4
PI,ANNING AIID ENVTRONUENTAL COIITI|IISSION
l.lARCH 26. L99O
Present
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Ludwig Kurz
.Iirn Shearer
Kathy Warren
Dalton l{illians
staffKristan Pritz
Tom BraunShelly Ittello
Betsy Rosolack
Penny Perry
The Planning and Environnental Conmission neeting was called toorder at 3:OO p.n. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson.
ften No. 1: Approval of minutes for March 12, 1990 meetinq.
Diana Donovan asked that, on the top of page 13, the wording be
changed to rrthe applicants should help find a solutionrt.
Motion for approval of minutes with corrections was nade by
Jim Shearer and seconded by Dalton t{illiams.
VOTE: 7-OINFAVOR.
ftem No. 2: A recruest for a side vard setback variance and a
strearn setback variance for Lot 9. Block 3. Vail
Row Houses (Unit #91,At)t]licant: Wa1ter Gramm
Tom Braun presented the proposal for the staff explaining thatthe applicant was proposing a najor remodel to Unit 9 of the vail
Row Houses. The renodel included a reconfig'urration of theexisting floor layout, an Lncrease in the building roof height by
approxinately 11 feet and the additLon of window seats on thenorth and south elevations. The proposal did not include a
reguest for any additional GRFA over the allowable. The units
were zero setback. The granting of the variance would notconstitute a grant of special privilege and would not bedetrimental to the public health, safety or nelfare. The staff
recornrnended approval of both the side setback variance and the
strean setback variance.
Diana Donovan asked if there was an applicantrs presentation.
Ned Gwathney explained that he was available for questions. Hefelt the staff did an adequate presentation of the proposal.
Greta Parks, an owner at 303 Gore Creek Drive, speaking for Units1-6 explained that after talking with Ned and looking at the blueprints, she had no objections. Greta asked the board to consider
sending pubtic notices to the neighborhood owners, not sinplydirectly adjacent property owners. She felt projects in the
Conmercial Core I affected the whole neighborhood.
Chuck Crist asked about the roof naterial . He explained that theplans called for shake and he felt that a gravel roof night benore fitting with the adjacent properties. Ned responded thatthe pitch of the roof restricted this possibility. Ned explainedthat there was another shake roof in the row of buildings. Chuckthen con'nented that naybe this sas a Desl-gn Review Board issue.
Jim Shearer asked about the ftood plain and Ton explained thatthis was a request for a stream setback and that flood plain wasnot affected.
Motion for aoproval per the staff nreno and the
recornmendation that the Desicrn Review Board exanine the roofnaterial was rnade bv Dalton willians and seconded bv Connie
Knight.
VOTE: 7-OINFAVOR.
Iten No. 3: A request for a Eetback variance for theconstruction of a qaraqe on Lot 20. Bl.ock 7. VailVillaqe lst Filing.Applicant: Peter Tufo
Ton Braun nade the presentation for the staff explaining that the
applicant was requesting a variance from the front setback
requirement in order to construct a garage addition. The reguest
was to allow a garage to be built within 3 feet of the frontproperty line along Forest Road. The reguired front setback forthis lot is 20 feet. Surface parklng was presently belng used inthis area. The proposed plan had received conceptual approvalfron the Design Review Board. lhe staff reconmendation sas forapproval. The staff believed that the siting of the garage had
been designed in the most sensitive manner possible, given the
steep topography and large pine tree (to be saved). The staff
reconmended approval with the following condition:
That a revocable right-of-way perait be obtained for any andal.l inprovenents on Town right-of-way before a buildingpemit is released for the garage.
Tin DrLscall, son of the ouner of the hone to the west, expressed
concern sith tbe square footage and height of the garage. Dr.Driscall, owner of the hone to the west, asked what was theheight. Tom Braun explained that the height was within the 33foot lfunit allowed and Lnvited the Driscalls to review the plans.
Diana questioned what the difference was between the blue and
ribbons and Gordon Pierce, the applicantrs representative,
explained that the red ribbons were the original proposal andblue ribbons were what was suggested by Stan Berrlman.
red
the
Jim Shearer asked if they were planning to cantllever the garage
so as not to hurt the pine tree. Gordon Pierce answered, rryestr.
Connie Kntght asked if they could gruarantee that they were notgoing to hurt the roots of the tree. Gordon Pierce explainedthat by using piers they hope to decrease the possibility thebest they could.
Diana Donovan suggested to Dr. Driscall that he be aware of the
DRB meeting regarding his concerns over the height.
Ludwig Xurz asked where the applicants planned to allow foradditional parking and Gordon Pierce explal.ned that there rtas no
contingency plan in this area.
connie Knigrht asked the staff for clarification of the 30* zoning
code rule and Tom explained that if the slope were 308 or more,the applicant would not need a variance. Connie then continuedto explain that she could not approve a 17 | setback.
Ludwig Kurz pointed out that the cars were now practically
parking in the street. Gordon explained that the house was builtin 1962 prior to the strict zoning codes and presently a non-
conforming use. Connie conmented that the plans for the garage
should have been presented at the tine of the remodel last year.
Kathy warren suggested that the cantilevering of the building be
a condition of approval .
A notion for approval per the staff nemo with the followincr
conditions was nade bv Ludwiq Kurz and seconded bv Jim
Shearer:
1. That a revocable right-of-way permit be obtained for
any and all inprovements on Tolrn right-of-way before abuilding pernit is released for the garage.
2. That the 2 trees to the north sLde of the garageremain. If they were damaged they would be replacedwith uature trees withln 2 years.
3. Tbe garage building be cantLlevered in the effort toprotect the above mentl.oned trees.
VOTE: 6 - 1 IN FAVOR WITII CONNIE KNIGIflI OPPOSED.
ften No. 4: A recnrest for a height variance in order to add
domers to the upper floor of the l{ountain Haus at
292 E. Ueadow Dr. (Part of Tract B, Vail VilladeFirst FilinqlAnplLcant: Rich Brown/Mountain Haus Condo Assoc.
Tom Braun presented the proposal explaining that the applicant isrequesting a height variance in order to add dormers across the
south elevation of the building. The dormers would be added tothe 7th floor roof area and would replace existing 18rr windows.
Because the building the constructed prior to the adoption of the
Townrs zoning code, the building is considered a pre-existing ,non-conforning use. Any request would increase the non-
conforming use. The staff reconmendatLon was for denial of the
reguested height variance. The Etaff believed that approval ofthe request would be a grant of special privilege and that the
variance would not be in conpliance with the approved Vailvillage Master PIan. The staff also believed that a physical
hardship did not exist and therefore the request should be
denied.
Mark Mueller, acting on behalf of the Condoninium Association,
stated that the dormers were on the 7th floor not the 8th. AItthe rooms affected were bedrooms and currently had 3r X 6l
windows. The existing building was 74r tall. He didnrt feel
they were asking for a height variance. They nere seeking to
improve the roof. At present, the windows did not meet the
Unifonn Building Code. The dorners would not raise the height,did not affect any view corridors, and would not create avisibility problen to pedestrians. The issue at hand seened to
be the fact that no hardship could be found. He felt that, ifthe building was not a non-conforming use, the PEC would be
happy to see the positive changes. l{ark then introduced Jerry
Marinonte on behalf of the Condorninium Association.
Jerry addressed the Board explaining that he had been examiningthe Unifor:m Building Code. He questioned whether the llountaln
Haus, by definition, vas actually adding belght. Jerry etatedthat according to the UBC definition of height, the Mountain Haus
would not be adding height. He continued to state that buildingsthat were non-conforming were allowed to present these kinds of
J.mprovenents as long as there uas no discrepancy. They did not
see a discrepancy.
Diana explained that the Board left the decision as to who did
and did not need a variance to the staff.
Ton explained that anything above the 48r allowance vhether non-
conforming or not still needed a variance.
Jerry argrued ttrat he felt the board should consider the exlstingheight not that which is trallowedil.
Kathy warren explained that she understood what Jerry was saying.
However, allowable measurements were what rras considered. She
gave an example of a building that added heigtrt that was Ln anexisting side setback would stil.l reguire a side setback variance
even though the footprint of the buildlng nas not changed.
Jerry then asked if the Board would not approve the dor:mers, what
would they suggest?
Kathy suggested skylights and Jerry felt that skylights would add
height.
Dalton tJilliarns questioned the flre fighting capabilities ln abullding of this helght and Mark Muel-ler explained that tbey had
been working wlth cary lilurrain, the Chief Building officlal , onthis issue. The building currently dldnrt conforn to code.
However, Gary would all.ow a non-conbustible wood. They could
consider putting sprinklers on the South side of the Building.
Dalton then asked why not the north side of the building and llark
explained that they were only proposing the changes to the South
Side of the building at this tine.
Ludwig didnrt aee an overall inpact. The only place the dorners
were visible were from the mountain and would increase thelivability of the units. He would be in favor.
chuck Crist asked if they nould redo the whole roof with non-
conbustible naterial . Mark stated that they would do Just theroof portion along where the addition was. If they usedsprinklers they would not need the non-conbustible naterial.
Kathy llarren conmented that she did not see a physical hardship.
She could not see naking a bad situatlon worse. She agreed withthe staff.
Jim Shearer didnrt feel tbat the dotmerE nade a blg enough inpactto Justify the variance. He could not Bupport the variance.
A motion for denial ner the staff meno was made by ConnLe
I(nicrht and seconded by Jin Shearer.
VOTE: 4 - 3 FOR DENIAL WITH CHUCK, DALION. AND LUDI|IG
AGAINST DENIAL.
ftem No. 5: A request for a conditional use pernit to exoand a
oroposed parking structure for the Vail VaIIey
liledical center on Lots # and F. vail vitlaqe 2ndFilin<r at 181 t{est l{eadow DrLve.Applicant: Vail Vallev Medical Center.
Kristan Pritz explained that the Vail Valley l{edical Center had
requested to table this iten to the April 9, 1990 neetlng.
A rnotion to table the proposal to the 4/9/90 neeting was
rnade bv Kathv Warren and seconded bv Chuck Crist.
VOTE: 7 - O IN TAVOR OF TABLING
Iten No. 5:A remrest for a special Developrnent District in
order to construct three nrimarv/secondary
structures on Lots 3, 4, and 5. Vail Vallev ThirdFiling.Applicant: Deborah t{. and Robert Warner
Tom Braun explained that the proposal was reviewed at the Marctt
L2, 1990 neeting and that at that tine, the Planning Conmission
voted unanimously to reconnend denial to the Town Councl.l . The
applicants had anended their proposal with regard to the three
secondary units. The applicants trad agreed to place a deedrestriction on the three lots that would reguire the secondaryunits to be rented on a long term basLs to enployees of the Upper
Eagle Valley. The fact remained that any site planning or design
aspects of the proposal could be accornpliEhed under existingzoning. The SDD was proposed as a way to circumvent the
underlying primaryr/secondary development standards with regard tosite coverage and GRFA. The enployee units were being offered as
a concession for the density increase. The staff recognized the
value of the enployee units, but was unable to support the
proposal offered.
Bob l{arner, the applicant, wished to apologtize for not beingpresent at the last neetlng. lle wanted to give the board sorne
background on the project. Iast surnmer he decided to rnake VaiI a
permanent home. He found he could not find any single-fanilylots. Instead, they found and bought the 3 adJacent lots. He
had developed for 20 years and his architect, Jim Junge, for over
30 years. He was now here to plead sith the board. They started
by asking the staff for direction. They had tried to work withthe staff. l{r. I{arner stated that his wife had a chronically bad
back (he showed a doctors statenent prescriblng daily swinming astreatment). He had problems understanding the SDD purpose andconcept. IIe felt that what they were proposing could not be donewithin the existing zoning. He presented the analog'y that it
would be llke preparing taxes rithout taking deductions. He felt
they were naking good trade-offs. He pointed out that he hadcontinually been told what a great design they had presented.
They had been looking at the project as three lots as a whole.
This was why they felt the SDD process ttas appropriate. He
explained that Gary Murrain, Chief Building official , was anxiousfor them to get started due to the level of the water table.
They are anxious as well and felt that the staff direction had
slowed the tine table. He requested approval .
Jin Junge, architect for the applicant, coronented on the staffrs
concerns with the SDD purpose. He felt that the sDD purpose wasto encourage flexibility and this was what they had done. Asolution could be accompllshed under existing zonS.ng but not
necessarily the nost positive solution. l{bat they had proposed
had no inpacts on neighboring properties. They felt they wereoffering the Town nany benefits in exchange for the densitytransfer as followed: (He showed a list on the flip chart)1. No 5Ol40 prinary/secondary spllt.2. Low Profile3. Luxury Hones4. 3 enployee units.
Tom Braun stated that he took strong opposition with the
applicants statement that the staff held up the process. AII
avenues were reviewed with the applicant including the pros and
cons of each alternative. He stated the staff told theapplicantrs in writing on October 27 that support of an SDD was
unlikely.
Kathy l{arren conmented that she felt that nothing had really
changed. She still feLt that the SDD purpose and integrity nust
be naintained. The pool could be permitted by deducting GRFA
elsewhere. llhere were other avenues that the applicant had not
explored.
Jin Shearer had no comnent.
Connie Knight concurred with Kathy.
IJudwig Kurz felt that Kathy expressed how he felt very well. Hedidnrt feel he could approve the project.
Dalton Willians concurred.
chuck aEked what the specific reasons for denl-al were at the lastneeting? Had it had anything to do with enployee housing and
asked why they cane back. ilin Junge e:<plal.ned that they felt the
change of restrictions on the secondary unit was a benefit to theTown. Chuck didnrt feel this SDD Bhould be ueed wlth trade-offs.
Ton Braun explained that this was how the SDD process worked. It
was a give and take process.
Chuck asked if there were enough trade-offs, would it be
acceptable?
Kathy Warren cornrnented that a SDD is not appropriate per the last
neeting issues. No nunber of trade-off would be make the project
acceptable.
l{r. warner explained that the enployee housing ltas always part of
the plan. Under strict zoning, VaiI wouldnrt get the benefits as
5lointed out earlier by l.tr. Junge. He felt the enployee units
were a great benefit. He felt they worked out a great solution
and that the employee housing should warrant a favorable
response.
Dalton Williarns didnrt belleve that enployee housing units tfere
a good tradeoff. A large house ras not a reason for creating an
sDD. The point of being on the Planning and Environmental
Connission Board was to ensure that rules were applied as
written.
Diana explained that if they took the extra 804 square feet of
GRFA away, she would come close to approving ttre propoeal . Shefelt it was a great project and encouraged then to proceed to
Council.
Kristan Pritz wished to point out that the fact that the housing
study was not cornplete was not the reason the staff was
reconmending denlal .
Diana stated that she did not wish to set a standard before the
standards were set. She could support the project if the GRFA
was a total wash. she felt the trade-offs offered were posltive.
\
\
A notion for reconrnendation of denlal to the Town Councilper the staff nemo was nade bv Connie Knl.crht and seconded by
Kathv Warren.
VOTE: 7 - o for recornmendation of denial to Town Council
Item No. 7:
Aopllcant: Mr. Pat Dauohinais. Dauphinais-Moselev
Construction.
Kristan Pritz explained that the developer was requesting to urake
adjustnents to the najor subdivision and Special DevelopnentDistrict No. 22 for the property. The project currently
consisted of 24 single family lots, an open space tract, and a
new public road, Lionsridge Lane.
changes to lot sizes, setbacks,units, architectural guidelines,
proposed.
curb cuts, enployee dwelling
and the phasing plan were
In general , the changes to the proposal did not have any najor
inpacts on the subdivision criteria. Due to the fact that the
proposal represented a resubdivision of an existing approved
subdivision, a reduction in allowable density, had no significant
environmental inpacts and was compatible with surrounding low to
mediun density residential uses, the proposed plan was
supportable.
The Staff recornmended approval of the preliuinary plan for the
major subdivision and the revisions to Special DevelopnentDistrict No. 22 for the property. The requested changesgenerally inproved the subdlvision and would allow for a nore
arqhiteqturall.y pleasing development of the property. The
conditions of approval for the Special Developnent District and
MaJor subdivision were listed in the staff meno. It was also
deemed very positive that enployee housing was being added.
Chuck crist questioned whose responsibility it was to work the
parking problen out with Solar Crest. Kristan responded thatstaff had StfSgeEleg that Dauphinais work nith Solar Crest.
Houever, it was not a requirenent. The problem uas SolarCrestrs. They had been parking on the applicantrs land.
Kathy lfarren asked for clarification of the GRFA regarding the
employee units. t{as it in addition to allowed GRFA with the site
coverage and any other requirenents still intact? Kristan
replied that she was correct. Kathy then aEked when the enployee
units were reqluired to be built? At build-out? Kristan
answered, ryestr. Xathy then counented that there was apossibility that the project could never reach build-out and
therefore the Town rould never have the enployee units. Pat
stated that he would be happy to put sone tlpe of restriction on
phasing of the employee units for exanple 1 per 4 free market
units.
Kathy then expressed concern over the drainage plan. Pat
explained that his and the Townrs engineers felt they had found abetter solution. lttrey had revised the plans to take aII
rnitigation off-site by dlverting the rater back behind BufferCreek. Agreements would be in place prior to final plat
approval . He could not pull any petmits until a down palment or
a letter of credit had been Lssued for his financialresponsibility on the drainage plan.
Buff Arnold, architect, explained that they had increased
setbacks on the lots on which they were asking for additionalcuts. They increased the lots bordering the highway side and
increased 35 to 55 t setbacks off the ridge.
Dalton asked what the reason was behind the setback encroachmentof 5 ft. for the decks and lGistan explained that generally,
decks were allowed to encroach L/2 into the setback (normally 7L/2 feet-l . The staff felt that it sould be reasonable to allow a
5r deck (at grade, unenclosed) encroachnent under the
circumstance.
Buff Arnold explained that there were only 2 issues in which they
were not in agreement with the Etaff. The first was the
additional road cuts. The staff had quoted Public workrs concern
with safety as the nain reason for reconrnending denial of thisportion of the proposal . Buff explained that for safety reasons,
they would be able to make roon for maneuvering to allow a driver
to pull out onto Lionsridge Loop. The driveways would be level
so as to avoid any slldingr/stopping hazards.
Kathy Warren asked if they would consider conbining access to two
lots. A driveway every 6o feet didn't allow nuch roon for snow
removal , storage, or landscaping. Pat explained that there were
two driveways close together and then a large distance between
the others.
Dalton cornmented that the kids would have a safe side of thestreet (on the new public road) if they allowed the 4 new road
cuts on Lionsridge L,oop. He felt this would be safer.
10
Chuck Crist asked if allowing the cuts on Lionsridge Loop nould
change the front setback and KriEtan e:<plained that the front is
deternined by where the access to the hone was located. Buff
stated they were not asking for any changes in the setbacks.
Chuck commented that lf they were to access the hornes from
Lionsridge Lane (the new public road), the hones would actually
be closer to Lionsridge Ioop due to the snaller rear setback.
Chuck felt he could approve the new curb cuts.
Kathy felt strongly that she would like to see the two end
driveways conbined to one. She asked staff what the maJor
concern was. Kristan replied, nsafetyr'. Public l{orks would not
allow large trees. Kristan felt that a landscape buffer would
look nicer and would break up a line of hones along L,ionsridgeLoop. She suggested that if the Conmission approved the neril 4cuts, they conbine some of tbe 5 already approved.
Kathy ltarren felt that if the total 9 drives could be conrbined to
7 drives she could approve the cuts. Pat responded stating thatthe essence of a single-farnlly hone was degraded by havlng
shared driveways. Kathy said that one could use the same
argunent to ask that the original 5 approved cuts be moved to theinside. Pat fett that they could do a good job nitigating the
curb cuts.
Jin asked the applicant if they nould agree to cornbine the closer
drivewaysr entrance to one but access the homes separately. Pat
explained that the cuts were based on the orientation of ttre
hornes.
Connie Knight felt that the drop from 38 to 24 units was
welcomed. She didn't want to thwart the project, rather
encourage it. She felt it was an undue hardship. Driveways were
an unnecessary evil. She would vote for approval of the driveway
cuts.
Ludwig felt he could approve the 9 driveway cuts. He could think
of a lot nore things that could be done with all the driveways
facing the sane direction.
Diana felt that the new driveway cuts would be better for the
proJect and bad for the Public.
Diana asked for an infornal vote to see where the board stood on
the driveway cuts. There were 4 for the proposed new road cuts
and 3 against.
11
Buff Arnold explained that the enployee units were proposed overthe garage on the Larger units. They vould like the opportunityto build them on as nany units as possible rather than just the
15 allowed per the proposal. They felt they could do it by
increasing the smaller unit garage by 4r. They did intend to
nake the enployee units part of the deed restrictions.
Diana sunreyed the ConrnissLon regarding the enployee units aspresented in the memo. They agreed it was acceptable. Diana
continued by asking Kristan lf it sas appropriate to discuss the
issue of the enployee units being located on the smaller lots.Kristan replied that they could contLnue if they wished.
However, the staff vould not want to see the applicant ask for avariance to allow for the enployee unit and Pat didnrt feel thatit would cause a problen with the exception of a few lots.
Kristan felt there would be no problem with the employee units on
any lot as Long as the enployee housing units fell within the
confines of the sDD requirenents.
Kathy felt it was appropriate to recruire 6 and have a naximun of
15 enployee units on any lot in the subdivision as long as the
hone fell within the confines of the SDD. She would like to have
seen a phasing plan of employee units to be built at a ml.nimum of
1 per 4 buildings.
Pat explained that he would like to cone back if he built all 15
and wanted nore and Diana explained that he could always cone
back.
Kathy warren suggested that, if Pat decided to sell the lotE and
not build himself, that they require hin to cone back and
designate enployee housing lots.
Diana asked about the phasing plan. She felt that the plan
should be in sorne pattern, not split up. Pat explained that he
does not intend to break up the hones, but that he could notpredict what would happen.
Diana requested a sidewalk and bus shelter and Pat asked if thenorth side of Lionsridge Iane to the entry rould be okay?
Diana explained that she didnrt feel that lt had to be a 5r walk,sinply a nice walk and that the shelter should be on the sane
side of the street. Pat agreed.
Diana asked if the footprint of each home would be substantlallythe same and Pat explained that the footprint sill be asdifferent as the lot and setbacks would allow.
L2
.Diana asked if the Town was a party to all covenants so the Town
would have right to litigate as party to the agreement and
Kristan answeied that the ernployee dwelling unit restrictions and
the architectural guidetines would be restricted with the Town as
a party to the agreements. The restrictions would be recorded at
Eagle County and run sith the land.
Krlstan pointed out that the garage could not be separated from
the unit.
chuck Crist had no more comnents.
Dalton wished to express tlranks, that he felt the project was
good for vail.
Ludwig Kurz had no nore conments.
A motion was made bv Kathv Warren and seconded bv ChuckCrist for arcnroval of the anendrnent to the,SDD per th?
findincr of the staff neno and conditions listed therein with
the followino chancres and additions:
1. The enployee units shall be allowed on AEy lot
including a ninimun of 6 and a maxinun of 15 as long as
the building was built within the zoning confines i.e.,
variances not requested to allow employee units.
2. The 4 additional proposed driveway cuts be allowed-
3. A sidewalk separate fron the street be incorporated on
the north side of Lionsridge Lane along with a covered
bus shelter to be located at the proJect entrance on
the sane side of the street as the sidewalk.
4. Drainage Plan be approved per the Town Staff.
5. Phasing plan for the employee units include a ninimum
of 1 in the Phase I and 1 in every 4 structures
thereafter.
5r into the rear----- ------=.-------:--and on grade onlyencroach
setbacks
be allowed to
into the side
6. Exterior decks
setback and 2l
be arcproved per the findincrs of the staff memo and
ionditions listed therein with the chancres and additions as
listed in the conditlons of approval for the Spec
on L.ots L-L4. *f
vorE: 7 - o rN FAVoR! var oveFffit)bt
A rnotion was nade by Kathv Warren and Eeconded by Dellol
l{illians that the oielininarv plan for a naior subdivision
Developnent District Amendnent.
VOTE: 7-OfNFAVOR
13
ftem No. 8:A recrueEt for a Special Development DLstrict at
Appll-cant: carden of the cods, Urs. A.c. HillFanilv.
Connie Knight renoved herself fron the board due to a conflict ofinterest.
Kristan Pritz presented a Bumllary of the changes made to theproject.
Don Hare ocplained that there were no nev conments.
Mickey cannon from the Vail Trail Chalets explained that he felt
a view blockage would result fron the building orientation andsetbacks. He felt that if the bulLding is going to be torn down
and rebuilt, it should be treated as a new developnent and builtwithin the present zoning restrictions.
April carol , a vorlaufer owner, asked if the north side of thebuilding, which is now a barren wall, could be etructurally
changed in order to nake the waII more aesthetically appeallng?
Para Hopkins, architect, stated she would study the issue andpresent changes to the Design Review Board.
Art Carol., representing the Vorlaufer, stated that the main
concerns were the vJ-ew impact and the l-ncrease in GRFA. He feltthat the Garden of the Gods did their homework when asking foradditional GRFA in conjunctLon with an employee unit. This
seerned to be the nanner in which nost increases were approved.
He felt that the staff had written the neno in a biased manner
and not sirnply stated the facts. He felt the wording was
nisleading.
Diana responded in the defense of the staff stating that SDDst1pically give additional GRFA devoted to enployee units.
Mickey cannon then questioned the SDD purpose to rrallow
flexibilityr. He felt this was a general conment. Diana
responded that the reason behind alloring the flexLbl-lity vasthat if the Garden of the Gods were to be torn down and rebuiltwithin the Eetbacks, it would hurt the vorlaufer's vLew and not
change the view of the Vail Trail Chalets. The staff felt thatit showed Eensitivity on behalf of the Garden of the Gods to
inpact as few buildings as possible.
L4
Greta Parks, a residential owner on Gore Creek Drive, didnrt wantto stand in opposition to any one specific project. She feltthere was a county wide problern that needed to be addressed. Shefelt they were talking about obeying rules or naking exception toa changing situation. The quality of llfe was phiJ.osophical and
legal . She was not an adjacent owner but definitely a neighbor.
As long as the building was being torn down, she would llke to
see the new building conply with all regrulations. She statedthat she would also like to see nore connunity input. She feltthe public notl-fication process should be expanded to include the
neighborhood, not sinply the adJacent owners.
Diana suggested that the Condonlniun Associations designate asingle person to be responsible for keeping up with theactivl-ties within the Torn. one uay this could be acconplished
would be to subscribe to the Vall Trail newspaper in which allnotices are published. In regard to tbe private views, Diana
suggested the possibility of approaching the Town Council to
adopt legislation.
Mickey cannon reitereated that when he invested in property inVail, he rre:rpected'r the zoning to be upheld.
Connie l0right wished to clarify that she could approprlately askquestions and make conments as a uenber of the public and not a
board menber.
Diana explained that Eince ehe had excused herself fron the
board, she sas considered public.
Connie Knight, as a vorlaufer owner, Etated that if the
acconrnodation units were decreasing as stated in the LodgeDefinition section on page 6 of the meno, this was in dlscrepancywith the Master Planrs Goal #2, Section 2.3 objective listed on
page 13 of the meno to rtlncrease the nunber of residential unitsavailable for short tern overnight acconnodations.r' she feltthat this was defeating the purpose. Diana explained the rrkey
conceptrr to Connle.
Kristan wished to help clarify the issue. Presently' there were
15 acconmodation units. The proposal was for 18 accornrnodationunits which represented a conbination of aurs and durs as well as
lock-offE restricted for short term rental permanently.
15
Kristan Pritz, in response to !tr. Cannon, stated that an
SDD is a legal zoning alternative. In response to !tr. carol , she
e:ryIained that staff did not rewrite the neno. It was the same
memo that was presented ln February. The staff did not get
involved with private views. She wanted tlr. Cannon to understandthat the staff vas not trying to Elant the request. The stafffelt that Lt was inportant to present the proJect In black and
white.
Jim Shearer liked the safety Lssue, bus access, undergroundparking, green area, landscaping, and the enployee units and feltpart of the trade-offs and reason for the SDD sas the enployeeunits. He felt the desigmer had been eensitive, especially sincethe issue had been Ln front of the Connission tine after tine.
Chuck Crist concurred with the board.
Dalton }lillians concurred.
Ludwig Kurz concurred with Jin Shearer. He felt the tine spent
workJ.ng with adJacent owners showed sensitivity. He felt thearchitect had exercised restraint.
Doris, with public conment, asked, if the SDD had not been
requested, the building torn down and replaced within the current
zoning, would it have inpacted the Vorlaufer nore?
Diana explained that, yes it probably would have. The architect
had been sensitive. The placenent of the building would not have
changed the view irnpact of any other adjacent properties due to
the height. In this particular case, they had worked to the
advantage of the greatest nunber of people. She was supportiveof the project. Without an SDD, the fown would lose gutters,
landscaping, underground parking, and much more.
Kathy lfarren stated that if the building were built within the
present zoning code restrictions, the buildlng could actually be
much larger in bulk. Tlrere was aPproxitnately 2000 square feet insite coverage not used. she felt that the sDD was bringingpositive changes to the Town. If an 8oO s.f. enployee unl-t wasthe trade-off for a parking structure, gutters, bus stop, and
improved landscaping, she was in approval . However, ehe did hopeto see the zoning regulations cleaned up concerning GRFA.
A motion to reconnend aoproval of a new Special DevelopmentDistrict to the Town Council per the staff memo with a
reconmendation to the Design Review Board to review the
design (transparencvl of the north elevation vall sas made
bv Kattrv t{arren and eeconded bv Jin Shearer.
VOTE: 6 - O WITH CONNIE KNIGHT ABSTAINING.
16
Connie Kntght asked what process should be used to begin private
view legislation and Diana explained that interested parties
should start by calling their Council menbers. Dalton cornmentedthat a prlvate view easement could be purchased.
Art Carol asked when the Garden of the Gods issue would go beforethe Town Council and lGistan answered that it rould be on the
agenda a week from Tuesday and the neeting started at 7:3o p.m.
Item No. 9: Appoint PEC representatl.ve for the Atrril - June,
1990 DRB ter:m.
Ludwig Kurz volunteered.
The neeting nas adjourned at 7:30 p.n.
L7
MINUTES
VAIL TOIIN COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 17, 1990
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 17, 1990, at
7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municjpal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor
Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro Tem
Lynn Fritzlen
Merv Lapin
Robert LeVine
Peggy Osterfoss
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Gibson
T0hlN 0FFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phi]lips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Erandmeyer, Town Clerk
The first item was the Vail l4etropolitan Recreation District offer to return $25,000to the Town of Vail; reduction in Town of Vail recreation subsidy. Tim Garton, VMRD
Chairman, read a letter regarding this subsidy from the VMRD Board to the Council.
He further stated that if projected revenues materia'l ize, the additional $25,000wjll be returned to the Town of Vail by the fall of 1990. Following limited
questioning, this check was accepted by Mayor Rose.
Item two was a presentation of the Co1 orado Tourism Board 1989 Urban Tourism Award
to Council from the Vail Valley Marketing Board. Frank Johnson, Chairman of the
VVMB, reviewed current and future projects of the Marketjng Board for surmer
marketing. He stated the Urban Tourism Award was one of seven awards given; he
'| isted several other Denver area advertising awards won by the VVMB. Frank thanked
the Council for their support. Mayor Rose felt the thanks needed to go back to the
Marketing Board for their time and effort.
Third on the agenda h,as a consent agenda of the following items:
A. Ordjnance No.6, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance repealing and
reenacting Chapter 8.32 of Title 8 of the Municipal Code of the Town of
Vail to expand, strengthen, and clarify Code provisjons relating to smoking
in pub'l ic places and places of employment.
B. 0rdinance No. 11, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance re-zoning
Lots 3, 4, and 5 of Vai'l Valley Third Filing, a part of Sunburst replat, to
Special Development District No. 24, in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of
the Vajl Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto.
C. Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance repealing
and reenacting Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1988, to provide changes tor Speclrl Ocvclopnent Dlstrlct |t,o. 22 Urat concern lot size and corresponding
GRFA; and curb cuts; and employee dwe'l 'l ing un'l ts; and architectural
guide'l ines; and setting forth details in regard thereto.
D. Ordinance l{o. 14, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance repealing
Ordlnance No. 40, Serjes of 1987 and approving Special Development District
No. 19, Garden of the Gods, in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the
Municipal Code and setting forth details in regard thereto.
E. 0rdinance No. 15, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance amending
Section 2.04.050 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vai'l changing the
order of business in regular and special meetings of the Town Council; and
setting forth details in regard thereto.
F. Resolution No. 11, Series of 1990, a resolution ratifying the Articles of
Association of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments.
Mayor Rose read the fu1l tjt'le of each. ilerv Lapin moved that a consent agenda ofonly items E and F be approved; a'll others be pulled off for discussion. Tom
Steinberg seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
Therefore, the next item was 0rdinance llo. 6, Series of 1990, second reading, an
ordinance re'l ating to smoking in public places and p1 aces of employment. Ron
Phil'l ips stated the ordinance had not changed since first reading, and staff did not
have anything to add. ltlatt Carpenter questioned one section of the ordlnance, to
which Larry Eskwjth responded. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the ordinance,
which Peggy 0sterfoss seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously
6-0.
Ordinance t{0. ll , Serles of 1990, second reading, an ordinance rezoning Lots 3, 4,. and 5, Vail Va1 ley 3rd Fl]lng, a part of Sunburst replat from prlmanJ/secondary
residentia'l to special development district. Tom Braun stated there was one minor
change to the ordinance, which he discussed. He then very brlefly reviewed Council
requests from first reading. Peggy Osterfoss made a motion to approve, which was
seconded by Robert LeVine. There was a short discussion regarding this SDD use assetting a precedent. Merv Lapin was concerned about using the SDD process ln a lowdensity residential area, and would change his vote from how he voted at first
reading. Lynn Fritzlen agreed the SDD was not the best mechanism, but the only wayright now until housing guidelines were'in p'lace. I'layor Rose agreed, and wou'l d votein favor of the ordinance tonight. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-2, with
Tom Steinberg and l'lerv Lapin opposing.
Next was Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1990, second reading, a request for an
tamendment to SDD No. 22, a resubdivision of Lots l-19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing#3. Kristan Pritz quickly reviewed changes Councl'l had requested be incorporated'into the ordinance since first reading. There h,as some discussion regarding a bus
stop, to which Mr. Pat Dauphinais stated he would provide a letter of credit forone. Council felt that was agreeable. Tom Steinberg then made a motlon to approve
the ordinance as amended, which l'lerv Lapin seconded. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously 6-0.
0rdinance No. 14, Series of 1990, second readlng, a request for a speclal
development district at the Garden of the Gods on Lot K, Block 5, Vail Vtllage 5thFiling, and a portlon of P-2, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing, at 365 Gore CreekDrive. Kristan Pritz addressed quest'ions of Gretta Parks and Counci'l . A motion to
approve the ordinance was made by Peggy Osterfoss and seconded by Robert LeVine.
Connie Knight, a property owner, aired her concerns over the poss'ible approval ofthis SDD request. Kristan then answered questions of Council. There was some
discussion by Council regarding building size and mass. Tom Steinberg requested an
annual letter regarding employee housing use. Peggy anended the motion to includethis request; Rob amended his second. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1 ,with Lynn Fritzlen opposing.
Item eight was Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1990, flrst reading, an ordinance
amendlng View Corridor No. 1. l,layor Rose read the fu1 'l title. Tom Braun reviewed
an architect sca'le mode'l of the request. He then noted the Planning Corrnission's
6-1 recomnendation for approval by changing the photo and not the line. Tom then
reviewed the criteria used in evaluating the request noting views from other
buildings were not included. He stated staff supported the project with two
condi ti ons:
1. The photo depicting View Corrldor No. 1 be modtfted to reflect the new Red
Lion Bullding at a time when the expansion is comp'leted.
2. The specific reasons justifying this request be inc'luded in the preamb1e of
the ordinance authoriz'lng this amendment.
Tom then reviewed the ten conditions required by the Planning Connrisslon for their
approval, which were itemized in the staff memo to Council dated Apnil 17, 1990. He
added there was also an eleventh condition to be added, wh'ich stated the Red Lion
would particlpate in a streetscape special improvenent district lf and when formed.
There was some discussion by Council and staff regarding notice of action on the Red
Lion lmprovements. Larry Eskwith comented he would have felt more comfortab'le ifall the items were included on the agenda mentioned the appeal of the PEC action,
and recormended Council table the item until the next Evening l'leeting. Tom
Steinberg fe1 t it was alrlght to table the itern, but we shou'ld take comtents so
staff can be working on Council concerns before the next time. Jay Peterson,
representing the applicant, stated this was the first he had heard of a notification
problem, and with the constructlon season so short, the delay would put them
-?-
t
J
behind. Gordon Brittan fe'lt Tom Braun's presentation was hard to understand and
asked to see the scale mode'l up close and hear the presentation again. After Tom
Eraun ran through it again, Jay Peterson gave reasons why he felt the Planning
Commjssion approved, and why the Council should approve. Jim Morter, architect for
the project, presented photos to Council of the view line. Jay added reasons why
the project was good. Jay, Jim, and Larry answered questions of Council. Yvonne
Mulla'ley made comments on the roof design. After more discussion by Counci'l , Connie
Knight asked for the view corridor to be specifica1 'ly dealt with separately from the
Red Lion improvements. After much more discussion by Council, Merv Lapin made a
motion to approve the ordinance on first reading, and directed staff to place the
ordinance on the I'lay 1, 1990 Evening Meeting agenda directly after the Red Lion
app'l ication. l4ayor Rose seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion
passed 4-2, wjth Tom Steinberg and Lynn Fritzlen opposing.
filext was the l{ational Ve'lvet Dry Cleaners sign varlance r€quest. Shelly Me1 'l o*reviewed the request and criteria used ln eva'luating the request. She stated staff
supported the height and location varjance requests, but not the one square foot
increase in size. Shel'ly noted the Design Review Board unanimously voted 5-0 for
approval for a'l 'l three requests. Bill Hoube, the applicant, requested the one
square foot increase to match the liquon store sign. After some dlscussion by
Counci'1 , Lynn Frjtzlen made a motion to approve the height and location variance
requests of the sign, but not the jncreased size, for reasons presented by staff and
finding the sane as staff as noted in the staff memo to the Design Review Board
dated April 4, 1990. Robert LeVine seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously 6-0.
At this time, it was felt a motion should have been made to table the cal 1 up of the
Red Lion conditional use, variances, and exterior alteration to the May 1, 1990
Evening Meeting for adequate notification of the public. lrlerv Lapin made the
motion, and Peggy 0sterfoss seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously 6-0.
il side and rear setback variance request for Lot D-7 Bighorn Temace was next on the
agenda. She'l ly Mello explained the variance request and discussed staff's
recorrnendation for denia'l , while the Planning Conrnission had voted in favor of the
request. She then reviewed the criteria used in evaluating the requests and
answered questions of Council. Eric Hill, architect representing the applicant,
exp'l ained the one foot side setback. Lynn Fritzlen suggested staff'look into
rezoning of the subdivision. Peggy 0sterfoss made a motion to approve the side and
rear setback requests, because there was not a significant intrusion beyond the
original footprint, and stating a hardship was the result of the buildjng a'l ready
being in place when the setback was determined. Robert LeVine seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1, with Lynn Frjtzlen opposing. Tom
Steinberg then made a motion for staff to address the local neighborhood into the
total zoning 'issue, to which Merv Lapin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously 6-0.
.;l,lext on the agenda was the Lions Rldge rockfal'l anendment. Tom Braun reviewed the
hazard ordinance standards for rockfall zoning changes within the Town. He stated
staff had no recommendation and asked the applicant's consultant for a report on why
the area should be rezoned medium severity instead of high severity. Robert lrish,
an engineering geologist, representing Jill Down and Bruce Canton, discussed his
review letter on the Lions Ridge hazard area. He and Tom then answered questions of
Council. Mayor Rose nernarked he agreed with l'lr. Irish. After some discussion by
Council, Lynn Fritzlen made a motion to reclassify the area fron hlgh to medium
severity rockfall, accepting Robert lrish's study, and directing staff to amend the
Town's rockfall records. Robert LeVine seconded the motion. A vote was taken and
the motion passed unanimous'ly 6-0.
Action on the ABC School lease agreement was the twe'lfth item. Larry Eskwith
cormented the lease was almost a dup'licate of the Learning Tree's agreement which
was before Counc'i I two years ago. He added there was no Exhibit A, however, and
asked Council to approve the agreement contingent upon having ABC School provide a
survey of the area inc] uding the addition after construction was complete. Lynn
Fritzlen made a motion to approve the agreement as presented, with the stipulation
that the ABC School provide the Town with an improvement survey after the
alterations have been made. Robert LeVine seconded the motion. ltlerv Lapin
suggested wording be added that the school be run by a Board of Directors that is
elected by the parents of the students. Lynn and Rob amended the motlon and
second. A vote was taken and the motion passed unan'imously 6-0.
-3-
The last lten on the agenda was actlon on Vall Vi'llage Inn space lease agreement.
Larry Eskwith noted the lessee was not prepared to dlscuss the ltem tonight, and
requested it be postponed to the ltlay I Evening l,leeting. A motion to table the itemto the lilay I Evening l4eeting was nade by Tom Stelnberg and seconded by PeggyOsterfoss. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0, wlth llerv Lapln abstaining.
There was no Cltizen Particlpation.
There belng no further public business, the meetlng was adJourned at 11:05 p.m.
Respectful ly subm'l tted,
ATTEST:
Itlinutes taken by Brenda Chesman
-4-
INTERDEPARTI|ENTAIJ UEETINGAprll 4, 1990
lfednesday at 10!00 a.n.
Attn:Ron PhiLlips
Stan Berrlman
Greg IIaII
Pete Burnett
Ken EuEhey
Dick Duran
I'fike UcceePat Dodson
Pam Brandneyer
Eom Braun
Gary Murrain
SuEan Scanlan
Mike Mollica
Kristan Pritz
Agenda
1.
2.
3.
DauphLnaiE Subdlvisl-on
llorse Drawn Carriage $de5.-/---\Canning CuI lle S""\fgg!@
4.
\-.
Elk ileadowB
zor [)oJ fi IA b"'T
4* 4:- c*-fn'l
?ffi-1 P-'-4 Jsu'<'</(
shelly Mello
I.
Approximate length oltime item wii'l require:o
Item,/Topic: ( o?A' #
/) A t_, t) ..' ffi z7 r A ww.r)A*1 ,/7-/44- @" sbAE--a< ' t + | /4k 4EEEE?Z ->rJ{r lt A ^ a I/ rpq,lAl Jr,r a'n antnr{n'p';t lb rzdaJl UryaAfl N${LqT lwlrlr A4 (u^artr"-
"0ir]4C A)o aJ-.' a rantL{iu r in ".{ blt l' ll, Bk}S', lLa.uniLp- fi li,n+ J,
futio*]. n, p^l wafLu'mtt, fuyN,"a'o- l4;efuAc;/,uriiN 0
lI. Action Requested of Council:
-, offp* l\o-5S0 a* {rnt rt_o'ilrro3
V. Assurances (_ Legal ,
Professl ona'l )
_ Engineering, _ Finance, _ Outside
Municipal qode of the Town of Vail including but not limited toChapter 18.54 shall be conplied with.
(b) The Town of Vail Design Review Board in addition to the
requiren0ents of Chapter 18.54 shall take into consideration thesuitability of the proposed building or other structure and thematerials of which it is to be built to the Lot upon which it isto be erected, and the harrnony thereof with the surroundings.
(c) The goal of these guidelines and the interpretation ofChapter L8.54 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code shaIl be tocreate, for the entire Subdivision, a conpatible and homogeneousarchitectural quality harmonious with the character of the area.
(d) The following specific restrictions sha11 governconstruction on and use of any Lot.
1) Architectural . At the time of review of specificarchitectural plans provided for any development of single farnilystructures within Special Developrnent District #22, t,]ne Town of VailDesign Review Board shall, in addition to the Design Guidelines setforth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code, consider thefollowing guidelines in the review and approval process. Thearchitectural design of the buildings upon the site shaLl be such thatbuildings relate harmoniously to each other. This is not to irnplythat each building must look exactly simi1ar to those around j-t, butthat compatibility be achieved through the use of scalq naterials andcolors, and building shape and forn. The overriding ccincern is that,upon completion, the Special Development District, because of theclustered nature of the sna1l single farnily lots situated around
common open space should appear to be an integrated developrnentpossessing a common architectural quality, character, and appearance.
To this end the following general design criteria shall. be fo]Lowed:
a. A palette of colors shall be as set forth below
and presented to the Design Review Board for their reviewand approval . 'Colors are indicated for the use ondifferent tlpes of building materials and elements such asstucco colors, siding colors, metal flashing, windows,accent colors, etc. The palette of colors j.ndicate a EAllggof acceptable colors in order to encourage sinilarity on one
hand, but also diversity within the acceptable rancre.
b. The folLowing building forrns and materials shall
be adhered to:
1. Roof. The roof pitch shal1 be a niniurum 8/10 anda maxinum ot ).2/L2. A clipped or hipped gable
2.
roof shall be mandatory.shall be -ff resariobutts ' ' '"'*-----*
Chirnnevs. The chinneys
chinney caps of h/eathered
The roofing materialhingles with staggered
shall be stucco with
copper.
or rrPaint
roof.
solid color
3. ,;fl$eq. AIl flues shall be galvanized
i- Lols') sheet rnetal, painted to natch the
--..-+"/.
4. Main Fasia. The main fasia sha1l be astain, with brown taupe or gray.
5. Secondarv Fasia and Metal Railinqs above the FirstFloor. The secondary fasia and metal railings
above the first floor shall be an accent trimcolor of rnuted green, red or blue.
5. Wal1s. WaLLs shalL be of stucco and horizontal
wood siding. Stucco colors shall be gray, tin oroff-white. Wood siding colors shall be gray,
brown or taupe.
7. Stone. Wal1s will have a urinimum of a two foothiqh stone wainscot in rainbow nix with a
sandstone cap.
8. Windows. Windows shall be recessed a minirnurn of
. ,\ two inches frorn the outside wal1 plane and have a
ct0s'sanastone si]1. Trim shall be ivhite, taupe or
brown.
9. outdoor Liqhtinq. outdoor lighting shall beindirect with a concealed source except for an
entry chandelier which may be exposed globes witha fixture of black or weathered cooper look metal .
Garases. No garage doors sha11 directly face thestreet.
Landscape: At the tirne of review of landscape
any development of single fanily structures within
the Special Developrnent District #22 the Town of VaiL shall, inaddition to the l-andscape guidelines set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the
Vail Municipal Code, consider the following guidelines in the review
and approval process:
a. Entrv Landscapinq and Liqhtinq: A plan indicatingthe landscape treatment of the nain project entry sha11 besubnitted and approved. The goal of such a plan shal1 bethe following:
L. Present an identifiable entry point to thesubdivision containing plant rnaterials, lighting,
and signage of a scale appropriate for the sizeof the developrnent.
2. Provide appropriate screening to the rear yards
(along Lionrs Ridge Loop) of Lots 20-24 which
\ blends in with the entry treatment.
I .I l; 3. Provide appropriate screening along the western'\ql :< edge of tiict-c.\"$' " t' b. When the individual landscape plans are presented
for individual lots special care shall be taken in thedesign of side yard landscaping in order to provide adeguate
screening between structures. Active outdoor use areas
should be located within front and rear vards.
c. The concern of the Cornrnittee sha11 be to irnprovethe natural appearance of the Subdivision and themaintenance of such appearance. Owners and their
representatives or builders will be recruired to:
(aa) Minimize disruption from grading.
(bb) Revegetate and restore ground cover
erosion and appearance reasons.
(cc) Use indigenous species of plant naterials.
for
(dd) Select the man-rnade elemenLs that blend andare compatible with the land.
(ee) Use existing or natural drainage paths
whenever possible.
(ff) conserve and protect topsoil , rock forrnations
and unigue landscape features.
3) Water and Sanitation: Each structure designed for
occupancy or use by human beings shall connect with water andsanitation facilities made available by Upper Eagle Valley water and
Sanitation district or any other similar governnental or guasi-
MINUTES
VAIL TOI.IN COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 3, 1990
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vai'l Town
7 :30 p.m. , i n the Counci'l Chambers
l'lEl.lBERS PRESENT:
I{EMBERS ABSENT:
TOI{N OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Council was held on Tuesday, April 3, 1990,
of the Vail l'lunicipa'l Bui'lding.
Kent Rose, Ilayor
Tom Steinberg, lvlayor Pro Tem
Lynn Fritzlen
Jim Gibson
Merv Lapin
Robert LeVine
Peggy 0sterfoss
None
Ron Phi I I I ps, Town ltlanager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
at
The meeting began with a ten year employment anniversary award to Charles l{ick. Ron
Phillips gave brief background information on Charlie, Director of Administrative
Services and Assistant Town Manager, and then presented Charlie with a Town of Vail
silver belt buck1e. After a few words of cormendation by Ron and Kent, Charlie
thanked everyone.
Next on the agenda was approval of the minutes of the March 6 and 20, 1990
meetings. There was no discussion by Counci'l or the public. Merv Lapin made a
mot'ion to approve the minutes as presented, and Peggy 0sterfoss seconded. A vote
was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0.
The third item was a consent agenda of the fo'llowing:
A. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1990, second reading, namending Speclal
Oevelopment District No, 4, Cascade Village Area D, GIen Lyon offjce site to provide
for changes to parking provisions, micro-brewery bui'l ding, and east building.
B. Ordinance No. 12, Series of 1990, second reading, amending the Town's sales
tax code.
Mayor Rose read the ful 'l titles of the ordinances. Larry Eskwith stated there were
no changes to either ordlnance since first reading, Kristan Pritz and Larry then
answered questions from Council. Tom Steinberg made a motion to approve the consent
agenda as presented, which Merv Lapin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously 7-0.
0rdinance No. 6, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance relating to smoking in
pub'l ic places and places of employment was next. The fu] 1 tlt] e was read by Mayor
Rose. Susan Scan'l an gave brief background lnformation on how the ordinance had come
about. After some discussion regardlng posting outside of buildings, Susan answered
questions of Counci'| . t'latt Carpenter fe'l t this was a watered down po1 icy and that
the ordinance shou'ld have been worded much more strongly. Tom Steinberg made a
lmotion to approve the ordinance, and Lynn Fritzlen seconded. A vote was taken and
Ithe motion passed unanimously 7-0.
IlFlfth on the agenda was 0rdinance No. 11, Series of 1990, flrst readingr'rezoning
llots 3, 4, and 5, Vail Valley 3rd Fi'ling, a part of Sunburst replat from Primary/
lSecondary Residential to a Special Development District. Mayor Rose read the full
Ititte. Kristan Pritz reviewed the SDD request and gave background information. She
lreviewed the criteria used in evaluat'ing the proposal and explained why staff
lrecormended denial . Krlstan noted the Planning and Environmental Cormission voted
lunanimously 7-0 for denlal . Robert Warner, the applicant, gave reasons why he fel t
Ittre SO0 should be granted, and explained why the pool area under the garage would
lnot affect the floor area. Jlm Junge, architect for the proiect, gave further
lreasoning why the request should be approved. Kristan and Robert answered questions
lof Council. lvlayor Rose fe'lt that since the Warner's were offering over 2,000 square
lfeet in three employee units, maybe Council could approve as an lncentive because it
lwas a benefit to the Town. Robert LeVine made a motion to approve the ordinance,
I
I
I
which was seconded by Peggy Osterfoss. Tom Steinberg requested Mr. Uarner to deedrestrict the pool so it would remain that way permanently, and to deed restrict the
enployee housing units so they are permanently employee housing; also, to ensure the
employee units would not be for sale, but remain rentals only. Robert LeVine
amended the motion to include Tom's suggestions, and Peggy amended the second.
Peggy 0sterfoss stated she wanted it included in the ordinance that the reason for
approval was for a gain in employee housing. Kristan commented it wou'l d be added
somewhere in the beginning of the ordinance, in the "l{hereas" sections. There was
then sone discussion by Council regarding enforcement and contro'l . Dal ton l{illiams,of the PEC, remarked that all members of the PEC felt it was a good design, a good
proposal , but they were concerned about using an SDD as the mechanism to do this andsetting a precedent. Jay Peterson added he felt the SDD should be granted becauseit was a very creative vray to add three employee units. Peggy 0sterfoss commented
Council h,as concerned with providing additional affordab'le housing for the conmunity
and it was appropriate to approve this SDD. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously 7-0.
Item six was Ordinance No. 13, Series of.1990, first reading, a request for an
$rmdrcnt to SI)D b.22, r rrsubdlvlslon of Lotr l-19,. tlock 2, Llon*idge Flltng
No. 3. The full title was read by Mayor Rose. Kristan Pritz stated the SDD had
been approved and the final plat approved, but not recorded with the County yet.
She noted this was an amendment to the original SDD and that the final plat was a'l so
being revised. She reviewed the changes requested, and comnented staff recomnended
approval with the conditions shown in the ordinance. Buff Arnold, architect for theproject, gave further explanation of the amendments to the SDD and reasoning for
approval . Mr. Pat Dauphinais addressed the item of number of driveways. There was
then some djscussion by Council regarding additional curb cuts. Peggy Osterfoss
made a motion to approve to prov'ide changes with the finding that the changes are in
accordance with the SDD criteria conditions as listed'in the staff memorandum to the
PEC dated March 26, 1990; except under enployee dwelling units, the wording,'anylot" should be used; a letter of credjt should be provided for a bus stop, so one
can be provided once a school or Town bus schedule is established within five years;
add the PEC recommendations that 1) each phase of development shall include a
minimum of one employee unit until the six employee unit minimum is fulfilled, 2)
garages for employee units sha'l I be connected to the main structure, 3) the
developer shall construct a sidewalk along the north side of Lionsridge Lane
beginning at the cul-de-sac and extending to the main entry to the subdivision, and4) at grade, unroofed, unenc'l osed decks may extend five feet into the rear setbackfor Lots 1-14; including conditions 3,4, 5, and 6 in the staff recorrnendation; and
the four additional curb cuts not be approved. I'lerv Lapin seconded the motion.
Robert LeVine was concerned that employee housing figures were not included in thetotal GRFA, and wanted them shown up front, because they should be addressed and notignored. Kristan Pritz remarked they would be added in the density section. Peggy
Osterfoss suggested they be added in the preamble'l ike the last ordinance, in the
"Whereas" sections, which Krjstan agreed to. Dalton Uilliams, of the PEC, stated
the PEC voted on the curb cuts 4 for and 3 against, and explained their reasonings
and concerns to the Council. Tom Steinberg stated he would vote against the
ordinance as presented because of the lack of safety for children on the sidewalk;
the curb cuts belong on the north side only. Jin Gibson agreed. A vote was taken
and the motion passed 5-2, with Tom Steinberg and Jlm Gibson opposing.
Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1990, first reading, a request for a Special DevelopmenOistrict at the Garden of the Gods on Lot K, Block 5, Vail Village 5th Fillng, and
portion of P-2, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing, at 365 Gore Cneek Drjve. The fultitle was read by Mayor Rose. Kristan Pritz gave chronological background
information of the SDD nequest to amend the origina1 SDD. She reviewed the criteri
used in evaluating the nequest, exp'lained why the staff recomendation was for
approval with the eight conditions and three recormendations to the DRB as shown in
the staff memorandun to the PEC dated ttlarch 26, 1990. Don Hare, representing the
owner, reviewed again why this SOD amendment was before the Council. Pam Hopkins,
representing the architect, exp'l ained changes in the building footprint p1ans. Art
Carroll, a resident in the Vorlaufer, was against the SDD because it would b'lock th
view of Vai'l Mountain. After much discussion by Council, Peggy Osterfoss made a
motion to approve the ordinance with findings based on the evaluation of the
proposed SDD criteria are appropriate, wlth al'l conditions in the staff
reconmendation as shown in the staff memorandum to the PEC dated ltlarch 26, 1990.
After some discussion by Council, Jim Gibson seconded the motion. A vote was taken
and the motion passed 4-3, with ltlerv Lapin, Lynn Fnitzlen, and Robert LeVine
opposi ng.
At this time, Mayor Rose asked that the next few agenda items be p1 aced on a consen
agenda:
-2-
t
A. 0rdinance No. 15, Series of 1990, first reading, an ondinance changing the
order of business at Council meetings.
B. Resolution No. 8, Series of 1990, proclaiming the week of April 2l-Zl as
Earth Awareness tJeek.
C. Resolution N0.9, Series of 1990, setting rules for Council public
heari ngs .
After some discussion by Council, Merv Lapin made a motion to place Ordinance No.
15, Reso'l ution No. 8, and Reso'l ution No. 9 on a consent agenda. Tom Steinberg
seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0.
Mayor Rose then read the fu'l'l titles of 0rdinance No. 15, Reso'lution No. 8, and
Resolution No. 9. Robert LeVine made a motion to approve the consent agenda, which
l'lerv Lapin seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unaninously 7-0.
Next was Resolution No. 10, Series of 1990, a reso'l ution opposing mandatory Social
Security and Medicare coverage for public employees. Lynn Fritzlen stated she would
not support this resolution because she felt public employees should be subjected to
the same programs as the private sector. There was some discussion by Council and
Ron Phillips. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the resolution, and Peggy
Osterfoss seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1, with Lynn Fritzlen
oppos I ng .
Fhe Jacka'lope Cafe & Cantina sign variance request was next. Shelly Mello gave
background information on the variance request. She revlewed the four criteria usedin evaluating the variance and explained why staff and the DRB recommended approval
of the request. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the request for reasons and
findings as shown in the March 7, 1990 staff memorandum to the DRB. Peggy 0sterfoss
seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0.
There was no Citizen Participation.
Merv Lapin commented Councilmembers had received a'letter from l{oody Beardsley
regarding the Beartree'lot. He requested Ron Phillips write a letter to Mr.
Beardsley requesting detai'l ed informatjon; Ron replied staff would fo1 1ow up on the
request.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
Respectfu'l ly submi tted,
ATTEST:
VOt t
nutes taken Brenda Chesman
-3-
APPLICATION FOR
MAJOR SUBDIVISION REVIEt^l
(more than 4 'lots)
^Errtr z/o /o^rt
one_j4_41ttzA.APPLICANT
B.
NAME OF
MAILING
NAME OF
MAILING
NAME OF
Ol^lN ER' S
MAILING
ADDRESS 515
APPL ICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE
1.
PROPERTY Ol'lN
SIGNATURE
PH0NE +-?6 . ll+1
PH}NE 4ry- 11tb
v'*
>Jc.
ADDRESS bltos
D.
t'
OF PROPOSAL VIfr\> VLOCATION
LOTS BLOC KS '7.
LOTS BLOC KS SUBDIVIS ION
E. FEE $l 00.00 PAI D
INCLUDE a'list of all adjacent property owners and their mai'ling addresses.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS, APPROVAL PROCESS, REVIEI,I CRITERIA
Submittal requirements, review criteria and the approval process for major
subdivjs'ions can be found in Chapter lT.l6 of the Subdivjsion Regulations.
SUBDIVIsION Ltorrt " iAAz- g
3
F. C0NSULTATi0N REQUTRED
The first step is to request a meeting with the zoning administrator to assistin meeting submjtta'l requirements and-give the proposil a preliminary review.
G.
H.
AI il3b80
PARCEL NUTBER
OIINER NAiIE AIIO ADDRESS
oa09446 -
00{Dr JILL S.
P.0. EoX 12E8
EDttARDSz C0 81632
CLASS
0100
21750
t/
0009447
00llDr JILL S.
P.0. E0x 12E8
EDI{AR0Sz C0 81532
ASSESS
21750
ASSESS
21750
21750
LoT - 022
fl
LoT - 023
fl3
LOT ,- 026
f,3
CLA SS
0't 00
-/oo13?24 '
C0Rt/tlCKr CRAIG -
blALSHr TH0l'lAS P. r Sl.
4230 SOUTH 33RO STREET fl24
LINCOLI'lr l{E 68505
2101-09 | -04-01 3
TAX DISI 0103
sEc - o91 rxN-RNG -2101 LOr - 013
B0oK - 0519 PAGE - 0196
YAIL GOLFCOURSE IOI{NHOIIES
UNII 13 BLOG. D
2
CLASS
11 30
1250
ASSESS SQR FT6780
'67242890 2211
49670
0010993 v
l{HITET 00ilALD E. & PAIIELA A.
304 8R!0GE ST.
VAILr C0 81657
cLrsS
111 5
1215
A SS ESS
5 060
3?220
SQR FT ACRES
29945
27?8
st!t;'i!k'3;i:l'.1!Y"11,31,Sff:Qt o4214:54 o';:::'o
1
STATE PARCEL NUi.IBER IND LEGAL DESCRIPTION
---- -----r rrrrrirrr
SQR FI ACRES
t74?8
SQR FT ACRES
36427
ACRES
2t 05-l 22-02-02?
TAX DISI 011O
sEc - |22 THN-RNG -2103
B00K - 0516 PAGE - 0721
LION'S RIOGE SUSDIVTSION
ELOCK 3 LOT 4
2103-122-O?-02t
rAx DrsT 0110
sEc - 122 TXN-RNG -2103
BOoK - 0516 PAGE - 0821
LION,S RIOGE SUBDIVISION
BLoCK 3.toT 5
2f 03-12?'02-026
TAx Drsr 0110
sEc - 122 TtJll-Rl{G -e103
80of( -:0494 PAGE - 0?69
LION,S RIDGE SUBOIVISIOI{
?ARCEL A LOI 3 lLK 3
35T COIIPLEIE
372 80
rt il3080
PARCEL ilUl|bER
OIINER }IA',IE AND AOORESS STAIE PARCEL }IUIIBER ANO LEGAL OESCRIPTIOiI
"';;;?*';;i!;'.i3i"l"3l,8ii:q!t o4;14234 o';::;'o
2
'/0030994
CANI0|lr ERUCE
2475 GlRt{I Sll DRrVE
YAfLr C0 81657
ASSESS SQR FT1500 1625621970 1E38
z7 470
oo3302r'/
HART'I RICITARO TI. :& J[NE Y.
1401 LIONS RIO6E LOOP
VArLr C0 E1657
ASSESS SQR FT11250 4791613150 t854
----------
2 4400
37/
CIRCLE BUILDERST tNC.
LIONSRIDGE tOOP
co 81657
ASSESS SQR FT21750 46352
ACR€S
ACRES
ACRES
2103-122-02-027
rax Drsr 0110
sEc - 122 TI|N-RNG -2103
BOOK - PAGE -
LION,S RIOGE SUBDIVISION
PARCEL I LOT 3 BLK 5
9OT COilPLETE
CLA SS
1115
1215
CLA SS
111Z
1212
21750
R ICHAID
4e055
SPRII{GSr C0 80904
ASSESS SQR FT
2f750 30797
2103-1 22-02-007
TAX DIST 0110
SEC - 12? Ttltl-RilG
800K - 0476 PAGE
LION:S RIDGE FILi
BLOCT - LOT 3
LOT - 027
t3
LOT - 007
2103-1?2-O2-006
TAX orsr 0110
SEC - 122 TUN-RNG -2103 LOT - 006
SOOK - PAGE -
LtON,5 RI06E FIL.2
BLOCK - LOT 4
2103-122-02-OO9
TAX DIST OlIO
sEc - 122 TLu-RNC -2103 LoT - 009
800K - 0512 PAGE '- Ot67
LION,S RIOGE FIL. ?
8L0CK - LOT 1
00331
FULL
1 653'
VAI LT
CLASS
0100
00t5185
llU ELL ER r
P.O. BOX
COLORADO
CLASS
0100
-2103- 0441
2
AC RES
21750
::t:.l}. AIiSOSO PROPERTI
PARCEL NUil.BER
OIIT{ER IIA}IE AND AODRESS
0033455
RICKllAllr PAfRICIA
7936 oUBtrN Cr.
llICl{ITAr (S 67206
cLASS ASSESS
1112 112501212 13160'---------
24410
SQR F' ACRES
3588 0
1870
Ar
';li:i'.!3i"jTr3Jriff:qlt'4214254 o';33;'o
3
STATE ?ARCEL NUfiEER AND LEGAL DESCRIPII0I'l
i--------rorrrrrr r- -----n--
2103-l 22-02-00E
TAX DIST 0110
sEc - 1t2 Tt{t{-RNG -2103 LoT - 008
B00K -; ?AGE -
LION,S RIDGE FIL.2
8L0C( -'LOr 2
TOTAL I{UIIEER OF NAilES S 9
ORDERED 8Y: ARNOLD PIATT
3''++"W G.U
-Tk Pa# lAx-
t'l a3 N. *"fr* F",J KJ"tt-
v}i\ 6tl,s-l
J; O*eaew
6-lr- AEt- A%,'
.l=b"h,^^,l .F?t.
For-a v l^FtL
-To-r-. # Vt, I
ll0l lllons Ridge LooPVall, Colorado 81657
Novcnber 13' 1989
8olar cr66t ocnera
Wetnechelnk Bosus l{lllcr
3773 Cbcrry craek.North Drlve
llenvegr Goloraato 80209
tds. Patrlcla Gould
P.O. Box 2393Vall, C.olorado 81658
'lls. Vlstan ElegaI
e./o Vtvtan Bllltrup
1.35 Bcllalrc Strcet
Denverr Colocado 8O2Lg
Its. L,lsa Park
P.O. 8or 2207Vall, Colorado 81658
8r. Edwtrd J. Sitt
Slera lf,ratcPec
ltexlco 10 DF IIEXICO
Ms, Carol Ann Slnnernen
c/o Coluubla Savtngs
P.o. Bol L7l27
Denvetr' Colorado 8021?
t. ' ''t
UTILITY LOCATION VERIFICATION
t3 ,+lLSUBDIVISION
JOB NAI''IE ldAtt -
acconpanying site Plan.
tlountain Bell
I -634-3778
tlestern Slope Gas
Harry Moyes
Public Service ComPanY
. Gary Hall
Holy Cross E'lectric Assoc.
Ted Husky/Michael LavertY
Vail Cable T.V.
Gary Johnson
Upper Eag'le Valley llater
and Sanitation Discrict
David Krenek
FILING
toowss-/ ru^rs hrDaE I oa/
The location of ut,ilities, whether they be nain trunk lines or proposed
lines, nrst be rpp"o.ruJ-.nd verified by the following ut'ilities for the
Date
a
@
@
Authori zed
NOTE: These verifications do not relieve the contractor of his
responsibility to obtain a stteet cut Pernit fron the
Tonn of Vail, Departnent of Public lforks and to,obtain
utility locations before digging in any public right-
of.uayo!easenentintheTorrnofVail.{'buildingpernit
.a
is not a street cut Pemit. A stleet cut Pernit nust be
obtained separatelY.
.\.
PUBLIC NOTICE
NoTIcE Is HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental
Comruission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section l-8.65.060 of the municipal code of the
Town of Vail on March 26, l-990 at 3:OO p.m. in the Town of VaiI
Municipal BuiJ-ding. Consideration of:
l-. A Work Session on Air Quality
2. A request for a conditional use permit to rnodify an outdoor
dining deck, an amendnent to restrictions reetarding two
employee units, and a reguest for an exterior alteration, a
height variance, a site coveragie variance and a landscape
variance in order to construct an addition to the Bell Tower
Building at 201 core creek Drive.
Applicant: Clark Willingham ,/ BeIl Tower Associates' Ltd.
3. A reguest for a Special Development District at the Garden
of the Gods on Lot K, Block 5, Vail Village Fifth Filing at
365 Gore Creek Drive.
Applicant: Garden of the Gods, Mrs. A.G. Hill Fanily
4. A request for a setback variance for the construction of a
qaralte on Lot 20, Block 7, VaiI Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Peter Tufo
5. A request for a height variance in order to add dormers to
the upper floor of the Mountain Haus at 292 E. Meadow Dr.
(Part of Tract B, Vail Village First Filing)
Applicant: Rich Brown/Mountain Haus Condo. Assoc.
6. A request for an anendnent to Special Development DiEtrict
No. 22 and a naJor subdivision for resubdivision of Lots 1-
19, Block 2, L,ionsridge Filing No. 3.
Applicant: Dlr. Pat Dauphinais, Dauphinais - ltoseley
Construction
7. A request for a side yard setback variance and a stream
setback variance for Lot 9, Bfock 3, Vail Row Houses (Unit
#e).Applicant: Walter Gramm
The applications and inforrnation about the proposals are
available for public inspection in the Community Development
Department office.
Town of Vail
Corununity Development Department
Published in the Vail Trail on March 9, l-99O.
**"'-Minor modificatlons are being made to the DauphLnals subdlvision. Copl,es of the preliminary
plan are avalLable for your review at the Town of Vail Conrmunity Development Dept. Please
contact Kristan Pr|tz at 479-2L38 if vou have questions.
t'ffiv
trc- 3At- th, ilo^tU W ou+
\M ow I grn]A 1f-'l
dL1, +l\
{tL ore0irr
,,/fi{
o
I'TILITY LOCATION VERIFICATION
lLSUBDIVISION
accotnPanying site Plan.
l,lountai n Bel'l
I -634-3778
l{estern S'lope Gas
Harry Moyes
Public Service ComPanY
. Gary Hall
Holy Cross E'lectric Assoc.
Ted Husky/Michael LavertY
Vail Cable T.V.
Gary Johnson
Upper Eagl e Va1'leY blater
and Sanitation Discrict
David Krenek
FILING
nowss f ruats PrD6E l oa/
Ttre location of utllities, rhether they be nain trtrnk lines or proposed
lines, urst be approved and verified by the following utilities f,or the
&o
is^?o
NoTE: orese verifications do not relieve the contractor of his
responsibility to obtain a stteet cut permit fron the
Tom of Vail , Departnent of Public l{orks and to,obtain
utility locations before digging in any public right-
of-uayoreasenentintheTorrnofVail.{buildingpernit
is not a street cut Pernit. A street cut pernit must be
3 h44.v,
=P/r'3- {"-foi1!:i.';Y,i'
at',,ached sh.
obtained separatelY.
.oo
EInter-MountainlAft gineeringhd.
SUBJECT:
DATE,ZTIME:
LOCATION:
ATTENDANCE:
PURPOSE:
ThLs meeting was held to discuss and clarify the civil andeite engineering reguirementE outlined in the March 26, 199O nenoto the Planning and Environrnental Commission from the Departmentof Conmunity Development.
The neeting centered around the gection entitled "Major
Subdivislon Conditions of Approval" on the last 2 palte€r of the
memo, and were discuesed in order- A copy of thoee two pages ieattached for reference.
I ) Item 1:
Lions Ridge Lane ia approximately 10 degrees fron being
Perpentlicular to Lion Ridge Loop- The tosrn aubdivisionregulations state that interaections are to be as close toperpendicular as poegible. Tha CDOH Roadway DesiEn Manual gtates
that any intersectlon wi-thin 3O" of perpendicular is eonelderedperpendicular for deeign purposea (copy attached).
Re-aligning the road right-of-way for Lione Ridge Lane wouldrequire a replatting of the subdivision and therefore will not berequired-
The asphalt road surface will be shifted to the eaet withinthe platted Llons Ridge Lane rlght-of-way to make the drivingeurface intersecti.on as perpendicular as poesible. Thig will be
done by shorteni.ng the delta of the 115 foot radius curve guch
that the centerline bearing of the tangent movea to the eagt-
Box No.978 . Avon, Colorado 81620 o 9495072 Denwr S$'l{iill
1420Vance Street r Lakewood, Colorado 80215' Phone: ?32{158
o
MITNTTNG MINUTES
Civi.L and Site Engineering Requirements
Lione Ridge, Filing No. 5Project No. V-8312
4:15 p.m- on t'larch 26, 1990
VaiI Muni.cipal Building
Greg HalI
Pat DauphinaisJeff Spanel
Town of Vail
D-M.C-
Inter-Mountain Engineering
Meeting Minutes
Page 2
March 26, f99O
The final bearing of the asphalt surface will be as cloee to
perpendi.cul.ar as posEible, provided that the flowline of the eaet
roadside ditch moves no further eaat than to be coincident with
the northwest corner of Lot 1 (where the north li.ne of Lot 1
Eteets the Liono Ridge Lane Road right-of-way).
II) Item 2- 3- and 6
The Lions Ridge Lane Road design prepared by R.B.D. Inc waspreviously approved by the Town of VaiI and is what was being
congtructed.
Inter-Hountain Engineering will attempt to re-design the
road to lnclude:A) A 20' eegment of roadway beginning at the edge
of aephalt in Lions Ridge Loop having a 4% grade-
B) ThiE segment will be tangent to the vertical curve.
C) The length of the vertical qurve wiII be baEed upon
approprlate design atandards for a 3O mph road.
D) Liona Ridge Lane will have a maximum 8% grade.
E) The existing fil] placed by the developer will
be ghown on ttre profile.
If the desidn provea impractical due to additional grading
on accesg problema to the lots, a meeting will be scheduled withthe town engineer to digcugs building the road in accordance with
the previoualy approved design.
III) Ttens 4 and 5:
The drainage plan ig betng revised. Baeed upon our
diecussione with the town. Ttre deweloper intends to delete thepreviously deslgned detention pond and l>ay for his pro-rata ehareof certain off-site improvemente whi.ch will alleviate the need
for the pond- Refer to the attached memo to Mr. Pat Dauphinaisfor details.
IV) Ttem 7:
A flexible pavement desiErt will be prepared and eubmitted tothe town engineer fon Lions Ridee Lane.
l,leet ing Minutes
Page 3
March 26. f990
V) Ttem 8 and 9:
The cross-section for Liong Ridge Lane will conform to thetyplcal cross-sectlon shown on the RBD design for thls road.
Roadgide ditcheE will be approximateLv 2' deep with 3:1 sideslopes, and re-vegetated with graaa- Landscaping (treee and
shrubs) will be done outgide of the road right of way.
CulvertE will be provided at the intersection of alIdriveways. Fifteen inch dianeter culverte nay be used provided
that they have sufficient hydraulic capacity.
?he developer wishes to delete the roadeide ditch where
Li.ong Ridge Lane is adjacent to Tract A. A stinimum 2l grade away
frorn the road wiII be provided from the bottou of the aggregatebaee course to the inwert of a gwal.e which will be constructedapproxi.nately in the center of Tract A.
Greg Hall stated that he had no problem with thiE concept,but needed to digcugs it with the planning departnent for theirapproval. He will get back to Inter-Mountain Engineering in thenext eouple of dayg.
VI) Iten 1O:
The ag-built drawingg for the utilities will be revised to
match the replatted lot configuration- These drawingo will berevised and subnitted to the town upon conpletion of the public
improvementa.
A set of conetruction drawings will be "Red Lined" to showthe current statue of utility construction and submitted to the
town engineer in the next week.
VII ) Item 11:
lnter-Mountain Engineering will meet
departrnent to diacugs the location of exietinEt
hydrante.
VIII) Bu'ildine Pernits:
No building permits will be laeued to theall of the foregoin8 is complete and approved by
with the fire
and proposed fire
developer until
the town-
Mcet ing- l{inutcg
Page 4
tlarch 26, I99O
IX) Sehedule:
Alt of tha iteng discussed in our lneeting excegt for thc aa-brtilt drawlnga, the dralnage etudy and thc frexibte pavcnentdaaicrr wtll bc complete and suboitted to the Lown lnaDproxinately 1 rreck.
*. Ttre dralnage gtudy, planc and the pavement deaign will ber$- cQnplege and cubmitted to the town by April l8th if possible.
X) Digtrl-butilon:
Copiea of theee minutcs werc distributcd to all attendeee.
ta
)
NGSED
ROADWAY
STATE OF GOLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MA I\UAL
)
\l
4-4
JAIIJARY I98O
OESIGN I.IAIIUAL
within these areas. Channelization reduces areas of conflict by sepa-
rating or regulating traffic movements into definite paths of travel
by the use of pavement markings or traffic islands.
Large areas of intersectional conflict are characteristic of skewed
intirsection angles. Therefore' modification of the angle of inter-
section is a material aid in reducing conflict areas.
403.3 Angle of Intersection
A right-angle intersection provides the shortest crcssing distance . -for intersicting traffic streams. It also provides the most favorable
condition for diivers to iudge the relative position and speed of
intersecting vehicles. Intersection angles skered not more than 30
degrees from a right argle do not materially-lncrease crossing dis-
tances or decrease visibility unreasonably and are' therefore' con-
sidered satisfactory.
l{hen intersection angles are skewed more than 30 degrees from a right
angle, the subordinate leg of the intersection rnay be realigned if
warranted by traffic and economic considerations.
403.4 Points of Conflict
Channelization separates and clearly defines points of conflict within
the intersection. Drivers are then exposed to only one conflict and
confronted with one decision at a time.
to3.5 Auxiliary Lanes
The primary purpose of auli'l iary'lanes at intersections is to provide
storage for turning vehicles, both left and right. A secondary purpose
is to provide space for turning vehicles to dece'l erate from the normal
speed of traffic to a stopped position in advance of the intersection
or to a safe speed for the turn in case a stop is unnecessary. Addi-
tionally, auxiliary lanes may be provided for bus stops or for loading
and unloading passengers from passenger cars. See 405.5.
403.6 Turning Traffic
A separate turning lane permits segregation of traffic movements and
removes turning movements from the jntersectional area. Abrupt reduc-
tion of alignnent and sight distance standards should be avoided'
particu'larly where traffic turns into a separate turn'ing lane from
a high-standard through facility.
403.7 Funnel ing
It is generally desirable to regulate subordinate traffic movements to
a single lane whert they enter or leave a moving traffic stream. The
mouth of a separate turning lane should be flared or widened to afford
easy entrance and then funneled or narrowed to pernit regulation to a
.'/
Eacb enployee duelling unit shall have one enclosed
D;laa h-1" I IgErage uxrng space.o1tr3 alFloyee dvelllng unit shall be restricted on apcnanent basis as euployee housing and shall ueet thersquirenents of Section 18.l3.OgO B 10 a-d of the Tornol Vail zoning code.
nFloyee dwelling units sball be prohibited fron bavlngrood-burning fireplaces.
gloyee dweLling unLts shall not be counted tosarrddensity or GRFA for the sr.rbdivision.
tach owner shall be reguired to prepare an euployeebmsirq unit agreeDent for Town lppiovat ana iec6raingat EaEle county before a building- pemit is released -
for the proposed residence.
llbe owner of the lot shall be required to docurnent onan annual basis to the Town of Vail that the unit hasbeen rented as a.long tem rental per the reguireaentqrtlined in Section 18.13.080 B1o 1-d of the-fown ofVail Zoning Code.
2. De requested four additional curb cuts shall not beapproved.
3. tte-special D,evelopuent District will not be effectiveuntil tlre l,laJor Subdivlsion is recorded at EagleCoutty.
4. Se llajor Subdivision shall be recorded at Eagle Countybefore a building penit shall be released foi anyconstnrction on the subdivision including coumonlryrronenents as nell as individual resid6nces.
5. lhe Toyn of Vail Engineer shall have tlre rlght
penit Ls released for any of ttre units on these lots.
f
tofor Lots
b':i.{r
/i7
€tti
.,
r.lIt'
2.
.-__edrf laniew and approve the five approved curb crits
{ dtP (. i*e ;f;*":3, il lT? =?I?i? 1.1'.t::':I. ?:l : :'l ! } :l: -'Vt---+- -)F-fg .to_ensure proper drivew-y orientation,
hfr* /tadscaping,^visibility, and dralnage before a buildingV ra-{r l- -^r -----t
-7..
2
6. lte-]ands-cip1ryr signage, and sall design for the entryto the subdivislon nust be reviewed and approved by th6
Tann Engineer before final DRB approval . --
These condltlons of approval shall be addressed before a{1".} plat is subnitted to the planning and snvlronuentalCoul,eglon for approval .
1. Llonsridge Iane shall be reorlented to a 9o flegreearqle rhere lt intersects Llonsridge loop.
l-20_f-oot roadway having a naxinun 4 percent gradesDart De constructed at the nain entry into theguDdivision.
7t
7t
t'
3. There "Jbe a 2o foot tangent beff.the vertlcar
eurve at trre ic-e-s point to the subdivislon beg1lns.
4. The drainage plan sball be revlsed to relate to the new
aiirnaga .irtEili ouirrnea ln the report tltled lR f55,
dated Jule 1986.
5. A revised drainage study shall be subnltted shich
updates ttre intefoounta-in report dated January 1989'
6. lllre Llonsrldqe Iane roadway proflle shall be revised to
address tfre 'Enanges in graie- on tlre site due to the
approved grading Plan.
7. A pavenent design based on soil con-pactlon tests shall
be-gr:bnltted foi tlre Town Engineerrs aPProvar'
8. The dralnage ditch along L,lonsridge'Iane-shall be
vegetated iittr natural frasses aE oPPosed to cobble'
/).. 9. A 1o foot rigtrt-of-ray atong either side of Lionsridge
f iDtlq€t€ rane shall be provided
10. All plans for the naJor subdivision shall be updated to
show the revised lot lines and existing grades'
11. llhe developer shall neet with the Flre Departnent and
vlrify tne'nuulti of useable hydrants for the proJect.
.i
al'u' \'z
^.7
oIInter-Mountain
Aa-s'ineerinqrta.
March 26, 1990
Mr. Pat Dauphinais
P.O. Box 1515Vail, CO 81658
Re: Li.on'g Ridge Subdivision Drainage
lME Project No. 83128
Dear Pat:
On March 23, 1990, I discugsed the propoged drainage designwith Mr. Gregg HaIl of the Town of Vail aa subnltted in thereport to him on Harch B, 1990- The following itemg were
discussed-
1. A detailed drainage atudy of the basin that
serves the exiEtine 24" culvert under I-70
which wj.Il include part of the Buffer Creek
Subdiviaion and undeveloped areas mugt beprepared to determine the developed flows.
2- The etudy will also determine the ei.ze ofculverta required along Meadow Drive tocarry the developed flows from the
drainage baei.n-
3. Drainage north of Lion'g Ridge Loop may beditched to flow westerly along the north
side of Lion-a Ri.dge Loop and piped
acrosa Buffer Creek Road directly intoBuffer Creek if poseible.
4. A cost analysis of the poEsible detentionpond, upgrading of existing systeme, and
new construction as required to carry the
developed flows will be prepared.
We will proceed with this work as directed by you asr soon aspossible. If you have any queetione pleaae caLl.
ffifu't**Duane Fehringer,
Senior Engineer
Box No.978 o Avon, Colorado 81620 . 94$5072 De-rwer @S1531
1420Vance Street o Lakewood, Colorado 8O215 . Phone: 232{158
Ordinance No. 11' Series of 1990, first reading, rezoning
Lots 3,4, and 5, Vai'l Valley 3nd Fi'ling, a part of-Sunburst
replat-from Primary/Secondary Residential to Special
Development District (Applicant: Debra and Robert l{arner,
Jr. )
Action Reouested of Council: Approve/modify/deny Ordinance
ffiirstreading'
Backqround Rationale: Proposed development on these three
1ot]-Tnffiree trimary/secondary structures. SOD zoning
is requested to allbw for GRFA and site coverage on one.'l ot
to exceed what is permitted by underlying zoning. At their
March 12 meeting, the PEC voted 7-0 to recormend denia'l of
the appl ication.
Staff Recormendation: Denial , as per staff memo.
0rdinance No. 13, Series of 1990, first reading, a request
for an amendment to SDD No. 22, a resubdivision of Lots
1-19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3 (Applicant: lt'lr' Pat
Dauphinajs, Dauphinais-Moseley Constnuction)
Action Reouest of counc'il : Approve/modify/deny 0rdinance
@firstreading.
Backqround Rationale: The PEC reviewed this request on
ffi was made by Kathy Uarren and seconded
by Dalton blilliams to approve the SDD with conditions' The
Board voted unanimously to approve the request. The
approval was per the staff memo with the fol lowing
amindments: l').
8:30
-Tom Braun
8: 55
Kristan Pritz
9:25
Kristan Pritz
6.
1.
1)
2l
3)
The four additional curb cuts off of Lionsridge Loop
are acceptable.
The emplbyee units (up to 15) may be located on any lot
as long as all development standards are met.
Each p[ase of development sha]l include a minimum of 1
employee unit until the 6 enployee unit minimum is
fulfiIIed.
A bus shelter sha'l 'l be constructed by the developer on
the west side of the subdivision entrance in Phase I'
Garages for employee units sha'l I be connected to the
main structure.
The developer shall construct a sidewalk a1 ong the
north side of Lionsridge Lane beginning at the
cul-de-sac and extending to the main entry to the
subdi vi si on.
At grade, unroofed, unenclosed decks may extend 5 feet
lnto the rear setback for Lots 1-14.
\,
4)
s)
6)
7)
8. Ordinance No. 14, Series of 1990, first reading, a-request
ior i ipecial Development District at the Garden of the Gods
on Lot k, B'lock 5, Vli'l Village 5th Fi'ling, -and a portion of
p-2, etoif 3, Vaii Vittage sth Fi'ling, at.365 Gore Creek
Drive (Applicant: Mrs. A.G. Hill familv)
Action Requested of Council: Approve/modify/den-v Ordinance
@irstreading.
Background Rationa'le: 0n March 26, 1990,- the PEC reviewed
ffiecor*nended approval by. a vote of 6-0-1
(Connie Knight abstained per the staff memo)'
Staff Recommendation: Approve Ordinance No. 13, Series of
IEEO, on
-ti
rst readi ng.
Staff Recommendatipn: Approve ordinance l'lo' 14, Series of
1990;on first reading.
Then Jin Viele mentioned his concerns. He agreed with the rest
of the Board's concerns. He stated that any tiure that there is
a proposal that affects views or other impacts, the Board
hesitates to act on it. Views are real-ly not protected by
ordinance. Jin pointed out that the Master Plan did call forin-fill in this area, but that the initial proposal that was
brought in was much nore than what the Master PIan had calledfor. And Jin felt that he could support the proposal as it had
been changed.
Reid asked if location of the dulrpster to the east of the
building would require a variance also. Peter said that would
have to be studied. Bob L,azier felt that the landscape area in
the niddle of ttre parking lot would be a better place.
Mrs. Lier nentioned that the new children's center would even
add more traffic. She was concerned about the pedestrian
traffic on Hansen Ranch Road with the huge center being built
for the children. Mrs. Lier said, rrEach of you have concerns,
yet each of you are going to support this.rr Jin Viele answered
that if every proposal were cut and dried, there would be no
need for a aoara 1i*e ttris. Peter Patten felt addressing the
, safety vtas a good issue and that they are going to put in a new
\ sidewllk connecting the Manor Vail Inn. Peter then mentioned
that this was called for in the l{aster Plan. Although the
Master Plan had not yet been approved, considerable public
review had been held at this point, and there would be nore
public review before the Master Plan Itas adopted. However, at
this point, it was fairly well agreed as to the general
direction between the public, the Planning commission, the Tohtn
Council .
Diana Donovan moved for approval of the proposal per staff nerno
with additional direction to the Design Review Board regarding
Iandscaping on the P2 lot and locating lights on the bike path
and possibly on the P2 lot. She based her approval on Findings
L &, and the third one was that of a strict and literal
interpretation. Peggy seconded the motion and the vote was 7
to 0 in favor of the approval . Peter reminded the audience
that the decision couLd be appealed within 10 days to the Town
Council .
est for a
Peter Patten explained the proposal and showed site plans with
open space and public roads. He stated that currently the site
is zonea prinaryTsecondary and is subdivided into L9 lots which
a1lows for a total of 38 dwelling units. The request results
ecial develo t district and maior
vision for d e Fil Block 2 Lots
throuqh 19.Applicant; Commercial Federal Mortqaqe Companv
-6-
in the reduction of L4 dwelling units upon a site and a total
density reduction fron 3.5 units per acre to 2.2 units per
acre. Furthermore, the total GRFA alloeted currently is 841905
square feet and the proposal is for 68,204 square feet. Fron
the original 38 units allowed, 24 units are being proposed.
Peter then reviewed the special developrnent district reviewcriteria. He stated that although the development districtwill have an underlying priurary/secondary residential zone,
with only single faruil-y residential dwellings allowed, the
designation is proposed in order to allow for slightly variedlot sizes and setbacks.
Peter stated that the staff recornnended approval with two
conditions. one, that a workable solution be found to the
ingress/egress points of the project with the adjacent Solar
Crest Condo project. And the second one, the designguidelines, including architectural and landscape elements, be
submitted to the staff with the final plat application.
The applicant's representative, Peter Jamar, discussed part of
the p1-n. He stated he had no problem with the conditions.
That the guidelines would be part of the covenance- As to the
ingressr/egress problen, he stated that one criteria was to hide
the solar Crest as much as possible and landscape heavily
between the two driveways. He had no problem of extending the
easement. One adjacent property owner, across the street,
Patty Rickman, \ras very happy with the proposal .
Jim asked the Board to comment on the proposal . Pam agreed
with the staff and felt that it hras a good plan. She did have
concern about the property at the cul.-de-sac' and she said that
she would like to see the fronts of the lots in the cul-de-sacs
be at least 30'wide. Peter said they were at least 40'. Sid
agreed with the staff nemo and the two conditions. Diana bad
two questions. One, how to nake it as safe as possible where
the two driveways exist, and two, whether or not the utilities
were underground. Peter Janar said the utilities were on ttre
north side of Lionsridge LooP, but they would be underground.
Bryan was in favor of the plan.
Peggy felt that Peter Jamar did an outstanding job with the
site plan. She felt that the design guidelines vtere very
irnporlant. Peggy also felt landscaping between the units
neLded to be specified as far as numbers and where the trees
would be, also, that as part of the entry landscaping, she felt
there should be landscaping along Lionsridge Loop and maybe a
bern to set the lots in so that the drivers were somewhat apart
fron the road. Peter Jamar felt this was a great idea, but he
felt that they could be more specific. Peter felt that each
homeowner could complete the landscaping on his own property.
-7-
4.
More discussion followed concerning the ingress/egress next to
Solar Crest. Diana felt that Peter Jamar could nove now to
help rnake a more workable solution in the future, Peter statedthat if he could find a solution, it would be great. But at
the moment, they are asking for that particular access.
After nore discussion, Pam moved to approve, and Diana
seconded, the proposal for the staff neno with conditions one,
two and the third condition, being a minimum 30' front width of
the lots in the cul-de-sacs, and number four, she added that
more specific plans of landscaping and entry with lights be
subnitted. Peggy asked that the Design Review Board have nore
specific information regarding the landscape plan- Peter said
they would be sure to get a copy of the minutes to the Design
Review Board. The vote was 7 to 0 in favor.
for an exterior alteration in ord
to John Galt shop in the Creek Plaza
Buildinq.
Applicant: Charles Rosenguist
Betsy Rosolack presented the staff memo. Bill Pierce'
representing the appJ.icant, was available for questions. Diana
Donovan pasied on the following recommendations to the Design
Review Board. The roof line should nirror Blu's and Sweet
Basil's and be conpatible. Number two, landscapinq should be
included on the north side. And number three' the planter
should be coordinated with Blu's. Number four, the roof should
not drain on to the walkway. Pan Hopkins made the motion,
seconded by to approve the,staff memo- Bilt
Pierce eert @st woul.d not object to the parking
fee. The vote was 7 to 0.
Bill Pierce then stated that having a planter in front of the
addition did not work well with the design for the addition.
Jin Viele felt the project was fine without the planter in
front of the addition. AlI of these concerns would be
presented to the Design Review Board.
est for variance in order to increase
reta ub.
Applfcant: J.w.T. l-987 vail- colorado LTD Partnership
5.
Kristan Pritz presented this nemo and explained the request.
The owners are requesting that they be allowed to pay into the
Town of Vail parking fund in lieu of the one space they would
need in increasing tneir retail area. She then gave a listoryof the parking request at the Vail Athletic Club. In view of
the criteria, the staff recornnended approval of the one parking
space variance with ttre condition that the Vail Athletic Club
osrners pay in to the parking fund.
area of the VaiI Athletic
-8-
ra
Author Officer or Age
ENDORSEMENT 103LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COI{PATIYDated March 23, L989Case VL243SENDPolicy A2754824 t:
IProperly Address LOT 1 fTHROUGH AND fNCLUDING LOTS 26, BT,'OC:K 2'LIONTS RrDGE SUBDMSION IBuyer/Se11erDAUPHINAIs-MosELEycoNsTRUcTIoNINc.,A
coLoRADO CORPORATION
I
I.;i, r, l :,, .11'.!r,,. ..,l. | ; ,,,,,,,rii,,1 .,.r fi ,,r ,.,,,,. ,'t | ',, ,'"t" - '/ .'"'"r,.t 'i", . r1,. t ii; . j l:,,. ':'1r,,.r,{J.,\i,
, t." ..
rTEMS NUMBERED 13 AND r.4 qF SCHEDULE B ARE HEREBY DELETFq. i. :
:
l'
THE TOTAL LIABILTTV OF THd COMPANY UNDER SAID POLICY AND ANY
ENDORSEMENT THERETO SHALL [Ot rXCnrO, rN THE AGGREGATEi THE.FACE
AT4OUNT OF SArD POLTCY AND ICOSTS WHrCH THE COMPANY rS OBLTGATED
UNDER THE CONDITIONS AND SITIPULATIONS THEREOF TO PAY.
I
THIS ENDORSEMENT. WHEN COUNTERSIGNED BY AN AUTHORIZED OFFICER OR
AGENT, IS MADE A PART OF ShID POLICY AS OF THE DATE THEREOF AND IS
SUBJECT TO THE SCHEDULES, ICONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS AND '
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE TFIEREIN CONTAINED, EXCEPT AS MODIFIED EY
THE PROVTSTONS HEREOF.
I
&tget:lS ii . lnvt o i.*i,
our Case # Vr2435END are enclosedThe Endorsenents for
,s
MINNESOTATrTl:A
er tcy
American Land Assocration
Form B- 1970 10-17-701
Policy Number 754824
SUBJECT TO T E EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCIPTIONS CONTAINEO IN SCHTDULI g AND IhE
PBOVISIONS F THE CONDITIONS AND STIPUI}TIONS HEBIOT
I
Fz
I
TITLE INSUFAI{ICE COtUpnruV 0F MINNES0TA, herein called the Company, insutcs. as ol Dali, 0i Poiit.''
shown n Schedule A, against loss or damage, not exceeding e amOUnt 0f inSUranCe Stated in Schedule A, and Costs, atl0n,sy. f0es ard experrsil:i !\'f''lr:'
the company may become oblioated to pay hereunder, sustainpd oriincuned by the insured by reason of
2. Any defect rn or lien or encumbrance 0n such title,
3 lacx r-.i a rr.r;ht oi access to and f rorn the land; or
4 Unmariretability of such trtle.
lN WITNESS VlHe nfOt the said lllle Insurance Comoany ol Mirnesota h;rs cat stxt ris rorLr0rijirl trame anC
seal t0 be hereunto aflixed by its duly authorized oflicers as oi the date shown in Schedule A, the 00licv lo be valrd rvhen coJnt€rrsrqttld l-)v an atrli-orr2.rcIthe dale ShOwn in SChedule A, the 00licy lo be valrd lvhen coJnt€rrsrqttld l-)V arl atrlf-orr2.rc
otlicer or agent of the Company
i
TITLE INSUBANCE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA
A Srock ComPany
4A0 Sennd Avenue Soulh Mnticitot)tis. lltttitl5:i;i 55'101
TIM Form #130 8/86 25M
- --:-..>4,1,.^f -* /a-'.--
.)ei'/rint)
Thc follow ng mat'ters are expressly exclulii:d from rhe
coveraqi; of thrs pohcy lI Any larv. 0rdrnance 0r governmental rbgt, atron
lincludmr; :)Lrl not limrled lo burlding and zonrng onJrnancesl reilrrclrng or
regLriat nli 0f pr0hibrlrng lhe occupOncy, use 0r enjoyment of the land, or
regulal n,r th{r charactcr, dirnensrons or location 0f any improvement now
0r hereaht:i eiecied 0n the land.0r prohibiting a sepafalion in ownershrp
;:L;lrl c records at Date of Poiicy.3. Defecis, liens, encumbrances,claims. or
0lhrr ffletler:l lal cieated, suf{ered, assumed 0r agreed to by insured
LXCII.JSIOIJS FRO\4 C()VTNAO
ilairnanl, iirl !ri)t known t0 the Comoanv and not shown
lris trlr ' l, 'J/n t0 ihe Insured claimant either at Date of
heirs, distributees. devisees. surviv0rs, pers0nal
kin. or corporate 0r fiducrary successors.
{b} "insured claimant". an
damage hereunder
ii 1ff,'fi",';4;'.;i:,t',;.#''i il 'i,l[,,;;ii;; ;l i; ;,;;1, lililll?" '
rnsured aoai'rst bv thrs oollc'l'- ib) Thr-' ;n5Ln'i si::iii ri;: r'r il'{l Ct:n:0;lilv rlronloilr" n
wtiting ( ) n 0ase anv actl0ll ilr proc'uilrng rs ilrj(;uT'li{ rit-1rr'r:si rs trl0i
posed as set toilh In {alabov0. I i) In case irnow[;ti'itl sl';r i :0i)r] l{r ij'1
insured hereLrnde. of anv clatnt ol l,tlc tx jnteresl \',iricll is aCvsrse t0 the
title t0 the estate or interesl, as nsurt:d, and lvh ch mrul)t cause loss 0r
damage fo, which the Comoany nay be lrable by vrrtle ijf ll'rs l)01icy, or lirrl
if title t0 lhg estate 0r Interesi. as insured, is reJecied as Ltrm;'keiable lt
such promol notice shall n0t be gtven t0 the Comoany, therr as tc such
insured all liabili\ o{ the Cornpany shall cease and terminate rr regard to
tlre natter 0r mallgrs for which such prompl rot ce Is required. p'cvrded.
howevet thal failure to notity shall in no casc pfeludice the rlEhis 0l anY
insured under this poticy unless lhe Company shall be preluilir:ed bv such
failirre anc then oniy lo ihe extenl of such pteludice.
(c) The Company shall have the r ght 3t rts own c0s1
t0 instrlute and vr,thout undue delay prosLc te an\ act on 0'trOceudrnq of
t0 do anV 0ther 3ci ivhich in ls opinron rnaY be riecessary 0r des rable t0
estebiish lhe iitle tc rhe eslate or tnteresl as insured. arrcj lhc Cornpanv
..I Ay leke any anpropri".te actt0| UnCer the icrlrs t)i thrs p0 rC'i. whelrr0' tlr
lr.;t il Sh:jil -re iiable lhereuntlel a.d Sna!l ']0: 'l erellv i,t".irJe :idliii,i, lr
lrdr,"? JIy lrit.;s,or of lSis loIcv
id) \lhenever ihe 00mi);jnr shail hav'" i.ltouQhi atr'"
rt,lli[rr; rir inia';]oseal r: delgrlse as reQu red o'lP'r'irlle(i bv ine Dr(]" 5io:ls
,r1
'r
, t,,' cy. il,e f,urrrDany rTray pursue any irj:fr i'|l $iJi 0' iu ' :'n r,i't{)'nlr'
rrtl ()rr :)i,ir :t'ir,il .)i l:lrniltltclli jurisdict orl alLl t:ti)rt:ss \.lr:;"r',t:s lhe rrtlhl.
ll r:t 5i)ii: : I I :; :. ; i ' i : . : '
, lO apnttal lr0m ilny aal,;il:1ii Uilqll-!i, ' :): rriill'
i(:) lrr al cases wh'ute '11 ' prl r:t'llPrfTr:' 'rr :L il,ir[:5
thr Cornpanv t0 proilecute cr prov de for the ilc!erse r;t airv aci 4ri0r Otc-
(;eedrn0. the'nsurei hereunCer shall secure t(r the []0rp'jnv i\{j rrqnl :0 s0
0rcrse'u1e or ::rcvrdt: delense in such action 0' 0mceedrIq and all apoeals
rhereil, ancj permii the company t0 !se. al ts opl on, !he namr:0f sucrr
;nsurec l0r gL,s[ psrpose. Whenever requesteo by the Comoany, such
,nsur.eC shall give the Company all reasonahlq ii d n anv ii!cn :lctrorr 0r
0r0r:eedinq, in efJectinq senlernent. sectlr tg ev:d0rlc:. oDld'tl ntl w'-
a,,.,qsq. 4r-pr6secutrng-or riefendrng sttch :lcti,.lr cr 0r0feedlnq, cnd lhe
(lLrrnoanv shall relmburse suclr 1ns;ured iot ;ny exoetlse srr nlli.rrre(l
4. Natie t:f Loss_Limiration c{ Actkn
In addili0n tc the notices required under oaragraph 3(bl o{ these Condrtions
lnti Stioulations, a statement rn wrrting of any lrtss or darnitr.;c ior whl0h ll
is clainierl the Company is iiatlle under ih's p0hc/ shall be rrrnrshed l0 the
Company within 90 days after such ioss o' darlrage shall havrj lreen deter'
rnined anrl no riqht of action shall ac(xue t0 an nsured clarmanl unlil 30
davs after such itatemenl slrali have been furnished. Failure t0 furnish
sr.,ir' statement of ioss or damage shall term'nate anv'iab'rrt','ci the
Company under this policy as to such loss 0r camage
5. }ptions to Pay ar 1therwise Setiie Cii:ms
The Company shall have tile 0pti0r1 lo pay 0r olhenvise setl s ftn 0r in the
name of bn insrrred clairnant any clarm insureri against 0r to ierminate ali
liability and obligat ons of the Company herettrdct iLv 0eyirg 0r lenCerinq
rjavmenl 0f the amount 0t Insurance tlndet lllrs polrc! I0!elFer
"1/rin
any
coits, atorneys'fees and expenses Incurrcd u0 t0 lhrl llme ol stlch pav'
ment 0r tender of nilym€ni, by the insured cla ntani anri 3|th0r:Ied b!
the Comoanv.A DeErninaticn and kYtn4tt rtl !cs:
(al Tlre liabtlitv of the l0mnilr!'rn'Ji':r:l'ls i:o'rc'i shali
n n0 case exceed trrele,tsl of
iit thg actLrai loss cf tht: "l-stlie(l
1:l'l:nill'1 cr
{iri i!le anl0;.inl of insurai'ce slaled 'n Scl',rdlile.A. 0i
ibi ihc C.tmpany iv i lav rr addll i''i'ii) 3nv loss
irsured aoainsl bv thrs pci'cY nli i]'JSl: lrilp0s{:'l lrl-rci (lil l'!.j(ec r' 'ili!a'
irorr ';anieli 0n ly lhll ll{rl10allv lu sucn 'is,'ri,'j 'lrlrl :lll :.i'r'i: :lntli:rtj\s
fees irrd expers':l; rrr l,iLtlii'lcrr ill'r;ri0 a'lr :l\ li r')' rr"5ll'1ja i^''i" illij Ivr :1el
aulh0r.itiirr: of 1'e il,:':l'JaIl
{C1 !'v\o:: 1a'ltillii iril! ir|r"''}:j',r ltii! lrtiC rt -jr.rirlraJ-
aflcB'rlth llre ci,a,C,1iclrs ilf r' ,1' ,',1 ,', lilr ril-'i.i .rr r'i' ,lirrl :rr:j | :r1r )iiYablc
,,,;ilhrn 3[) tiavs il'ei9,:fit,
ltS
the
date sLch clarnrant acquired an estate or inlerest insured by policy and
prior tonot d,sclosed rn writirrq bv the nsured claimant to the
!l'rar diitir silrlr nsured claimant became an insured hereunder:
,n i'ri) loss 0r J.)rnage t0 the insured claimant; {dl aftaching or
tl resulting
sub-
seqrrenl i0 Drie ol Policy; 0r {e) resulting in loss or damage
i:01 l'ave 5r,e:' srlslained il the rnsured clarmant had oaid vi
ch would
for the
eslale 0i rliiresl insured by ihis pOliCy
CONDIIIONS AND STIPULATIONS
l. Deliition of Terms
The followrng terms when used in this poli y mean.
{a} "insured". the insured name in A, and.
sublect to any rrghts or detenses the Company may have had
named insured. those who succeed t0 the interesl 0l such
rnst the
! iry oper'-
ation 0f law as dislinguished from purchase including. but nol rted to,
public rec-
of at fte
exl 0f
lve(c) "knowledge": actual knowledge. not
constitute real propeO; provided, however the term "land"
include any property beyond the lines of the area speci{ically
refened to in Schedule A, nor any right, title, intetest, estate
knowledge or nolice which may be imputed to an instred by ol an""
publrc records.
ence in Schedule A, and improvements af{ixed thereto which
(dl "land": the land described, specilt or try refer-
taw ,
n01
ol'
easemenl
in abuttinE streets, roads. avenues. alleys, lanes, ways or , brrt
nothing harein shall mbdify or limit the extent to which a right access i0
and from the land is insured by this policy.
{e) "mortgage". mortgage, deed of
or other security instlument.
(a) Continuation o! lnsuranrn after
of Title
This coverage of this policy shall conttnue in force as of Date
favor of an insured so long as such insured retains an estate
the land, or holds an indebtedness secured by a purchase mo
given by a purchaser from such insured. or so long as such rr
have liabilitv bv reason of covenanls 0f wanantv made by
aqv transfer 0r c0nvevance of such esiate or tnterest; provl
th s oolicv shall nol continue in force in favor of any purchase'
:rsr;red or either said estate or rnteresl o|ihe indebledness s
J U'C-ase nr0ney n0n0d(ln grvtjf to i'"l l' ;nsured.
]tfcnit: d Fnsecution o! Atlons
Policy in
;nrgfest in
fi0(gagc
ed shali
insufeo In
howevei
Cla,nt ltt be givrn by an lnsureC
tf,.\Sl
TIM tlrrlnens Form ?312
Flle No
Po I i cy trate: October ijl '
Namrs of Instrred:
NAI.IFH I NA I S-I'IOSELEY L-:ON5TRI.I{]
The estate nr' interest irt th
and uhich is covered bv thi
A Fore Sinrpl*
Title t,r the estate gr irrter
date hrsr't'of is vested irr:
tiAl"lF H I f\,lA I5-MrJ:lELEY Cr:rN$TR
Tire larrd refer'r'ed to irr tl-ri
tl'l l,:,r'ado' afr,l is des,--r j.bed
!-CrT tTHROLIEiH ANn INtLl,.ltriN
ITI-IEIBIVI:iII]I'], FIL INIS NfI. ::I,
:-IEFTEMBER 1O, 1',r7P Ilil BIIEK
STATE tlF L:':'L.r--rnAfJCl.
!:
i,1?FB at S:OCr A.t-|.
.f r
i'lN IN':., A f,Ol.r]RAnrr r:ilRFLIRATIr:rr{
i'arrd describ,ed irr this l.r:hedttl.:
Psl ic'r i5:
'ir
st cc,ver'ed
!IdN IN|]., A
pal ic'r is si
F f ol I ,ttJs:
l-ot :16 ' Bl ock ?
r::CrlRnINt-i T0 TltF
9$ AT PAt-iE 7?4,
bv this pal ic'r at the
ct-rL0F(Arr:r r:rlRFr:rRA T 1t ri'J
trrated irr F.Alll-E f.:r;rr1;;11'
vl143F
Fol i cy
Amcrlnt
No. A7.7A4A?.4
:' ri4i=A " 500. 0(::l
Addr'eEs
'!
7.
;1.
t_Il:rN.',:i RI Lri:iE
F l -AT Rt""r::ilRfrl.fi
r::trl.lNTY i:iF EA$l .E'
Tfrig Pol ic'r va.
I
I
I
ili.,J 'orrl
t
i
I
F:'ag e t if 5':frr',Jr-'le F is a.ttached'
o
t,1 :4:.il;
11
r'r.r | .t r- i'File Nr,,
I
i::t:HF r_tLtL"I
I
TIi''i [.trrrr,*r' [:,-,r rrr ,]iI:li',
r.c'l rci' d,-'es rrit- i rrsur'r: aaairrst l*ss ,ir' ,Jarra''rr: ri, i' r'{:ic.-r{'rt ,rf tfi*
,]tr,Lrrgt
i
lirafrLs ':! r' ':l a.inrs 'lf pa.r't:es ii.r't r,oslies5i.'in rrot shr-rurrr br' tfre
r"gL, li,: r e{r'r..ls. I i
[-';i.1i1111:,J,;sr r]f' .: l ai.nrs c,f easJner,tsr hrt 5hllurrr bl the Publ ic
r.,:r.:,:.r'-'Js. I I
I
L! j. s,:.r'eFanc j.eg, c,:,rrf I i,-:ts j.rt iboundarr I irres, shc,r'tase irr +.rea'
4rr':I nachrrsfrtS' arr,J arrt' fact$ uLr i,:h a cor'r'r:{t stlr'vi?i' arrd
irr :+pectiorr ,:,t tfre pr'enrises llou l,l dis,:l,rse arr ,l urfrir:fr ar'e rr':,t
slir.,rlrr l'r' t-he t'ulrl ic r.*C,rr.dsl
I
Arrr I ir:rr ', ,rr' r'isfrt to a. I i.eri ', f ,:r' ser'vices, lab'rr'' r.'rr' firater'itsi
thi+r'ti t,if ,:r'e r:r' h,sr'eaf ter' f udniqfred, inrp':sed br' laro a.rrd nc' 1"
sfruuJrr br t.fre puL, I ic r'ef rJr'ds j
i
I
t:?E[t TAXES NOT yET fiUE ANI| {'nVnnr-e.
I
LIENS FI:IR I.JNFAITI WATFR AND :{:96P6 I:HARI:iF:::; ' iF ANY.
I
RIT.iHT IIF PRfiT]RIET':IR I-JF A VElN CIR I..I:Ii.IE TN EXTRAT:T AN[t RFFIT.IVE HI5 IIRE
THEFTEFROT'4'gHOU[.n THE SAME BS FIUNn Tfl FENETRATE nR INTHRFF:|:T TllE F'fii:]l'l l:::ir::i
AS REFEF{VE!| IN LtNITEf-r STATE{l FA-fHtlT KF.C:|-JRrJEn Arrerr'.. | 1h, 1?(l'p' 1l'J Er:ri.rl'.. 4::: Ai
PA6E 54:.
I
I
ftIr3HT fJF WAy FOR tTITTJHFL1 |]Rlr::OruAt.;; L]rlltlf:1'RUCTF:[r fJY THF AtlTllr:1:i11y t;tF lllF
LINITEF |3TATE$ A$ RESFRVETT Irl LdlI-rErr 5'IATE'.j FATENT REt::rJRl:rEI-r ilrrsu-+t l*,' l':r(.)'?'
IN FOOI{ 44 AT FAfiE 54;:.
i
I
RESTRIT::TIVE r::fiVENANT5, t^JHlr:il1 g1i1 grirT crrNTAlN A F11RFHITURF. r-JIl F1EVEF{TFn
CLAUSE, EIUT L]PIITl'I}'iG RESTRIq:TII.INS, IF ANY, BASFTI ON RAC:E' T.:I:II'-I:IR' FII'.i,.II-i ILiN'
nn nnrror\rAl rlRlEIN, AF; r:.r:TNTAINEn IN INLITRUI'IHNT RECI:.|RnErl F:epti:nrher'ir.)' 1',:)7 1:-,
IN BOOp::??n AT pACE 44J Rruf'lRS Al'l6Nl:lFfr IN INSTRLIMENT REf:irRttF.Lt li:,+ptenrl-,,:r'.'::ir'
L':.!77, IN Bctr:tli: :;:'15 AT FAtiE 54,ri Arurr AF; RF-RF.'CORfrErr IN 1N::;Tltl-ll'iF-l'lT RFr':rRrrFIi
Jarruar r l?, lc''74, Il'J Bl:tnl': ;:t:? AT FAGE 53-
I
I-ITIt.ITY EASEFITNT:I TI.IENTY FE*T IN I^I ITITH' TEN FEET fiN FAI:H :i] NF I:IF' T\I'.1..
INTERIfiR LOT t_IpE,:i ANtr A FIfTEEN Ft1nT UTTI-ITY EAf;El'lE*1 41..titNG Al'tl-t AEI-l ITIi'iG
r)N At_t_ EXTF-RITJR LrlT LINr:_i n:* RFSERVEE r:rN THE RE|]r:rRrrEtr Fl. AT Fr:ifl L Ir:l.l'::i FiIlir]E
:i:l.rFrr IVt::.;Il:rN, FILING Nr:r , ;i, I
I
I
I
K.w
I
Tli i;
t:': I l
1..
:i.
:1
ri
/-
7.
,:'
.::,,
Fi 1e f.lo
l:;C:HE.lrl .ll-.
I
AIRINF ANTJ I:ITHFR["II:3F
RAFERTY TJESC.RIFEN IN
J:' AT F.ATJF 5F5.
::;l! CIN
i:IAFIY
Lflr
R l fr:il:
o
t_
B
l
r+
I
V I :i 4:jr:i
Tn Hr:rl-Y r:F{t:r5iEr EL.E|:TRIr: A:::flll:l ATIl.JN' Il'JC- l!'l
4, l'.:?*,7 1N Erct|l]: 311 AT FAr:iE tC):r ANtr Rt-.1:rlRIl]111
FACE 65$ ANF RECgRnEtr ,-llJL.Y :3 1' 1'?7::r lt'l Fli:r:rl'::
't{JJ.
IFfrINMEI.ITAL LAND CCTI.IFANY ANT.]
ANV PROVIIIlNG FCIR TELEPHI:INE
DIJE fJIIBEIIV]5ION' FII.IN$ NF.
:31 AT PAIiE :I?I,
l"lr'-rrJi,l TA I N ::;TATFfi
INSlAl-t.ATIirr,l Ar''ltl
:1 F(Fr:liF(fIEn
DF'ERATINIl UTII..]: .I. IF:r:
I N5-TRUFIENT HEr...LrFi1.'t:Il
I5. MATIERg I::CINTAIT.iF:LI |]R
F I L I l.lti l.lrl. :J [tEr::irRErEtl
LII'llTE[t fnr
gFF'T
r:r. l't^JEtJl Y F r:jlrT EA5[ fiEhlT F t:rR
r:, A i::( 'i- i li:: r l.,lI l::lLlt..lTl-][:. Fii..y F,t:tn T ]
B. f i"lIN TY I::: r:il:rT tE:NF.lt f A:::Ef'lF
THI- ItrL..i\ T,
,._.. i::iE::FRVATITIN r::r:INTAINHT.J rlN
-il-.ll:ir.:rt._tr:iFl i7 , FJL.CT[:l.'l : l^l I Ll.. t'lcl
'I'1..r -l t.{F -i r:rNN uF VA I L .
1.,i.:,. 1-L:tif1::: .' l:::lllJLr Il lllN:::i At'Jtl FRl.lVI
il 1 , -1 j?fr5 ; t,l Er:rill: 4:lfr AT F,Arj
.l 7. LA:j'ii-it1[it.ll :]' ttF::;ERVATIllNE ANn
i:\i::::i_il:i1-ri:l-r F,l._AT l:rF LI[rN'G EII.J
JilN::: CrF ANNllXATlr.iN rlGREF.|{Ff{T Ftlr.rjr:IRl-ri-l:i fl'1 vErlrl-'irr'
'il j:t(-, AN[r I N 8r:rrlil 4.ii] A'I fJArj[: :;/::i;7 .
fiF:iTR I r: T I rl N';r A:r; :-iH r:J t Jt'J Al'J Er F F--::; liltv Ffi'-11'1 T Flt:
E g;l-tB[t1v1::Ir:!N, FII-INr.i NLr . :r,
-l-' :"'
I
Ill
o
T I l'1 uutrrs r' F,: r'rrr l !l J. 3
UTILITY EA:'HI'1FNT Ai:J CiF(ANTETI
INSTRLII'IENT RECORTIEII ALIfiLITiT
,JLINE 1'p, lp73 IN BDr:rl: t';":? A
?3t) AT FAt:iE 351.
1 :-'|ATJREEI1ENT I]ETWEFN TAYVEL EN
TELEFHI:INE ANI.t TEL.EI-iRAF'H
::iF.RVII:E TI.IRflIJIJIIOUT LINN'5 R
EiHF..THMFER ?7, 1?7IJ IN BCTNFI
1:I. HASEMENT FOR I-IAINTENANII-:'
t;IfUriTEl-t gN Al',,ltr l.lt'IUER :iAIfl
[:EFiiil..tARY 1.4, 1'j/77 IN BIUlr:
i.1.. fiA:::;ili"li!Nl' FBR AL.r::Eli5 Al{tl EtiR
A t. .rl i..lr:i T Hn Nr:i r(TFli,A:iTr;r{L Y Br-ll.
I l'lij IRi-ll"1EN I Rf--[:r:rli[rHn FEBRI-lAR
r:.rf,t iir:,::r:rRltHtr F't.A-r [:r-rR L.lrlN' r
REFEFIFI il -l'Lt Ul'l Tl{E FJt.A-f r.rl:l-. j r:ii\i 'i: R'l [ri:;E: :-.;l.li:iij i '"' i ::i i i-.ii"]
:i:,r_-i:j iil- F Ar:F 7.;r4, frt. t-l- t.,tr:rTI.(i, l.'i7'.? IN Fr-lr:rl:
FXI:]i"I'INJ:i Rr:rAfr ANfr:i:rEliFR EI'lr::l:ir:rAr::llfl[:i",]l f-'ir.-:iir.r.lr:-: ii
1 , B I ':,,: Il :.:i A:; ::;fil:ll"ilrl llllil I l-lF: r'l .ii-i .
L-r:ll':!; I 4 ANIt I :.:;.' Hl-.r--ll::f,:. ::r ti::::; rliFii:ri'li'i I-ri\i
[.lF Lr:i1:
T TFtRIrr.Jr-iH
THE Fl.AT NHERFF]Y tsl.lIL-rtl:l'1fi FF:Rl'liT::; Fr.-rii Lr:r r:;: i
BE i tig:LJEO L.ll'JT I l- l .n'i :; ::r:: , I-11-l::rr::l::: "i 1 ;; irtal.r .i r-.:ill F:I-l
THE RnA]lUAY t::[rN:iTRlir::TEIr AlJrr l:ii'I!..14-l-i:'Jl
I:JF: St.JFJEI:T FRflF'E:RTY NE::;I.' i] L'{L:I,I II'J
f i/77 IN }lr,r0l,i ;:l1l AT FAi;il; l:;::i:; , iii'llr i'irri ::;j ;;.il"iji
::;r.-tBrl l v J f; I r:N F:'L i. L l"lr:i tJr.l . r.:i ,
i:: ' a.9r €
sE$
tcu)linuerl ltur r)s c llot)i ila;j
7 Linitation ol Liabihty
No claim shall arise or be maintainable under this policy {al il the
Company, ailer having received notice ol an alleged defect, lien or
encumbrance insured against hereundeI by litigation or otherwise.
removes such defect. lien or encumbrance or establishes the title, as
insured, wrthin a reasonable lime after receipt of such notice; (b) in the
event 0f lrt gation until there has been a final determination by a court of
competent jurisdiction, and disposition oi all appeals therefrom, adverse to
the title, as insured, as provided in paragraph 3 hereof; or {c)for liability
voluntarily assumed by an insured in senling any claim or suit without prior
written consent oJ the Company.
B. Beduction of Liabilitv
All payments under this policy. except payments made for costs, attorneys'
lees and expenses, shall reduce the amount of the insurance pro tanto. No
payment shall be made without producing this policy for endorsement 0f
such payment unless the policy be lost or destroyed, in which case prooi of
such loss or destruction shall be lumished to the satistaction of the
Company.
9. LiabilityNonwnulatwe.
It is expressly understood lhat the amount of insurance under this policy
shall be reduced by any amount the Company may pay under any poliry
insuring either la) a mortgage shown or re{erred to in Schedule B hereof
which is a lien on the estate or interest covered by this policy, or (b) a
mo(gage hereafter execuled by an insured which is a charge or lren on the
estate or interest described or refened to in Schedule A. and the amount
so paid shall be deemed a payment under this policy. The Company shall
have rhe option to apply to the payment oi any such mortgages any
amounl thal otherwise would be payable hereunder to the insured owner
of tne estate or intefest covered by this policy and the amounl so paiC
shall be deemed a payment under this policy to said insured cwner
10. ADmrtionment
ll the Iand described in Schedule A consists of two or more parcels which
are not used as a single site, and a loss is established affecting one or
more of said parcels but not all. the loss shall be computed and settled 0n
a pro rata bases as if the amount of insurance under this policy was
dividcd pro rata as to the value on Date of Poliry of each separate parcel
to the lvhole, exclus,ve of any improvements made subsequent to Date of
Policy, unless a liability or value has olherwise been agreed upon as to
each such parcel by the Company and the insured al the time 0f the
issuance of ihis policv and shown by an express statement herein or
by an endorsemenl anached hereto.
1l Subrogation Upn fuyrnent or Seftlenent
lVhenevcr the Cornpany shall have settled a cla m under lhis policy, arr
,. ghl cf subrogatrcn shall vest in the Company unatfected by any act 0f the
nsured cia,mirnt The Companv shall be subrogated to and be entitled t0
;iii r qhts a|id rgn]edres wh 0h such rnsured clarmant would have had
agarnsl ariy pers0n or property in respect to such cla m had this policy not
ireen ssuec, anC if i'eqursted by the Company, such insured claimant shall
ira|sler Ir ihe C0rnpany ali rights and remedies agarnsl any person or
cfoperly rllcessary in order to perfect such right of subrogation and shall
perm I the Company to use the name ol such Insured ciaimant in any
transaction 0r I tigation rnvolving such rights or remedies. lf the payment
does nor corer the loss of such insured claimant. the Comganv shall be
subroEaled to such rights and remedies In the proporlron which satd pay-
ment hears t0 lhe amount olsaid loss. lf loss should result lrom any act ol
such insurec claimant, such act shall not void this policy, but the Company,
In ihat evenl, shali bc required to pay onlv that part 0f any losses insured
aqainst hereunder whrch shall exceed lhe arnount. if any, losl t0 the
Companv by reason of the impa rment 0f the right o{ subrogation.
12 Lial:ititi Linired to this Policy.
lh s nslrurTrcnt Ogilther !v th all endcrrsemerrts and other instruments, if
any. alachsd herel0 b'/ the Company is the entire policy and contract
l,eM,cen lrrri .r:sified and the company
Ary r;larm oi loss or damage, whether or not based on
regl gence, and which ar sos oul 0i the status 0f the title t0 the estate 0r
nleresr coverec hereby or any aclion assening such claim, shall be
;cslflcterj t0 lhe provisrons and c0ndilrons and stipulati0ns 0l this poliry
No amendment of or endorsement to this poltcy can be
made exceot bv writinq endorsed here0n or anached hereto signed by
eitlrer thb President. aVce Presrdent, the Secretary an Assistant Secre-eithei'thE Prestdent. a vlce rresloent, lne Secreiary an Asslstarl
rqnfor yblidating p.ffig-qr ot aulhorized signatory of the Companv
i l,3. Nolrbes, lMere Sent
All noticds required t0 be given the Company and any statement.in writing
required t'o be fumrshed the Company shall be addressed l0 lts Home
Otf ice, Minneapolis, Minnesola 5540'1.
I
i
Ihte: his Nlicy ualid only if Schedulx A and B are anwhd.
I
I
I
I
t-tsl
MINNESOTA Owne/s Policy
TITLEA lssued thtough the jfliE of:
LAI{O TITTE
GUARA]ITEE COiIPATY
3033 E. FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 600
OENVER, COIORADO 80206
303/321 1880
'lmponant: We apprectate the opptonuntty to prow\e you wtth thl5
insunnce policy. Keep h with your valuable docunents. Upon resale of
your hone, suggest to your Beah0r6 that he or she use the Minneslta
Tttle agent listed abwe. lt may save monal and expedrte the resale of
your hone!
SESI
A\
0a^r,['uH \trhdu'ltc.'
\ tfoW [,orur,N4t id/{\L \D O/vi\ar '{Yrv^.U' (),ilqr\odL$r,rf
I
DZS' Jnd l"dr{-- W t\.ut 0gg Uo rd,oA '1$r,(tl
'
$.,frs.ffi \,* llrtn ll0''d*1rhor \u"''Nra b{
t
W.
.\^ I llt-b?S (o,rep tu*0
I
"rCh
Pi:r- tifi.$r PrCIt
INTERDEPARTIIENTAL MEETING
ltarch zLt L99O
Wednesday at 10300 a.m.
Attn:
Agenda
2. Lionsridger/Dauphinais Subdivision.
3. VVMC Project. t,
4. Advertising Bus Terninal .
llarriott Traffic Study.
Canton Rock FaII Report.
Ron Phillips
Stan Berrlman
Greg Hall
Pete Burnett
Ken Hughey
Dick Duran
Mike McGeePat Dodson
Pam Brandmeyer
Tom Braun
Gary Murrain
susan Scanlan
Mike Mollica#trymf,-
Betsy Rosolack
Joe Norris
Shelly Mello
DISTRIBUTION LIST - PUBLIC
BRIAN ANDERSON
STEVE BARWICK
PETE BT'RNETT
DICK DT'RAN
CAROLINE FISHER
ANNIE FOX
JOIIN GALLEGOS
KRISTIN PRITZ
FILE
}IORKS PRIORITY LIST
ERNST GI.ATZLE
SKIP GORDON
GREG HALL
SUSIE HERVERT
JII'{ HOZA
KEN HUGHEY
JOE KOCHERA
HANK IOVATO
PATTY BIERLE
TOWN COUNCIL
GARY !{T'RR,AIN
JOE NORRIS
!,TIKE ROSE
TODD SCHOLL
LEO VASQUEZ
CHARLIE WICK
PAT DODSON
TO!
FROI,I:
DATE:
RE:
MEI.TORAND('tl!
RON PHILLIPS, TOWN UANAGER
STAN BERRYMAN, DIRECTOR, PUBTTC
I,IARCH 19, 1990
PUBI.,IC WORKS PRIORITY LIST FOR
UARCH L9-23, 1990
I{oRKs/TRANS PoRTATT o N P/4
THE WEEK OF
1.
VTRC EXPANSTON AND RENOVATION
Mike Rose to resolve the dumpster issue before constructionbegins.
Remove marked trees.
Renove parking booths & equipnent.Relocate Visitorrs Center Building to existing LII location.ltove LH Info Booth to LIt Charter Bus Lot.Investigate electrical service at LE Charter Bus Lot and LHInformation Center.Mike to construct facility in LII to hold VTRC equipmentduring construction.
STREETS AND ROADS
1. Continue surveLllance of rockfall ditch.2. Cut all dead trees along Town roadE that pose a hazard.3. Check on exhaust fans for shop.4. Replace signs at the followlng locations:a. Hansen Ranch-rrProhibited Arear-south sideb. On Gorsuch Bldg.-rrFire Lanetrc. Post Office to LH Structure-rrNo Parkingrld. Softball field-[No Parklng Beyond this Pointrle. Alta Road & core Creek Drive sign is missing.5. Continue removing trash from town.5. Perform spring cleaning naintenance of various streets.
1. Utilize street sweeper as often as weather pernits.2. Sod West Vail bus stop.3. Restrip the 4-way.4. Install regulatory signs at Sandstone Road
Inprovements.
2.+
6.
@
A.
B.
fI
PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY LIST
Page 2
PARKING STRUCTURE,A\A.( 1.-) Reroodel LH Auxiliary Building vestibule with inproved--'-'--_-'/ heating.2. Demo street sweeper 3/2O.3. Repair leaks at LHTRC.
CARPENTERSV--'-A.( 1. ') Assist in construction of new office for landscape'-\*----'z architect. Provide drawing (engineer wiJ.l assist) .
Construct street nane sign.
Repair bus shelter at WV Mall.
Remove door between copier room and steve Barwickrsoffice.
Repair railing and benches in LH Mall..
Begin constructLon of bus shelter replacernents.
Construct picnic tableE.
Repair walkpath light design to prevent future
vandalismBuild additional shelves in storage room at Police
Departnent.Install new bus stop posts in Village/L,ionshead,
weather pernitting.
B.
A.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
2.
\ J- )
4.
5.
6.
B. 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
SBr/slh
Assist in construction of nerd office for landscapearchitect.
Turn on lights behind Tyrolean fnn to fight up streamwalk path.
Perform repairs at OTS glm.Install IJI Charter bus lights.
Repair hallway lights at Municipat Building.
Repair vandall-zed lighting at IJITRC.
fnstall light in coatroom in PW Adnin. Btdg.Install baseboard heaters for LII Auxiliary Bldg.Install outlet on roof of bus wash.
Check on exhaust fans for shop.Provide polder for temporary storage in Lionshead.
Renove Xnas lights at 4-nay stop.Repair Lst level lighting at LHTRC.
mk{-.-ffi
fh\t
PP.OJECT:
D.4TE SUSI.IITTEO:
C0I"'I'4ENTS NEEDED BY :
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE
FIRE DEPI.RTI'IENT
OATE OF PUsLIC HEARINGq.
F&fl - or bcrr'qr r{ gm,Vr.
PROPOSAL:
Rev i ewed b-v :Date
Connents:
POLICE DEPARTI4ENT
Revieved by:
Connerrts:
Date
't r.
RECiEtTiOX DEPARTI.IENT
Reviewed by:
Co;;ents:
I NTEP..DEP.ARTI'IENTAL REV I El.|
Date
,t/F-* lt
o ffil
- w,u,il 4 D^t
Oli**{, lift I
tffi-?ffiff* i[,ffir/h ni,ruF,,u It'^Pjb€W:W$s,ry*cU , f,4qw4_:
d qD'or,A-
Ury---- w- ""'0
l-\ \ ^ \ nt /. \ t l,\(t\o{t *W n{ o4htux / si fritt r.rulou"
-X,,r\u" t e.ry 4J',)\ \ / QDt:1t 'uW { '4\'h/',N trAo*,r -1C\'
*b rr?.'Ywltl\ ' '
psbJd,\,| Pe,\e\' .i$&$
/!Y{^w,"*
-@^'rr'(
borrj on slx^b - q^^F{}i"'+sl a^mdg
'1'/,r Xt
da- E \noa,* ry
fu,tT"
aD#
-@4l\u* q irqA,o!
ffi;^u,qffi,;,\ \Dr, q,r+.x j,th,nttl
1 ?ffi, ;[Uu Yldt -l*' }'?P 11
6Rnu,,s-o- ["rdlq}t ?"64
@ +S,[m*Vmru\"'Bb
t^ s'oi nqn*Q
nrnnllP
uvr \./'- (
- \ grnz'p+(f ,\ffit-
g UA - o* \'rNt'+' \'* ArW too\
:; \\1P qJS-
.1i
I
'D-b-N+},.a^ $U'L
it
ri
-- -'Ti-
,l
..-. '*+l'* 1ii
lrj
i'i
rlJtlr,l
-- ---H.r
lri1i
* t_.1-
March 13, 1990
Town of Vail
Planning & Environmental Commi-ssion
75 South Frontage Road WestVail, CO 81657
RE: Lj-on's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 5Special Development District 22Lots 1 - 19, Block 2, Lionrs Ridge Lane
Lion's Ridge Subdivision Fi-ling No. 3Vail, Colorado
To Whom It May Concern:
As a supplement and further clarification of the January 29, 199O1
PEC submittal, we submit the following information
1. Amendment ltem 1 Lot sizes and Maximum GRFAs: (from ORDfNANCE
NO. 23 Series of 1988 Section 4.B.5. page 3)
Lots Size and GRFAS: . ,
-
lnrrrt5r ry.NErLOT-T
2
3
4
5
6
7I
9
10
tl
12
13
14
15
16 ,248
11 ,500
11 ,805
12 ,197
11 ,500
11 ,543
11,021
11 ,456
,3,171
3r1'7
20*
2 r293
2 ,293
3 ,171
3 ,171
20r
28n^
20t'
19*
28r
27*
29*
28*
262
292
24*
21*
28*
272
3 ,171
3t171
3 t'l71
3 | 17'l
1r979
0, 803
2 rgg115,'l 59
11 ,151
8,494
3 r171
3 r171
3 ,171
2,293
t/o6pn
Town of Vail, PEC -2-March 13, 1990
16 8,494 2,293 272
17 I,494 2,293 272
18 10 ,062 3 t171 32*
19 9,148 2,293 252
20 9,801 3,171 32t'
21 10,237 3,"171 31t
22 9,409 2,293 24*
23 10,324 3,171 31*
24 9,496 2,293 24t
68 ,202
The assignment of set models to specific lots was dropped in
favor of simply re-allocating GRFA numbers. The designs for
the Phase One Development ( 2 Model A and 2 Model B) remain and
subseguent phases will submit new designs followj.ng the Design
Guidelines and GRFA reassignments.
2. Amendment Item 2 Setbacks (from Section 4.8.6)
The minimum setbacks for the location of structures in
relation to property lines are further requested to be amended
as follows:
Lots 1 - 14
10 foot front setbacks and 30 foot rear setbacks (from 20
front setbacks and 15 foot rear setbacks ).
Lots 15 - 17
'l 0 foot front setbacks and 10 foot rear setbacks ( from zero
front setbacks and 15 foot rear setbacks).
Lots 18 - 24
'l 0 foot front setbacks and 15 foot rear setbacks ( from 20 foot
front setbacks and 'l 5 foot rear setbacks).
We feel the 15 foot to 25 foot intensively landscaped buffer
zone between the edge of pavement and the property lines on
Lion's Ridge Loop along with the nain house being anadditional 34 feet more than provide adeguate separation. The
additionaL rear setbacks further serve to protect the open
space and the south slope above the Interstate R.O.W.
3. Amendment Ibem 3 Curb Cuts(fron Site DeveloFmEnt-TTEn, July 1988)
We decline to reguest a change in curb cuts to Lion's Ridge
Loop at this time.
4. Amendment Item 4 Phase One
Development shall remain as stated January 29r 1990.
Town of Vail, PEC -3-March 1 3, 1990
Concluslon - Following the PEC Work Session February 25, 1990' the
conments and suggestlons by the nenbers allowed the project to
reach further inprovements The GRFA reassignments allow a greater
range of housing Blzes (21293 - 3, 171 GRFA instead of 21830 -
21950 GRFA) and future phases wlll generate more variations based
on market desires and proJect character maturatlon.
The protection and definition of natural amenities (open space and
south slopes) guarantee project appearance and success.
Respectfully subnltted,
ARCHTTECTS, P.C.
RLA/ad
Arnold, AIA
a
INTENDEPARTIGNTAIJ UEEIIING
llarch 14, 1990
tlednesday at 10:00 a.D.
Attn: Ron Philllps
Stan Eerryuan
Greg HaIl
Pete Burnett
Ken HugheyDlck Duran
Ulke UcceePat Dodson
Pam Brandmeyer
Ton Braun
Gary l,turraLngusan Scanlanffiiloe NorriEShelly llello
Aoenda
1. Vall Village Parking Structure congtructl.on
Staging/Infornatl.on Booth.
2. The Village on Biglrorn Creek.
3. Athletlc Field Tree Planting.
\" o. Dauphinals subdlvleion.
llnter-MountainlA Engineeringlrd.
March 8, 1990
Greg HaIl, P-E.
Town of VaiI
75 S- Frontage Rd- W-VaIl, CO 81657
Re: Prellminary drainage analyeieLion'e Ridge Subdivieion Filing No. 3
Project No- 83128
Dear Greg:
Ae a follow-up to our field ureeting on March 2, 1990, on the
referenced proJecb, we have prepared a preli"minary dralnage
analyaia to determine the quantity of the 10o-year atorm runoff
flowg from ttre drainage baein (in both the present and developedconditiono) that enter in the collectlon eyetem on Meadow Drive.
Ag we discussed at the meeting, thie analyeis ie belngprepared to determlne lf the preaent dralnage eyetem is large
enough to handle the flows from the Lion-e Ridge No. 3
Subdiviolon and adjacent baeing in the developed conditione, in
lleu of bulldtng a detention pond for the propoeed Lj-on'e Ridge
No. 5 development.
The exietlng flowa from Subbaslne II, III and IV flow to the
existlng catch baeine on Meadow Drive, then routed with an 18"
CMP to the north glde of the Frontage Road- From thj-e po3-nt,
flowe travel to an existlng 24" plpe acroera Interstate 7O and
discharge l-nto Gore Creek.
For this preliminary analygia, conaerwative fLguree were
ueed to determine the 100-year gtorm runoff flows created in the
deveLoped conditLon for Subbaolne III and IV (eee attached nap).
Aa per the official zonlng mal> for the Town of VaLl, a medl-un
denoity multiple family dictrlct was used for these eubbaelna lnthe planned developed areas- For Subbaoin III we aeeumed theentire developed lOO-year gtorm flow will enter the exigting 18"
CMP located on the eagt end of Meadow Drive- Likewiae, in
Subbaein IV we ageumed the full 1OO-year etorm runoff will enterthe exietLng catch basin Located on Meadow Drive- By ueing theae
aaeumptions, it appearg the existing 18" CMP along Meadow Drive
may need to be upgraded to a 24-30" CMP to camy the developed
\
f{l,tt0
''5 5[Y'^
o
Box No. 978 . Avon, Colorado 81620 . 94+5072 Denver 893.1531
1420 Vance Street o Lakewood, Colorado 80215 . Phone: 232{158
Greg Hall
Town of Vail
Paee 2
March 8, 1990
83128
flows. Also the existing 18" CMPe acroa€t Meadow Drive and
outflow pipe to the north eide of the Frontage Road may need to
be upgraded to a 30-36" CMP-
Ae a poeelble alternatlve to collecting the flowe from
Subbasins III and IV to the collection eygtem on Meadow Driwe,
several pipes may be inetalled along Buffer Creek Road to route
a portion of these flows from Subbaein IV directly into Buffer
Creek- Aleo the portion of drainage on the north eide of Liong
Rldge Loop may be ditched along the north side of the road and
pipe acrogs Buffer Creek Road j.nto Buffer Creek. Bv rerouting
the drainage and reducing the flowe to Meadow Drive, the exieting
drainage eyetem may be Large enough to earry the developed flowe
to Gore Creek.
Aa prevlously indicated, thla ie a preliminary analyaia
uaing coneervat lve flEures and aaeumpt ions for your revlew. If
the concept of uaing the exieting or upgraded eygtem if required
ig approved by your department, a detailed dralnage etudy will be
performed and flnal conetruction drawlnga wiII be prepared-
If you have any furbher queetions regarding this report'
please call-
A;;al;r--
Duane Fehringer' P-8.
DDF: cJn
cc: Pat DauphinaieEric Johnson
oo
@
lc)
g
rq
@
I
ri
t
I
L
I
ItoIItq
I
t(o
rbI
vr
I
I
o
I
I
I
t,
trl
',{
G
\
I
/
ilt
\
\lJ
.{
.ta/<q)(t-b>
f-tn3
l,oo?d.rr
J.aBi't h
,
of,F<nlq)
E9Scl
=dJOIL
E(DzE
=s,F6trf
rlal9tF:<ooIta IF .ltFooa
3E d:..Ot
CE
tII
J
E
J
Eb0
E'lt[)
5H
E''0
.gl
o
I
. ilr
:EII
:iga
March 9, 1990
Town of Vail
Planning & Environmental Commission
75 South F'rontage Road WestVai1, CO 81657
RE: Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 5
Special Development District 22
Lots 1 - 19, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Lane
Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 3
Vai1, Colorado
To Whom It lvlay Concern:
As a supplement and further clarification of the January 29, 1990,
PEC submittal, we submit the following lnformation
1. Amendment Iten 1
NO. 23 Series of
Lot sizes and Maximum GRFAs: (from ORDINANCE
.
Lots Sizes and Maximum cRFAs:
NEW MAXIMUM GRFA
NEW SIZE TO
NEW GFRALOT
-T-I
z
3
4
5
6
I
6
9
't0
2 ,293
3 ,171
3 ,171
2 ,293
2 ,293
20*
20*
z6i
20*
19*
28*
272
292
28*
262
292
244
ztt
28*
27*
NEW SIZE SF---rr;TT5-
1 6 ,248
11 ,500
11 ,805 t
12 ,197
11 ,500
11 ,543
11 ,021
11 ,456
11 ,97 9
1 0, 803
12,981
15,159
'l 1 ,'l 51
8, 494
3 t171
3 t171
3t171
1
2
J
4
3 ,'171
3 r171
3 ,171
3 ,171
3r171
3 ,171
2 ,293't5
Town of Vail, PEC -2-March 19909,
16
17
18
't9
20
21
22
23
24
2,2
2r2
3r1
2r2
3r1
3r1
2r2
3'1
2.2
27*
z ta
32*
25*
5Z'A
Jtt
24*
318
24*
68r2
The assignment of set models to specific lots was dropped in
favor of simply re-allocating GRFA numbers. The designs for
the Phase One Development ( 2 Model A and 2 Model B) remain and
subseguent phases will submit new designs following the Design
Guidelines and GRFA reassignments.
Amendment rtem 2 Setbacks (from Section 4.8-5)
3
3
1
2
1
1
3
'l
J
2
o
9
9
7
9
7
9
0
The minimum setbaCks for the location of structures
relation to property lines are further requested to
as follows:
Lots 1 - 14
10 foot front setbacks and 30 foot rear setbacks (from 20
front setbacks and 15 foot rear setbacks ) .
10 foot rear setbacks (from zero
rear setbacks ) .
ls39 foot rear setbacks ( fron 20 foot
rear 'setbacks ) .
We feel the 15 foot to 25 foot intensively landscaped buffer
zone between the edge of pavement and the property lj-nes on
Lionts Ridge Loop along with the main house being an
additionaL 34 feet more than provide adequate separati-on. The
additional rear setbacks further serve to protect the open
space and the south slope above the Interstate R.O-W.
Amendment Item 3 Curb Cuts(fron site DevelopmEfrE+la-n, July 1988)
We decline to reguest a change in curb cuts to Lion's Ridge
Loop at this time.
Amendment lten 4 Phase One
Development shall remain as stated January 29r 1990.
I,494
8,494
10 ,062
9r148
9, 801
10 ,237
9 ,409
10 | 324
9 ,496
2.in
be amended
Lots 'l 5 t 16, G,S
10 foot front setbacks and
front setbacks and 15 foot
Lots 10 ^ 8".+10 foot front setbacks and
front setbacks and 15 foot
3.
4.
\
Town of Vail, PEC -3-March 9, 1990
Concluslon - Following the PEc work Session February 25' 1990' the
comments and suggestions by the menbers allowed the project to
reach further improvements. The GRFA reassignments allow a greater
range of housing sizes 12'293 - 3, 171 GRFA lnstead of 2'830 -
2r950 GRFA) and future phases wll1 generate more variatlons based
on market desires and proJect character maturatlon.
The protection ahd definition of natural anenlties (open space and
south slopes) guarantee project appearance and success.
Respectfully subnltted,
, i'', ,; \ ":i
TRANSMITTAL
. it: \: l
- | t' / \ , \ |lo: l- L-. Y-f\ |o.r.,---lfu3lge--=_
i'*r. L Lcu'.'; tl,,{O
b\ atz
r-\ I )"t \ 1,--'>,.- '.-l ,
Remarks:lr-,,"y'd 5ttz
Signed:
\
'Ntt oncld lu rubr^,\ 4
-lo tDDptn
3/8/eo
Dauphanais Subdivision
Tapes:
PEC 8/8/88?
only nention of setbacks was Peterrs statement that the development
standards net Single Fanily zoning except for side setbacks of l-0
feet as opposed to 15 feet.
Town CounciL 8/L6/88
Once again, Peter stated that the development standards net Single
Farnily zoning except for side setbacks of LO feet.
During both meetings, the ridge was discussed and the fact that the
hornes would be kept back from the ridge.
o'fC'oc,n<J
The conditions of approval^were:
L. A workable solution be found to the ingress/egress points ofthis project and the adjacent solar crest Condos.
2. Design guidelines, including architectural and landscaping
elements be suburitted to the staff with the final platapplication. (These were to be followed by aII individual lot
owners. )
3. Minimum lot width for lots on the cul de sac be 30 feet.
4. More specific plans for landscaping at the entry with lighting
be subnitted.
Kristan, at both meetings Peter statedq that Lot I shall be 2950
square feet, and I did not see this corrected in the memo.
TO:
FRO}T:
DATE:
SU&T:
"a"nlnn and Envlronmental cottCio"
Departnent of Connunity Developnent
Augrust 8, L988
Request for najor subdivision,preliminary plan
lpirovaf and f6r Special Development District
Nunber 22.lpplicant: conmercial Federal llortgage corporation
The following is a written description of- the-proposal as
.ulroitt"a by-the appficant, as we-Il as a brief envLronmental
iurpact report:
A. THE PROPOSAL
The proposal consists of a.request for Lots 1-19, Block 2'
;i;#;i&;;dei"ision ritins -tlurnber 3 for prelirninary plat- and
SOO appr5val to subdivide th6 parcel into 24 single farnily lots
and conmon open space. The total size of tbe parcel is 10'69
acres or 455,656.4 sguare feet.
Currently, the site is zoned prirnary/secondary (this underlying
;;;;-ir t6 renain as single finily I'na is a pernitted use) and
i"- r"Uai"ided inio-ig-io€" which itlows a total o5_3S--d$eging-
units to be constructed upon the site---Therefgle the requesti#it"*,'"*"Sffi H+=*"= :::: *", : il"
units per acre.
TotatGRFAalIoweduponthesiteis-curren.'"@quareieet. The total GRFI proposed is 68,2Q4 resultt@
reduction of 16,701 square feet.
B. THE SPECIAL DEVEIPPUENT DISTRICT
The purpose of special development districts is rfto encouraqe
ii""itiiiiy in tire-ae"ei-pt"ti of land in order to promote-its
;;il-6;;"i,.iit" us!; to inprov" the desisn., character' and
q"iiiii-of' tt"or aev-fopnent;- to facilitate the adequate and
E"o""ri""i frovision 6f streets and utilities; and to Preseri\te
the natural-and scenic features of open areas-.n A special
d;;"i;il;"i aiJtti.ct is beins ProPosed- o-PoT -lh" site to
"cconpiish these oUj""ti.r"s. - -By ie-subdividing the land the
following goals are met:
1. Provide a flexible apProach to tand developnent which
creates trre iiiiitv ib provide a develop-nent tlpe in
strort supply and gieat denand within Vail:
2. Reduce the residential density upon the parcel;
3. Provide the ability to preserve portions of the sl.te
as open spacei
4. Provide for an inproved character and quality
develoPnent; and
5. To facilitate the adequate and econonical provision
of streets and utilities.
The special development district is proposed to ttave an;ii"aEiiiirS" p r.-ry7seconary Residentill zone with only single
finify iesiaential dwellings-allowed as permitted uses. Ttre
Sp."iif Development Distrilt aesignation is proposed in order
to allow for a slightly varied lot size and setbacks than
pio"ia.a for currefrtly-within the Single Farnily District.
C. THE DEVEIPPT.IENT PTN{
The Development PIan prepared for the site depicts a typical
building liyout and c-onfiguration which would be constructed
under the development staidards of the SDD. Lot sizes range
from.17 acre to.35 acre. The development plan consiEts of 24
"ingr"-rurniry awetling units with r? 9f the.units !t?Y*lq lc:1:soff-of Lions;idge l,ane and the fenainingdunits accesslng oll or
-Jffi"p. r,ots 1-14 and 20-24 would have tlpical
setbacks of 2o-' in front (off of Lionsridge Lar-te) r 1o-' on- ttre
sides, and a 15, setback in the rear yard. Building-height_-
would be not nore than 30, for a flat or mansard roof and 33,
i"i " sloping roof. Lot sizes vary and are listed along with
the naxinirn 6nra attowed upon each lot' rn cases where rots
are less than 11,200 feet in site area, a minimum of 2t8OO
square feet of GRFA is allowed.
roT srzE l'lAxrMttu GRFA
L4 1375
L4,375
LL,76L
Lt r326
LO ,454
LO ,454rLr326
10r 89O
LL,326
11,761
10 r 890
13 r 068
L5 r246
LL,326
8 r7r2
7 ,4O5
9 rL47
10, 019
9, 148
-#tr
2,95O
2 r94O
2 r83L
2r800
2r800
2 r83L
2r8OO
2 r83L
2,94O
2r800
2 r95O
2 r95O
2 r83L
2r800
2r80O
2r800
2r800
2r800
zQs-o
51
A 1.1
e)tv<'2" ' " +tf*
t , F"-"^ J1
2
3
4
5
5
7
8
9
10
11
L2
13
L4
15
16
L7
18
19
IOT
20
2L
22
23
24
SIZE }IAXIUT'II GRFA
2r800
2,8OO
2r800
2r8OO
2,800
68,2O4
10 r 019
10, 019
9r583
l0,454
9,583
D. ENVIRONI,TENTAL IMPACTS
Due to the fact that the proposal is a reduction in the nunber
of and Equare footage of dwelling units, the environmental
impacts of the proposal wlll be less than anticipated when the
site was originitty subdivided. Very briefly, the following
discusses tfre inpalts assocl.ated with the proposed revision:
1. Hydrolocric Conditions:
The proposal will not alter or affect any natural
watei course. Surface drainage will be coordinated
with the overall storm drainage system of the Town of
VaiI.
2. Atrnospheric Conditions:
14 felter dwelling units upon the site wiII result in
a reduction in potential air pollution frorn wood
burning fireplaces and automobiles-
3. Geoloaic Conditions:
The site is not located within any geological hazard
area and development is not anticipated to result in
any geologic hazards or negative changes.
4. Biotic Conditions:
The site does not contain any unigue vegetative
characteristics or wildlife habitat. The increased
anount of open space upon the parcel could
potentially- better serve certain foms of wildlife
ttrat ttre previous subdivision lay out.
5.
14 fewer residenceE should have a positive inpact
upon these factors.
Visual Conditions:
The site is not located within any designated view
corridor of the Town of vail . The scenic value of
the site should be enhanced through the provision of
conmon space areas.
6.
Iand Use Conditions:
The proposed single fanily use will be compatible
sith the existing nultiple fanily and duplex
residences within the innediate area.
Circulation and Transportatl-on :
The reduction in the nunber of dwelling units will
have a positive inpact upon the local street system.
Populatlon Characteristics :
The reduction in the nunber of dwelling units wiII
decrease the residential density of the site.
Utilities:
AII utilities are currently connected to the site and
can be relocated and new easements established as
necessary.
E.EVALUATION OT CRITERIA
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
It is inportant to realize that the proposal is a re-
subdivision of 19 existing duplex lots- Thus, many
of the tlpical subdivision issues relating to
creating-snall lots from a larger parcel 9o !o! apply
here. ine rg prinaryr/secondary lots involved in this
proposal are pirt of a 26-Lot subdlvision approved-pploxinately 10 years ago. All of the lots have
renained vacant and no inprovenents have been
constructed on any Part of this subdivision. The
following is an excerpt from 17.16.110 of the
subdivision Regiulatlons stipulating the review
criteria for this project:
I'The PEC shall review the application
and consider lts appropriateness ln
relating to subdivision control ,densities proPosed, regulations,
ordinance and resolutions and other
appllcable documents, environmental
inlegrity, conPatibilitY with
surrounding land uses. rr
The Etaff finds that due to the proposal representing
a re-subdLvision of an existing approved subdlvision,
a reduction in allowable density, the lack of
negative environroental inpacts and the obvious
conpatibility of the use proposed with the
surrounding lolt to medium density residential uses
ah;t ail lierininary plan neets the review criteria
ii proposla. rurthiriore, the sDD criteria will be
useh to more specifically evaluate the changes
proposed fron lrlnary/se-ondary lots to small-er
single fanily lots.
F. SPECIAL DISTRICT DESIGN CRITERIA
1.
;;;i;;, -."a it hai been agreed by.alr parties.tltt
design eruidetines encouraging consistent nateriars,
,""t-i"ir!-a"a nininun taiascaping requirements will
be beneficial to the project as well as the adjacent
property owners. -qg$gggglgefines have not been-suliitt-ea to the sTaii-at-Erris point but will be
required to be reviewed by th9 Design Review Board
and adopted as part of tha sDD approval at the final
subdivision Plat aPProval-
t{ith regard to scale and bulk, the proposal--
i""i""""ts a deviation from the standards allowed in
il;-;rR-'diriti"t. However' the staff feels that this
is acceptable due to the overall density reduction,
tte pro*rision of a large common- open sPacf^(that
could serve as a snaIl neighborhood park.if future
residents so wlsh), and the improvement in visuar
lntegrity by disaitowing devel-opment near the
"""if,"iri riage of the proJect. . AIso, design
cruidelinis eniouraging irelf planted and screened side
;;;a-;;""s wilr seive-to rnitigate the increased scale
i"a-U"fX of the houses on the snall lots and the
smaller side Yard setback.
Development standards, with the exception of lots
riz" aira GRFA allowabie, will generally follow the
=i"gr" fanily zone distiict. s-etbag*gi4\!9 _,1conlirtent wLtrr sFR, with the exception of -the-sl4eO-f--Eather than 15"
Architectural design tr{J-Ueen discussed in a PEC- work
Single fanily residences are.a pemitted use in the
piiiiivZ"ecoirdary zone district- and are compatible
iiitr ti,i surrounding uaes and activities'
2.
3.
4.
5.
Parklng reguLrementE viLl
lot basis through the DRB
be addressed on a lot bY
process.
The tlaster Iand Use Plan ldentl-fles this parcel as
one wnicn is suitable for rnediun density residential
uses. The reasons behind this sere the site's good
i.c."=, conpatibility with the neighborhood'E other
residentl.al uses, the suitable toPography ror-medaum-ensity, as welt as the overall long-term. need for
nore nEdiun density residential sLtes in the Town'
fft" foftotoing are ipplicable land use policies to the
proposal:
L.L2 Vail should accomrnodate nost of the
iaaition"l growth in existing developed (in-
fifl) areas.
5.1 Additional residential growth should
continue to occur prinarily in existing, platted
areas and as approlriate in new areas where high
hazards do not exist.
5.4 Residential growth should keep pace-with
tbe marketplace denand for a full range of
housing t1Pes.
t{e find that the proposal is in cornpliance with these
poli.cies and, in general, w+!h the Land Use PIan in
itrat ttte snailer iingte fanily residential narket
ao.t app"ar to be stiong and, thus, thl's Proposalnoura Li ueeting an exitting nar--\et denand' Also,
tn" pr"posal do6s occur in an exlstlng platted, Iow
density residential .
As Der the applicant's Etatement, the site ls not
tocitea wtth-in any geologlc hazard area'
5.
Although the site does not possess any outstanding
natural features or vegetatlon, the provision of a
comnon open space, especially along the southerly
ridge line is inportant to the developnent of this
parcel . we strongly support the provision of the
comnon open space as a positive element of this re-
subdivision.
'7.for vehic te traffic
8.
The pubtic road has been re-designed as part of this
proposal to acconmodate 19 of t-}re 24 proposed lots.
lre find that this proposed public road meets Town of
Vail standards and has been approved by both Public
Iilorks and Fire Departnents. Although the 5 lots on
the northwest portion of the site, accessing off of
Lionsridge Loop, may result in sone steep driveways,
we feel ttrat wittr the proper amount of fill material
there will be workable and acceptable solutions to
access each of these lots from Lionsridge Loop. The
staff renains concerned that a safe and workable
solution to the area where the Proposed nert road
intersects with L,ionsridge Loop and the solar crest
Condoniniums' access be resolved. This situation
needs to be resolved so that there are not two road
cuts directly adjacent to each other on the same side
of the road. A workable solution should be found
betrteen the owners of this ProPerty, Solar crest
Condoniniuns, and the owner of the pritnary/secondary
lot to the south of Solar Crest.
A general and prelirninary landscape plan has been
subnitted and ihows that substantial buffering
between houses will be irnportant as weLl as a heavily
Iandscaped ent4may into the subdivision. A more
specifiL review-of the landscaping can occur at final
plat as part of the design guidelines.
9.visio
It is uncertain at this point, whether the project
will be developed by a single developer or if lots
will be sold off indivldually and developed over a
longer perlod of tlne. In either case' the design
gruidelLnes will be an inportant document in ensuring
aworkableanaefflclentrelationshlpofthedwellingunits to each other and to the overall aesthetics of
the Eubdivision.
G. STAFF RECOU}IENDATION
Ehe Departnent of corununlty Developnent reconmends approval of
tfre prltininary plan of the naJor subdivision and the
iipr-i"it6; ;i'sieJiar Devetopient District Nurnber 22 for this
plbperty. overail, we feel tttiq-is a sound proposal
i""-"fitting the coimunity as well as the site itself. The
pioposaf. nEets the criteiia for a naJor subdivislon and an sDD
is -outlined above. We find that two- conditions of approval are
important:
1. A workable solution be found to the ingress/eqtress
points of this proJect and the adjacent solar crest
bondoniniurn ProJect. D/3
2. Design guidelines, inc)'uding architectural and
landicafe, elements be subrnitted to the staff with
the final Plat aPpLlcation.
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 16, 1988
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, August 16, 1988, at
7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipa1 Buildjng.
MEMBERS PRESENT:Kent Rose, Mayor
John Slevin, Mayor Pro Tem
Eric Affeldt
Merv Lapin
Gai l Wahrl ich-Lowenthal
Gordon Pierce
Ton Steinberg
NoneMEMBERS ABSENT:
TO}JN OFFICIALS PRESENT:Ron Phiilips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
The first order of business was a ten year anniversary award to Conrad Pascuzzi.
Ron Phillips stated Conrad had worked for the Town since August, 1978 and began as a
Maintenance Worker. Conrad was later promoted up to a Heavy Equipment Operator II.
Stan Berryman commented he appreciated someone like Conrad who is inquisitive enough
to follow through; he also felt Conrad was an outstanding employee and a pleasure to
work with.
The next item on the agenda was Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1988, first reading,
regarding Lionsridge special development district no.22. Mayor Rose read the full
t'i tle. He then stated he would probably be doing some development work on the
project, so would abstain from voting. Peter Patten gave background information on
the project and explajned the ordinance would take the existing L9 primary/secondary
duplex lots and resubdjvide them into 24 single family lots with a common open
space. He then discussed the criteria used in the preliminary plan for a major
subdivision; and that the proposal met alI subdivision regulations criteria. He
also noted there were no envjronmental impacts. Peter conmented the only potential
problem was the access road, which staff would continue to work on. He then
explained why staff recommended approval with conditions as stated in the ordinance.
Peter Jamar felt it was important to note thjs was a preliminary plat, stated his
concerns and their planned goals for the development. He also elaborated on some of
Peter Patten's comments. Eric Affeldt guestioned Peter Jamar about representing
Commercjal Federal and questioned the reasoning for the SDD, to whjch Peter
responded yes, he was representing Commercial Federal , and the SDD was the best plan
for the property whether the land was sold or developed by Commercial Federa.l . Dick
Hart commented he owned property across the street and iiked the plans, but wanted
to take the opportunity to work on a long range solution regarding parking problems
wjth Solar Crest, the junk at Solar Crest, and the overhead power 1ines. After some
discussion regarding the open space zoning by Council and Peter Jamar, there was
more discussion about the neighborhood problems by Dick Hart. Larry Eskwith wanted
wording included in the ordinance that the SDD would not be approved until the final
plat was approved, which Counci1 agreed. He stated he would work on the language
before second reading. Merv Lapin made a motion to approve the ordinance with
conditions, which Tom Steinberg seconded. Peter Patten requested they include the
changes and typographical corrections. which were: 1) page 4, no. 5, Lot L max'imum
GRFA should be 2,950, not 3,312; 2) page 4, no. 6, "The minimum frontback" sh(
read "The minimum front setback";3) page 5, no. 9, "20 percent" should readf"Zs ))
percent"; and 4) page 5, no. 11, sentence shou1 d end after "No. 22" and "upor\=._.___--,/
second reading of thjs ordinance" should be deleted. Merv included these in the
motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0, with Mayor Rose abstaining.
The next item was Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1988, first reading, amending the Town
of Vail employees' pension plan. The full title of the ordjnance was read by Mayor
Rose. Charlie l.lick explained the amendment would basically change the method of
distributjon after an employee has left the Town. He then explained the changes and
the reasoning behind them. He noted that State 1aw required the police and fire
plan to be approved by 65 percent;81 percent of the po1 ice officers voted for it
(22 for, l against and 4 did not vote) and 87 percent of the fire employees voted
I
SISE
12: OO p.n.
12:45 p.n.
2:15 p.n.
3:00 p.n.
SITEI.ISE ylsius
3300
3:05 #3
3 :25
3:40 #1
4: 00
4: 3O
PIAIINING AI{D EWTRONUENTAIJ CO!,Iffi SSION
TEBRUARY 26, L99O
Neu Uenbers Orlentatlon
Slte Vlelte - dlscueeion of etreamlining PEC neetings'
A work Seeslon on Alr Quality.
Public Hearlng
1. Approval of nlnutes of February 12' 1990.
2. A requeet for variances fron the side and
rear-eetbacks to allow for the expansion of
an existlng horne on Lot 5, Block E, Vail das
Schone Filing No. 1.
Applicant: ion and NancY Ricci
3. A reguest for a slde setback variance for Lot
6, Biock 2, Vait Village Sixth Filing.
Applicant: Clinton G. Ames' Jr.
4. A reguest for a side setback variance, for a
garaie and etorage rooD-for a new residence,
6n fot 15' Block 1, VaiI Potato Patch'
ApPlicant: Bruce KasEon
5. An anendment to Speclal Development District
4, Cascade Village, to auend Area D, Glen
Lyon Office Building at Xg90 S. Frontage Road
w:, Ipt 54, GIen LYon subdivision.
lpilicant: Glen Lyon office Building - A
colorado PartnershiP
6. A requeat for an anendnent to Special
Oeveiopnent District 23 and a parking
varl,ance to allow for an office expanslon, Eo
the Vail Natlonal Bank Buildlng at 108 south
Frontage Road t{est, a resubdlvision of part
of L.ot D, Block 2, VaiI Vlllage Second
FlIing.Applliant: Vail Natlonal Bank Bldg' corp'
t
TII,IE
5: 00
s-,uEVISITS
#4
6: 00 #6
6:30 #s
7: 3O il2
7 . A regueBt for a condltlonal use petmlt -tonodtfy an outdoor dlnlng deck, an-amendnent
to re-etrlctl.one regardlng two enployee units,
and a r€queat for in exterior alteration, a
height virlance and a landscape-varlance-in
order to conettiuct an additlon to the Bell
Tower Building at 2ol Gore Creek Drlve'
Appllcant: Clark lfllllngha:n/Bell Tower
Associatee, Ltd.
8. A r€gueet to ilnend a Special Developnent
Dist;lct for the Garden of the'Gods on Lot K,
Block 5, Vail Village Fifth Flllng at 365
Gore Creek Drive.Appllcant: Garden of the Gods' Urs. A.G.
Hill FanllY
9. A reguest for a work Sesslon to discuss an
exteilor alteratlotr, a strearn eetback
variance, a eite coverage variance, a
conditional use for a deck enclosure and a
new outdoor patio and an anendnent to the
View Corridoi for the Red Lion Building. (304
Bridge St. )Applicant: Frankie Tang and Iandrnark
ProPerties
10. A lfork Session for Special' Developnent
Dlstrlct 22' I-r.t 1 - 19, Block 2, Lionsridge,
Fillng No. 3.Appliiant: Pat DauPhinais
a o L\nrsn \ry.
+6Fc
J fi)r.ri*.un- dro\orn.e balu, b\h JD4+
3 Uum, SrAlt'Uy- 1$c
we uu\\\ p{-fr \ A- qtb\\u ,Had
-W#khlryffiffr.*e,s w
s c\,,l'Ufl*^\ qPMU Tri *" *drfu a,p-g.'dt
I
b {ftl\^\&"} n- {n)n\run^{ar nnCo0o il i"@*
I
atmJAil, n0l^6 l,o"sd@loq- [d\\
|
rl i
o^.1ft-rDailx%
t\i,sAmrr- NrA\ \uue- d 0!er\ MtrAAt\x-pAa,
1 S,r".' \acu gtj-r r)ni\: S ?,ry il^O 5\t/d 0e ,inr,"enpdtr
\0 iliaurs 4 0^'\ ,\ f^,$^5idr-ihlb bq
^dd{oaaC
b\*" '., ffi;npr-UffiV o-P-oPa^n
. :-'
t,r,a
il i
ii- i'
I't
l('
tt
iobL- ftt *\T 6zfA flr bh '
fr\}\6N,
tn'^tcapp d, un'tr i-14dr\J
TO:
FROI,T:
DATE:
SURT:
Planning and Environroental Coromission
Connunity Development Department
February 26, 1990
Request for a worksession on Amendnents to the Final-Plat and Special Development District #22,Resubdivision of lJots 1 - L9, Block 2, LionsridgeFiling #3.Applicant: Dauphinais-Moseley Construction
Backqround
Special Developnent District- *22 nas apprPlanning and Environmental Cornnission in and
was adopted as Ordinance #23, Series of I
Town Council. Speclal Development District #22 currentlyconsists of 24 single fanily lots, an open space tract, anda ne$t public road. Total size of tbe existJ.ng Special
Development District is 10.69 acres.
The originar zoning was primary/secondary. (fiffirott
were approved. The SDD reguest reduced the-He}--nrdnber ofdwelling units by 1.4. Total GRFA allowed upon this site
under Prinary/Secondary zoning was 84r905 square feet. Thetotal GRFA approved is 68,204 sguare feet resulting in areduction of l.617O1 square feet.
In April of L989, the PEC approved an amendment to thegrading plan for the subdivision. Tbe applicant fel"t thatby regrading portions of the property, the open space becarne
more usable and ttrat the lots became more buildable byelinrinating steep road cuts and other access problems. A
drainage plan was also submitted in conjunction with the newgrading plan.
At this time, the Special Development District has receivedfinal approval . The plat has also received final approval .
Holtever, the final plat will not be recorded at the Countyuntil the following conditions are met:
1. The Design Review Board has approved specific
design guidelines for the project, a landscapeplan for cotrnon area, and a specific landscapeplan indicating the entry and Iighting area for
tbe subdivision are approved.
A subdivision agreenent will need to be suburittedto staff for approval .
I.
3. A topographic sunrey will need to be subnitted to
staff in order to compare the new topography to
the grading plan pernit. SoiI reports on.
conpiction of the fill shatl also be subnitted to
staff for apprgval . This site shall also be
completely revbgetated no later than the fall of
1990. A letter of credit has been subrnitted to
the Conmunity Developnent Department and expires
on November 1, 1990 for the revegetation work.
II. The Recruest
ModeI
ModeI
The
and
following changes to the Special Development Dj-strict
major subdivision are reguested:
Lot sizes and naximum GRFA:
The existing Speciat Developrnent Distrj-ct assigned
specific amounts of GRFA to each lot. The
appticant is requesting to receive approval for
two nodels which wouLd be used throughout the
subdivision. Model A has a GRFA of 3LTL square
feet and roodel B has a GRFA of 2293 square feet.
15 lots would use model A and 9 lots would use
rnodeL B. 1.
A.
B.
A
B
l-5 lots x 31171 GRFA = 471565 GRFA
9 lots x 2,293 GRFA = 20,538 GRFA
Total = 68,202 GRFA
Setbacks:
The setbacks are reguested to be amended as
folLows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Lots 15-19 Lionsridge Loop frorn a 20 foot
front setback to a five foot front setback.
Lots 20-24 L,ionsridge Loop from a 20 foot
minimum setback to five foot front setback.
Lots 1-14 Lionsridge Lane frorn a 20 foot
minimum front set back to a L0 foot front
setback.Lots t5 and 16 Lionsridge LooP from a 15 foot
niniurum rear setback to 1o foot rear setback.
c.
D.
The applicant would like to have an additional
four iirrb cuts off of Lionsridge LooP' Presently,
onLy six curb cutE are approved off of Lionsridge
LooP.
Anendnent to the phasing plan: Below is a
description of thL construction phasing for tbe
proJect:
Phase I
-I-,ots 2 and 3 (Model A)
-Lots 1, 4 and 24 (Model B)
-Project entry Plan execution
-rinlt grading of conrnon open space and
revegetition 6t native grasses and all undeveloped
portions of the Project.--Paving of Lionsrldge L,ane (Str asphalt) '-alt uiderground utitities in place and stubbed to
individual lots.
Phase II - Phase V (1991 - 1996!
Tlre development district shall include
construction of 4 to 5 units per year until the
project is built out.
Major Subdivision:
The applicant is reguesting to reatigl .19t lines
for aitost all of the l'9 lots. In addition, an
easement will need to be reptated for utilities'
E.
III. STAFF COMMENTS
A. At this tirne the staff does not have a list of lot
sLzes and the corresponding GRFA for each lot'
staff would be conceined that the GRFA is in
proportion to the new lot size.
B. Staff is reguesting an updated environmental
impact repoit fron Peter Jamar.in respect to-the
vi-ew inpacts and additlonal driveway cuts' We
would also like to see ttre drainage for the
project addressed. ft is our understanding that a
iarie detention pond is proposed on the ltest end
of {,ne subdivision. we are concerned about the
appearance of this drainage solution.
a
c.Staff feels strongly that specific designguidelines for the project should be developed.
The guidelines should be incorporated into theSpecial Development District Ordinance. We wouLdlike to see the design standards and urodel typelisted per lot. We also suggest that nore thantwo models be incorporated into the subdivision.
We are concerned about the project appearing to betract housing. Thl.s issue was raised during theoriginal review when each lot was proposed io bedeveloped by a separate owner using specificdesign guidelines.
At this tine staff can not support the additionalcurb cuts off L,ionsrldge Loop. We believe that
roany of the driveway cuts could be conbined todecrease the amount of asphalt.
Staff is concerned about the vLew inpacts of theresidences along the South ridge of thesubdivision and along Lionsridge Loop. When theapproved site plan is overlayed on the revisedsite plan, it appears that the units are locatedfurther to the edge of the ridge. The unitsshould also be staggered along L,ionsridge Loop sothat the development does not appear as a wall
when looking fron Lionsridge Loop to the south.
Staff would like to see a more specific landscapeplan that calls out the numbers of material_s,sizes, tlpes and lighting. Detention pond
Iandscaping shoul.d also be addressed. TheIandscape architect should identify which portionsof the landscape plan are to be constructed by thedeveloper and wtrich portions of the landscapingwill be planted by private lot olrners. Morespecifics on landscaping are needed in the right-of-way area along Lionsridge Loop. public workswill aLso need to look at the landscaping closely.
staff is asking the developer to discuss withSolar Crest possible solutions for parking andaccess. Presently, Solar Crest owners cross theLionsridge subdivision in order to access andpark.
This Special Developnent District needs to be tiedto the final plat so that staff is assured thatthe project will be developed per the Special
Developnent District.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
..i
I
L
To: Buff Arnold
From: Cornrnunity Development Departnent
Date: February 15, 1990
subject: Lionsridge subdivision, special Developroent District 22
please submit the following information. staff will need this
inforrnation before we publish this iten for PEc'
L. A clreck for $1oO.Oo for the SDD application
2. Title Report to verify ownership and easements ( schedule B)
3. A list of the lot acreages and corresponding GRFA
4. A site plan that corresponds to ttre lots as indicated on the
approved SDD and final Plat
5. An updated EIR letter from Peter Jamar in respect to view
irp."C" ind additional driveway cuts. I also would like to see
the retention pond addressed in the EIR.
6. A decision on Irhether or not the parcel below.solar crest is
incfuaea in your subdivision. If this parggt.is included, you
wifr neea to apply for a revised najor subdivision'
7. A ne!'r topographic survey indicating feYi:eq grades after the
addition of iiff t" tft" |ot-"shop1{,be -ubrnitted. Have compaction
tests been compreted? JA4!-&ikAA0r'4q'uvl
11. How does the access easement indicated on your site plan
relate to the landscape entry?
13. What is the status of the subdivision agreement?
Comments:
1. Why are there only two rnodels? When the project was
originilly approved there ltas a concern that there be enough
div6rsity-witiin the project so that it did not look like tract
n-using.' Staff is co-ncelned about having only two nodels within
the subdivision.
2. At this time we see no reason to support the reguest for
additional road cuts.
3. We are concerned about view irnpacts on the south ridge of the
subdivision and along Lionsridge Loop. when the approved site
plan is overlayed on the revised gite plan-, it.appears that the
units are focaled further to the edge of the ridge.
4. Staff would like to see some type of solution for access to
Solar Crest. ff we can assist you in finding a solution we would
be happy to help.
5. The SDD needs to be tied to the final plat in some manner that
assures that the project will be developed per the sDD'
6. Please stake the site for PEC. This would include new
driveway cuts and setback on the ridge.
\- (Jlr\C'l
f/tr,(0v
1t,
lr
q
''kH;:m-'$ ,tta'*K!^\r
u^c$try'* N\,t\l$*m-6
o
DECLARATTON OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS
FOR
LTONIS RTDGE SUBDIVISTON FILING NO. 5
COMMERCIAL FEDERAL SAVTNGS AND LoAN ASSoCIATIoN, a Neblaskacorporation (rtDeclarantrr), is the record and beneficial owner of allof the subdivision located in Eagle county, cororado, the final platof which was recorded in Book _ at page , of the records in theoffice of the Clerk and Recorder-6f Eag1e cotrnty, Colorado.
Declarant does hereby make, publish and decLare that thefolrowing terms, covenants, conditions, easements, restrictions, uses,reservations, limitations and obligations shall be deemed to run withthe land, shall be a burden and a benefit to Declarant, its successorsand assigns, the Town of vair, as to certain restrictions, and anyperson or entity acquiring or owning an interest in the real propertydescribed above and arl other reaL property which is or -belomes
subject to this Declaration and improvernentl uuitt thereon, theirg'rantees, successors, heirs, personal representatives, devisees orassigns.
1. DEFINITIONS: As used herein, the following words and termsshall have the following rneanings:
a. Subdivision: Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 5
b. Lot: A lot within Lion's Ridqe Subdivision Filing No.
5.
c. Tract: A tract within Lion's Ridge Subdivision FilingNo. 5.
d. Sinqle-Familv Residential Dwetlincr: is a term asdefined in the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail .
e. Open Space Tracts: Tracts B, C and D which shallremain in its natural and undisturbed state to or be landscaped(including recreational structures, artwork or entrlruay structureto the subdivision) in a nanner approved by the Design ReviewCornmittee, as hereinafter defined; provided, however, that anopen Space Tract rnay have constructed and maintained thereonutilities and drainage facilities in areas as so designated onthe final prat of the subdivision, or as needed from tirne totime. fn addition, easements for ingress and egress may begranted by Declarant over such Open Space Tracts to adjacentparcels or lots.
f . Design.Review Cornrnittee: A group of three persons hrhoshall be responsible for the adninistration and enforcernent ofthese Protective covenants and other Design Guidelines, if any(trcornmitteettl . such persons sharr be appointed by Declarant.Any action, decision or approvar to be given by the comnitteeshall reguire a majority vote of its members. should Declarant,at any tine within 30 days after receiving written notice of avacancy in the Cornrnittee having occurred for any reasonwhatsoever. fail to appoint a new mernber to the Committee to filla vacancy, the owners by a rnajority vote shalr designate such new
mernber to the Conmittee, with an Owner having one vote for eachLot owned.
S. Design Guidelines Guidelines for the use of the Tractsshall be adopted by the Committee, which shall, among otherthings, interpret and/or inplenent the provisions of theseProtective Covenants. Guidelines may be amended fron time totime with the majority vote of approval fron the Conrnittee andapproval of the Town of VaiI Design Review Board. The guidelineswill be available from the chairperson of the Courmittee and Townof VaiI Community Development Department.
h. Road Tract: Tract A, which can be used solely (i) toprovide a public road and right of way for use as ingiess andegress from each of the lots to Lionrs Ridge Loop, a public roadlocated in Eagle County, Colorado, and (ii) to provide open spacein the sane manner as an Open Space Tract on portions not usedfor a public road and right of way or for vehicular parkinq;provided, however, that the Road Tract may have constructed anarnaintained thereon utilities and drainage facilities.
i. Owner: Any individual, corporation, partnership,association, trust or other legal entity, or combination of legalentities, which is the record ortrner of one or more of the Lots.
j. Declaration: This Instrument and all amendments orsupplements thereto hereafter recorded in the records in theOffice of the Cterk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado.
k. First Lienor: The holder of a pronissory note palnnentof wtrich is secured by a first rnortgage or fj.rst deed of trustencumbering an interest in a Lot. rMortgagetf shall include adeed of trust, and 'rnortglaEle" shall include the beneficiary of adeed of trust.
2. GENERAL PURPOSES: These covenants and restrictions are madefor the purposes of creating and keeping the Subdivision, insofar aspossible, desirable, attractive, beneficial and suitable in
architecturar design, nateriars and appearance, and unnecessaryinterference with the natural beauty of the Subdivision, and providingingress and egress from all Lots in the Subdivision, all for themutual benefit and protection of the Owners.
3. WE: All Lots or Tracts in the Subdivision shal1 fallwithin the fol-Iowing land use definitions:
DEFINITION
Single-Family Residential Dwelling
Open Space Tracts
Road Tract
LOT DESCRTPTTON
L-24
Tract B, C and D
Tract A
A11 pennitted uses, conditional uses, accessory uses, allowable
GRFA, setbacks, density, building height, site coverage, parking andrecreational amenities tax shall be as set forth in ordinance No. 23Series of l-988, of the Town of VaiI.
4. APPRoVAL OF CONSTRUCTTON PLANS: (a) No building or otherstructure shall be constructed, erected, or maintained on any Lot, norshall any addition thereto or alteration or change therein be madeuntil complete plans and specifications (including, but not lirnitedto, a color rendering and/or a model , floor p1ans, elevations, siteand grading plans, provisions for off street parking and locations ofdriveway access, landscaping plan, the specification of principalexterior materials, color schemes and the location and the method ofutilization of all utilities) have been subnitted to the Town of vailand approved in writing. In addition, each owner that builds astructure on a Lot, and alL plans subrnitted pursuant to this paragraph
4 (a) shall comply with the design guidelines as outlined hereunder.
The Town of Vail shall have the right to enforce the covenants andall reguirements within articres 4 and 5 herein. The covenants andrequirements contained in articles 4 and 5 herein and the designguidelines nay not be amended or deleted without Town of Vailapproval .
(b) owners are encouraged to consult with the Town of VaiIprior to and during the preparation of such plans andspecifications for conpliance with the design guidelines in orderto avoid withholding or delay in approval .
5. DESIGN GUIDELTNES:
(a) AII criteria and requirenents as set forth in the
Municipal Code of the Town of Vail including but not lirnited toChapter L8.54 shall be conplied with.
(b) The Town of Vail Design Review Board in addition to therequirernents of Chapter L8.54 shall take into consideration thesuitability of the proposed building or other structure and thematerials of which it is to be built to the Lot upon which it isto be erected, and the harrnony thereof with the surroundings.
(c) The goal of these guidelines and the interpretation ofChapter l-8.54 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code sha1l be tocreate, for the entire Subdivision, a compatible and homogeneousarchitectural guality harmonious with the character of the area.
(d) The following specific restrictions shall governconstruction on and use of any Lot.
L) Architectural . At the tirne of review of specificarchitectural plans provided for any development of single familystructures within special Developnent District #22, l-jne Town of VairDesign Review Board shall, in addition to the Design Guidelines setforth in Chapter L8.54 of the Vail Municipal Code, consider thefollowing guidelines in the review and approval process. Thearchitectural design of the buildings upon the site sha1l be such thatbuildings relate harnoniously to each other. This is not to implythat each building must look exactly sinilar to those around it, butthat compatibility be achieved through the use of scale materials andcolors, and buiJ-ding shape and form. The overriding concern is that,upon completion, the Special Development District, because of theclustered nature of the snall single farnily tots situated around
colnmon open space should appear to be an integrated developmentpossessingt a conmon architectural quality, character, and appearance.To this end the following general design criteria shall be followed:
a. A palette of colors shall be as set forth below
and presented to the Design Review Board for their reviewand approval . CoLors are indicated for the use ondifferent types of buitding materials and elements such asstucco colors, siding colors, metal flashing, windows,accent colors, etc. The palette of colors indicate a IilJlSIgof acceptable colors in order to encourage sirnilarity on onehand, but also diversity within the acceptable ranse.
b. The following building forms and materials shallbe adhered to:
1. Roof. The roof pitch shall be a rninimun 8rl10 anda maximun of I2/L2. A clipped or hipped gable
roof shall be mandatory. The roofing materialshalL be #f resarion shingles with staggeredbutts.
Chimnevs. The chimneys shall be stucco with
chimney caps of weathered copper.
Flues. All flues shall be galvanized or rrPaint
Lolsrr sheet metal , painted to natch the roof.
4. Main Fasia. The main fasia shall be a solid colorstain, wfth brown taupe or gray.
5. Secondary Fasia and Metal Railinqs above the First
Floor. The secondary fasia and metal railings
above the first floor shall be an accent trimcolor of muted green, red or bIue.
5. I,IalIs. Walls shall be of stucco and horizontal
wooA siaing. Stucco colors shall be gray, tin oroff-white. Wood siding colors shall be 9ray,brown or taupe.
7. Stone. Wal1s will have a minirnum of a two foothigh stone wainscot in rainbow rnix with a
sandstone cap.
8. Windows. Windows shall be recessed a minimum of
two inches from the outside wall plane and have a
sandstone sill. Trim shaLl be white, taupe or
brown.
9. Outdoor Liqhtinq. Outdoor lighting shall beindirect with a concealed source except for an
entry chandelier which may be exposed globes witha fixture of black or weathered cooper look metal .
10. caraqes. No garage doors shall directly face thestreet.
2) Landscape: At the tine of review of landscapeplans provided for any development of single fanily structures withinthe Special Development District #22 the Town of Vail shall, inaddition to the landscape guidelines set forth in Chapter 18.54 of thevail ttunicipal Code, consider the following guidelines in the review
and approval process:
2.
3.
a. Entrv Landscapincr and Liqhting: A plan indicatingthe landscape treatment of the main project entry sha1l besubmitted and approved. Ihe goal of such a pl-an shall bethe following:
L. Present an identifiable entry point to thesubdivision containing plant materials, lighting,
and signage of a scale appropriate for the sizeof the development.
2. Provide appropriate screening to the rear yards
(along Lionrs Ridge L,,oop) of Lots 20-24 which
blends in with the entry treatment.
3. Provide appropriate screening along the western
edge of Tract C.
b. When the individual landscape plans are presented
for individual lots special care shall be taken in thedesign of side yard landscaping in order to provide adequate
screening between structures. Active outdoor use areas
should be located within front and rear yards.
c. The concern of the Cornmittee shall be to improvethe natural appearance of the Subdivision and the
maintenance of such appearance. Owners and their
representatives or builders will be requi.red to:
(aa) Minimize disruption from grading.
(bb) Revegetate and restore ground cover for
erosion and appearance reasons.
(cc) Use indigenous species of plant rnaterials.
(dd) Select the rnan-made elements that blend andare compatible with the land.
(ee) Use existing or
whenever possible.natural drainage paths
(ff) conserve and protect topsoil, rock formations
and unique landscape features.
3) Water and Sanitation: Each structure designed for
occupancy or use by human beings shall connect with water andsanitation facilities made available by Upper Eagle Val1ey water andSanitation district or any other sirnilar governrnental or guasi-
governmental entity. No private wells shall be used as a source ofwater for human consumption or irrigation.
4) Electrica] and telephone Service: A11 electrical
and telephone service to the Lots witl be placed underground.
5) Easements: Easements and rights of way are herebyreserved as shown or described on the final plat for the Subdivision.
5) Signs: No signs, billboards, or other advertisingstructure of any kind shal-l be erected, constructed or maintained onany Building Envetope for any purpose whatsoever, except such signs as
have been approved by the Town of Vail .
7l Fences: Design and location of fencing shall be
submitted to and approved by the Town of Vail prior to installation.
8) Trash: No trash, ashes or other refuse shall be
thrown or dunped on any land within the Subdivision. There shall be
no burning or other disposal of refuse out of doors. Each Owner shallprovide suitable receptacles for the temporary storage and col-lectionof refuse and all such receptacles sha1l be placed in enclosures
attached to the buildings so that such receptacles shall be screenedfron the public view and protected fron disturbance.
9) Livestock: No animal.s, livestock, horses orpoultry of any kind (except dogs, cats and other domesticated pets for
household enjolnnent, not for comrnercial purposes and not to exceed two
in number may be kept by an Owner so long as such pets are not a
nuisance to any other Owner) shall be kept, raised or bred in the
Subdivision.
10) Pets: Household pets, such as dogs and cats, nust
be contained upon an Ownerts Lot. Onners may not construct a fenced
run on their Lot. Pets shall- not be allowed to renain tied or chained
anlrwhere in the Subdivision, any pet so tied or chained may be
removed. Pedestrians accompanied by dogs within the Subdivision must
have said dogs under their direct control by use of leash not to
exceed ten feet in length.
11) Temporary Structures; No ternporary structure,
such as a basement, trailer, rnobile home or tent shall be perrnitted inthe Subdivision, except as may be determined to be necessary duringconstruction and specifically authorized by the Town of VaiI inwriting and in accordance with the regulations of the appropriategovernmental entities.
L2) Trees! Trees naturally existing upon any Building
Envelope or upon any Tract shaIl not be cut, trimmed or removed fromthe Lot or Tract without the prior approval of the Town of Vail.
13) Television Antenna: Exterior mounted, exposedtelevision or radio antenna will not be perrnitted within theSubdivision. Such antennae, if installed, must be concealed
from public view.
14) Outdoor Liqhtinq: A11
under the jurisdiction of the Town of Vail .
outdoor lighting comes
L5) Repair of Vehicles:No work of automotive repairshall be performed anywhere within the Subdivision except withinprivate garages
16) Accessorv Structures and Greenhouses: Accessorystructures, if any, sha1l be of similar construction materials andguality as principal buildings. Greenhouses must be constructed of
permanent materiaLs and must be a part of the residential structure or
garage and nay not be a free standing building.
L7) Continuitv of Construction:AII structures
commenced in the Subdivision sha1l be prosecuted diligently to
completion and shall be cornpleted within the twelve months of
conmencement unless exception is granted in writing by the Town of
vail.
18) Nuisance: No noxious or offensive activity shaLl
be carried on within the Subdivision, nor shall anything be done or
pernitted which shall constitute a nuisance therein.
19) Storaqe of Materials and Ecruipment: Owners and
contractors are permitted to store construction materials and
equipment on the approved construction site during the constructionperiod. It shall be neatly stacked, properly covered and secured and
is the responsibility of the owner and the contractor. olvners and
contractors will not disturb, damage, trespass or store naterials or
eguipment on other ownersl BuiJ-ding Envelopes, on the Open Space Tract
or on the Road Tract.
20l. Debris and Trash Rernoval: Owners and contractors
shall clean up all trash debris on tbe construction site at the end of
each day. Trash and debris shalt be rernoved fron the site at least
once a week to the closest solid waste disposal site approved by Eagle
County. owners and contractors are prohibited from dumping, burying
or burning trash anywhere in the Subdivision.
2I, Sanitary Facilities: Each Owner and contractorshall be responsibre for providing adeguate sanitary facilities forhis construction workers.
22)
Damage or scarring to otherother Lots, the Open Spacethereon, driveways or other
property, including but not limited toTract, the Road Tract and improvementsimprovements is not permitted. If anysuch damagle occurs, it will be repaired pronptly at the expense of theperson causing the same.
23) Conduct and Behavior: All" Owners shal1 beresponsible for the conduct and behavior of their agents,representatives, invitees, builders, contractors andsubcontractors.
6. OWNERSHfP AND USE OF TRACTS: The Declarant shall own theTracts, however, nothing contained herein shall prohibit the Declarantfrom transferring such Tract to the Town of Vail or other parties.
Each owner sha1l be entitled to use the Tracts in accordance withthe purpose for which they are intended, without hindering, inpedingor imposing upon the rights of the other owners and in accordance withthe rules and regulations duly established from time to time by theCommittee or the Town of VaiI.
7. EASEI,TENT FOR USE OF ROAD TRACT: Declarant desires toprovide to each owner the right of ingress and egress to his Lot froma public road and Declarant hereby grants and assigns to each owner aperpetual , non-exclusive easement and right of way under, over, acrossand through the Road Tract for the purpose of ingress and egressbetween his Lot and Lion's Ridge Loop. The non-exclusive easernent andright of way hereby granted and assigned shall run with the land andshall be appurtenant to each Lot, such that a transfer by an Owner ofIega} title to all or any portion of a Lot shalr automaticarlytransfer the interest in the easement and right of way granted andassigned herein.
8. IIATNTENANCE AND REPAIRS OF THE TRACTS: The Tracts andirnprovements thereon shall be administered, conserved, managed,rnaintained (including, without Limitation landscape maintenanie),repaired, irnproved and replaced by the owner of such Tracts. However,if the need to make such repairs or maintenance results from thenegligence or intentionaL act of any Owner, his family, agent orinvitee, such owner shall reimburse the owner of the Tract for alr thecosts of repairing such danage.
9. EASEMENT. LEASE, LICENSE AND UsE oF TRACTS: The owner shal}have the right to grant by easement, lease, license or permit the useof, as the owner may deern desirabre, any portion of the Tracts orirnprovements thereon. The rights granled to the owner in thisparagraph 8 shall only be used in the pronotion of the collective bestinterest of the Owners.
].0.. EFFECT AND DURATION oF DECLARATIoN. The conditions,restrictions, stipulations, obrigations, agreements and covenantscontained herein shall be for the benefit of and binding upon each andevery part of the subdivision and each ov/ner, his heirs, personalrepresentatives, successors and assigns and shall continue in furrforce and effect until January i. in the year 2oo8 A.D., and thereafterfor successive periods of L0 years each, unless this Declarationduring any such period is terminated, as provided hereinbelow, berecorded instrument directing terrnination.
. 11: AMENDMENTS: The conditions, restrictions, stipulations,obrigations, agreements and covenants contained herein shail not beabandoned, terminated or amended except by written consent of 7spercent of the owners, except (i) that the provisions of paragraph 6may be abandoned, terroinated or amended only upon such approval of allowners and all First Lienorsi and (ii) that the provisions of articles4 and 5 herein nay be abandoned, terrninated or amended only uponobtaining the additional approval of the Town of Vail .
L2.. EFFECT OF PROVISIONS OF DECLARATTON: Each provision of thisDecraration and agreement, promise, covenant, undertakj-ng to complywith each provision of this Declaration and any necessary exception orreservation or grant of title, estate, right or interest to efiectuateany provision of this Declaration: (i) shall be deemed incorporated ineach deed or other instrument by which any right, title or interest inany Lot or Tract is granted, devised or conveyed, whether or not setforth or referred to in such deed or other instrument; (ii) shall, byvirtue of acceptance of any right, titre or interest 'in-any l-,ot. orTract by an owner, be deerned accepted, ratified, adopted and declaredas a personal covenant of such owner and, as a personal covenant,shal-l be binding on such owner, his heirs, personal representatives,successors and assigns, and shalr be deemed a personal covenant to,with and for the benefit of each owner; and (i1i) sharl be deemed areal covenant by Declarant, for itserf, its successors and assigns andarso an equitable servitude running. in each case, as a burden withand upon the title to each and every Lot and Tract.
. L3. ENFORCEMENT: In addition to any other right granted herein,if any person shall violate or threaten to violate any -of theprovisions of this Declaration, it shal1 be lawful for the Committeeor any Owner to institute proceedings at law or in eguity to enforce
10
the provisions of this Decraration, to restrain the person violatingor threatening to violate them, and to recover damages, actual andpunitive, and costs together with reasonabLe attorneyri fees for suchviolationsi and in the event of a violation or threalened violation ofarticles 4 and 5 herein, it shall be lawfuL for the Town of vait toenforce such provisions as otherwise set forth above.
14- GENERAL: (a) rf any of the provisions of this Declarationor any paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word, or the applicationthereof in any circumstance be invalidated, such invaridity sharr notaffect the validity of the remainder of this Declaration, and theapplication of any such provision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phraseor word in any ottrer circumstances shall not be affected thereby-.
(b) Whenever used herein, unless the context shallotherwise provide, the singular number shall include the plural ,the prural the singular, and the use of any gender shall incrudeall genders.
EXECUTED effective as of the day of , 1990.
COMMERCIAL FEDERAL SAVINGS AND I,OAN
ASSOCfATION, a Nebraska Corporatj-on
By:
TOWN Or VAIr.,,, COIORADO
By:
ATTEST:
TOWN CLERK
Lt
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
SS.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before rne this
asof , 1990 bvof Conmercial Federal Savings and Loan Association, a NebraskaCorporation.
Witness my hand and official
My conmission expires on:
Notary Public
day
seal .
ss.
instrument was acknowledged before ne this day
, L990 by as Town Manageras Town Clerk of the Town of VaiI , a
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
The
COI-,ORADO
EAGLE
foregoingof
and
colorado Municipality.
Witness ny hand and official seal .
My commission expires on:
L2
,
It(
I
APPLICATION FOR}T FOR SPECIAL DE\ALOPMENI
DISTRICT DEI'ELOPMENT PI,A}I
r.This
the
The
A.
procedure is required for any project
Special Developrnent District Procedute.
appLication will not be accePted until
NAI,IE OE' APPLICA!{T at)?hrhy
ADDRESS
APPLICAf',IT I S REPRESENTATI\IEB.
c.
D.
NAI.TE OF
ADDRESS
AUTHORIZATI
SIGNATUP€
+.
OF PROPOSAT
ADDRESS E 'x l5|B vt l' at6s A
LOCATION
ADDRESS
LEGAI, DESCRIPTION
$100. 00
€rrb ,f F;
b6
FEE nttnrnt u:8.
F. A List of the name of owners of
Subject ProPertY and their riling al-l property adjacent to the
a.ddresses.
D'
II. Four (4) coPies of the following information:
. A,- -DetaileC-ryaitteli/giaphic description of proposal .
- .;: en- environmentif irnpact reirort shAll.be subnitted to the zoning
/{f'l adroinistrator in accordance with Chapter 18.56 hereof unless waived
Y)Y by Section 18.56.030, exemPt Projects;
C. An open space and recreational plan sufficient to meet the denands
generated by the development without undue burden on available
or proposed public facilities;
Date or epprlti o, | /21 /4o
litc'0JAN291sei]
that would go through
all information is submitted.
PHONE
(0vER)
t{0I ltons Ridge LooPVall, Colorado 81657
November 13, 1989
Eolar Crest ocnere
Welnschelnk Borus l4l11er
3773 Cbcrry cteek.Nortb Drlve
Denverr Colorado 80209
Ms. Patrlcla Gould
P.O. Box 2393Vall, Colorado 81658
'lls. Vivlan Elegal
c,/o Vlvlan tlhtrup
135 Bcllalrc Street
Denver, Colorado 80212
Hs. tisa Park
P.O. Box 2207
VaIl, Colorado 81558
8r. Edruard J. Sitt
Siera ArnatePec
ltexlco 10 DF D|EXICO
Ms. Carol Ann Zinnernan
c./o Colurubla SavlnEs
P.O. Box L7127
Denoer, Coloraclo 80217
-il\ t^l1J
\nN !.v '>l t
State Oo""do, County of EAGL ;.rot 142i1 ot;::;to
1AIM30so
'ARCEL NUI,TEER
PROPERTY Ol{NER LI ST - SCHEDULE
SQR FT ACRES
37 428
STATE PARCEL NUI.IBER ANO LEGAL OESCRIPTION
2103-1 2Z-A?-022
TAX 0rST 0110
SEC - 122 TIiN-RNC '?103 LOT - O2Z
EOOK - 0516 PAGE ' o7z1
LION,S RiOGE SUBDIVISION T3
ELOCK 3 LOT 4
DXNER NAI.IE ANO ADDRESS
8A09446 "
l0ulDr JILL S.0.0. B0x 1288
90t,lAR0Su CC 81532
217 50
t'/c009447
l0H0z JILL S.P.0. B0x 1288
i0HARDSu C0 81532
CLASS
c100
A55E))
2175CI
ASSESS
21750
21750
ASSESS
5 060
3?Z?O
49 670
0030993 t',l
l,HITEz 00NAL0 E. & PAHELA A.
304 sRIOGE ST.
VAILr C0 81657
2103-',|22-02'A23
lAX 0r sT 0110
sEc - 122 Tl./N-RNG -2103
BOOK - 0516 PAGE - 0821
LION,S RIOGE SUBOIVISION
BLOCK 3 LOT 5
210 3- 1 2?-0?-0?6
TAX DIST O11O
sEc - 1 22 Tl{N-RNG -e103
BOOK - 0491 PAGE - c269
LION,S RIDGE SUBDIVISiON
PARCEL A LOT 3 SLK 3
552 CO}IPLETE
CLASS
0'l00
CLASS
1130
1234
CLASS
1115
'1215
SQR FT
3o427
ACRES
LoT - 023
#3
LoT - 0u6
fi3
-/
00137?4 "
CORMACKT CRAIG -
'ilALSHr TH0MAS P.r SR.
/.230 SOUTH 53RC STREET
LINC0LNz NE 68506
ASSESS sQR
67 80
4?E90
2101-091-04-013
TAX DIST 0103
sEc - 091 TUN-RNG -2101 LoT - 013
BOOK - 0519 PAGE - 0196
VAIL GOLFCOURSE TOI/NHOI'IES
UNIT 'I3 SLD6. D
e
ilz4
FT
5 672
2211
ACRES
SQR FT ACRES
29045
27?E
37280
ArMros' "'lior=.?3;i!;'.!;;^j'rilr5ii! norOo:14:54
o';:;;'o
z
CARCEL NUI{8ER
OiJNER NAi4E ANO AOORESS STATE PARCEL NUMBER ANO LEGAL OESCRIPTION
r't030994
CANT0NT BRUCS
2475 GARI.tISH DRIVE
VAfLr C0 81657
2103-122-02-027
TAX OIST O11O
sEc - 122 Twll-RNG -2103 LoT'oz7
BOOK . PAGE -
LION,S RIDGE SUSOIVISION '3CLASS ASSESS SQR FT ACRES PARCEL B LOT 3 BLK 3
1115 1500 16256 9OT CO11PLETE
121t ____i::1 1838
27 470
ao33a25 r' 2103-1?2'02'006
rARTr RICHAR0 H. & JANE Y. TAx 0IST 0110
1401 LIONS RIDGE LOOP SEC'122 TUN-RNG.Z'IO3 LOT - 006
vArLr co 8'1657 BooK - PAGE -
LION'S RIOGE FIL. 2
CLASS ASSESS SQR FT ACRES 3LOCK - LOT 4
11't2 11250 47916
1212 13150 18 5 4
24404
ctJ33137 '/ ?103-122-02-CO9
sULL CIRCLE EUILDERST INC. TAX 0IST 0110
1E53 LIONSRIOGE LOOP SEC - 122 T}IN-RNG -2105 LOT - OO9
vAILr CO 81657 BOOK - 0512 PAGE - 0367
LION, S RIOGE FIL. 2
CLASS ASSESS SQR FT ACRES BLOCK ' LOT 1
0100 21750 463i2
21750
0035186 '/ 2103-122'02-007
IIUELLER.. RICI.IARO TAX DIST O11O
'.0. Box 49055 sEc - 122 TI{N-RNG -2103 LoT - 007
COLORADO SPRINGSI CO 80904 BOOK - 0476 PAGE - 0441
LION,S RIOGE FIL. 2
CLASS ASSESS SQR FT ACRES BLOCK ' LOT 3
0100 2't750 30797
217 50
State Oo""oor County of EAGL f a 214254
PROPERTY Ol.lNER LIST. SCHEDULE NOS
01-06-90Page 3ATt{3080
PARCEL NUMSER
CTNER NAIIIE AND AODRESS
0033455
iICKMANT PATRICIA7'36 OUBLIN CT.
'v,lICHITAr KS 67206
cLAss AssEss SQR FT ACRES
35880
1870
A.
STATE PARCEL NUMBER AND LEGAL OESCRIPTION
?103-1 ZZ-02-009
TAX 0IST 0110
s Ec - 1 2? TI,IN-RNG -e105 LoT - 008
BOOK - PAGE -
LION,S RIDGE FIL. ?
BLOCK - I.OT Z
1117.
121?
112s0
13160
z44',lo
TOTAL NUMBER OF NAUES: 9
CROERED BY: ARNOLO PRATT
B'll.t" G-lr-
-Thz. P.* L.Aae
h gr N. *"fr>* {adJ N,+
vri\ 6tLs1
J; O*ul-*
A.1u At^* A*.-.'
OU3 Ft*f -. 4ttz a1><t<A
,F?t'
+-..\al^\O V h^P-L-
To-r^ -p V1 |
'i
It
,iiIt
o
1,401 lions Ridge LooP
ValI, Colorado 81657
November 13, 1989
Solar Crest OHners
Weinschelnk Borus Mlller
3773 Cberry Creek.North Drive
Denverr Colorado 80209
Ms. Patricla Gould
P.O. Box 2393Vall, Colorado 81558
'lls. Vivlan Slega!
c,/o vivlan Kilstrup
1.35 Bellalre StreetDenver, Colorado 80212
Us. Lisa Park
P.O. Box 2207Vail, Colorado 8165e
Sr. Edrrard J. Sitt
Siera Atnatepeeltexico l0 DF IIEXICO
Ms. Carol Ann Zinnegman
c./o Colunbla Savlngsg.P. Eox 17127
Denver, Colorado 80217
fn*.tt-/ doo4c'<-#
c*]-'* c-.r\- r/;L/ / 7 oPUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GMN that the Planning and Environnental
Conml.ssion of the Toun of Vall witl hotd a public hearing in
accordance with Sectlon 18.66.060 of the municipal code of the
Town of Vaj-l on April 9, 1990 at 3:oo p.to. in the Town of Vail
uuniclpal Buitding. Consideration of:
1. A request for an exterior alteration and a setback variance
for the Lifthouse Lodge, located at Elock 1' Tract C, Site C
(555 East Lionshead Circle)Appllcant: Lifthouse CondominLum Association
A request for a final plat for a major subdlvision and for
SDD No. 22, a resubdivision of Lots 1-19, Block 2,
Lionsridge Filing No. 3.Applicani: Pat Dauphinais, Dauphinais-Moseley construction.
A request for a side setback variance at Bighorn Terrace
Unit #D-7, 4242 East Columbine WaY.Applicant: Kathryn Benysh
A reguest for a najor subdivision and for a najor amendrnent
to sDD No. 16 on a portion of Parcel A, Lionrs Ridge
Subdivision, Filing No. 2 (The Valley - Phase III)
Applicant: Brad and Susan Tjossen
A request for a conditional use for a Learning center Lab in
the lower level of the proposed parking structure at the
Vail Valley Medical Center on Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd
Filing (18L West Meadow Drive).Applicant: vail valtey l,ledical center.
A request for a najor anendnent to Special Development
District No. 7 (The Marriott uark) in order to add 57
timeshare units and 8 employee housing units.
Applicant: Marriott Corporation.
A request for an exterior alteration, stream setback
variJnce, view corridor amend:nent, site coverage variance,
and conditional use for a deck enclosure and new outdoorpatio for the Red Lion Building.Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landnark Properties
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The applications and
available for public
Department office.
Town of Vail
Conmunity Developnent
Published in the Vail
infornration about the proposals are
inspection in the cornmunity Development
Department
Trail on March 23, L990.
January 29, 1990
Town of Vail
Planning and Environmental Commission
VaiI, CO 81657
RE: Lionrs Ridge Subdivision
Special DeveloPment District 22
Lots 1 - 19, Btock 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision
Filing No. 3
Lion's Ridge Loop
VaiI, CO
To Whon It May'Concern:
In addition to the Development Plan outlined in oRDINANCE NO. 23
Series of 1988, we respectively submit the following requests
allowed per Section 5 Amendments followinq procedures contained in
Section 18.40.100 of the Vail Municipal Code.
1. Lot Sizes and Maximun GRFAs:indicated below, the GRFA
assignment for Lots 1 - 24 would be reassigned per lot
according to the two models which would be built throughout
the project. The maximum GRFA total would remain the same.
( 68,204 SF) .
Model A
Ir10de1 B
15 Lots x 31171 GRFA =9 Lots x 21293 GRFA =
I.{AXIMUM GRFA =
47,565 GRFA
20,538 GRFA
68,202 GRFA
Town of VaiI -2-January 29, 1990
2. Setbacks: Section 4.B.5
T[e mTnlnum setbacks for the location of structures in relation
to property lines are reguested to be amended as follows:
- Lots 15 - 19 Lion's Ridge LooP
From zero front setback as indicated on the site Development
PIan, July 8r 1988, to 5 foot front setback.
Lots 20 - 24 Lionts Ridge LooP
From 20 foot minirnurn front setback to 5 foot front setback.
tots 1 - 14 Lionrs Ridge Lane
Fron 20 foot mininum front setback to 10 foot front set back.
Lots 15 & 16 Lionrs Ridge LooP
From 15 foot mininun rear set back to 10 foot rear setback.
l|e feel the 15 foot to 25 foot intenslvely landscaped buffer zone
between the edge of pavement and the prop-rty line on Lj.onrs Ridge
Loop provides more than adeguate separation- This setback
reduction also serves to inprove the cornmon open space sizing and
environment. The reduced setbacks on Li.on's Ridge Lane enable the
units to be pulled away from the south ridge line and reduce impact
to the Interstate sight lines.
3. Curb Cuts: Site Development Plan, July 1988
r,oEs 20- - 23 tion's Ridge Loop
We request to nove curb cuts irom Lionts Ridge tane to Lionrs
Ridge toop to facilitate north entry/garage orientation and
south rear yard, view and open space integrity.
4. The First Phase of the development district (1990-1991 ) shall
include the fottowing j-mprovements:
- Lots 21 3 (t{odel A)
- Lots 1, 4, 24 (Model B)
- Project Entry Plan execution.
- Final crading of common open space and Revegetation of native
grasses in all uncleveloped portions of the project.
- Paving of L,ionts Ridge Lane (5" asphalt):
- All uiderground utilities in place and stubbed to individual
. Iots.
The Second through Fifth Phase ( 1991-1 9961 of the development
district shall include construction of 4 - 5 units per year until
the project is built out.
The developer reguests that the final naming of the project and of
Lion's Ridge Lane be withheld until a later date.
Town of Vail -3-January
1988
Jamar Associates, Inc.
29, 1990
homes
The lot
sale
Conclusion - The proJect stlll remains as 24 single family
based on a distrlbution of two rnodels throughout the site'
and nodel asslgnments stand as conditlonal based on future
demands. The flnal totals wlll remain the aame.
The developnent of the conmon open area and preservation of the
southerly itage environment have been maximized as well as the
visual quality frorn adjacent properties.
Respectfully submitted,
TTECTS, P.C.
RLA/ad
Enclosures:Ordinance No. 23 Series
Development PIan, Peter
JuIy 8, 1988
A-rnold, A.I.A.
l'i\\ '\ i "t,., l,r'--\\:\\\\ | t'. \'. \ ".., fl t:------.\\'\\ \\ I i,.. ',. ''.. '.* '..-'..Y\ \ \ \ \ I ... Otr,,"',rt".-r't'-----:--:-::--;'--:::-:'r..'''t\\ \\ \\ | lH :.._1.-:.--_)-----:--::----------:---:--r-'-.:.'.'.,'..'.\\ \ \ \\ | E b
.--. .. i .t -: - - - - - - - :::-- ;-- - - - ---r
t' -.
] \.'. r.'',,',-;'i'.,'i'{+\\\\,.N = lg
=
\-r.r\FIE I:i- .l---::::::x j,,l\iii,.iil\,.N\ E E A EA^t\,irc1-ii:',,'\'ir:,)'i.')i''\\ 1 E' I 5 eq,,
t\
"r,
tt,r'tr,,'t.'\\ \ \ -H l Y ;ri ;'ul 1 tW,W\A\,tr,\_r, "',,"\,"\,"',,'\ g I = H F
;, 5 l r 'M--, 'fl'. t$ltr't,\'\'\ \',.\,,\""'.
9t, d
i !.i&, rl
\i(
rI ( )l/l/;tr:ffihj6l*m. f:, )on \ ', \\. \ t \ '\ \,\N,.1 c -d{,ffi'rfiQ\_,Q(mVegif ,1-}\.2|{.' 'r, \..\ '.. ',.t. tr t. '. 1\
)\g(P \EVi i'\
3 . "\.
tr. '.. tr tir \
\ r.\\ -\ \- \ \\
,
t..r '\t... \.. -.. t.,.t\'
..r tra -t..r'.."1\
ta-tt. t.t 'aat\ ta
i i i tb\ \$..:i eY'ffiffi(!,;l1J4tffi //h' '..1\'r.'\)...'..''.' ".''.'"..'.i' t. \ l\\ \j\'-Uo& Wfr;jl..)ft\*.r.ilffid4\^X 1 t'...'i1..'.-',,..'..'rl',",)w'...'...l\\,\;\&<ffi&Af"\#.ffi:\E1...\.\...'.........].i'i]''''.'..''..'\\'RfT'%*'....X'\''...'..'....''-i^\t. t. '.. '."1\\s rVr -\ \. \. \'\ '\ \
" "\\ \HffiH&.$11Xffihrff\\\".'"".-""I \ r '. \x\ Y wil.U$P/4f,ll6{Sr---t5$?0#{f,lS,f)-, n\ \'\'r \ ',. ttt\
, tr ''.'..''r t.\ ?nr\l \W;\.'^\
\i::S:1..:::i' iEENW
"\)\rNI ffil',,
tr, '.r. '\, ',, 't,,. 't1. '\r tr \. t, t
', '.
",
'', '',. \. "
\, \ \ 'l \''\\\iff#W" A--... --WH&#v. .lle i.'..''...'\''\'\\'.'''''.'..'\\\\\.''6--t--^.ffiiji
,
'tr t,, t, 't, tt, tr. \, \ \. \. t. t, t.r '., t..
,,
\r, t,,'\ \r. \'\, \,
t\,
"rr."t."...
t',.,. "r..^".'.-'-'..---t\\W.K,---\\t,,'r.t,\'t
t
January 29, 1990
Town of Vail
Planning and Environmental Commission
Vail, Co 81557
RE: Lion's Ridge Subdivision
Special Development DistricL 22
Lots 1 - 19, Block 2, Lionrs Ridge Subdivision
Fillng No. 3
Lionrs Ridge LoopVaiI, CO
To Whom It May'Concern:
In addition to the Development Plan outlined in ORDfNANCE No. 23
Series of 1988, \te respectively submit the following reguests
allowed per Section 5 Amendrnents following procedures contained in
Section 18.40.100 of the VaiI Munlcipal Code.
1. Lot Sizes and Flaximum GRFAS:
indiqated below, the GRFA
assignment for Lots 1 - 24 would be reassj-gned per lot
according to the two nrodels which would be built throughout
the project. The maximum GRFA total would remain the same.
( 68,204 SF) .
15 Lots x 31171 GRFA
9 Lots x 21293 GRFA
MAXTUUI{ GRFA
47r555 GRFA
20,638 GRFA
68r202 GRFA
Model A
Model B
Town of Vail -2-January 29, 1990
2. Setbacks: Section 4.B.6
rfre-rninirnum setbacks for the location of structures in relation
to property lines are reguested to be amended as follows:
- Lots 15 - 19 Lionrs Ridge LooP
From zero front setback as indicated on the Site Development
Plan, July 81 1988, to 5 foot front setback.
tots 20 - 24 Lion's Ridge LooP
From 20 foot ninimum front setback to 5 foot fronL setback.
Lots 1 - 14 Llon's Ridge Lane
Fron 20 foot mlnimum front setback to 10 foot front set back.
Lots 15 a 15 Lion's Ridge LooP
From 15 foot minimum rear set back to 10 foot rear setback.
we feel the 15 foot to 25 foot intensively landscaped buffer zone
between the edge of pavernent and the property line on Lion's Ridge
Loop provides more than adeguate separation- This setback
reduction also serves to improve the common open space sizing and
environment. The reduced setbacks on Lionrs Ridge Lane enable the
units to be pulled away from the south ridge line and reduce inpact
to the Interstate sight lines.
3. Curb Cuts: Site Development PIan, July 1988
LoEsJ0--] 23 Lion's Ridge Loop
We reguest to move curb cuts irom Lionrs Ridge Lane to Lion's
Ridge Loop to facilitate north entry/garage orientation and
south rear yard, view and open space integrity.
4. The First Phase of the development district (1990-1 991 l shall
include the fotlowing improvenents:
- Lots 2, 3 (Model A)
- Lots 1, 4, 24 (Model B)
- Project Entry Plan execution.
- Final Grading of common open space and Revegetation of native
grasses In all undeveloped portions of the project.
- iaving of Lion's Ridge Lane (5t'asphalt)- --- AlI uid"rg.oond utilities in place and stubbed to individual
lors'\$ruL.l.1p
The Second througil Fifth phase (1991-1996) of the development
district shall include constructlon of 4 - 5 units per year until
the project is built out.
The developer reguests that the final naming of the project and of
Lion's Ridge Lane be withheld until a later date.
Town of Vail -3-January 29, 1990
Conclusion - The project still rernains as 24 single family homes
based on a distriLution of trdo nodels throughout the site. The lot
and model assignments stand as conditlonal based on future sale
demands. The final totals wtll rernain the same.
The development of the conmon open area and preservation of the
southerly iiage environnent have been rnaxirnized as well as the
visual guality fron adjacent properties.
Respectfully submitted,
TTECTS, P.C.
RLA/ad
Enclosures:Ordinance No. 23 Series
Development PIanr Peter
July 8, 1988
1 988
Jamar Associates, Inc.
ott
.E
.9oot'
|E
\
l"I
ti
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
\
\
o)
IF
aF
JlrozIo>+6i@lf(-a(
urltr>
\
\'
r'r. \
\
\\
I'
IIlr
Ir
-ll ll
Ir
"ii"li
h
Ir
'I
I
IIJooIt,azo
-J
t.\
\
\r\
n{
b'
Yrt
w
::w
)T
N
\to \
N
\
\
\\,
\
\
l\€'#.
N
Y,
ffiq
N
\\.)i\
:ix
\
l:
I,lr
lG.lt\ lu!\\ lqi.\) lO z\\ FIEI\\ El.q iV LtZ!\ \ gtoiv gl=\\ gl=i
t, t., \ \r"\ \\ tr'l\\ \tt t,, t,.\'\
\ttr. ttr.. 't.lt\\
tt..'..,rt'r.:']l\
\
t..,
",.
tt.
".\r \
:\..:.'..'t..':il1\
.
t.. \ tr .'ta
\r. '\a'\\1
\tt r\..tt.'t..
-t.. tt ''
).\i\.:,,:'.).,,
-ffi,1'
\.\'-v
I
j i', ' '\ i ".'r/ a ,,,"-\
"rr.
ttr,..
\r., "'t. (------
:--;
a* aa- t.a aa_ \----- ----------r\r
\ t.. -a.
S :,
_- \--::: :: : : _ _ _ :--- - - ---_ -..
'-------::---l---:-:-- "i- -:r :--::i-----
:::--- - --
-' i "
e
It
n
J
f\
Is-
o
r.j
u
t-
witr:
:i:rti
)
/
\
I
I
llrl
I
I
\o
, /:,("' _,__i/r' ,"/ a---''','i
,l / i'r'r' ',i /
r@/ | ,i,'lll'tl
ll
sr
tt
o,
os
q,
z
JL
UJba
Ez3
J
c)
I
o,
l-
-a,
IIs
do
o
$
\-
s
,1,1\t-i!
il
_\$
tTI
E2
z.
I\o
s
I
$
$
0ls
$
I
Ts
d$
s
\-, Iss$Kst
ll$tts.
\,$
E
{
fl,
$(o)
SS
r0
Ez:l
:rr\,v
lLl
dp
a\
{ztrZI
s_
J
.o
t
c
tn
ForuJ$-t2O.rtr, _$o.\
z
J
o.
Gl-z
IrJ
nJ
{s
.n
$n
$$
i$
$$
ts
n
$*,- ts
$?
-77
$$
ftET€.td)
A
\T
s.\
N
I
sC
t--
t0
$
tI\3 ..
/s
n3
r$
s
E
---\.-'-.--..
$*s3
lCI
$$nr-u--s3
f._0,'I
ss
E
€
+
ffi
$;
t
n
de
Ht
I\c
rn
db
tr$\
Hrt$
t.f
$fu
s.J J
FIr
T
sl
Y
$i$.I
.9
T
$
*u
,
o
$$
$
.rl I\I
^il-^ll ,
\t! t\.Jd'
$i
3.r
E
_r.q!
rOI
\.1
:d.
Is'
T
c.
rll
\L
I.s
r
-l
o
coo
lrlo
e
G
o-o
J
=otrlt
I
loo
o
=IooJ
lrJ-
ulo
e
.E
anz
9
=o
Glt
L
.Fl
oo
o
=voo
o llllo: O roE F6
eE5I $Hl
Fo
lr,
0
=xoo
-9
ottlo
ul
Ea
-e$[d $$
E*,
:1t,l
t
loiurzaoo
--IJE
5I
t
zotroula
o
_V.F
;I $$
d hi
) sl5Il
trltJ ,.,,&
o-D
I
.-,
v
z
d
J
IJJ
lrJJz
=
:
I
F*
$
$
il
I tt
-----[L.LLlrDKJt
.p\.!r--'1
-l
o
,?
.\
_t
lUooft:Izo
-J
zotr
ulJ.
lrJ
rllJ
eo
Fro
tr
1,6
iFr<
1)l
llJJ
lrJd 'r-2
tO
itr
6tr
5
llJ
E
UJtr
o
I
I
,l
I--1
d$
$*
'$'u Il
i9,H $$
ac
Fa
lr
E
oa
uo
o.
\ti
t$
LL$r
{f-tl
tNn
j
I
l'3
ig
15'rZ
j=o
zctr
tr
tr,
h
c
g
?{$
tr.st'
dit
5
E