HomeMy WebLinkAboutBIGHORN TERRACE UNIT 9 LEGAL.pdfo
minutes of
?
U /4"-'
Vote was 5.0.
long as
Building
tJ PLANN ING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COI'O4I SSION
STAFF PRESENT
Dick Ryan
Peter Patten
Peter Janar
Jim Sayre
Betsy Rosolack
CO.UNCIL REP
Ron Todd
to order at 3:00 pm.
1. Approva'l of minutes of- meeting of August 23' 1982.
Septefter 13, 1982
PRESENT
l{ill Trout
Diana Donovan
Dan Corcoran
Duane Piper
Jin Viele
I ater:
Jim Morgan
ABSENT
St6FEdwards
Dan Corcoran, chairman, called the meeting
Donovan moved and P'iper seconded to approve
He shohed with transparencies
-and ralls were in p1ace.' The
con'ld be taken off completely 'ffis set back to retain the two qtt that only I /2 of 1 window
5y Cyrano's proposal , and that -llrat vere already blocked.
the
G 2. App'l ication for exteriolalteration anc tns4lriq@ enc'lose
?
Greta Parks. .--'.*.
Dan Corcoran expla'ined that five letters had been received from ad-W-'ining property
ohners in oppos'ition to the project. : : -€
. .?:
Peter Patten gave some background on the Cyrano's bujlding and reviewed the nemo.
Jim Col onbo, architect for the project rmde the board famil iar with.:various com-
ponents'of the r€quest. He adited that making the Cyrano's build'i.ng',higher . nnde
the building come c'loser to the height of the Gold Peak House. He-stated that
the applicait was interested jn keeFing as much transpar€ncy as possible along
Seibert Circle and Hanson Ranch Road. g1*,
how the building would look when the glass roof
rindows and roof were to rork electronically, and
in the sumner. He explained that thqlthird floor
story feeling of the building, Co'logbo pointed.
on thl ,east side of the Gold Peak Hori:i-e was blocked
thelsare hall
:#F:
Amr" Bishop
tfiere are 4 or 5 other windows on
Corcoran read a letter from Rick ilaltermann, ltlanaging agent from
and {onpany, ranager for.:the }li'l I Creek Court Building,
{*re ordinances of the Tovrn of Vail rere adhered to, tne ',{ssciation did not have any objectisn to the proposal .
stating
ftil I c
-:.It
PE t c ..2- 9/13/82
Jack Curtin, representing himself and Mrs. Cortlandt Hill spoke and mentioned
;h;t;i one'timL there w6re 2 residences on the second floor which were changed
io-itte-r"riaurant and one of the reasons given was that.residences did not
no"t< in ihat space. Curtin pointed out thit Cyranoit.tql not finished landscaping'
ina'tnut ci"s ltitt parked oh the east sjde. He added that there tras a great-
.
possiOitity that the'sliding un11s and roofs would become frozen shut and would
ffi;il-strut oniire south decli. He asked why a mode'l hadn't been required to.
Ue if,o* in the proposal. Curtin also nnintained that until the view corridor
"e"le* was made,'there should be no curtailment of existing views. He felt
ttrat-it wis d'itiicult to hide the fact that there was a 3rd floor, that-the--
buildinq as it was now could be charming if it were cleaned up, that a.3rd floor
umuld bTock 4 or 5 w'indows that lit and ventilated hallways 'in the Gold Peak
House. Curtin felt that there would be increased traffic because of more people
i;-ad tirgir restauiant and additiona'l people in the condominium, especia'l'ly
if the condo were rented out. He added ttrai it wou'ld shade the stream considerably.
Curiin,s last rerarks were that the app'licant should be asked to finish what
ttrey trave started before being granteil further approvals'
K.it.Cowperthwaite, representing Jack Whitehead, owner-of the Red Lion Condominium,
said thit it was lqr. i,ttriteneadis presence and acts, after purchasing the.condo'
ttrai aiiiofved a law suit between'Mrs. Hill and the Torn of Vail. He added
that l4r. Whitehead stood to 'lose 40-50% of his'view of Vail Mountain with the
iOaition ot i Sra sioiy. Coupirthwaite read section 18.24.065A3 of the code arid
felt that it was not being complied with.
Viele fe'lt that more information was needed. Piper felt that the view corr-idor
siouia-Ue-pursuea more, that the previous items that had been approved^shou1d
be-iomptetbd before grinting further approva-ls. He felt that leaving Cyrano's
ai tno'stories allow6d exceTlent relief of spaces. Piper was concerned that
the deck enclosures be extreme'ly transparent--90% transparent as l{as presented,
lbnovan felt that the a'l'ley seemed to be a Q1sh.all, that there was a definite
loss of light to the Gold -Peak House, that there was a moral ob'liqation on the
pa* of Cy-.ano's not to add the 3rd iloor, because of past docurented action of
ttr. parks-, and that with fogging up, there would be little transparency-to.the
*iiiffiiii-a.ifi, itrat the diiierinci'in the,heights of Cyrano's and the Gold Peak
[il;;-*r inieiesting,. tnat no project of Cyrano's to date. had been completed,
JnJ-itat the street tnclosure with the 3rd floor was overwhelming. _She added that
i larg"" restaurant created more deliveries, especia'lly of perishables.
Corcoran agreed with Jack Curtin in that the presentation by the appl icant was
lacking compared with other applicants. :
Colgmbo poihted out that even with the 3rd story added,-that there was still
i-gr€ai difference in height between Cyrano's and the GoId Peak House, that
there would be more activity generated in Seibert Circle and Hanson Ranch Road,
ffrit tte applicant would agie6 to all 5 condit'ions, and added that there had
atvir Ueen'i right to privite views. He added'that it was-hard to.see-the view un1ess
one +lere in the-Clock Tower area. He explained that the windows nould not frost
uptecause they wou'ld be of l" or l*" Thermopane, and the.heat from the inside
ifrouia mitt any snow on the top inmediately. Colunbo said that a-model wou'ld
-eG--
-{S
€
-=a
:--
t -3- e/13/82
that it should have been brought up when the appl icant be no problem to make, but
appl ied for the approval .
Jim l'lorgan arrived'
a
F
F]I'
:'
t.
E
Patten, replying to some of Curtin's rennrks, stated tfra! !!e staff did not
state that there would not be any 'impacts' ie added that the enclosed decks
nould add to the activity in the corb area. There had been complications concerning
finishirig the area to tni: east of the build'ing, but that there was noYJ an agreement
that it must be fjnished by 0ctober 1'
Rvan stated that the request must be dealt with under the current criteria'
iii'lai"i"in.i"ii"-iioi',;-d;;i wouia naue to be completed bv June I' 1983'
CorcoranmovedandDonovansecondedtodenytherequest,.Corcoranstatingthat
that he did not feei tnat this presentuiioit tii ut'detailed as others in CCI' and
that he did not t".i i"ita-iioo't'ionao.*ut apppptiSlt^il..lhat area when the verv
strong argument "ur'ui"i'ift.i-it didn't work'i'rtreh the conversion was rnde on the
2nd floor. .'I think i[oi" z areas a]0.n. i"" strong enough_for my motion,.anci I
reiterate the items ii.i"oiv'ititi": 1'e-voi" wis 3-2-(Trout & Piper) to
deny w'ith Morgan absta'ining.
Curtin asked why the view corridor review hadn't been finished, and Ryan answered
irtii'in"-i"iai itiii *ii noi coniident with'the procedure' that it would not
stand u.p 1ega11y. He added that this was one of ttre subiects to be discussed
ifttre'ioini meLting on Tuesday, september 2'l '
3. Request for variances fer-$&F4-gnd set!qq[!-!n-order to construct an adgition i ffi
patten explained that the request has been revised since the last meeting'.in
fiat the request now was for'onlytheairlock on the west side and to expand
the-front deck to the south.
Jim ilanning, represent'ing the applicants, showed s'ite plans. Discussion fol'l owed
concerning snow removal and storage.
Morgan moved and Vie1 e seconded to approve the variance request for the setback
for-the airlock as wel 1 as the setback for the front deck. The vote was 3-3
with morgan, Viele and Trout in favor, and Donovan, Corcoran and Piper voting
against. The motion di.d not Pass.
Donovan moved and Piper seconded to approve the variance request for the airlock
only as per the stafi reconmendation. The vote was 6-0 in favor. The applicant
mf reminded that he had l0 days in which to appeal the decision to Town Council.
*
t&
*
*#E
;
.;e
Piper and Patten left at this point.
PEC -4- 9/13/8'2
Viele moved and l,lorgan seconded to approve the rgquest as
dated 9/7/82. The vote was 4-l (Trout against) in favor.
Jim Sqyre reminded Tafoya of the parking fee.that would'be
of square footage at Perfonnance Ski.
5. Reouest for a setback variance in order to construct a qreenhouse that would ffit
Peter Jamarshowed the site plan. Frapk Payne of Beck anA Rssociiies, contractor
for the appl icant, showed drawings and photographs of the proposed area. He
orplained that there was already an existing deck over the area proposed to
be'a greenhouse, but that the greenhouse rould extend a'little beyond the deck.
He added that the building was substantially below in GRFA' and that the new
addition would have little impact on adjoining property owners. ;:
o
L- Reouest for exterior alteration and modification in CCII District for shop ii eridan
'-:=
Jim Sayre reviewed the neeting of July 26 when the appl icant firSt appeared
with the request. He explained that some of the obiections at tff_it meeting .
had been met--the elevation of the complete building }.as now preslinted and there
ms now some variation in the facade. af._.:€..
Allen Tafoya, of the Ruoff-llentworth Architects office, presenteffhe new _drawings
ani-txpiai-nea itrat Perfonnance Ski was adding only 282-square feit; He added
that he felt that enclosing the area behind Bart and Yeti's with-+.gate was
an assit, for the gate wouTd hide many items and trash that were stored there..
Trout objected to the tightness of the corner space, and the inabt'[ity to see
the buildings beyond the court. ,*.
e
presenf]d'it in
The nxr_Elon
as
the memo
passed.
addition
v
rev
an appl icant
=that had
:long a time
Donovan felt that there uras no
ibrgan moved and Trcut seconded
and cited the reason that there
or conditions applicable to the to other properties jh the sarne
aDDl rcat ilitE;
hardship denpnstrated and Viele atreed.
.,4-'
to apprtrve tfie request for a setbftk variance
are except'ions or extraordi nary C;ifcumstances site of the variance'that do not,appiy generall
ZOne.n€:_.,8
- i'i*r'-
and Corcoran abstafffid,The'vote was 3 in favor, 1 against (Donovan) and Corcoran abstafEA,
Ryan pointed out that other buildings weren't enjoying the same ppivilege of Ryan pointed out that other
building in setbacks.Corcoran felt that perhaps there should be broader
criteria to determine a variance from hardship,
6. Request for arpndnent to munici I code disal'low the.review of an
v ronmen ommi ss ion oar0 ll ann
l/ear.
ca
cit
allv s ar
Peter Jamar explained that there had beer a nunber of jnstances
hd re-appl ied for soms f,yps of apprcval rith the sare appl icat
p'reviously been denied. l4organ felt that perhaps one year was fttan, that they were dealing with rights-the public had a ri
.lamr said that the legal staff had revisred the anuendrent.
re-apply.
t,
PEc -{snuez
Trout had the same reaction the Morgan had concerning the tire elercnt and suggested
perhaps 2 or 3 months. Jamar pointed out that this arendment did not prevent
apg'l;icants from appealing. Ryan added that this arpndnent was the resu'l t of
direction from Counci'|. l'lorgan felt that it was overki'll. Viele felt that there
were getting to be too many iegulations. Donovan generally was in favor of the
amendment. She pointed out that the Covered Bridge building was another example
when the applicant asked to table his request until tie next neeting wfien one
of the absent board members would be there. Corcoran added that'another exanple
was the pool bubble for the Lodge at Vail. Viele ansrered that that was the
right of the appl icant.
lilorgan moved and Viele seconded not to recornend the zoning amendnnnt to Town'
Council. The vote was 3-2 (Corcoran and Donovan against) in favor of not
recornending the amendnnnt to the Town Council.
6, Request for "---_---TOr OUtOOOT
Peter Jamar explained that the Arterial Business District was not included, but
that it nny be at a later date. He added that the crssed out items were not
needed in the amendment because vending stands were Ft a1 lowed, kiosks were
covered in the sign ordinance, and accessqry outdoor dining terraces were covered
by conditional uses. Awning and windbreaks-were addsssed in the Urban Delign
Guide Plans, The question uas raised as to penalties inposed upon zoning code
violations, and Ron Todd referred to Section 18.66.6
Ryan explained that this amendrpnt urould cut dorm thtine it would take to
get approval , It becomes a staff situation. Vie1 e uked about the time element.
and Jamar replied that there was not tire involved, rather a location question,
and the permit uns issued to the lessee with the prqerty owner's approval ,
The discussion which followed concerned whether or rd it was a good idea to
have a new ordinance, whether it was costly to ask filan improvenrnt survey,(it was decided that most buildings have'improverentsrveys), whether the Town
cou'ld nprely include this information in business listses.
anendments to the municipal code to nYise submittal
splay ano outdoor vendrng.olJn
Ryan suggested tabl ing this item for further study.
table the request urtiil Septenber 27, The left)'
:-.F '-='
Corcoran asked the merbers to look at the rsm Dick dlwritten on ways to
speed up the meetings and nnke add'itional suggestisfsat the next rEeting.
tle suggested neeting a half hour early to discuss th.b. ."*
Jar6r suggested that perlnps the regulations
app'l jcation for a business license or'l icAnse
could te included as a part of.an
renesil.,
and staying unti'l
..F;.-*a
=-Septetnber 2l and
oct l5-E 16.a:-
:..
Vie'l e npved and Trout seconded to
vote was 4-0 in favor (Morgan ha.d
Corcoran felt that attendance ilas irportant at each,ruting
llte meting was over yas also important.
Ryan reninded the rerbers of the joint neeting on Tld,y,
Betsy asked utrich rnerbers could go to the f,ll{CC0G meeiiflS on
The meeting was adjourned at 6:00.
F v
o
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
August 23,1982
l:30 pm
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Dick Ryan
.Jim Sayre
Betsy Roso'lack
COUNCIL REP
A dLLq
PRESENT
tli l l Trout
Scott Edwards
Jim Vie'le
Dan Corcoran
Diana Donovan
Duane P'iper
Jim Morgan Bi'll llil to
'1. Approval. of minutes of-.August 9.
The minutes were comected to read "Ed Drager" instead of Bi'l I Ruoff asked to
wait until Scott Edwards was in the room to consider the Lodge pool bubble.
A'l so corrected were the words Trout used to describe adding other pets to the
I'{ountain Tropics request. Trout had said "other non vjcious pets,,'
Donovan moved and Piper seconded to approve the m'inutes as corected. vote
uas 4-0-2 with Viele and Morgan abstaining.
8. Requgst for g condilionql.usg permit in accordance with Chapter 18.60 to
oT-TeI;-
Bi'l'l AndFews explained the need for expansion. Corcoran noted that the project
was fairly sheltered and not too visible. Andrews added that there would be
some cuts and that they would be reseeded. Morgan wanted to know if there were
any other projects or activitjes at the bus barn that had not come through for
approval , and Ryan answered that there weren,t.
Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve the'conditional use permit. The vote
was 6-0-l in favor with Corcoran abstaining.
2., Request for an exterior alteration and modification approva'l for the Covered
t order to tlll in lhg nbFfh
Dick Ryan. remjnded the board that this had been explained at the last meeting when it was tabled. He added that he had spoken with several business owners 'in ihe
tss! fgy days, and that they impressed upon him that a safe entry into a shop was desirable. .Ryan used the casino building as an example of makin-g steps safer,especially in.the winter. He also added that some relief was pr6poseb for th6 facade of the covered Bridge building_to enhance it. John Dobson, thi aiplicant, asked the board if they nio any proStems with page e ot ttre ffi;, ;;A piF"r-i"j'oonouun
obiected to the staff's opinion on street edge. Barry Baker, the iranager of the
snug shop, exp'lained that the snow p1 ow pushid snow dbwn into his entrince, and also snow was brought into the recessed ltairway by boots. In the sumner, invalids and cntldren were often carried up and down the stairs.
"ilF-
I t
v .|
i
a
o
PEC -2- 8/23/82
Dobson showed elevations and perspectives of the proposed remodeled building,
and repeated the remarks about the snow problem, and added that the awninq
was a problem with vandalism and blocking visibility. Ryan stated that J;ff lJinston of Gage Davis was working on the problem of the Covered Bridge width
and thenorth side of the Covered Bridge store bujlding, considering ieconstruction of the bridge and the entry b,ay onto Bridge Street from the bridge,
Comments:
Morgan: It would be better to have the steps inside, but this is an improvement.
Piper_;, The steps now are stated to be a problem, but you are not el'iminating steps.I feel that the front as js is a strong identification to the Village, even more
than the Covered Bridge. This is the initial ,introduction to the Vi'l lage, more
so than coming out of the parking struETIiE.
Donovan: I feel the same way I did at the last meeting--the windows are in the
sane line, the rock wall will meet Pepi's. rock wall. I feel the confusion could
be addressed with signage. When people walk into a landing, they know that there is obviously more than one level. If they walk into one 1ivel, they may not know that there is another level. I feel the streetedge is not good-on the lroposat.Viele: _I'm in general accord with the staff 's analysis of the proposa'l'. 'It's
'in.compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan and is an improvbmeirt in safety
and access. would there be a change in the stairs to the creek? Ryan: Therb would be temporary steps.
Edwardsl. My only objection is construction on Bridge Street. I like the new plan better than the existing.Trout: Areyou changing the floor elevations in the inner space? Now there are five steps down. You feel there is dangern but there are five steps up to an ex-terior. landing which doesn't alter the iafety factors. Many famous.builaings
have this type of entrance, but the decision- of the entrancL for retail reaions is not ours to make. I'm concerned about the landscaping of the area by Gore
Creek.
Ryqn: It will be done with an overall upgrade of the area, but it won't be done this construction season. Trout mentionld that at the lasi meeting, there was discussion about remonstratfon against a possible 'improvement distiict for the area. Dobson answered that it didn't make sense to say o.k. if I don't know the detai'l s, but I am sure we can work something out.
Trout stated that he was concerned with the town getting an easement or a right gf'way for steps Ieading to the creek. Corcoran iemind6d hjm that the town iid not own. the property by the creek. Ryan added that there would be steps to the creek, but not on the Dobson property, and at present th'ey would be teinporary until the improvement district was formed. Trout was conterned about the cost,
and Ryan explained that the cost would be shared, pl us the Town wou'l d share in'the cost as well.
Dobson felt that morally and po1 itica'l 1y it was not a good idea to ask someone to agree to legistation he hasn't seen. "I wi] 1 agree to participate in the type of improvements the staff has recommended up to now.,t
Viele moved and Edwards seconded to approve the a'l teration and modification to the covered Bridge building as per the staff memo. viele amended this to say "without the staff conditjons of approval ." After discussion, the vote was 3 in favor_, (Edwards, Viele, Morgan), 3 against (Donovan, Trout,-piper) with Corcoran abstainjng,
o
F
a
o
-b.-...
After more discussjon, viele stated a new motion' that of approval of the alteration
is p"" itre staft reconnnendatjon and conditions with nunber 3 modified to read:
3. That the applicant be responsible for the construction of new steps down to
ttre-giassy'iandscaped arei by Gore Creek, that the applicant-prov'ide. ...
puulic aciess il ih; landsca-ped area, and that a'landscape p'lan be submitted
for the uPgrading of this area.
Edwards seconded the motion, and the vote was 4 in favor and 2 against (Donovan'
and Piper) with Corcoran abstaining, The ruotion passed.
3.uest for a cond i t ional
on tne seco oor
Dobson stated that the
like this and he wanted
fact that there would be
Dobson agreed.
PEC -3- 8123182
use permit to convert an a rtment to retail space
e uovereo br e tsu1 ldln canl:n Dobson
'l ess traffic, stating that there would be more- traffic.
(Edwards left)' - Oicf-ni6n reviewed the memo and gave an update o1 thg conversion of space in
Vail Village. He added that theie had been a reduction in nunbers of employ99
units, bul-there was still a mix of residential and corrnercial wjthin the Vi1lage.
Dobson stated that because of noise, lack of access, etc. th-at the space.was not
i;;d ib;;;iatiritiii-Jno-rstea buiidings that had iommercial space on the second
fl oor.
Trout and Viele stated that they were in agreement w'ith the staff. Donovan felt
the use should stay as it was bLcause the iore was dead at nite, and the housing
was needed. Piper felt that there was no way to know whether or not there was
1n.t6.tor employee housing and that a survey should be done to find out.. Morgan-
fei'i-*at it ;hoilld be used as employee housing, and that there was a need for this
type of hous'ing in the va11ey wherever !t Ta.y be,. and that the Urban Design Guide
pltin djd not encourage commercial when jt deleted residential units.
record of the Town Council was never to turn down a request
the same consideration. Morgan also d'isagreed with the
Piper moved and Viele seconded to approve the request for the conditional use
wifn the one condition of approval per the staff memo dated 8/18/82.
The vote was 3 in favor, 2 ibainst'(Donovan and Morgan) with Corcoran abstaining.
4. Request for an exterior altqration and modjfication approval for Conrnercial
toie-T-Toi-th-e-nons Kong cafe to .on
Peter Patten showed sections, perspectives and an isometric of the proposal and
reviewed the memo. G'ilbertson'stated that he did not agree with the condition of
participating in an improvement distrt'ct.
Duane Piper, architect for the proiect, described the additjon adding that jt
wou'ld give more life to the Plaza.
Trout moved and Morgan seconded to approve the exterior alteratjons_per the staff
rnemo dated 8/16/82 inc'l uding the one.condition. The vote was 3 in favor, none
against, with 3'abstentions-(Piper, Corcoran and Donovan). The motion passed.
^C6rcoran reminded Gilbertson'thit he had l0 days in which to appeal the condition
of the approval .
J
o
._ - .., :-. -,,;-
PEC -4- 8/23/82
I
i-
..&**
Bill tllilto, the Council representative, asked the board if they would give.the
born"ii iorire-airection conterning the conditions regarding. the-improvement.
districts. Co.co.an-t"piiea inat this was one item he had planned to bring
up at the ioint meeting on September 21.
5. Application for exterior altgration and modification in corrnercial core I
didino-s -Bmlding to enclose two um'
?
patten asked to have this item tabled until the meeting on September l3 because
tfr"-iisi-irumiitea by the applicant of adjacent property owners to noijfy_had not
been complete. tte added thit ttr;s was the last meeting undbr the rules of the 90
day review for exterior alterations.
Donovan moved and Piper seconded to table this item until Septenrber. l3 at which
li* if'e ipplicant *[it U"-pi"sent tittt a'll required material,.or this project
t*ria n. pli into the next iime s'tot (the November review date). The vote
was 6-0 jn favor of tabling.
6. Request for two variances: Setback and GRFA to make additiols q45llgplsvgments "..
Patten explained the memo and showed the plans and el.evations' He added that
tfiJ:ionaoitintum naa twice as much GRFA as was a]lowed, and that the lots were
;iy-z;-i;;i'"ia"-itti"ugh MDNi required 20' setbacks), addins that the buildinss
werl ionstructed wliile in the county and that the zoning was added when they were
annexed to the town, ina then the pioject was subdjvided into very smalI lots, adding
to the compl.ications.
Jim t'{anning, architect for the project, showed site and f'l oor.Plans and elevations
iriA jtitea-inat ttre-property wai oined-by 2 families each with 2 children, needing
one more bedroom, anh that'one child had Down's syndrome.,.requiring more supervision'
He-adOed that sirice igii,-S-ri*1lar proposals in this subdivision had been presented
to ite-Uoiia,4 of which'had been deiried by the staff, and the PEC:rhad approved
a'l j except for the Curfnnn request in .l980.
.Pitten aqreed that 5 had been presented, but that they were.not exactly alike'
'i,6;;il;i;til inii r,e lended tb favor the variance, but whefe did one stop?
itipE" r"ntlon"i thut in rezoning in-annexation, one reason 'is to-bring some confor-
miiy and continuity. He found it Oitticutt to support any addition to GRFA over
thai which is alloived. Specific to the a'irlock, he was in favor of this, since
ii-*ui iniouiagea, Urt thit tne stairway would add to the problem of snow removal'
Donovan agreed with Piper. Viele felt that imposing MDMF setbacks was a hardsh'ip
because ii it were takln seriously, nothing could be built. It seemed unrealistic
to him to look at GRFA restrictions on sucF a tiny'l ot. Trout agreed with Viele'
with respect to snow removal , as did Corcoran. Corcoran was concerned with a
power lihe that ran'above the dwelling and-asked the applicant to determine
i.lhether the power company had an easement for the line.
patten mentioned that the town had received a 'letter from the secretary. of an
organization that owned the common areas in favor of the proposal: !l! !:^Xl--
sp6aking only for himself. Donovan stated that there were 3 condo assoclatlons
in the group of condominiums.
x .A.!i , -. \'!n:t-.. -, -
PEC -5- 8123182
After addjtional discussion concerning the total GRFA on the site if it were treated
is a norrnl "town-housed" project (tne total GRFA was not knount), the applicant
uas asked if he wished to tab'le the item for more study on his part. Patten admitted
that he had no idea what the GRFA would be if treated as a "town-house" project
because of lack of records. The feasibi'lity of a study of any kind was discussed.
A poll of the members revealed:
Morgan did not feel the setbacks were any problem.
p.iper wanted further study, because as it stood now he fe1t he could not approve
it.
Donovan approved of the airlock' was
bedroom setback.
Viel e wanted to I ook at the project
Trout agreed with Viele.
Corcoran wanted to'l ook at the entire project in MDMF and a'l so the buildjng separat'ions
Piper asked how they could look at the total GRFA when each buildi!9 was 9l it:
own inaiv.iAuit lot.- He felt that they should deal with the situation as it exists'
Manning asked the members how they would fee'l if there could not be a study of
the project as a whole.
Morgan said he wou'ld fee'l the same way unless it were found that the units were
over in GRFA.
Donovan stated that she didn't f€iel that she could approve the setback encroachments
Vie'le felt that he might be wi]l'ing to change his mind depending on the resu'lts
of the study.
I
:
Trout was concerned
Manning requested to
Eeconded to tab'l e as
opposed to the front setback and the
total with some meaningful nunbers'
with the total GRFA.
table his request unt'i1 September .|3. P'iper moved and Viele
per the applicant's request. The vote was 6-0 in favor.
7.uest for a conditional use permit in Conrnercial Core III zone distlicl
conduct outside auto emission testing next to the Safeway store.
Patten reviewed the memo. Ruth Cogan, enviromental health officer, exp'lained that
the test would be directly in front of the store, and that it would not impede
traffic, and that cars could go thru the test in 1-ll2 minutes. Donovan moved
and Morgan seconded to approve the request per the staff memo dated 8/'17/82.
The vote was 6-0 in favor.
Patten announced that on Septenber .|6, there would be a study of the subdivision
regul ations .
The meeting was adjourned at 4:25.
r
i
t
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Septerber .|3,
1982
2:00 pn Site visits
3:00 pm Publ ic Hearing
l. Approval of minutes of meeting of August .23.
2. Application for exterior alteration and modification in CCI District to
enc]ose two decks and add a third f'loor condominium at cyrano'!s building.
Appl icants: Bud and Greta Parks
3. Request for variances for GRFA and setbacks in order to construct an additlon
on lot 9, Bighorn Terrace. App'licants::. John and Debbie 0dum
4. Request for an anendment to the municipal code to disallow the review of
an application by Design Review Board and Planning and Environnental Commission if the application is substantialty similar to one reviewed within the previous year. Applicant: Town of Vail
5. Request for-exterior alteration and modification in CCII Distriict for shop
otpansion along Lion's Pride Court on the first floor.
Appl icant: Steve Sheridan
6. Request.for amendrients to the mun'icipal code to revisE-submittal'.eegulations for outdoor display and outdoor vending. Applicant: Town of Vail -
7. Request. for setback variance in order to construct a greenhouse that wou'ld
encroach l0 feet into a required side setback at Gardin of the Gods c'lub.
Appl i cant : Mrs . AI bert c. Hi I 'l
Published in the Vail Trail September I0, l98Z
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FR0lrl: Department of Comnmrnity Development
OATE: Septerber 9, 1982
SUBJECT: Revised Odum variance request
The Odums are revising their request for variances to remodel their unit
at Bighorn Terrace. Proposed now is to add only the airlock on the west
side and to expand the front deck to the south, This will require a
setback variance on those two sides of the unit. The proposal to add
rore GRFA to the unit has been dropped. The a'irlock is about 25 square
feet, which is not counted as GRFA according to the definition of that
term.
Enclosed is the previous remorandum for your reference. Our recormndation
rcmains the same, that the setback variance for the airlock be:approved,
but that the one for the front deck be denied in that there is no hardship dsnonstrated. ,-'
j
'&...,
II€MORANDUM
T0: Planning and Environnnntal Commission
FR0tl: Conmunity Developmnt Department
OATE: August 17, 19t32
SUBJECT: Request for two variances: :Setback and_GRFA to-make additions and im-
prdvements to the residence 'l ocated on lot 9' Bighorn Terrace.
Applicants: John and Debbie Odum
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicants wish to remodel their townhome in the-Bighorn Terrace proiect.in
EaJt i'itt. This is an o'lder deveopment built in Eagle County, and subsequently
annexed to the town. At some point in the past, the project was suMivided so
each unit had its onn individuilly owned lot. The lots were created so that they
weren,t much larger than the actual footprint of the unit itse'lf, creating rnny
very non-conforming lots. Thus, when an owner.at Bighorn Terrace wishes to alter
triJunit with addiiions, .he will always require variances frqn the l,ledium Density
Multi-family Dfstrict standards.
In Ure past fouryears, the staff has been consjstent (w'ith one.exception).in
reccrnnehOing deniil of-such applications at B'ighorn Terrace., This applicat'ion
is the fifth in that t'lme period. As the PEC knows, the applicant must show a
physical hardship which rould not be a grant of special privi'lege to obtain a
variance.
This request is to instal'l a nen airlock, expand an existi.ng-outdoor deck on the
south side of the unit, fi'l'l in with a small amount of additional floor area the
mrtheast corner of thi unit and add an additional bedroon on the second floor.
Also included is an interior remodel'ing to adjust the space to the current needs
of the residents.
To accohplish the remode'|, the applicants need variances for GRFA (to add the
bedr.oom ind another sma'l 1 area), and setbacks (expand the decr ,'lorc thail halfway
into the front setback and the two grounci level additiuns).
The applicants request that the airlock on the west side be'1.75 feet from the
propeity line (a 1'8.25'variance) and that the northeast corner addition be one
iooi tr6m the froperty line (a'19 foot variance). _They.wish to a{d ]f2.square feet of GRFA (thii inlluoes 25 square feet credit for the airlock) which.would
mke the unit'622 square feet ovdr the allu.rable in MDMF. The lot is a total
of '1560 square feet'and is 27 feet wide at the widest place. The lot allows 546
squaf€ feet of GRFA. There is"l039 sguare feet existing.
Consideration of Factors
Thg rglationshiLof the.requested variance to other existinq or potential uses
and structures in the v_l-si_nily_
t" --".." -*"s shou'ld not have any negative effects upon other existing
or potent'ial uses and structures in the vicinity. In fact, the improvements could
have a positive effect upon the aesthetics of the development in that such improvements
seem to have a spin-off effect within the project.
Odum -2- S/17/8?oo The applicant is basically arguing that the existing MDMF zoning requlations are aired at an entirely different type of development, that the law is inconsistent
with the character of this neighborhood and, therefore, should not be interpreted in a strict or literal manner. We've received one letter from a menber of the
Bighorn Mutual Recreation and Sanitation District (owners of the cornon areas of Bighorn Temace) expressing no objection to the proposal as long as the immediate
neighbors are notified.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
to which re]ief from the strict or I itera'l interpretation and enforcement
aE] on s necessa
treatmen sites in s title
an sDecra
t{e wilT address this in two segments; One dealing with the airlock addltion,
and the other with the extra GRFA.
The staff feels that because airlocks serve ah energy conserving function, because
25 square.feet of airlocks are not counted as GRFA,-and because-they are basically
encouraged in the zoning code due to the aboye, that the airlock addition variance
should be granted (setback)
The other two setback variances rrequested, for a snnl] portion of the front deck
and fon the northeast corner addition should not be grahted as there has been
no hardship demonstrated.
The GRFA variance is requested to allow two families to be able to have enough
roqn to use the residence at one time. The staff feels this is a self-irnposed
hqrdsnip and not sufficient cause for granting a variance.
The effect of the sted variance on I i t and air stribution of I ation,
acil ities
There are no signlficant effects on these factors.
Such other factors and criteria as the conrnission deems applicab]e to the proposal.
The
O
es and utilities. a
O
Odum -3- Bll7l82
FINDINGS:
!
'':ThePlanningandEnvironmentalCorrrmissionshalI
That the granting of tfe variance wil'l not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties clisslfied iir-the same djstrict.
That the grant'ing of the variance will not be detrinental to the public health,{f9tYr or we]fare, or materially injurious to properties oi imprbvenents in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
The strict-or'l iteral interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would resu'lt in-practical difflculty or unnecessary physical harGtrip inionJistent with the objectives of this tiile.
There are.exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable . to the site of the variance that do -not apply generaity-i;-;i#-p;bierties in the same zone.
The strig!.ol 'titeral.interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive.the applicant'of priviteges enjoyed uy it" iirn"ii-ii'uif,er"p"operltes in the same district.
RECOIiI}IENDATION
The Department-of culfnunity Development recorrnends approval of a setback var.iance
IoI only the. airlock. propoied. l,le'recormend denial bi ttre remaininq variances ' Decause no physical hardship has been demonstrated and because the iront Aeck could be improved without biinging it further to thi south into the selback.
I
75 aouth lrontage rd.
r.ll, colotrdo 81657
(303) 476-7000
DATE
8/80
un
7178
sl78
3177
Septerber 1 , 1982
lhnning Knapp Watson
5741 Arapahoe Road
Bou'lder, Co]orado 80303
Dear Jim:
Peter Patten asked tne to relay the fol'lowing information to you
regarding action taken at Bighorn Terrace:
APPLICANT
Curfman
Turnbul I
A]der
Rowe
Benysh
departmcnt of community dwelopment
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Den ial
Approval
Denial
Denial
Approval
PEC ACTION
Den ial
Approval
Approval
Approval
Approval
COUNCIL
Overturned
If you need more information, please call me.
Sincerely,
BETSY ROSOLACK
Secretary
FR0r'1:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORAT'IDUM
Planning and Envjronrtental Commiss'ion
Cornnunity Developrrnnt Depart'inent
August 17, 1982
Request for two variances: Setbacl< arrd GRFA to make addjtions and int-
provements to the residence located on lot 9' Bighorn Terrace'
/ipp1 icants: John and Debbie 0dum
pESCilr PTr 0N 0F vABlrycl__luQuesrE0
The appljcants wish to renrodel their townhome in the Bighorn Terrace proJeci in
f-ast Vbil. This is an older deveopnicnt buili in [,ag1e County, and subsequently
annexecl to the tot'tn. At some point in the past, the project t'tas subdiVided so
each unjt had its o;n indivjdual 1y oilned 1ot. The lots \'{ere created so that they
lyeren,t much larger than the actudj footprint cf the ui-r.1 L itself , creating many
very n0n-c0.r"rfo1ning 1ots. Thus, when an o',vner at Bighorn Terrace wishes to alter
fis"unit r.rith addiiions, :he will always require variances from the l'lediutit Density
l4ul ti -fanrjly Distri ct standards.
In the p{1st four years, the staff has been consistent (nith one exception) in
iecon,'ilei'ii6g clcn.i-a1 of
-such applicaiions at Biglior"n 'ferTace. This applicatitrn
is the fiflh in that t.inte period. As the PEC knows, the app'l icant musl shol^r a
physical hardship r,rhich vloir'ld not be a grant of special privilege to obLain a
va ri ance .
Th'i s requesL'i s to jnstall a nel airlock, expcrnd an ex'i sti.ng outcioor deck on the
sou.i-h sjclc of the rinit, fill in r^rith a small anrcunt of addjtioiral floor arca the
northeast corner of th6 unit and adci an additior.ral bedrocm on the second floor.
Also jncluCed is an intefior remodeling to acl;i ust the slrace to the current needs
of the residents.
To accompljsh the remodel , the appljcants need variances for GRFA (to add the
bedroonr and another stnall area), ancl setbacks (expand the deci< t,tore tna,t ltalfway
rinto thc front setback and tuhe two grounci level addititrns).
The applic.rnts request that Lire airlock on the vtest side be .|.75 feet from the
propeity line (a lB.25' variance) and thal the northeast corner additjon be one
ioot fron, the property f ine (a l9 foot variat:ce). The3''rtish to add 122 square
feet of GRFA (thii initudes 25 square feei: cr"edit for the airlocti) which would
na[,.e t5e unii 622 square fect over the alloivable in l{t]i'1F. The lot is a total
of .l560 square feei and js 27 feet wide at the widest place. The lot allows 546
square feet of GRFA. There js I039 sqLrarc: feet existinl .
Ilq reLq!1g$,t i q of_t[e Jgqygst.and st.ructures in the vicinitv.
;"".-thaveanynegativeeffectsupotrotherexisting
or potential ttses and structures in the vicinity. In fact, the improvenrents could
have a positive effect upon the aesthetics cif the developnrent in that such improvements
seenr to have a spin-off' effect within the project.
I!e!eS-Lge-.!olhiqh.fS!9ry. rq!-!fg-_${q!or literg_l_rrEqrpretation and enforcement gL 1 specitfgd,lcgllqtictr is necessary to aihievd conrpa'tjlil-ity and- unlfoinritfl
@:::-U-!itS-fjSlf!f-q. to ett -tin tLu obio.filnqt of this titlu
wr rn0ut gratt ot specia I privi lege.
0dum -2- B/17/;32
'l-he applicarrt is,rurtiy arguing thai. tiic exirting ilr zoning requlations.ire
a inttci at an ent.irely d'i f ferent t.vpe oF tlc,vi:loprncnt, tliat Llie law is incons jstcnl
vritir the character of thr's neigfrborhood arici, thereforc, shor-rid not be interprete<i in a strict or l iteral rrranner. l,le've rccc.ived one letter fron a nlernber of the
Bi!;hor'n l'lutual Recreation and Sanitatiotr Distrjct (owrrers of the common areas of Bighor"n Tet-race) expressing no objection to the proposal as long as the inurrediate
ncighbors are notif ied.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Considerat'ion of Factors
lrle will address this in tvio segnents:
and the other with the extra GRFA"
One dealing nith the airlock addjtion,
The staff feels that because airlocks serve an energy conserving function, because
25 square feet of airlocks are not counted as GRFA, and because they are bas'i ca'l 1y
encouraged in the zoning code ciue to the above, that the airlock add'i tjon variance
shoul d be grtr.nted (setback ) .
The other two setback variances requested, for a snrall portion of the front decr
and f'or the northeast corner addition shoulri not be granted as therc has been
no hardship demonstrated.
The GRFA variance is requested to allow tvro fanrjlies to be able to have enough
room to use the residence at one time. The staff feels this is a self-imposeci
hardship and not sufficient cause for granting a variance.
The effect of the re,quer.s_t_e1lye1Elqqq! 'l iqht and air, distribution oF popu'l ation,
U*tlfji0I9Ii0_!_3!dliqf f ic facil ities, public 1'aci'l_ities and utjl ities, and public
:slslv_.
There are no significant effects on these factors.
sug!-qlelf-qqlqri-stt{-c-[t€!ei:l!9-r-q!ut9-l-sn-qge!lctpLi-q@
Oduin -3- B/17/lJZ
FIIiDIIICS:
-I]te-li-q-rytry-g+qg-ur c,ulr."tll-q-l--cory-iri-r-sr-:lql-l -qs.&- llrelql-lqry:-ls-ljlqrluLlrelerq
g-tglt I_uIL_q_ i s !-,r rlgq_:
That the granting of the variance will not constitutc a gran! of spec'ia'l privilege
inconsistent w'ith the l'irniLations on other properties classified in the sarne district.
That the granting of the varjance wjll not be detrjmental to the publjc health,safety, or welfare, or materjally injurious to properties or irnprovements jn the vicinity.
That the variance js warranted for one or nore of the following reasons:
The strict or literal 'i nterpretation and enlorcenrent of the specified regulation
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent wjth the objectives of Lhis tjtle.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generaily to oth,"r properties in the same zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regu'l ation
would deprive the applicant of priviieges enjoyed by the owners of other properties jn the same district.
RtCOI'1I,lEI'IDATI ON
The Department of Contmuni ty Development recommends approval of a setback rrari ance for only the airlock proposed. llle reconrmend denial of the renraining vari ances
because no phys.ical hardship has been demonstrated and because the front deck
could be irnproveci wjthout bring'ing jt further to the south into the setback.
ot*,nn AND ENVIRoNl,it-NTAL ror*,rrt
August 23, 19Bz
1:30 Pm
'1. Approval of minutes of August 9.
Z, Request for an exterior alteration and modifjcation approva'l for the Covered
Ariage Store bui'lding on lots C and D, Block 5, Vaii Village lst Filing
in oider to fill in the northern part of the entry to the Snug store.
Appl icant: John Dobson
3. Reqrrest for a condilional use permit to convert an apartment to retail space
on'the second floon of the Covet'ed Bridge Building. Applicant: John Dobson
4. Request for an exterjor alteration and modification approval for Conmercjal
Core I for the Hong Kong Cafe to construct an additjon on the south side of
the existing bar and restaurant. Applicant: Tom Gilbertson
5. Appf ication for exterior alteration and modification in Conmercial Core I
tbi- Cyrano's Bu'i1ding to enclose two decks and add a third floor condominiun.
Applicant: Bud and Greta Parks.
6. Request for variances for GRFA, setbacks and site coverage in order to construct
an'addition in an MDI'IF zone district at 4254 East Colurnbine I'lay.
Applicants: John and Debbie Odum
7. Request for a conditional use permit jn Commercjal Core III zone district
to conduct outsjde auto emissibn testirrg next to the Safevray store at 21 5l
North Frontage Road l^lest. Applicant: Town of Vail
B. Request for a conditional use permit in accordance witlt Chapter 18..60 to construci
a bus wash and fuel pump fac'i1ity io the east of the existing bus barn located
. at the Town shops i;r a PUD zone district. Appl icant: Tot'tn of Vail
Pub'lished in the Vail Trail Auqust 20, 1982.
TEO P. STOCKMAR
HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ITOO BROAOWAY
oENVER. COLORAOO 4O290
TELEX 45-4460
JuLy 27, 1982
/"8/^*"
BRANCH OFFICE:
COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO
TELEPHONE {303t 473,34OO
Town Manager
Town of Vail
Vail , Colorado 81657
Re: Odums Applicati-on for Building Variances
Gentlemen:
The undersigned is a member of the Board of Managers
and is the Secretary of the Big Horn Mutual Recreation and
Sanitation District which owns the comlnon areas in Big Horn
Terrace.
Mr. Odums has furnished to us a set of the plans for
his proposed remodeting of Unit Number 9, Big Horn Terrace.
These plans have been reviewed by the Board of Managers, and
in behalf of the District we have no objection to Mr. odums'
proposed remodeling; provided that as part of your procedures
or independently, Mr. odums' immediate neighbors and anyone
that in your opinion will be impacted by his remodeling re-
ceives notice of his proposed work and is afforded an
opportunity to make their individual positions on the matter
known to you. We have furnished to Mr. odums a current list
of the membership in the District Association.
Will you please
your organization.
route this to the proper Person ln
Very truly yours,
',f ,' ) ,7- /.',-.--4 r( l,' J rt n At t t<t . (-.
Ted P. Stockmar, Secretary of
the Big Horn Mutual Recreation
and Sanitation District
TPS:mik
I lt 1! l,l
I
ii illi:i:
CL 'l-JDr:, M I r../ r
i,lri.lli..r,lLeg-<.s-
(lrIor
tddcf,)@ r*ecro-l .__
-@ f*e:'-lt )
a/a.,"
tAwwL=_ftutntil)Yn
tuoo{)-
--
EaD,r,t.-J
-QQC ___ P rynv,,
W-oaQ * @eol*r'=-
U) c,oD___ (**rl)
-t&q- - Artl4l-NM
-Bax,t-Fer> -
tJ\
N A.
Conmon Name Quanti ty Si ze
F?/d.t6ur* r-"*.emzrc agr; pqi--.d :Upo t+urt* Garp r Ntae)o-(z .c&-'qooeut*6t
'llrr-' f-t,llr'1 i', ' ittf-rlrt,:rt i.tt i .
llolrt d lrr 1,., rr. it I:irrlrl ;r;;1lt'r;t,:rl
A. l;lJll,!)i. i i,l.\ll:lllAl,l;
It.<to I
Sj din1l
Othcr l'irr l I lrlatcrials
l:asc i.a
Soffi t s
l{indor'rs
Itlirrdovr T'ri m
Doors
Door'l'rin
lland o: Ilcck Rai I s
Flues
F 1a sh i rtgs
[,h innei. s
Trash llrrc I osules
GLccrriioirsu's
0rirer'
B. LANDSCAP ING
Name of Designer:
Phone :
PLANT MATERIT\LS
Botanical Name
TREES
rr'ritti r,'rl J-or' :;ttlrt,tl l.tl
e;rrr lrc, ,1iv<:rt:
_$Ir jll' i: i.r'r'irl
lry Ilrir :r1r|l ir;rrtl lo tltc l)c:; illir llcy j lri.l
b
s llt?t)tls
C.(' '$DY)M I rJ r rJ tv1 S, n o *-,
cQ fi.1,E
frW LE^ftL.1 -k enrz Aperpal . d ll,'f Lata*. **te. t Nft eDR.-.g& -t-4r, (x,t- u)6 t
ti:(lrirr'(l l'or :;rrlrrrrlt;LJ by I Irt ::1r1I)ir:rrrt lo thc l)u:; ilirr li.r.'t'j r:'rr
c;rrr lrc ,livctt:
'llrc ftrl l(,\rirr,l itrforn;rt iott i:,
llolit'd Lt l,r: r: lt l:j.rraL :rlrprovrr I
A. l;llll,li ir,t, i1L'lllRi/r1,5
lloof
Siding
Othcr l','it I I lvlateri.als
I:ascia
Soffi t s
l',lindor'rs
l'Iitrdow 'l'ri m
Doors
Door'l'rim
llanc! or Deck Rail s
Fl ues
F lashj ngs
Ch ir,nrev s
Trash hrc I osures
Gleerrircius es
Oche r'
B. LANDSCAPING
Name of Designer:
Phone :
PLANT MATERIALS
Botanical Name
TREES
_wan (eer^J\)
i/o.,"
W^U_Q _ __, _@"s^/N
I .L;O)fi __ .Begu:xt __-
-MA/'o'tl_12t4
t'MPu
-BAt-t- . - *flFn
r..\a .-
TJA
tlo ltlr
7
Common Name Quanti ty Si ze
t SHRUI]S
.Ii!,
hwn
75 .oulh lronlage rd.
Yall, colorado 81657
(303) 176-7ooo
department of community development
July 6, 1982
Jim Mann'ing
Manning, Knapp, Watson
574.l Arapahoe Road
Boulder, Colorado 80303
Re: 0dum Condo Addition,
Dear Mr. Manning: #9' Bighorn Terrace
The purpose of this letter is to outline the variance procedure for the
Odum Condominium addition, unit 9, Bighorn Terrace. The deadline for
the application is July 12. The variance may be heard by the Planning
Commission--assuming that the application is complete--on August 9th.
In order to obtain permission from the Town to build the addition, four
variances from the Vail zoning code must be obtained from the Planning
Commission. These regulations are:
I) .|8.'18.090 Density Control in the Medium-density Multiple
Family District (MDMF).
The 0dum condominium is a'l ready around 500 square feet over the a'l lowed gross residential floor area. you are requesting
even more square feet.
2) 18..t8.060 Setbacks in Medium-density Multiple Family District.
The MDMF zone requires a twenty foot setback on all sides.
You are requesting a setback which is even less than the current
one.
,L-.
3) 18.'18.110 Site Coverage in MDMF
The MDMF zone a'l1ows only 45 percent of the site to be covered
by bu'ildings. Again, the condominium is over the allowed rnximum
and you want to further increase the site coverage.
4) 18.64.050 Nonconforming s'ites, Uses' Structures
The code states that:
Structures and site improvements lawfu'l 1y established prior
to the effective date bf the ordinance codified in this title which
do not conform to the development standards prescribed by this title
for the district in which thby are situated may be continued. Such
structures or site improvements may be en1 arged only in accordance
with the following limitations:
Structures or site improvements wh'ich do not conform to requ'irements
for setbacks, distances between buildings, height, building bulk
contro1 , or site coverage, may be enlarged, provided that the
en1argement does not further increase the discrepancy between
the total .structure and applicable building bulk control or site
. coverage standards; and provided that the addition fully conforms
with setbacks, distances between buildings, and height standards
applicable to the addition.
In your'l etter of application state your reasons why you shou'ld
be granted a variance from this section.
The addition wo0ld make the structure even more nonconforming in
terms of floor area, setbacks, and site coverage.
Fil I out the appl ication form complete'ly. Inc'lude the fee of $'100. In
your statement'see if you can demonstrate a "physica'l hardship" and that
to grant the variances wou'ld not constitute a "special privilege." Yog
shoulA also jnclude the location of adiacent propertjes on a revised site
p'l an. A1 so obtain a letter of approval from the condominium association
rtgarding the addition. 8e sure to include the mailing addresses of all
adjacent-property owners including those across the street. When your appli-
cation is complete we wi'11 place this jtem on the Planning Commission agenda.
For your information I have enclosed the regulations concerning variances,
nonconforming uses, and the MDMF zone.
Yours,
JS:br
Enc'ls .
cc: 0dum
JI
F?
rFn : l'l,i^,l.r;JIll(l nllD
Irli()l'l: l)llPiiitTl'i1';}lif OIr
l),IrTll: 8/7/'JO
r.'T].
CI:.IT!'IRIA i\lJ]) FII{D IISGE
GIU-IA Vli:j.ancc Rcrquost f o]: 113111!-!tr:rfF't:ln t-o Alloia CotrsLr:lrc cion
ot: 2.gI .rcJuar:e r,r.ri-iot-i" inaft1;n -o1r--r'ot r3, l-liglrorn 'i.c:rraice
tlpou ::evierv of C::it-eria ancl Ir-i nd j'ugs' Sec'tion 1B ' 6 2 " 060
cotlc, .i:he Dep.rrt*;;i-;i coritrixrn ii:y p3r*srlep;ren't- rccomrx:ndE
r:equested Varj-;rn.ce bas;crI upon the fo'L'1-oit'i'rrg fact-or:s:
The re.l-a.tionship oll the requesteci va.riance 1-o oiher exisl-itrq oI pot-'elll:j-:11
uses an':1 sLruci;ures j-:-r i:Jre v'i-c j-n:lt1t
T6is \z;ir.j,.r"" r"[.,c,.;t rtou]d r'rot,'irove negat--i-ve effec'Ls u'otr c'thcr struc'-
tures. Ilolrc\rot:r \.J€ \'"t()111c] ]ikr: fo it"ci''-t't{: a bricf ove::victl of tlic }tjst'ory
of variarr"" r..1o"=is rlrjt-hin niglrori '.fer'race rio' Lhat tlre FtrC can have
a conrplct--c looli at thj.s facto::i '
of Lhe lfr::ri.ci-PaI
det-::Lal of the
oF lfiPto)+S /A)' 4{2q+
l{ll i'io 1': /rl l l)iji:l
Iilri V.r.l iOi'i l"il;ll{'l'/il, C O}:1 i i'f Ii5 L ON
COI'JI,IU}i :.1IY DI;;V Ji I.,O I)LJ I])J T
prqcR.'ti.:l-qN-ql-vAtsIai-cji'RIqgl!T.'I'r!-
Thej appl'i-car1 L 1"'ishe"-: 'Lrr enla'rge-the Nort-ileasL side oI lris uni-t-- l'lo' L3
i,-t Big'rlrl:rr rerrale-i"""ri"ii--iii.1i'.,iott.rl' cl'in:inct room attd kit'citeu s";I')ace'
The aplrI:Lca.irt feel..; t-Jre u:.ea ei'-:LJtiiiq te"t foo<1 -I:r:cr-'a'r:atj'on
ancL consul''liJtic'.
is .j.nac1c:clilat:e j-' rela.i::i-oi'rsfrip 'Uo tlre''slecJ-;ir:q f Icili';ies ' i-'isor otirer
acl<litions of this ira.i:u.r:e have talicrn lfl..rc3r sollle of t'rhich. ha'le negalive
irop;rc.t.-s; o:,r setl:;rc1,ul-c;c. aL Diqloin Terrace, and' Ure propsed i:dd'iLiou
vt.i-l1 ht.ive tlolrc r accorcl j'ng to lrrr " Cu::f rttitir '
unj-t 13 is loca-tecl on a 1ot of a311:::o>r:i lnat:cly 1B3B sq. ft, uncler: cLir::el:t
zoning :Ln thc l'Dl'iir zono, tiris'ofittt'o 660 sq' ft''" of GRF'\' Thc existi:rg
ur-ri.L cont.'i.s al)orlL 764 sq. ft. ;i"cr.rra oni. t-tto p::opc.,se<l accli-t'j-o:r coi:sti-
t-trtes a.nothe:: L77 s!_. ft. Thus, tze f :i.rlcl the applj-cation js ;'-cluai'ly
for a GRI'.li Va!:ia.n"I-'of- Za1 sq. it., or 42* of t-hc'- ;rl'l'or+able GIIilA' ars
opposcd, to Llre "pf:f i"tition -fo-::,a Il'1 sq" f '!' -va1j;'rnce' illhese Ilumbers
are accol:cing to InaPij i:ncl Ot't'.i''')gu tire appJS'cilD't iras submitted
,
. \r/rli f/'i.icl.;o:(,]uj.x;1., Il:t j;'ltol.lti oj,' I].i.Cji()r(ill::IUll,Cl,l sul.lD.tvJ I;l.o]l
Dir,lli .rrl.)pl.,1cl,r.1,1, '1')'l'll or'' lli'!' ()ll .c-i'l'Al'1.' l)l::cl
_ __, :]':__rtl ior,r;.1_1r'r:_ _---Yt)lr i 1,r,:1--ll. __- _ _,|l:l!!i!lli:it:rjlrrr1tllql{ __4._(i!1,(i}!.--'..l:\;.tt.-"'/'l Llcrt.Tr;lt ,rl,,ilrt",. J..)0nr;.,1 1 L li]ji;: tiii:
1.1::tt 'l9l l ) nr, rr'. ruf Giil:'1t . li c t.l; a cll
4 7 .3 sc1 f t- l)en l;r i- Allll:r .
Dcn:i erl- nppL.
Jr-rlv '/B Alitr:r GIifA
Sc:l-b;rcl<.
75 r;q J-E DetL:i.;rl
Br Den.ia I
AI>r:r .
Appr:.
.Z\uq 78 Tu.)-nbu]-l Setb;rclc 7 ' APr)i:.Appr.
Tlre -staff f eel-s th4l-, as r,ri,1-h the oLher: (-jlrjlA var::i-i-lncc r.c(-lLr-esl-s a.ftet I!)'-l'/,
Lhis r.roulrl ):c ar g::lntirrg of spec:i-al pr:ir'.'rJ,cge. The ap;rI:i.cant has not dcrnon--
gl-::ai:ed s;u.ff icient rca,.;ons ::e1.r'i::Lng to ha.r:<1s;lr.J.p nhi-ch li.rr.rtrnt th:Ls varionce.
llhe effect crf t:l-re recruesi:r,:cl va::j.arrce on.1.:i.ctlrt ancl ai,r, clitt-r:j-brr{--j-on of
rr-"J:r@rerr--t=sr1;p1.-* !tej-a"na-1:r:qjJ!q_Elj:!1Fis!]:!c j;I j..;-rcrluirT.lg
r1.l-.i I -: i- : ^,- -. '.;! '-r--ir I j ,- ..--r ijr- i-rr L{ u -L J- .r. L- -! r: i /_r._ !rll!r_1.l_:,:L^ Jj=_j:3_:9!.1 "
lio negat:ive inLpacts are foreseen vrith tlie excepiion that l-he proposal tioul-d
brirrg Lhe l:uild.irrg to r';r1-]rj-n 10 I of Colr.rr',Lb:lne !lo.y.
r'lNplllQs:
The PIanni-rr.g anri [nvironrnenLal Conrmissj.on s;ha1]. nta,]le -Ll:e followj,rtg fi.ndirrgs
lrrr{nrn rtr--nJ i rrrr rJLrJ-\-/!(- 9.1(i.Jl LJ.liV c! .VJ-]: IallCe:
That Lhe \rari-a.nr.:c-: is r.;'ari:antecl f or one oi: lnol:e of l-ire- ir:.].1-o\t'i-ng l:easons:
Ti:e s'cr-ici: or litcral- int.crpr:e{:ai:ion anil onfo::cc:)rircrrt of t)re specj.fied
rt:gulat-ion r','ott-l d rcsult i-n practical d:i-.il:'-ctr1t',' or t)rlnccc.lrsaLlt plrysical.
llar-dship inconsisLenl- nith ihe objecLivcr.; of Lli:ls t-.j-tle.
RllCOl{l'ltrN Dir.T I O}1
.Ihc Dep;rrtl',cnt of Conununil-y Deve.Lopne))'L::ocoimicnds den:i.a-l-, as \,Ie arc of l--he i
opinion Lha{- th.i.s r*or-r1C be gran Linc_;i spcc:i.r,'1 ;>riv:i-1.cqe ancl- i.roulil seL 1r-r:cccciett l:
for ot-hcr l,li)llll ?,onc homeortners to grcatJ;' incrcas;t: t.li,:,:' r;-i.zc.. of th.:.ir: urlj.t.s
. beyond zon-iirq rest-rictj.or.rs, lJe.irould ::cnrj.r-rci'tht: FllC tlr;r1- one of our goaJ.s
i.s. to reduce dcn::it-y ancl l-;ul)', in the Go:--c Val1c)2.
?o
j'\tcfa Tfl EL e"t ."t>r/VriF:- | EL T.-.Y
APPLI C/iI'l ot{
This f r'egedllre is rcrluir:ed
The applicatj.on will not be
App1..i;-':tlionOa"7 /22/ 82
}'OIU'1 I'Oi. I' Vr\RI/ri.JCE
for any I)roject ::equest,irtg a Variance.
accelrl-{rc.i. until all information is submitted
I.
A. NAI4II OF AppLICAIIT John and Debbie odum
^DDRESS
9728 Arapahoe Road, Laf ayette', Colorado i'" l' 'PHoNE 6G5-3394
B.AppLICANT ,S RSpRESE;qTATfVE J j-m Manning - Manning Knapp t{atson
5741 Arapahoe Road, Boulder, Colorado 803O3 pHONB 442-7o42
C. ?TUTHORIZATION OF' PROPERTY Ol.fNER
SIGNATURE
ADDRES 9728 Ar PHONE 66s-33e4
D.LOCATTON OF PROPOS?J
ADDRESS_Bighorn Terrace 4254 E. Coluntc_lle_ t{gL_Uni!__tg, Vait CO 81652
LEGAL DESCRIPTION lot #e b*o*Ilirlin>g Bighorn Terrace
NAME OF
NDDRDSS
,l E.FEE. $100.00 pl tr-s :r' arnount equal. to the therr current t-irst-class rate fol cach property ohnel to bc notified hereunder.
A list of the t'tarles of owners of all property adjacent to subject properi:y and their addr-csses.
NEfo LA*FTfu_
FQDr-J torrlD q:
,A:5/r>42
v ,0
l0v'
1 lv"
F.
postage
the
A<xd - 4aa
,rl
Mannrrg Kn.rpp Watson
An tntr r ts . rr rcl Pl r rrrr r.,
JuIy 22, 1982
Town of VaiI
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
VaiI, Colorado 8165 7
Re3 Bighorn Terrace Unit f9
The owners of lot #9, Bighorn Terrace are requesting a variance from
the Planning and Envirorunental Commission in order to increase the
size of their condominium unit. The following regulations are being
appealed: 18.18.060, 18.18.90, 18.18.II0, and 18.64.050.
The intent of the tledium-Density Multiple Family district is to provide
sites for multiple family dwellings at a density of eighteen dwelling
units per acre, and to ensure adequate light, air, open space and arnen-
i.ties to maintai.n the desirable residential character of the district.
The ordinance requires a minimum buildable area, of 10,000 sq. ft. and
a setback of 2Or on each side. The 1ot in guestion is only 1560 sq. ft.
and is only 26 feet wide. This developrnent iras annexed into the Tohtn
of Vail after it was built and zoned to fit into an existing category.
It is clear that the zoning regulations are ained at an entirely ttiff-
erent type of deveLolment, one where a large site has many condominium
type units built together in a dense grouping. The nature of this
deveJ"opment is one of individual lots placed in a way to reduce the
density and give an experience of a single fanily dwelling. The law is
intending to maintain a desirable character, yet it is inconsistent
lrith the character of this neighborhood, and therefore should not be
interpreted in a strict or literal manner.
Specifically, regulation 18.18.060 requires a setback of 2O feet on
each side of the lot, which is only 26 feet wide to begin with. This
regulation is certainly not compatible htith the intended character of
this developnent. None of the proposed additions to the building it-
self goes beyond the existing setback. The only addition that goes
beyond the existing setback is the stairway leading to the deck, which
would extend 3'-8' beyond the existing deck.
Regulation 18.18.110, Site coverage in DIDMF, allows only 45t of the site
to be covered by buildings. The site is 156O sq. ft. and 45* of this is
702 sq. ft. The proposed addition would add only 43 sq. ft. to the site
coverage making the total 706 sg- ft- 32.5 sq. ft. of this addition
is for the entry lock, an ener(ry conservation device which has been
approved by the board in previous appeals.
5741 Arapahoe Fload Boulder, Colorado 80303 Telepho^e 303 442-7042
Pase Two - Biqhorn terracfnit #9
The Density Control regulation, 18.18-090, permits not more than 35
sq. ft. of gross residential floor area for each I00 sq. ft. of build-
able site area. A literal- interpretation of this regu)"ation would not
permit any building on the site because by regulation 18.18.060 (setbacks)
there is no buildable site area. If the entire .site is considered as
buildable area, still only 546 sq. ft. of residential floor area is
allowed, which is too small for even a couple to use bomfortably. The
unit is owned by two sisters who each have a fanily of four. They quite
frequently use it together and in its plesent state, causes a great
deaL of hardship for the eccupants. with the proposed addition, a total
of only 166 sq. ft., these crordded conditions would be greatly allev-
iated. Clearly this law vras never intended to apply to a development
of thj.s nature and would be inconsistent with the objectives of the
regulation.
Regulation 18.64.05O Nonconforming Sites, Uses, Structuret states that
a nonconforming structure nay be enlarged provided that "the enlarge-
ment does not further increase the discrepancy between the total struc-
ture and building bulk control or site coverage standards; and provided
that the addition fully conforms r.rith setbacks, distances between build-
ings, and height standards applicabJ.e to the addition. " The new additLon
does not increase the height or distance between buildings in anyway,
nor does it exceed the existing setback. The increase in site coverage
is only 10.5 sq. ft. plus 32.5 sq. ft, for the entry J.ock, and the total
sq. footage added is only 166. Since this development hras buiLt prior
to the application of these regulations the strict interpretatlon of
these regulations is to limit the density to 18 units per acre and
ensure adequate light, air, open space and to maintain desira.ble resi-
dential gualities. None of these quallties woul-d be degraded by this
addition and to deny it would. cause a physical hardship on the owners.
cranting this variance would not constitute "special privilege", in fact
it woul-d deprive the applicant of priveleges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the area, since the board set precedence by granting
permits to five other applicants since L977 in this area. It is hoped
that the board wifl review this appeal hrith the character of this de-
velopment in nind and the intent of the zoning regulatj.ons rather than
a literal- interpretation of regulations which do not seem appropriate
to the area.
d*"gtl James Manning
P rincipal
JFI/Sn
I
l"t
\
|\I
l'"
I t-t!
I
t
i_!
I
a.:,q!
F ()
,..i -t
I
I
d
I
I
.J_.
i>lr
a
L
s {
s Oi \
s
:
/- tt \
\
a \
\t-
I !r
I
I
I
?
o
i i
"T ii t,I
O ---.--O
1,FF--r';'--!r- n-\-
t
1 t
I I
:t
'.r
t t
T
;
lr.[.
l\_
5R
I-..-''iS
- !ll!r a
.,!
1l
rl t
ll
il
,.I
I I
a J
or.-O r
a.o
4e/'^14
BTGHORN MUTUAL SANITATTON AND RECREATTON COMPANY
MEMBERSHIP ROSTER
A-3 B&LEnterpri_ses
Aaron Burns & Ha:old Lowerv P. O. Box 26 Henrietta, Texas 76365
A-4 Dr. Joseph Hanlin
2403 Virgo Street
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
CONDOMINTU[lS:
A-1
A-2
A-5
ft- o
A-7
carol J. Hulce & Judith May
1 Driver Lane Littleton, Colorado 80123
Mrs. Karen B. Utter Barrett P. O. Box 536 Vail, CO 81557
Mr. & l"lrs. Eldon G. Pritz
1900 Constellation Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
Mr. & Mrs. Arthur T. Skaer
3855 South Hibiscus Way ' Denver I CO 80237
Mr. & Mrs. C. Stanley Wilson
5455 l{est JeweII Avenue
Denver, CO 80223
Pepi G
Vail, CO 8l_657
TELEPHONE NO.
303-794-9696
303-47C.5733
303-s96-1230
303-473-4049
3 0 3 -7 57 -289?
303-922-0375
A-8 Mr. E Mrs. Charles .j. Nass l:r-l-.ene 312-945-1119 1336 Kenilwood Lane Deerfield, fllinois 60015
(separate house)
n Armin and Rita Bacher 303-476-0445 '*., vail, co 8L657
B-1 He1en L. Peterson
3024 NE 34th Avenue Portl-and, Oregon 97212
B-2
B-3 John Donovan
copper Bar Vail, CO 81657
303-476-5626
B-4
rJ-t
B-5
B-6
.b- J
Slifer & Company
Rodney E. Sl"ifer, President
Box 1248
vail, CO 81657
UIta s Karl Hoevelmann
420? Columbine Drive' #5
Vail-, CO 81657
Richard A. & Dorothy Burks
4207 E, Columbine Drive
Vail, co 81657
a-\.i!--::. C. and Bernice F. Finnegan
L90: i;ir'::: Bow Drive
North Little Rock, Arkansas 721:l'6
DUPLEXES:u$fT3 | - L+
D-l Robert H. Riordan, M.D.
19 Drury Lane Berkeley, CA 94705
Ted P. Stockmar
1700 Broadrray, Suite 1800
Denver, Co 80290
B. G. Taylor
c/o Halliburton ComPanY
2600 Southland Center
Dallas, Texas 7520L
Mark Pittman
c/o Clear Concepts
74 Huntly, Houston, TX 77055
King & Linda Moore
Box I27?
vail, CO 81657
Kathryn Ruth BenYsh and
Howard M. & Ruth E. Benysh
c,/o Kathryn R. BenYsh
4242 E. Colunrbine Road
Vaj-I, Colo:'do 81658
f,iTkil$r$ y8fif+f,s k'd'
Dr. ;Ion Grant
P. O. Box 552
Manitou Springs' CO 80829
Johnnie D. & Deborah E. Odum
522 Columbine
Golden, CO 80401
TELEPHONE NO.
303-47 6-242L
303-476-2s68
303-861-7000
405-251-3760
(asl< for Sert, E. Rice
at ltallilrurtcn)
3 03-476-0304
3 0 3-4 ? 6-149 0
D-2
n-? q
D-26
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-7
D-8
D-9 303-279-7855
o
# D-ro
D-11
D-12
D-I3
D-L4
D-19
D-20
D-21
D-22
+ D-ls
* D-15
D-17
D-18
Gregory L. Ridler and Robert W. Leet
7323 Christopher Drive Poland, Ohio 445L4
John S. & Margaret G. Houston
2545 Scorpio Drive
Colorado Springs. CO 80906
John O. Chambers
196 West Point Road
Tonka Bay. Minnescta 55331
Dr. & l{rs. George H. Curfman, Jr.
2C 3l-n S+-reet
Denver, CO 80220
Dr. & Mrs. Alexis E. Lubchenco
250 Kearney Street
Denver. CO 80220
Mr. & Mrs. Del H. Block
950 South Euclid Way
Denver, CO 80209
and
Ralph W. & Beverly Turnbull
558 South Pontiac Wav
Denver, CO 80224
Thomas L. Engleby
4700 S. Syracuse Pkwy.
Denver, CO 80237
Ronald L. & Luanne l,t. Smith
14451 Applewood Ridge Road
Golden, CO 8040I
Richard 9I. Newman
1776 Lincoln St., Room 70J.
Denver, CO 80255
Dr. Neal Llewellyn
2401 Towncrest Drive
fowa City, Iowa 52240
Mr. & l,!r?s. 1,1. Spencer Klein
Box zzt, kDz 'Asbury, New Jersey 08802
and
Mr. & Mrs. Gordon Ellery Strunk
2211 Bellaire
Denver, CO 802C7
TELEPI{ONE NO.
303-47 3-577 2
6L2-47 4-57 43
303-333-2728
303-322-4st7
303-733-60s6
3 03-3 55-5591
303-279-2065
3 03-8 39-5002
319-338-924 7
2At -53?-626I
303-321-8835
TELEPHONE NO.
D'23 Lawrence G. Detrich, E. Kay Kelly, 303_832-9357 Kenneth V. penland & Janet E. penland c/o Mr. Lawrence G. Detrich 899 pearl, #4 Denver, CO 90203
D-24 Robert J. Alder & Diane M. Alder 303_757_086g Michael H. Hurtt & Kaye L. Hurtt c,/o Robert J. Alder - 3330 South Atbion Denver, CO 90222
'i
I.
AP i' L -r.'-i r'I' 1. ()ll
This 1-;66edLtre is rcclui-red
The applicat-j.on will not be
/r1,r; ,Jii:;, l-iolr t,.rO 7122/92_.__
FOI{I.I l'Oi: A VARI/II{CE
for any project ::equesting a Variance.
accel.rl-r:<j. until all inf<>rmation is submitted.
A.AppLICAfJT John and Debbie Odum N;U4tt OF
ADDRESS 9728 Arapahoe Road, Lafayette, Col-orado PHONE 66s-3394
APPLICANT ,S REPRESEI{TATI\rB Jim Manning - Manni.ng Knapp Watson B.
IUTHORIZATION O!' PROPEITTY OI']N[ili
5741 Arapahoe Road, BouIder, CoLorado 803O3 pIITONIj 442-7042
SIGN]|TUI{E
ADDRESS '.-4"Arapahoe Road, Lafayette , CO PHONE oss-::ga
D.LOCATION OF PROPOST,I,
ADDRESS BighornTerrace 4254 E- Columbine Way, Unit #9, VaiI CO 81657
LEGAL DESCRIPTION loI f9 bikIsE*Eli**n:g Blghorn Terrace
NAME OF
ADDTlDSS
E.
F.
FEB. $I00. 00 pl us arl anount equ;rJ to tire thclr current f irst-class
Tate fol' cacir property ohner to be notified hereunder.
A list of the nanes of owners of all propcrty adjacent to
subject property alil their addresscs.
Pos ta ge
the
,tl
:rl 'i-;- ,:+ *:aC ,t
Mannrrg Knapp Watson
Art-hitects and Plannefs
July 22, 1982
Town of Vail
Department of ColRnunity Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Bighorn Terrace Unit #9
The owners of lot #9, Bighorn Terrace are requesting a variance from
the Planning and Environmental Commission in order to increase the
size of their condominium unit- The following regulations are being
appealed: 18.18.060, 18.18.90, 18.18.110, and 18.64.050.
The intent of the Medium-Density Multiple Family district is to provide
sites for multj.ple fanily dwellings at a density of eighteen dwelling
units per acre, and to ensure adequate light, air, open space and amen-
ities to maintain the desirable residential character of the district.
The ordinance requires a minimurn buildable area, of 10,000 sq. ft. and
a setback of 20' on each side. The Lot in question is only 1560 sq. ft.
and is only 26 feet hride. This deveLopment was annexed into the Town
of vail after it was built and zoned to fit into an existing category.
It i6 clear that the zonLng regulations are aimed at an entirely diff-
erent type of development, one where a large site has many condominium
type units built. together in a dense grouping. The nature of this
development is one of individual lots placed in a way to reduce the
density and give an experience of a single family dwelling. The law is
intending to maintain a desirable character, yet it is inconsistent
with the character of this neighborhood, and therefoxe should not he
interpreted in a strict or literal manner.
Specifically, regulation 18.18.060 requires a setback of 20 feet on
each side of the lot, which is only 26 feet wide to begin with. This
regulation is certainly not compatible with the intended character of
this development. None of the proposed additions to the building it-
self goes beyond the existing setback. The only addition that goes
beyond the existing setback is the stairway leading to the deck, which
would extend 3'-8' beyond the existing deck.
Regulation 18.I8.1IO, Site Coverage in MDMF, allotrs only 451 of the site
to be covered by buildings. The site is 1560 sq. ft. and 459 of this is
7O2 sq. ft. The proposed addition would add only 43 sq. ft. to the site
coverage making the total 706 sq. ft. 32.5 sq. ft. of this addition
is for the entry 1ock, an energy conservation devi ce which has been
approved by the board in previous appeals.
5741 Arapahoe Road Boulder, Colorado 80303 Telephone 3O3 442-7042
O Page rwo - Bighorn rerrace uf *o
The Density Control regulation, l8-18.090, permits not more than 35.
sq. ft. of gross residential floor area for each I00 sq. ft. of build.-
able site area. A literal j.nterpretation of this regulation would not
permit any building on the site because by regn:lation 18.18.060 (setbacks)
there is no buildable site area. If the entire site is considered as
buildable area, still only 546 sq. ft. of residential fLoor area is
allowed, whlch is too smalI for even a couple to u6e -comf ortably. The
unit is owned by tno sisters who each have a fami]-y of four. They quite
frequently use it together and in its plesent state, causes a great
deal- of hardship for the rccupants. Vlith the proposed addition, a total
of only 166 sq. ft., these crordded conditions would be greatly allev-
iated. CIearIy this law was never intended to apply to a development
of this nature and would be inconsistent with the objectives of the
regulation.
Regulation 18.64.050 Nonconforming Sites, Uses, Structure i states that
a nonconforrRing structure may be enlarged provided that {the enlarge-
nent does not further increase the discrepancy between the total struc-
ture and building bulk control or site coverage standards; and provided
that the addition fully conforms with setbacks, distances bethreen build-
ings, and he ight standards applicable to the addition," The new addition
does not increase the he ight or distance between buildings in anyway,
nor does it exceed the existing setback. The increase in site coverage
is only 10.5 sq. ft. plus 32.5 sq. ft. for the entry lock, and the totaf
sq. footage added is only 156. Since this development was buiLt prlor
to the application of these regulations the strict interpretation of
these regulations is to limit the density to 18 unLts per acre and
ensure adequate light, air, open space and to maintain desirable resi-
dential qualitles. None of these qualities would be degraded by this
addition and to deny it would cause a physl.cal hardship on the owners.
Granting this variance would not constitute "s5>eciel privllegerr, in fact
it would deprive the applicant of priveleges enjoyed by the ot*ne rs of
other properties in the area, since the board set precedence by granting
permits to five other applicants since L977 Ln this area. It is hoped
that the board will review this appeal hrith the character of this de-
velopment in mind and the intent of the zoning regulations rather than
a literal- interpretation of regulations which do not seen appropriate
to the area.
d*:+'James ltlanning
Principal
Jt4/gtrl
I lr
1 t
1
,
B
.!,
t I
\
\t
L l Ili l,';-Iti-
f-r
!
c.
$J
F
CJ ..J -''l
I
I
d
a
L
s {
h
s nr \
s
j
i tf
a\
,l .\
rl tl
I
I
I
!i._--+
I
I
I
?
I
i
I I I I
a
,d-
!t I I
I
I
r- ''.
[,t
I
rl
t
h'
rt
il
a J
.a t
A-3 B&LEnterprises . Aaron Burns & Hal-old Lowerv P. O. Box 26
Henrietta, Texas ?6365
A-4 Dr. Joseph Hanlin
2403 Virgo Street
Colorado Springs, CO 80905
Carol J. Hulce & Judith May
1 Driver Lane Littleton, Colorado 80123
!{rs. Karen B. Uttet: Barrett P. O. Box 536 Vail, CO 81557
Mr. & Mrs. Eldon G. Pritz
1900 Constellation Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
Mr. & Mrs. Arthur T. Skaer
3855 South Hibiscus Way
Denver, CO 80237
Mr. & Mrs. C. Stanley Wilson
5455 West Jewell Avenue
Denver, CO 80223
Pepi G.Vai1, CO 8l-657
TELEPHONE NO.
303-7 94-9696
303-4?6.5733
303-596-1230
303-473-4049
303-7 57 -2897
303-922-037 5
A-8 Mr. & Mrs. Charles .j. Nass:_;.-:ene 312-945-1119 1336 Kenilwood Lane Deerfield, Illinois 60015
(separate house)
Armin and Rita Bacher 303-476-0445 Vail, CO 81657
B-1 Helen L. Peterson
3024 NE 34th Avenue Portland, Oreg'on 972L2
B-2
B-3 John Donovan
CoPPer Bar Vail, CO 81657
o
BIGHORN MUTUAL SANITATION AND RECREATION COMPANY
MEMBE}].SHIP ROSTER
CONDOMINTUMS:
A-1
A-2
A-5
A-6
A-7
303-47 6-5626
.ct-t
E-t
Slifer & Company
Rodney E. Slifer, President
Box 1248
VaiI, CO 81657
UI Ia & KarL Hoevelrnann
4207 Columbine Drive, #5 Vail, CO 81657
Richard A. & Dorothy Br:,rks
4207 E. Columbine Drive
Vail, CO 81657
*,.-:--:. G. and Bernice F. Finnegan
L90Z i;:r:::: Bov'l Drive
North Li-ttle Rock, Arkansas 72116
DUPLEXES:Uut15 | -24
D-I Robert H. Riordan, M.D.19 Drury Lane Berkeley, CA 94705
Ted P. Stockmar
1700 Broadrray, Suite 1800
Denverf CO 80290
B. G. Taylor
c/o Halliburton comPany
2600 Southland Center
Dallas, Texas 7520I
Mark Pittman
c,/o Clear Concepts
74 Huntly, Houston, TX 77056
fing a Linda Moore
Box 1277 Vail, CO 81657
Kathryn Ruth Benysh and
Howard M. & Ruth E. Benysh
c,/o Kathryn R. Benysh
4242 E. Colunrbine Road Vai1, Ccle:a<lo 81658
Jenkins & Martin, Ltd.Mr- David Jenkini a
Dr. ilon Grant
P. O. Box 552
Manitou Springs, CO 80829
Johnnie D. & Deborah E. Odum
522 Columbine
Golden, CO 80401
TELEPHONE NO.
303-476-242r
303-47 6-2558
303-861-7000
40s-2s1-3760
(ask for hberb E. Rice at Hal1jlelrton)
303-475-0304
303-476-1490
B-5
B-6
lJ-.
D-2
D-25
D-26
D-3
D-4
D-5
D-6
D-7
D-8
tl
fi I.
I
I
t
D-9 303-279-78s5
rp o-ro
D-11
D-12
D-I3
D-14
D-I5
D-l_5
Gregory L. Ridler and
Robert W. Leet
7323 Christopher Drive Poland, Ohio 445L4
John S. & Margaret G. Houston
2545 Scorpio Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
John O. Chambers
l-96 West Point Road
Tonka Bay, Minnesoi.a 55331
Dr. & Mrs. George H. Curfman, Jr.
2C f 1:x Street
Denver, CO 30;20
Dr. & Mrs. Alexis E. Lubchenco
250 Kearney Street
Denver, CO 80220
Mr. & Mrs. Del H. Block
950 South Euclid Way
Denver, CO 80209
ano
Ralph W. & Beverly Turnbull
558 South Pontiac Way
Denver, CO 80224
Thomas L. Engleby
4700 S. Syracuse Pkwy.
Denver, CO 80237
Ronald L. & Luanne M. Smith
L4451 Applewood Ridge Road
GoJ-den, CO 8040I
Richard lJ. Newman
1776 Lincoln St., Room 701
Denver, CO 80265
Dr. Neal tlewellyn
2401 Towncrest Drive
fowa City, Iowa 52240
Mt. ,q Mr-s. M. Spencer Klein
Box zzt t RDz
Asbury, New Jersey 08802
and
Mr. & Mrs. Gordon Ellery Strunk
2211 BelLaire
Denver, CO 80207
TELEPHONE NO.
303-473-5't72
612-47 4-57 43
303-333-2?28
303-322-45l.7
303-733-5056
303-3 ss-5 591
303-279-2065
303-839-5002
319-338-9247
2CL-537-626I
D-17
D- 18
D-I9
D-20
D-2L
D-2 ?
303-321-8835
TELEPHONE NO.
D-23 Lah/rence G. Detrich, E. Kay Kelly, J03_g32_9352 Kenneth V. penland & Janet E. penland c/o Mr. Lawrence G. Detrich 899 pearl, #4 Denver, CO 90203
D-24 Robert J. Alder & Diane M. Alder 303_757_0868 Michael H. Hurtt & Kaye L. Hurtt c,/o Robert J. A1der - 3330 South Albion Denver, CO BO22Z
:
i
t t t'
t
O I\I)l'l i,-:atiorr ,,.,O-.----
API,I,-l-l*/.^'I'l Ot{ IrOItl"l }'Oii A VARIhI.ICE
I.This i'r-ocedr.rre is rcrluir:ed for any lrrojecL l:equesting a Variance.
The arpplicatj.on rtil-l not be accel.rLr:<i. untj-l a1I inf<>rmation is submitted.
AppLICAl.,lT John and Debbie Odum A.
B.
9728 Arapahoe Road, Laf ayette', Colorado PHONE 66s-3394
AppLIC;\NT r S RSpRESEIITATIVB Jim Manning - Manning Knapp Watson
5741 Arapahoe Road, Boulder, Cotorado 803O3 pHONE 442-7042
C. .IUTHORTZATION OI' PROPERTY OI^INtrIt
9l.GNATUIIE
ADDRSSS 97 ahoe Road
D. I.,OCATION OF PROPOS'J
ADDRESS Bighorn Terrace 4254 E. cotuqDine way. unit #9, Vail co g1657
IEGAL DESCRTPTION lot #e bdkor*<F$ilitsg Bighorn Terrace
NAl"lE Of
NDDRESS
NAME OF
ADDRDSS
PHONE ees-r:ga
F
F.
FEE. $100. 00 pl trs 'r ;rnount equar to the tlren current t-irst-class rate fof cach Property ohncr. to be notified hereunder.
A list of the naiiles of owners of all property adjacent to subject properi:y and their addr-cs-ses.
Postage
the
fl r
'9,
+'l: ,
$*t*ni'
MannrE Knapp Watson
Anchitects and Planners
JuIy 22, L982
Tovrn of Vail
Department of Conmunity Development
75 South F rontage Road
VaiI, Colorado 81657
Re: Bighorn Terrace Unit *9
The owners of lot S9, Bighorn Terrace are requesting a variance fron
the Planning and Envirorunental Cornmission in order to increase the
size of their condominium unit. The foll-owing regulations are being
appealed: 18.18.060, 18.18.90, 18.18.110, and 18.64.O5O.
The intent of the Medium-Density Multiple Fanily district is to provide
sites for multiple family dwellings at a density of eighteen dwelling
units per acre, and to ensure adequate light, air, open space and amen-
ities to maintain the desirable residential character of the district.
The ordinance reguires a minimun buildable area, of LO,O00 sq. ft. anal
a setback of 20' on each side. The Iot in question is only 1560 sq. ft.
and is only 26 feet wide. This development was annexed into the Town
of vail after it was built and zoned to fit into an existing category.'
It is clear that the zoning regulations are aimed at an entirely diff-
erent type of development, one where a large site has many condomintun
type units built together in a dense grouping- The nature of this
development is one of individual fots pfaced in a way to reduce the
density and give an experience of a single farnily dwelling. The law is
intending to maintain a desirable character, yet it ls inconsistent
with the character of this neighlrorhood, and therefore should not he
interpreted in a strict or Iiteral manner.
Specifically, regulation 18.18.060 reguires a setback of 20 feet on
each side of the ]ot, which is only 26 feet wide to begin wittr' This
regulation is certainly not compatible with the intended character of
this development. None of the proposeil additl.ons to the buililing tt-
self goes beyond the existing setback. The only additisn that goea
beyond the existing setback is the stairway leading to the deck, which
would extend 3i-8r beyond the existing deck.
Regulation 18.18.110, Site Coverage in MDMF, alLous only 45t of the site
to be covered by buildings. The site ts 156O sq. ft. and 45t of this is
702 sq. ft. The proposed addition woutd add only 43 sq. ft. to the site
coverage making the total 7O5 sq. ft. 32.5 sq. ft. of this addition
is for the entry lock, an energy conservation device which has been
approved by the board in previous appeals.
5741 Arapahoe Road Boulder, Colorado 80303 Telephone 303 442-7O42
O nrn" rwo - Bishorn Terrace u,l o,
The Density Control regulation, 18.L8.090, permits not more than 35.
sq. ft. of gross residential floor area for each IOO sg. ft. of buil.d-
able site area- A literal interpretation of this regulation lvould not
permit any building on the site because by regulation. 18.18.060 (setbacks)
there is no buildable site area. If the entire site is considered as
builclable area, still only 546 sq. ft- of resi"dential floor area is
allowed, which is too small for even a couple to use bonfortably - The
unit is owned by ttro sisters who each have a fanily of four. They guite
frequently use it together and in its present state, causes a great
deal of hardship for the ,ccupants. Itith the proposed addition' a total
of only 166 sq. ft., these cror,tded conditions would be greatly allev-
iated. Clearly this law was never intended to apply to a development
of this nature and would be inconsistent rrrith the objectives of the
regula t ion .
Regulation 18,64.O5O Nonconforming Sites' Uses, Structure i states that
a nonconformi.ng structure may be enlarged provided that 'rthe enlarge-
ment does not further increase the discrepancy between the total struc-
ture and building bulk control or site coverage standards I and provided
that the addition fully conforms with setbacks, distances between build-
ings, and height standards applicable to the addltion. " The new addition
does not increase the he ight or distance between buildings in anyway,
nor does it exceed the existing setback. ?he increase in site cpverage
is only 10,5 sq. ft. plus 32.5 sq. ft. for the entry lock' and the total
sq. footage added is only 166. Since this development lras built prio!
to the application of these regulations the strict interpretation of
these regulations ls to limit the density to 18 units per acre and
ensure adequate light, air, open space and to maintaLn desirable resl-
dential qualitles. None of these gualities would be degraded by thls
addition and to deny it woulcl cause a physical hardship on the owners.
Granting this variance would not consti.tute "special privilege'r, in fact
it would deprl-ve the applicant of priveleges enjoyed by the ortne rs of
other properti.es in the area, since the troard set precedence by granting
permits to five other applicants since 1977 in this area. It is hoPed
that the board will review this appeal with the character of this de-
velopment in mind and the intent of the zoning regulations rather than
a literal interpretation of regulations which do not seem appropriate
to the area.
ddl*:grut^"1
James llanning
Principal
JM/Srl
l-o
I I
I
I
?
9
i t
i .t IF !t t,I
t t I t
I
p t
.,
t
1
d
!ti
(
I
:
I
I lr !'r
' [u d|.
hs
\\t -
I
i
I
"-t \l
\l tt
t-t
(:i
N
t-
t'
I
I
d
I
I .l-
!
I
i
b
I
,
u t
a \
s {
s or \
s
R
L
I 5
\{
r.!)
I
:i
F cr
l-'i ;rr L
-
- - r o!!t4!
&$\rsl ( *rl \
l.
rl
I
li
rl
il
.a t
I t
a J
/
BIGHORN MUTUAL SANITATION AND RECREATTON COMPANY
MEMBEI1SHIP ROSTER
CONDOMINTU[lS:
A-l
A-2
A-3 B&LEnterprj_ses . Aaron Burns & Harold Lowerv P. O. Box 26 Henrietta, Texas 76365
A-4 Dr. Joseph Hanlin
2403 Virgo Street
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
Carol J. Hulce & Judith May
I Driver Lane Littleton, Colorado 80123
Mrs. Karen B. tltte:r Barrett P. O. Box 536 Vail, CO 81657
I'tr. & Mrs. Eldon G. Pritz
1900 Constellation Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
Mr. & Mrs. Arthur T. Skaer
3855 South Hibiscus Way
Denver, CO 80237
Mr. & Mrs. C. Stanley Wilson
5455 West Jewell Avenue
Denver, CO 80223
Helen L. Peterson
3024 NE 34th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97ZLz
Pepi G Vail, CO 81657
TELEPHONE NO.
3 03 -7 94-9696
303-47 A .5733
103-se 6-1230
303-473-4049
303-7 57 -2897
303-922-037 5
A-8 Mr. & Mrs. CharLes .j. Nass :;l-ene 312-945-1119 1336 Kenilwood Lane Deerfield, Illinois 6001-5
(separate house)
Armin and Rita Bacher 303-476-0445 Vail, CO 81657
A-5
.fI-(}
A-t
B-1
B-2
B-3 John Donovan
copper Bar VaiI, co 81657
303-476-5626
TELEPHONE NO.
B-4 Slifer & Company 303-476-242L B-7 Rodney E. Slifer, President
Box 1248 VaiI, CO 81657
B-5 Ulfa c Karl Hoevelmann 303-476-2568
4207 Columbine Drive, #5
VaiI, CO 81657
B-6 Richard A. & Dorothy Burks
4207 E. Columbine Dri.ve
vail, co 81657
,ji;- "- - :. C. and Bernice F. Finnegan jJ-i !90i D;:,r-.i_ Bow Drive
North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116
DUPLEXES: UUrfS l-L+
D-l Robert H. Riordan, M.D.19 Drury Lane Berkeley, CA 94705
D-2 Ted P. stockmar 303-851-7000
D-25 l?00 Broadv;ay, Suite 1800
D-26 Denver, CO 80290
n-? B. G. TaYlor
;-i c/o Halliburton comPanY
2600 Southland Center
Dallas, Texas 7520L
D-5 Mark Pittman
c/o Cl-ear Concepts
74 ilunt1y, Houston, TX 77056
D-6 ring a Linda Moore
Box I2??
, Vail, co 81657
D-7 Kathryn Ruth Benysh and
Howard M. & Ruth E. Benysh
c,/o Kathryn R. Benysh
4242 E. Columbine Road VaiI, Colorarro 81658
Jenkins & Martin, Ltd.D-8 Mr. David Jenkins &. Dr. Jon Grant p. O. Box 552
Manitou Springs, CO 80829
Johnnie D. & Deborah E. Odum
522 Columbine
Golden, CO 80401
40s-251-3760
(ask for Sert E. Rice at l{allilcnrrton)
303-476-0304
303-476'1490
D-9 303-279-785s
.D
TELEPF{ONE NO.
D-10 cregory L. Ridler and
Robert W. Leet
7323 Christopher Drive Poland, Ohio 445L4
D-11 John S. & Margaret G. Houston 303-473-5772 2545 Scorpio Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
D-12 John O. Chambers 612_474_5743 195 West Point Road
Tonka Bay, Minnescia 55331
D-13 Dr. & l{rs. ceorge H. Curfman, Jr. 303-333-272g 2C fh Slreet
Denver, CO 30:20
D-14 Dr. & Mrs. Alexis E. Lubchenco 303-322-45;-1-250 Kearney Street
Denver, CO 80220
D-15 Mr. & Mrs. Del H. Block 303-733-6056 950 South Euclid Way
Denver, CO 80209
&,
I
I
\
&
ano
Ralph W. & Beverly Turnbull 303-355-5591 558 South Pontiac Way
Denver, CO 80224
D-15 Thomas L. Engleby
4700 S. Syracuse Pkwy.
Denver, CO 80237
D-17 Ronald L. & Luanne M. Smith 303-279-2065 D-I8 14451 Applewood Ridge Road
Golden, CO 8040I
D-19 Richard vl. Newman 303-839-5002 D-20 1776 Lincoln St., Room 701
Denver, CO 80265
D-21 Dr. NeaI Llewellyn 319-338-9247
2401 Towncrest Drive . fowa City, Iowa 52240
n-?2 Mr. & Mrs. M. Spencer Klein 2CL-537-626L Box zz-t, KDz
Asbury, New Jersey 08802
and
Mr. & Mrs. Gordon allery Strunk 303-321-8835
2211 Bellaire
Denver, CO 80207
o I
TELEPHONE NO.
D-23 Lawrence G. Detrj_ch, Et Xay Kelly, 303_ g31-g357 Kenneth V. penland & Janet E. penland c/o Mr. Lawrence G. Detrich 899 pearl, #4 Denver, CO 90203
D'24 Robert J. Alder & Diane r,1 . Alder 303-?57-0g6g Michael H. Hurtt & Kaye L. Hurtt c,/o Robert J. Alder 3330 South Albion Denver, CO A0222