HomeMy WebLinkAboutBIGHORN TERRACE UNIT 5 LEGAL.pdfa
Project Name: Moore/Sokolasinski Repaint
Pdect Description: paint exterior of building
Project Number:
Owner, Address, and Phone: Linda Moore, Joe and Loraine Sokolasinski
4214 Columbine Way #6, Vail, CO 8f657
476-1693
Architect/Contact, Address, and Phone; same as above
Project Street Address: 4214 Columbio. W"y It
Legal Description: Lots 5 & 6 Bighorn Subdivision
Parcel Number:
Comments:
Design Review Action X'orm
TOWN OFVAIL
Buildine Name:
Motion by:
Seconded by:
Vote:
Conditions:
Board/Staff Action
Action:StaffApproved
Colors as shown to planning staff (forest and teal green)
Town Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Date: 09117199
ProjectName: Moore/SokolasinskiRepaint
Documentl
DRB Fee Paid: $20.00
$.rign Revi.*,A.ton Form
TOWN OFVAIL
Building Name:
nla
Project Name:
Skolasinski Remodel
Project Description:
Minor revisions to approved remodel plans
Owner, Address and Phone:
Joe & Lauraine Skolasinski
4214 Columbine Way, Vail, CO 81657
Architect/Contact. Address and Phone:
Galen Aasland
P.O. Box 3E3
Vail, CO t1658 476-8181
Project Street Address:
4214 Columbine Way
Unit 5
Legal Description:
Unit S-Bighorn Terrace Subdivision
Parcel Number:
Comments:
PEC approved a setback variance, landscape variance and Additional GRFA (per the 250 Ordinance)
on March 9, 1998. The scope of the addition has been reduced to approximately 50 squar€ feet as
indicated on the reviscd plan. Additionally, window alterations and a change from stone to stucco has
been approved per the revised plan.
Motion by:
Seconded by:
Vote:
Conditions:
Town Planner:
Brent Wilson
Date:
6/02t99
Staff Action
Action: Staff Approved
DRB Fee Pre-Paid:
$50.00
iesign Review a.'.lor, Form
TOWNOFVAIL
Project Name: Skolasinski Remodel
Project Description:Remodel of existing residence
Owner, Address and Phone: Joe & Lauraine Skolasinski
4214 Columbine Wayn Vail, CO 81657
ArchitecVContact, Address and Phone: Galen Aasland
P.O. Box 383
Vail, CO 81658 476-8181
Project Street Address: 4214 Columbine Way
Unit 5
Legal Description: Unit S-Bighorn Terrace Subdivision
Parcel Numbel Building Name: nla
Comments: PEC approved a setback variance, landscape variance and Additional GRFA (per the
250 Or^dinance) on March 9, 1998. 166 sq-. ft. of GRIA is added per this approval.
Town Planner: Mike Mollica
Date: 4ll5l98
Staff Action
Action: StaffApprovedMotion by:
Seconded by:
Vote: nla
Conditions:
nlz
nh
fJ"?r:Til#niplans
submitted by Gaten Aasland, project architect, dated2l2l98'
F:\EVERYONE\DRB\APPROVAL\98\SKO[-ASIN.4 I 5
DRB Fee Pre-Paid: $50.00
UG=ru,,ir, ;, . . ..,.j(,
T ILE COPY
1. A request for a setback variance, a landscape variance, and a request for additional
GRFA utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an addition to an existing residence,
located at4214 Columbine Way/Unit 5, Bighorn Terrace.
Applicant: Joe and Lauraine Skolasinski, represented by Galen Aasland, Architect
Planner: Reed Of,ate
Galen Aasland recused himself.
Reed onate gave an overview of the staff memo.
Greg Moffet asked il the applicant or the public had any comments. They did not.
Gene Uselton stated that the proposal was complete and he had no comments.
John Schofield had no comments.
Greg Amsden had no problem with the proposal'
Diane Golden commended the proposal.
Greg Moffet loined in the accolades from the Commission regarding the complet^eJnaterial from
tne ippticani. He said that given that this request met the criteria lor additional GRFA and for the
variairbes he found a hardship, it was not a grant of special privilege.
John Schofield made a motion tor approval, in accordance with the staff memo.
Gene Uselton seconded the motion.
pl6nning aad En'ironmental Commt.ssion
Minutes
March 9, 1998
The motion passed by a vote of 5-0-1. (Galen Aasland recused himsell and Ann Bishop was not
present for this item).
Ann Bishop arrived at 2:10 pm.
Planning and Environmental Commisslon
Minutes
March 9. 1998
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
March 9. 1998
Minutes
MEMBEHS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT:
Greg Moffet Mike Mollica
Greg Amsden Dominic Mauriello
Galen Aasland Reed ORale
Gene Uselton George Ruther
Diane Golden (left at 4:45 pm) Judy Rodriguez
John Schofield
Ann Bishop (2:10 pm - 4:40 pm)
Public Hearing 2:00 P.m'
The meeting was called lo order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m,
1. A request for a setback variance, a landscape variance, and a request for additional
GRFA utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an addition to an existing residence,
located at 4214 Columbine Way/Unit 5, Bighorn Terrace,
Applicant: Joe and Lauraine Skolasinski, represented by Galen Aasland, Architect
Planner: Reed ORate
Galen Aasland recused himself.
Reed ORate gave an overview of the staff memo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant or lhe public had any comments. They did not.
Gene Uselton stated that the proposal was comptete and he had no comments.
John Schofield had no comments.
Greg Amsden had no problem with the proposal.
Diane Golden commended the proposal.
Greg Moffet joined in the accolades lrom the Commission regarding the complete material from
the applicani. He said that given that this request met the criteria for additional GRFA and for the
variances he found a hardship, it was not a grant of special privilege.
John Schofield made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo.
Gene Uselton seconded the motion.
Planning and Environrnenlal Comnrlsston
Minutes
Nlarch 9, 1998
/l,h*t 4l/^,
ttl;1 // L t,,G"trl
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
March 9, '1998
A request for a setback variance, a landscape variance, and a
request for additional GRFA utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow
for an addition to an exisltng residence, located aI 4214 Columbine
Way/Unit 5, Bighorn Terrace.
Applicants: Joe and Lauraine Skolasinski, represented by
Galen Aasland.Planner: Reed Ofiate
.J-
/ - t i I / ' L-^fta\ Lly't'rr t
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUESTS
The applicanls, Joe and Lauraine Skolasinski, are proposing to construct approximately 166
additional square feel of GRFA on the southwest corner of lheir two-story residence, located at
42'14 Columbine Way. The existing house is located within the property setbacks designated for
the Medium Density Multi-Fami[ (MDMF) zone. The proposed new addition would be located
wilhin the front and side yard setbacks of the property. The addition would remove a portion of
an existing deck and planter areas within the front yard. While landscaping improvements are
proposed as part of the project, the overall landscaping percentage will not meet the minimum
zoning requirements.
The Commission should note that the house is part of a duplex with the adjoining house (Lot 6)
encroaching onto the Skolasinski property. The site coverage of the adjoining house's area of
encroachment totals approximately 45.5 square feet. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to
remove an existing non-conforming deck that encroaches into the Bighorn Road public right-of-
way.
Attachment A includes 8.5"x11" reductions of the archilectural drawings showing proposed
building improvemenls. Attachment B includes a parcel map of the subject lot and adjacent lots.
Attachmenl B also shows lhe approximafe location of the Skolasinski house and adjacent
buildings. The applicant's representative has also submitted Attachment C that includes site
data, historical information, and written statements in response to variance related findings.
In summary, the three discretionary approvals requested include the following:
1) additional GRFA utilizing the 250 ordinance.
2) setback variances for construction within the 20 foot side and front yard setbacks
(proposed front yard setback = 17.5 feet, proposed side yard setback = 4.5 feet).
3) a fandscape variance to allow for a 29o/o landscape percentage where 30% is
requared for the MDMF zone.
II. BACKGROUND
According to the applicant, the house was built in 1966 or 1967. Bighorn Terrace was annexed
into the Town after it was platted and does not meet many of the Town's zoning reguiremenls,
including a minimum lot size requirement of 10,000 sq. ft. and a setback requirement of 20 feet.
A 1o-foot wide access and utility easement also runs within many of the boundaries of private
lots in the subdivision, including the Skolasinski's property (see Attachment B). The zoning limits
the areas in which most houses in the Bighorn Terrace Subdivision can accommodate additions.
The stafi has researched two projects located in the Bighorn Terrace Subdivision in which similar
variance reguests were made. The two projects are summarized below. As copied from a
previous staff memo, Attachment D provides some additional historical data regarding former
variance requests and approvals.
The applicant requested and was granted a side and rear yard variance request. The
approved addition included the construction of a 228 sq. ft. addition on the north side of
the building.
A modified applicant request was approved for the addition of an airlock totaling 25
square feet in the side yard setback. Some of the proposed building improvements
presented in the original application were denied, including an additional deck and a 97
sq. ft. addition within rear and side yard setbacks.
III. ZONING STATISTICS
Lot Size:
Zoning:
GRFA:
Setbacks:
Front:
Sides:
Rear:
Site Coverage:
Landscaping:
Parking:
706 sq. ft. (w/o 250)
1038 sq. ft (w 250)-
20'
20'
20'
45%, or 618.43 sq. ft.
30ol", or 412.29 sq. ft.
2 spaces required
788 sq. ft.
19'
?',to'
<0.5'
39o/", or 535
sq.ft-
35%, or 485
sq.ft.
No Change
Proposed
954 sq. tt.
17.5'
4.5't O'
<0.5'
44.7o/", ot 615
sq. ft.
29o/", or 4Os
sq. ft.
No Change
1,374 square feet
Medium Density Multi-Family (lvlDMF)
Allowed Existino
"The total allowable GRFA iigure of 1,038 sg. ft. equals the existing 788 sq. ft. plus 250 sq. ft. allowable
by ordinance.
F: \EVERYONE\PEC\I@{OS\98\SXOI,}lSIiI.I,IPD
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
A. Consideration of Factors Begarding the Sotback and Landscape Varlances:
Upon review of Criteria aftd Firdings, Section 12-17-6 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community
Developmenl Department rtcommends approval of the requested variances based on the
lollowino factors;
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
Staff believes that the proposed addition will be compatible with the
surrounding development that includes non-conforming lot sizes. The
additional mass and bulk proposed is similar to that enjoyed by
surrounding homes in the area. The applicants are proposing to locate the
addition approximately 17.5 feet from the front property line and 4.5 teet
from the western side yard property line. The proposed location will result
in a distance ot approximately 4 feet from the edge of the asphalt to the
building additions south facing elevation. Staff would like to point out that
the applicant is also proposing to remove a non-conforming deck at the
rear of the structure, which encroaches into the Bighorn Road public right-
of-way.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity
or to attain the obiectives of this title without a grant of special
privilege.
Stafl believes that due to physical constraints associated with the size of
the lot and the encroachment of a neighboring residence onto the
applicant's lot, that relief from the strict and literal interpretation of the
Town code is warranted. The setback variance is warranted primarily due
to the.lot size and the impacts the setbacks have on the buildable oortion
of the lot. The landscape variance of 7.3 sq. lt. is warranted largely
because of the encroachment of the neighboring residence and an access
easement in the front yard setback.
Overall, staff believes that there would not be a granting of special
privilege since surrounding houses in the subdivision have been granted
variances and the compatibility of the proposed house, with the proposed
addition, is similar to sites in the vicinity.
3. The eftect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and tratfic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated
with this proposal, if constructed, on the above referenced criteria.
F: \ r'/ERYoNE \ PEC \MB'!OS \ 9 8 \ SKOLNSKI.IIPD
B. Consideration of Factors Regarding Granting GFFA Under the 250 Ordinance:
Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental
Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use:
1. Effect upon the existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing
structures.
The proposal will have no significant impacts upon existing topography and
vegetation. The exterior addition would encroach into existing deck and
planter area. Staff does not believe that the exterior additions would
significantly aflect existing site topography, vegetation, drainage, or existing
structures.
2. lmpact on adjacent properties.
The addition should not adversely affect views, light, or air enjoyed by
adjacent struclures. staff believes that the proposed additions will not
have a significant impact on adjacent properties. Facade improvements
would be made to the Skolasinski house as part of the DRB application.
Minor exterior improvements are also proposed for the adjoining duplex in
an effort to make the two houses more compatible with one another.
3. Compliance with the Town's zoning requirements and applicable
development standards.
Section 12-15-5.8.6 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that any
dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall be required to meet the
Town of Vail Design Guidelines as set forth in Chapter 12-11-1 of the Vail
Municipal Code. Additionally, before any additional GRFA may be
permitted in accordance with Chapter 12-15, the staff shall review the
maintenance and upkeep ot the existing single family or two lamily dwelling
unit and site, including landscaping, to determine whether they comply with
the Design Review Guidelines. These standards include landscaping,
undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the
property.
While it is difficult to survey landscaping conditions due to snow coverage,
staff believes the lot is adequately landscaped and no additional
landscaping is required beyond that proposed. Upon inspection ol the site
by staff, we find that the property is in compliance with the applicable
development standards listed above, with one exception. As previously
noted, the required landscape area requirements tor the site are not met
and require a variance.
C. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
findings before granting a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
F: \E"VERYO$E\ PEC\MEI.IOS \ 9 8 \ SKOI,IJSIiI . WPD
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in
the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraorclinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested setback and landscape variances and the
additional GRFA under the 250 Ordinance.
It is staff's belief that the applicant has met the lollowing findings for the additional GRFA
request:
1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively effect
existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures.2. That the granting of the reguested Additional GRFA will not negatively impact
adlacent properties.
3. That the granting ol the requested Additional GRFA will comply with all Town
zoning requirements and applicable development standards.
It is staff's belief that the applicant has met the following findings for the varian@ requests:
1. That the granting of the variances will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.2. That the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.3. That the variances are warranled for the following reasons:a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to this site that do not apply generally to other properties
in the same zone.c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
f3)2aLlo'i .@:i:l4{rr9w v FytD Sfl:rra:|8 cr|GYlois lil I,-- t-\Vir-iTI | | ltIIU 9 A*r).D)
.O
ci.r
I
I
=lJ]
Yiol<tFf"
Elr,r
/'T-\w
15 +r+J. -.1-*.r'i6 "-+t{
I
\
Jt
.+la +\ix
)<!
sl\), <
-$q)t\N
,/t I/ll/t
I
ta,-,/,\
(.'
\
ft\+\:ttrso-s<{ \\
\
ttr\
'rr\
+==F-ft::.:+l
ttv'
d
Lli
-l
=lZEt:r Fr
Ja _.-----........'--_.:__r4lgq, -:- 'ibGq\tv-rqw v ltcftD i
I
II
-lFI
olol
zl
FIcofrXF
I/'r\
I
:ElFI
o-lzl
C'tzltrlttLxll
,/T\
kp
I
I
g?l;lslzl
FIsi,xh'r,-f.\
tF,
\t:_-l
:l'
i, -- -f i\\ i
\\ ---i I\r l
'l j
\|---.
ilt=i+\lilt ljt|ffi-17
r/ffi'i (tY \trri *l1 \'l oA V
il
I
Lt:
I
1 ... J-.
--- 5l
UJ
o-l:f l
=r-.---.r
.-..-:--_
----::. =!i':-_:: .i \ =l..' :: ' '' '::=--J-l=.' ; i ;Eh
i . r._.-.. trr,rlVI 'i - \':/r; -,i I;l:1'lilriilil.i ljt- I lE----T--
r-i
I
I
I
: i--' I
I
I
Zu:Q:.c( :;C.1UJ \\|^--sF|.'sl.)|r)@r.)UJ()()trja
aa
rN3ll3SV3 Il-'i rr.n ii
A
o(\
o
t
CA
s
. . i, 4.-
F.'1. , Jpig$
(
F.+<:E
3.3;o-rt -<'{ -5F<\(-L";
-*-
ffi-+-,=ffi;
Iv,i
@)
u|.
r9
@
I
FoJ mrc ',f i':f iryfl**ry{
I Galen A. Aastand. Architect. P.O ATTACHI-,IENT C
Skolasinski Residence; Unit 5 Bighorn Terrace.
Zontng; Medium Density Multiple-Family
Applicants; Joe and l,auraine Skolasinski, represented by Galen Aasland, Architect,
P.C.
Site coverage allowed 1374.31x .45 : 618.43 s.f.
Site coverage proposed 615 s.f.
l,andscape minimum allowed 1374.31x .30 = 412.29 s.f .
. Landscape proposed 405 s.f.
GRFA allowed (1374.31 x .35\ * 225= 706 s.f.
Existing GRFA 788 s.f.
Proposed GRFA (using 250) 954 s.f.
Amount of neighbors home on this lot 45.5 s.f. (site coverage)
(note that the amount of the neighbors square footage
was not calculated and added to rhe above GRFA)
We are asking for 2 variances; a setback variance and a landscape variance. We are also
asking for approval of the 250 ordinance.
Joe and Lauraine Skolasinski bought this home in 1988. Their home was built
approximately 1966 0r 1967. In it's current configuration it has approximately 788
square feet of GRFA, Joe and l:uraine Iive here full rime. They have lived in Vail
since 1975 and 1973 respectively. For 2 people living here full time, this is an
extremely small residence to live in over the years. We would like to add space using
the 250 ordinance to increase the residence size.
Based on the ILC done by Eagle Valley Surveying, Joe and lauraine have
approximately 45 square feet of a neighbor's home on their lot. Part of their lot is also
taken up by a common paved driveway, which serves all the homes in the
neighborhood. The paving cannot be removed or reconfigured due to restrictions
within the homeowners association.
A. Written Statement addressing the following:
1.) The Relationship ofthe requested variance to other existing or potential uses
and structures in the vicinity.
The Skolasinski's Home is located in a neighborhood of individually owned homes,
most of which started out virtually identical to the Skolasinski Home. Many of these
residences have since been enlarged and added on to. Most if not all of the lots in the
neighborhood were bought by the current owners with lot sizes far below the current
Town square footage and configuration requirements. In this case a whole
neighborhood exists on similar size lots, grandfathered by past construction into non-
p-a.ger_{3-_y4_4 U5C97o47'8r8r
,,r,rnni
O Gahn A. Aasland. Architect. PO
conforming zoning. Given the multiple ownership of the individual lots, it is highly
unlikely that any lot will be brought into a conforming size or configuration in any
time frame.
2.) The degree from which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and
uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of
this title without grant of special privilege.
Because of the similar lot size to other lots in the neighborhood, it can be viewed ftom
the Towns' files that setback variances of this scale have been regularly granted in the
past. The landscape variance is less than the amount that the adjacent home encroaches
on to the Skolasinski's lot. If in fact the adjacent home were not on thei Skolasinski's
lot (the party wall was aligned over the lot line) it is reasonable to view the site plan in
a manner that would allow landscaping to be on that 45 square feet, in which case the
landscaping variance would not be necessary. The prohibition against removing
asphalt serves the common good in the neighborhood to provide adequate parking.
The landscape variance seems minimal in concept and one could reasonably question,
why ask for it? Our answer is that the home is so small rc begin with, that the space
we are asking for is important to the hornes' function. If we are not granted a variance
it is not just a matter of meeting the number, but being above it. A couple of feet in
tlris case becomes I or 2% of the size of the home. It is also apparent from walking
through the neighborhood that many other homes adjacent to this have enjoyed the
opportunity at least as much in size as this proposal asks for.
3.) The effect ofthe variance on light and air, distribution ofpopulation,
transportation, traffic facilities, utilities, and public safety.
There is no significant change associated with any of these items. Joe and lauraine
plan to remain the sole inhabitanu of the home.
4.) IIow your request complies with Vail's Comprehensive Plan.
B. The Planning and Environmental Comrnission shall make the following
frndings before granting a variance:
l.) That the granting ofthe variance wiII not constitute a grant ofspecial
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the
same district.
P-a-Ega3&JalL! o-C.l55C
97047G8181
zrursgi
I Gaten A. Aasland. Architect. P.e
Based on a review of the Town's files for numerous adjacent los in Bighorn Terrace,
many of them have been granted variances. Setback variance approval appears to
commonly receive staff recommendation and Planning Commission approval for lots
in Bighorn Terrace. The Skotisinski's lot is extremely small (1375 square feet) and is
further encumbered by having approximately 45 square feet of the adjacent neighbors'
home on their lot.
2.) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public heatth,
safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the -
vicinity.
It will not.
3.) That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a.) The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives ofthis title.
b,) There are exceptions or extraordinary circurnstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to
other properties in the same zone.
The current zoning standards for Medium Density Multiple-Family require a
minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. This tot is 1375 square feet, or 13.75
of the lot size currently required by the Town. This Subdivision and this lot in
this instance were brought under the Towns' zoning when they were annexed
by the town. At that time the subdivision most Iikley had a general
resemblance to the MDMF zoning. However, lot size for this lot and also for
this subdivision is in great disparity with the current Town requirements. This
disparity creates a severe challenge for this lot and neighborhood as viewed
against other lots in this zone district.
c.) The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the snme district.
Many of the other homes in the Bighorn Terrace, under similar circumstances,
have been granted the ability, by the Town, to add to their homes. Moreover
Bighorn Terrace is the only place in Vail that we are awrlre of rhat a GRFA
variances hav been granted for a single family or duplex type homes, which is
quite extraordinarv.
P-o. lq33-l4s!,-SA-C-85!
970476-8181
3
2/2/ 1998
r{;#4
to nhich relief f,rom the strict or lite tationto achieveatisit€s in thethoutrant
A.Se ck Yarian
S ta f f feels tha t
not bre a Special pri the existing buildingl it would
eg I grant the variances for setbacksas the setback roa ch s r./iLl- not be any greater thanthose existin croachmentsl
B.GRFA YaT
Staff f eels that it wou.Ld be a grant.pecial privilege
approve this GRFA va ria nc e.The follo c ha r t sh or.rsariance requests in Bighorn Terrace have b approved:
t indicates that approving the setback variannot be d ! special privilege. Howey es s h or.tthat approving va r ia nce grant of specialprivilege due to th of GRFA. There have been
Eoyle -4- 6/1f1\5
t+ 7*,t lD, t46.-- )'r,t"
ghlrf, il;c holaU (/"lt^o ir)
ATTACHI'IENT D
Ea : Url6tu'tc(
li 7 6,3
ty and unifornity of treatne
DATE
VAR IANCE
APPL I CANT
REQUEST
TYPE OF
TERRACE
STT.F F
SUBDiVISIONHISTORY OF BIGHORN
ATIOUNT OF
VAR i ANCE
PEC
ACT I ONREQUESTR ECoi'iiiEi{0AT I0N
t4ar 77
t4ay 7B
July 78
.Aug 78
Aug 80
Aug 82
Sep 82
Nov 83
f eb | |
Benysh
Rowe
Alder
Turnbul I
Curfman
0dum
0dum
Hou ston
Sherr
bKTA
Setback
bKT A
Setback
GRFA
Setback
Set bac k
GRFA
unr A
Setback
Setba ck
Ai rl ock
GRFA
Setback
UKTA
Setbacks
)30 sq ft8ft Approval
App roval
Deni a l
uenlal
0eni al
Deni al
Approva I
Den ial
Den ial
Approval
Approval
Denial
Den i al
Denial
Approval
App rov a I
Approv a1
App ro v a1
App ro va i
Approval
App rov al
App ro va 1
Approval
473 sq
75 sq8ft
7tt
'l 77 sq
1?? sql8 ft
for 18 ft
ftft
ft
ft
ft
80 sq ft
16 ft
50 sq ft
3,.l.l, & l3 ft
Tabl e
Approval
Approva l
Approval
Approva l
App t''ovaJ --,
13 re onal. GRFA.reconmended approval
O,"ncr z/r
Arch itcct
Zonc district /4A ll
[.ot sizc 31
fi,tL'74,71/-Ailol'ed
= 196+'zro 1sa/ "- +
Primary GRFA _ + (425) (67j+) =
SccondaryCRFA +(42il1575+\=t-
* 675=425 crcditplus 250 addition
Total GRFA
Total
?51
'---------- Encloscd
Rcmaining
zfr
llorv much of thc allorved 2i0 Additipn is uscd. ivith this rcoucs.t?-2to =
e/89
(30x33)
Front
Sidcs
Rear
All,t ol
N".
t3<
ZQ./ (./
Minimum
:;L7oITLa_
t=Jl zr
t.rlNtfr.------.-.---..-
lh L(^a^4.-l_ .
Ycs- No--turyL
i ) Pcrccnr Slopc (< >30%)
2) Floodplain
3) Wctlands /
-
Ao5
tt r I
Rquved-l/ o UWLL
rioolrooolrsoril;
Pcrmittcd SIopc
4) Watcr Coursc Sctback Q0) (50) -/
5) Geologic Hazuds
No
Docs this rcqucst involvc a 250 Addition? il*---n-
Sitc €ovcragc
LI..i.'hr
Sctbacks
Landscaping
Rctaining lVatl Hcigbts
Parlcing
Gangc Crcdit
Drivcway
Complics wirhiOv Ligbting Ord.inancc
Arc finishcd grades lcss than 2:l (50%)
Environnr cntalAlazards
J /O
?n,
+T?-P (
-*1-A
4gs
77,{
t
.,. lt I DESIGNRXVIEIVCESCKLIST
,rorrrr,
l-l orn' *- -I.I DUKVX,Y
tr SITE PLA.\
Scalc
Bcnchmark
Lcgal dcscnption
Lot Sizc
Buildablc Arca
Eascmcnts
Topography
100 yr. flood plain
'Watcr Coursc Sctback
En v'.ro nm cntal Hazards
lfees r
Utilify iocations
Spoi cl*ations
B FLOORPLfu\S
GRFA
250 additional GRFA
Crarvl\Attic Spacc
tr BUTLDN0ELEVATIONS
ColorWatcrials
Pnnf Di+^L
AI.fu\DscAPEPLAN
Fricti'' .' t'^"-.---.._- r -JS
proposcd tccs
Lcgord
Scale
Building Hcight
Encroachmcnb
Setbacl:
MISCELLATEOUS
Condo Approval
Titlc rcport (A & B)
Utiiiry vcrification fom
^\oll suqcc (c
lpricou (q
lr-rrittli I- LJ,-5-f,-,V ,ifu* -:@:!:toN-rqw v r{'rD lcl{:toe:I, D|3 avlol3 lti I
I
zlsl/ dl. Yl\./ ol/\ <l.\ 6h\ htr
\ '[./ (h
'. ,/ \-l-,/
fl7
rrreLh rrd :!: idNlnew v Nf-Ip 3crcr|sfl D€r|BY.rofs ilt I
-:
dt>tt{l;l
UJL+p
=f'.Y
,,1I(v
a'
clr
>l
=r.
'l
| 'tlJI\ tf-r t-,tfl tf----t | ,r[ tL t I*=3/
t. ir---fi i_lltrl
li''_'i]r-_--_-ili,[l:. 'il,'rli
ilt , il' I
lll I r Tll''i,-lil-,, lT-
-'i l:=:jl
:Iffi
I
1
,
ii- I
I
t,
i
l. -J-t'_-'_ ut I
J.L]
.J)
E
z
lr.l
zF.
,,,.i\
-s_ it.'-i lri r6w-5/,v-;-N-rr\D :r[BrelrDfirno|e lil I
,t \--:iiii=li
lll,_ rr---T-
oti_lF-2u:\1::^- <1-Ld,r'-t v.r.)tr)(oaOtr,lo-c)t
.O
Tr)
(n
'$)--- --- <9CD I ti 3*l3Ev 3 '\Il-1r.Ln t)
/rl
lri
.zI(
z
lJ',
o,z;8
-t-
I
I
FoJ
trl
rr
=.qi'
(r.o.]r.1?
a
I Galen A. Aasland. Architect. P.O
Skolasinski Residencel Unit 5 Bighorn Terrace.
Zontng; Medium Density Multiple-Family
Applicants; Joe and Lauraine Skolasinski, represented by Galen Aasland, Architect,
P.C.
Site coverage allowed 1374.31x .45 : 618.43 s.f.
Site coverage proposed 615 s.f.
landscape minimum allowed 1374.31x .30 : 412.29 s.f .
Landscape proposed 40i s.f.
GRFA allowed (1374.31x .35) * 225: 706 s.f.
Existing GRFA 788 s*L
Proposed GRFA (using 250) 954 s.f.
Amount of neighbors home on this lot 45.5 s.f. (site coverage)
(note that the amount of the neighbors square footage
was not calculated and added to the above GRFA)
We are asking for 2 variances; a setback variance and a landscape variance. We are also
asking for approval of the 250 ordinance.
Joe and [auraine Skolasinski bought this home in 1988. Their home was built
approximately 1966 0r 1967 - In it's current configuration it has approximately 788
square feet of GRFA. Joe and Lauraine live here full time. They have lived in Vail
since 1975 and 1973 respectively. For 2 people living here tull time, this is an
extremely small residence to live in over the years. We would like to add space using
the 250 ordinance to increase the residence size.
Based on the ILC done by Eagle Valley Surveying, Joe and Lauraine have
approximately 45 square feet of a neighbor's home on their lot. Part of their lot is also
taken up by a common paved driveway, which serves all the hornes in the
neighborhood. The paving cannot be removed or reconfigured due to restrictions
within the homeowners association.
A. Written Statement addressing the following:
1.) The Relationship ofthe requested variance to other existing or potential uses
and structures in the vicinitv.
The Skolasinski's Home is located in a neighborhood of individually owned homes,
most of which started out virtually identical to the Skolasinski Home. Many of these
residences have since been enlarged and added on to. Most if not all of the lots in the
neighborhood were bought by the current owners with lot sizes far below the current
Town square footage and configuration requirements. In this case a whole
neighborhood exists on similar size lots, grandfathered by past construction into non-
P-_4, lel!!3._YaiL!o_&-qjC970-476-8181
t'='"'i
I Galen A. Aastand. Architect. P.O
conforming zoning. Given the multiple ownership of the individual lots, it is highly
unlikely that any lot will be brought into a conforming size or configuration in any
time frame.
2.) The degree from which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and
unifonnity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of
this title without grant of special privilege.
Because of the similar lot size to other lots in the neighborhood, it can be viewed from
the Towns' files that setback variances of this scale have been regularly granted in the
past. The landscape variance is less than the amount that the adjacent home encroaches
on to the Skolasinski's lot. If in fact the adjacent home were not on the Skolasinski's
lot (the party wall was aligned over the lot line) it is reasonable to view the site plan in
a manner that would allow landscaping to be on that 45 square feet, in which case the
landscaping variance would not be necessary. The prohibition against removing
asphalt serves the common good in the neighborhood to provide adequate parking.
The landscape variance seems minimal in concept and one could reasonably question,
why ask for it? Our answer is that the home is so small to begin with, that the space
we are asking for is important to the homes' function. If we are not granted a variance
it is not just a matter of meeting the number, but being above it. A couple of feet in
tlris case becomes I or 2% of the size of the home. It is also apparent from walking
through the neighborhood that many other homes adjacent to this have enjoyed the
opportunity at least as much in size as this proposal asks for.
3.) The effect of the variance on light and air, distribution of population'
transportation, traffic facilities, utilities, and public safety.
There is no significant change associated with any of these items. Joe and Lauraine
plan to remain the sole inhabitants of the home.
4.) IIow your request complies with Vail's Comprehensive Plan.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
findings before granting a variance:
1.) That the granting ofthe variance will not constitute a grant ofspecial
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the
same district.
P- o.-E-sL393.J44!Q-EI 619
970-476-818 |
2
2t2/1998
I Galen A. Aasland. Architect. P.O
Based on a review of the Town's files for numerous adjacent lots in Bighorn Terrace,
many of them have been granted variances. Setback variance approval appears to
commonly receive staff recommendation and Planning Commission approval for lots
in Bighorn Terrace. The Skolisinski's lot is extremely small (1375 square feet) and is
further encumbered by having approximately 45 square feet of the adjacent neighbors'
home on their lot.
2.) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to propertim or improvements in the
vicinity.
It will not.
3.) That the variance is warranted for one or mone of the following reasons:
a.) The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or uilrecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives ofthis title.
b.) There are exceptions or extraordinary circrrmstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to
other properties in the same zone.
The current zoning standards for Medium Density Multiple-Family require a
minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet. This lot is 1375 square feet, or 13.75 %
of the lot size currently required by the Town. This Subdivision and this lot in
this instance were brought under the Towns' zoning when they were annexed
by the town. At that time the subdivision most likley had a general
resemblance to the MDMF zoning. However, lot size for this lot and also for
this subdivision is in great disparity with the current Town requirements. This
disparity creates a severe challenge for this lot and neighborhood as viewed
against other lots in this zone district.
c.) The strict interpretation or enforcement ofthe specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same district.
Many of the other homes in the Bighorn Terrace, under similar circumstances,
have been granted the ability, by the Town, to add to their homes. Moreover
Bighorn Terrace is the only place in Vail that we are aware of that a GRFA
variances hav been granted for a single family or duplex type homes, which is
ouite extraordinary.
P--o. ^Ber-3!3.-E!,-gq3!6lE
97G476-8181
3
2/2/1998
TOWNOTVAIL
Oor"r"orroN FoR pr,ANNrNG .0
"nur*oNMENTALCOMMISSION APPROVAL
GENERAL INFORMATION
This application is for any projcct requiring approval by thc Planning and Environmenial Commission. For spccific
information. see thc submittal requiremcnts for thc particular approval that is roquestcd. Tbc application can not bc
accepted until all required information is submitted. The project may also necd to be rcvicwcd by thc Town Council
and/or thc Dcsign Rwiew Board.
A. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
tr Additional CRFA (250)
tr Bed and Brcaldast
tr Conditional Use Permit
tr Major or E Minor Subdivision
tr Rezoning
tr Sign Variince
$ Variancc .tr Zoning CodcAmcndment
c.
-:=tttt{c"'UN,{
5 9
ADDRESS: Izl4 tolu*$,as ln 'ltffiR;"or*-
NAMEOFOWNER(S):
MAILING
owNER(S)STGNA
NAME OF REPRESENTA
MAILINGADDRESS:
PHONE:
FEE - SEE THE SUBMTTTAL REQUTREMENTS FOR TltE AppROpRrATE FEE.
SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION, ALL SI'BMITTAL REQUTREMENTS AND THE F'EE TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMI'NITY DEVELOPMENT, 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD,
For Ollice Use 0nly:
Fec Paid: Ck#:_ By;
Application Datc:_ PEC Mceting Datc:-
Rcvicd 6D5
Qucsions? Call thc Planning Staff at 479'2138
u
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
B.
,t
lEr ?.e...lL
ce(
D.
E.
F.
G.
i
't
I
I
',
.H,
DESCRIPTION OF
VAIL, COI,ORADO 81657.
Qucstions? Call thc Planning SufTat 479-1138
eho"r"ottoN FoR
'LANNING
oO
"*'t*'NMENTALCOMMISSION APPROVAL
CENERAL INFORMATION
This application is for any projcct requiring approval by thc Ptanning and Environmcntal Commission. For spccific
information, sce thc submittal rcquircments for thc particular approval that is rcquestcd. Thc application can not bc
accepted until alt required information is submitted. Thc project may also necd to be revicwed by thc Town Council
and/or thc Dcsigr Rwiew Board.
A. ryPEOFAPPLICATION:
ts Adaitionat GRFA (250)
tr Bed and Brcaldast
tr Condrtionat Use Permit
tr Major or [f Minor Subdivision
tl Rezoning
tr Sign Variancc
tr Variance .tr Zoning Codc Amcndnicnt
tr Amcndmcnt to an Approved Developmcnt Plan
tr EmployceHousingUnit(TyPc: )
tr Major or E Minor CCI Extcrior Altcration '
(Vail Village) ' i;
El Major or tr Minor CCII Extcrior Alteration
(Lionshead)
B Spccial Development Dishict
tr Major or E Minor Amcndmcnt to an SDD
B. DESCRIPTION oFTHEREQUEITt Zfu LnLtcFlll,t
c.LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:[.'^r
ADDRESS: 4A4 COII!A(hJ.c%NAME:
D.
E.
ZoNING: ft
NAME OF OWNER(S):
MAILINGADD
F. OWNER(S) STGNATURE(S)
G.NAME OF REPRESENTATTVE:
MAILINGADDRESS:
Lou.
.H.FEE . SEE THE SI.JBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE APPROPRTATE FEE.
ST]BMIT THIS APPLICATION, A,LL SUBMITTAL REQI'IREMENTS AND THE FEE TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMTJNITY DEVELOPMENT, 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD,
PHONE 41b.Dtb(
Rovird 6D6
Fec Paid:- Ck#:- By:
Application Date: PEC Mceting Datc:-
coLoRADO E16s7.
,i .rle' -''" t.- .' : '..,:.,,
".,{-$'t,,: i
qf'
'. idl.' . i:',:ni,.
Office
BUILDING MATERIALS:
Roof
Siding
Othcr Wall Materials
Fascia
Sot'fits
Windows
Window Trinr
Doors
Door T'rinr
Hand or Dcck Rails
o
LIST OF PROPOSED MATERIALS
TYPE OF MATERIAL:COLOR:i
(rool - ?t'."tso -
/l\
$[*tuar.- L<-/ (^",s.,r:o o...
Flucs
Flashings
Chirnncy.s
Trash Enclosurcs
Grecnhouscs
Retaining Walls
Exterior Lighting*+
Other
+ Please specify the nmnufacturer's color, number and attach a srnall color chip
**AllcxtcriorlightingmustnreettheTown'sLightingOrdinance 18.54.050(J). Ifexteriorlightingisproposed,
plcase indicate the nunrbcr offixhucs and locations on a separatc lighting plan. Identif cach fixnre type and provide
the height above grade, lumcns outpirt. lunrinous area. and attach a cut shect of the lighting fixtures.
*xf.N t<<
*.4t1acttt
loOoO
Updared (r/97
PROPOSED LANDSCAPING
Botanical Nanrc Comnron Namc Ouantitv
2,
I
Sizc*
z"PROPOSED TREES
AND SF.IRUBS:
EXISTINC TREES TO
BE REMOVED:
tqbt.r-^,Ut te?e,.t
-Np-
* Mininrum rcquircmcnts for landscaping:dcciduous trccs - 2 inch calipcr
conifcrous trccs - 6 fcet in hcight
shnrbs - 5 gallons
Souarc FootageTypc
GROUND COVER
\
SoD \+gza -
I
SEED
IRRIGATION
TYPE OR METHOD OF
EROSION CONTROL
OTHER LANDSCAPE FEATURES (retaining walls. fenccs, swirnming pools, etc,) Please specifi. Indicate top and
bottom clevations of retaining walls. Maximunr height of walls rvithin the front setback is 3 feet. Maxilnum hcight of
walls elscwherc on the property is 6 fect.
b
Updared.6/97
Qucstions? Clali thc Pianning Staff at'119'?lli
t"r"ot,oN FoR .LANNING,ININvIn.NMENTAL
COMMISSION APPROVAL
GENERAL INFORMATION
This application is for any projcct rcquiring approval by thc Planning and Environmcntal Comntission. For specific
infornration, sce thc submittal rcquiremcnts for thc particular approval that is rcqucstcd. Thc application can not bc
acceptcd until all rcquired information is submitted. Thc projcct ntay also nccd to bc rcvicwcd by thc Town Council
and/or thc Dcsigr Revicw Board.
A. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
tr Additional GRFA (250)
D Bcd and Brcakfast
tr Conditional Usc Perrnit
tr Major or D Minor Subdivision
D Rezoning
tl Sign Variance
ts Variancc
D Zoning Codc Amcndnrent
tr Anrcnd:ncnt to an Approved Dcvelopmcnt Plan
tr Enrployce Housing Unit (Typc:
-)
D Major or tr Minor CCI Extcrior Altcration
(Vail Village) i In Major or tr Minor CCII Extcrior Altcration
(Lionshead)
tr Spccial Dcvclopmcnt District
El Major or E Minor Amcndmcnt to an SDD
B.
TOWN OFVAIL
DESCRIPTION OF THE
c.
D. ZONINC:
D.NAME OF OWNER(S):Leur..^..
MAILINC ADDRESS:
F. OWNER(S) STGNATURE(S)
G. NAMEOFREPRESENTATIVE:
MAILING ADDRESS:
HONE:
,4
.H.
puoNu: 4'/a-E/A/
FEE - SEE THE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE APPROPRIATE FEE.
SUBMIT THIS.A,PPLICATION, ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND THE FEE TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMT'NITY DEVELOPMENT. 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD.
VAIL, COLORADO 81657.
PEC Meeting D ut",j1f E flql--
Rcvircd 5D6
TOWN OTV/IIL
Qucstions? Clall thc Pianning Staff at 419-l l.ri
ln"r.nt,oN FoR
'LANNING,uC*v,noNMENrALCOMMISSION APPROVAL
GENERAL INFORMATION
This application is for any projcct requiring approval by thc Plzurning and Environmcntal Comntission. For spccific
information, sce thc submittal rcquiremcnts for thc particular approval that is rcqucstcd. Thc application can not bc
acceptcd until all rcquired information is submittcd. Thc project may also need to be rcvicwed by thc Town Council
and/or thc Dcsign Revicw Board.
A. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
$ ndditional CRFA (250)
fl Bed and Brcakfa;t
tr Conditional Usc Pcrmit
tr Major or El Minor Subdivision
tl Rczoning
tr Sign Variancc
il Variancc
tr Zoning Codc Amcndment
OF PROPOSAL:-I Or BtOel( FILING 5 L,oe eULlLeC.
D.
E.NAME OF OWNER(S):
n Amcndmcnt to an Approved Developmott Plan
D Employce Housing Unit (Typc: )tr Major or tr Minor CCI Extcrior Altcration
(VailVillage) ' i 1D Major or D Minor CCII Extcrior Alteration
(Lionshead)
tr Spccial Dcvclopmcnt District
tl Major or El Minor Amcndmcnt to an SDD
B. DESCRIPTIoN oF THE neQuesr: Z5O APflLrcA:to^{ ' .
LOCATION
ADDRESS:tur".
ZONINC:
MAILING ADDRESS:
F. OWNER(S) STGNATURE(S)
G. NAMEOFREPRESENTAT
MAILING ADDRESS:
r,o bltofT I
.--BUILDINC NAME:
Lou.-
.H.FEE - SEE THE SUBMIT'TAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE APPROPRIATE FEE.
SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION,ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS ANDTHE FEE TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMIJNITY DEVELOPMENT, 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD,
PH)NE.41U.Dtb(
Rcvircd 6D6
VAIL, COLORdDO 81657.
For Officc Ufc Only:
r""pui#Z9!L cw:
PEC MeetingDatc:
/
n, r(dllktrtQfirattLSL/FI
Application Date:
4a4 c
M
FEB A1' '98 16;36 J AhTD L SKOLASINSKI
v
Ttt'l Oon€rF Fonrr 2312
WA 4?E LE37 rO. g?E P.77 5243 frL
v
PoI icv No. AZ7$72FB
File No, Vl??,c'7 Anount tF8'OOO.oo
gCHEtrULE A Address
1- Frrl itrl- DEtG: Augu6t 23' tgBg rt Bt OO A'H'
2. Name of I nguFcd i
JOSEPH C. SKOLA$INSHI and LAURAIHE K' SHOLASIH$KI
3, The estrte or iatcregt in the laftd dcfcnibcd iq thlt SchGdule
i.nd urhich ir covered bY this Ful icY isl
A Fce 9impl c
4. Titla to th.l ggtete or intergBt sover€tl bv thls pol icv at thr
dBte hereof is vcstcd in:
JOSEFH C' SKOLASINSKI a.nd LAURAINE H' SHOLASINSKI
5. The lrnd referred to in this policy is situatod in EA6LE Cauntvr
Cc,l or'adtr arrd i s descnibed as f oI I ouiEl
UNIT 5, BIGHORN TEBRAGE' ACCORDING TG TTIE PLAT RESORDEB OcTOBER
13, 15r&7 IN BBDK 211 AT PABE 474' CBUNTY OF EA6LE' STATE tlF
GCrLgRAIrlf,.
Prs€ I This Pol icv va'l id onl'v if Ethedule B i3 a.ttach€d.
AZ/0I/98 L7:27 TxlRX N0.0461 P.00r I
FEB 81.'98 15:3? J
TI}| Osnor Furnr
RhID L 5(BLRSINSKIo viE 4?6 183?TO: 9?6 A2? 5245 w2
?.
s-
5.
6.
7.
23L3 File No. V122o,7
strl.tEE|nLE E
Foflcv No. AZ?$|?J,
This eol lcr. do+r not in;unc agillnstfol l ou i ns:
1. Rithts or clalms of ee.rti++ irrpub'l 1c recordx.
loss or dleraga bv rcason of the
Fosasseion not rhourn br thr
Easementsr oF clrimr of crseit€nt€ r nat ehoun by th+ publ icr-ccotrds,
Bigcnceansieg' confl tcts ih boundarv I incg, ghortrgc itt q,l*ca.r
encrotchmentg' a,nd an'r fects uthicl'r a cDFr€Et Furvc.r trrdingp€ction sf the FFenlseg urould disclG|se s,rrd |Ilhich arc nstshouln br. the rub I i c Fecords.
4- Anv lienr or risht to r licn' #or scrvtcc+, lrhor, or mrtnrirlthcretefsre +r h.F€€.ftsr funnished, inpoced bv lrrl ind notshsurn b't' the pub 1 i c recordg.
1PAA TAXE$ NOT YET DUE AND PAYABLE.
LIENS FtrR UNFAID }IATER AND SEIJER CHARGES, TF ANY.
RIGHT OF PROFFIETOR OF A VEIN gR LOFE TO EXTHACT ANT} REIIOVE HIS ORETHEREFROH SHBULD THE SAHE SE FIf,UND TO PENETRATE OR INTER$ECT THE PREFTISESAS RESERVEII Iil UNIYEE STATES PATENT RECCfiDED Decemben l7r lgo2r IN BOOK 4€AT PAGE 492.
+*EIIIDORSEI,IENT 1OO,2?** 119 cOHPfiNY HEREEY INSURES AGAINST Los€ hIHIcH THEINSLIRET' SHALL SUSTAIN BY REASON OF DAMAGE TO EXISTING II.IFROVEI,IENTS,II{CLUDINC LAa.,NS' SHRUBB€Ry OR TREES' RESULTING FROl.l THE EXERCISE OF ANyRIEHI TO USE THE $URFACE AF SAID LAND FOR ?HE EXTFACTION OR IIEVELOPIIENT EFTHE }IINEFALS EXCEFTED FRO}I THE IEgCRIFTION OF SAID LAND DR SHOI.IN AS ARESERVATION IN SCHEDULE g,
RIGHT BF I.JAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTEII BY THE AUTHdRITY gF THEUltltTEE $TATES AS RESERVED IN UNITEtr STATES FATENT RECORIIEB Becemben 17rLPA?, IN BOOI( 4a AT PAEE 492r AND RECORDEB NCVEHBER ?2, 193" IN FooK l?A A'PAGE 625.
RESTRItrTIVE COVENANTS, I,IHICH FO NOT GONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR RETiERTEFCLAUSE' EUT CII'IITTING RESTRICTILTIS' Itr ANV' BASEB ON RACE, COLOF, RGUIGTOII,OR NATIONAL SRISIN' AS COHTAIiIEI1 IH INSTRUTIENT RESOREED Etecembcr eO, tp.62,IN BOOK L74 AT FABE 4Q3 AND AS AI'IENDED IN INSTRUI'IENT RECORDEE April OSr1963r rN EOOI{ 17= AT PAGE 33.
2
a.
q-
Peee
02/0r/98 17:27 TXIRX NO.0461 P.002
FEE 81.'99 16:3? J FND L SKOLRSINSKI g7g 4?E te37 TO; 9?8 W7 5245 PB3
12. DEED sF TRusT sATtD Aurust 11, 19BEr p3$1'l JBSEPH C' SKCTLASINSKI and
LAURAINE K. SKo|-ASINSKI TO Ttfr PUELTC TRUSTEE OF EAGI-E COIJNTY Fffi THE UsE
oF ALpIN€ FED€iAI-ievfr.fOs ANF LtAN AggOCIATION TO SEcURE THE Suil ttF
l+O,Ooo.Oo RECORDED Aueust 22' l9g8' IH BOOI4 44" AT PAOE 6s3.
Ttt"l ourrer Forrn 2313 Fi'le Ns, vL"alr7 Policv No' A2757239
SCHEIIULE B
10, EASEIIENTS. REAERVATIONS ANTI RESTRICTIONS AS SHOWN AI{D FESERT'ED OI'I T}E
RECOREED PLAT OF BTBHORN TERRACE.
ACCEBS ANO uTILITv EASETiENT TEN FEET IN t"tIDTH ALOiIB THE $oUtHt{EaTERLY LoT
LINE OF SUBJ€CT PROPERTY AS slH'*TN ON THE REStrRIIED PLAT OF BIBDIT}RN TERRNCE'
Prrc 3
02/0r/98 17:.27 TX/RX N0.0461 P.003 I
Lot 5 Bighorn Terrace adjacent lots
Unit 4 Bighorn Terrace
Alan & Susan Pachmayer
125 W. Wisconsin Ave.
Meenah, WI54956
Unit 6 Bighorn Terrace
Linda Moore
4214 Columbine Wy. #6
Vail, Co 81657
Anfi 24 Bighorn Terrace
Mark & Shelly Campbell
4942 Clitt Point Circle
Colorado Springs, CO 80919
Units 25 & 26 Bidhorn Terrace
Ted & Susan Stockmar
1700 Lincoln Suite 4100
Denver. CO 80203
P--a. rq$3-_Y4!,_So_&l_058
970-47 6-8181
-aL,Ltr'tpx Y[mra
444 Colo'^kxa U, #f-
IVAtu,, Lo b(aSl
,41-u jg,*"" ?"-k r*21?t
IZS U). ult*o*e< N"te .
MeaneL twT +Flqb
aA{ 9,r=u 4o-V^..
I
l-loo Lrr..olr. gril- 4bo
Dn,^rU, Lo bozOj
IA.'V L,SLr"tl, G,*obo((r t t ''
41+?- cli& ?o,*f ' crJe-
CJn"b 9g"u5s,b 2"1111
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Gode of the
Town of Vail on March 9, 1998, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
A request for a setback variance, a landscape variance, and a requesi for additional GRFA
utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an addition lo an existing residence, located at4214
Columbine Way/Unit 5, Bighorn Terrace.
Applicant: Joe and Lauraine Skolasinski, represented by Galen Aasland, Architect
Planner: Reed Oriate
A request for major amendment to SDD #4, to allow for a fractional fee club, localed at 1310
Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Cascade Condominiums/ Cascade Village Area A.
Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson
Planner: George Ruther
A worksession to discuss a variety of alternatives, based upon different philosophies and
methodologies, which defines the allowable building height and general massing in the
Lionshead Redevelopment study area.
Planners: MikeMollica/DominicMauriello
The applicaiions and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planneis office located at the Town of Vail Community
Developmenl Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-
2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information.
Community Development Department
Published February 20, 1998 in the Vail Trail.
1