HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL LIONSHEAD FILING 1 BLOCK 1 LOT 6 TREETOPS COMMON ELEMENT 1990 1999 LEGAL.pdfol
Design Review Action Form
Alchitect/Contact. Addless and Phone:
Projcct Strcct Addrcss:
Lcgal Dcscription:
Parccl Nurnbcr:
C'omments:
TOWI{ OFVAIL
Proiect Name: Treetops
Projcct Dcscliption: Stccl tubc mil on retaining wall
Owncr. Address and Phone:
476-6342
452 E. Lionshead Circle
Lot 6. Block l. Lionshead lst
Jeff Brown
452 E. Lionshead Circle. Vail
476-6982
BuildingName: Treetops
Tom Weber, Fritzlen Pierce Briner
1650 E. Vail Vallev Drive Cl. Vail
Motion by: Clark Brittain
Scconded by: Hans Woldrich
Vote: 3-0 (Bill Pierce & Tom Weber abstained)
Conditions; none
Town Planner: Christie Barton
Datc: 7llilg9
Board / Staff Action
Action: Approved
DRB Fee Pre-Paid:$20.00
qu"rtiuns?Ql thc Plarrning Staff at 479-2 126
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL
GENERAL INFORMATION /y "r k r r ? tL.&,; fpo5t c7
This applicatiorr is fbr any projcct rcquiring Dcsigr Rcvicw approval. Arry projcc)*requiring dcsig,n rcvicw rrrur^t
rcccivc Dcsigrt Rcvicw approval priorto r^ubrnitting for a building pcruri( for spccific iufonnation. sec thc subltittal
rcqttirctttcttts lbr thc particular approval that i.s rcqucstcd. Thc application cannot be acceptcd until all thc rcquircd
intbrnration is subnriftcd. The projcct ntay also need to bc rcvibwcd by thc Town Council and./or thc planning and
Enviroutncntal Cotttttrission. Dcsign Rcvicw Board approval cxpires one ycar aftcr'final approval trnlcss a
building pcrmit is issucd and construction is startcd.
IJ.
D.
E.
F.
C.
DES.CRTPTTON OF THE, REQUEST:oJ -fuP or (Ler+tn!
H. TYPE OF REVIEWAND FEE:
E Ncw Construction - $200 Construction of a ncw buildine.
<6'-f\,+ <--r8a- fqae, Pate
Vt-,lrJs-r :e4o of i-Joao oE (ZY--]A
I-OC.ATION OF PROPOSAL: LOT: (O I]LOCK:FII-tNC:
PHY.SICAL ADDRESS:24 E. L-tor!<E4D C- IQ.-c.u€
PARCEL N&l<S (Coutact Eaglc Co. Asscssors Officc at 970-328-tt640 tbr,parcel #)
- ,-<'l \r '
ZONING: L'2(_)J),'
NAME OF OWNER(S):
MAILINC ADDRESS:lrE'4D Cr?.)L ao tb61 PHONE: 4-Kc,-
OWN ER(S) SIGNA'TURE(S):
NAME OF APPLIC]ANT:o$=4
N4AILING ADDRESS:JAtw r(o
tr Addition -
E Minor Altcration -
$50 Includes any addition whcrc squarc footagc is addcd to any rcsidcntial or
commcrcial buiiding.
$20 Includcs rninor changcs to buildings and sitc inrprovcmcnts. sr.rch iis,
reroofing, pai.ting, window additions. randscaping. fcnccs and rclainins
walls, ctc.
EI Conccptual Review ' $0 For any application where the applicant wishqs to nrect with Dqsien Rcviov
Board to dctemlinc whcthcr or not the projcct gcrcrally conrplicsivith tlrc
dcsign guidclines.,Thc DRB docs not votc on conccptual rcvicws.
DRB fccs arc to bc paid at thc tinrc of submittal. Latcr. whcn applying for a building penlit, plcasc idcltif5,thc accuratc valuatiou ofthc projcct. TheTown ofvail will adjust thc fcc accordirrg to thc projcct valu.tioir.
PLEASN SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION, ALL SUBMITTAL REQUIREI\{ENTS AND THE FEE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, T5 SOUTI{ FRON'I'AGE ROAD.
vAIL, COLORADO 81657.
PHONE:
!tH u- .J
PFH u
J J {
Au uo
$p
Hz 50 Fl
d$
iftHs
:H*$
iE=
H t,i,
lu o .{
bt XO
5o vz "v 2t JL
F
rtl t
tu
kur \ro
u<.zv JO
z o
tr
{
lu J tu
I
Q
FRITZLEN PIERCE BRINER FF''.EAT N'*IEI
TREETOPS ADDITION
Pi&t EO1- l{Or .l1ll )
t99E 9ATE oETAtL t!,t,cER,
r,lo.o4
5|GET REFI
Alol
fltr.{|]€ Ar.;r.{rEn,IE nfiE onS
lE bt vdt vall EFrv tUryD(-l
VAL 6tomb Ot6,rl (c1ot 1L.6E12 |'gr. (.1o, 1L-4al E-tblt ?pato"a&t t .-.
Agt *to b-t14b
o
De sign Review Action Form
TOWNOFVAIL
Projcct Name: Treetops
Plojcct Dcscription: Rcplacement of retaining wall
Owncr, Address and Phonc:Jeff Brown
452 East Lionshead Circle. Vail
452 f,ast Lionshead Circle
Lot 6. Block l. Vail Lionshead lst
Building Name: Treetops I
TomWebber
Fritzlen Pierce Briner
1650 [ast Vail Valley Driveo C-1, Vail, CO
Alchitcct/Contact. Addrcss and Phone:
Projcct Strcet Addrcss:
Legal Description:
Parccl Number:
Cornments:
Board / Staff Action
Motion by: nla
Secondcd by:
Vote:
Action: StaffApproval
Conditions: Replacement wall not to exceed size of existing wall
Town Planner: Christie Barton
Date: 4116198 DRB Fcc Pre-Paid:
"!
RET WALL
T'JEh{Y{pOO FENAE ------to{o ?'-6"
zt.z s\ 7 v
/,4
I ,l
I
=f
I
NEF{ AMU AALL
?1vCCO 90JH
319E9'tO v.A'tCH
EXI*. TEXTURE
COLOR
26.b1 'rb.A.
=P,'lHen z'a',voD eAle
W LOCR
sITE PLAN
tlb" . t'-O'
FRITZLEN PIERCE BRINER FFO.EAT NAME'
TREETOPS ADDITION
"a/OECT
t9. q1|3.
t99E DA1E DETAIL t{l.h,€ER'
D2.Ol
gHEET iEFI
Alol
tX, bJ Vdl V.lb! tnv.ltlryDC-l
v.tl, bb& Cl.E.l
a|iat 11..t'4Z rd(nO) +t4Al E-t.',,lll'ts'Cab?&t1.l
A5t i2 1-194D
A o
z[r :o tz lu tu zu-
!tH IL .J
PFH
ul
JfiHU
IHil$
ii=I t.i,
F o t lu
Fur UA
ru<zv JO
... \
))
tu o .{
bt xo :o vz ut
2N JL
z o
F
{
lu J
tu
t 4
\
.-\
"1
,/
'
-.,l--
oo
Design Review Action Form
TOWNOFVAIT
Project Name: Treetops Residence
Project Description:Entry Addition
Owner, Address and Phone: JeffBrown
452 East Lionshead Circle, Vail, CO 81657
Architect/Contact, Address and Phone: Tom Webber
Fritzlen, Pierce & Briner
1650 East Vail Valley Drive, C-1, Vail, CO 81657
Project Street Address: 452 East Lionshead Circle
Legal Description: Lot 6, Block I, Vail Lionshead First Filing
Parcel Number: BuildingName: Treetops I
Comments: PEC approval October 27,1997 with the condition that the exterior lighting of the
entire Structure be brought into compliance with the Town of Vail Coile.
Board / Staff Action
Motion by: Clark Brittain Action: Approval
Secondedby: Ted Hingst
Vote: 4-0 @ill Pierce recused himself)
Conditions: l. That a planter be added to screen the dumpster.
2. That the revised plans be submitted as part of the building permit application.
Town Planner: Christie Barton
Date: February 5,1998 DRB Fee Pre-Paid: $50.00
A.
B.
C.,.' :':
D.
E.
DESCRIPTION OF T
NAME OF OWNER(S):eFt ?4d
MAILINC ADDRESS:
CO
owNER(S) STGNATURE(S)l
NAME OF APPLICANT1TO @w 6o tu,
OP€
b PHONE:
a-Q-F.
G.le?
M4rLlNc ADDRESS:VArr.- r (p PHONE:
AND.THE FEE:TO THE
Januarg 12, FqO
Dominic Vauriello
Town ?lanner
Town oF Yail
Re: TreeLops I Condominium NeLU Enlru
Lol b, Block 1, LionEhead 1el
vail, co
ARCHITECTS
Dominic.
Todag I am submilLing to Lhe DRB an applicalion lor approval regarding a new
enlrV on TreeLops I building locaLed in lhe CCll disLricL oF Lionenead. The currenl
deeign is in conFormance wiLh 6ecLion 1b.26.O1O. The original building deoign did
noL include an enclosed enLrg area. ln recenL Ueare, and wilh respecl Lo Lhe AFA,
lhere has been a need lor secured enLrg, sKier sLorage, and improved access Lo
Lhe building, all oF which are permiLLed uses.
The desiqn lhal I am proposing noL onlg deFines an enLrg elemenL, buL also
orovides Lhe uniL owners wiLh an area Lo wail for buses or oLher rides. The
vaulLed roof lorm on Lhe new enLrg is consisLenl with lhe exisling vaulLed roof
Forms. FlaL rool Forms are also consisLenL. The cleregLorg windows on lhe wesL,
and lhe large openinqs loward Lne norlh will provide indirecL sunlighL Lo flood lhe
epace wiLhouL massive heaL buildup. The heiqhl ol Lhe addition is well under lhe
allowed. ExLerior Finishes will maLch exisLing Finisnee. Thie new addiLion will be
conLiguoue wifh lhe exisLing sLrucLure. ne are aleo planning on replacing Lhe
exieting drivewag and walKwags wilh healed pavers.
I leel LnaL the impacL of lhis deeign on Lhe surrounding areas will be minimal. An
exizLing as?en qrove will shield lhe proposed localion ol the addiLion lrom Lhe
view From Lionehead circle even Lhough lhis was noL our inLenLion. The role oF
Lhis addilion is lo give TreeLops a "fronl door" wiLh some relalionship lo the
slreeL and d?ivewau. ll urill also provide TreeLops lhe amenilies LhaL oLher
condominiums enjog.
I looK Forward lo presenLing lhiz design Lo gou and Lhe Design and Review Board.
ReFer lo our earlier
"EC
ap?licalion and lile for calculaLiong regarding allowable
s .F . and landscaping issues. ?lease call me if Lhere is addiLional inf ormalion LhaL
gou require.
Tom Aeber
K:\q'71q TreeLope Canao\D?gnarraLiye.wpa
Planning o Archil"ecture a lntcriors
1650EastVail Valley Drive FallridgeC-1 r Vail,CO81657 r fpb@colorado.net . fax (970) 476-49{)1 . (970) 476-6342
o
{o A..ro+l bo6,7,
Morcr.r E*,ldT
'ft 6T(,irl fevl6t'
Doors
o
*Minimum requirements for landscaping:deciduous trees - 2 inch caliper
conifsrous trees - 6 feet in hcight
- 5 gallons
Square Footage Type
@a
Treetops Condominium Arroriation
C/O Vail Home Rentals
143 East Meadow Drive - suite 397 0 Vail, co 81 657
(g7o, 476-222r Office . (gto) 476-2684 Fax o I -8OO-525-98O3 Toll Free
e- ma i I : va i l-ho m e-ren tal s @ toski.com . htti; / / www.toski.com/vhr
September 16,1997
Commmity Development
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Remodel of Treetops Condominiums.
Ladies & Gentlemen,
The Board of Directors has unanimously approved the submittal of the anached proposal for remodel . Our
intention is to improve the appearance ofthe buildings and provide bener accessiblity. Should you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
u$-" 6'-"''
Larry G. Bames
MaoagingAgent
FrlzlenPierceBriler
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS
DATE:
ATTN:
_ SPECIFICATIONS
SHOPDMWINGS
OTHER
ITEM NO. NO. OF COPIES DESCRIPTION
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
(.o.Y
ATTACHED PLEASE FIND:
X PROGRESSPRINTS
PLANS
@qce D% 6t\<€Ts
THE ITEMS LISTED ABOVE ARE:
FOR REVIEWANDCOMMENT
-AS
REQI.JESTED
OTHER
X ro* YouR usE
RETURNED AFTER REVIEW
REMARK5: %tLr€'tt Lldr lbu<
ad quen to,tu'('tb - cz+z
,".:(ot-, txi)e@a/
coPrESTo: Ptt-g
L:\8000\TRAN8000.wPD
surTE c-l vAtL coLoMDo 81657 970476-6342 F AX 970-47 64901
rllRc8 lrnzLEN INC, DBA
'TTZLEN
PIiRCE BTINET
1650 EAST VAIL VALLEY DRIVE
, F.
aPPRotDDOgC 0I 89?
TILE |]OPY
1. A request for approval of a major exterior alteration, to allow for the construction of a new
entry and common area in the Treetops I building, located at 452 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot
6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing.
Applicant: Treetops Condo Association, represented by Larry Barnes
Planner : Dominic Mauriello
Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had any comments.
William Pierce, on behalf of the applicant, had no commenls.
John Schofield had no comments.
Gene Uselton had no comments.
Greg Amsden inquired about the existing landscaping in front.
Bill Pierce said there were pine trees.
Ann Bishop commended the applicant on the improvement.
Diane Golden had no comments.
Greg Moffet stated for the record that this application was consistent with the purpose statement
in the CC2 Zone District.
Dominic Mauriello stated that the applicant would bring the lighting into compliance.
Planning and Environmental Commlsslon
Mnutes
October 27. 1997
Greg Moffet suggested making the lighting a condition.
John Schofield made a motion for approval with 1 condition that the exterior lighting of the entire
structure be brought into compliance with the Town of Vail code.
Ann Bishop seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6-0.
Planning and Environmental Commisston
Mnutcs
Octobor 27. 1997
Town of Vall
Department of Communlty Development
75 S. Frontage Road
Vall, CO 81657
Name:
Address:
Project:
Account No.
001 0000 314 1 110
Please make checks payable lo lhe TOWN OF VAIL
llem
Receipt No
oa"JLJZ,.Q6--
otal
001 0000 3141112 Unilorm B
Uniform Plumbino Code 001 0000 3141112
001 0000314 t112
001 0000 314't112 Unilorm Fire
001 0000 3141112
0010000314111
National Electrical Code
r Code Books
001 0000 3141211
00100003141111
001 0000 314 1 11 1 Master Plans, etc.
001 0000 315 3000
001 0000 311 2300
001 0000 315
001 0000 312 3000
001 00003124000
001 0000 3 r2 4000
001 0000 311 2200
001 0000 315 3000
001 0000 240 3300
001 0000 3121000
001 0000 230 2000
'001 0000201 1000
;oor boIo sio rloo
001 0000 311 2500
ooi b-o-oo si 1-2500
001 0000 311 2500
001 0000 311 2500
001 0000 311
001 0000 311 2500
Penaltv Fees/Re-
Plan Review Re-check Fee ($40/oer hou
Hours Insoection Fees
Contraclors License Fees
Sion Aoolication Fee
Additional Sion
n Review Board Fee (Pre-
Building Investigation Fee
Developer lmorovement Aoreement
Restaurant License lee
Spec. Assess.-Reslaurant Fee to Co.Dept.Flev.
Taxabfe @ 4.5% (State) - Tax pavable
Taxable @ 4.0% (Town) - Retail Sales Tax
PEC APPLICATION FEES
Additional GRFA - '250"
Conditional Use Pe
Exterior Alteration - Less than 100
Exterior Alteration - More lhan 100 so, tt.
Special Development District - NEW
al Develooment District - Maior Amend 001 0000 311 2s00
001 0000 311 2500 I Develooment District - Minor
001 0000 311 2500
001 0000 311 2s00
001 0000 311 Zonino Code Amendments
TOTAL:
Commenls:
Cash
--
Money Order #
6t
rllt
TOWN OF VAIL
Dep a r t ne nt of C om munity D eve lop me nt
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2138
FAX 970-479-2452
October 27,1997
Bill Piercc
Fritzlcn Picrcc Bdncr
1650 East VailVallcy Drive
Vail, CO 81657
RE:
Dcar Bill:
PEC apploval of major cxteriol altcration for Tleetops Building 1,452 E
Lionshcad Circlc/Lot 6, Blk. l, Vail Lionshead lst Filing
Thc Planning and Environmcntal Corrrmission, at its Octobcr' 27,1991 , approvcd your rcqucst for'
a mqiot'cxtct'ior altcration to add 476 sq. ft. of common alca for a ncrv cntry addition. 1'hc
approval is subjcct to tltc condition that all cxtcrior'lighting bc brought into conformancc rvith thc
Municinal Codc.
You may now subnrit an application for Dcsign Rcvicw Board approval.
Ifyou havc any qucstions, plcasc call rnc at479-2148.
Sinccrcly,t^ all
v,,r'- u
Dominic F.auriello,
Town Planner
{P r""'""o '^'uo
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
october 27. 1997
A request for approval of a major exterior alteration, to allow for the construction
of a new entry and common area in the Treetops I building, located at 452 E.
Lionshead Circle/Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing.
Applicant: Treetops Condo Association, represented by Larry Barnes
Planner ; Dominic Mauriello
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST
The applicant is requesting a major exterior alteration in order to construct a new entryway to the
Treetops I Condominium.
According to Section 18.24.065(3Xa), of the Zoning Code, applications for building alterations
which add more than 100 sq. ft. of floor area are considered major exterior alterations and must
be reviewed by the PEC to ensure compliance with relevant planning documents.
The proposal adds approximately 476 sq. ft. of common area to the building. The building
addition is located on north side of the buibing and is one story in height. The addition has
sloped roof sections similar to those on the roof of the existing building. There is a flat roof
section which provides protection for the proposed pedestrian doonuay to the building.
The proposal also provides for revised landscape areas and a widened driveway approach to the
building. Several trees are being relocated by this request and there is a net loss of landscape
area. The landscape area is being lost where the addition is located and due to the improved
driveway access to the front of the building. Although there is a net loss of landscape area, the
site remains in compliance with 20% minimum area requirement. The proposal will also improve
the handicap accessibility to the building by providing a sloped approach to the building rather
than the existing steps.
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
Zoning:
Lot Size:
Standarq Allowed/Required
Common Area: 6,619.2 sq. ft. (35%)
Site Coverage: 27,083 sq. ft. (70%)
Landscaping: 7,738(20%)
cQ2
38,640 sq. ft. (includes residential, parking, and commercial sites)
Existing
5,339 sq. ft. (28%)
21,970 sq. ft. (56.9%)
13,353 sq. ft. (34.6%)
1
Proposed
5,815 sq. ft. (30.7%)
22,446sq. ft. (58.1%)
13,763 sq. ft. (35.6%)
III. REVIEWCRITERIA
A. Compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan for Lionshead
This location is not identified in any of the sub-area concepts specified in the
Urban Design Guide Plan for Lionshead.
However, staff believes the proposed improvements are consistent with the
design guidelines and compatible with the existing architecture of the building.
The proposal complies with the development standards of the Zoning Code.
B. Compliance with the Urban Design Considerations for Lionshead and CCll
Exterior Alteration Griteria
This location is not identified in any of the sub-area concepts specified in the
Urban Design Considerations for Lionshead.
Again, staff believes the proposed improvements are consistent with the design
guidelines and compatible with the existing architecture of the building. The
proposal complies with the development standards of the Zoning Code.
c. compliance with the vail Land use Plan
The following goals of the Vail Land Use Plan are applicable to this proposed alteration:
1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever
possible.
3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas
to accommodate both local and visitor needs.
4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in
existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core
areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery.
Staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the Vail Land Use Plan.
D. Compliance with the purpose statement for the CCz zone district
According to Section 18.26.010 of the Zoning Code, the purpose of the CC2 district
states:
The Commercial Core 2 zone district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of
multiple dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered, unilied
development. Commercial Core 2 District in accordance with the Vail Lionshead
Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to insure
adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted
types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities ol the district
by establishing appropriate site development standards.
Staff believes the proposed improvements to this building, by creating common area and
by making the building more accessible to visitors, provides a valuable amenity to the
property and the Lionshead area. The proposed addition will improve the overall quality
of the building.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed major exterior
alteration subject to the following finding:
1. That the proposal is consistent with purpose of the CC2 zone district, the Vail
Land Use Plan, and the development standards in the Town's Zoning Code.
FlEVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\SATREETOPS.O2T
geplember 22, Rq1
Lauren Y'tallerl,on
?lanning Liaieon
Town of Vail
Re: lreelopg I Condominium NeuJ Entru
LoL b, Block 1, Lionshead 1"1
Vail, Co
ARCHITECTS
Lauren,
Toda1 | am submiLLing Lo Lhe ?EC an applicaLion for approval regarding a new
enLrg on Treelope I buildinq locaLed in Lhe CCll disLrict of Lionshead. The curcenL
design is in conlormance wiLh 9ecLion 1b.26.O1O. The original building deoign did
nof- include an encloged enLrg area. ln recenL Uearz, and wilh respecl Eo Lne ADA,
lhere has been a need lor secured enLrg, ekier elorage, and improved access Lo
lhe building, all oF which are permiLled uses.
The design lhal I am ?ro?oeinq nol onlg deFines an enLrg elemenl, bul also
orovides Lhe uniL owne?s wiLh an area lo waiL For buges or olher rides. The
vaulLed roof lorm on lhe new enLrg is consislenl u,rilh lhe exizling vaulled rool
forms. Flal rool formg are also consisLenl. The clereslorgwindowe on lhe wesl,
and lhe larqe openings loward lhe norLh will provide indirecL sunlighL lo flood Lhe
s?ace wiLhouL massive heaL buildup. The heighL oF lhe addiLion is well under Lhe
allowed. HLerior Finishes will malch existing Finishes. This neuJ addilion will be
conliguous wiLh Lhe exisLing sLrucLure. Ae are also planning on replacinq Lhe
existinq drivewag and walKwags wilh heaLed pavers.
I Feel lhaL the impact oF Lhis design on Lhe surrounding areas will be minimal. An
exieling aepen qrove will shield Lhe proposed locaLion of Lhe addilion From lhe
view From Lionshead circle even lhough Lhis was noL our inLenlion. The role of
lhie addiLion is lo give Treel,opo a "FronL door" wilh eome relalionship Lo Lhe
ElreeL and drivewag. lL u,rill also provide TreeLope Lhe ameniLies lhaL oLher
condominiume enjog.
I looK forward lo presenLing lhis desiqn Lo gou and lhe ?lanning and
Environmenf al Commission. AlLached Lo this leLler are elevalion renderinge,
phoLoe, and a epreadgheeL compiling mg calculalions For allowable square Feel
and landgcaping requiremenLs. Please call me if there is addiLional inFormaLion
lhat gou require.
Kt\q1 1 q T r e eLo pe Con a o\P e6nar r aLi v e .w p a
PlanningoArchitecturealnteriors
'16.50 East Vail Valley Drivc Fallridge C-1 r Vail, CO u1657 r fpb@coloradc.r. net . fax (9701 476-4901 . (97O', 476-6342
t 5'/ EY;o =P 8t
sE
7ci /a,' ,)
(o^
2ll (N
s0 orl >N
-o =:q F z
o
cl
trJ
F
d z f
a
rrl
t€
eB
dr l.t
i/i I
C)
d
o
F I
J @
(9
-l nB ::rl
(t
z,
=tr
o z.o c)IJ
U)
o
o
l.J I
2 I J
\.
*E
IE o F t
l-F o
E F
to NF
=[
rl
U
i8
t6JE \ t!r: -l. *,*oyrrdrrw lroqrtror ll fr;Z \ | ; i{ O
ll Honroov nnmmooruoc saoErur ! , ll E:E \ | I iil n
rilin
'4',t ffi i/ Ci
llllll[[lli
oo,rldEo -nA
ltl tr ovttFn tw 1xt(fi I tcl
NOTI|OOV nn|NI,IOONOC SdOI3SHr riil
I I o a o (tl n (l
m (tl {
n t-nl
>{
9
I I o a o
ffi q
eiii !
$iti :
t I fil Iii TREETOPS CONDOMINIUM ADDITION
I r.ot l loct lv r, ucrrD rrrrro
I vrr- ooroeoo
I
I
I
!
o c
F !z o
s o {
o z
I
x o a o ul nl \t
z o ,!I
n r rn
{
6 z
I
m x (rl {
=o
I gll I
Iti I rt ll
TREETOPS CONDOMINIUM ADDITION
tot a rooi Iv t, tlttcaD fltE l
I
I tllii
N aq.o,-.--e t2'1a,l i
---_E - t73.5l
\ti
E
@
lll z
4 r m
nl t-
1l r o o n
I
ril
a t->z
rllc
siii !
s iti :
t i![tll rREErops coNDoMrNruM ADDrnoN
al: F rrr I r-oq t Yrr / LpnG|D rrY Fxl
1li; I vacour^Do
-
ilt
ll
z
a
?
ru J lu
I F u o z
\\
z o tr
{
uJ J lu
F o
H
t.
?z
.Y^
z
z
F
J
F a
r r'l
irr
F
z
I r'l
[.r
Agcnda last rcviscd I 0'2-3 I0 anr
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Monday, October 27, 1997
AGENDA
Project Orientation /LUNCH - Community Development Department
J.
12:00 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visits :
1. Treetops - 452 E. Lionshead Circle 2. Pennington - 1150 Westhaven Lane 3. Miller - 1477 Aspen Grove 4. Golden Bear - 953 S. Frontage Road
1:00 pm
Drive r:George
NOTE: lf the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:OO - 6:30 o.m.
Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m.
*{. A request for approval of a major exterior alteration, to allow for the construction of a new
entry and common area in the Treetops I building, located at 452 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot
6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Fiting.
Applicant: Treetops Condo Association, represented by Larry Barnes Planner: DominicMauriello
z.A request for approval of a minor exterior alteration in CC1 and a site coverage variance,
to allow for the renovation of the exterior and improvements to The Golden Bear, located
at 935 s Frontage Road, #302/ Lots A&B, Block 5A, Vail Viltage First Filing.
Applicant: C. Lee Kirsch, represented by Frederick W. Dietrich Planner: George Ruther
A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a bed and breakfast operation, located
al 1477 Aspen Grove/Lot 3, Block 2, Lionsridge 4th Filing.
Applicant: William H. Miller Planner: Lauren Waterton
A request for a major amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Village), to allow modifications to
allowable GRFA and building height limitations, located at 1 '150 Westhaven Lane/Lots 39-
1& 39-2, Glen Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: Timothy Pennington, represented by Diane Larsen Planner: Dominic Mauriello
4.'
r.tF
Agcnda lasl revised l0/23 10 am
5. A request for an amendment to Section 18.54.050 J (Design Guidelines - outdoor
lighting), to allow for the exemption of low wattage lighting from the outdoor lighting
regulations.
Applicant: Roy & Paula May, represented by Dale Smith/ Fritzlen,Pierce, Briner Planner: Lauren Waterton
6. A request to review a draft of the proposed Vail Strategic Housing Plan, which is intended
to set the direction of the Town in its effort to address locals housing
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen
7. A request for a major amendmenl to SDD #4 (Cascade Village), to allow for a revision to
the development plan forthe Glen Lyon Office Building site, located at 1000 S. Frontage
Rd. West/Lot 54, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Gordon Pierce, AIA Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 10, 1997
8. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of the
Alpine Garden Education Center, located at 620 Vail Valley Drive/Tract A, Vail Village 7th
Filing.
Applicant: Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, represented by Helen Fritch
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 10, 1997
9. To approve, deny, or modify an Environmental lmpact Report for the proposed Booth
Falls Townhomes rockfall mitigation wall, located at 3094 Booth Falls Court/Lot 'l , Block
2, Vail Village 12th.
Applicant: Booth Falls Condo Association
Planner: Russ Forrest
TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 10, 1997
'10. A request for a major exterior alteration and a variance from Section 18.26.070
(Setbacks), to allow for construction of a parking garage at The Lionshead Inn, located at
705 S. Frontage Rd./ Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 4th Filing.
Applicant: Lionshead Inn LLC, represented by William Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello
TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 10, 1997
*q,
Agcnda last revised l0/23 l0 am
11. Information Update
12. Approval of September 22, 1997 and October 13, 1997 minutes.
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notiflcation. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356
TDD for information.
Community Development Department
Published October 24, 1997 in the Vail Trail-
Ouesff Call the Planning Staff at 479-2l 38
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMISSION APPROVAL
GENERAL INFORMATION
This application is for any project requiring approval by thc Planning and Environmental Commission. For spocific
information. see the submittal requirements for thc particular app,roval that is requested. The application can not bc
accepted until all required information is submitted- The project may also necd to be reviewcd by the Town Council
and/or thc Design Rwicw Board-
A. TYPE OFAPPLICATION:
tr Additional GRFA (250)
tr Bed and Brealdast
tr Conditional Use Permit
tr Major or E Minor Subdivision
tr Rezoning
tr Sign Variance
tr Variance
tr Zoning CodeAmendment tr Major or tr Minor
DESCRIPTION OF TIIE REQUEST: AJ gtlgaAee 6 vl- QaaQAr4E
tr Amendmcntto an Approved DevelopmentPlan
tr Employee Housing Unit (Iype:
-)
tr Major or tr Minor CCI Exterior Alteration
--r:-(Vail Village)
f,fl tr,ta;o]rts Minor CCII Extcrior Alteration
---(Lionshead)tr Special Development District
to an SDD
B.
MWN OF VAIL
C.LOCATION OF PROPOSAL : LOT
-(O-.BI-OCK_I-
FILING roopsssfu BUILDINGNAME:
t
L
D.ZoNING: Qef,
NAMEOFOWNER(S)J 9a, kSoo.,
MAILINGAD
F.
G.
OWNER(S) STGNATIJRE(S):
@ee-*lzs NAME OF REPRESENTATTVE:
MAILINGADDRESS:gfiL2
Varu, cn . %t&-"-
FEE - SEE THE SI.JBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TI{E APPROPRI-ATE FEE.
STJBMIT THIS APPLICATION, ALL SIJBIVTITTAL REQIITREMENTS AND THE FEE TO TIIE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMIJNITY DEVELOPMENT. T5 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD.
coLoRADO 81657.
?
H.
Feepai&ft 1), ctdt"{ g.; I syr 1r rlzlp;('llrvri ytl.,(\c,
Application our"' i7 ': l-' '('l'/ pEC Meeting Datc, / o ' : 't 'i -l-
Rcvir.d 6/96
Treetops Condominium Arroriarion
C/O Vail Home Rentals
143 East Meadow Drive - suite 397 0 Vail, CO 8t657
(970) 476-222t Office . (97O) 476-268+ Fax o t-8OO-525-9803 Toll Free
e-mail: vaif -home-rentals@toski.com . http:/ / www.toski.com/vhr
September 16, 1997
Communiry Development
Town of Vail
75 S. l'rontage Road W.
Vail. CO 81657
Rl: Rernodel of l'reetops Condominiums.
Ladies & Gentlemen,
The Board of Directors has unzmimously approved the submittal ofthe attached proposal fbr remodel. Our
intention is to improve the appearance ofthe buildings and provide bene. u"ce.riblity. Should you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
/)/yaa.
Larry G. Bames
Managing Agent
Fritzlen Pierce Briner Architects
TREETOPS ZONING CALCULATIONS
SITE AREA
Treetops Condominium Addition
23640.01
ALLOWABLE GRFA
ALLOWABLE COMMON AREA
EXISTING COMMON AREA
TOTAL COMMON AREA AVAILABLE
PROPOSED ADDITION AREA
REMAINING COMMON AREA AVAIL.
18912.0'1 80% of Site Area /
6619.20 35% of Allowable GRFA t/
6a3q.
I?BO,L
f,ffi?a -13l1$.20€xisIr n$ - P ropo sed
lwnr
1!!l*2o
476.00
REQUIRED LANDSCAPE COVERAGE
ALLOWABLE HARDSCAPE
EXISTING LANDSCAPE COVEMGE
PROPOSED NET I.ANDSCAPING REDUCTION
LANDSCAPING REMAINING
4728.00 20% of Site Area v
945.60 20% ofRequired Landscape
8896.00
10s.e0
8486.10 Existing - Proposed
ALLOWED
PROPOSED
48'-0"
24',4"
K:\971 I Treetops Condo\AREA.wb3
o
TreeLops Condominium Neu.r Enlrg
Ligt of Adjacenl Properlies:
2.
3.
1.
Kr\97I9 l rectops Condo\propcrtvo\ncrs rr'prl
l'l.tttttrrrq a ,\t( iriLr:tturc a lr)l(' (rt\
l650 [art Vril Vallcy Drilc l.rllridgo (.-I r \hil, CO 3l(r57 . rpb(:])(:()l{)rado ncl o i.rr. i(l:i)} -l:{,-1,)Ol . lrTO) 476-6312
LodqeaLLionghead A R (- rr rr E c r s
3bO E. Lionshead Cir.
Yail, CO b1651
Lionshead CenLer
52O E. Lionshead Cir.
Yail, CO 01651
Lionshead Arcade
5?1E. Lionehead Cir.
Yail, CO Arc51
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission ot the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code ol the
Town of Vail on October 27,1997, at 2:00 P.M. in tlre Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration ol:
yA request for approval of a major exterior alteration, to allow for lhe construction of a new entry
- a,nd common area in lhe Treetops I building, located al 452 E. Lionshead CircleiLot 6, Block 1,
Til Lionshead 1st Filing.
I
Applicant: Treetops Condo Association, represented by Larry Barnes
Planner : Dominic Mauriello
To approve, deny, or modify an environmental impact report for the proposed Booth Falls
Townhomes rock fall mitigation wall, located at 3094 Booth Falls Court/Lot |, Block 2, Vail
Village 12th. This wall, as proposed, will be 12 feet high and 320 feet long. Another wall to the
west will be approximately 70 feet long. For more inlormation contact Russell Forrest at 479-
2146.
Applicant:
Planrrer:
Booth Falls Condo Association
Russ Forrest
A request for approval of a minor exterior alteration and a sitc coverage variance, to allow for
lhc rerrovation of the exterior and irnprovernet"lts to the property known as The Golden Bear,
located at 935 S. Frontage Road, #302/ Lots A&8, Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: C. Lee Kirsch, represented by Frederick W. Dietrich Planner: George Ruther
A request for a rnajor exterior alteration and a variance from Section 18.26.070 (Setbacks), to
allow for construction of a parking garage at The Lionshcad Inn, located at 705 S. Fror.llage Rd./
Lot 1, Blocl( 2, Vail Lionshead 4th Filing.
Applicant: Lionshcad lnn LLC, represented by William Pierce Planner: Lauren Waterton
A request for a major amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Village), to allow modifications to
allowable GRFA and building height limitations, located at 1150 Westhaven Lane/Lots 39 1& 39-
2, Glen Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: Timothy Pennington, represented by Diane Larson Planner: Dominic Mauriello
A request lor an amendment to Section 18.54.050 J (Design Guidelines - outdoor lighting), to
allow for the exemption of low wattage lighting from the outdoor lighting regulations.
Applicant: Roy & Paula May, represented by Dale Smith/ Fritzlen,Pierce, Briner Planner: Lauren Waterton
A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a bed and breakfast operation, located at .1477 Aspen Grove/Lot 3, Block 2, Lionsridge 4th Filing.
Applicant: William H. Miller Planner: Lauren Waterlon
A request for a major amendmenl to SDD #4 (Cascade Village), to allow for a revision to the
development plan for the Glen Lyon Oflice Building site, located at 1000 S. Frontage Rd.
WesVLot 54, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: Glen l-yon Olfice Building Partnership, represented by Gordon Pierce, AIA Planner: Dominic Mauriello
The applications and infonnation aboul the proposals are available for public inspection during
regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community
Development Depa(ment, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notitication. Please call 479-
2'1 14 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information.
Comrnunily Developrnent Departtnent
Published October 10, 1997 in the VailTrail.
gepLember 22, Fq1
Lauren llaLlerlon
Planninq Liaison
Town of vail
Re: Treelopo I Condominium Neu Entru
Lol 6,9lock 1, Lionehead 1"
vail, co
ARCHITECTS
lnuren.
Todag I am submiLling to the ?EC an applicaLion lor approval regarding a new
entrg on Treel.o?e I building localed in lhe CCll disLricL of Lionshead. Tne curcenL
deeign ie in conlormanoe wilh Seclion 1b.26.O1O. The original building deziqn did
not include an enclosed enLrg area. ln recenl Ueare, and wilh reepecl Lo Lhe ADA,
lhere has been a neea lor secu?ed enlrl, sKier sLorage, and improved access Lo
lhe \uilding, all oF which are ?ermiLled uses.
The design LhaL l am propooing noL onlg delines an enlrg elemenL, buL also
provideo fhe unit ownere wiLh an area Lo wail For bugeg or oLhe? ?idee. The
vaulled rool lorm on lhe new enLrg is congislent wilh Lhe exisling vaulLed roof
formg. FlaL rool formg are algo consigLenL. The clereglorgwindowe on Lhe wegL,
and lhe large openinge loward lhe norLh will provide indirecl sunlighl Lo llood Lhe
b?ace wilhoul maggive heaL buildup. The heighL oF lhe addilion is well unde? lne
allowed. *Lerior finiehee will malch exisLinq tiniehes. Thie new addiLion will be
conliguous uifh lhe exisling sLruclure. ne are aloo planning on replacing Lhe
exioling drivewag and walKwavs wiLh heaLed pavers.
I leel LhaL lhe impacl of fhig deeign on Lhe eurcounding areas will be minimal. An
exieling ae?en grove will shield lhe proposed locaLion oF Lhe addiLion From Lhe
view lrom Lionshead circle even though lhig was nol our inLenLion. The role ol
lhie addition is lo give Treelops a "fronl door" wiLh some relaLionship Lo lhe
streeL and drivewag. lt uJill also provide Treelops Lhe ameniLieg LhaL oLher
condominiume enjog.
I look lorward Lo preeenLing thie deeign lo gou and Lhe ?lanning and
Environmenfal Commiegion. ALLached to lhis lelEer are elevaLion renderings,
phoLoz, and a spreadsheeL compiling mg calculaLions lor allowable square feeL
and landeca?ing requiremenls. Please call me if lhere is addiLional inlormalion
lhaL gou require.
Kt\q1 1q T r e elo?5 Cona o\,PECna?r aLiv e.wp A
PlanningoArchitectureolnteriors
16.50 East VailValley Drive Fallridge C-1 . Vail,CO81657 . fpb@colorado.net . fax (970) 476-4901 . (970) 476-6342
7w
Tom Aeber
Treetops Condominium Arsociation
C/O Vail Home Rentals
143 East Meadow Drive - Suite 397 r Vail, CO 8t657
(970) 476-2221 Offlce o (970) 476-2684 Fax o t-800-525-9803 Toll Free
e-maif : va if -homc-rentals@toski.com . http:/ /www.toski.com/vhr
September 16, 199'7
Commr.urity Development
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Remodel of 'I'reetops Condominiums.
Ladics & Gentlemen,
The Board of Directors has unanimously approved the subminal ofthe anached proposal for remodel. Ou.
intention is to improve the appearance ofthe buildings and provide bener accessiblity. Should you have
any questions, plea-se do not hesitate to call.
/)
,{ot-t.,a. B*q )- u--
Lany G. tsamcs
Managing Agent
FriElen Pierce Briner Architects Treetops Condominium Addition
TREETOPS ZONING CALCULATIONS
SITE AREA 23640.01
ALLOWABLE GRFA
ALLOWABLE COMMON AREA
EXISTING COMMON AREA
TOTAL COMMON AREA AVAILABLE
PROPOSED ADDITION AREA
REMAINING COMMON AREA AVAIL.
18912.01
6619.20
4804,00
1815.20
476.00
1339.20
80% of Site Area
35% of Allowable GRFA
Existing - Proposed
REQUIRED LANDSCAPE COVERAGE
ALLOWABLE HARDSCAPE
EXISTING LANDSCAPE COVERAGE
PROPOSED NET LANDSCAPING REDUCTION
LANDSCAPING REMAINING
20% of Site Area
20% of Required Landscape
Existing - Proposed
4728.00
945.60
8896.00
409.90
8486.t0
ALLOWED
PROPOSED
48'-0'
24',-0
K1971 9 Treetops Condo\AREA.wb3
o
-{
P
ts
udE
aD '1;z
Eqg
a
(t)
rn c)o z.
c7
-rl r
z,6)
c
7 t-
D
-l
m I
R 6
00
i\
>'
$
$
R\
h
E
r
1'o
4 o
5 I
d
€
G z,
F
n -l m I
=o c z
n
E=
@ FI f-r-
ile
l/D1
|./E
YO tm
IF n/9T
a
z o tr
{
lu J lu
I F u o z
, ::j
z
a F
{
a J ul
F
6)
H
:
z
F
rrl J
F a t!
rr'l
Q z
14
rr'l
I r'l
?z
ii^
r-Y <=
rr)z
z
F
U
J
F a
r r'l
F
z
lrl
lr--t
Commuhity Development Plan Rou
Approved Denied (cite detailed reasons) X npptoved with conditions
t ung Form
Routed To:Greg Hall, Public Works
Todd Oppenheimer, Public
Mike McGee. Fire
Works
Retum To:Dominic Mauriello. Community Development
Date Routed:9t23t91
Return By:9t30/97
Project Name:Trectops - add entrance and ski-storage
Project Address:452 E. Lionshcad Circlc
Project Legal:Lot 6. Blk. l, Lionshead lst
Project Description:Adding an entrance and ski storage to building.
adu
Date reviewed:
l:\evelyobe\dom \ro{ tfbrm
r-
a o --u?ry Deve lop ment PIan noutirrlro r.
Routed To:Greg Hall, Public Works
Todd Oppenheimer, Public
Mike McGee, Fire
Works
Retum To:Dominic Mauricllo. Community DcveloDment
Date Routcd:9t23t97
Retum By:9t30t97
Projcct Name:Treetops - add cntrancc and ski-storagc
Projcct Address:452 E. Lionshead Circle
Projcct Lcgal:Lot 6. Blk. l. Lionshcad lst
Project Dcscription:Adding an cntrancc and ski storagc to building.
Approved Denied (cite detailed reasons) Approved with conditrons
:r::i:l:: :::::::::::::::::::: i:: .r ::
,l::ii:ii..i:,rllii:!:il:.i:iii .
?/n^/ 4/z>84 7lone &-zrgZrt/ -
/,/>>.<J 8z=4 Ve4/ ;-.,,c<,2' 2,. 7 Zn/r.'r-P-'
-L*-,2 ,/ Zo--a,ZZ< ,Vyaezzz.4- 4'*@
{ ,/ ,./ '/<tz,/?>/Q .' <^--'4i,)4. /':4,,,"",/? a C
E Z-z-. j5sa]ror*/ ;/,n /'"2---
L/,4 r:. <--s--z.z Z-t:;zz- -f P. .y')', , /V:E r->,-s;-pa!7e1
"441 4:tac"<r2
2../.
Z';r/"-F 2L.- .t-t,'--a-..-72 r*QEz :', .-ZZ
//-,-J;42. -72.<Vf .,-/,t; Z2-Zo 7 -arrey''Zh:z'x
/.'-,:>.-az .4?;su 4:L
7 Z'," 27
Date rcceived:
Rcviewed by:Date revicwed:
i,everyode[omrrourlorm
.TO\VN OI; \'AII,llt:(-t lf I tio
r...,rr:-l1J-
t),:rAtrr,\ .:l-t (,l. (.01|rn'\it t-t. l)t: \.t: t.o ttt|.,\r , --;__\i V tl. t if v lr f--r rrrv v
,\ l)l)ll I:Ss
A C(l() Ui- t i\ O.c||l:cN-s i!AI)t: ]
^
\' Il_]:.t.o 1 o\\' N (rt. \. IL
-0TaiR0o-2T5.,i ()NtN(i n Nl) n )l ()000.12.t -**rl,'i_^?Fij#j jir^iiffi ggs_____
+-UF't
t. firTi4 -Il_
U,\4 lIN (-iTOIt f
o iltolitr ala r i ili --6 4?4t:fF(taNtlTi(ii
7, tlxr0fa:llf-Tn-r' tclN nl -Tti'; ar'fl-a m-lnr0diaii:
,|
+
-(ii-([jiio.1 isrrfr rti
(l | (rl -.sl1-llliiS
0l -r'l (t{m0 4Ti7f-
rrT-ixrl'dTi.r-::'-0ilrittjrr l.r-ij.t -li i-('rioir ,i i.ir i.
'
iii (roo(i 4i'.i I.r -
tl iii(iirli ;i-i.r'i .t (ll (J(xr0 4:l.t..t()
iti'Iiiiiiri r, il:l-(rl ()(,(i0 4217t
.i t iiiliiii,i:ai rrr-
rrt lioo(i2;t0:l'i rii-hliiiii 7 i ii z ;' ii i o rro ir ,ii'iii ri
iii '0itax)
4 2lrl-
*_ - --rli cIT'.ILIC^TrONli0lts ()t (-oit 4l-j-
)i
n t)l)t iloNn t- c
€('TLF - 4/t c'r.ruY- .-. \kr.,t hr.,
-(Desigin Review Action Form
TOWN OF VAIL
Category Number ii Date
Project Name: -
Building Name:
Proiect Description:
Owner, Address and Phone:
ArchitecVOontact. Address and Phone:
Leoal Descriotion: Lot Block , Subdivision Zone District
Project Street Address:
Comments:
Motion by:
M{lstaff Action
Vote:
Seconded by:
D Approval
D Disapproval
EI Staff Approval
Conditions:
Town Planner
Date:DRB Fee Pre-paid
a t.rl..A 7 ft4/9a I
!' DBSIGN REVTEW BOARD APPIJICATION - TOWN OF'
DATE RECETVED:
DATE OF DRB MEETTNG:
**!t*******
EIu}
$EP]
}iFgEIIV
f,rCorcnaoo
;B.- AU6 I 1ss5
iv;fnr\/[t-IH
MA
*****f***!r I.
A.DESCRIPTION:
B. TYPE OF REVIEW:
c.
D.
F
a meets and bounds on a separaEe sheet
legal
and at.tach
ZONTNG:
NAME OF
Mai l inq
c.NAME OF
MaiJ-ing
APPLTCANT:
APPLICANT' S REPRESENTATIVE:
Address:d,'-^
NAME qF OWNER(S) :
OWNER(S) SIGNATURE:
*tln Address:
APPrJrcATroNs wrIJIr Nor BE pRocE'ssED wrr&our or{MER,s srcrvA?uRE
I. Condominium Approval if applicable
.I .DRB FEE: DRB fees, as shown above,\ are to be paid at the DRB FEE: DRB fees, as shown above,l are tc time of submiLLal of Lhe DRB applilation.Lrrt's \Jr Duurt|J. LLctL. uf Lne lJf(E appl]pat].on. Latgr, when apprving for a building permic,-prbase identify it. u""dpprvrng ror a Du]Lclr.ng permit, please idencify t.he accurat,e valuation of the proposar. The iown of vair wiri adiusr Fhc will adjust the fee according co the table below, Lo ensure the correct fee is paid.
"2 DATE: V'l/q{,
.4--*r'-,/ -
FEE SCHEDULE:
VAIJUATTON
,lr n .r a n .|n ^y v + rv,lJ\J\J $ 10, 001 - $ 50, 000 $ 50,001 - $ 150,000
$1s0,001 - $ s00,000
$s00, 001 - $1, 000, 000 $ Over gL,000,000
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAI., EXPIRES
APPROVAL I]NI.,ESS A BUTIJDING PERMIT IS IS STARTED.
FEE
- iD ZU.UU
$ s0.00
$100.00
$200.00
$400.00
$500.00
ONE YELR AFTER FINAIJ
ISSUED AI{D CONSTRUCTION
New const'rucLion (9200 .ool
-{uinor Arreration ($20.00)Addition (950.00) Conceptual Review (gO)
ADDRESS , /5v E*f L.,,",/.,./ Crr., L
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Subdivision
If property is described bv descripti.on, pldase providi Lo this applica t.ion.
IJIST OT' MATERIAIJS
NAME OF PROTTECT:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT_ BLOCK _ SUBDTVTSTON
STREET ADDRESS:
The followinq information is reguired for submitcal to t,he Design
Review Board before a final approval can be given:
A. BUff,DING MATERIAIJS: TypE OF MATERIAI
Roof
Sidinq
OLher Wall MaberiaLs
Fascia
Soffi ts
Windows
Window Trim
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck Rails
Flues
Flashings
Chimneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
Retaining Wa1ls
Exterior Liqhting
Other
B. LANDSCAPfNG: Name of Designer:phone:
PLANT MATERfALS: Bot.anical Name Corunon Nqme Ouant.ity. Si**-._'f-
PROPOSED TREES
AND SHRUBS
*Indicate caliper for deciduous trees.deciduous trees is 2 inches. Indicat,e
Lrees.**Indicate size of proposed shrubs.5 qallon.
Tlrpe
GROUND COVERS
soD
SEED
TYPE
OF IRRIGATION
TYPE OR METHOD OF
EROSION CONTROL
Minimum caliper for height for coniferous 'is 6'f
Scruare Footaoe
c. LANDSCAPE LrcI{TrNG: rf exterior light,ing is proposed, prease show t.he number of fixLures and l_ocat.ions on a separaEe lightinq' p1an. rdentify each fixture from t.he righEing plan in the space berow and provide the height. above giade, -uype of liqhl proposed, lumen ouLpuL, luminous area and a cut sneee of the 1ight. fixt.ure. (Section j_8.54.050 ,I)
OTHER LANDSCAPE FEATURES (retaining wa1ls, fences, swimrning pools, etc.) please specify. rndicaLe heights of recainint walrs. Maximum heiqht of walls within the front setback ii 3'. Maximum height of walls elsewhere on the propert.y is 6,
D.
TREETOPS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
143 EAST ilEAm9 0RIVE - 5UIIE 397
vAlL, @10M00 81657
August 4, L995
To: Town of Vail design and review board
FROM: Treetops Condominiurns Board of Directors
SUBJECT: Entry door rePlacement
The board of directors of Treetops Condominiurn Association
gi""" approval to Meister Builde-rs to replace-29 -entry dgoT?
;a'i;r;i;ps Condos, to".t"d at 450 nast Lionshead Cir., Vail
Co. 81657.
RespectfullY,2?-* g*^--.
Marve] Barnes
Managj-ng Agent rreetopi Condoniniums Association
t:
=t
TOWN OF VAIL ,"."*r"". (fi 3'
g
DATE /
CHECKS MADE PAYABLE TO TOWN OF VAIL
tlEM NO. TAX (j(E I E/L rvj!!-.'-
01 0000 41540 ffi li 5. tJo
0l 0000 42415 ffi s 54.O0
0l 0000 4241 5 ffi s39.00
0l 0000 42415 ffi $37.00
0l 0000 42415 $36.00
0l 0000 42415 ffi $37.00
0l 0000 42415 -oTmR-eoTE Boo-Ks-
0l 0000 41548 s7.00
0 I 0000 42412 -XE-Ro-XTO-FIE-]i0.25
ot oooo 424t2 STUDIES
0l 0000 424 t 2 ffi s5.00
0l 0000 42371 PENATTYTEES / RE.INSPECTIONS
01 0000 41332
0l 0000 42332 ffi
0l 0000 41412 ffi
0t 0000 4l4ll ffi s20.00
0l 0000 4 14l l TDDIT-ONAL SIGNACE FEE [SI.OO PER SQ.I'T.I
0l 00 TTETRTTRFJF-CTDONATION
0100Q04r331_7 LA'(/)
0l 0000-4znl
tI000045 0 ffi
0t 0000 22027 ffi
* 01 0000 21t12 * 0l 0000 41010 TA]{AEfE@4o/o (TOWN)
0l 0000 42171 B LJ I
-D
I NG I N\T S T I G A T I O N OTIIE-
0l 0000 41330 mDrrmitrtcR-A "2s0"xiz00.uu
0l 0000 41130 ffi $200.00
0t 0000 41330 EXTERIOR ALTERATION ILESS THAN IOO SQ,FI'.I s200.00
0l 0000 41330 EXTE_R]OR ALTERATION IMORE TIIAN IOO SQ.}'T.]s500.00
0l 0000 41330 $1,500.00
0l 0000 41330 $1.000.00
01 0000 41330 $200.00
0l 0000 41330 SI]EDIVISO-
0l 0000 4t330 vItr Ne- .$250.00
0l 0000 41330 ffi $250.00
01 000041330 RE - ZONING $200.00
OTHER
OTHER
ITOTAL:
C0MMENTS:
J.
ffirn.oLr rsc.sv, {P/
l I
\
\
IDU E -E=
trtrr
-.1
m l*rm:;l-oi l'a ^ .l lTYl lm: 6 l^;5 lY x .'l
lr; ; g ls* I l=; ?r-l
=It !7 o.<
dE
-(D i;o -rt tt z6
m.a
'n
l,
m
=
=PP
t2=oY"'>r-r o o z a
-{n c o
=o z
T m F
=-{
'n -o
9=z=
z2 oo z.
9(,z
{-i
m lzt l< o t' o
lu r l-o l. 'Tl
\0m
-{
-1 o
(!
m x m
-1 o z (-
ll1
@
-{m
!m 1
=-{
z o
-..t
C^)+-
l-m
t-z
=ln
c:
l.
P
F
?
P
rt
d
E T>
l<r
[--.r
IO
lF Fi
Its'
16
lFl
16
r
I
'Tl
f-z
z. t)-{m AZ >m
-t>
z
n
c)-l
C)O'o Zt-
3<
5@ 1Z oo
m o -
z
z --l
i
z,o
--t n-r qn
E l'n |>I,Fl=FI 1Pl 10 1 Irl llnl I II ll I II
l-.{
l€
lz to
l'n t<t>l-It
l$lz
F.l.rl
I \l
!
loF t€F lzl lql l;l lFl
tnl tzl tol t'l tl II lt ll
lol;l{ l<
t3 l El t>l lFl
tml tot TI tzl
leI tl tt |l tt tl
ld t€
l3
la't<
l>
t;
lfl
lz
ld
l=lo ll t>l-II tm
16,)
olol-zx g ii!
>!a
_>.rl YZo
6<z vo@.
o5=c)
=s^ =\>
€
^
l-lo
l0t
t;
IE
F>
Nm=
; -<F1
=
l-c >t z
c _o
n
z m €
--t m
o I
=o z
f
m -0
=z
r
_o
m
=-l
@ z m m
m
o €m
C z o c z l
2l -^
l- | _'r >l --lt z 6l .'
z
r +9 fio<>-nI
P o o !
ml x :r
€
i
c -t
(!l rl
=z o
SB1IEEE
rwi?Ee 6\ J i=iB€
FEF3gi
*'ggii}
6r la;eiE
iEffiiggi
lfffi*ir?
lelEElle
m ,
=
=-Tl
m m o
o c
=I z
m
=
m o
m
I
z
m
m 2
z
|n s m €
@
,o
m
z
'tt
m
I
=b op
ze
Rt"#
3E .-c
I
I
I
I z D
o
o
.lT1
-+J rrto
1
G
+'
I
I
z
F
@ c -
z
z o i
m U'
i
t-'tt
m
3
=.Tl
m m (t
.)
-l --l A"r->m
o
R<z'A
*;62.--r t Y>
O-p Z--lc *<
1Z Q6)
?p ;=
-lo o>io t-
z9)
>m
--t >or-
o '1-
=m
--t
€z m
()Etr
=FE F t'
< E lc".Eb! to + fn l:t i - K, t'-r -l@ l-lF. b.r LN IH.pt=
r'1 lo l lFt
+ t. t5
o\Pl o\pl
90gl rPl FT)I l5 l'I lE-Pl tltl
z
IT
F
P.
t.
P
rt
F
d
l-rm Vi()o>'t-
t-I a z o
t-x
-l
m
= E'=rn :i:t |.J_ttt
- 3<,-": 6 aL I t-r I e"\Po ;no
rt _<c
!=o<
io o<
UE ii z@l Of
-n
_!t
m
-r
FFE l3
iE= li
t=trtrt
rDn
or
z=
>=
6c)z
I rl+nlo ;t€'' lz lo
l:l>
t;
lm
l9)
IA
l-
I
I
I
I
I
-.1 |_l fn ri loE Il=l<'lzI tol pt
l>t
|fiI
ll-1 It lll
l-{lo
l€
IZ
t:l>l-
tm
lp tz
JIJM IIEE 'lzl lol
til lrl
l$l tzl
lol ltl l|l lll
*ld ,lz
co lO .lt. l1t tr l<rl>!l-rla -lp
llz ll'tt ll
ill
l'n
F N
lD r:
I
r-)
F n
t.
E
r t1'
F
lD 5
F F
F F
o t
-
c)N:-
2X1
>!a
Yzo
-;-<2 \o6.
o= 5 b zg -
=Y:
=
x
lrt lo
IF
l9r
t:
ts>-
N@=
-<
Ai
Pl = 2
:?t;l
AA Yd
IO ,<T<
3E m=<na z c z I
ll
L
I ll
4 o
z
t
c m
IP lo lo T
! tm otr
" l=t>
F
t*i :
z
f
I m
:0
=@ z m
m
m o
J
o c -t I z z
n-l l-m
zl rfll
=l vl
I >l
5l
sl al
z X
;
=o
l'
t;1!t>li
l_
Fn
C
I
2 c
I
z
+
_!
tT!
J
o
o x
=_o
o
=
5
o
,6'
l-o
' 'tt
-^'
)+t=
:(D
iC
t-,j'
<-L=!o
-o
o-Ol f/n J=qd
=7 oE !r
o)G
(D\l
=;
:i-
.$ (
-o:
i.9)l
!-
*(D )-.
:=-
:.:
DO
=<.
io)
*-o
fo
na
Nc)
-..i U'o
*d va
a)
<c {[
,4c
o)'-. (
.i:=-
:ll
orj
:'s i
ty_
r!a
)l {*
a^
)-o ,=
l<
;'=.-=
)--
_--.,|.:o +{:r ,^
Xo
o-'(,o)
'f
=q (r'o
-i v:
=
-;
6',=
aA
oi c:
r!!
^. 1 ol )o:
.:
(ol
(D
l ,-{
:{
) N'to.'t:t='
For )f
-{ o-)o itr
r=.Jat
to =^_o r!9 D.-,
(a
oi
(Dl
t-
l-
\o
m .a ?
6 LJ
/z
\f
Jor
9
6'
d
=o
z
-t
.n
I
a
rn r
I
|.J
VALUAIION
m F 3
o
=z
F
.
z
z
m g)
\J I C.'z-E zt oP
v, I ZP 6r 3t"<l Yci
='
iiE
@l oH
;' FF'lt I
6l I !r I t,
,l I'
I lz,
to
lo rFfi ;'ir #-l '1
I rr lqo l\o F Ir
o {
r
m
--{.Tl
rn m a
{
H
F
P
(t
m
r- lm fi l(,> t=4tz 5la w tm o l<
d l€@ to
t>
to
m
trl
-{
z
rn m
m c)
z
t-
=
2
tTt l-m {
C)
t-
r
z o -lT!
x
c
z
'\t
m
=
T m
=
='n
m m U'
=m
z
t-
t-c
z
m r m =t-
z
5
1..)s.
Lr)
-l rl :l 5l
)/W
o o z (n
-{fr c
C)
=o z
!
rn n
={
9Z
1Y mt
tzl
l< o
tv
li; <
l"- o lr- a
\cm 5lt
=--,t
m x m
-t
z
o
@ I
-1 m
-l z!ei lr
-l
C-r)
F-
-
b
C7Y*"-rf_ 1 aal)
TT
, Appl,f cArroN MUsr BE FTLtED our CoMPLETELY oR l0vTuffifi$, DtfDffir""
|f*******************!r********* pEll!{rr TNFoRMATToN **********'l*****r**'**********
A.
tur-1 -Building t l-Plunbing [ ]-Electrical [ ]-Mechanical [ ]-other
7 - r t ,, t | ^ l-
,r.lu N"'", (ole L+ o-'4 A-tle-^ nP:rlii'W.,*W "Uh"{C
SUBDIVIgTSNi
"1 rc-l
r,J (,rI., !. drur= .
Legal Descriptionl Lot- Blocld---" t riting
owners Name: \\ot^^ 2.L,.".^^--*.-*.^ Address:
Architect:tAAr.6cq: Ph.
General DescriPtion:
work class: [ ]-New H]-Alteration ty].Additional [ ]-Repair [ ]-other
Nurnber of Dwelling Units:Number of Acconraodation Units:
N.umber and TyPe of Fireplacess Gas Appliances- Gas Logs- Wood/Pellet-
.&********************************* VALUATIONS *********************************
d rl
Eurr,orpc, + q(bo, oo ELEcTRICAL: l- oTHER: $
p^LrrMBrNG: s MEcHAiiia;ii +- roinr" r:-
I'*******************t*****,r* coNTRAcroR rNFoRuATroN ***************************
ll"i"r"f Co4tr-acto3'; Z€Li Cc,r^Jte o..-af fiq,t*,Dr',t. Town of Vail Reg' NO'-- il;I!I;,-Z-? Phone Number: Y?'r-7Pl-
Electrical contractor: Town of Vail Reg' No'-
Phone Number:rllvlls ll ll$lr/E!Address:
Plurnbing
Address:
DlF"E:?SP
rowN oF vArL coNsrRucrl4ftl Liji
PERMTT APPLTCATTON roRullf'.-----ittir ,rl.<h,/ tr^ri' xoy I flggl
pn.40s'//{2-
Contractor:Town of Vail
Phone Number:
Town of Vail
Ptrone Number:
Reg. NO.
Mechanical Contractor:
Address:
** * **************** * * *********** FOR
BUILDING PERMIT FEE:
PLWBING PERMIT FEE:
MECHANICAL PERMIT FEE:
ELECTRICAL FEE:
oFFICE USE *******************************
BUILDING PIAN CHECK FEE: 55'Ao-
PII]MBING PIAN CIIECK FEE:
Reg. NO.
I'IECHANICAL PIAN CHECK FEEs
RECREATION FEE3
OTHER TYPE OF FEEra,,utAt),-3--&-CLEAN-UP DEPOSTT:
DRB FEE:
BUTLDTNG:
STGNATURE:
ZONING:
SIGNATT]RE:
/Od t Oa
?4a. ao
CI.EAN I'P I}EPOSIT REFT'ND TO:
VALUATION
Conments:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
ALL CONTRACTORS
TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS
MAY 9, 1994
WHEN A'PUBLIC WAY PERMIT'
DEPARTMENT
IS REQUIRED
/",-'c6
Dale: tl^*-7U . ,Ffeas regarding the need for a'Public Way Permit":
NO )r
Y
1)
2)
3)
4)
s)
YES
ls this a new residence?
ls demolition work being performed
that requires the use of the right
of way, easements or public property?
ls any utilitY work needed?
ls the driveway being rePaved?
ls different access needed to site
other than existing drivewaY?
ls any drainage work being done
affecting the right of way, easements'
or public proPerty?
7\ ls a "Revocable Right CI Way Permit'
required?
8) A. ls the right of way, easements or
public property to be used lor staging'
6)
x
parking or lencing?
B. It no to 8A, is a Parking, staging
or fencing plan required by Community Y
DeveloPment?
tf you answered yes to any of these questions, a "Public Way Permit' must be obtained.
"iublic Way permit" appiications may be obtained at the Public Work's ofiice or at
Community'Developmeni. tt you have any questions please call Charlie Davis, the Town
of Vail Construction Inspector, at 479-2158-
I have read and answered allthe above questions.
Gk [,f e-4 A'J\", b'| ( ->s -2v
Date
o Job Name Co b Signature
1)
. PUBUC WAY PEFMIT PROCESS
How it relates to Building Permil:
Fill out the our check list provided with a buildino oermit aoolicalion.
lf yes was answered to any of the above questions then a "Public Way Permit' is
required. You can pick up an application at either Community Development,
located at 75 S. Frontage Road or Public Works, located at 1309 VailValley Drive.
Notice sign otfs lor utility companies. All utilities must field verify (locate)
respective utilities prior to signing application. Some utility companies require up
to a 48 hour notice to schedule a locate).
A construction tratfic control plan must be prepared on a separate sheet of paper.
This plan will show loc€fiions ol alltratfic control devices (signs, cones, etc.) and
lhe work zone, (area of construstion, staging, etc.)
Sketch of work being performed must be submitted indicating dimensions (length,
width & depth of work). This may be drawn on the tratfic control plan or a site
plan for the job.
Submil compleled application lo the Public Work's office for review. lf reguired,
locates will be scheduled lorthe Town ol Vail Electricians and lrrigation crew. The
locates are take place in the morning, but may require up to 48 hours to perform.
The Public Work's Construction Inspector will review the application and approve
or disapprove the permit. You will be contacted as to the status and any changes
that may be needed. Most permits are released within 48 hours of being received,
but please allow up lo one week to process.
As soon as permit is processed, a copy will be faxed to Community Development
allowing the "Building Permit'to be released. Please do not confuse the "Public
Way Permit'wilh a "Building Permit'to do work on a project site itself.
Note:
'The above process is for work in a right-of-way only.
'Public Way Permlt's are valid onlv until November 15th.
'A new Public Way Permit is required each year.
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
75 .oulh |rontegc load
vtil. colot tlo 81657
(303) 479-2L38 or 479'2L39 otflco of communlty dcYclopmQrt
BUILDiNG PERI'iIT ISSUANCE TIME FRAME
If this permi.t requires a Town of Vail Fire Departnent Approval ,
Engineer''s (Pub1 ic Works) review and approval , a Planning Departnent
review or Health Department review, and a review by the Bui'lding
Department, the estimated time for a total review may take as long
as three weeks.
Al'l cormercial ('large or smal'l) and all mu1ti-family permits wi1l
have to follow the above mentioned maximum reouirenents. Residentia'l
and small projects should take a'l esser arTpunt of time. However, if
residential or smaller projects impact the various above mentioned
departments with regard to necessary review, these projects nny
also take the three week period.
Every attempt will be made by this departnent to expedite this
perm'i t as. soon as possi bl e.
I, the undersigned, understand the p1 an check procedure and time
frame.
. ntl. n
f Date Hork Sheet was turned lnrc tne
Cormuni ty Development Department.
('lo
Project Name
lili
75 3oulh l?onlage toad
Yail. colorado 81657
(303) 479-2t38 ot 479-2L39
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
olllce of communlty dev.lopmcnl
ATL CONTRACTORS CT'RRENTLYI-, REGISTERED WITTI TIIE
TOWN OF VAIL
TOWN OF VAIL PUBTIC WORKS/COMMI'NITY DEVEIOPIIENT
lflARCH 16, 1988
CONSTRUCTION PARKING & I4ATERTAL STORAGE
In sumnary, Ordinance No. G states that it is unlawful for anv person to litter, track or deposit any soil , rock, sand, debris or naterial, including trash dumpsters, portable toilets and workmen vehicles upon any street, sidewalk, alley or public p1?9e or any portion thereof. The right:of-way on aII Town of Vail streets and roads is approxinately 5 ft. off pavenent.This ordinance will be strictly enforcEd by the Town of Vail rglJic works Department. persons found violating this ord.inance will be given a 24 hour written notice to remove said rnaterial .In tbe event the person so notified does not cornply with the notice within the 24 hour tirre specified, the pulfic Works Departrnent will remove said naterial at the expense of person notified. The provisions of this ordinance snlff not bL applicable to construction, maintenance or repair projects of any street or alley or any utilities in the right-a-way.
To review ordinance No. G in full, please stop by the Town of Vail Building Department to obtain a copy. rtranx you for your cooperation on this natter.
Rea
Y
d and acknowl-edged by:
to os it ionl ReI ati--Etrlp
Date
It->?^fc/
(i.e. contractor, owner)
75 routh hontage road
Y!il, colorado 81657
(303) 4792138
(3rxt) 479213!l
oftice of community development
NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS/OI{NER BUILDERS
Effective June 20, lgg!, the Town of Vail Building Department has
devetoped the following procedures to ensure that new construction
sites iave adequatel-y-eltanlished proper drainage from building
sites along and adjacent to Town of Vail roads or streets.
The Town of vail Public works DePart&ent will be required to
inspect and approve drainage adjacent to Towo of Vail roads or
strlets and thC installation of teurporary or Permanent culverts at
access points frora the road or street on to the construction site.
such approval must be obtained prior to any request for inspection
by the Town of Vaj_I Building Department for footings or temporary
electrical or any other i-nspection. Please call 4'79-2160 to
request an inspection from the Public works Department. Allow a
minimum of 24 hour notice.
AIso/ the Town of Vail Public works Department will be approving
all final drai-nage and culvert installation with resulting road
parching as necessary. such approval must be obtained prior to
Fjnal Certificate of Occupancy assuance-
75 South Frontage Road
.Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2 I s8 / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303-479-2452
1
IilFORMATION IEEDED I{HEf, APPLIII{G FOR A I'IECITAIIICBI, PERUIT
Department of Comnunirt' Deve lopntenr
HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS.
TO SCALE FLOOR PLAN OF MECHANICAI ROOM WITH EQUIPMENT
DRAWN IN TO SCAI-,E, WITH PHYSICAL DIMENSTONS AND BTU
RATTNGS OF ALL EQUIPMENT IN MECHANICAL ROOM.
sHow srzE AND LOCATION OF COMBUSTTON AIR DUCTS, FLUES'
VENT CONNECTORS AND GAS LINES.
NOTE WHETHER ELEVATOR EQUIPT.TENT WILL ALSO BE INSTALLED IN
MECHANICAL ROOM.
3.
4.
FAILI'RE IO PROVIDE TTIIS IITFORI{ATIOI{ WILL DEIIAI YOUR PERUIT.
Plan Review Based on
the 1991 Uniform Codes
NAME: COLORADO LOG & ANTLER DATE: ll-28-94
ADDRESS: 450 LIONSIIEAD
VA CIfLORADO
OC PANCY: B-2
TYP OF CONSTRUCTION: ll-FR
CONTRACTOR:BLl CONST
ARCHITECT: NONE
ENGINEER: NONE
PLANS EXAMINER: DAN STANEK
CORRECTIONS REQUIRED
The items listed betow are not intended to be a comptete listing of all possible code
""q.,i.e-entsintheadoptedcodes.Itisaguidetose|ectedsectiorrs.ofthecodes.The following is not to be construed to be an approval of any violation of any of
the provision-s of the adopted codes or any ordinance of the Town of Vail'
1.FIREDEPARTMENTAPPRoVALISREQUIREDBEFOREANYwoRKcANBE
STARTED.
THIS PERMIT IS GOOD FOR AN INTERIOR REMODEL ONLY'
FIELDINSPECTIoNSAREREQUIREDToCHECKFoRCODECOMPLIANCE.
ASTRUCTUALENGINEERMAYBEREQUIREDToAPPROVEANYSTRUCTUAL
CIIANGESBEFoREAFRAMINGINSPECTIONISAPPROVEDBYToV.
5.VENTILATIONISREQUIREDASPERSEcT05oFTTIEI99IUBC.
6. ALL PENTETRATIONS IN WALLS, CEILINGS, AND FLOORS TO BE SEALED
WITH AN APPROVED FIRE MATERIAL.
T.FIRBDEPARTMENTAPPROVALoFFIREANDSPRINKLERSYSTEMIS
REQUIRED BEFORE FRAMING OR FINAL INSPECTION WILL BE APPROVED
BY TI{E TOWN OF VAIL.
8. LOG SIDING WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE SEALED WITH A FIRE RETARDENT
SEALER.
3.
4.
/n
Colorado Log & Antle{$r''}SifVl
:::1'::1oj::'^,." {Io rou z{ rsst Proposcd FloorPlan
11./11/94
TOV"C(]Iil|VI. DIV, DIPT
i'S
<-E
>,*
<-P
Construct
Nfovable paitition sided with
1" x 5" hau log siding
r>
3ia
€
-+S
<i
:!
APplj
1 " x 6" half Io11 siding
Rcmove
6' scction ofe)(istingwali to
create free rnoverrcnt oPeninS.
Op€ninq will b€ finished,
hi,r^evJr no doorwill be
lnstallod
First lloor
Scalc: 1"=
plan
'o
X€move
CarPet & arPet Paddint
Conrtmd
1. Ralrset l" x Z'Pti€ diiPsto concrse noor
2- Apply r" x 8 rou8hsawnPh-e fl@ring fo
pine slriPs att, ched to Iloot
*f "t/ail
,-:: *fti1\rf
l '' .: f :
tr- -. ---; \i :
'/'zt-ry'
Colorado Log & Antler
Lionshead Store
Proposed Floorplan
11/z'.t../94
Red:love
ExistinS l,cw wall that sepes at lofr ratling for oPening to sPac€ below
Cor6truct
35'hith Pine log railint wlth 12" Dameter Poets and 4' sPindleg
ru^nin8 horizontaly with sFacint 50 that a 4" ball trEy nol pass
through raUirgat anY Polnt
I
I v
24',
J1
Second Floor - Loft Area
&ale 1" = 8'
t#
Remove
Carp€t & catPet Padding
Corutnrct
Apply 1" x 8" rou8h sar{n plm noodnt diEctly to flco!
t --TNSPECTION
,,t,1/DA.TE 'JOB NAME
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:
-,'.l
tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED tr DISAPPROVED
PLUMBING:BUILDING:
O FOOTINGS / STEEL EI
tr
0
tr
D
D
D
tr
UNDERGFIOUND
ROUGH / D.W.V,
BOUGH / WATER
tr
tr
c
tr
tr
'E
o
FOUNDATION / STEEL
FRAMING
FTOOF & SHEEF
PLYWOOD NAILING
GAS PIPING
TNSULATION
SHEETROCK
POOL / H. TUB
FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR d
O FINAL
ionRecttotls:
DATE INSPECTOR
I
tNsFEcn*oN. TFguEsr
479-2138
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
DATE JOB NAME
Mof
CALLER
IUtr,J THUR FRI PM
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:WED
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDEBGROUND
D ROUGH i D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
- ROOF & SHEEB
" pLYWooD NAILING
tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION
O SHEETBOCK
tr POOL / H. TUB
FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
O HEATING
D ROUGH O EXHAUST HOODS
O CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
FINAL FINAL
tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED D DISAPPROVED tr APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
DATE INSPECTOR
E I
SPE
rnun-.--f ni"
'1,1'j IN
.,f\ i .",;.tji ;t i l' ,,
,{' i ,.
PERMIT
DATE
ME NU EROFP
r lrl t!
ROJECT
JOB NAME
CALLER .. .
AM
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:ruES wEo ,PM.,
BUILOING:
T] FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
D UNDERGROUND
D ROUGH / D.W.V.
D ROUGH / WATER
D FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
,- ROOF & SHEEFI
" PLYWOoD NAILING
tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION D POOL / H. TUB
D SHEETROCK NAIL
tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT D SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL tr FINAL
U APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
"tr'OISAPPROVED .,b"F INSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
IN
t
SPE 'I - i..
t
T NUMBER OF PROJECT
:ll JoBNAME
CTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
479-2138 PERMI
DATE
CALLER
'ir',q$, '{G;i WED THUR FRI
,i
AM PM READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:
BUILDING:
O FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
N UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH i D.W.V,
tr ROUGH / WATER
D FOUNDATION / STEEL
O FRAMING
,- ROOF & sHEER
" PLYWOOD NAILING
T] GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION D POOL i H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
O FINAL
ELECTRIGAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
N HEATING
tr ROUGH D EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
O FINAL
p'."iheenovro
dORRECTIONS:
O DISAPPROVED INSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
t
PE INS CTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
479-2138
PERMI
DATE
T NUMBER OF PROJECT
INSPECTION:MON
JOB NAME ' :':' ----j:--'-
CALLER
TUES THUR FRI PM AM WED READY FOR
LOCATION:
BUILDING:
E FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMEING:
E] UNDERGROUND
O ROUGH / D.W.V.
O ROUGH / WATER
O FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
- BOOF & SHEER
" pLYWooD NAILING
tr GAS PIPING
O INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELEGTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
O FINAL D FINAL
tr DISAPPROVED O REINSPECTION REQUIRED
E AFPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
DATE INSPECTOR
t e
rNsftrcJJ-oN. $EouEsr
PERMIT NUMBEF OF PROJECT 479-2138
DATE JOB NAME
INSPECTION:
CALLER
MON TUES WED AM THUR]' FRI Ptvt
READY FOR
LOCATION:
EUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
E ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
E FRAMING
- ROOF & SHEER
" PLYWooD NAILING
D GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
O TEMP, POWER
MECHANICAL:
O HEATING
O ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL tr FINAL
C\irr \-
F's-
t-.\_,\\--sl
\
s T-s--I
\S t.\
{$
-\
\s--
>\
D REINSPECTION REQUIRED tr DISAPPROVED tr APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
DATE INSPECTOR
DE(]- ?-94 l.rEl] 2at!31 SA1
rul r lr{t
4lao FM
I -ac' * Aurt-rA e,
I * (r6E* z\14
Jer/tu Zt rw twffttwl rtu J A
o817
7 t]NL-L, #,V6[-+wT
P. 82 ?-93r HEfi 2g=3 L sAr
IIEC- -7-94 l.lED Z.g=3? 5ftI
lil
)ltllll :1,'
ti tti
irl"ri.
tt:
iti
l
;,:.:
;r
tlill,r r I
ii:;l
i;'r'
lr'llfi
i 1r,,,. .rj
.: : ll
it,i,t'.'
, ]l :
,i:ll t
o z
F
=t
uJ o-
i
\c o.l
a
UJ
LU
LL
F
=IJ
td 1a=IJE lclPr
trIJF4
d ltr{p+tr{o oo od l>PIFIA l<o UI 4O 14 :f (JH(,a<Ja <ifH
.-tHz lul d t>oHo H<F 01 |r'l |4 HO.xcls)14 F-t c I t<clcto a 4,)
a
IJJ
z
o z o J
.6 (,z
2 o
rl -d- | ru.l
Or .,., -1, F i lE 3r5 cn lO -t t,ll
tl
ir I l*
rlv zt lk
A,E frz F I: c|=E IE ZE > l= M(,&to lz
3 r; e=
t!J qJ o
i
cE o F o
F z
o
(r
:l I nt v
N
:l :
s{
o
o
;
.9
o-
CL (!
=o t-
q)
o.
9(Ei
lt.
o\
o -c
o
yC (g
o
c,
=f o
o
=c --l
j
CL tcL ;(!
''t.9 :>rO
3g;s1
=o6(/r': e R€i
iEE8'
o x !'6'
c"o>e:5i *60d
iPF-r E >=:
B3;=.-=->6 ;i: o-N
=
F F-:;EEi,.0;99 F5;',i= s-5
sEis oi6-sr sfi:€
E6:F
iE€ E
XlEe iEi:
-- c P
!;o4,
,r O+.=FE: s
o i;E
i Fa;
E:F]'
;g;E 9Eo -e5g*
a.t
O o
o
\o N
ca
=
E
uJ
o-
z
o
5
v
z
J
=
J
UJ
o z 6
=f
=I (J
=
UJ
uJ t!z
tr
E.
l].t g.
o
.B
3 g
uJ
z
-tt
uJ o
F 6
f z
tlt
o
x
F
ul
l
F.]
'-l
J J
B
U)
I.IJ ul
t'|-
E
=
uJ
.L
J
F o
z
=f E
e.F
uJ J t!
z 6
.J
4
2
I
L!
=
NOtrvn'tvA
-l Fll Fll <l Bl
(JI zl HI
E,I
fil 'l 3l
sl rdl Fl
zl ,.\ |
=l c,l zl
t-l I >t ol EI rdl el
x
B z. \L oo Az t9
a
LIJ o
UJ z tu
a\l
c\l
>E
-I
z
F^
F9 66 z>.O(J <)z rL<oq
=9 r (\J
zl
9l
EI
=
{
LL
o
g.
LIJ
o-
F
:l
=l
il
;l z1
tr
6 o
><)<X lz le
l3 l9r t5 l'
t-l3 Ir!tz
.. >l o ul
llt ul z
g)
L
tr
UJ
o-
J
z
E o
u,.l l
E
ul z
9
I
l-
F
t ..zz
a z-
= ; l<J T lr
o r t=
rrl ll
I .;l T]
;ou)tr!!
>[>cc
8o <z
o
ur o
z
it
z
tr u)
co
H
tr)o O r-
UJ t a o
-)z o
F (L
IJJ :z
ul
F
F-+
=s (f .--l
UJ (L
rl-N Op4 >H OE oE O>
lz
HE zo
z
ta Y zQ
coo >z
O- L!
a
.\F
J I.J
O u,.t
E :
UJ (L
t!o
u.l o z
l o
CN
F (!
cc
o-
lll -h=
dLU >(!OL oo
:>LJF ul
J
tr
LIJ o
F
o
o
(D
c
F
o
o
--C:'
E
=G,
lrJ o-z I F (J f
E,F a z o (J
trT
F c
Y J
I
.l
lEl r"i t(nl p]I
tsl I r4l I r4l
l?/(
I t,^tv tz
,J
rlL
I
I
tr4
t\:Itn I[4
I IE tn t<
I r'1 l>
I I ..I u.J t>l<lz
tal t--
rl
I o-
=(J
I
OI ;rl
*t
>-'l NI b|
"\uJl
=l 4
B o
E
c\t
(f)
N
I II I ll-ll'tl ll ti tua Iu{
tcl
=l 1 Et <tr tr|=o
I fl O\l sl
eld
sl +
:I P <l -t >l
+l lrl
=l u
-t :'
z
H ts
H v)z
N
I
I f,l I rl .nl ol -l
.il
Zl or
8lE
Tl r il o'
<l \T >l o\
bl
zl
3l ol FI
H
^/.H
tLl
Fl
at z
l|l |ll Il tl
l?l t(t I rll
l5l
t=l ttu lol
=l 3l c El ol ul trI FI F
=.1
El
Jl -l
iI ol
zl
3l ol H
I
I
"l
!l >l
ru
3l ,
et ;FI F g
E
L]J
3
uJ
=f
E
<F
t!<zE L!F (aZ
<o OF
-<
^t ;.i.'iF 1Z
r.r.J O
-o
E oo zr
=<>(ts
fF
d- zo
ix !lF z<)
=<--= w
YZ >U
t
El;
UJ
*E f-F Oz
tr
a t!
a
IFIIIFI 9+K
,- \,' ' ,..-,' .'.' "-'
I
Job Name:
Legal DescriPtion: Lot
TOWN OF VAIL CONSTRUCTION
PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
DATE:--
OUT CO!4PLETELY OR
PERI.TIT TNFORMATION
D I\D PlAt{L'alAA*"'
PERlrrr lt40q5
IT I'!AY NOT BE ACCEPTED
******* * ** * ******************
I.("urrurnn t l-Plumbing 1y'-ntectricat t
Job Address:
Block Filing sugDrvrsroNt
owners Name: ftltTt{ P4''t * Address '
Architect:Address:
General DescriPtion:
'/.work cl-ass: [ ]-New [ /f-Alteration [ ]-
Number of Dwetling Units:
Nlmber and TYPe of FirePlaces: Gas
L*********************************
-v1...--
Electrical Contrac tot rW
Address:
Plunbing
Address:
Mechanical Contractor:
Address:
itional
Nurnber
[ ]-Repair [ ]-other
of Accommodation Units:
Appliances
VALUATIONS
ELEcrRrcA:.,z t-lz$x.f OTHER: $
MECHANICAL: T-TOTAL: $
-
Gas Logs- Wood/Pellet-
*********************************
Phone Number:
Town of Vail
Phone Number:
Town of vail Reg. No.
Phone Number:
Town of vail Reg. No.
Phone Number:
tiutl,otNe : s
Address:
Contractor:
#Eiza--
INFORMATION *************
dYl Town of VaiI R
*******A*.*+**+
ec. ro.qjj9-t)
BUILDING:
SIGNATURE:
ZONING:
SIGNAfi'RE:
CLE&N I'P I}EPOSIT REFTIND TO:
* aaff +r
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
ALL CONTRACTORS
TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS
MAY 9, 1994
WHEN A ''PUBLIC WAY PERMIT'
DEPARTMENT
tS REQUIRED
Job Namel
3Ltjr, *.-rr-*marding rhe need for a "pubricway permit':
YES NO
1)
2)
ls this a new residence?
ls demolition work being performed
that requires the use ol the right
of *"y,'t"ttments or public property?
ls any utilitY work needed?
ls the drivewaY being rePaved?
ls ditferent ac'cess needed to site
other than existing drivewaY?
ls any drainage work being done
atfeciing the right ol way' easemenls'
or public ProPertY?
ls a'Revocable Right CI WaY Permit"
required?
A. ls the right of waY, easements or
public property to be used lor slaging,
iarking or lencing?
B. ll no to 8A, is a Parking, staging
or fencing plan required by Community
3)
4)
5)
6)
7',)
8)
DeveloPment?
lf you answered yes to any of these questions, a "Public wayfermit" must be obtained'
'pubtic Way Pemit" 6;i16gt;;s mi be obtained at the Public Work's otfice or at
Community OevetopmJ'ni. tt you hav^e any questions please call Cha1ie Davis' the Town
ot V"it Construclion lnspector, at 479-215€'
I have read and answered allthe above questions'
Job Name Gontracto r's Sig natu re
It
Date o
PUBUC WAY PERMIT PROCE$S
How it relates to Building Permit:
1) Fill out the our check list provided with a buildino Dermit aoolication.
lf yes was answered to any of the above questions then a "Public Way Permit" is
required. You can pick up an application at either Community Development,
located irt 75 S. Fronlage Road or Public Works, located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive.
Z) Notice sign otfs for utility companies. All utilities must field verity (locate)
respectivd utitities prior to signing application. Some utility companies require up
to a 48 hour notice lo schedule a locate).
3) A construction tratfic control plan must be prepared on a separate sheet of paper.' This pla6 will show locations of all tratfic controldevices (signs, cones, etc.) and
the work zone, (area of construction, slaging, etc.)
4,) Sketch of work being performed must be submitted indicating dimensions (length,
width & depth ot wort1. This may be drawn on the tratfic control plan or a site
plan for the job.
5) Submit completed application to the Public Work's office for review. lf required,
locates lvill 6e sched'uled lorthe Town of Vail Electricians and Inigation crew. The
locates gre take place in the morning, but may require up lo 48 hours to perform.
6) The public Work's Construction lnspector will review the application and approve
or disapprove the permit. You will be contacted as to the status and any changes
tnat miy be needed. Most permits are released within 48 hours ol being received,
but please allow up to one week to process.
7) As soon as permit is processed, a copy will be faxed to community Developmenl
allowing the "Building Permit" to be released. Please do not confuse the 'Public
way Permit'with a "Building Permit" to do work on a project site itself.
Note:
*The above process is lor work in a right-of-way only'
*Public Way Permit's are
*A new Public Way Permit is required each year.
Department of Communiry Developtnettt
75 South Frontage Road
-Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-21 38 / 479-2 1 39
FAX 303-479-24s2
2.
If,FORT.iATIOf, TEEDED WHEf, APPLIIIG FOR A ]lEClrNlICAL PERMIT
3.
4.
HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS.
TO SCALE FLOOR PLAN OF MECHANIC_AL ROOM WITH EQUIPMENT
DRAWN rN ro scd;; witn-envjJcal DTMENSToNS AND Bru
ieliiies oF ALL nouipupwr rN MEcHANTcAL RooM'
SHOW SIZE AND LOCATION OF COMBUSTION AIR DUCTS' FLUES'
vilrr coNuEcroRs AND GAs LINES'
NOTE WHETHER ELEVATOR EQUTPMENT WILL ALSO BE INSTALI-'ED IN
MECHANICAL ROOM.
FAILTIRE TO PROVIDE THIS II{FOruATIOtr YTILI' DEI'AT AOUR PERUIT'
o
75 south lronlage road
Yall, colorsdo 81657
(303) 4792138
(303) 479'2139
otlice ol community developmenl
NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS/OWNER BUILDERS
Effective June 20, 1991, the Town of Vail Building Department has
developed the following procedures to ensure that new construction
sites have adequatefy established proper drainage from building
sites al-ong and adjacent to Town of Vail- roads or streets '
The Town of vail Pubtic works Department will be required to
inspect and approve draittage adjacent to Town of vail roads or
strLets and the installation of temporary or Permanent culverts at
access points from the road or street on to the construction site.
Such apiroval must be obtained prior to any request for inspection
by the Town of Vail Buitding Department for footings or temporary
electrlcal or any other inspection. Please call- 4'1 9-2L60 to
request an inspection from the Public works Department. Allow a
minimum of 24 hour notice.
A.lso, the Town of Vail Public works Department will be approving
all final drainage and cufvert installation with resulting road
parching as neceasary. Such approvaf must be obtained prior to
Fjnat Certificate of Occupancy issuance.
75 south lronlage toad
Yail, colorado 81657
(303) 479-21.38 ot 479-2L39
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUB.TECT:
off lce ol communlly developmenl
ALL CONTRACTORS CI'RRENTLYL REGISTERED WITH TIIE
TOWN OF VAIL
TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS/COMMIINITY DEVELOPMENT
MARCH 15, 1988
CONSTRUCTION PARKING & MATERIAL STOR,AGE
In sumnary, Ordinance No. 5 states that it is unlawful for any person to litter, traek or deposit any soil , rock, sand, debris or naterial , including trash durnpsters, portable toilets and
workmen vehicles upon any stleet, sidewalk, alley or public pLace or any portion thereof. lhe right:of-way on all Town of Vail streets and roads is approximately 5 ft. off pavement.This ordinance will be strictly enforced by the Town of Vail Public Works Department. Persons found violating this ordinance will be given a 24 lrour written notice to remove said naterial .fn the event the person so notified does not comply with the notice within |-h.e 24 hour time specified, the Public Works
Department will remove said material at the expense of person notified. The provisions of this.ordinance shall not be applicable to construction, maintenance or repair projects of any street or alley or any utilities in the right-a-way.
To review Ordinance No. 6 in full, please stop by the Town of Vail Building Department to obtain a copy. Thank you for your cooperation on this uratter.
d and acknowledged by:
v
Tosition/Relationship to Project (i.e. contractor, owner)
Rea
Y
Fu=
I
75 south tronlsge road
Ytil, colo.ado 81657
(303) 479-2L38 or 479-2L39 oftlc. ol communlty devclopmenl
BUILDING PERI.IIT ISSUANCE TIME FRAI'IE
If this permi.t requt:res a Town of Vail Fire Department Approval ,
Engineel ''s (.Pub'l ic tlopks) reyiew and approval , a Plann,i ng Department
review or Health Department review, and a review by the Building
Department, the estimated tine for a total review may take as long
as three weeks.
Al'l conrmerci a'l (l arge or sma'l'l ) and al 'l mul ti -fami 1y perm i ts wi I I
have to follow the above mentioned max'imum requ'irements. Residential
and small projects should take a'l esser amount of time. However, if residential or smaller projects inpact the various above mentioned
departments with regard to necessary review, these projects may also take the three week period.
Every attempt will be made by this department to expedite thi s
penni't as seon as poss'ible.
I, the undersigned, understand the plan check procedure and time
frame.
Agreed to by.
Project Name
Communi ty Devel opment Department.
t)to-io.tr. (*
(*
| .t-',\*tc.€\'*'t
d
tc.
\6
IG!
\J
^-T-l -r .qE@o'
't:3 €
! { !o
'., . -i ;F
i..l
3 (\
s P
F $
o I
f*b 'ru
o o
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
{t
JO8 NAME DATE .,.-'::1 ,r.-, ,
"
CALLER
INSPECTION:MON TUES WED THUR FRI
tr DISAPPROVED D REINSPECTION REQUIRED
AM PM READY FOR
LOCATION:
b'Rppnoveo
lr.rstcnoN REQUEsT
TOWN OF VAIL
479-2138
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PL
tr
D
D
D
tr
o
tr
UMBING:
O FOUNDATION / STEEL
UNDERGROUND
ROUGH / D.W.V.
ROUGH i WATER tr FRAMING
tr
tr
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING GAS PIPING
INSULATION POOL / H. TUB
D SHEETROCK NAIL
o
tr FINAL D FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr
tr
o
ROUGH D
tr
tr
EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL D FINAL
CORRECTIONS:
DATE INSPECTOR
PERMIT
--INSPECTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
479'2138 NUMBER OF PROJECT
, i lr ' i- | ' JOB NAME
INSPECTION:MON
DATE
CALLER
TUES WED THUR FRI AM PM READY FOR
LOCATION:
BUILOING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDEFGROUND
D ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEE-
tr FRAMING
-r ROOF & SHEER " PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION
tr SHEETROCK
O POOL / H. TUB
EI. FINAL D FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
D HEATING
tr ROUGH O EXHAUST HOODS
O CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL tr FINAL
tr(APPROVED
eoRRecttotts:
tr DISAPPROVED
/,,
O REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
I
INSFECTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
479-2138 PERMI
DATE
T NUMBER OF PROJECT
JOB NAME
INSPECTION:MON WED THUR FRI
CALLER
TUES AM READY FOR
LOCATION:
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBlNG:
tr UNDERGROUND
D ROUGH / D.W.V,
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
,.- ROOF & sHEER " PLYWOOD NAILING
tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
O SHEETROCK NAIL
N FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT D SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL D FINAL
tr,APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
D DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
Dlign Review Action FOt
TOWN OF VAIL
Category Number
Project Name:
Building Name:
Project Descriplion:
Owner. Address and Phone:
/Address and Phonei /,/.
Legal Description: Lot -l- Block / Subdivision 1. . -, ,--.'/-. ^.--'../ /5t Zone District 44AA
Proiect Street Address:
Comments:
Motion by:
Seconded by:
n Approval
3 Disapproval
;X{ st"tt Approv-al
itions: 1/"
qA<(o nnh.{'{ffif .#4?;%, r64;t
".,,
jlp lu,2,l,
DRB .rpporen.,,oN lWf Kurr*r,, coroRrDo
r.
DATE OF DRB MEETING:
**t*****tt
IEIS APPLICATION }IIUL NOE BE ACCEPIED
SN:IIL .trLL REQUIRED INFORINTION IS SUEUIITED ***r*t****
@:
A. DESCRTPT
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
tatL
a meets and bo
on a separate sheet
legal
and
H./,G NAME OF Mailing APPLICAI{T'RESENTAT
Address:
T
K.
I. NAI'{E OF
*STGNATI'RE (S) :Mailing Address:
Condominlun Approval if applicable. Q<€ le7/n"
DRB FEE: DRB fees, as shown above, ate to be paid at the tlme of submittal of DRB application. lat,er, when applying for a building pernit,, please identlfy the accurate valuation of the proposal. The Town of Vai]will adjust the fee according to the table belor.l, to
FEE SCHEDULE:
wJ,J.J. ggJLrDL LllE tsE Cr\,\,VJ. (Irrry LlJ LtrE LGrl.rIC lr)El9|j\r/' LU rr t ensure the correct fee is paid. €nc-.L / ii$''--'l
FEE PAID: S -/"' \-"j,
FEE SCHEDULE: (*' , .,sp\l*VALUATION 0 - $ 10,000
$1501001 - $ 500,000
$500,001 - s1r 000, 000 $ Over $1r 0001 000
FEE s 20.00 s s0.00-
$100.00
$200.00
$400.00
$500.00
;,^rt'
* DESTGN RSVTEW BOARD APPRO\TAI EXPIRES ONE YEAR II'TER FIIIAI.
APPRO\IEIJ I'NI'ESS A BUII'DING PERMIT IS ISSIIED A}ID CONS!RUCTION IS
STARTED.
**NO APPLICATION I'ILL BE PROCESSED 9TIISOUT OIINER'S SIGNATSRS
-.-
1
r994
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED , Y/I/T4
\.New Construction (S200.00) XMinor Alterat,ion (S20.00)
Addition ($50.00)ddition ($50.00) . , Conceptugl Review (90)
ADDRESs , {bb L'ota herd Cn, /Deet
zoNrNG c'c E'
I,0T AREA: If required,
stamped survey showing
NA}48 OF APPLICANT:Mailing Address:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LoT
Subdivision
If property is described by description, please provide
attach to this application.
applicant must provide a current lot, area.
s -10 s{9,001 - s s0,900
s 50,001 - s 150,000
;\
t\
rti'
ffi{{
_ ---:/
I
rrpRSoN CoNsul.rrn
LIMITED PARTNERSHIF
31O SOUTH MICHIGAN AVENUE, SUITE
'
9OO
cHrcAGo. lL @604
<3121 922-WO
FAX (3la 922-2046
January 26, l-993
l{r. Bruce Banisky
Simpson Housing Corporation Suite 200
320L South Tamarac Drive
Denver, Colorado 8023L
Dear Bruce:
This is to advise you that the Treetops Condominium Association Board approves the concept of your Garage-p1aza window reguest as reflected in recent letters and the engineering drawing,subject to the following.
There were certain lessor restrictions relative to the
window use placed on the project by the Board and mernbership:
According to Tirn Roble, the windoers are to be used for light and ventilation rather than for neon-lighted displays or other objectionable usage, We agreed. Another objectionable usage would be to place signs in the windows which had the effect of causing vehicle or pedestrian traffic in the Treetops Iiving quarters and owner parking areas--and thus getting around our earlier turn-down of signs on the building ends. Displays, which are reasonable and which do not cause problems, are fine.
After discussion, we wiII not ask our Engineer (Boyle)to approve your plan from a technical (e.9., structural,mechanical, etc,) point of view at this tine, reserving the right to do so after the Town of VaiI has spoken on technical matters.
a
Pn
a
G
)
PMH
TOWN OFVAIL
DEPARTMENT OP OOTTMUNITY DEVE-OPf,IENT
-/ I /,,/ ,' l
xt*re ,J {J'-4 4/4<-L.tc.c
PROJDCT
PAYABLE TO TOWN OF \,AIL
100m42415
o100m42412 XEROXCOPIES
to00{J42412
OURS INSPECTION FEES
VTC ART PROJECT DONATION
AID DESIGN REVIEW BO
0l 0m042371
0l 00m42371 BUILDINC INVESTICATION
01 0000 4l
0l 0000 41330
IOR ALTERATION TMORETHAN IOO
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
SUBDIVISION
0t 0000 41330
0l 0000 41330
MINOR AMEND
ZONING CODEAMEND 0l 000041330
0l 0000 41330
u\ /l i. /.1 ./
Rerum to /t/tt{-r- " !cJ/^1iFU,
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW
PRoJECT: -7?n",-tzP.--, fL'z z1-
DATE SUBMITTED:
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
Cc.-}., "y'') t.'J . "c +4 7't4/) .?
PUBLIC WORKS
Reviewed oy: rrn/,i{r= l,4t2t/cr: oate:
Comments: /
,/1 /"'f / , -/r' ./,/l! | (4
'1. z.qz
C--V ;*e t f"*-*
__.t'_;
Tll t $ A(illti;l':MFNT (ltr [{'(l
1llB4 , bY nrtrl l,ntwr,r'n 'l'lll'l
f (rf rr,(l ttt ttn "Vnt l " , nlld
f)r.rndomln I 11p1 lPgrrc "tt. Irrn,
r98{g$
**JnXr-t t',2{-L.(*-
J0lll{r,r I | '.'rl-i "
ACRNEIGNT l.rCl | 'r
'l.r l/ I r: iH'[]
,',l,li #$*t,1^l,nirln:i1*1uili.''.r ni, i r .ii' r,'- '
r lro ROAltfl OF ltl ltli('T()llfl '.r I 'l t'r'rit I tl'ri
h.rf.\tntrf tr!! frrfartfr,(l t.l i{ "'J ft't}i' 11111 .
UIITN}.:SSETII:
$H!;nEAS, TrooTopn hrr.e euthorlty to enter tnto 1he I ';rslr ttr
sale of tho alr.npace rtghtn ebovo r.ha ortfrtlnB parklnE t{fl rnt'f'
nf.ructure (horcliraf tor referr'od to it r,ho "Sttb.1oc't Jtl6prrrlt' )
i,rcni"O at-TrooT.ps 1,ontlomJrtlun PtoJ€ct (herolnAf tor '.of
elrr'{l i o
as tho "Fro.lect") on bohrlf of the olnera ol tho undtvtdr tl
lntereets oi tlre Eonor&l conmon olemohta Of the ProJect i ,rnrl
WItERf,AS, ValI has reqtlestt'd that certeln n'gtrlctlons regnrdl ng
an erFployee unlt t'e placed on the SubJect Properry'
NOI{,TllrnD!.oRli,fr,rlhoBunolTsnDor.lerrt($lll.o0)lrnd''lhf'r
gi<rr,rl 'rn.l vul rtuh lo .l(tttH lrl||rst ton , thG ru?f tctoncy of wh I (. lr li hi|rolt)'
ii,:kn,,v locl{ctl , th€ purtlt'B h.irt"to lgfeo lt! follrr*s:
J.Th'rtportlonoftheencl!.1arylacll1i,leeOl|ll},]Srtl;Ji.'ct
Drupcrly comprtsed of two beclroome, tro bEthrooma, de'), k{tclt''n '
itinintr," rivlng ^.trd of f ice spl'ce for- e 1lving aret of flpproxlrinl ely
i,<ino''iqu""e ieet ( referrecl' to as tbe ,,Enployee un I t' ) , shn I I be
ur".' oxclurri vely lrs tho mttntrgor'n unlt foi tho manBgpr rr l t'h(. I'ro''('ct
nrrcl nhnl l not bir *,,. r1', t rurtsilorrnd or convoyod f,rrl'iLrltl ' ll f runr 1'ltr'
t'..nrBlndrrr (Jl the Sut,Jttct l'roporty.
2. The [,mpl<rycc ;'nlt phnll not be lersed or rent ed for llny
pertod oI Jess t-han thlrty (30) consecuttv€ days; rnd, if,lt shell
Lo r.nt*,1 . lt 6he l l tr. reirted ouly to tenrnt' rho po tull-tlo€
,.tnpi "v",'" ln the uppor uagie vrl lly. Th€ Upp€r-Eagle !'nlley nhall
5a'deims<l to ilcludb tlr(! core Valley, Mlnturn, Rad CliIf, Oltnin'
irrisi" v"il Rtrd Avnr , ard tho Furroundlng trai'i.' . A f ttl. l '-1.[nt'
.'rnploy.. ls a pnrnon who works rn averaE€ of thllty (:lo) h('rtrB
ltor neek.
3Therestrrctlonsconteln€dberelnshrllremltlnlnef(!Ct
for a perlod not -nore tlrrn 20 yearrl rtid the life of 'f rFnt' P'tttirrr
from thc dste the cettlficate bf occupancy la lseuod f'rr said trnit''
4. Thla Anreement shnll bu r conveneDt runnlng wl t'tr tho lattrl
rntl shalt bt.nd TIo.rTo1,s, ltF h4lrgr succegBrrrs' antl $!t'r | !inr: ' ttild
"i i *uir."quent losncer"r and ownerA of tho SubJoct I)roJtr'1'1 1 '
TOIT:| ol'
iT'l'UsT i
'v/J!4
C lerk
llr rn dn I I
l, r ( ()L(lltAl(r
I
aoARD OP DtR8CTOR8 0F Tlllili'l'OPs
CONDOMINIUU A8$OCIA'tlOl{ 7-' I
Byr ,1)ir/ETilF;;iT&;Y
STATE OF COLORAI}O
COUNTY OF
;
) rs.
)
My comlnhllon crplrlrr /4/t/Ar
S'fATE OF COLORADO
couNl'Y o' ' jl)tz'n' L/ r-'\-
forcgolng Agrce mcnt rr! reknoilcdgtd bGfofG mc t't - . y -ff . *y
Jq8ll by Edwerd V. stra-u1 rt_Prarldcrrt e! TrCeTqp,r-Cdiii6-m-liriuri
tnd iiihda Aveireh e* gor?gltry sf Tr*?TSt F,md6nlnlrirn Ariochuorr.
Myaomnfilfonrrphcrr @
coNgENT TO AqREEMENT
Plerre Lakes, Lt'j., rr Colorado Llmltcd Partnership, hereby fonc.otr and
tgrear to thc lorogolng Agreem€nt between the Totn of Vall, Coloradc, qnd the lk rd of
Dlreetors of TreeTopr Comronrinium Asloclatlon.
;ffiffint *r ac*nowtcdr*t bctorc me thtr -&:/-?o^y .z) ]'no rotagorng A8roGmint flr rcxnoirlQor.o Darofc me tnlr _*{,. *d'ay oI _&-*bt_ar , lgta, by
'l'O lt N Ub VAllJ, Col,OltAIrO, r munlolprl oofpoFrllon, lor |'rxj on l)oh.lt ol ||i(l
-z-
Llnltod
$TATE OP COLORADO ))r"
)couNrY op dt'alEK
f,ly eomrnbslon erp!rce
, TttG lorcrotn Cqlc'tt to AFG.mltt trt .chrotledf.d bcforc nc y,*#(#1,{maH,filffitd A' Srnron ar sena'.r Perttc or
z. -O ,lJftu 4d; U/
LTI!, r Color{o
.t7
otrlt Fu
7as
-t-
PRo,JEcr , a-^teZt -- - C^^L-, ?Z-t
DATE SUBMITTED Z L.23, ?L DATE OF PUBLIC HEARI}IG - XJN
COMMENTS NEEDED ,,U: A A ,Vzt-t tz',.r<-,i.e,-<-( [
.......".._
/
BRIEF DESCRIPTTON OF THE PROPOSAL:
3k- P;*l-->
PUBLIC WORKS
Reviewed b
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Comments:
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Comments:
RECREATION DEPAF.TMENT
Reviewed by:
Comments:
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW
Date
Date
Date
Date
6- kt-o z.
dmments:
//Y/- o'zo/
Revised 5/I/92 Date Received by the Cornmun:ty
Development Department :
APPLTCAUON FOR
CONDOMINIUI{/TOHNEOT'SE PIAI REX'IEI{(Chapter ).'7 .22 Vail Municipal Code)
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE)
A. APPLICANT TREETOPS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
C/O
MAILING ADDRESS VAIL HOME RNNTALS, ].43 EAST MEADOW DRTVE, STE. 397
@D ti.tN ,. ,, i99p
VAIL, COLORADO 81657
PROPERTY OWNER TMETOPS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATTON
pHONE 3o3-476-222I
rr
APPLICANT' S REPRESENTATTVE VAIL HOME RENTAI,S
ADDRESS f43 EAST MNADOW DRIVE, STE. 397 pHONE 3a3-476-222I
OT{NER'S STGNATT'RE
MAILING ADDRESSC,/O VAIL HOME RENTALS, 143 EAST MEADOI^I DRIVE, STE. 397
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
STREET ADDRESS45O EAST LIONSHEAD CIRCLE, VAIL, COLORADO
LOT__.-_BL0CK_SUBD rVI S ION FILING
F.
APPLICATION F
MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED:
cF{EcK #3/34 )-=---
Two mylar copies and one paper copy of the subdivision plat shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. The plat shall include a sj_te map with the following requirement.s :
a. The final plat shall be drawn by a registerec surveyor in India ink, . or or.her substantial sol-ution, on a reproducible medium (preferably
mylar) wit.h dimension ri" twenty-four by t.hirty-six inches and shatl be at E scale of one hundred feet to one inch or larger with margins of one and one-half to two inches on the Left and one-half inch on all other sides.
Accurate dimensions to the nearest one-hundredth of a foot for all lines, angles and curves used to describe boundaries, streets, setbacks, alleys,easements, structures, areas to be reserved or dedicated for public or conmon uses and other j-mportant features. AlL curves shall be circular arcs and shall be defi.ned by the radius, central-angle, arc scored distances and bearing. All dinensions, both Linear and angular, are to be
determined by an accurate control survey in the field which must balance and close within a limit of one in ten thousand.
Nort.h arrow and graphic scaLe.
A systematic identj.fication of all existing and proposed buildings, units, lots, blocks, and names for all street.s.
An ident.ification of the streets, al1eys, parks,
and other public areas or facilj.ties as shown on the plat, and a dedication thereof to the public
use. An identification of the easements as shown
on the plat and a grant thereof to the public use.
Areas reserved for fut.ure public acquisition shall also be shown on the plat..
A written survey description of the area including the total acreage to the nearest appropriate significant f1gure. The acreage of each lot or parcel shall be
shown in this manner as welI.
.l
$100.00
---_-
y9 6/19/92
WAS IN TO SEE YOtJ
cru|.ErftF 0l?t1
1$
7
OI'AUTY PAd( PFOd'Cfii
t-
g. A description of aII survey monuments, both found and 1,
set, which mark the boundaries of the subdivision, and a description of all monunents used in conducting the survey. Monument perimete! per Colorado statutes. Two perimet.er monuments sball be established as major control monuments, the materials which shalL be
determined by the town engineer.
h. A statenent by the land surveyor explaining how bearing
base was determined.
i, A certificate by the registered fand surveyor as outlined in Chapter L'l .32 of this title as to the
accuracy of the survey and plat, and that the survey
was performed by him in accordance with Coforado
Rewised Statutes t9'13, Title 38, Article 51.
). A certificate by an attorney adnitted to practice in the State of Colorado, or corporate title insurer, that the owner(s) of record dedicating to the public the public right-of-way, areas or facilities as shoern
thereon are the owners thereof in fee simple, free and clear of aLl l-iens and encumbrances except as noted.
k. The proper form for filing of the plat with the Eagle
County clerk and recorder.
l. Certificate of dedication and ownership. Shoufd the certificate of dedication and ownership provide for a dedication of land or improvements to the public, all beneficiaries of deeds of trust and mortgage holders on said real property will be required to sign the certificate of dedication and ownership in addit.ion to the fee simple owner thereof.
m. AIl current taxes must be paid prior to the Townts
approval of plat. This includes taxes which have been bilIed but are not yet due. The certificate of taxes paid must be signed on the plat or a statement from the
Eag1e County Assessors Office must be provided with the submittal information stating that 4L taxes have been
Paici.
n. Signature of owner.
2. The condominium or townhouse plat shall also include floor plans, elevations and cross-sections as necessary to accurately determine individual air spaces and/or ot.her
ownerships and if the project was built substantially the
same as the approved p1ans.
3. A copy of the condominj-urn documents for staff review to assure that there are maint.enance provisions included for aII commonly owned areas.
G. APPROVAL PROCESS, REVIEW CRTTERIA
Upon receiving two copies of a complete submittal along with
payment of the appropriate fee, the zonlng administrator shall route one copy of the site map to the town enginee:: for his review. The zoning administrator shall then conduct this review concurrently. The town engineer shall review the ,submittal and return cotnments and notifications to the zoning administrator who shall- transmit the approval, disapproval or approval with modifications of t.he plat within fourteen days to the applicant.
The zoning administrator shall sign the plat if approved or require modifications on the plat for approval or deny approval
due to inconsistencies wiLh the originally approved plan or faiLure to make other required modifications of the plat.
H. FILING AND RECOFOING
The zoning administrator shall be the final signature reguired on the plat so that the Department of Corununity Development will be responsible for promptly recording the approved plat with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. Fees for recording shall be paj.d by the applicant. The Community Development Department will retain one mylar copy of the plat for their records and wifl record the remaining mylar copy.
Revised 5/l/92
'I Revised 5/L/92 Date Received by the Comrnunity
Development Department :
APPLIC,IIION
'OR coNDoa{rNIUrd/ao}rNEoDsE DIA! RIvIAn (Chapter I7.22 Vail Municipal Code)
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE)A. APPLICANT
I'{ATLING ADDRESS
APPLICANT' S REPRESENTATIVE
ADDRESS PHONE
a
B.
D.
PAID
FILING
CHECK #E.
(DATE)
1. Two mylar copies and one paper copy of the subdivision plat shall be submitted to the Department of Cotnmunity Development. The plat shall include a site map with the following requirements:
a. The final plat shall be drawn by a regLstered
surveyor in India ink, or other substantial solution, on a leproducible medium (preferably
mylar) $rith dimension of tnenty-four by thirty-six inches and shall be aL a scale of one hundred feet.to one inch or larger with margins of one and one-half to two inches on t.he left and one-half inch
on afl other sides.
b. Accurate dimensions to the nearest one-hundredth of a foot for afl lines, angles and curves used to describe boundaries, streets, setbacks, alleys,
easements, structures, areas to be reserved or
dedicated for public or common uses and other important features. All curves shall be circular arcs and shall be deflned by the radius, cehtral angle, arc scored distances and bearing. AII
dimensions, both Linear and angular, are to be
determined by an accurate control survey in the fieLd which must. balance and close within a limit of one in ten thousand.
North arrow and graphic scale.
A systematic identification of all existing and
proposed buildings, units, lots, blocks, and names
for all streets.
An identification of the streets, alleys, parks,
and other public areas or facilities as shown on
the plat, and a dedication thereof to the public
use. An identification of the easements as shown
on the plat and a grant thereof to the public use.
Areas reserved for future public acquisition shaLL
also be shown on t.he p1at.
A written survey description of the area including the
total acreage to the nearest appropriate significant
figure. Ihe acreage of each lot or parcel sha1l be
shown in this nanner as well.
.l
A
PROPERTY OhINER
Cf,flIER'S SIGINA$'RE
I'IAILING ADDRESS
LOCATION OF PROPOSAI:
STREET ADDRESS
LOT_.-_BLOCK_SUBD rVI S r ON
APPLICATION FEE $100. OO
MATERIALS TO BE SUBMTTTED:
TOWJ\{ OF VAII-
D EPA R'i,\{EN T OF C ONIivt LINITY D EVEI.OP }IENT
S.\LES AC'IION FOR}i
ZONL\{G 1u\lD ADDRESS M.n.lS
LTNIFOL\{ I TJI'LDING COD E
UNFORM PLUMSINC CODE
0i 0000 42415 | LTNIFOR.\'{ ]vlECllAilICAL CODE
0r 0000 41540
0l 0000 424 l5
010000{2415
01 0000 .1:4 I 5 U}{IFORI{ FTP.E CODE
0l 0000 42415 I N.llox,rt- ELEcI?JCAL coDE
0l 0000 42415 OT}IER CODE BOOKS
0t 0000 .1r 543 | l lue pnnrrs olYLARs)
0l 0000 42412 I xexox ccPlns I STUDIES
OI OOOO 4237I 1 PENAT-TY FEES / RE-INSPECT1ONS
0l 0000.{r332 i pr-eX Rertl'w RL-CHECK rTE [S.10 PER HR.]
01 0000 42322 OFi' FIOU RS L1\{ S PECI'ION FEI1S
ol 0000 41412 C ONTRACI-ORS LICI:NS ES FEES
0 r 0000 41330
StGiI APPLICA-NON FtE
ADDf IIONAJ- SlGN.r'CE I':E [Sl.fr0 PER
0l 0000 41413
0l 0000 41.113
0r 0000 424{0 VTC ART PRO]ECT DONATION
0t 0000 41331 PRE PAID D]1SIGN RIJVIEW XOARD F}.i]
01 0000 41330 CONDIlIONAL USE PER\{IT
ERIOR ALTERATION ILESS HAN IOO S
0l 0000 41330 LXTERIOR ALTER.{TTON II{ORE THAN 1OO
0l 00co 41330
SPEC]AL DEVELOP},IE}IT DJSTRICT cr 0000 4 r330
0l 000041330 ISPUCL\L DEVI:LOPI1ENT DIS'fRlCT {}vL\JOR A..,\lF}{l)l
0l 0000 4r 330 S PECIAL DEVELOPNfENT DIS]RICT
SLts DIVI-SION 01 0000 413i0
0i 0000{il-i0
0r 000041330 lzoMNccoDEA"\IL\DMENTS
0l 000041330
TOITN OFVAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 8i/657
303 -479-2 I 3 I / 479-2 I 3e
FAX 303-4V9-2452
August 3, 1993
D e partn ent of Cotnn uniry D eve lo pment
Mr. Donald A. Simpson, Managing General Partner
Pierre Lakes, Ltd.
3201 South Tamarac Drive, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80231
RE: Zoning designation for Treetops Plaza, 450 East Lionshead Circle/
Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing.
Dear Mr. Simpson:
This letter serves to confirm the Town of Vail's zoning classification for Treetops Plaza al
Lionshead. The attached zoning map indicates that Treetops Plaza is zoned Commercial
Core ll (CCll). I have enclosed a copy of our zoning map as well as the legend for your
reference.
lf you have any questions, please feel lree to give the Office of Community Development a
call at 479-2138.'dat a,/'
Timothy N. Devlin
Town Planner
Attachments
xc: Bruce Banisky (FAX: 1-745-1585)
File
":ti l!
#
,E
t
:
=co
E
qi
!o F
5?5 FOREST ROAO
LIONSHEAD
TOT LOT
TRACT C I
dfff
950
-# u Jro
fJ iEslruRA'{t
UNPLATTED
RED SANOSTONE
ELEMENTARY
r55l'
9Ih.FILING
NORTH OAY 1
PARKING LOT
LrFrHo{rsE a 555 5
t
SECOND FILI
/1trnoFs
6{6 .
VAIL LION
BRIDGE
IJhPLATTEO
7
j'
i
E
U7
t-
SECOND FILING
L POTATC
BiE
INTERSTATE 70
t/taa/at//aa///rr.taa///,//a//arr/]
i'.y*ty,.itiiitiii)t t a a a t a,..., t / t u r 2 t t t ?..... / a lt.., /.. / / a a a a a / f at/ aaa t ? a t I /a r a //aa/ /a t t t. t / t r/. aaaa//t a a rtt.)i t al a t / a a a/:i<-r a / / aal / / t / a a
ta//.//aa/aara ta/t/aaaa/aaa/ttrtaa/t,a.ra/a//.
\
sDD*.7
9Ih.FILING
,,t,aaaat?/t,/att/.art//tat/aaaaaa2 tt4i t it i :. 1 i i t i i ii i i i
",t
/ t, /. ? t /. / t./' / a t. t" a /. r/\!/, / / a / r r a / /.. a a a a t t t t a /.////rr/t t.a. / r, ttt 1 tztttt,,tttttttt)stt //aa/at/tt/aaa,/a/a//a/a?rtrr/at?ua tt/aa?/t/afr/aa2,a/a/.aaaaa/2/taat a/aaaa//t.a/ta/,aa
o<OY
, a/ t.atat a a'/t ti artaraat..a/ta..aaaraatrta/t/ar)
tt ritiititiiii iittirtttt iriri trrrrrtrttrlzTtii
t t r. t t t t t i r*T{pXc:L.*,Z* t r t t-r,z t-t t-t-t t t-722
Ktiitti:lg.try,t r r r ri rilUii iiir.r-t A ,4iilfr4.rit nii 4i:.tit11niiw ':4i,r.itr.ttiiiirt >ttt-tt*/777?7.t2
)oo o9l )oo
oo )o(oo
oo(loo po(,oo
ffJ oor foo
10.Q O po!f,(
looo.ooo()ooq oook
iiitiitt2 iiii l:.trlrTttvi
ooooo
PAFCEL A f/..////ttrrtaa/rar,aata/,//ta/,/aatatt./a//a,rar///atrt/!a,.:":\__&:ivtii:ffi.iiiiii:it .........4tt,t/.t,/'/atta.a/atatt-?/.tra1,//tr/tara-r,..t.4/attttrit. . 4 ffi
frliiii'l,
)OOO,odoo
a+ffi., t t/// ////?at aa t //// / tt/r,. /,r ttaa r, /'. /.. a /. /,,.. (2y /.a.... t / t t,, t t 2,, )2 2't z t t t t . a a / t-,2.a / / t t /t r a / t / / t a r.,/ r.. /, / a r./ r4., 4 /.,r /t,,.... / t, t t z ) t t, t ? 2 2 72 ? 2 -, 7 2 iaaataa.-.././,.t / a. /., / /, /t,. ' / / r r, /, /.r ,/.
i ii
"ttiiii",,,,"
144 1 411 111 1 1 t- t t' )) .,. 4 a /a/t t / /,/ /.r / /r, J 2 t 2
/ ?,./ /,r7'7'r'r'ia, /,. t a a 1. t //f/r/t2a/////a/rral / /./ / / / r, " /,,' / / / "
/./ / /
/ at, a / a / / / a z, a t / / t,. /,t !// / a a t / / a /.t / / a a a / t /
a a r./ / / / aJr a t 2 / / / t / / a. a . / / / / a a a a a 1,4-i1 a t /, /..,wi;K att/aa/attatata //a/rtaa/at////
Turlll
aaaa
t at-t a a\-Jtfil/aa"/r"tat '?7/aaaa,ra,rt-Tt >*J a/a/at/tt,/ttjttr>
,41 411.4-' f a .t / N-1 h,S4itiitiitti*aaattt/ttri/taatt '.4-.iiii
:OYOY ilaRSi:o:o o:o
o
I s
i3
oX
:a ;t
o o o
i3 xp :o
Xci
XA
o
o
0
o o
o
o
p
o
o o 9;
Xo
)oo
oX
o o
0
o
o
o
p
0x
Xo o o
D o
q:
Xo
o!a
q:o:
:o ;q
:t
7r'rt t'-).7'i
|r'r'rtti-"i1
lT;',.1,1.
dx 59 oX o:
WHITE F
ffi
t7=rr I
tr""o'd
F:.'iTl
is_]-.x
lFirFn a
FtrI
ffi
nTr[
ri=--:-l t^.-.-..t E
F.EA
FA
lV.,:4
lTi'l
E:=
F.--l
Itf#t
f--ir--]'tr--l
E-r---l
SINGLE FAMILY RESIOENTIAL DISTRICT
TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
TWO FAMILY PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
RESIOENTIAL CLUSTER DISTRICT
LOW OENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT
MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT
HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY DISTRICT
.
PUELIC ACCOI{ODAT'OIJ DISTRICT
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
PUELIC USE DISTRICT
COMMERCIAL CORE I DISTRICT
COMMERCIAL CORE 2 OISTRICT
COMMERCIAL CORE 3 OISTRICT
COMMERCIAL SERVICE CENTER OISTRICT
AGRICULTURAL & OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
GREENBELT 8 NATURAL OPEI{ SPACE DISTRICT
HEAVY SERVICE DISTRICT
PARKING
.DISTRICT
ARTER'AL EUSINESS OISTRICT
SKI EASE RECREJTION D'STRICT
HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL OISTRICT
NOTE: ANY LAND , LOT, OR SITE wlT.HlN THE TOWN 0F vAlL
MUNTCTPAL BOUNOARY WHtCH, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL
zoNlNc MAp,DOES NOT HAVE A DESTcNATEO ZONE DISTFICT,
SHALL 8E DESIGNATED GFEEN EELT AND NATURAL OPEN SPAC
z0NE otsTRlcT.
llr TTT rlr
SHC Rrc?JUL 12 tggs
JuIy 8, L993
Mr. Timothy N. Delvin
lown of Vail Office of Community Development 75 So. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 8L657
Dear Tim:
We have a prospective purchaser for Treetops plaza at Lionshead and the contract requires a letter fron a county official in the appropriate depaitment confirming both the zoning classification for Treetops Plaza and that the Plaza is in confornity with this zoning classification.
I would appreciate it if you could write such a letter and fax it to ne at 1-745-L585. Pleise address it to Mr. Donald A. Sinpson, /Managing General Partner, Pierre I-,akes, Ltd., 32oL So. Tamarac Drive, Suite 200, Denver, Colorado 80231.
Thank. you very much for your hel-p. Tim. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 1-750-6656.
Sincerely yours,
SIMPSON HOUSING CORPORATION
,4r''"".- 23,'.^'"4
Bruce Banisky \J
BB/cn
By telecopy: L-479-2L57 and nail
SIT,II'SO\ HOLISING (]()RI'Ott/\TION
:32O 1 5()utl) -l'i|lllirr.l( l)ri\'(' . Suit(' 2(X) . D('n\'('r, C() UO'):] I . :l( ):] -75()-6(i5(i . t:il\ 3O:t -7.t:) -1584)
i{Er" u , _
hdEhfr@s /o/a/rz
T@ E 'f*'n,[^ /-rz,t,
trR@Nde Q-/*^'
I,M ,4, wt*ro 7 o,^ -cd hry. I
Q.,L*'
&: &*.%r.9
--l
o
m Ia
l-(D
l--r = O,l<x a tlYt lm: 6 l.)a:t;x lri g IEP o l'v irl O l<r:l=m=
f -'r r: a
o<
6P ;g (io ct >l .-6
_n
_o
m a
=-t
?mq)
>;-t=z
!, >
l-
llntr
a t r- t}+r LIL IE-
o o z Q
-{fr c o {o z
T m 7
={
-r't !Or-
z<0q,>=
o"z
9z
-lY m m
I
oa\-.- x NY .-{
\O a\' .Tl
m
{
-l
m x m -I
-l o z (-
U'
_-'t
m
o .,,t.
/ n '/-1 \) .t ,/-
(J1 "
c)I
--l
m
-t
z
m
|.d
I
r{
f.J
E t>
l=
t:lF lld IE
lx
t8 l2
lo t>
lq0
l-
F D
l>lo lo
ln
lut
lu)
I tF l5 lLt
I
I L.J
I IE lrt IF
t€
I
lp t=
o
P
t-
c)
-0F.
I
\o
N)
'Tl
t-z
.=ilii o>'r
o Z.\
= --r
>;
o
m
_r
z
o
o
z i
--t
ZF
T<
tz Oo
r m
--l
-
t-
z -l
--t
n
z9)
UZ >m
--l >a.] r-
l-r lo
t€
lz
le t<l>l-lf)
lB lz
ol<
=l>-<tr
t>p
lo ln
E
l-
I
-l
I
I
I
i l-l rfl lO nl{''' iz
t9
t;
t=
lfr
la
lz
l"
I
I
l-i
lo
l€tz
le t<t>
lr-lI
tm lo
lz
n
=
H t-
P t-t.
K
c',
l-{b
t€
lz
p
l>
lF lI rn
lp lz
I IP IF l@ ll
I
5.
I .!.{
le lo I l>l-llr
lB
lz
9)c)-:3d .,9(D
.aoq Q X' \<.rX^,x *x
5E)+
'<Q{{Eit
+ s,*: d'i6
o ::t
)+-o:a
i==:'-z
*o f E *Q
-- -+ q)=-*." -'
'r1fo :-o o '< a_€99
=s.--la=o9*5 4J
fo)o
== r ::. 1 {:6 ;X=.;;c-
oo:
O--u odE
do)<.{o -gt
oe
=r
-o
Ao
PE
l'-(oo
oo
orr r .i'lqr
oo
xo o -.{
=€)-'c)N oo a=
-iu
€c
-o @.
9o oo _o
.;-
J
i c f,m
o
€z
m
o
o
z -l
o I
I
a
m t--r1
2 o
--l
I
m
€z
m
-l
_-r
z
-_o
m
4)at zl
m
m
m o
-@lh >r-l
=3o -al=
t"'r
I
i
irii
I
g
o
I
I
z
^€
m
o z
I
o
=3 z
:
,o
.E
I
--t
!
c
a
i
c
--l
z
3
v)€H c)
H
{F
ts
H H
z
Fr6' N F
Z,A E=
-m u7> : ^-- > 'n
=; =a ''a :i Y >roa z7- A;": = E F 4z tt - --l
a'F' z z E€
iil
<l il3- @ =il=N rn
=nl..u r -lflo
-f; 4 <
! lE-il->l
4lz
I
c
F
F
c
C,
F
c
|'?
E t-
z.(':
lz
lZ io
,F t^'c
r=
'Y lz
i=:
m a
rd
H
r-
z a
H H
z
z
=
o
z 6 -l
--t o -
o
m
2E
llo:
+t>;,2
=x I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-{l'\mN)
t\
F
I
I
I
i
--{
l-
m
--i
_r'l
m m
a
m
-.1
x
z
G
m
L
J
m I
z
m
m {
m c)
=z
m m
(-)-
z
o
c
=a
o --t
o
z o I
o 7
o c
=_0
t
=
m
-It
m m a
VALUATION
m n
_3
z
lc
lc
lc
t-
lc lr
t'
=tn o I
z
t-
c
z
m
m
o
c
2 o
@
o
!
tl
e-Ke17a5t Pb d>frt4t )K
.{( 33
=l!
=r7b.'{9
()o z
2 u F
()
-{6 z
!
-t
Ft ..l F ;t=el {
d o m
Eg c1 93 ti m=i5 6{.a^tr :1 i; a!
SI 2t 5a
ii ;5
e !m !3 i
!m o
!
7)3
o
-rn E
b t .$-
N
E o 2
3
IT
\t -l,
s I
o 'rt t
!ti o
6
81 ET io
z6 e9 c,t,-e!€E
6 2
o=nt=a--t !l<
3.
0 9 J o 2
!
!
=o
2 nr m c'
l<"
lr
l2
I>tr
I
o ,2
t,t,
t
fi
9d ttl
x
{
ao
2 o
?
=o z
3 t
3 o I|t
n
Et{
I t !:,,
o:t(m;r\I\\
l\\- (Nl(
lN-
tR!N rl
tsi -\i
lS(
ci {l c)\
-t N)
(9 I
n e 3
2 I
e.
iNr
I
?5 south fiontsge road
Y.ll, colorado 81657
{303) 479-2138 or 479-2\39 offlce of communlty devclopmcnl
BUILDING PERI'IIT ISSUANCE TII4E FMNE
If this permr'.t requires a Town of Vail Fire Department Approval ,
Engineer''s (,Public Works) reyiew and approval , a Planning Department
review or Health Department review, and a review by the Building
Department, the estimated time for a total review may take as long
as three weeks.
All conrnercial (large or sma'll) and all multi-family permits will
have to follow the above mentioned maximum requirements. Residential
and small projects should take a lesser amount of time. However, if
residential or smaller projects impact the various above mentioned
departments with regard to necessary review, these projects may
also take the three week period.
Every attempt will be made by this department to expedite this
permit as s,qon as possibl e.
I, the undersigned, understand the p1 an check procedure and time
frame.
Communi ty Development Department.
t
i t'
.. t .rt
75 eouth lronlage toad
vail. colorado 81657
(303) 479-2I38 or 479-2139
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
oftlce of communlly development
ALL CONTRACTORS CT'RRENTLYL REGTSTERED WITH THE
TOWN OF VAIL
TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITy DEVELOPMENT
MARCH 16, 1988
CONSTRUCTION PARKING & MATERIAL STORAGE
In summary, Ordinance No. 6 states that it is unlawful for any person to litter, track or deposit any soil , rock, sand, debris or material , including trash dumpsters, portable toilets and
worknen vehicles upon any street, sidewalk, alley or public place or any portion thereof. The right-of-way on all Town of Vail streets and roads is approxirnately 5 ft. off pavement.This ordinance will be strictly enforced by the Town of VaiI Public Works Departrnent. Persons found violating this ordinance will be given a 24 hour written notice to remove said material .fn the event the person so notified does not comply with the notice withi-n the 24 hour tirne specified, the Public Works
Department will remove said naterial at the expense of person notified. The provisions of this ordinance shall not be applicable to construction, naintenance or repair projects of any street or al1ey or any utilities in the right-a-way.
To review Ordinance No. 6 in full, please stop by the Town of VaiL Building Department to obtain a copy. Thank you for your cooperation on this matter.
Read and ac owledged
onlRe1at contractor, owner)
Project Application
Dale /o'j'?(
Proiect Name:
Project Descrip tion: /\
CotIPif ctf erlrgrrdrRl- Fhofi e
owner. Address and phone: T,,"pt-9,ttz- G-l-- ' '""t rt'-- Ate-< ,
Legal Description: Lot
497 E. /;*../,-*J C )-/"Com ments:
!'/'1,: ti
Architect, Address and Phone:
Design Review Board
Date /o'4,?l
Motion by:
Seconded by:
APPR OVAL D ISAPPROVAL
Su mmary:
/4' kt"1q,
to,rnffi
/o'4' q r
fr,",, Approval
I
'01\LA1Iq
z€9tB operotof, spre^lpl 666 ro8 0d
.. r red au lap0uJau u0rllnilsuoS MeN,,
'3Nr'SHOICVUT-NOC Addlu
9r\oltv'2t)t40lA 11\11 l1 clrllll 1rdldfl
olYaa1a" ' ,1 lv/\
+tAn In nAoena? 4aaI 7V>,
/- /'aa - A', J 557L - 7L,b -./ . / .r'o €97274. \^(NV(l tl | ./ -*-
lb-l-ol
?e ov=^,o$1frd'I o')
*N1V dt-tv 921:lt1tYJ^ I tc-,|= rl/1 gaLy2tcnt znldvfi9
zlI?N T/ul . rll r
- -:---Y*;;Lfu"{ fr ill3lir*r l-o 'Ato'aa <.cra
,g:,p,nxffi lfi #il-+l ffiM*n'?i#affi*{ia^f:J:r,ffij|tl"4r'#ll I 24tE tILfle f(v4ts waon I
H LrL-=-*--L---:-l!-----]Lrr )/Sra*a^'_ E tt I ""'i|H #il l,42\al/4fr 1
TrrtrxZ ^oofl ?r
ilHl il ir ir l,,i t,,
r+,v,,?d ot'eatadnv,.e-+l il ll ll ll lt i V ' :ar>nrda, qitLc^\a - U I--]L_____1*_______ll_-_ ___JL-J | |
-ft=oo.oozrnr _|n r+ vHtffi
H FtF_- l--- lf - - i-ff _ il_
611o2,t1,]Vn,i, fr#=-m,-*'f=fi,f I - dtl-&t0floL z ,"*\*a,rvt?,t,%-TH- ll ll ll llll Y,, {t; il tfL___]L__llll r,
:^firzno. '" ,- 1 v
(v1v74r12r'1A"Arc*ffi ffir I t
{rvr1 r.'*niilori HHrtn--#rr r I KXftn?"#'i';sffi li ll _lt----+l I ffiiiffi ll
i,' J
-
,/l
./Tl J ""9'g grrrcrr n
il l.t-s lx ? '[ ''" 1!slx3
't, 'l ))
ATTBTTIOT:xrKE lroLLr(D
DRB IPPLTCIIION - TOWN OF \TAIL'
(FoR STAFT REVIEI| AtrD APPRO .DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED :
o.revised 9/4/9L
COIORADO
vlr. ) N/A
T
DATE OF DRB MEETING:I{/a-
**t*****ri
TEIS APPL,ICAIION IfILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
IINTIL tI,I. REQUIRED IIIfORI|ATION IS SIIBI'IITTED **********
PROJECT ]NFORMATION:
A.DESCRIPTION: TEI.ADDII{G OF FRAHE AtrI} IlIf,DOTT TO E TIITNG
TIINDOII I|ALL OII TEE NORTE AITD SOUTE SIDES OT (4) BRIDGES'
AND THE RE}IOVAL OF BXISTING I{OOD RAILING.ALL NBIJ IIAIERIALS
UATCH EXISTING IN TXIUNM
TYPE OF REVIEW:
New construction ($200.00)
Addition ($50.00)
x Minor Alteration ($20.00)
conceptual Review (90)
D.
ADDRESS:452 EAST LIONSEBAD c
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:Lot L Block
LIONSEEAD I ST FILIT{G Subdivision vArL
E. ZONING:
a meets and bounds legal
on a separate sheet and
N/A
F. LOT AREA: ff required, aPPlicant
stamped survey showing lot area.
NAME OF APPLICANT:
NA}4E OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: RIPPY CONTRACTORS. INC.
Mailins Address. e.o. nox ssg snEttp;s.. cB;a:Blfi1
If property is described by
descriptionr Please Provide attach to this aPPlication.
Mailing Address : 757 s . LIo[SnnAD CIR. yAIL, co. I | 657 pnonil=4-rcE96-_
J.
K
Condominiuln Approval if applicable.
DRB FEE: DRB fees, as shown above, are to be paid al
the tine of submittal of DRB application. Later, when
applying for a building permit, please identify the
atluiat6 valuation of ihe proposal . The Town of Vail
will adjust the fee according to the table below, to
ensure Ehe correct fee is Paid.
NAME OF OWNERS:
)*SIGNATT'RE (S) : \--
Mailing A$dress:
FEE SCHEDULE:
VALUATION s o - $ 1o,ooo $10,ooL-$ 50,ooo
$ 50,001 - $ l.50r ooo
$150,001 - $ 50o,0oo
$500,001 - $1,000,000 $ Over $1'000'000
Phone
FEE PAID: S
FEE
$ 20.00
$ s0.00
sr.00.00
$200.00
$400.00
$s00.00
* DESIGN REIXIE}T BOJARD TPPROVAI. EXPIRES ONE YEAR AI'TER FIT{AJ..
APPRO\IAL I'NI.ESS } BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSOED ]|lID CONSTRUCTION IS
STARTED.
*TNO APPLICAIION T|ILI. BE PROCESSED I{ITEOUT OI{NER, S SIGNATIIRE
must provide a current
TREE TOPS CONDO ASSOC.
.r rro o
-
VAIL HOME RENTALS
143 E. Meadow Drive - Suite N90
Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476-2221
I
-^--Irl
b/ut
:1n
October 3, I991
Desi.gn Review Board
I OWN OI VAAI
Vai1, Colorado 81657
To lihom It I'tay Concern:
The Treetops Board of Directors have requested of the
management and resident manager to upgrade the bridges
between Treetops I and Treetops II.
I have enclosed the portion of the minutes from the
Treetops Association annual meeting of December 28, I99O
that relate to the bridge improvernents.
Marvel Barnes
Vail Home Rentals
Agent for: Treetops Condoninium Association
450 East Lionshead Circle
Vail , Colorado 81657
:he
:he
rdd
Sincerely,
ir
FIL E COPY
PLANNING AND E}WIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
August 26,l99l
o I
Present
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Kathy Langenwalter
Jim Shearer
Gena Whinen
Absent
Ludwig Kurz
Staff
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Larry Eskwith, Town Atorney
Amber Blecker
The public hearing was called to order rt 3:25 by Chairperson Diana Donovan. Ludwig Kurz
was prcsent to relate his opinion on item I to Diana, then left before the formal hearing.
L An aooeal of a staff decision conceming a densitv variance granted to Trcetoos
Condominiums. I-ot 6. Block l. Vail Lionshead First Filins/452 East Lionshead Circle.
Appellant Treetops Condominium Association
Staff: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica rclated the background of this appeal. Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, clarified
that whether or not a DRB approval had been given did not relate to the variance approval.
Martin Shore, attorney for the Trcetops Condominium Association, said it was his
understanding the variance was for goss squarc footage, and that 10 balconies had been
approved in 1987. At this time, 7 of the original l0 units' owners had placed money into a
fund for the construction. The Association was trying to finance the other three enclosures.
If that was not possible, they might rEquest a change to allow them to only build the 7
enclosurcs. Larry clarified that if this appeal was successful, it was questionable whether the
variance approval for l0 balcony enclosures would cover this application since it had been
changed. Bill Pierce, architect for the appellants, said that they werc still requesting the
original l0 balconies - that this was the san,': variance request. Diana Donovan rsiterated this
appeal was for the 1987 variance, and there were no changes proposed to that approval.
Mike continued his explanation of the request, stating staff believed the variance had lapsed,
and rcad Section 18.62.080 of the Town's municipal code. He said staff did not believe that
landscaping was a condition of approval for the variance request, but was a part of the
exterior alteration approval. Thcreforc, construction had not been started within the one-year
time limit on the variance approval. He said no funds had been expended for construction of
the decks or balconies.
a
Diana asked if there had been DRB approval of the proposal since June l, 1987. Mike said
that an application had been submitted in March, 1991, which had triggered staffs
interpretation regarding the variance. Kathy langenwalter said she remembercd seeing a
DRB application for the balconies in 1987 while she was on the DRB, but that it may have
been a conceptual review at that point. Mike said staff could find no record of any
application, but also stated that even if the DRB had approved the proposal in 1987, that
approval would have lapsed as well.
Mar:tin Shorc said that the law was not the issue in this case, but it was a question of cquity.
He said there wcrc mistakes on both sides, with the code sBting staff "shall issue a variance
permit," but staff had never done so. He believed the permit should havc been issued if the
code stated it was necessary. If that permit had been issued, and contained the language that
construction "must commence within one year," therc would not be this appeal. He said that
the Association had done part of the construction associated with thc rtquest each year.
Regarding whether the landscaping improvements werE part of the original approval, he
referred to a letter from Kristan Pritz stating that the site improvements were an imponant
part of the PEC's decision to approve the variance, and that it was important for the general
site improvements to be incorporated into the plan. The Association believed those
improvements werc part of the approval.
Mr. Shore indicated the Town should consider this appeal as precedent setting, but said that
denying the appeal would be a dangerous precedent, in that the Association had already spent
a considerable sum of money, but were not going to be able to complete the pmject. He also
said that wben they took out the building permits each year, there was no discussion of an
expiration of the variance.
Carlos Phillips, Vice-President of the C-ondominium Association, and Board Member, said he
owned three units in Treetops, including 2 in one of the stacks to be enclosed. He said he
believed the Association had been a good citizen of Vail. Hc remembered that the
Association had autborized the variance application in 1986, prior to the application being
made. He believed the Association had completed the necessary conditions of approval and
that the variance should still be valid.
Gary Klein, a Board Member, submitted letters in support of the variance. He was an
original owner at Treetops, and had found the ground-level patio to be basically unusable. He
was not on the Board when the approval was original granted, but had been in favor of ths
application. He said there had been great disagreement within the Association about the
construction, but now the majority supported the project.
Gena Whitten left the meeting at 4:fi)PM.
Mr. Klein continued by stating the Association had made the requested landscaping
improvements to the grounds, and they wanted to complete the project by enclosing the
balconies.
I
,
?Larry Eskwith asked if the Association realized that a variance was grantcd in June, 1987.
Gary rcplied that yes, they were aware of that Larry then asked why no building permit had
been applied for. Gary said there had been a battle within thc Association at one mceting,
cr€ating bad feelings betrreen members. They proposed phasing the project, and werc able to
get a majority of the mcmbers in favor of that solution. Gary said the disagrecments
sometimes werc bitter. Larry questioncd if thse was a misundcnunding drat a variance had
bcen granted. Gary said there was no question in his min4 but perhaps ther€ had been in the
minds of othen.
Bill Pierce said it was his understanding the variance was conditioned upon landscaping, a
change in the ronrf pirch, changes to the facia, balconies, overbangs and siding, and thu thcre
were substantial changes necessary in Phase I o rnakc it appear like Phase II, the arca whcre
the variance was g1anted. He said the Association had actcd in good faith, spending
approximately $450,000 for the changes required as conditions of approval. Evcn though
staff now contended that the improvements werc not conditions of approval, the minutes of
the meeting where the variance was approved, as well as letters from staff subsequent to that
meeting, said the improvements wer€ part and parcel of the approval, and welE not
insignificant.
He reminded the Commissioners that a condominium association never agreed 100% with
anything, and that it was usually difficult to get any consensus, but that they had received
majority suppo4 and funds had been allocated to proceed with the project in phases. He did
not think that the intemal politics of the Association should affect thc appeal, refening to the
minutes of the Association's meeting regarding the improvements. Therc had bccn approval
to pursue the variance originally, and after it was granted, funds had been expcndcd to satisfy
the requirements of that variancc. Thc fact that a "variance permit" had not bcen issued was
a technicality, but it was also a technicality that the balconies wcrc not constructed first; thcrc
were improvements made every year since the variance was approved.
Kathy Langenwalter asked what had occurred at the DRB level. Kristan Pritz replied there
was a letter in the file fr,om Linda Averich, of the Treetops C.ondominium Association, which
approved pursuing the variance in 1987. Sincc 1987, there had been approval to re-roof the
property in September, 198?, for exterior rcnovations in August, 1988, along with other
approvals. In Phase I (not the building for which the variance applicd), thcrc had bccn
changes made to the planten, stucco, gutters, landscaping, the removal of the horizontal deck
railing, and new deck railing was installed. In Phase 2, two doors had been insalle4 wood
awnings were remove4 there was stucco applie4 the wood balcony rails wcre removed and
rrepaired- In August, 1988, drainage changes were made. In 1989, a PVC conduit was
replaced, and in 1989-90, minor repairs were performed. Kristan asked if she had misscd any
changes. Bill Pierce said the dumpster had been enclose4 and the driveways rcbuilt. Kristan
clarified that those changes did not requirc building permits. Bill pointcd out that they had
been conditions of approval for the variance, and were one part of the continuing program of
improvements.
t t Mike reiterated that there werE no conditions of approval on the variance, but the conditions
refenr;| 19 had been for the exterior alteration approval, and noted that exterior alteration
approvals did not expirc. Mr. Shore said the owners had believed there were conditions on
thi variance approval, and stated that the Town had never informed them that the approval
expired if not begun within one year.
Connie Knight questioned the Association's minutes where there was discussion to r€move
the balconies from the other improvements. She could not see where the two itcms werc
linked in the Condominium Association's meeting minutes. Mr. Shore pointcd out wherE the
two were linked in the discussions- After a discussion of various facto'rs of the Association
minutes, C-onnie commented that it looked like the Association viewed the site improvements
as normal condominium expenses, not a condition to satisfy any TOV requirement. Krisun
said it looked to her like the Association was not guamnteeing that the balconies would be
consmrcte( and were doing the other improvemcnts because they necded to be done, not
because they were a variance condition. Diana said that the Association may not have known
the correct words to use in their minutes. Mr. Stone referred to page 9 of the Associauon
minutes, where phases to the project were discussed.
Jim Shearer asked if the appeal were granted, could the Association penuade the other three
owneni to also enclose their balconies? Carlos Phillips said there was one owner in Stack C
who was opposed. Jim also asked how a new expiration date would be established if the
appeal were granted. Diana questioned the definition of the term "diligently pursued."
Madn Shore did not believe it was reasonable to expect a license in perpetuity, and asked
that a date be set at this hearing. He also said the question of how many units would actually
construct the balconies was an Association issue, and did not apply to the question of the
variance. Diana said that all needed to be constructed, or the PEC approval did not apply.
Kristan stated that the approval only applied to the enclosures originally proposed, but if they
wer€ constructed in the original area of approval, not all l0 would need to be constructed at
once, pending DRB approval.
Jim asked if the verbiage on the variance permit said "diligently pursued." Krisan replied
that no variance permit was issued by the C.ommunity Development D€partment, and that it is
a problem in the code. Jim asked if it is ever spelled out to recipients of variances, or if they
are notified in some way. Kristan said the only place it is addressed is in Section 18.62.080
of the Code.
Chuck Crist asked what would happen if 9 of the l0 originally approvcd units constnrcted the
balcony cnclosures. Kristan said they could build if an active variance was in effect and the
DRB approved the design. If the variance then expired, the 10th balcony enclosure could not
be buili without a new variance request. Chuck asked, then, if 5 could be constnrcted, and 5
not. Kristan and Mike both replied that could happen, as was outlined in Kristan's June 29,
1987 letter to Tom Briner. However, if a building permit were taken out to construct all l0
I units, and only 5 werc constnrctcd (or any number less than l0), no final Ccrtificate of
Occupancy would be issued. If only 5 unis were given a building permit, then it would be
acceptable.
chuck asked the appellants why they did not re-apply fm a variance. Diana said it was a
money issuc, and ilitl Piet"" continued that it was also an issue of time, and that there was no
guarantee they would receive it.
Gena Whinen r€turned to the meeting at 4:50PM.
Diana commen6d that this was a very confusing issue, and related that Ludwig Kurz had
asked her to exprcss his opinion upholding staffs decision. She said she was not sure what
to do, since rtrff naO not intirely iollowed the codc with rcspect to the issue of notifying the
applicant of thc one ycar time limir Her rccollection was that the variancc would not have
been approvcd without the improvements being made, but that perhaps the Commission had
erred in not specifically stating they were conditions of approval'
Kristan stated that the suff felt they had to take the position that the variance had expired
because of the one year time limit. However, she expressed staffs willingness to see a
comprornise rcached through the PEC review of the issue. Perhaps a one year extension from
the date of this hcaring could be allowed.
The Commission asked for an executive session to confer with the Town Attomey at 4:55PM.
The meeting was called back into order at 5:l5PM.
Kathy Langenwalter moved to uphold the staff's decision conceming a density variance
granted to lt""topt Condominiums, l-t 6, Block l, Vail Lionshead First Filing/452 East
Lionshead Circle, stating that the one-year time limit for the variance had lapsed' per Section
18.62.080 of the Municipl CoAe of the Town of Vail. It was further stated that it had been
the policy of the Town of V"it that no variance permit was issued when a variance was
granted, and that the one-year time limit began when the Planning Commission voted to
ipprou" the variance, unliss the decision were called up by the Towr Council for review. In
thit case, the time would start when the Council upheld the PEC's decision. The motion was
seconded by Chuck Gist. It was approved 4-2, with Jim Shearer and Diana Donovan
opposed.
Jim stated he agreed with the principle of the staff s decision, but believed that a permit
should bc issued when a variance was granted. Diana said her opposition to the motion was
based on the fact that this was a very gey matter, and she believed the conditions had been
met. Kathy Langcnwalter added that she believed the appellants weIB aware they had a
variance uip-n"A in 1987, and that a specific variance permit was not needed to inform them
of that fact.
9.26,q /
I I
F-..__.--IPEC I l----1
fa4/4n4
-...----.-7....-'
MEMORANDUM
PRTVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
TO: PI,ANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FR: Larry Eskwith
DA: August 21, 1991
RE: Appeal of a Stalf decision concerning a density variance granted to Treetops Condominiums
I. FACTS
On June 1, 1987, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) of the Town of Vail
voted unanimously to approve a density variance and an exterior alteration in order to enclose
eieht (8) balconies and two (2) decks at the Tleetops Condominiums. The approval of the PEC was
called up by the Town Council, and was reviewed on June 16, 1987, At the hearing, the Town
Council upheld the PEC decision by a 4-1 vote, making the decision to grant the variance final on
January 16, 1987. No action was taken by the Tleetops Condominium Association in furtherance
of their variance after it became final. No Design Review Board (DRB) application was filed for
the approval of any plans to enclose eight (8) balconies and two (2) decks as permitted by the
variance, and no building permit was ever applied for or obtained. On April 11, 1991, Tleetops
Condominiums hled a DRB application in ordeq_to obtain a DRB approval for the enclosure of the
ten balconies which were approy the jgranting of the variance in 1987. The Town Stalf
has taken the position that th . bhich was sranted on June 1, 1987and made final
6i-ght (8) bal-lconies anil-Til6-lEj-Eecks at Treerops on June 16, 1987 for the encloBET
Condominiums project has expired, and therefore their application to the DRB was disallowed. The
StaIT based its decision upon Section 18.62.080 which provides a variance permit "ehall lapse if
construction is not commenced within one (1) year of the date of issuance and diligently pursued
to completion". Obviously, almost four (4) years have passed between the issuance of the variance
to the Treetops Condominium Association and its application to the DRB.
II. ISSUE
As the varience which was issued to the Tleetops Qqndeminirrm Association in June of 1987
expired, requiring Tleetops to obtain a new variance ifit wishes to proceed with the construction
of the balcony enclosures.
III. DISCUSSION
The case law in Colorado is silent on this issue. But case law in other states makes it clear
that it is not improper for a zoning commission to require a new application for the failure of an
applicant to commence construction of a variance within a specific period. Ra-sey Associates, Inc.,
Bd. ofAdjustment 290 A 2nd 448 (7972); Alderdell Co. v. Delorenzo 534 NYS 2nd 698 (1988 2nd
Dept.; Kolt v. Zonine Board of Appeals 553 I{YS 2d 24 (1990 App. Div., 2d Dept.). It is apparently
the applicant's argument that because they have made certain landscaping, sidewalk, drainage
improvement, and repairs on the structure, that they have somehow obtained a vested interested
in the variance that can not be taken away even though they have not commenced construction on
the variance within the one (1) year time limitation. Ibis seems to be a totally fallacious
argument. The variance did not set forth specific conditions which had to be met by the
Association, and even if it did, simply proceeding with certain repairs or landscapi-ug inprovements
would not cause the interest in the variance to vest. The applicant has had almest four (4) years
within which to commence construction on the variance. fbis is not a situation where the one (1)
year deadline was missed by a matter of days or months. It seems to me that the decision of the
planning stalf at the applicant's should be required to obtain a new variance before proceeding on
to the DRB is both legal and equitable.
Another issue which has been argued to me by the applicant, and which may be argued to
the PEC is that because no "varipnce permit" was ever issued by the Zoning Administrator, the one (1) year period of time to commence construction has not gtarted to run. However, in the
applicant's letter to me of April 10, 1991, he states, "Our review of the department's fi.le on the
Tleetops project indicates that the Zoning Administrator never issued a written variance permit
a
subsequent to the Town Council's appointment of the commiseion's grant of the density variance
as required by the above ordinance (Section 18.62.080). Howevel, w€ are advised that it is not
unusual for the Zoning Ad m inistrator to not issue a written variance permit, and we presume that
this omission has no substantive effect on the validity of the variance." I would aigue that the
applicant's presumption, as stated in this paragraph, is conect, It is not customarSr for the PEC
or the CDD to issue a specific permit after a variance has been granted by the PEC. It is also clear
that the applicant never expected to receive a permit and it has never requested one. I do not
believe the applicant can have it both ways. If indeed no permit was issued, then he was never
given a valid variance. On the other hand, if a permit was issued then the one year time period
has run. In my opinion, it is not essential that an actual permit be issued by ihe CDD after a
variance is granted. Customarily this has never been done, and applicant's are permitted to go
forward with their application to the DRB immediately after the variance hae been granted.
rV. CONCLUSION
In summar5r, it is my opinion that the Town Stalf was correct in the determination that the
variance which was granted to Treetops in 1987 has expired because construction ofthe variance
was not commenced within one (1) year of the date of issuance. I do not believe that there is any
Iegal validity in the applicantis position that by doing certain landscaping and making certain
repairs on their property that they have somehow obtained a vested right to the variance that lasts
in perpetuity. They have waited four (4) years from the date the variance was granted without
commencing construction, and they should be required to go back through the variance process if
they wish to go forward the variance at this time. The applicant's argument that be-cause no
written permit was issued so therefore the period of limitation never began to run is equally
flawed. The applicant knew a variance had been granted, and the variance was granted in the
same way that all variances have been granted by the Town of Vail. The applicant, in its own
letter to me of April 10, has admitted as much,
Lawrence A. Eskwith
Town Attorney
LAE/dd
C:\TREEIIOPS,MBM
I.,tr. Michael J. Mollica
Department of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
VaiI, Colorado 81657
Re: Treetops Balcony Enclosures June 1, 1987 Variance
Dear Mr. Mollica:
Enclosed is an Affidavit by Jerry D. Ladd who was fornerly
president, secretary and a director of the TreetoPs Condominium
Association. He is most familiar with the Treetops balcony
enclosure problems and I reguest that this be made part of the file
for the hearing before your Planning Commission now scheduled for
August 26, L99L. I believe Larry Eskwith would also be interested
in reviewing this affidavit.
Jerry Ladd and I particularly object to the method which the
proponents are seeking to use in order to obtain permission to
enclose the balconies.
The proposal to enclose balconies which was approved by the
membership in December of 1,990 is radically different from the
proposal for which the variance was granted by the Commission on
June 1, L987. The ner,e proposal should stand or fall on its own
merits and should be subject to full review by your staff and the
current Planning Cornmission not only to determine whether the
increase in the gross residential floor area is appropriate but
also whether the synmetry and alpine design of Treetops would be
upset by the new proposal . A picture of the Treetops II building
as it presently looks is enclosed which should also be made part of
the record.
I wiII be interested in hearing the outcome of the meeting on
August 26.
Sincerely,
MACKINToSH BRowN P.C,
ATToRNEY AT LAw
TWO tJNtTEo BANK CENTER
l7@ BRoAowaY, SurrE 1 5O5
OENVER, CoLoRAoo 8O29O
August 15, 1991
RFf'D AU61 I 1s91
TELEPHoNE (3O3) 894OSOO
FAX (303) 8398262
,-fu4;ta
MB:ms
Enclosure
MACKINTOSH BRO
1ti91
--lrt<t{o6,, Jl a[ fer
o t, Ate. /o /cotr)1r
a4 fn.y'o., T u-'
ri s y'a /la fr otr
i^ /ftf t
of Na)
"uo /cr/
Iree*cfs JL
,
Itt l',-
,"i / i?'
lb ro;/ty,
l.rrtt\
\.
AFFIDAVIT CONCERNING TREETOPS BAICONY ENCLOSURES
STATE OF COLORADO
CITY AND
COUNTY OF DENVER
ss.
Jerry D. Ladd, being of lawful age and duly sworn uPon oath,
deposes and states as follows:
1. I was elected and served as a director of the Treetops
Condominiun Association of Vail, Colorado ("Associationn) from
December 30, 1987 to December 28, 1990. I also served as secretary
of the Association from December 30, 1987 to approximately July 15,
L98B and then as president from that date until December 29' 1989-
2. On ilune 1, L987, the Vail Planning and Environmental
commissiol ( "Q6mmission" ) approved a variance for the enclosure of
eight balconies and two ground floor decks for the Treetops II
building. These balconies and decks are lj-mited common elements
owned by the Association and are appurtenant to Condominium Units
numbered l-c to 5-C and l-E to 5-E (the "C Stack and E Stack"
respectively). The schematic drawing for these proposed enclosures
which was prepared by Tom Briner, AIA, is attached hereto as
Exhibit A. The application for this variance was not authorized or
approved by the members of the Association.
3. Under the recorded Condominium Declaration for the
Association ("Declaration"), it is provided in paragraph 16(b) that
"there shall be no additions, alterations or improvements of or to
the general and limited common elements of the Association
requiring assessment in excess of $120.00 per unit for any one
calendar year without prior approval of a majority of the owners."
Paragraph 18 of the Declaration provides that the "Declaration sha1l not be amended unless the owners representing an aggregate
ownership interest of 608 or more of the general common elements
and 60t of the holders of recorded first mortgages or deeds of
trust consent and agree to such amendment by instruments duly
recorded; provided, however, that the undivided interests of the
general cornmon elements appurtenant to each unit shall have a
permanent character and shall not be altered without the consent of
all of the unit owners and all of the holders of any recorded
fr6Ttgage or deed of trust aE-Expressed in an amended declaration
duly recorded.'r The enclosures of balconies and decks in Tree-
tops II which were contemplated in the June 1t L9g7 variance and
the amendment of the Declaration to recognize such enclosures were
never approved by the members of the Association or by their
mo!tgagees.
4. Attached as Exhibit B is a true copy of the Minutes of
the Special tleeting of Members of the Association held July 28,
1"987 which I attended. At that meeting, Linda Averch, who was then
the president of the Association, stated that the Board of
Directors of the Association did not realize that the owners of the
C Stack in Treetops II were not interested in having their
balconies enclosed, even though the variance for this change had
been approved by the Commission on June lt L987 (see pages 4 and 6
of Exhibit A).
5. In lvlarch of 1988 the Board of Directors submitted to a
vote of the mernbers eleven seParate items for making repairs,
improvements and rennovations for the two Treetops buildings. The
enclosures of the balconies on Units 2-8, 3-8, 4-E and 5-E was
defeated. The results of that balloting are attached hereto as
Exhibit C. Subsequent to this vote by the members of the
Association, substantial improvements were made by the Association
on both Treetops buildings. None of these improvernents was made in
reliance upon the variance granted by the Commission on June 1,
L987, since the enclosures were rejected by the members. Included
among these improvements \tas the installation of new railings on
the balconies of Units C-2 to C-5 and E-2 to E-5, at an estimated
cost of $15r000. The installation of these railings is totally
inconsistent with the taking of any action to enclose the balconies
because these railings will have to be torn out if any balconies in
Treetops II are to be enclosed.
6. Subsequent to the Commission granting the variance on
June 1, t987, the Association expended littIe or no money for the
enclosure of any of the balconies or ground floor decks in
Treetops II because the Board of Directors soon after that date
discovered that the owners of the C Stack i-n Treetops II were not
interested in having their balconj.es enclosed, and the enclosure of
bal-conies in the E Stack was rejected by the 1988 vote of the
membership. White I was president and secretary of the Association
from December 30, L987 through December 29, 1989, no funds were
expended by the Association in reliance upon the variance for the
purpose of enclosing any balconies or decks in TreetoPs fI.
7. The Association did not apply for any building or
variance permit to enclose any balcony or deck in Treetops II
because the Board of Directors knew that the members of the
Association had rejected such enclosures.
8. On December 28, 1990, a majority of the members of the
Association approved by a 62.86 vote a Proposal to enclose the
balconies on Units E-2 to E-5 and the decks in Units C-1' D-1 and
E-l provided that all costs of the improvements' including
architectural, engineering and legal expensesr are to be paid for
only by the owners of the seven condominium units appurtenant to
those balconies and decks. A copy of the 1991 proposed balcony and
-2-
deck enclosures is attached hereto as Exhibit
proposal is substantially different than the
approved by the Commission on June 1, of 1987
D. This enclosure
proposal which was
in that Units C-2 to
is included.c-5 are not incluae)lN--the deck of unit D-l
| .i \ | -Dated this i{rt day of auguder 1991.
this
The fgregoing Affidavit was subscr\&d
/{u'- day of August, 1991 by Jerry
and sworn to before me
D. Ladd.
Witness my hand and official seal.
ffir Irly comnissio:r
MARYA.
STORIE
-3-
5 n o
\I
ul
€tr n HZ Fto ttt tn F
t!l ri'i.N
\
s
G 7ro
o
v
$r
l+
tR'trs l.
i"'
lH
I HJfr H Q'fr i/n \1 {F\rN wl r
r)
\A ir o T
trt
{z
I
*'
-9-
:
:
t't
trl :{
f5
t
\
f\
I
F,
F 't{
H z
rr
\
a J
ll
FxLiLir MINUTES 8,,
TREETOPS CONDOI'{INIUM ASSOCIATION BOARD }4EETING
JuIy 25, 1987
This meeting was called to order by President Linda Averch on
July 25, 1987, at 4:45 P.M., at the residence of Vern and Linda
Averch. This f irst order of business r1'as ro11 call and
certification of proxies as follows. Those present were as
follows:
2A Ladd 3A Brooks ProxY - Chris Cronin
4A Peterson ProxY - Marvel Barnes
5A zunzunegui Proxy - Linda Averch
6A Dow Proxy - Linda Averch
7A Beirnes ProxY - Mac Brown
1B l"lcDonald Proxy - Linda Averch
28 Dominick ProxY - l4ac Brown
38 Brooks Proxy '- Chris Cronin
48 Hurnphrey Proxy - Marvel Barnes
58 Gibson ProxY - Mac Brown
68/78 Giesemann
lC Klein
2C Brown
3C Smith ProxY - Mac Brown
4C Jackson
3D Quick Mart
4D National Enterprises
5D Zimmer ProxY - Linda Averch
lE Deifik Proxy - Mac Brown
2E Banos ProxY - Linda Averch
3E Phillips 4E Phillips
5E Averch
Proof of Notice of Meeting or Waiver of Notice was read by Linda
Averch. Her opening statement addressed the proposed upgrades
of Treetops I and If and then she introduced the following
persons:
Tom Briner - Briner & Scott Architects Martin Shore - Attorney for the Treetops Association
Dale Pflieger - Accountant for the Association
Mr. Juergen Geisemann - Board Member
Linda Averch - Board Member
-t-
Presidentrs Opening Statement:
On behalf of the Board we are here today to present to the owners
of Treetops a proposal of upgrades to the building. The packet you received hras a preliminary package that was put together due to the fact that there was expressed concern by some of the owners that the Board was exceeding their authority and guidelines expressed at the annual meeting in January I987 of
this year.
Property Improvements
Linda stated that the following improvements need to be made
to the Treetops property:
1. A light needs to be installed over the door that leads to the Resident Managerrs office.2. Ivlinor boiler repairs need to 3. The driveway needs to deterioration of the asphalt.4. The valves in the lawn sprinkler need repair.5. The chimney flues need to be recapped...if the wind
catches them in a certain way, it causes smoke to back up in units.6. The front wall of the planter at the entrance to the
Treetops I building needs repair.7. The roofs on the trash entrance and the main entrance
need repair.8. Painting and touch-up where needed, particularly in the interior halls, and on the front door of each unit.9. A rubber link mat needs to be installed in the lower entrance to the Resident Managers' office and the garage, and
on the bridge...these areas become very slippery.10. The carpeting, which is about five years o1d. needs to be replaced. The present carpeting, which was glued down,
could serve as padding for new carpeting.11. The present wood on the buildings needs regular painting, as a preservative measure. The wood around the windows
is in poor shape, and needs to be updated.12. The balconies could not pass the Town Code presently,due to the large openings bethreen the wood railings...the balconies need to be upgraded to a better material, with a more
enclosed effect.
The following suggestions were made by those present, relative to the proposed improvements:
1. That entrance doors to individual units might be painted
a different color, or a possible change of the door itself.David Rioux rerninded those present that if new doors were installedr they would have to meet Fire Code requirements.
be done in Treetops II.
be sealed, to prevent
-2-
2. That the new carpeting be similar in quality to the
new carpeting in the Mid-Vail Restaurant.
3. Bernie and tynn Weiss asked about the possibility
of enclosing their balcony, to give a "greenhouse" effect. Linda responded that ten Treetops horneowners have collectively approached the Town of Vail about enclosing their balconies,and that the project is "on hol-d" until a decision is made by the Town regarding similar proposals from other lodges and
condominium pro jects There are several expansron proposalq receive thei-r
[rovaI,Treeto own an or a varrance ten balconies
Linda stated that the Town will not expansion enclosure in an area attached to fire escape, general cornmon areas, etc. Any to expand or enclose a balcony must submit
Treetops Board for approval.
4. The suggestion was made that a glass
in the front entryway. with a special Iock, to of privacy.
approve a balcony or affected by a
homeowner wishing a drawj-ng to the
door be installed
create the feeling
5. Gary Klein stated that dogs have become a problem
in the lawn area, due to its proximity to the bike path, and requested that consj-derati-on be given to installing a fence
around the 1awn. It was agreed by those present that the idea
should be pursued.
With a Motion given by Vern Averch and seconded by Lynn welss,
it was unanimous lv:
RESOLVED: That .---------------:-environs be pursued
above and any new
final presentation
consideration cost
and will be approved
refurbishing of the Treetops buildings and with al1 ideas, includins the ideas outlined ideas, to
-be
taken into consideration. The
of possible upgrades will take into factors, Town approval procedures. etc. ,bv the Board of Directors.
The importance of aIl changes to the buildings and environs being coordinated, for a feeling of consistency and uniformity,was stressed. It was agreed that an architect should be hired to coordinate the project...preferably a 1ocal architect
experienced in dealing with the Town. It was agreed that Tom Briner, Gordon Pierce and Craig Snowdon will be contacted
regarding a possible interest in the project.
In response to this charge we deemed it most economical to first present the concepts to the Town Staff, Planning Commission,D.R.B. and The Town Council. After numerous meetings and
conversations at a mere cost of S100.00 to the Association al1
-3-
of the renovation ideas, old and new
The next step is to prepare and present
for these items. Tom Briner is now
proposal to you.
have received approval.to you a proposed budget prepared to present this
Architect Tom Briner was called upon to Present the proposed
upgrades and show his ideas in sketch form. He suggested that
Buildings I and II would relate better as a single project and
listed the following:
z.
?
4.
Develop Dew entry to Building I (which will also serve
Building II ).Corridors in II shouLd be brightened,/cleaned up.
Graphics program.
Stair enclosures (i.e., lighting' entrance to II' etc.)
Enclose decks/balconies in Building II (4 balconies, 2E',
38, 4E and 5E).
a. Improve, enhance and protect entry ( security, heat. make
larger) by adding new entry and demolishing old entry.
b. Building II - addition of canopy over entrance' new lighting'
new entrance location facing Westr cover the metal bridge.
c. Building I - fix existing railings (we may all have some
liability if railings do not meet code). suggest reduc.ing
space between horizontal rails, raise heigbt. Railings
in rI should be improved to match Building I.
d. Eliminate canopies/hoods over windows which is causing
maintenance problems - replace with stucco - horizontal
wood sidingl on Building I. More insulation would be provided
by the replacement with stucco.e. Install fence or barrier to dogs along bike path - a hedge
would be more natural and attractj-ve - must be on property
1ine, not on Town property. Potentilla was suggested for
hedge.f. New entrance should incorporate great deal of landscaping
starting from road to third level, and stairs to second
leveI. Enclose open corridor for heat retention i temace
1ow timber retaining walls and landscape with trees; pave
walkway.g. Retain pitched roof to throw snow into terraced areai canopy
over bridge; perhaps pierced windows in top of staj.rwel,l.h. Change balcony railings in Building I to match Building
II - more space would be availabl-e if living rooms were
extended.
Linda Averch stated that the Board did not realize the owners
in C stack were not interested in the balcony change proposal
and extended the Board's apology for any misunderstanding.
Architect Briner further suggested extending the eaves L-L/2
to 2 feet to match Building I since water is presently running
down the wood siding.
Architect Briner addressed the projected costs stating that
-4-
)v
he had presented these items and preliminary drawings to three
contractors with whom he and his firm have worked closely and
asked for very generaL budget estimates, not bids, from these contractors. These contractors are JDM, Duddy Viele, and Beck
& Associates.
Estimates are as follows:
1. Entry and Corridor - Building I 'includes remodeling of trash room, landscaping and fiIl,
retaining wa1ls, lighting, snow removal, irrigation system'
corridor doors and paint, simple security system, extending
balcony railings at fourth level, painting bridges that
connect Buildinqs I and II.
JDl,l $100,030
Duddy Viefe 9L,747
Beck & Associates 56,85I
2. Remodeling of existing balconies
JDM
Duddy Viele
Beck & Associates
JDM
Duddy Viele
Beck & Associates
JDI{
Duddy Viele
Beck & Associates
g 5,000
5, 913
139 per balcony ($4,I00 totali
3. Bridge entry - including glazed enclosure, ceiling under-
neath bridge, facia, canopy, lighLing, new door, sidewalk
4. CorrLdor/Stair - caDret, paint, Iighting, pierced windorvs
$ 29,790
3r,932
25, 053
s 20,456
40 ,416 r3, 628
5. Exterior - replacing windows (metal for vinyl , wood finish) 'removing canopies, new stucco, patch and repair, wood siding'
insulation, extending eaves, repainting building
JDM $103,751
Duddy Viele 47,404
Beck c Associates 82i075
6. Reconstruction of balcony/raLlings
JDM $ 18,?00
Duddy Viele 20,389
Beck & Associates 16'I05
7. General Conditions and Fee
JDM $ 65,675
Duddy Viele included in total (below)
Beck 6 Associates 43'550
-5-
8. TotaIs
JDM 5344,402 (high)
Duddy Viele $237,701 Beck & Associates $249,263
Architect Briner suggested negotiations with the two lowest contractors with anticipated completion by Thanksgivj.ng.
Linda Averch stated that this is the first time that these numbers
have been presented to the Board but that the Board did instruct Briner to get a proposal for a first class job to be presented to the Board.
I{ac Brown questioned Briner on the height, and safety of the railings on Building II. Briner responded that the height may be 41" and that, even though he did not personally inspect each and every one, he does not f eel- thaL they are the most stable. Code
does call for 6" or less between rails or for runners or screeninq across rails.
Briner stated that he presented the above as an overall project to the Planning Commission- not separating the balcony changes. -
The town has approved GRFA increases when there has also been substantial effort made to improve the general appearance of a proj ect.
Linda Averch stated that the Association had been gj-ven approval
two years ago for the balcony enclosures and that the Board never stated to the architects that the balconies were a main factor.
Mac Brown questioned whether all ten balconies would have to be
changed, of lr_portion thereof .
Briner responded that this is a
Design Review Board this coming
part of the agenda with the
Wednesday.
\
Linda Averch stated that the Board became a\rare at a meeting in latter June that more than one owDer was not interested in the balcony enclosures and further stated that these encl-osures are
secondary to the overall project and should not become the main
issue.
Gary Klein questioned when/why the concept of having C stack
change from enclosed patios to exterior storage ara.
Briner explained that the Town has not approved deck enclosure
anywhere else but there are mitigating circumstances here, i.e.,
there will be a large area remaining after enclosure of smaller portion - impressed upon larger outdoor usable balcony space.
Mac Brown questioned the property line in relation to the building
and Briner pointed out that it was from 8! at one point to 20' at
another.
-6-
J
IUac Bro\'rn questioned why a fence hras not permitted. Briner
suggested that it was rejected possibly due to the view for
some across the bike path.
Mac Brown questioned whether the neighbors to the East are on
the property line.
Linda Averch repU-ed no - the retaining wa1l was on the property
line and had been lowered.
According to drawings, Briner was guessing that our neighbors
are over the property line.
Mac Brown questioned the legal aspects if balconies are enclosed:
increase in taxes, need to amend condo map to increase square
footage, who pays for any refurbishing or remodeling' need to
amend covenants.
\\i Attorney Martin Shore replied that he foresees no problems
providing homeowners follow the By-Laws and Declarations. He
explained that, 'in the Condominiurn Act in Colorado, ownership
is based on (f) air space unit within wa1ls - you own that;(2) general conmon elements, the waIl, you do not own that
only a fractional interest. Limited common elements are granted
for the use of the individual owner: flues, for example; 6r.a-t-!o s
are restricted to the unit; as per the Declarations patios are
attached to unj,ts and cannot be divided. There is no law'
however. as to whether you can or cannot enclose. If you screen
patios, do you change the patio - he thinks not. If you glass
the patio, do you change the patio - he thinks not. If completed as projected here, you have an enclosed common, element for your
own use. The Town could decide to assess due to increased space.
He has no legal opinion as to what the tax assessor wiII do
but it could be assumed that there will be a raise due to increase
in value. Should the map be amended? There is no case requiring
such action. wbo pays? This should be worked out amongf each
other (common element). The covenants cover enclosures, permit
it; thereforer 1leu could proceed. He stated that there seem to be two different questions: (1) numerous improvernents, (21
patios. The Declarations state that expenditures over $120 (over approved budget) must be approved by owners excluding
repair, maintenance,. replacement, or obsolescence. He feels
that this is a political problem - not a 1egal problem.
Gary Klein asked if this meeting was called in order to go ahead
with capital expenditures or if Board voted to do it?
Linda Averch answered Do and reiterated that the next step is
for the Board to meet with the contractor(s), and go through
each proposal one at a time. She asked owners whether to proceed
in order to get exact numbers. Owners have given permission
to go this far. A11 opinions are considered by the Board.
Vern Averch stated that he called the Eagle County Assessor's
-7-
J
office to see what his unit is being taxed for and was told that
I,430 sq. ft., including the bal-cony, is being taxed. There would
be no liability tax-rvise unless the assessor increased the value
of the overall unit. Again, the balcony is already being taxed.
Linda Averch passed out a letter from Bob Dorf, a real estate
broker of Slifer & Company, concerning the exterior of Treetops
and his concern regarding the outside presentation and impression
to buyers. Linda stated that the owners are directed to go to
Tom Briner or Marvel Barnes with any questions. She further
stated that the main emphasis here is our overall apPearance and
since our "front door" is essentially the entrance to Treetops Ir'
this entrance must be attractive. The inside can be controlled
by the individual, the outside cannot.
Dale Pflieger, our Associations CPA, presented a history on tax-
ation for the Condo Association:
The Condo Association has an annual election on vshether to be
taxed as a Homeowners' Association or a regular corporation.
A Homeowners' Association pays tax on non-exempt income - mainly
rents and interest income. Deductions against non-exempt income
are expenses dj.rectly related to the production of that income in
which Treetops situation is very little. Homeo',oners' Associations
pay tax at a 308 rate. In a regular corporation, all revenue is
considered taxable incqme. A11 expenses are considered deductions.
Since Treetops has $33,000 in rental- income and $5,000 to $6,000 in
interest income, it would have approximately $40'000 taxable income
with no tax deductible expenses if it filed as a Homeowners' Assoc-
ication. It would appear beneficial to file as a regular corpora-
tion. For fiscal years 85-86, Treetops had been faced with a
significant tax liability. ft was the opinion at the annual meeting
to eliminate this liability designating a portion of assessments as
capital assessments since capital assessments can be excluded from
taxable income. Roughly $90,000 taxable income was eliminated for
years 1985-86 if designating such as capital assessments. The only
deductions to date for capital improvements have been for the
manager's unit ($20,000) and for installation of the fire alarm
($25,000). September 30, f986 books show capital assessments, less
expenditure for capital improvements of S46,000 (which is limited
to capital improvements). Taxable income appeared to be a con-
tinuing problem, As a solution, it was suggested at the last
annual- meeting to eliminate quarterly assessment, reduce the
quarterly assessment, or increase spending for capital improvements.
ihe Board approved reducing the quarterly assessment, $10,000 each'
for the second, third, and fourth quarters, since the first quarter
had already gone out. Information from Vail Home Rentals indicates
that even wittr ttre reduction, there will be taxable income problems
this year, Preliminary financial information shows that Treetops
cash balance is $?O,OOO, and income year to date of $30,000. This
amount of taxable income would genelate a tax liability of $5'000
to $6.000 this year.
could the Associaion borrow funds to complete the project? DaIe
-8-
Pfliegerr CPA, said yes. From an accounting standpoint you
would continue to designate a certain amount of your quarterly
assessmeDt of being capital assessment. That amount would go
to retire the debt obligation.
Gary K1ein guestioned if it made sense to spend $400,000 to
save $4, 000 or $5,000.
Linda Averch again stated that the Board is asking for authority
to study and present more accurate plans, costs, etc.
Architect Briner stated that the project could be done in phases.
However, it is more economically feasible to do it all at once as opposed to being dra\^tn out since you do pay general conditions fees every time you approach a contractor for another change.
Jerry Ladd asked if the Town would approve a phased plan and Briner was optimistic that they would.
Ladd questioned the entrance. to Treetops f designed to fj.t between the elevator and stairwell - would there be ample room to
accommodate people going up and down stairs at the same time?Briner replied that there would be room and indicated a change in the location of the stairs due to the expansi6n tanks in the boiler room -
Ladd guestioned the impact on the second and third floor units from the sound of ski boots - could there be doors at the ends of the hallway and carpet instead of tile. Briner thought this a good idea.
Mike Johnson questioned the safety of the bridge now. Briner stated that there is no danger now but this is not necessarily true in the winter.
Mac Brown asked those present if they felt it to be unsafe.
Vern Averch noted that one person has fallen while carrying a suitcase; other instances include someone sleeping in the elevator and two sleeping in the boiler room alcove. He feels that a covered bridge would eliminate the weather problem and that a security system would eliminate transients frorn entering the building.
Briner noted that stairs on the bridge make it more hazardous
and suggested again an enclosure, but not heated.
Linda Averch pointed out a similar enclosure next to the Ralph
Loren Polo shop in the Sitzmark building.
Briner suggests a cover over top and sides of a lightweight material that the bridge structure will support.
Jim Tierney stated that he felt safer on the bridge than on
-9-
o
the driveway.
Mac Brown suggested a light from the building wall - Briner
agreed.
Brown also reiterated the unsafe condition of the driveway with water running off corunercial building and freezing.
Linda Averch suggested that the wal,kway from the garage to Treetops II should have a protective cover to r+aIk oD across the driveway and stated that the Board has proposed an enclosure due to close calls in the past.
Brown asked if a bank or lender had been approached regarding the possibility of financing an entire package. Would a signature loan be sufficient without security, or what security would they require?
Linda Averch replied that there are not yet any figures to present
to a bank. She has talked to a president of a bank about the g,eneral idea. The attorney and CPA would have to be consulted about requirements and possible coLlateral. There has been
-no corunitment from the Board or any bank. If the Board discovers that we have to finance, $400,000 may be a lot of money, $100,000
may not be.
Martin Shore suggested the Lease could be used as collateral.
cary Klein agreed - in this way, individual owners would not be invoLved.
Linda Averch stated that we are putting the carriage before the horse, that numbers are needed. The Board would like to see the project done and hopefully something concrete coul-d be presented to all by Decernber or January.
Vern Averch also suggested the assignment of rents as collateral-.
Mac Brown questioned voting on the entire package with enclosures or on individual items.
Briner explained that changes must be published two weeks prior
to the scheduled sessions, any change from approved drawings must go back to contractor, contractor must obtain a permit
each time - there are definite steps for each change with time
and money involved.
Gary Klein suggested a vote as asked for in the proxy for total
improvements as outlined or allowing owners of 28, 38, 48, and
5E to enclose small portions of the balconies.
Linda Averch proposed an amendment to allow the Board to continue
- 10-
with the project and get complete cost factors and drawings to present at the annual meeting. Ownels requesting enclosures of balconies would be at ownersr expense; money would be held in escrow, other homeowners would not be affected and there would be no expense to the Association. Could this be done legally?
Martin Shore responded that it could.
Gary Klein suggested a postponement with continued gathering of information until the annual meeting by rrrhich time Ordinance 4 woul-d possibly be changed.
Jim Tierney supported Linda's view of going forward with no cornmitment. The package aspect troubles him. He strongly favors using rental money on maintenance. His personal view is that if stacks A, B and E r^rant the proposed entrance, let the Condo Association do it and have the cost assessed to those people in those stacks being served. C and D stacks have a bad entrance problem also hrith the cost being the underlying problern. Both have a common problem of painting and upkeep- Cost figures are needed on each element. In regard to the enclosures, he feels that the map should be amended and the Board shou.Irl go
forward in obtaining all information.
Klein stated the need for complete working drawings frorn Briner to submit to a contractor and the actual cost for same.
Linda Averch agreed suggesting a change in the first part of the proxy that was sent.
Mac Brown stated the problem of two separate buildings. His main concern is with maintenance, safety, and structure. He is uncomfortable voting on the other building and agrees with Tierney's suggestion of assessi.ng the particular people who
would be involved in wanting the enclosures.
Briner suggested to Xlein that he (Xlein) provide working drawings to him (Briner) in an effort to save money on more architectural fees.
A motion was made by Mac Brown and seconded by the total improvement package as outlined for II not be pursued at this time.
Discussion
Vern Averch opposed he bel-ieves wiII cause etc. He felt that a is done should be done
the division of the
endless problems with rYesr or a tNor vote
as an Association,
Gary Klein that Treetops I and
two buildings which a division of owners,is fine but whatever
Martin Shore stated that the two buildings cannot be divided
-r1-
as the Declarations do not permit a partition of the general
common eLements. Individuals are interest holders with everyone
elsei all have an interest in the totaL package. The Condo Association can be dissolved but, until then, there is no way
to divide the buildings. The Deed and Declarations reflect that and specifically state.
Jim Tierney continued to believe that assessments can be
distributed without dividing the buildings and sees a distinction
between capital improvements, the entryway and what is common
maintenance for the units as a whole.
Mac Brown stated that capital expenses should be separate
maintenance is a cornmon concern.
tinda Averch proposed to amend the proxies in the packet sent.
made by Vern Averch to amend Mac Brown's motion y'
with the project until definite costs are available
same would be presented at a special or the annual
vote.
reiterated that the Board is working on behalf
or an overall package.
A motion was
and continue at which time
meeting for a
Linda Averch
of the owners
\
Gary Klein recalled Linda asking for his support with no mention
of subject costs or borrowing funds.
\]' Linda did not recall asking for this support and commented on the cost to Briner for whatever is done. Briner's fee to date'
amounts to a litt1e over $4f000 for drawingsr pE€seDtations
to committeesr paper work, meetings and discussion with Board
members and owners.
Klein stated that, if the majority of the owners are against this, no nore money should be spent and, perhaps, Tom should
amend the proposal to the Town.
Jerry Ladd stated that the issue is clouded by the enclosures
and further clouded by the separate stacks (one being enclosed,the other not ) and suggested removing the balcony enclosures issue entirely from overall improvement package.
Linda Averch agreed.
Vern Averch repeated amending the motion to vote on whether ,/
to proceed with architectural drawings and costs and have a special meeting when the cost analysis is in..--:--...-----.--\
This was seconded by Mr. and Mrs. Geisemann, Chris Cronin. and Ms. Phillips.
The vote was taken resulting in 16 for, 8 against.
-L2-
.a-
Linda Averch stated that the Board fiow has permission to proceed with the exception that nothing is {.o be done until cost factors are available and presented at a speqial or at the annual meeting.At such time. a vote will be taken. i
Jim Tierney reiterated same with t}e exception of architectural fees. Linda agreed.
Martin Shore recommended to the Bbard and the Association to
begin a long term capital irnprov$ment fund. Because of the tax structure, it would be very begeficial for this Association to have a plan stating what the fu4d is for and holding capital funds without spending. The presdnt By-Laws are not specific
regarding any fund.
Linda Averch stated that the Association is in a tax situation again. The year end is 9/30. Cafi we get an opinion here of the first quarterly assessment?
Martin Shore stated that .no busihess can be discussed other
than what the meeting called for.
Ladd commented that there had not been a vote regar*ing the bblcony enclosures. Do we enclose the stack of four to incLude the yellow awnings?
Linda Averch did not object to a vote.
A motion was made by Ladd to vote ]to approve or disapprove the four bdlcony enclosures in E stacfc. This motion was seconded by Mac Brown.
Discussion
Jim Tierney wanted to know the status of C stack.
Linda Averch stated the najority in C stack is not in favor
of the enclosures as presented by Briner. E stack is in favor of the enclosures as presented by B4iner.
Vern Averch suggested the C owndrs could amend the original
motion to go to the Tohrn to see if dnclosures can be done.
Linda Averch reiterated that eight balconies and two decks have already been approved and that whht is being said no\,r is that the Board has received an indication from numerous owners in C stack that they donrt like the present proposal, which is
why she extended the apology at the ibeginning of the meeting.
Tierney was against voting againsl the E stack since there is a need for more details.
Linda Averch reminded everyone ofl the possibility of amending
-13-
Ordinance 4. This would allow other Associations to enclose their balconies with approval from the Town. As it is now
Ordinance 4 does not include nulti-family dwellings.
A motion lras made by Jerry Ladd to allow the four enclosures in E stack.
Discussion
Linda Averch: If the Design Review Board turns down the four
enclosures, we have no choice but to abide by their decision but there has to be approval from the majority of owners in Treetops. A new vote would have to be taken of the owners.
Ladd withdrew his motion with the understanding that approval from the Design Review Board is presented to the entire
membership.
Linda agreed.
\< There was a clarification by Linda Averch and Tom Briner that Briner will be attending the Town rneeting on Wednesday regarding , approval for a portion of enclosures versus all ten at the same
time.
Jerry Ladd made a motion to adjourn the meeting and this motion
was seconded.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
/
iludy Troxel
-L4-
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Treetops Condominium
ilerry D. Ladd
April 22, 1988
RESULTS OF BAILOTING
JERtrY D. LABB
Association
€q (. r/
tllitif "c'
A total of 28 of the 29 units in Treetops I and Treetops II
completed and returned their ballots regarding balcony enclosures,items of repair and'maintenance, and proposed new improvernents. A clear consensus was achieved on eight out of ten items on the ballot regarding repairs, maintenance, and new improvernents. An individual recap of each item follows:
ftem #1: Repairs and mainterrance in the corridors - approved by a vote of 25-yes to 3-no.
Iten #2: Repairs and maintenance in the stairways - approved by a vote of 25-yes to 3-no.
Item *3: Repairs ancl maintenance to the bridges between Treetops I and Treetops II - approved by a vote of 24-yes to 4-no.
Item #4: An enclosure of the elevated bridge between Tree-6F-i anil the upper level garage - defeat6d by a vote of 0-yes to 28-no.
Item *5: New entryways to Treetops I and Treetops II and an enclosure around the trash dumpster - the vote was L2-yes and 16-no, but two of the nno' votes were conditionally cast and
were in favor of some improvements to the entrance to Tree-tops II and to the enclosure of the trash dumpster. A new entranse to ?reetops f has been voted, down. There is an uncertain vote regarding the entrance to Treetops II . There is a tie vote on the issue of a dumpster enclosure.
ftem #6r New balcony railings for Treetops II and repaired railings on Treetops I - there were 14-yes votes and 14-no votes, but four of the Gnon votes were conditionally cast,expressing support for the repair of the Treetops I railings.
There is maJority approval for the repair of Treetops I railings, and a tie vote on the issue of new railings for
Treetops II.
2O5O Wesr Severrx Avtrue r &ruven Oorocam r 8O204 r l3o3l 573-62t42
Treetops Condominium Association April 22, 1988
Page Tvto
Item *7: New winclows on the east side
dEEEEGa by a vote of 5-yes to 23-no.
- Itern *9: New siding and painting for
E!?-E5te of 10-yes to 18-no.
Ilern_tg: Landscaping of the lawn adjacent to the bike path -
GEeated by a votE of 9-yes to l9-no.
of Treetops II -
Treetops II - defeated
K(
Item *10:
Treetops
The Anclosure
defeated by a
Upgrades to the boilers in Treetops I ancl
II - approved by a vote of 22-yes to 4-no.
of the balconies on Units 2E, 3E' 48, andl 5E
vote of 13-yes to l5-no.
was
The Board of Directors of the Treetops Condominium Association has
not had a chance to meet anil discuss the results of the balloting,
but there is a dedication on the part of the full Board to properly
executing aII items of repair and maintenance during the upcoming
summer season so that Treetops I and Treetops II will enter the
next winter season in tip-top shape. In atldition to the repair
and maintenance included in Items fl' *2, and #3, action will be
taken to rernodel and repair the entrance to Treetops I andl to repair and/or replace all of the balcony railings as appropriate.
The necessity of replacing the balcony railings on TreetoPs IL
will be carefully investigated, and if necessary, will be uncler-
taken. In addition, the Board will identify and execute an
economically feasible enclosure for the trash dumpster. As
expressed above, there is a fairly egual split in the vote
regarding the entrance to TreetoPs II. There is not majority
approval for a $421477 entrance as Proposed in the balloting' but
there does seem to be a consensus of support for less expensive
alternatives, which could include the installation of some glass
in and adjacent to the doorway, with perhaps improved lighting.
There will be more conmunication with the Unit Owners in the
coming months to keep you abreast of the work that is undertaken.
Jerry D. Ladd
Seeretary of the
Treetops Condorninium Association
JDr'/)ab
q
!
--a
T I
'.LJ
8[UlJ r' ' - r] !;
MACKINToSH BRoWN P.C.
ATToRNEY AT LAw
Two UNITEo BANK CENTER
l7@ BRoaDwAy. SU|TE I 5O5
OENVER. CoLoRADo 8O29O
July 29 | 199I
TELEPHoNE (3O3) 494-OA@
FAx (303) 839A262
l'1r. Mike Mollica
Planning and Environmental Commission
75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81557
Res Treetops Balcony Enclosures
Dear Mr. Mollica:
I have reviewed the memorandum submitted by the Hellerstein
office on behalf of the applicants for the Treetops balcony enclosure. I have also reviewed the July 25. L987 Minutes of a
Special Meeting of the members at Treetops at which the President
of Treetops, Linda Averch, stated that the Board of Directors did not realize the owners of C Stack were not interested in the
balcony change proposal and extended the Boardrs apology for any misunderstanding. The minutes also reflect that a littfe over
$4,000.00 for drawings, presentations to cornmittees, paperwork,
meetings and discussion with the Board members and owners had been
expended to that date in connection with all of the proposed work
on Treetops, not just the balcony enclosures. Linda Averch also stated that the enclosures are secondary to the overall project and
should not become the main issue. A copy of these minutes is
enclosed which should be made a part of the official record.
What I am not clear about is whether the variance they are
seeking to currently use is the one approved June L, L987 for ten enclosures. Our July 25, L987 minutes reflect that Tom Briner
planned to attend a meeting of the Commission or Town Council on
Wednesday, July 29, L987, to see if he could get the approval of a portion of those ten enclosures since it was clear at that time
that the owners of the C Stack were not in favor of enclosures. I
would appreciate it if you could check the records of the Town
Council and Commission meetings, if any, on July 29, or soon after
that, to see if in fact Tom Briner did ask approval of less than
the full ten enclosures and what action was taken on that proposal .
f am confident that very little money was expended by the
Association or anyone else in the form of architectrs or attorney's fees in reliance upon the granting of the variance. Perhaps Briner
did not ask for the variance permi-t because he knew that there
Mr. llike Mollica
Planning and Envirorunental Commission
JuIy 29, 1991
Page 2
could not be ten enclosuresr or he may have been told by someone
from the Commission's staff that the permit would only be granted
for the full ten enclosures. Is it customary for the applicant to
expressly reguest that the perrnit be issued or is it done as a
matter of course? I suspect there is a sinple explanation of why
the permit was not issued and it probably stems from the members
meeting held on .Iuly 25, L987 when it became clear that the
variance was for more than the members wanted. Perhaps you could
give ure a ring when you track down the information about the
July 29, J-987 hearings, if any.
Sincerely,
MB:ms
Enclosure
g , e,1l sfk ^-f /4*< T'Lt'-"- J^ t ZP Ja"<
.//fury.?k:
'!4D,CKTNTOS
a
MINUTES
TREETOPS CONDOMTNilJM Ortto"ati#ON BoARD MEETTNG
This rneeting was called to order by President Linda Averch on
July 25, 1987, at 4245 P.M., at the residence of Vern and Linda Averch. This first order of business was roll call and
certification of proxies as foIlows. Those present were as
follows:
2A
3A
4A
6A
7A
1B
zb
JIJ
4B
f,lJ
58/78 Giesemann
1C
2c
3c
3D
4D
5D
1E
zr,
Jla
4E
5E
KIei-n
Brown
Smith
Jackson
t.)rr i nlr M-= ri
National Enterprises
Zimmer Deifik
Banos
Phi 1l ips
Phi Ilips
Averch
Proxy - Chris Cronin
Proxy - Marve1 Barnes
Proxy - Linda Averch
Proxy - Linda Averch
Proxy - Mac Brown
Proxy - Linda Averch
Proxy - Mac Brown
Proxy .- Chris Cronjn
Proxy - Marvel Barnes
Proxv - Mac Brown
Proxy - Mac Brown
Proxy - Linda Averch
Proxy - Mac Brown
Proxy - Linda Averch
Ladd
Brooks
Peterson
Zunzuneguj-
Dow
Beirnes
McDonald
Dominick
Brooks
Humphrey
Gibson
Proof of Notice of Meeting or Waiver of Notice was read by Linda
Averch. Her opening statement addressed the proposed upgrades
of Treetops I and II and then she introduced the following
narcrtilQ.
Tom Briner - Briner & Scott Architects
Martin Shore - Attorney for the Treetops Association
Dale Pflieger - Accountant for the Association Mr. Juergen Geisernann - Board Member
Linda Averch - Board Member
-r-
o
President's Opening Statement:
On behal-f of the Board we are here today to present to the owners of Treetops a proposal of upgrades to the building. The packet you received vras a preliminary package that was put together due to the fact that there was expressed concern by some of the owners that the Board $ras exceeding their authority and guidelines expressed at the annual meeting in January I987 of this year.
Property Improvements
Linda stated that the following
to the Treetops property:
r_mprovemencs need to be made
1. A liqht needs to be installed over the door that leads to the Resident Manager's office.2. Minor boiler repairs need to be done in Treetops II.3. The driveway needs to be sealed, to prevent deterioration of the asphalt.
4.
5.
catches units.
6.
Treetops I
7.
The valves in the lawn sprinkler need repair.The chimney flues need to be recapped...if the wind them in a certaj-n way, it causes smoke to back up in
The front wa11 of the planter at the entrance to the building needs repair.The roofs on the trash entrance and the main entrance
need repair.8. Painti.ng and touch-up where neededr particularly in the interior halls, and on the front door of each unit.9. A rubber link mat needs to be installed in the lower entrance to the Resident Managers' office and the garage, and on the bridge...these areas become very slippery.10. The carpeting, which is about five years old, needs to be replaced. The present carpeting, which was glued down.could serve as padding for new carpeting.11. The present wood on the buildings needs regular painting, as a preservative measure. The wood around the windows is in poor shape, and needs to be updated.L2. The balconies couLd not pass the Town Code presently,due to the large openings between the wood railings...the balconies need to be upgraded to a better material, with a more enclosed effect.
The following suggcstions were made by those present, relative to the proposed improvements:
1. That entrance doors to individual units rnight be painted a different color, or a possible change of the door itself.David Rioux reminded those present that if new doors were installed, they would have to meet Fire Code requirements.
-2-
a
2. That the new carpeting be similar in quality to the
ner.tr carpeting in the Mid-VaiI Restaurant.
3. Bernie and Lynn Weiss asked about the possibility of enclosing their balcony, to give a t'greenhouse" effect. Linda responded that ten Treetops homeowners have collectively approached the Town of Vail about enclosing their balconies,and that the project is "on hold" until a decision is made by the Town regarding similar proposals from other loilges and condominiun projects. There are several condominium expansion proposals before the Town for approval...if they receive their approval, Treetops will go back to the Town and ask for a variance to enclose ten balconies.
Linda stated that the Town roill not approve a balcony expansion enclosure in an area attached to or affected by a fire escape, general common areas, etc. Any homeowner wishing to expand or enclose a balcony must submit a drawing to the
Treetops Board for approval.
4. The suggestion was made that a gl-ass door be installed in the front entryway, with a special lock, to create the feeling of privacy.
5. cary Klein stated that dogs have become a problem in the lawn area, due to its proximity to the bike path, and reguested that consideration be given to installing a fence around the lawn. It was agreed by those present that the idea should be pursued.
With a Motion given by Vern Averch and seconded by Lynn Weiss,it was unanimous Iv:
RESOLVED: That refurbishing of the Treetops buildings and envir6iT-SElursued with all ideas, including the ideas outlined
above and any new ideas, to -EE--Eaken into consideration. The final presentation of possible upgrades wilI take into consideration cost factorsf TowD approval procedures, etc.,
and will be approved by the Board of Directors.
The importance of all changes to the buitdings and environs being coordinated, for a feeting of consistency and uniformity,was stressed. It was agreed that an architect should be hired to coordinate the project...preferably a local architect experienced in dealing with the Town. It was agreed that Tom Briner, Gordon Pierce and Craig Snowdon will be contacted regarding a possible interest in the project.
In response to this charge we deemed it nost economical to first present the concepts to the Town Staff, Planning Commission,D.R.B. and The Town Council. After numerous meetings and conversations at a mere cost of $I00.00 to the Association all
-3-
of the renovation ideas, old and new have received approval.
The next step is to prepare and present to you a proposed budget for these items. Tom Briner is nor,r prepared to present this proposal to you.
Architect Tom Briner \^ras called upon to present the proposed
upgrades ancl show his ideas in sketch form. He suggested that Buildings I and II would relate better as a single project and listed the followinq:
l_.
2.
3.
4-
q
a.
b.
c.
Develop new entry to Building I (which wilI also serve Building II ).Corridors in II should be brightened,/cleaned up.
Graphics program.Stair enclosures (i.e., lightingf entrance to II, etc. )Enclose decks,/balconies in Building II (4 balconies , 2F,,
38, 4E and 5E).
d.
f.
Improve, enhance and protect entry (security, heat, make
larger) by adding new entry and demolishing old entry.Building II - addition of canopy over entrance, new lighting,ner entrance location facing westr cover the metal bridge.Building I - fix existing railings (we may all have some liability if railings do not meet code). Suggest reducing
space between horizontal rai1s, raise height. Railings
in II should be improved to match Building I.Eliminate canopies,/hoods over windows which is causing
maintenance problems - replace with stucco - horizontaf
wood siding on BuildJ-ng I. More insulation would be provided
by the replacement hrith stucco.lnstall fence or barrier to dogs along bike path - a hedge
would be more natural and attractive - must be on property
1i.ne, not on Town property. Potentilla was suggested for
hedge.
New entrance should incorporate great deal of landscaping
starting from road to third level. and staj-rs to second 1evel. Enclose open corridor for heat retention; terrace Iow timber retaining walls and landscape with trees; pave
walkway.
Retain pitched roof to throw snow into terraced areai canopy
over bridge; perhaps pierced windows in top of stairwell.
Change balcony railings in Building I to match Building II - more space would be available if living rooms were
extended.
Linda Averch stated that the Board did not realize the owners
in C stack were not interested in the balcony change proposal
and extended the Board's apology for any misunderstanding.
Architect Briner further suggested extending the eaves I-l/2
to 2 feet to match Building I since water is presently running
down the wood siding.
Architect Briner adilressed the projected costs stating that
9.
L
-4-
1.
he had presented these items and preliminary drawings to three contractors with whom he and his firm have worked closelv and askeil for very general budget estimates, not bids, from these contractors. These contractors are JDM, Duddy Vie3.e, and Beck
& Associates.
Estimates are as follows:
Entry and Corridor - BuildJ-ng I includes remodeling of trash room, landscaping and filt,retaining wall-s, lighting, snow removal , irrigation system,corridor doors and paint, simple security system, extending balcony railings at fourth level, painting bridges that connect Buildings I and II.
JDM 9100,030
Duddy Viele 9I ,747 Beck & Associates 66,85I
RemodeLing of existing balconies z.
JDM
Duddy Viele
Beck t Associates
JDM
Duddy Vj-e1e
Beck O Associates
JDM
Duddy Viele
Beck a Associates
Reconstruction of
JDM
Duddy Viele
Beck & Associates
General Conditions
JDM
Duddy Viele
Beck & Associates
$ 6, 000
5, 813
139 per balcony ($4,100 totali
Bridge entry - including glazed enclosure, ceiling under-neath bridge, facia, canopy, lighting, new door, sidewalk
I 29,790
31, 9 32
25,053
.t-corridor,/stair - capret, paint, lighting, Pierced windorvs
Exterior - replacing windows (metal for vinylr wood finish),
removing canopies, new stucco, patch and repair, wood siding,insulation, extending eaves, repainting building
JDM $103,751
Duddy Viele 47,404
Beck E Associates 82;O75
s 2a,456
40 ,416
13, 528
balcony,/railings
g r8, 700
20,399
15.106
and Fee
6.
$ 55,675
included in total (below)
43,550
7.
-5-
8. Totals
JDM $344,402 (high)
Duddy Viele $237,70I Beck & Associates 9249,263
Architect Briner suggested negotiations with the two lowest contractors with anticipated completion by Thanksgiving.
Linda Averch stated that this is the first tine that these numbers have been presented to the Board but that the Board did instruct Briner to get a proposal for a first class job to be presented to the Board.
Mac Brown questioned Briner on the height, and safety of the railings on Building II. Briner responded that the height may be 41" and that, even though he did not personally inspect each and every one, he does not feel that they are the most stable. Code does cal-1, for 6" or less bethreen rails or for runners or screeninq across rails.
Briner stated that he presented the above as an overall project to the Planning Commission- not separating the balcony changes. _
The town has approved GRFA increases when there has also been substantial effort made to improve the general appearance of a proj ect.
Linda Averch stated that the Association had been given approval two years ago for the balcony enclosures and that Lhe goard never stated to the architects that the balconies were a main factor.
Mac Brown questioned whetber all ten balconies would have to be changed or a portion thereof.
Briner responded that this is a part of the agenda with the Design Review Board this coming Wednesday,
Linda Averch stated that the Board became a$rare at a meeting in latter June that more than one owner r,rras not interested in the balcony enclosures and further stated that these enclosures are secondary to the overall project and should not become the main issue.
Gary Xlein guestioned when/why the concept of having C stack change from enclosed patios to exterior storage ara.
-\ Briner explained that the Town has not approved deck enclosure
anywhere else but there are mitigating circumstances here, i.e.,there will be a large area renaining after encLosure of smaller portion - impressed upon J.arger outiloor usable balcony space.
Mac Brovrn questioned the property line in relation to the building
and Briner pointed out that it was from 8r at one point to 20r at
another.
-6-
Irlac Brown guestioned why a fence was not permitted. Briner suggested that it was rejected possi.bly due to the view for
some across the bike path.
Mac Brown guestioned whether the neighbors to the East are on the property line.
Linda Averch replied no - the retaining waII was on the property
line and had been lowered.
According to drawings, Briner was guessing that our neighbors are over the property line.
Mac Brown guestioned the legal aspects if balconies are enclosed:increase in taxes, need to amend condo map to increase sguare footage, who pays for any refurbishing or remodeling, need to
amend covenants.
\i Attorney Martin Shore replied that he f oresees no problems providing homeowners follow the By-Laws and Declarations. He explained that, in the Condomini.um Act in Colorado, ownership is based on (f) air space unit within wa1ls - you own that;(2) general conmon elements, the wal1, you do not own that only a fractional interest. Limited common elements are granted
f or the use of the individual owner: f lues, f or example; pra,tjos are restricted to the unit; as per the Declarations patios are attached to units and cannot be divided. There is no law,however, as to whether you can or cannot enclose. If you screen patios, do you change the patio - he thinks not. If you glass the patio, do you change the patio - he thinks not. rf completed as projected here, you have an enclosed common element for your
own use. The Town could decide to assess due to increased space.He has no lega1 opinion as to what the tax assessor will do but it could be assumed that there wifl be a raise due to increase in value. Should the map be amended? There is no case requiring such action. Who pays? This should be worked out among each other ( common element). The covenants cover enclosures, permit it; thereforer lou could proceed. He stated that there seem to be two different questions: (1) numerous improvements, (2)
patios. The Declaratj.ons state that expenditures over $120 (over approved budget) must be approved by owners excluding repair, maintenance, replacement, or obsolescence. He feels that this is a political problem - not a legal problem.
Gary Klein asked if this meeting was called in order to go ahead with capital expenditures or if Board voted to do it?
Linda Averch answered no and reiterated that the next step j-s
for the Board to neet with the contractor(s), and go through
each proposal one at a time. She asked owners whether to proceed
in order to get exact numbers. Owners have given permission to go this far. AII opinions are considereil by the Board.
Vern Averch stated that he called the Eagle County Assessor's
-7-
o
office to see what his unit is being taxed for and was told that 1,430 sq. ft., incLuding the balcony, is being taxed. There would be no liability tax-rvise unless the assessor increased the value
of the overall unit. Again, the balcony is already being taxed.
Linda Averch passed out a letter from Bob Dorf, a real estate
broker of Slifer & Company, concerning the exterior of Treetops
and his concern regarding the outside presentation and impression to buyers. Linda stated that the owners are directed to go to
Tom Briner or Marvel Barnes with any questions. She further stated that the main emphasis here is our overall appearance and
since our "front door" is essentially the entrance to Treetops II,
this entrance nust be attractive. The inside can be control-fed
by the individual, the outside cannoL.
Dale Pfi-ieger, our Associations cPA, presented a history on Lax-
ation for the Condo Association:
The Condo Association has an annual election on whether to be
taxed as a Homeo\^rners t Association or a regular corporation-
A Homeowners' Association pays tax on non-exempt income - mainly
rents and interest income. Deductions agai-nst non-exempt income are expenses directly related to the production of that income in
which Treetops situation is very littIe, Homeowners' Associations pay tax at a 30E rate. In a regular corporation, aII revenue j-s
considered taxable income. A11 expenses are considered deductions.
Since Treetops has $33,000 in rental income and $5,000 to $6,000 in
interest incorne, it would have approximately $40,000 taxable income
with no tax deductibte expenses if it fited as a Homeowners' Assoc-ication, It would appear beneficial to file as a regu)-ar corpora-tion. For fiscal years 85-86, Treetops had been faced with a
signj-ficant tax liability. It was the opinion at the annual meeting
to eliminate this liability designati-ng a portion of assessments as
capital assessments since capital assessments can be excl-uded from
taxable income. Roughly $90,000 taxable income was eliminated for
years J-985-86 if designating such as capital assessments. The only
deductions to date for capital improvements have been for the
manager's unit ($20,000) and for installation of the fire alarn ($25,000). September 30, 1986 books show capital assessments, less
expenditure for capital improvements of S46,000 (which is limited
to capital improvements). Taxable income appeared to be a con-
tinuing problem. As a sofution, it was suggested at the last
annual meeting to eliminate quarterly assessment, reduce the
quarterly assessment, or increase spending for capital improvements.
The Board approved reducing the quarterly assessment, $10,000 each,
for the second, third, and fourth quarters, since the first quarter
had already gone out. fnformation from Vail Home Rentals indicates
that even with the reduction, there will be taxable income problems
this year. Prelirninary financial information shows that Treetops
cash balance is $70,000, and income year to date of $30,000. This
amount of taxable incorne would generate a tax liability of $5r000 to $6,000 this year.
Could the Associaion borrow funds to complete the project? Dale
-8-
o
Pflieger, CPA, said yes. from
would continue to designate
assessment of being capitaJ-to retire the debt obligation.
Gary Klein questioned if it
save $4 , 000 or $5, 000.
o
an accounting standpoint you
a certain amount of your quarterly
assessment. That amount would so
made sense to spend $400,000 to
Linda Averch again stated that the Board is asking for authority to study and present more accurate plans. costs, etc.
Architect Briner stated that the project could be done in phases.
However, it is more economically feasible to do it all at once as opposed to being drawn out since you do pay general conditions fees every time you approach a contractor for another change.
Jerry Ladd askecl if the Town would approve a phased plan and Briner was optimistic that they wouJd.
Ladd questioned the entrance to Treetops I designed to fit between the elevator and stairwell - would there be ample room to
accommodate people going up and down stairs at the same tine?Briner replied that there would be room and indicated a change in the location of the stairs due to the expansibn tanks in the boiler room.
Ladd questioned the impact on the second and third floor units from the sound of ski boots - could there be doors at the ends of the hallway and carpet instead of tile. Briner thought this a good idea.
Mike Johnson questioned the safety of the bridge now. Briner stateil that there is no danger now but this is not necessarily true in the winter.
Mac Brown asked those present if they felt it to be unsafe"
Vern Averch noted that one person has fallen while carrying a suitcase; other j.nstances include someone sleeping in the elevator and two sleeping in the boiler room alcove. He feels that a covered bridge woufd eliminate the weather problem and that a security system would eliminate transients from entering the building.
Briner noted that stairs on the bridge make it more hazardous and suggested again an enclosure. but not heated.
tinda Averch pointed out a similar enclosure next Loren Polo shop in the Sitzmark building.
Briner suggests a cover over top and sides of a material that the bridge structure will support.
to the Ralph
Iightweight
Jin Tierney stated that he felt safer on the bridge than on
-9-
a
the driveway.
Mac Brown suggested a light from the building waLl - Briner
agreed.
Brown also reiterated the unsafe condition of the driveway with water running off commercial building and freezing.
Linda Averch suggested that the walkway from the garage to Treetops II should have a protective cover to r4'a1k on across the driveway and stated that the Board has proposed an enclosure due to close calls in the past.
Brown asked if a bank or lender had been approached regarding the possibility of financing an entire package. Would a signature loan be sufficient without securityr oE what security would they require?
Linda Averch replied that there are not yet any figures to present to a bank. She has talked to a president of a bank about the general idea. The attorney and CPA would have to be consulted about requirements and possible collateraI. There has been no commitment fron the Board or any bank. If the Board discovers that we have to finance, $400,000 may be a lot of money, $I00,000 may not be.
Martin Shore suggested the Lease could be used as co1latera1.
Gary Klein agreed - in this way,be i.nvolved.
individual owners would not
Linda Averch stated that we are putting the carri.age before the horse, that numbers are needed. The Board would tike to see the project done and hopefully something concrete could be presented to all by December or January.
Vern Averch also suggested the assignment of rents as collateral .
Mac Brown questioned voting on the entire package with enclosures or on individual items.
Briner explained that changes tnust be published two weeks prior to the scheduled sessions, any change from approved drawings must go back to contractor. contractor must obtain a permit each time - there are definite steps for each change with time
and money involved.
Gary Klein suggested a vote as asked for in the proxy for total improvements as outlined or allowing owners of 2Er 3Er 4E, and
5E to enclose snall portions of the balconies.
Linda Averch proposed an amendment to allow the Board to continue
- 10-
rrith the project and get complete cost factors and drawings to present at the annual neeting. Owners requesting enclosures of balconies wouLd be at o\rrners' expense; money would be held in escro\.ir. other homeowners would not be affected and there would be no expense to the Association. Could this be done Iegally?
Martin Shore responded that it could.
Gary KLein suggested a postponement with continued gathering of inforrnation until the annual meeting by which tirne Ordinance 4 would possibly be changed.
Jin Tierney supported Linda's view of going forward with no commitment. The package aspect troubles hirn. He strongly favors using rental money on maintenance. His personal view is that if stacks A, B and E want the proposed entrance, Iet the Condo Association do it and have the cost assessed to those people in those stacks being served. C and D stacks have a bad entrance problem also with the cost being the underlying problem. Both have a common problern of painiing and uplie.p-. Cost figures are needed on each elernent. In regard to the enclosures, he feels that the nap should be amended and the Board should go forward in obtaining all information.
Klein stated the need for complete working drawings from Briner to submit to a contractor and the actual cost for same.
Linda Averch agreed suggesting a change in the first part of the proxy that was sent.
Mac Brown stated the problem of two separate buildings. His main concern is with maintenance, safety, and structure. He is uncomfortable voting on the other building and agrees with Tierney's suggestion of assessing the particular people who would be involved in wanting the enclosures.
Briner suggested to Klein that he (Klein) provide working drawings to him (Briner) in an effort to save money on more architectural fees.
A motion was made by Mac Brown and seconded by Gary Klein that the total improvenent package as outlined for Treetops I and II not be pursued at this time,
Discussion
vern Averch opposed the division of the two buildings which he belj-eves will cause endless problems with a division of owners,etc. He felt that a 'Yes' or a 'No' vote is fine but whatever is done should be done as an Association.
Martin Shore stated that the two buil-dings cannot be divided
- I1-
as the Declarations do not
common elements. Individuals else; a]I have an interest Association can be dissolved to divide the buildings.
that and specifically state.
permit a partition of the general are interest holders with everyone in the total package. The Condo but, until then, there is no way The Deed and DecLarations reflect
Jim Tierney continued to believe that assessments can be distributed without dividing the buildings and sees a distinction
between capital improvements, the entryway and what is common
maintenance for the units as a whole.
Mac Brown stated that capital
maintenance is a cotnmon concern.
exDenses should be separate
Linda Averch proposed to amend the proxies in the packet sent.
A motion was made by Vern Averch to amend Mac Brown's motion r'
and continue with the project until definite costs are available at which time same would be presented at a special or the annual meetinq for a vote.
Linda Averch reiterated that the Board is worki-nq on behalf of the owners or an overall package.
Gary Klein recalled Linda asking for his support with no mention of subject costs or borrowing funds.
\rr Linda did not recall asking for this support and commented on the cost to Briner for whatever is done. Briner's fee to dace amounts to a little over $4, 000 for drawings, presentations to committeesr paper work, meetings and discussion with Board
members and owners.
Klein stated that, if the majority of the owners are against this, no more money should be spent and, perhaps, Tom should
amend the proposal to the Town.
\Jerry Ladd stated that the issue is clouded by the enclosures and further clouded by the separate stacks (one being enclosed,the other not) and suggested removing the balcony enclosures issue entirely from overall improvement package.
Linda Averch agreed.=\l
Vern Averch repeated amending the notion to vote to proceed with architectural- drawings and costs
,.-l!${f meeting when the cost analysis is in-
This was seconded by l'1r. and Mrs. Geisemann, Chris
Ms. Phillips.
The vote was taken resulting in 16 for, 8 against.
on whether
and have a
Cronin, and
,.
-L2-
a a"
Linda Averch stated that the Board now has permission to proceed with the exception that nothing is to be done until cost factors are available and presented at a special or at the annual meeting.At such time, a vote will be taken.
Jim Tierney reiterated same with the exception of architectural fees. Linda agreed.
Martin Shore recornmended to the Board and the Association to begin a long term capital improvement fund. Because of the tax structure, it would be very beneficial for this Association to have a plan stating what the fund is for and bolding capital funds without spending. The present By-taws are not specific regarding any fund.
Linda Averch stated that the Assoeiation is in a tax situation again- The year end is 9/30. Can we get an opinion here of the first quarterly assessment?
Martin Shore stated that no business can be discussed other than what the meeting called for,
Ladd co$unented that there had not been a vote regrar*ing the bdlcony enclosures. Do we enclose the stack of four to include the yellow awnings?
Linda Averch did not object to a vote.
A motion was made by Ladd to vote to approve or disapprove the four brilcony enclosures in E stack. This motion was seconded by Mac Brown.
Discussion
Jim Tierney wanted to know the status of C stack.
-r Linda Averch stated the majori-ty in C stack is not in favor of the enclosures as presented by Briner. E stack is in favor of the enclosures as presented by Briner.
Vern Averch suggested the C owners couLd amend the original rnotion to go to the Town to see if enclosures can be done,
\ f,itO. Averch reiterated that eight balconies and two decks have already been approved and that what is being said now is that the Board has received an indication from numerous owners in C stack that they donrt like the present proposal, which is why she extended the apology at the beginning of the neeting.
Tierney rdas against voting against the E stack since there is a need for more details.
Linda Averch reminded everyone of the possibility of amending
-13-
Ordinance 4. This would allow other Associations their balconies with approval from the Town. As ordinance 4 does not include multi-family dwelJ.ings,
to ir enclose is now
A in motion was made by Jerry Ladd to allow the four enclosures E stack.
Discussion
tinda Averch: If the Design Review Board turns down the four enclosures, we have no choice but to abide by their declsion but there has to be approval from the majority of owners in Treetops. A new vote would have to be taken of the o$rners.
Ladd withdrew his motion with the understanding that approval from the Design Review Board is presented to the entire
membership.
Linda agreed
There eras a clarification by Linda Averch and Tom Briner that Briner will be attending the Town meeting on Wednesday regarding approval for a portion of enclosures versus all ten at the same time.
Jerry Ladd made a motion to adjourn the rneeting and this motion
was seconded.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:40 P.it.
Respectf u1ly submitted,
€/
Jucly Troxel
-I4 -
MACKINToSH BRowN P.C.
ATToRNEY AT LAw
Two UNTEo BANK CENTER
| 7@ BRoaDway, SutTE l5O5
DENVER, CoLoRAoo 60290
July 24, 1991
TELEPHONE (3O3) A94O8@
FAx (303) 8398262
Mr. Mike l4ollica
Planning and Environmental Commission
75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 8165?
Re: Treetops Balcony Enclosures
Dear lqr. Mollica:
I talked yesterday to cary Klein and he indicated that the law
firm of Hellerstein, Hellerstein & shore has filed a brief with you
in connection with the Treetops bal-cony enclosures. I would be grateful if you could send a copy of that to me for review. It may
be that I may have some additional facts or law which would be
helpful to you and the City Attorney.
It is ny understanding that the hearing on this matter was
tabled until August 26, 1991.
Sincerely,
!1B:ms
1,zc.It t'--r T / ,14,
O o
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
\
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
June 10, 1991
An appeal of a staff decision concerning a density variance granted to the
Treetops Condominiums, Lot 6, Block l, Vail Lionshead First Filing/452 East
Lionshead Circle.
Appellanr Treetops Condominium Association
Planner: Mike Mollica
u.
DESCzuPTION OF TTTE REOUEST
The Treetops Condominium Association is appealing a staff decision regarding a
previously approved density variance for the Treemps Condominiums, located at 452
East Lionshead Circle. It is the position of the staff that a density variance granted by
the Town in 1987 for the enclosure of ten balconies in the Treetops project has lapsed.
According to the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Section 18.62.080, Permit Issuance In
Effect, "the permit shall lapse if construction is not commenced within one year of the
date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion."
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
A. On June l, 1987, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) voted
unanimously (6 - 0) to approve a density variance and an exterior alteration in
order to enclose eight balconies and two decks at the Treetops Condominiums.
The staff had subsequently recommended approval of the exterior alteration and
denial of dre density variance.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission action on this density variance
was called up by the Town Council, and was reviewed at their June 16, 1987
public hearing. At this hearing, the Town Council upheld the PEC decision by
avoteof4- l.
During March of 1991, the Treetops Condominium Association filed a Design
Review Board @RB) application in order to obtain final DRB approval for the
enclosure of the ten balconies that were previously approved in 1987.
On April 11, 1991, David F. Murray, of Hellerstein, Hellerstein and Shore,
attorney for the Treetops Condominium Association, filed a written request to
the Town Attorney requesting that the staff allow the Treetops Design Review
Board application to proceed through the planning process.
On April 18, 1991, Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, reaffirmed the staff position
that the variance which was obtained in 1987 was now expired. It was also
pointed out in Mr. Eskwith's letter, that if the Treetops Condominium
Association still desired to move forward with the balcony enclosures that it
would be necessary for them to proceed through the planning process at this
time.
On April 19, 1991, the planning staff advised Bill Pierce, architect for the
Treetops Condominium Association, that the request could not be scheduled
before the DRB because the 1987 variance approval had expired.
On May l, 1991, David F. Murray, attorney for the Treetops Condominium
Association, filed a written appeal of the staff's decision regarding the 1987
variance approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is the staffs position that the density variance that was approved in 1987 for the
Treetops Condominium Association to enclose ten balconies has lapsed pursuant to
Section 18.62.080 of the Municipal Code. The staff does acknowledge however, that
the Treetops Condominium Association has made site improvements such as
landscaping to the Treetops project, since 1987. While we applaud the Association's
effons to upgrade their property, the staff believes that such site improvements werc
not relevant to the 1987 density variance, nor were said site improvements a condition
of the i987 density variance, and therefore the site improvements should not be
considered a commencement of construction.
c.
D.
E.
F.
G.
III.
c:\pec\nemos\rcctops.6l 0
LOUI9 A. H ELLERSTEIN
STEPHEN A. HELLERSTEIN
l.lARTlN H. 9HORE
JANICE HOFMANN CLARK
EDWARD P, O'BRIEN
FOBERT E, MAFKEL
ROBERT W SMITH
SALLY K. ORTNER
DAVID F. MURRAY
EI.,I MY H, STONE
BARBARA P. KOZELKA
MICHAEL A. VELLONE
DAVID A. SHORE
-- t)31
HrLunsrrrn. Hslunslsrx AND SHoRE, p. c,
alloFitEYs at tatv
II3E OELAWARE s?FEET
P. 0. 90x 5637
OENVER. COLORADO AO?I7
May I, l99l
TELECOPIEFI
l!03) 57r- r27l
yIA UPS OVERNIGHT pELTVERY
Mr. Mikc Mollica
Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
In Re: Treetops Condominiums Density Variance
Dear Mr. lr4ollica:
We are writing on bchalf of our ctient, Treetops Condominium Association ("Associ-
ation'), concerning the density variancc grantcd to the Association on June 16, 1987 in
connection with the enclosure of certain balconies in the Treetops project. As you know,
we recently wrote to the Vail Town Attorney, Larry E. Eskwith, concerning his position
that rhc density variance had lapscd pursuant to the Town's ordinanccs. A copy of our
letter to Mr. Eskwith dated April I l, t99l is enclosed. On April 12.. 1991, Martin Shore of
our office and I met with Mr. Eskwith to discuss the substance of our lettcr and to review
the documents and materials referred to therein.
At our meeting with Mr, Eskwith, wc cxpressed the Association's position that the
variancc granted in 198? has not lapsed based upon the fact that thc Vail Planning
Commission conditioned its approval of the variance upon the Association's agreement to
make other substantial improvements and repairs to the Trcetops project and that the
Association has spent in exccss of $300,000 over the past four years in completing thosc
gcneral site improvements. However, Mr. Eskwith advised us that it is his position that thc
Association failed to meet the requirements of the Town's ordinance which requires that
construction contemplated under a variance must be commcnced within one ycar of the
date of issuance of the variance. Accordingly, Mr. Eskwith rciteratcd that any Design
Review Board Application submitted by the Association to the Town for approval of
certain changes in the architectural plans would be pointless bccause the variance had
lapsed. Therifore, the Association etccted not to submit to the Town the Design Rcvicw
_
Board Application rccently prcpared by its architects, Friztlen, Picrce, Briner. Mr. Eskwith
confirmed his position on this mattcr by a lettcr sent to us datcd April lE, 1991, a copy of
which also is cnclosed.
Thc Association wishes to appcal the decision of thc Town in this matter. Accord'
ingly, pleasc considcr this.lcttcr as thc Association's rcqucst for an appcal from thc Town's
adhlnistrative action pursuant to Vail Town Ordinance 18.66.030 which provides as
fol lows:
Appeal from any administrative action or determination by thc
town manager or thc zoning adminishator pursuant to provi-
sions of this title may be filed with thc Planning Commission
by any rcsidcnt or propcrty owncr within twcnty days follow'
ing such action or determination.
HrurnsrrtN, HrlunsrrtN eNp Snonr, p. c.
ATTOFINEYS AI LAW
DFM/ljc
Encls.cc: Mr. Carlos PhilliPs
Mr. Bill Pierce
Ms. Marvcl Barncs
Mr. Mikc Mollica
May I, l99l
Page 2
we recently discusscd with Mr. Eskwith the propriety of filing an appeal of this
matter i" rie* oi-ttte fact that we ale uncertain as to whethsr thcre has been any
;aOmlnistrativc action{ by the Town from which an anpe.a! 4?y b-9 filcd' While Mr'
Csffiiiil;; oi itrc opini'on that.our inf ormal meetini 'wjth hiir did. not constitutc admini-
ittativi action by thi fot"n, fr! recommcnded. ttrat wJfilc an appeal with the Planning
dommission in order to ptirtiu"irti lssociation's rights. In disc-u-ssing this matter with
t;: til ;J"tr.a ui tr'"ivou b;ii;;;;Jct_ins *iit' Mr. Eskwith did coustitutc adminis-
irati"c action by the Town and that an appeal o-f Mr. Eskwith's decision could be filcd
*it1 ttti Ftanniirg Commission under ths above-rcfercnced ordinance.
In our convcrsation with you, we discussed thc fact that the plans which served as
the basis for the Planning Commission's approval of the variance in 1987 have becn
ii"ii.o.- set*. or tne r?uiiions, irri Assiiiation recently prcpared the above'referenced
besign Review goara npplicaiion ln order.toobtain the Town's approval of such changes'
it liitJe..ociation's po'.iiion ttut the rcvised plans affect matters which would only
;;;;;;; ttrC oeiign Riview Board and that variance considerations have been unchanged'
i"-iirl-r i.iirO, Viu inOicat.d that a ccrtain owner in the project-has cxpr-esscd opposition to
it,e ptopoied tlatcony enclorrr..s for various reasons, including the fact that the plans as
originally approved havc bcen changed.
We understand from the Association's architects that thc variancc granted in 1987
contemtlated enclosure of ten balconics located in thc portions of the project refetred to as
stacks C and E. Each stack consists of five units. The revised plans still contemplate.
in"ioiui" of all five uniii in stack E and the ground-level unit in stack C' Accordingly'
iire Aisociation merely-*istriiio procied witlicnclosure of six of the ten balconies
iiiel;r;lt.ppioveo f6. cnitosuri by the Planning Commission. We believe that such
cfrtnget in the plans do not implicaie variance considerations'
The Association's position concerning thc continucd vali-dity of the variance is set
out in detail in its lettei io Vfi.-iri.*itn aatiO April lI, 1991. We iequest that the Planning
io**iiiion include trrat ietlii in its considcration of tiris appeal a-nd that the matter be set
i; i;;;;i;C. ii trtii m.ltei is set for hearing, please provide a Notice of Hearins to the
undcrsigned.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
HELLERSTEIN, HELLERSTEIN AND SHORE' P'C,nl \FJ- | 3 't,'l u-i a V'
David F. MurraY
/
Via Telecopy
a I
LOUTS A, HELLEFgTCIN
STEPHEN A. HELIERS'gIN
l,taRTlN X. gHORE
JANTCE HOFXANN CLARX
EDWAND P. O,BRIEN
FOBEFI E. l''lAFxEL
ROBEFT W 5MI1H
3ALLT
'(.
OFTN€R
DAVIO T. MURRAY
EI.IMY H. STONE
IAR9ARA F, KOz€tt(A
||ICHAEL A. VELLONE
DAVTD A. SHORE
HelrrnsrtlN. HguutRsmtH AND SHoRe. P' c.
AlloiNtv3 al t.w
II'C bELAWAFE SIREE'
P. O. 60X 5617
oENvEFt, COIORAOO aO?17
April I I, l99l
?ELEFHONE
1303) 3t3- loao
l€Lec0Pl€R
Itoll 67r- l??l
Lowrcncc E. Eskwith, Esquirc
Vail Town Attorncy
?5 South Frontlgc Road
Vnit, Cotorado 81657
In Rc: Trcctops Condonriniums Dcnsity Vcrioncc
Dcar lr4r. Eskwith:
wc!tcwritinEonbchrlfofourcticnt'TrcctopsCondominiumAssociation
(,,Associntion"l, conc.rniire'ti;'V;il'i;*; iouncit't iffitmrntc of the Plannins and (
invironnrcnrat commissi&;.'i"c"*.iition') g;;i of a dcnsity.vtrirncc on Junc l6' 1987
in connccrion *itlr variois ittip-tit..."ti and contttuction in'thc Trcctops projcct'
including thc cnctosurc;i.;;i;i. itarconi.t. S-incc tftc timc of thc Comnrission's I'rant of
thc vnriancc, rn. nssociiii* f,tt tp.nt. substnnticl smounts of nroncy for improvcnrcnts
rrnd consrruction contci'pi;;;i'";;;; irt" ""ti."". and it now l^'ishcs lo procccd with the
ililil;;;i;;;;;-;il;'f iJi.,rrirui"cr only onc of nrany proposcd improvcmcnrs.
BccausethcAssocirtionhasstightlyrcviscdilsp|rn.sconccrningthc.
bnlcony cnctosurcs, ir;;;.i'tly_;;paica a pciign Rcvicw Borrd Applicstion in otdcr to
obtain thc Town's.ppio"ti-i'f !uc'h changes. 1[" a.. adviscd tlrnt thc chrngcs rcllcctcd
in thc rcviscd plans oifi.i'tatittt whictiwould only con-ccrn thc Dcsign Rcvicw Board
nnd thar varicncc conrii.iriions havc uccn unitrangid. wc undcrst!nd thflt thc Associa'
tion.s architccts, Friztlcn, Picrcc and Srincr..;onia.i.O tttt Town's Zoning Administrator
prior ro subrrrirting tf,. ij.rii"-if Jvicw foarb-epptica.tion lo ll:,.9::ntunitv Dcvclopment
Dcprrtment ("ocpnrtmcir;i;;d wcrc adviscd rttai it is your position thnt thc dcnsity
vnriancc hns Inpscd p;;;,i"i"; ih; T;;;;;btbinanctt.'Thc'purposc of this lcttcr is to
of fcr addirionnr uacr.giii"i'i'"i"t111ttion-*i ioiit .bnccrning tlic. Commission's grant of
rhc variancc and rhc i"'",tt;,;;;;i'-riliiii" iriii".r.ni. coniemp.latcd thcrcundcr. and
to rcqucsr that you ,.;;;;;;;'y"ui bosirion.cdnccrning lrpsc of the vrriancc' Thc
following is a l)rict summary of our undcrstanoing of'thc-chronoloS,y of cvents in
conncction with this nrallcr,
0noraboutMsy25.tgST,thc.Associotionsubnrittedanappticationtothc
Dcsign Rcvicw no.ro"r".iuittt;;;'p;;;";r or'an ciicrior nttcrrtion and dcnsitv vRtinncc
for rhc cnclosurc or ..rtlii-ior'con'ilt rnd r pidcstrirn-bridgc, rs wcll os rcdcsigning cnd
inrprovcmcnt of o lobby ond lobby cntr:rncc-..-ihc appticntlin also proDoscd subst!nti0l
inrprovcmcnrs anO lErid'scaping of'fnc projcct, in.f uding improvcmcnt and rcpnir of
o
Lawrcncc E' Eskwith, Esquirc
Aprit 10. l99l
Pagc .2'
cntrywiys,brlconyrailingsandsidcwalks-'Encloscdwiththislcttcrandlcbclcdos Exhibit'A" is a.opv oi'T"#rioiutO"t JrtcOiiic-r''i-d!i iiot thc Dcpnttmcnt to thc
comnrission *n;cn ouriin;r';;;';;;;t;ilo" r r.iu-i.t lbi approuat.of thc Droposcd
cxrcrior rtrcrnttons. tc.iion t of tfrat ,n"to,ai't'uli'dtiif i*i thc. Association's spccif ic
rcqucst for thc "nrlorur'J'Ji:;ri;o;i;;
,n,r-.nutiJ'.t;t-ii;;;;Jiiionat improvcmcnts which
thc Associarion had proposcd. scctions rv .no"v oiih;;;;;tundum indicatc that all
of thc proposcd imprwemcnts to €ntrywnys, r.nor.opini, iighting,and ncw sidcwalks
wcrc in comptinncc *,i;";;;-;;urJ'ii"tr'ii til; il;;;;;;.i'f ir'! jt^'-u"" Dcsign considcra'
tions for Lionshcad. ^rli'liJ'i.ilrni..naotion
.oni.tning thc. cxtcrior.altcration fcgucst'
thc Deparrmcnt,s sral,'r"rorr.nu.d opprouuioi-ir,i &rtti"f nltfiation bascd upon thc
proposal's compliancc *i'il;it';i tht 6dslen bonsioctrtions for Lionshcad'
Atso cnctoscd and labclccl as Exhibit '8" i!...cop{.9t a mcmorandum dtted
Junc l, 198? f rom_th.';'."p.;i;r;,;.*".Cott"ittioi *i-l[rt outti"cs thc Association's
rcoucst for r rtcnsity ";;;;;; t" cnctosc ttn.'iltiton"itt in'iiit-ptojttt' Scction IV of that
nrcmorandum inOicotcs"it.'fi.p.ri*.nr" po"ition it'tJ ittc ptortotiO improvcmcnts nnd
gcncrrr upgrndc or rr,i cnii,-.-;;qj;;i ;;';ld h; -t
i."titiy;-il3-t:i "n uscs in thc
vicinity, Howcvcr,."oi*i,t,rir'nai'ng thc proposal's aitrnctivcncss. in. tcrms of thc Depart-
mcnt's altcrltton c,"tiir, thc Dcpilitmcnllt-:ffi iccommtnoco dcnial of thc ovcrnll
rcoucst bascd upon its posirion rh.at thc gruniinl oia'o.nsirv variancc would violate thc
iiin;i'tonlng rcgulrtions and ordinances'
onJuncl'198?,theCommissionmcttoconsidcr.thcAssociation'sapp|ica.
tion, At rhrt mecting iil.'a;;;l;ion tiscus-slo'iht t..ott.ndntions of thc Dcpart'
mcnt,s sraff and ulrimttcly_approvcd tt..u"iiti.f on rtte following thrce grounds as
;t"";; i;;; t'i'; *i"urcitit thc commission's mcctins:
Thcrc is minimsl pcrccntage of incrcrsed l.
GRFA.
2. Substanticl hndsc-aping. and substa-n-tialn im-
provcmcnts toiic-iiiuti"rcs will bc done in cxccss ol- that
rcquircd' iiirt"rt a'"ti.iot cmphasis of thc 'proposal and docs
not includc maintcnancc ano ups;ding which would normal-
lY bc rcqu ircd')
3. Uscablc balcon-ies-on the samc clcvation as the
cncloscd uatcon'ici*ill tcmain for cach unit'
EnctosedandlcbclcdasExhibit"gl-'-t'copyofthcabove'rcfcrcncedminutesofthc
6orntitiion;. mcctinB on Junc I' 1987'
Thc Commission,s dccision. tj approve thc proposcd- crtcrior altcrction and
dcnsitv vsrioncc was uphcl-d by l.!9 vair-rowf Countii 6n iunc 16" t987' A copy of thc
nrinutcs of rhc vail ro'*n council,s mccring ii.-*roi.a and labclcd as Exhibit "D''
SubsequcnttothcVailTownCouncil'sdccisio-nupho|dinethcCommission.s
grant or thc vrriancc, t;;""';i";;;i r'i'tnn;;i;;;;;; tctiJr ontco-June 2e' le8? to
o
La wrcncc E. Eskwitb, Esquirc
April 10, l99l
Pagc -3-
thc Association'! architect, Mr. Tom Brincr. whcrcin she addrcsscd ccrltin questions
concctning thc proposcd conslrucliob. In that lcltcr, a copy of which is cncloscd and
labclcd as Exhibit 'E,' Ms. Pritz stotcd that thc gcncral sitc improvcmcnts proposcd in
addition to thc b0lcony cnclosurcs wcrc 'an important part o[ thc Ptnnning Commission's
dccision to approvc thc rcqucst.'
Subscqucnt to thc Town Council'r affirmance of thc Commission's grant of
thc variance on Junc 16, 198?. thc Arsociation commcnccd work on thc vorious improvc-
mcnts conlcmplsted undcr thc variancc. Spccificolly, bctwccn July l9t7 ond July llt8,
thc Associrtion cxpcndcd approximatcty $195,000.00 for various rcpairs, improvcmcnts
nnd landscaping contcmplatcd undcr thc vnriancc. This work included major cnlrywry
irnprovcmcnts, instlllation of ncw balcony railings, new lacic and othcr cxlcrior im-
provcmcnts as proposcd in thc Association's originnl Dcsign Rcvicw Board Applicotion.
Bctwccn August 1988 and August 1989 thc Association cxpcndcd approximatcly
$65,000.00 on additional improvcmcnls and rcpairs contcmplatcd undcr thc vatiancc.
including cnclosurc of thc walking bridgc, substontial lan<lscaping, ncw sidcwrlks,
drninagc improvcmcnts and balcony railing rcpairs. Sincc Scptcmbcr 1989 lo thc prcscnt,
thc Associction hrs cxpcndcd approximntcly $31,000.00 on furlhcr improvcmcnts and
landscaping contcmplatcd undcr thc variancc, including consiructior of a dumpstcr )
cnclosurc. Additionally. the Associalion hrs poid approxim0tcly $15,000.00 sincc June
1987 for work donc by its architccts in connection with the proposed bulcony cnclosurcs
and othcr improvcments to the projcct contcmplated undcr thc variancc. This figure
includcs archiicctur0l scrviccs rcndcrcd in 1991. Wc would bc hnppy to provide you
with copics of accosnt lcdgcrs and billing statcmcnts rcflccting thc costs incurrcd by thc
Association for such improvcmcnts, landscaping, and orchitcctural scrviccs conrplctcd on
bchalf of thc Association.
Scction 18.62.080 of thc Town of Vrit Ordinanccs providcs 0s follows:
Thc Zoning Administrator shall issuc a variancc pcrmit
whcn action o[ the Planning, Cornmission bccomcs final,
subjcct to such sonditions as may be prcscribcd by thc
Commission. The pcrmit shall lapsc
not commcnccd within onc vcar of the datc of issuancc
and diligcntly pursucd to complction. (cmphrsis addcd)
Our rcvicw of the Dcpartment's filc on thc Treetops projcct indicates that thc Zoning Administntor ncvcr issued a writtcn variancc permit subscqucnt to thc Town Council's
affirmancc of thc Commission's grant of o dcnsity varirncc as rcquircd by the sbovc
ordinancc. Howcver, we arc adviscd that it is not unusual for the Zoning Administrator
to not issuc l writlen variance pcrmit and wc prcsumc thal thii omission hls no substan.
tivc cffcct upon thc validity of the vrriancc.
Thc forcgoing reflects that thc Association has incurrcd substantial costs
for improvements and repairs lhat wcrc spccifically contcmplrtcd undcr thc vrriancc
grantcd by thc Commission and thrt many of thosc rcprirs and improvcmcnts wcrc
commcnccd wilhin one yctr of thc Town Council's approval of lhc varirncc and diligcnt.ly pursucd as rcquircd by thc ordinancc, As you cAn sce, thc Association has spcnt morc
than $300,000 on improvcmcnls which ihc Commission considcrcd as lhc basis for its
I
Lawrcncc E. Eskwith. Esquirc
April 10, l99l
Pagc -4-
opproval of the variancc, As with most condominium associations, thc Trcctops Associa-tion is a rclalivcly slow moving snd inelficient political body. Howevcr, the Associarion
dcliberatcly commcnccd significant and costly improvcmcn(s undcr thc variancc within
onc ycar of thc Town Counscl's action ond has complctcd thc majority of the contem-platcd improvcmcnts in continuous st!gcs up to this day. Quitc simply, ihc Association first complctcd those improvcmcnts most important to the Town and now wishcs to bcgin
thc Iinal stagc of thc proposcd improvemcnts - thc balcony cnclosurcs. Accordingty, wc
lrclicvc that lhc variancc grantcd by thc Commission rcmains valid and cffcctivc and
that thc Associotion should bc pcrmittcd to procccd with thc bnlcony cnctosurcs, subject
to lhc Dcsign Rcvicw Board's approval of ihe rcviscd pllns for such improvcmcnts.
Wc bclicvc that our position is in accordancc with thc exprcss provisions
and spirit of thc Town's ordinancc, As statcd by Ms, Pritz in hcr lcttcr to Tom Brincr.
thc gcncral improvemcnts wcrc an important part of thc Commission's dccision to ap.prove lhc rcqucst, To deny thc Associrtion pcrmission to procccd with construction of
lhosc improvcmcnts which wcrc of primlry importancc to it, aftcr othcr improvcmcnts
which wcrc incxtricably linkcd to lhc variancc havc bccn conrplcted, would bc unjust rnd frustratc thc esscntirl purposc ol thc procesr. :
As a sidc notc, we are advised by thc Association that thc owner's wishing
to cnclosc thcir balconics have agrccd to coDvcrt thcir fircplaccs from wood burning to
gas burning in lhc cvcnt lhcy arc allowcd to procccd with thc enclosurcs.
Plcasc contnct our officc aftcr you have had an opportunity to considcr thc
forcgoing to atlvisc us of your position on this mrttcr and *,hcthcr thc Association may procccd with its Dcsign Revicw Board Application in conneclion with thc reviscd plani
for thc balcony cnclosurcs. Your !ssistrncc in this matter would be apprcciatcd.
Vcry truly you rs,
EELLERSTEIN,HELLERSTEIN AND SHORE. P.C.
David
DFM/jm
E ncls,
,1.-.t--- -c t
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SU&TECT:
.W
June 1, l9g?
A reguest for an exterior alteration to enclose 1O decks and redesign entries t;-i;; Treetops rr Condominium nuiljing Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association
r. THE PROPOSAL
The Treetops Condominium Association is reguesting an exterior alteration.and oensiiy-v;;i'";;.;=;JI' .u.following co5l1:tlon at tne ireetops Ir nuiraing (east condominium buildirig) :
Planning and Envlronnental Commisslon
Comnunity Development Departrnent
1. Enclosure of:
5 existing decks 0 :o sq ft per deck
2 . Encl-osure of
3
4
= 195 sg ft
= 2f0 sq ft
= B0sqft
The
of
1.
2.
5 existing decks 0 le sq ft per cleck
. Enclose pedestrian bridge,
Redesigning the existing lobby ancl creating a rrew lobby entry, ' = 2UO sg ft
association is also proposing to-do an entire upgracle the existing project whi;h "o,jta tnctude:
An added protective entrance at the east entry.
An increase of landscaping along the bike path (south side of the proJect).
3. An increase of landscaping at the vest, building entrance.
4.Additions of wood sirting to the east builcling and remodeling of Ure east tluilding balcony raitinqs-to provide a visuat consisrency oi ,iE"iiir*l-a"ilir,and color between Hre two rlsidentiaf Uuiiain;;:-,
An upgrade of exterior Iighting.
A density variance Is r-egrriretl for the 10 deck enclosures, as the-projeit is already over Hre allowable GRFA. please see the tn"ro "on"erning Ure density variance for a rnore detaiieo anatyri=-6r-fni,reguest.
5.
*
EXHIBIT
i,4,,
I .J
'I'lrere are t1o sub-aL-ea concel)t.s
1:r'oposaI.
DISIGN cUIDE Pt,Alr l.'ott l,totil;tit.ti,t,r
that relate to tltis l
IV. CONl)r.,rANClt trIl'tt ,l'il8 URDAN DESIGil CONSTDEnA',I'IOll,S FOlr LIollsnEAl)
A.HS.!- : | 9 n a s s__ i n cr : - I[Ls*€j nefgefq!]_gl _e rlp tr g s i :: e s lhe gfeelfE4 of a vrelt-T@ffiEaEo'r5ii-rilc,"i: ----' -
p e 9 g a t : le! _! r e a-E oro v epcj*e-I e- I ittgl,:-"!qrr D!rlctrtrgs. It stat.es that,,buildirr $l -6 r i I dt; A *---I GE qEe_Ell-h-dE*i i lj.i if afXi*;; p= ;, u i i .,,,,,
cb a I I e m-Eo-;#-F#;-i;--;-----
q q r.9!l_ll_cl*l_l_-o_!l I he canyon e f fccb ot
Staf f I s opinion is . that the inrproved ent,ry r.rays,Iandscaping, lighting and new sldewalks wlll iurttrcr def ine pedestrian areas. .l.he heiglrt arrd rnas-sinq oti tlre errtry is only orre sLory which corrrl:lies: wjr:tr t!rj:j consideration.
t].Roofs: Flat, shed.,-_v_4![!_94_or dome roots arc
t"".,pt_.:rtll_n_Foffi iilil$.le_s_fr,.lLgl"otili[-iT-ili,S!-r,ni,t,t'o l.llteg-L:-+5.9-e-LP3-!s'rorrs- tvrLlr exisL--i1t-g--p-Ut-l-tt-i-t:g_g_._lil
s+tg-eye.-uli-pi!e:[-s-"i'-f _ffi ii'i:Oi__Lionslread.
I
rr. coHpLIAlrcE w!.nt :!llE puRposE sEcTIoN or col,,{un
Section tB. 26. O1o purpose
The comnercial core rr zone dlstrict is int.end€d to provide sites for a rnixture of,multiple dweilings, lodc;cs,and conrnercial establishmerrts ln a cirrst"r.a. - urrif iecl deveropnent. connercial core rr district i;'accorcrarco with the vail Lionshead urban Design -cuiau-i;rirr an(l Des i cjrr corrsiderations is intendecl to errsuie atloquat,e ric;ht, air.]opetr.space and oUrer amenities appropriaie to Hra permitted types of buildings and usei ana to maintain urc desirable quarities of the district by estabrlshing appropriate site developrnent standardi.
'J'his proposal is in conpliance with ttre intent of u)e Conmercial Core II zone district.
1II. cot.il,Lr^NcE l.'r.nt TltE URUAI{
vlsual a functional effect,
o
?he appllcant-has proposed an entry addition anct deck addibions th.1r. "rr-""f,poiiui" "iin. u,I-"*iJ,Ji^.J condominium buircrrng. ' 'rrr"-p""posecr entry acrd ition ro building No' r -rras i-r"r--"itd pitch matciring t.rrar of ,re sropecl roofs
"n- rroir,"'ci;1";i;i;r.-;;;i;i;.i.rr.c' *g*ffil br.o-c-!..
Iaterials to
Tlris proposar. conplies wiilr these nraterinrs, ,r,he entries wilt_be_ f i";;;. -rjori"ontal
voo<t siclirrg wi I I be added to Buildi"a-i; t"-ior.r, Builrting ill. ,r,rim colors and stain .of"i" ,rir'i-rot"tr for both buil.dlngs.
Even though this proposal is a residenEial exparrr:io',rt should be noted il]rae the n"w-Jonstruction vri.t | .,,have an aclequate amounL r.l f transparctrcy tlrr.orrrrllttrr:.the exp.rnsion. ,I'he ner,r ";ar:r-i.,"'! mitrty wirr,.l<.rr.rr; .rrrr,!:lulJ"" bay wirrdoers al-c Jrroposecl . t tttc l:crr |.c;r(: iu':i of tlre b.rlconies ror ,t,reeio;;-;i.'
' T'is consicleratio' refers prirn.rrily to uonrnrcrcirrl decks. As the . appl iJan[ f,ls srate.t, ,,1.t1!.rovr existing balconiei-on tJuif.itnn ,, are proposect to be enclosed-by b?y windows. r,rreie existiij-6ilJoni""are not furrctional in terrns of providi"d =.oIi"g for dlning, sunnJ.ng of -any ;a;';r'outdoor activitv.,,Remainins deck-and uaic"nv-iairins=-"i-sriijirg la ;i: r" be replacect h,irh r!,irine.-'i,it"iiiij-iIir.rin.r
F'
fiii{'11r-5'"''r t rons_ lleacl qr
D.
a
qrouna or second-Tl667-iiye-rl
Facades,/prinari I TrangparencV:
1gqnd floor Hfu,,.ffi encoura es ttre use o tt i ndovJrt or storcfro.ltti-.
D.ry+]ll Patios: t,lrnctional decl::s or pacios *xt'_-f rPiilost ffi #-#3ui*iu*:":F:T+'tt;_-9.8.r9_9r. I rrg. e_l.gngp i.,tlfaQecl . o .' i l'lrrrr- r-rr^;,i;#i:+ r9-L r 9 I {v--elgo llra-g e..!, * F i !-.' i tTr,r r' - t i r e ._... ...-.__.._. _:.:_-.
l'he $pplicant lras.statecl that, ,r.fo assure tlrac tlrcre is no loss of relief to-tfre-Jiutir'facade i.rt Btrilding
f2 due to balcony^encl.osures, awnings are proposed to be integral with-tf,. U"y-"iiioi-a'=serury. Awnings wirt be canvas, vith " ;.i;;-;;d'pacrern acceptable to Design Revierv Board. -eaaiii.nlr
ronc="eping at the wesr entry and alons il;-;ily:re parh rrill inctude annuai ftowers inj"=r,i"i{l rrew tishring is also proposed for. rte enrirI"n.J;;... staff,s opinion is that the_accent eflrneii guiclcline refers mcstly to conmerciof areas. --;;;;;
::g_1:lg:";d if.pr""emenrs wirr onii, r;l:.i:nl;:"t appearance of this project,. our-opinioi-i=-tiii cn"ar'rnings are not necessary to rnaintain reI j.ef to tt:J :::.:l facade. Horyever, Lhis is i oesign Fevie,,r Eca:.::ISSUe.
G.
v.(
The proposal adds adCitional landscaping in the area of the west entry and on tn" "outr, sicie of the proj ect..
Staff believes that these irnprovements are in compliance wirh this consiJ"lari"n-"hi";-;n;;"ra9es the use of p).ant material io accent u"iioingn. *
STAFT RECOI.${ENDATTONS
Sieff reconrnencls apprcval cf the exterior irlcel.ir jcn request. rt is our.opinion rhat the prop.=ii-;;;;ir""wich al1 of the nesigir c.r=iJ"iiions for Lionsheai. The project creates signiriconi-irnpiJi"**nt= to the Tr:eeic'S Proj ecc -"'F-' L \-' L;re I re
I
,.;./,t''*"--o
I.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
II.
o
Plannlng and Envlronrnental Comnrl.ssion
Cornrnunity Development Department
June l, 1987
A reguest, for a density variance to encLose 10 decks at the l'reetops Condominium Uuilding {2
Treetops Condominium Association
DESCRIPTION OF VANTANCES REQUESTED
The Treetops condominiunr Association is requesting a density
variance to encLose 10 existing outdoor decks on the south
side of the building. The 'l'reetops Building {2 is tlre east
building behind the Treetops comnrercial building. Five of
these decks are 39 square feet each and five are 46 sguare
feeE each, which creates a total additional GRFA request of
425 square feet. The existing GRFA on tl're site is 36,169
square feet. l'he allowable GRFA in Commercial Core II for
this project is 30,952 square feet. The project is presently
over the allowable GRFA by 5,4L'7 square feet. If this
request is approved, the project would be 5,842 sguare feet
over the allowable.
BACKGROUND ON TIIE REQUEST
fn August, of 1983, the Treetops Condominium Association
requeited a rezoning of their property frorn ltiglr Density
MuIti-Famif y ( .6o) to Comtnercial Core II (.80) zoning. 'l'his
reqrtest was made in order to cottstruct the commercial
expansion to the north of the trvo residential buildittgs.
Under lligh Dertsity Multi-Farnily zoning, the project was
allowed 23,2L4 square feet of GRfn. Due to the rezoning, tlte
project is now allowed 30,952 sguare feet- The rezoning
increased the allowable GRFA bY 7,738 square feet.
In January of 1984, the Condominium Associatlon re<3uested an
exterior llteratlon in order to add the retsail expansion
above the existing parking structure.
In JuIy of 1986, a request was rnade to enclose 1O decks for
an additional GRFA of 665 sguare feet. Staff recommetrded
deniat of the request. The Planning Cornmission moved to deny
the request, as it was felt that it would be a grant of
special priviJ.ege to approve the additions. The vote was 6-o
in favor- of the nrotion. The Treetops Condominiurn Associatiotr
appealed the Planning Cornmission's decision to the Torvn
cbuncit. The Town council upheld the Planning cornnrissiolr's
decision to deny the request'.
t ;iHlr
I
rII. ZONING STATISTICS
Zone Dlstrlct! Conmerclal Core If
Site Area: + 39,690 square feet'r
GRFA: (.80)
AllowabLe: 30,952 sf Existing: 36,359 sf Ant. over
al.Iowable I 5, 4 t7 sf
Proposed: 5 decks I 39 sf = 195 5 decks g 46 sf = 230
l'otal Proposed i 425 sf
Amt over after additions: 5842 sf
Total GRFA after additions: 36,794 sf
Units: Allowed: 22 d,u.
Existing: 26 d.u.Proposed: o
Conrnon Area: (20t of Allowable GRPA)
Allowed: 6,190 Exist,ing: 4, 39o
Proposed:bridge 80 Iobby 260
Existing
& Proposed 4,73o
Remaining I,460
Site coverage: (7o*)
Allowed, 27,093 sq
Existing: 21 ,670 sf
Proposed i 30o sf
Exist & Addit. 21r97o sf
Remaining 5,113 Ef
Setbacks
I
Requlred 10 ft all sides. No impact with proposal
I
v.
density variance.
Due to the fact that it is dlfficult to make the arguments of physical hardship and lack of special privilege wlren reviewing a density requesL, Ordinance il4 of l9B5 was adoptecl to allow for snall GRFA additions witl'rout the need for variance approval. Unfortunately, this ordinance does not.provide a neans for allowing additions to units ln nrulti-fanily buildings. Units of tlris type were omitted, as the
Town Council and Planning Conrmission were concerned about the potential to lncrease the bulk arrd rnass of nrulti-family builttings to .r point where tltere would be lret;ativc inpacts
due to the .rddiEiorrs. Legal issues also conLribuEod to tlre inability of this ordinance to occornnrodate nrulEi-fanrily additions. In respect to thls request, Ordinance fl4 does not:provide any relief from having to review nrulti-fanrily additions witl'r tlre density vclriance criteria.
'Ihe effect of the requested variarrce on liqlrt and air,gE-i@r.l s p-eEEe-lFn qrril-E': a F'r i ;j
Ltc.il"i]&s-__-p'iti]E_-ea!if'q_&s__+ir{_],Ejli!Ie}; J1_'ri-11ii1i 1c;
sg.!s!Y_:
t'here are no significant inpacts on any of tlre above factgrs.
REL,^I'Eg POLICy IN VAIL'S Col.rMgNl'Y -nCTIOr'r_I'tl!!
Community Design
2. Upgradlng and renodeling of structures and site
improvements should be encouraged.
5. l'laintenance and upkeep should be a priority of ;rroperLl,owners and of the Town.
Tlris proposal for the deck enclosures and the other genernl
inrprovements to the project su1:ports the Comnrunity Action
Plan policies.
such other factors anc{ criterio as tlro conrmission tlcctns
E@Ett-i. tr. nr. r*rp"=.d__t"ff_qirg-c-r_
VI . FINDINGS
The Plannincr and EnvironnetrEal. Conmission shalI nake tlre ffi@,-
'That the granting of the variance wiII not constltute a gl:int
of special privilege inconsistent, vitlt the linrit.rtiong otr
other propertles classified in the sanre district.
o
Landscapinq: (2ot of site area reguired)
Required: 7,738 Existing: 12TOOO
Heiqht: AIIowed: 4g I
Pa rklng:
Existing and proposed: sane
the urrits that have clock expansions lrave existirrg GRFA totals that range fron 1315 sf to 1326 sf.'I'he deck expanslons of 39 sf or 46 sf do not lncrease the sguare footage above 2,OOO sf which is the breaking point for additional parking.
I'otal site area was calculated by Bud Stikes, .I'he
Engineering Group, fnc. property lines do not close, so square footage is-1 38,690 square feet.
rv.
sf af approx.
sloping, 45r flat
and Findings, Section 18.61..O6O of Departnent of Comnunity Development.requested variance based upon the
Upon revier.r of Criteria the municipal code, the
recommends denial of the following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
reattnerlb anronq s
The additions are cornpatible with the existing uses in the area. The general upgrade of the entire proJect will have a positive irnpact on uses in the vicinity.
necesffii6Tif6 ana uniFornfiT; oi
Staffrs oplnion is that this reguest would be a grant of special privilege due to the fact that there is no physical
hardship which would warrant the variance.
It is the applicantrs responsibility to prove physicat hardship and the fact that the granting of the variance wllI not be a special privilege in order to get approval for tlre
The rera!,lolship of lhe requested variance to ottrer existincr
g r p o t e n t i aJ u s e-E-E n a-EEEEEI u re s fiTE e v lEffrT-t rf-
o o
That the granting of the variance will not be detrirnental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or irnprovemenbs in l-he vicirriLy.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the f ollowincl
reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficultly or unnecessary physical hardslrip inconsistent with the objecLives of tlris title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the sarne site of the variance
tlrat do not apply getrerally to other properties in the
same zone.
VI
'Ihe strict interpretatiorr specified regulation would privileges enjoyed by the
the same district.
S1'AFF RECOMMENDA'I'I OI'I
or err f orcemetrt of thc
deprive the applicanl- of
owners of oi-lrer properties irt
Tlre proposal involves both a density variance attcl exterior
alteration request. The exterior alteration criteria are
used to review the design issues related to the request.
Even tltough the proposal compares favorably givetr the
alteration criteria, the staff nust recommetrd derlial of the
overall request, as we cantrot supPort the density variance.
The original concern of the council and comnission cotrcertling
rnulti-family additions was that the buildingrs bulk and nrass
may be incrlased to a poinE where negative. impacts would
oclur from the expansions. fn this situation, the
expansion and overall improvernents to the property are
considered to be positive. ltowever, staff must abide by l-h r:
variarrce criteria, ancl tfierefore must recomtnend detr-iuI of t]ta
request.
Basically, the staff has the same position tlraL was outlitted
in the .:ury ra, 1986 menro wlren 1o deck etrclosut'es rvere als<.r
being considered for tlris projecL. Ib is true tlrat Llrere arc
no signif icant ilnpacts resultinq f rorn tlris prol:osuI '
llorvever, tlre staff does feel that it would be a grant of
special privilege to approve the reguest. IE must also be
noted that the property is over the allowable GRI'A attcl nuntber
of unibs for developmerrt urrrJer Couunercial Core 1I zonitrg.
rr; L-y4!,orrq!s!sp
In accordance with that.provision of 0rdiuance No. 4 allorving for an increase 0f,250 square feet to-single arrd duplex dvrel'l ing u,,its as art
induceurent for tlre upgrading of axistirrg structures, tlre-Trcetolls Corrtlornirriunr seeks a variance to allorv a total additiorl of 425 square feeI to tlrc existing GRFA total of 35,971 square feet - arr increase oi r.l:;
The proposed additional GRFA conrprises of 4 balcorry enclosur.es anrl I deck enclosure at 39 square feet and 4 balcony enclosures arrd I
deck errclosure at 46 square fee[ cach.
The balconies to be enclosed are 3.5 feet wide. They provide little to no rooul for outdoor furniture, i.e. no outdoor activity, Lut hovc
beert utilized os storage arcas visiblc frorrr tlra vicirriLy of tlrc bil.e pal"lr.
The area is being added to the living roonrs, not the be<lroonts thus thc bed base
and,/or density will not be increased.
The lequest and subsequent approval of this variarrce is neccssary fr:r'
the Association's approval of the entire up-grading package rrlrich
i rrc I udes :
l. Added protected entrances to botlt buildirrgs.2. An increase of landscaping along the bike patlr.3. An increase of landscaping at the west building errtrance.
Tlris feature faces tast Liortslrc.rrJ Circlc arrd vrill proviue
a urore uttractivc public forcground to thc buiIdirrtl .4. Additiorrs of wood siding to the c('rsi l)uilding and rclrodclitr'1 of thc east buildf ng balcorty rai lirttts to provide tr vi5ull
consistency of nr.rterialSr dctrril ,rnd color bcttvcert thc
trvo residerrtial bui ldings.5. An ulrgrade of ex[erior 'l iglrtirrg.
A-l
The requested variance does not effcct other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity.
A-2
The literol interpretation of tlre ordinance:a. I'lakes inrpractical the use of existing bolcony slrace for
i ts interrded use as an outdoor si ttittg .rrao b. lrronrolcs continuing dif ficul Ly oF pol icing and rraintairtirtg
the given balconies due to their propensity to be utilizetJ
as general storage areas c. Precludes unit olners ft'orrt taking odvontoge of intJuccrnertt
offererJ other (single and duplex) urtit ouners to upgrade
thei r properties d. 0isallovrs at tlris tinrc a structulerj, unif icd and visual ly
consi5tent approaclr to lralcony enclosu|.cs that otltervise
rniglrt not occur if and wltert 0r'dinattctl lltt.4 was to lrc
anrcrrdctl co inclurJc rrrulti-furni'ly lllojccts e. Precludes any of thosc advatttages to urtit owners through
addi tional GRFA that ltave accructl to unit ovJtters itt tlther
pro jec l-s who ltave c I arrdes ti rrrtl y erlc I osed tbei r ba I cott ics
I
VISUAL IHPACT OF REOUEST -
500 sq.ft.
al louable
addi tion to GRFA
= 101 of total
COMPARISOII OF I.IPACT ON ALLOI.IAOLE GRFA VS ACTUAL GRFA
Comparfson indicates that the allowed visible inrpact of a duplex nray be 9 ti'rc,s greater than that requested by Treetops.
Tree tops
35971 sq.ft.
Reques ted
425 sq. ft.
addi tion :e actuol GRFA
= l.l1
of total
Reques ted
425 sq.ft.
addi tion
= l.l1
Allorvable
GRFA:
3t240
Requested
425 sq.ft.
add i ti on
= l.3Z
Ac tua I
GRFA
3597l
The requested 425 sq.ft. has almost equal significance vrhen conrpared to ure Al lovrable GRFA and Actual GllFA. The dif fereirce is .z% or 60 irluare feet.
The applicant believes that the variance request is a reasonable lrade off against the several upgrading inrprovenrents that wiII add benefit as vrelI to the Lionslread appeararrce.
A-3
The_request-variance does not effect distribution of populaLion, transpor!ation.traffic faci I i ties, uti I ities and publ ic safety.
Dupl ex
5000 sq.ft.
.-<
the chairnan, Jin Viele.
t.Approval of ninutes of 4/27 and 5,/11. A rnotion
Planning and
PRESENT .bilEiE-Donovan
Bryan Hobbs
Parn Hopklns
Peggy osterfoss Sid Schultz Jin Vie1e
ABSENT J.J. CoIIins
The nreeting vras called to order by
Kristan Pritz explained the elevations. She explained of the exterior alterations
Environrnental Comnission June 1, 1987
STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Xristan Priti Betsy Rosol.ack
was nade
approve
reguest, showing site plans and that the staff recommended approval
by Diana oonov@n Hobbs to both ninutes. The vote was 6-0 in iavor.
Applicants: Neil. End llancv Austrian
Kristan Pritz explained the request and showed site plans and elevations. She stated that the existing garage and covered stairhray currently project about 2.I feei into the front setback at the structurers northwest corner. The variance requested was for 2.1 feet into the front setback area. The staff reconmended approval of, the reguest. Buff Arrrold,architect representlng the appJ.icants further explained the reguest.
Xristan added that there y/ere at present, two kitchens in the primary unit, and that one nust bi renoved prior to construction of the requested addition.
Diana Donovan moved to approve the request per the staff meno plus the condlt,ion that one kitchen be renoved frorn the prirnary unit. Bryan Hobbs seconded the notion. The vote r,ras 5-b in favor.
Are est for a front setback variance in order to
area a e a c'ara e on .'Lot 8, Bloc Va aqe 5th.
re est for an exterior alterat,ion and dens it var ce n order o enc ose 8 baLconies ecks at the s Condom 452 onshea Circle.
e t
I
HIBIT ,C"
I-pTFant : Treetops condoninium Association
and denial of the density varfance.
Torn Eriner, archltect representing Treetops, pointed out to the board that the staff nust look at the property in black and white, but that the board could look at the giey areas with respect to the zoning regulations. He stated that the increase in GRFA r+as nininal, that the decks proposed to be enclosed were useless because they srere so small and that they were unsightly because the owners merely used the decl:s for storage.
Pan Hopkins fett tbat these !'rere good argunents in favor of the variance reguested, but stated that she did not have a legal
way to approve the decks. She felt the improvements would
enhance Treetops Condos. Sid schultz agreed with pam and askecl if the staff rrould look at Ordinance 4 again to try to fincl a way to include snall changes to rnulti-fanily buildlngs. Diana
Donovan felt the enclosures urere not decks, and that she could not vote for the enclosures as enclosed decks. She felt that the space was used as a walkway, not a deck.
Kristan stated that the concern when writing Ordinance 4 vas that balconies and decks would be enclosed and resutt in flar.facades which irnpact rnass and bu1k. ft was dif f icult to knov.,uhere to draw the line, perhaps a percentage of existing GRFA would be appropriate
Peter asked if all the units which would enclose their decks
had other out.door space, and Briner replied that aII of the units did have ot,her outdoor space. Briner al.so stated t'rat all of the windows would becorne bay windows which would .- .'e relief to the facade. He added that awnings would also be
added
Jin Viele thought perhaps there could be a way to reward
inprovernent to the property with additional GRFA. tte felt that the set of criteria r,,ras narroh, and added that the inprovements to Treetops were more beneficial than negative. He also felt it
would be good to go back to Ordinance 4 to see if changes could
be nade with reference to multi-farnily units.
Linda Average, one of the Treetops owners, stated that one
reason Treetops wanted to do this now was because of the 1989
World Cup races. She stated that they were vrilling to be the
scapegoats because she felt they would set a good exarnple for the rest of the connrunity and inspire others to fix up their:property.
Percentages of GRFA increase were discussed. Tom Briner estinated that 75t of dollars to be spent on the proJect trould
be for enclosing the decks, and possible l5t for landscaping.
Diana felt there nust be sone r^ray to allow proJects which benefit the connunity to such an extent as this.Peggy osterfoss asked how long it would take to have a work session
and effect change, and Peter answered it could be 3-4 rnonths before there would be a change in the law. Peggy felt a policy
''Li|if t'$t,'t lr-,
change was needed. Panr fel.t that this was euch a rninimal
amount of GRFA it would be a good standard on which to bii I a policy related to percentages.
Diana Donovan noved and Hobbs seconded to approve the variance
on the basis that this is the type of project the town would
Iike to see for three reasons:
1. There ls a mininral percentage of lncreased GRFA.
2. Substantial landscapinE and substantial improvenents to ' the structures rrlll be done in excess of that reguired.
(This is a rnajor emphasls of the proposal and does not
include rnaintenance and upgrading which would nornally be
required. )
3. Useable balconies on the same elevation as the enclosed
balconies wiIl rernain for each unit.
The vote was 6-0 in favor,
Diana Donovan nroved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the
request for the exterior alteration. The vote was 6-0 in \
favor.
vwrry;r't nar7n6
denial . Tom stated the Plannlng commlsslon had recommended approva'l of.the
eiiension for,one year only wttF the following reconnnendations to Council:
l. The Town Councll look at the parking requirements; it seems they may be
overlY restri cti ve.
Z. The Appllcant lnitlate talks with the Vail Valley l4edlcal Center like last
year regarding shared Parking'
Peter Jamar, representlng Vail Holdings, urged.the Council.to hire a third pafty to
;i;;; iil;i, r,6t.ir, eti. parkins.neids; he did not feel it would be near as mucn
ii-ri.t-rrit iequired. He cbmmentld the Applicant would agree to a twelve month
;;r;;; inO grd landscape plan is underway'and should be done by September,l' 1987'
nit..-ror. discussion by Council, Mayor Johnston made a motion to approve the
;;;;irIi;;,-conditional on the landslape plan being conrpleted. Kent Rose seconded
the motion. A vote was taken and the motion p.ts.i 4-1, with Eric Affeldt opposing'
The next item of business was an appeal of a PEC decision on a request for a density
variance to enclose ten decks at Treetops Euilding No. ?. Eric Affeldt called up
t,his item because rr.-noti.rJ they were breaking niw ground by enclosing the decks'
i.iitrn-pritz reviewed the reasons the PEC approved the enclosures:
l. There was a minimal amount of increased GRFA'
2. substantial landscaping will be done in excess of that required with'the
fact that tfrii was i tljo. emphasis of the proposal and did not include
maintenance and upgradiig whith wou'l d norma'l ly be requ'i red'
3. Balconies rema'i n for each unit and are usable'
Peter Patten gave additional background information on the item' staff recommended
approva) of the exterior a'l terati6n, but denial of the density variance' D'i ana
Donovan commented on *f,y inJ tto* th; PEC made its decision' Tom Briner commented on
why he felt the varianc! should be granteJ. Gordon Pierce made a motion to uphold
the Ptc decision to approve the request, and Kent Rose seconded' A vote was taken
and the motion passed 4-1, with Eric Affeldt opposing'
Under Citizen Participation, Diana Donovan remarked she was upset that the-four-way
was cold and uninviIi[g-no"'*ith the nevr street lights' Stan Berryman explained the
design approval, uv-ini iiit", and that we actually were able to get ten foot
ito.i.t posts and non-standard lights approved'
Ron Phillips stated there would be no Town Manager's report'
Therebelngnofurtherbuslness,themeetingwasadjournedatl0:50p'm'
Respectful lY submltted'
ATTEST:
c o
lnttn
?5 routh fronbga rord t ll, Golorrdo tl657
(303, 't76-7000 June 29, 1987
ofllcr of cornnunlty drvrlopmrnl
Mr. Ton Briner
143 East Meadow Drive VaiI, Colorado gl6s?
Re: Treetops Deck Enclosures, Sunmer l9g?
Dear Torn:
Recently,. you called me and asked if rt was absorutery reguived that all the decks_at the Treetops proie-i-ue-c"istructed at the sarne tine. Thls questlon arbse-au6 to tne rict that one or two of the condoroiniuln owners are not aure io-go inrough with the construction for various reasons.
r.suggested two alternatives for handling the situation. The fl":-t approach would be to take out a uuiraing-perrnit for arr of the deck enclosures. The generar site iipioieients wourd also have to be incruded unoei ttre uuiiiir; ;;rrit. The sire irnprovements were an import.ni pirt of the-pianning Conmissionts declsion t6_appro.rl the reguest. -- ii--V"u choose thls. alternatlv., lt wourd^Le required that arr of the decks be constructed accordlng_ to plan before a ternporary -ertificate of occupancy would be released. lthis alternatlv" inoura onry ue--used if you feel very eonfiaeni- inat the condominiu,association will be lrte to convince the two ordners that they should participate rn the construction or-fi.-;;;k enclosures.r suggested this alternative only rt it-i""r.a """v realistic that sone vay could be found to iay fri tt"'tr"-I"'.x enclosures.
llg :.:?nd. approach would be to revise your proposal and resubnit the design-to the Design nevieiv soaia.' once again, it y:!lq_!" important,. for the sen"iir "it. i"pi"ii""it, to be lncorporated into the new pioposal . once you have received Design Review Board approvit,'" uutraing-pi,iir[-c"uro be taken out for the project.
txHl T B I
I
o o
After talking to you on Frlday, it seens that a new subnittal
["-t[.-plsfgi ne"i"w Borrd ls-lrobably the wLsest approach. It
now appears-that other condorninlun ostners-may not want to
partii:ipate in the deck enclosures and this could present
broblerni if vou use the flrst alternative as far as Eetting a -t"rp"i.iy-c.iitft"ate of occupancy. In addition, the final
applaranie of the south elevaLion- of the building would be
cirinqed to a qreater extent, as nore than two ownerg are
er"i[i"ni"g pirttctpation in tne proJect' Thl's change would
tlXety varrant DRB revlew.
letter clarifies our conversation over the phone'
;;t;;t i"iilrtr help, please feel free to calr me at
111. Good fuck
I hope this If I can be
{76-7000 ext
SincerelY,
(';il*tih
Kristan Pritz
Town Planner
XP:br
cc: Peter Patten
I enjoyed meeting with you the other day, and is not what you would have liked, but I think
Sectjon 18.62.080 of the Municipal Code of the
riff r ',
I am sorry that my opinion it is required given
Town.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please don't call me.
Very trqly
.._--.,. a---
i--- - l'L'/L l./-f
y0urs i
Drtir,'-ftL
Larry Eskwith
Town Attorney
rPR 2 2 1991
1i6151;;t5,irr, l{eller:iitirr b 3lotc P C'
?5 louth trontaE. rord
vall. colortdo 81657
(303) 179.2107
olflcc of town rttomoy
April 18, 1991
Mr. David Murray
Attorney-at-Law
He'l Ierstein, He1Ierstein and Shore, P. C.
P.0. Box 5637
Denver, C0 80217
In Re: Treetops Condom'i niums Density Variance
Dear ltlr. Murray:
After reviewing your letter of April 11, 1991, dealing with the Treetops
Condominiums Density Variance. as I stated to you during our neeting of
the other day. it is my opinion that the variance which was obtained in
1987 by your client has now expired and that if your client still wishes to proceed with the desired improvements, it is necessary for them to
once again obtain a variance from the Planning Commission of the Town of
Vai l.
:J9t
!''.r.
-
'l',{rl
MACKINToSH BRowN P.C.
ATToRNEY ar uw
TWO UNTTEO BANK CENTER
| 7@ BRoAErwaY, SUITE I 5O5
D€NVER, CoLoRADo 8O29O
ApriJ. 22, L99L
TELEPHoNE (3O3) 494.04@
FAX (3O3, 4398262
Attention: llike llollica
Planning and Environmental- Cornmission
75 South Frontage Road Vail, Coloracfo 8f 657
Re: Treetops Balcony Encl.osures
Dear Mr. Mollica:
My wifer son and I own Condominium Unit 2-C in Treetops II in
the Lions Head area. The following is a sunmary of the history of
the proposed balcony enclosures for Treetops II. On ,fune t, L987,
the Plannlng and Environrnental Commission ("Commission") approved a
variance for the enclosure of eight balconies and two decks at
Treetops If. A copy of tbe minutes of that meeting are enclosed
with a drawing to illustrate the proposal. You will see that the
Cornnission worried about increasing the GRFA but decided that'
since the Association was going to make other substantial land-
scaping and structural improvements in tirne for the | 89 World Cup
Races, the variance should be granted.
What your records may not reflect is that this proposal was
urade by Linda Averch, who was then the president of Treetops Condo
Association, without the knowledge or aPproval of the members of
the Association. When the proposal was finally disclosed to sone
of the members, it was pointed out to her that the Treetops
Covenants reguire approval of a najority of the members for any
additions, alterations or improvements to the general and linited
common elements of the Association I'n excess of $120.00 in any one
year. These balconies are lirnited corumon elements, which by
definition are part of the general corunon elenents.
After aeveral neetings with the mernbers of the Association,
this proposal was finally- subrnittecl to a vote of the nembership
along with ten other proposed improvements. lFhe results of this
balloting dated April 22, 1988 and prepared by,Jerry D. L,add, who
was the new president of the Association, is enclosed. The baleony
enclosures was defeated.
Planning and Enviroruoental Commission epril 22, t99L
Page 2
As you know, most of the other work approved by the members
has been completedr including installation of neyr railings on
Treetops II which match the railings on Treetops I. The two
buildings now complement each other and present a uniform
statement.
The new proposal is to enclose different porti-ons of the
balconies in the E stack only and two of the four porches on ttle
ground floor units in the C and E stacks. The proposal is
therefore guite different from what was approved by the Commission
on June 1, 1987.
This new proposaL was approved by 62.86t vote of the Treetops
members at the annual meeting in December of 1990r but part of that
proposal was that all costs of the improvements, including architectural., engineering and legal expenses, are to be paid for
only by the owners of the seven condo units seeking the enclosures.
Aside from the increase in the GRFA which these enclosures
would irnposer it is the feeling of some of our membership that the
solid glass face on one side of Treetops II building wiLl impair
the uniformity and slrrnrnetry which was achieved by the remoilelling in 1988 and 1989.
I wou1d. appreciate being kept informed of all deveLopments in this case.
Sincerely,
,// rl ,r/ / ' /-- ,4 /?c" //// f I 6 ^.'h,' 4 U)t-a.-.^,--"
Me,cxrnros# gh.owN
I l'18: ms
Enclosure
(
PRESENT
DllEaESonovan
Bryan Hobbs
Pan llopkins
Peggy Osterfoss Sid schultz
Jirn Viele
ABSENT JFEollins
The neeting was
Kristan Pritz explained the eLevations. She explained of the exterior alterations
o
PlannJ.ng and Environrnental Commission June 1, L987
STAT'F PRESENT . PeEer EEten " Kristan Pritz
Betsy Rosolack
called to order by the chairrnan, Jim Viele.
for front setback variance in order to
ex leside4tlal area above a ctara e on Lot
a llaqe 6th.
t. @ 4/r? and 5/11. A motion was nade Iry Diana Donovan and seconded by Bryan Hobbs to approve both minutes. The vote was O-O in favor.
st
an m sg oc
a
4
e I
2.
(Kristan Pritz explained the reguest and showed. site plans and erevations- she stated that the existing garage and covered stairway currently project about 2.I feet into-the front setback at the structurets nortbwest corner. The variance requested was for 2.1 feet into the front setback area. The staff recomnended approval of the request. Buff Arnold,architect representing the applicants further explained. the request.
Kristan added that there were at present, two kitchens in the prJ-rnary unit, and that one must bl removed prior to construction of the reguested addition.
Diana Donovan rnoved to approve the request per the staff memo plus the conditLon that one kitchen be rernoied from the primary unit. Bryan Hobbs seconded the notion. The vote was 6-b in favor.
}_fSguest,for ?n exteri varrance ln order to enqlose g balconies and 2 decks at
Applicants: NEif and Nancv Austrian
e Tree Con ums l.oca at 452 Eas Circle.
3.
t'reguest, showing slte plans and that the staff recomrnended approval and denial of the density vaiiance.
16_IGnt: Treetops condoniniun Association
(Ton Briner, architect representing Treetops, pointed out to the board that the staff rnust Iook at the property in black and white, but that the board could look at the gley areas with respect to the zoning regulations. He stated that the increase in GRFA was minLmal, that the decks proposed to be enclosed were useless beca[se they were so smal]. and that they were unsightly because the owners merely used the decks for storage.
Parn-Hopkins felt that these were good arguments in favor of the variance requested, but stated that she did not have a leqal way to approve the decks. She felt the irnprovernents would enhance Treetops condos. sid schultz agreed with pam and asked if the staff would look at Ordinance C again to try to find a way to include small changes to multi-family buildings. Diana Donovan fert the enclosures were not decks, and that she could not vote for the enclosures as encrosed decks. she felt that the space was used as a watkway, not a deck.
Kristan stated that the concern when writing ordinance 4 was that'barconies and decks would be enclosed ind result in flat facades which irnpact mass and bulk. rt was difficult to know where to draw the line, perhaps a percentage of existing GRFA would be appropriate.
Peter asked if all tbe units which would encl-ose their decks had other outdoor spacef and Briner replied that aLl of the units did have other outdoor space. giiner also stated that all of the windows would becone bay windows which would give relief to the facade. He added thlt awnings would .also 6e added.
ilin Viele thought perhaps there could be a way to reward inprovement to the property with additional GRFA. He felt that the set of criteria was narrow and added that the irnprovernents to Treetops !'rere more beneficial than negative. He also felt it would be good to go back to ordinance 4 to see if changes could be made with reference to rnuLti-farnily unlts.
Linda Average, one of the Treetops owners, stated that one reason Treetops wanted to do this now was because of the 1999 world cup races. she stated that they were will_ing to be the scapegoats because she felt they would set a good exarnple for the rest of the connunity and inspire others to fix up their property.
Percentages of GRFA increase were discussed. Torn Briner estimated that 758 of dollars to be spent on the project would be for enclosing the.decks, and possible 15* for laniscaping.Diana felt there must be sone way to al_low projects which benefit the community to such an extent as tfri!. peggy osterfoss asked hosr long it wourd take to have a work-iession and effect change, and Peter answered it courd be 3-4 months before there woul-d be a change in the law. peggy felt a policy
(
\
(
I
\
change was needed. Pan felt that this was such a nininal arnount of GRFA it would be a good standard on which to base a policy related to percentages.
Diana Donovan rnoved and Hobbs seconded to approve the variance on the basis that this is the type of project the town would like to see for three reasons:
There is a ninirnal percentage of increased GRFA.
Substantial landscaping and substantial inprovements to the structures will be done in excess of that reguired.(This is a rnajor enphasis of the proposal and does not include maintenance and upgrading which would normally be required. )
Useable balconies on the same elevation as the enclosed balconies wiLl rernain for each unit.
The vote was 6-0 in favor.
Diana Donovan moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the request for the exterior alteration. The vote was 6-O in favor.
1.
t .Dt 2'
(,t"Y )rfr*,f*
3.
(
t
o o
n .9;+o 6-.F-
\) '{
I \-ll -l
^ol t\l r\l
\(J I rl
rill ul vl FI 'l
,l
x 1U-
A
-z
.1-
ctl
lr I
\t t-t -: ;\ -al
HI{S E Eltu E Iil- $'i N pl
T.N '+
To:
From3
Date 3
Re:
Treetops Condominium
Jerry D. tadd
April 22, 1988
RESULTS OF BAILOTING
Treetops II.
JERRY D. LADD
Association
<4 (, ,/
A total of 28 of the 29 units in Treetops I and Treetops II completed and returned their ballots regarding barcony-enclosures,items of repair and maintenance, and proposed-new impiovements. A clear consensus was achieved on eight out of ten items on the
lallot regarding repairs, maintenance, and new improvements. An individual recap of each item follows:
ftem #1: Repairs and maintenance in the corridors - approved by a vote of 25-yes to 3-no.
Itern #2: Repairs and maintenance in the stairways - approved by a vote of 25-yes to 3-no.
Item *3: Repairs anil maintenance to the bridges between Treetops I and Treetops II - approved by a vote of 24-yes to 4-no.
Item #4: An enclosure of the elevated bridge between Tree-6F-Ti and the upper level garage - defeat6d by a vote of 0-yes to 28-no.
Item #5: New entryways to Treetops I and Treetops enclosure around the trash dumpster - the vote was I6-no, but two of the 'no' votes were conditionally were Ln favor of some improvements to the entrance tops II and to the enclosure of ttre trash dumpster. A new entrance to Treetops I has been voted down. lhere is an uncertain vote regarding the entrance to Treetops II. There is a tie vote on the issue of a dumpster enclosure.
Item *6: New balcony ral rallings for Treetops II and repaired
II ancl an
12-yes and cast and to Tree-
railings on Treetops I - there were 14-yes votes and l4-no votes, but four of the ono' votes were conditionally cast,expressing support for the repair of the Treetops I railings.
There ls najority approval for the repair of Treetops I railingsr and a tie vote on the issue of nevr railings for
2O5O Wrsr Srvrrurx Avervtr r &r,rwn brocnm r 80?04 r l3o3l 573-6442
Treetops Condominium Association April 22, L988
Page Two
Item #7: New windlows on the east side aE?ffid by a vote of 5-yes to 23-no.
- Itern *8: New siding and painting for
ffite of lo-yes to l8lno.
of Treetops II -
Treetops II - defeated
K(
Item *9r Landscaping of the lawn adjacent to the bike path -Aefilted by a vote oi 9-yes to l9-no.
Item #10: Upgrades to the boilers in Treetops I and
Treetops II - approved by a vote of 22-yes to 4-no.
The €nclosure of the balconies on Units 28, 38, 4E' andl 5E was
defeated by a vote of 13-yes to l5-no.
The Boardt of Directors of the Treetops Conclominium Associatlon has
not had a chance to meet and discuss the results of the balloting'but there is a dedication on the part of the full Board to properly
executing all items of repair and maintenance during the upcoming
surnmer season so that Treetops I and Treetops II will enter the
next hrinter season in tip-top shape. In acldition to the repair
and maintenance included in Items *1, #2, and #3, action wiII be
taken to remodel and repair the entrance to Treetops I and to repair andr/or replace all of the balcony railings as appropriate.
The necessity of replacing the balcony railings on TreetoPs II wiII be carefully investigated, ancl if necessary, will be uncler-taken. In addition, the Board wiII identify and execute an
economically feasible enclosure for the trash dumpster. As
expressed above, there is a fairly egual sptit in the vote
regarcling the entrance to Treetops II. There is not najority
approval for a 5421477 entrance as Proposecl in the balloting, but
there does seem to be a consensus of suPport for less expensive alternatives, which could include the installation of some glass
in andl adjacent to the doorway, with perhaps improvecl lighting.
There will be more cornmunication with the Unit Owners in the
coming months to keep you abreast of the work that is undertaken.
Jerry D. Lacld
Secretary of the
Treetops Condominium Association
;IDL/ jab
',1
$flll
Effi
? $l'l
s Elst
;Hfl;i
r elel
6 {1"'
H'€tgl
e Elel
6 il,,
fi {tgl
egsl
s Elsr
!$f|;i
ndsl
6 'i|,,
+, 4|llul H l).rl
: Hl'r
s Hler
*,$lel
$ Eler
.j .l
581
I l'{ | I rl"l'Jxl*l "b,l'{-l{ '{.1 l-1,{ { l.l lr,l '1,{ .1,4 d *
l+t,l',| *l',lnl ll-l l'.l ll"l-l*l*l I l,{"1'.1{,.1 l"l I .s|.
lllll lll-lrl l'l l.l.l llll'l "l llll
l'.l-bl"l "l"l"l l18 f'l'{ld4"lxl l"l'.l 14 | ll'l I g c lllll lll,{-l
l,{'4-l'l 'l'l*l{*l I lJ*lul *l.l l.l"l # "l'l F? ,
l,.l',1"1'{ "lrl'l'l*l +l'-l-l"l "l-1"1,1,,.|
xl,l"l"l,{ ,l"l "l'.1 S
I l.hhl 'l'{ | l,{ !J I FJ "l ll lil *l't l{.3
'l'l'1r,1 I ll'l'4 1 l.,.l,.l-l t ftq{ | ll"l l€
lll,{"1 +l ll'lJlll"l "l lll"l *l'{ t.l 4
| | | l"l S l'4 l'l *l'{ Fl 4=
rll l'{ ll ll ll V-
l.l ll I llo l'd
Htd ,Z fl
6 rl
E
P x iA a)rl
EEI
EFI
EFI tr: I
v*l
E
tit
F
s l
?
.J tt 7 6
E
o
?
o .)
o
I
D F
).!r)
s a
g t o a
5
t
J
I [4^ld "l*li{"| '{"1,1'4'1 '{'ro'{ d l'l l"l *l.l €{ tsl-
I'l lll lllll lllll ll|l l'.l l,.l l ll tl
x
sBeag nmn@F) sesn0r ses VVrY
I h4-H l4'i'{-l d"l"l'{,,{ 'l'{dd"l "l l',1 l'.1 xl*lQxl
I l"l'i | 'l'l'1"1.1 'l"l'l"lr{ "I{-lrhl "l l"l l',1 ,1,{ "l*l g +
l"l lll lllll lllll lllll l'{ l"l I ll ll ol \.
.l
u
fr
H
=4.ro t
o -).)|-
||l
l-lq'$
||l
I'l'.0'l
||l
|l|l
l-l I l'{
Itl
iltl
||l
illl
ililr
||l
t'l llll ll
l{l^l I ll -.1
tl
tl
:t 'tl3 cn*n@ e@
,s
hl l,dd*kl,l ll-l l-l ff "ff;-l I l.ld{l ll"l lVl .
ll'dll
I'l I l-l
|||l
't
{'l'{ | |
I I l.l{
ilil1
l.l I l'{
l,.l'l ld
"l ll'l I
ttlet
l*l l"l'{
il|l
.l'.llll
rrllr
l"l I li
tIt
"l lll{'.1"1
l,{l'.l I ll
l',1 A=
llol *
,7 <t
*
s.Q
Uc.--\ L.,'.-a6--d I
!!n
=FP
2_==
I>"'r
flt lfx .-UH
ur A:NJ Yi-
vt z=
tr >;
o =O z\)thZ
P
trl Fr rF
az
-{Y mil
l-l tz to
I)J LJ 14a 1.. <
tE9
-!(,m e:o 3
\o -t \OJ 'o
(D
m x
m TI -l
z
C-o
@
U,
-l m
z
Fd
F z
UJ
(>
+.-
@
@ -o
z,o
4T
m
I
z.
z
-l :o
--.l
9r z.r -.t c 3=
A=
m t-m
-t
F
t-
2a
tz >m
-.t >
'Tl
t-z
(-
z
3
IT
H F
t'!E H
E U'
v,E n
z x
l{F
a |<(,!
H
tr
P t>
l=ll IF lft,It4 IH
lFd l'
tz
lo t>
lcn
lc/r tZ
I
E D
l>lo Io |r rn
v,ls lvr lN)
I
l14
I IH tti
tz lcn
Irll IF tv
I lc)IH
-.t t-i mlO It€'lz
lo
IT l>
lF
lm
lc-)lz
lo
I
I
I
I
tr
3
E-
€z
u)
H z
,,\
F<
F
Ut
H
c)H
ts trr
5 \o
I
@
._.J
@
l{to l{
lz lo
tl t>-
IM
lv,lz lo
I
I lr INJ 15.ll
lFd
I
I
F.
._.1
o\
I rJl
._.1 (,
\.1
l-r
tx
l3
t:t>
lF It
l6 lz
OE
=F <F
t>p
l0 po
m
r
I ,l -l
I
I
;-;E: q
EiiFs
E qI r8
.&i-=HE col.E F
3;1Bs
f(2OYS
Hb io -iSirg
:A s3i OO",(/,X
(Drr==+
3,BelE O-Oi(o no*iP +-9og qd_3+$
9;ra1.d
53s3'1 i(,3l=
EgEii
s.: 13 E*
-- j'o -.;1"6-
is .='!
P E o'q:
5 i =;d $a:f;;
g;Eai
+Sua5
3_:iQ+9U9P=
>6 za
-.t >
rrc
20 nn tra\t z
m
I
o o z
o
_n
o l,
-
m t-_rl
llfio<
ll-"*
ll,m
ll s 5
ill
ill
ll-
ll 6>*
ll"l ill
llr
=z
l-
1)
m
-t a z
m
m o
m
lz
lz l-t
m
!
a
=
J z
o c I
x X X N
t21
t utj lc lr-t4
lo1 lzi
I
L
'-.'.i
Ifr
9l
t-.tl tfl lo tx lz ml lcol
-.1'l tl trl t<l t>l
tFl
lil IL tl
IC]tr€
Ii-Z2 .a
'z fr 9-
I
I \ tt
14 e8 Io dE
>o o>ml @d z c z
-l
I
I
I
I
z m {
-t m
l
^v F 5
,I l
z
n m -o
I
I
Fq H X
i
m
;
]|>
I
z
&N (n
z H
F
v,
r-r z ,\r{
tt,
vt Fl E
H
H z
CJ F q
H z
r{
1., t-
xi XT
io >-n ZO
oul o6n
=c!5o 2Z
r\)@=
n<
tr'm >z {T z,;
t-z;
u)@ H9 >!trir
L6 Ez HQ
ze
r:rlr
>l zl
I >l
HI ol
>l Frl
Frl
"l
I
I
F
I
.1
N)
,n2 Hz
!1c)
$n
z.
CDo
AZ HO
=;'z.iri
F
H
z
z
=
=
-i o
--l m
t-
z=
Flr'n rl >o z;2at-
F
m
F z
v)H P z
}{
s.
\o
-l r
m t
=-.n
m m (t
U'
m
o |-m
z
m
a
m I o z
m s m {
m o
m I
e z
tT!m
m o -
z =.
m
m
i
A
!f-
z
m
x
F
z
'tt
m
=
!m
='Tl
m m
VALUATION
!m
3
=z
9
I
l(
l(
li Ir
I
tn
z =z
m
m o
|-
F
2 6,
l.)
e N N)
i o o ,I|E*hE
E:n!
Yo
={F8 <l m=21 x=.6q 1o.dt a?SE 1is H]o 'n
!
s
={
!m o 'n
rc m E
=-i
;EE
;i=
!tr!
!trt o o z o {F
o {o z
'u
m F
={
IT cC z=
Q(D 2=
6C)z
F
- . .r.i x -+-1b
9ij o
c 2
c
=m o
z 6
|-
c c
;
>c
a I
!-
=g
2 o
C
c
:
>
s
c 2
m -m o -{3 o
t-
o
2Ct -m vz >m C)E -{>o-x
7t o
=m o -t
o €z m v
b
@ z
3 ft
...\
R'\{-
u
c\
$
fF o>'?-
-o -t
!
=2 o
-c \-t
N
h
N''\'
9
,{
m -Fl
ta\
{\
.\
I
o It
lz lo
t:t>r'
t'|l
lP z o
l.
L)::'
a'l <.t..vr
ln
t=
ls
IF
l$
IR
IT
N
tF'\
lN
FI o €z
o 1l
:|-t m
9'z
n
a 3
{ln -F
^6
N,
I q
$l l.r ,\a
.;
.t
I
H
EY
EI
s bs m\b\
F}ti
t.J l\r,n ri\7t L*IV
-{o
=z
o 'tt
-t m
P z o
I ,
=
ld
t€
lz lo
Itr t<t>
lF It
I t 3 -l
!
=|-
u m la U'
n
3 =
s.
$
s,\s
FF
EH
h$t\' tn
lil lt"tat I
tFtil
ls. ts
c.'\[
z o -{m
I
o
!
o 'n
m a
=-{
0
n
h-
i-"1 n a;i q /.\z
L o
@ il2
=ni t
(- -.1
=@ ;m
2 9
I
R\.
| \'t lt'
r
tr€otr 1l-z6
'z i
z rn t
-t Irl
x z
6)
'n
Orrr-fi n*E E3 E ts 2 22 3: C H 2.2 oo o arz2
F
=o o -iE3a - ogd
:d*q
;q ii
-;-t Y=OO
=:Ef ;=35
(2 o:1 J
o:tr-
5:3{
H q3;
9o96.
;o;g;
ae[€
-! o!a9=il
;ta 13
3e3'1
ig aE
= =.9
E (o=--
Po6r
= =< =
igFi
6:3.E 3
iF*I
; i;€6'8. i. E I O --E
d
o {
D
t
o
o
-cL
C
=o
@
=s
(o
o o o o
ql
rto --9
nP
r\r =N.t 3
IFF{L
.sv,
A - \O \.\ l<
=o E g
o
(D
o
o
6l
il z ql
a
3l 'l
I
I
I
I
9l tr
I
!m E
=-{'n m m .J'!m -
=-t n m m U'
75 3oulh fronlrge rord
v.ll, colorado 81657
(303) 479-2138 or 479-2\39 otflce of qommunlly dcv.lopmcnl
If this permit. requires a Town of Vai'l Fire Department Approval,
Engineel''s (Pybl ic Works) reyiew and approval ,'a planninb'Department
review or Health Department review, and a review by the 6uilbing
Department, the estimated tini'b for a tota'l review may take as l6ng as three weeks.
All cornmercia'l ('large or small) and all mu1ti-family permits wilI have tq follow the above mentioned maximum requirem-enis. Residential and,small projects should take a 'l esser amount of time. However, if
resi.dential or smaller projects impact the various above mentioned
departments wi.th regard to necessary review, these projects may also take the three week period.
Every attempt wl:'l'l be made by this department to expedite this permit as seon as possible.
BUILDING PERI'IIT ISSUANCE TIME FRAf{E
undersigned, understand the plan check procedure and time I' the
frame,
/ /7 r')ln-eZ.teA c+t<@/
Project Name'
2r
Conununi ty Devel opment Departrnent.
\
,f
75 soulh fronlage road
yeil. colorado E1657
(303) 479-21.38 or 479-2I39
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SU&TECT:
Read and acknowledged by:
ofllce of communlly development
ALL CONTRACTORS CI'RRENTLYL REGISTERED WITTI THE
TOWN OF VAIL
TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
l,lARcH 15, 1988
CONSTRUCTTON PARKING E I{ATERIAL STOR,AGE
rn surnmary, ordinance No. 6 states that it is unlawful for any person to litter, track or deposit any soil , rock, sand, debris or rnaterial, including trash dumpsters, portable toileti and workrnen vehicles upon any street, sidewalk, alley or public
p1?9e or any portion thereof. The right-of-way on afl Town of Vail streets and roads is approxinately 5 ft. off pavement.This ordinance wirl be stri-tly enforced by the toi"rn of vail PYPlig works Department. persons found violating this ordinance will be given a 24 hour written notice to remove-said nateriar.In the event the person so notified does not comply with the notice within the 24 hour time specified, the pultic Works Departrnent will remove said material at the expense of person notified. The provisions of this ordinance strltf not be applicable to construction, maintenance or repair projects of any street or alley or any utilities in the right-a-way.
To review Ordinance No. 6 Ln full, please stop by the Town of Vail Building Department to obtain I copy. rirani< you for your cooperation on this rnatter.
Positi6n/ne-laEi@ ./6/z/e r
(i.e. contractor, owner)
I
LOUIS A. H E LLE RST EIN
STEPHEN A, HELLERSTEIN
MARTIN H, SHO RE
JAN ICE HOFMAN N CLARK
EDWARD P. O'B RIEN
ROBERT E. MARKEL
ROBERT W SM ITH
SALLY K. ORTNER
DAVID F, IN U RRAY
EM t'4Y H. STON E
BARBARA P, KOZ E LKA
M ICHAE L A. VELLONE
DAVID A. S HORE
VIA UPS OVERNIGHT
,Jii
Hrlunsten, HEr-lrnsrrrH AND SHoRE, p c.
ATTORNEYS AI IAW
I I39 DELAWARE 5TR E ET
P. O, BOX 5637
DENVER, COLORADO 6O2t7
(3o3) 57r- r27l
May I, l99l
DELIVERY
Mr. Mike Mollica
Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
In Rc:Treetops Condominiums Density Variance
Dear Mr. Mollica:
Wc are writing on behall of our client, Trcctops Condominium Association ("Associ-
ation"), concerning the density variance granted to thc Association on June 16, 1987 in
connection with the enclosure of certain balconies in thc Treetops project. As you know,
we recently wrote to the Vail Town Attorney, Larry E. Eskwith, concerning his position
that the density variance had lapscd pursuant to the Town's ordinances. A copy of our
f etter to Mr. Eskwith dated April I I, l99l is enclosed. On April 12, 1991, Martin Shore of
our office and I mct with Mr. Eskwith to discuss the substance of our letter and to review
the documents and matcrials referred to thcrein.
At our meeting with Mr. Eskwith, wc expressed the Association's position that the
variance granted in l9E7 has not lapsed bascd upon the fact that the Vail Planning
Commission conditioned its approval of the variancc upon the Association's agreement to
make othcr substantial improvemcnts and repairs to thc Treetops project and that the
Association has spcnt in excess of 9300,000 over the past lour years in complcting those
general site improvemcnts. However, Mr. Eskwith advised us that it is his position that the
Association failed to meet thc rcquirements of thc Town's ordinancc which requires that
construction contemplated under a variancc must bc commenced within one year of thc
date of issuancc of the variance. Accordingly, Mr. Eskwith reiterated that any Design
Review Board Application submitted by thc Association to thc Town for approval of
certain changes in thc architectural plans would be pointless bccause the variance had
lapsed. Therefore, the Association elected not to submit to thc Town the Design Review
Board Application recently prepared by its architects, Friztlen, Picrce, Briner. Mr. Eskwith
confirmed his position on this matter by a letter sent to us dated April 18, 1991, a copy of
which also is cnclosed.
The Association wishes to appcal the dccision of the Town in th is matter. Accord-
ingly, please consider this lctter as the Association's request for an appeal from the Town's
administrative action pursuant to Vail Town Ordinance 18.66.030 which provides as
follows:
Appcal from any administrative action or detcrmination by the
town manager or the zoning administrator pursuant to provi-
sions of this title may be filed with the Planning Commission
by any resident or property owner within twenty days follow-
ing such action or detcrmination.
Hrlunsrutl. HrlLensretN nNo Suonr. p. c.
Mr. Mike Mollica
May I, l99l
Page 2
We recently discussed with Mr. Eskwith the propriety of filing an appeal of this
matter in view of the fact that we are uncertain as to whether there has been any
"administrative action" by the Town from which an appeal may be filed. While Mr.
Eskwith was of thc opinion that our informal meeting with him did not constitute admini-
strative action by thc Town, he recommended that we file an appeal with the Planning
Commission in order to preserve the Association's rights. In discussing this matter with
you, you advised us that you believe our meeting with Mr. Eskwith did constitute adminis-
trative action by thc Town and that an appeal of Mr. Eskwith's decision could be filed
with the Planning Commission under the abo vc-referenced ordinance.
In our conversation with you, we discusscd the fact that the plans which served as
the basis for the Planning Commission's approval of the variance in 1987 have been
revised. Becausc of the revisions, the Association recently preparcd the above-refere nced
Design Review Board Application in order to obtain the Town's approval of such changes.
It is the Association's position that the revised plans affect matters which would only
concern the Design Rcview Board and that variance considerations have been unchanged.
In this regard, you indicated that a certain owner in the project has expressed opposition to
the proposed balcony enclosures for various reasons, including the fact that the plans as
originally approved have been changed.
We understand from thc Association's architects that the variance granted in 1987
contcmplated cnclosure of ten balconies located in the portions of the project referred to as
stacks C and E. Each stack consists of fivc units. The revised plans still contemplate
enclosure of all five units in stack E and the ground-level unit in stack C. Accordingly,
the Association merely wishes to proceed with enclosure of six of the ten balconies
originally approved for enclosure by the Planning Commission. We believe that such
changes in the plans do not implicate variance considerations.
The Association's position concerning the continued validity of the variance is set
out in dctail in its letter to Mr. Eskwith datcd April I l, 1991. We request that the Planning
Commission include that letter in its consideration of this appeal and that the matter be set
lor hearing. If this matter is set for hearing, please provide a Notice of Hearing to the
undersigned.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Yery truly yours,
HELLERSTEIN. HELLERSTEIN AND SHORE. P,C.
G*, ? t,
David F. Murray
- Via Telccopy
DFM/ljc
Encls.cc: Mr. Carlos Phillips
Mr. Bill Pierce
Ms. Marvel Barnes
Hr,LltnsrttH, Ht,LLrnstrtN,rNo SHor.e'
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
II39 DELAWARE ST RE ET
P. O. BOX 5637
DENVER, COLORADO AO2l7
April I I, l99 l
/(ti,; l;,i JJYI
P, C.
LOUIS A. H ELLE RST EI N
STEPHEN A. HELLERSTEIN
MARTIN H. SHORE
JAN ICE HOFMANN CLARK
EDWARD P O'BRIEN
ROBERT E. MARKEL
ROBERT W, SMITH
SALLY K. ORTN E R
OAVID F. MU RRAY
EMMY H. STONE
B^REARA P, I(OZ ELKA
MTCHAEL A. VELLONE
DAVIO A, SHORE
TELEPHONE
(303) S73 - IOAO
TE LECOPI ER
(3O3) 57r- r?7 r
La wrencc E. Eskwith' Esquirc
Vn il Town AttorncY
75 South Frontrgc Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
In Rc: Trcctops Condonriniums Dcnsity Variancc
Dclr Ir4 r. Eskwith:
Wc arc writing on bchaIf of our clicnt, Trcctops Co.ndominiunl Association
(,,Association"), "onc.rnine
ii c- Vuif iown Council's affirmrncc of the Planning and \
E'r,ironnrcntrt Comm issi&Jr-i"Cot-it.ion") grrnt of a dcnsity vlrirncc on Junc l6' 1987
in conncction *ittr uariois inip-to"..""ts-ani construction in thc Trcctops projcct'
including thc cnclosurc "f .iii.i" Lalconics. since thc timc of thc Conrnlission's grant of
thc vnriancc, thc Associrtion has spcnt substantinl lnrounts of nroncy for inrrrrovcntcnts
and consrruction contcmi'i"";;;;;;;; inc uatiance ancl it now wishcs to procccd with thc
;;i;;;;;;i"rr't.r-*r'i"ti ionstitutccl only onc of ntanv proposcd improvcnrcnts'
BccausctheAssociltionhasslightlyreviscditsphnsconccrningthc-
brlcony cnclosurcs, it;;;.;ilt-trcparcd a oc-sign Rcvicw.Bonrd Applicrtion in ordcr to
obtxin thc Town's uppro".i-o'f iuc'h changcs' f" otc adviscd thnt the changcs rcflcctcd-
i."'ijr. i.'" ir..f piont .ff..t mtttcrs whicliwoulcl only conccrn thc Dcsign Rcvicw.Board
and that varicncc considcrations havc bcen unchangid. .wc undc.rstand that thc Associa'
tion's architccts, Frizticn,'pt;;;; and Brincr,_contac-icd thc Town's Zoning Adnrinistrator
;;i;; ; iuUntitt'ing tftc nciign ncvicw Board Applica.tion to thc. Con:nrunitv Dcvclopntcnt
Dcp rtnrcnt ("pcpartmcrit;i a';d wcrc-acluiscd ttrat it is your position thrt thc density
variancc has lnpscd puiruont to thc Town's ordinances. Thc purposc of this lcttcr is to
offcr adclirion.r urctgroi"a'i"r"ir.tion and facts conccrning thc_ comnrission's grant of
thc variancc and thc dotpi.tio" oi icrtain inrproycmcnts contcnlplatcd thcrcundcr' nnd
to rcqucst tSat you r."oniiO.r-Vour position conccrning Inpsc of thc variancc' Thc
i""fi"ii,irii ii a tr'ricf r"nrr.iy of out'undcrstanding of the chronology of cvcnts in
conncction with this nlrttcr.
on or about May 25, 1987, thc Association subnrittcd an apptication to the
Dcsign Rcvicw SoarA *qu"iiing npptount of an cxtcrior altcration lnd dcnsity varinnce
ioi tjr. cnclosurc of ccrtain bnlioniis nnd a pcdcstrinn.bridge, as wcll ns rcdcsigning. and
inipio"."1."i of o lobby and lobby.entrancc. Thc apptication nlso proposcd substanti.,l
i;;;;";;;;is nnd tan-d'scaping oi'trr. projcct, including improvcrlcnt nnd rcpair of
I o
Lrwrence E. Eskwith, Esquirc
April 10, l99l
Page -2-
cntryways, balcony railings and sidcwalks.. Enctoscd with this Icttcr and labcled as
Exhibit'Au is a.opy oi o"-."morandum dated Junc l. 198? from tb-c Dcpnrtmcnt to the
6ortiirsion *ttict 'outtines thc Association's requcst [or..approval. of thc proposcd . -.
.-;i;;i;;alirrotions. Scction I of that memotandum outlincs thc Associ0tion's spccific
;;;;;r1 fir if,. cnclosu.e of balconies ancl enumcrates thc additional improvemcnts which
thc Association had propot.o.
-
s..tions lv and v of the mcmorandum indicatc that all
of the proposecl improviri;;t; ttlntrywnys, landscaping, lighting.aod new sidewalks
;.;;l;;;;;iinnce *iti-and-would firrttrlr thc purposJC.of thc Urban Dcsisn Considcra'
iioni for LionshcaO. In iis iccommendation conierning thc extcrior altcration rcqucst,
1;r;'b;;;ti;;ni;s riaff r."ott*.nO.a approval of thc cxtcrior alteration 6ascd upon the
;;;p;;;i;-iompliancc wiih alt of thc Liisis'n Considmntions lor Lionshcad'
Also encloscd and labclecl as Exhibit nB'is a copy of a mcmorandum dntcd
Junc t, 1987 f;m tfr. b.p.it*ni-to tfr. Commission which outlines the Association's
;;il.;; i"i'.'iirtfiv-r;ri;;;; to cnclose tcn.balconies in thc projcct, Scction IV of that
;;;;;;;;d"; indicaicsJtrc'-ri.portt.nr;s position that thc proposcd improvemcn-ts and
;;;;;;i;;;;adc of trr" cntiic biojcct.*ould houc a positivc impact on uscs in thc
vicinity, Howcver, notw'itfrsia'nO i-ng thc p,roposal's attroctivcncss in tcrms of the Depsrt-
*."i;r'of t.iotion ciitcria,'ifri-O.poit..ni's itatf recommcndcd dcnial of thc ovcrall
li-q;.it-b'r-*d-upon itr p.iriill" ifrat 0t" grnnting of a dcnsity variance would violrte thc
town's zoning rcgulations and ordinanccs.
On June l, l9g?, the Commission met to considcr thc Association's applica'
tion. At that mecting the Commission discusscd the recommcndations of thc Dcpart-
rini't';i.]i-;";-ritiiraiclrapproved the variance on the following thrce grounds as
quotcd from thc minutcs of thc Commission's mectinS:
I. Thcrc is minimot perccntage of increascd
GRFA.
2. Substantial landscaping and substantial im'
provemcnts to the structurcs will be done in exccss of that
rcquired. (This is a major emphasis of thc.proposal and docs
noi inctude maintcnanci and upgrading which would normal-
ly bc rcquired.)
3. Uscable balconies on thc same clcvution as the
cncloscd brlconics will remain for cach unit'
Enclosed and labcled as Exhibit "Cn is a copy of the above-rcfcrenced minutes of thc
Commission's mecting on Junc I' 1987.
The Commission's dccision to approve the proposed extcrior altcrotion and
dcnsity vafioncc was uphcld by the Vail Town Council on Junc 16, 1987. A copy o[ thc
*inut6r of thc vail fown Council's mccting is enclosed and labclcd as Exhibit "D."
Subsequent to the Vail Town Council's dccision upholdinS, the Commi^ssion's
grant of thc varianic, Town Ptanncr Kristan Pritz wrotc I lcttcr dntcd June 29' 1987 to
I
La wrcncc E. Eskwith, Esquire
April 10, l99l
Pagc -3-
thc Associotion's architcct, Mr. Tom Brincr, whcrein she addrcsscd ccrta in questions
conccrning thc proposcd constrrrction. ln that lcttcr, a copy of which is cncloscd and
labclcd rs Exhibit "E,," Ms. Pritz statcd that the gcncral sitc inrprovcntcnts proposcd in
addition to thc balcony enclosurcs wcrc "an inrportant prrt of thc Pllnning Conrnrission's
dccision to approvc thc rcqucst."
Subscqucnt to thc Town Council's af f irmancc of thc Commission's grtnt ol thc variancc on Junc 16, 1987, thc Associrtion commcnccd work on thc vRrious inrprovc-
nrcnts contcmplated undcr thc vnriancc. Spccifically, bctwccn July 1987 nnd July t988,
thc Association cxpcndcd approxinratcly $ 195,000.00 for variorrs rcpairs, intprovcnrcnts
and landscaping contcnrplatcd undcr the vnriance. This work includcd mnjor cntryway
irnprovcmcnts, installation of ncw balcony railings, ncw l'acin nntl othcr cxtcrior im-
provcmcnts ns proposcd in thc Association's originnl Dcsign Rcvicw Board Application.
Bctwccn August 1988 and August 1989 thc Association cxpcndcd approxim$tely
$65,000.00 on additional improvcmcnts and rcpairs contcmplRtcd undcr thc variancc,
including cnclosurc of thc walking bridgc, substantial landsctping, ncw sidcwnlks,
drainngc inrprovcmcnts and brlcony railing rcpairs. Sincc Scptcnrbcr 1989 to thc prcscnt,
thc Associlttion lras cxpendcd approximatcly $31,000.00 on t'urthcr improvcmcnts and
landscaping contemplatcd undcr the varirncc, including construction of a dumpstcr l enclosurc. Additionally, thc Association hls paid approximltcly $15,000.00 sincc Junc
1987 for work done by its architccts in conncction with thc proposcd balcony cnclosurcs
and othcr improvcmcnts to thc projcct contemplatcd undcr thc variancc. This figurc
includcs architcctural scrviccs rcndcrcd in 1991. Wc would bc htppy to providc you with copics of account lcdgcrs and bitling statcnrcnts reflccting thc costs incurrcd by thc Association for such improvcmcnts, landscrping and architccturltl scrviccs conrplctcd on bchalf of thc Association.
Scction 18.62.080 of thc Town of Vril Ordinanccs providcs as follows:
Thc Zoning Administrator shall issuc a varinncc pcrmit
whcn action of thc Planning Commission bccomcs f inal,
subjcct to such conditions as may bc prcscribcd by rhc
Commission. The pcrmit shall lapsc if construction is
not commcnccd within onc vcar of thc datc o[ issuance
and diligcntly pursucd to cornplction. (cnrphasis addcd)
Our review of thc Dcpartmcnt's file on thc Treetops projcct inclicrtes that the Zoning Administrator ncvcr issucd a writtcn variance pcrmit subscqucnt to thc Town Council's aff irmancc o[ thc Commission's grrnt of a density variancc as rcquircd by thc abovc ordinancc. Flowcvcr, wc arc adviscd that it is not unusual for thc Zoning Administrator to not issuc a written variancc permit and wc prcsuntc that this omission has no substan-tivc cffcct upon thc validity of thc variancc.
Thc forcgoing rcflccts that thc Association hns incurrcd substantitl costs for improvenrcnts and rcpairs that wcre spccifically contcntplatcd undcr the variancc grantcd by thc commission and that nrany of thosc rcprirs nnd improvcmcnrs wcrc
commcnccd within onc ycnr of thc Town Council's approval of'lhc variancc rnd diligcnt-ly pursucd ns rcquircd by the ordinancc. As you cnn scc, lhc Association has spcnt riorc than $300,000 on improvcmcnts which thc Conrmission considcrcd as thc basis for its
I o
Lawrcncc E. Eskwith, Esquirc
April 10, l99l
Page -4-
approval of thc variance. As with most condominium associations, the Trectops Associa-tion is a rclatively slow moving and incfticient political body. However, the Association
dclibcratcly commcnccd significant and costly improvcmcnts under thc variancc within
onc ycar o[ thc Town Counscl's action and has complctcd the majority of the contem-platcd improvcmcnts in continuous stagcs up to this day. Quitc simply, thc Association first complctcd thosc improvcments most important to the Town and now wishes to begin
thc. final. stagc of thc proposcd improvcmcnts - thc balcony cnclosurcs. Accordingly, ric
bclicvc that thc variancc grantcd by thc Commission rcmains vnlid and cffcctivc-and
that thc Association should bc pcrmitted to procccd with the brlcony cnclosurcs, subject to thc Dcsign Rcvicw Board's approval of the rcviscd plans for such improvemcnts. -
Wc bclicve that our position is in accordance with the exprcss provisions
r.nd spirit of thc Town's ordinancc. As stated by Ms. Pritz in hcr letter to Tom Briner,thc gcncral improvements wcrc an important part of the Commission's dccision to ap-prove thc rcqucst. To dcny the Association pcrmission to procccd with construction of
those improvcmcnts which were of primary importance to it, altcr othcr improvcmcnts
which wcrc incxtricably linkcd to thc varinnce havc bccn complcted, woutd bc unjust
and frustratc tlrc esscntial purposc o[ thc process.
.*
As a sidc note, we are adviscd by the Association that the owner's wishing
to cnclose thcir balconies have agreed to convcrt thcir fircplaces from wood burning to gas burning in the cvcnt thcy arc allowcd to procccd with thc cnclosurcs.
Plcase contact our office aItcr you have had an opportunity to considcr the foregoing to advise us of your position on this matter and whcthcr thc Association mav procccd -with its Dcsign Rcvicw Board Application in connection with thc reviscd plani for the balcony cnclosures. Your assistance in this matter would be appreciated.
Very truly you rs,
DFM/jm
Encls.
P.:I
5.
*
Additions of wood sicling to the east builrling and remodeling of the east building balcony ,"ifinfr-to provide a visual consisten.v "i ^ut.rilr", .r"[iir,and cotor berween rlre two .L=iJ""tiii-["iioii;;:-,
An upgrade of exterior lighting.
A density variance is reguirecr for 're 10 crcck euclosures, as the-project i= aireaoy over the allowable GRFA. pleasi see tfre-ilro .orr".rning t,lre densitv variance for a rnore aeialiea anary=ir-Jr-li-,i"request. ,-
(
'tffift
= I95 sq ft
The association l:_:1:: proposing-to.do an entire upgracle of the existing project wnicn ,o,lta inclurle:
l. An added protective entrance at the east entry.
2. An increa=" ::^_I:lgseaping along the bike path (sour.h side of the project).
3. An increase of landscaping at the west lruilclJ.ng ent.rance.
o
June 1, 1987
A request for an exterior alteration to enclose 10 decks and redesiqn entries io-[fr"'treetops ff Condominium nuiliinq Applicant: ?reetopi condominium Association
r. THE PROPOSAL
The Treetops Condoninium Association is reguesting an exterior alteration.and density variance,r for ilre following construction at the ireetops If nuLfai'q (east condominiurn buildfrig; :
3.
4.
TO!
FROM:
DATE:
SUEJECT:
Planning and Environmental Cornmission
Comnunity Development Department
t. Enclosure of:
5 existing decks g :O sq ft, per deck
Enclosure of
5 existing decks € Ae sq ft per cleck
trnclose pedestrian bridge,
Redesigning the existing Iobby and creaE,rng a rler/ Iobby entry,
l
= 210 sq fl:
= BO sq ft:
= 2u0 sq ft
EXHI
i ,,4,,
rr.; coRE r{
rII. CI)I,IPLTAT{CU I.Jr'I'TI T'TtE URUAN DESIGN GUIDE I)J.A}I I.'OIt
Section IB.26, OtO purpose
The Commercial Core II zone district is intenclecl to provide sites for a nixrure of nutr,ipl" .t;;iii;f,r] roa.1o*,and conrrnerciar establishme'ts in a ciustered, uniiioa deveroprnent. comrnerciar cor. ii Ji=c.i"t in accorcia^ce with the Vail Lionshead urban Design cuioe-i,riu-on,r r)esirjrr cotrsiderations is intenciecr to errsuie aclequat.e lit.JlrL, air.,opetr space and other amenities appropriaie to Llrc pernittecl types of buildings and uses ancl to maintain Ure desirable gualities of the-dlstrict by establishing appropriate site development standardi.
?his proposal is in compriance wit.h trre intent of tlre Commercial Core fI zone district.
'l'llere are no sub*ar:ea colrcel)ts tlrat rolate proposaJ.to Llris l
IV. 99$.I]LIANCE WITII T'IIE URBAN DESIGN CONSTDEITNI'IOIIS FOtI LIO}ISIIEN I)
A.tJS
+ct !I g l+ Ma s : t nq !
- It-i_9_c_9_!E1 gerc!-i_gli *e rrrplr.a s i :: e s tit ? S.e? E i " n- "?E". r t-?bTi
"
o a q._qll;l_ rToo ;pg-de_st_ttq1r area to- overcome ttre ciiiliirn-Eiirdct or:c. Ir -b, ii a i; u-*- r-G il ; r, r''jt_n r,, i it ttki-ii ; i, X ;tl r_r_=!.U I rg rlrgl .
=
I t gt? teE_Lha t tr bu i }3!!rrq e ipir ilC i on: ;shall generally be limited--Eo one .=t_.Frr-;.i-i;'
Vl SUcf I a functional effect. "
u.
Staff rs opinion is.that the inrproved entry r.,fays,landscaping. Iighting and ne\r sidewalks will iurLlrer define pedestrian areas. 'l'he height arrA rnassinf-of the entry is onry .'e sLory wrricrr courpl ies: r.r j r:rr trr i:;consideration.
Roofs: Flat, sLed.r__y_ll!!!erl or clome roots aro es-q9p!'jDrs-EElI\tl-i.,lit,rlet1i.]r'je"lt_"";-[-'i;]=ti;;l,iifi,,,
E o l! E eql:_t!.9_St<ps t tsi r o I I s w i L lr e x i s L__irts _lr_+u_q-i rrg_l_ -1"_9f,_!9'-eygjslEp@-y-"Jil.E@"A- on" cru;rr i r-y ror Lionsheacl ''--"-.:'-*-'
I
Tlre applicant, has proposed an entry addltion anct deck addirions thar. are ;;;;;iibie witn, urJ-"_iJir,...r condominium buiLct i ng . . T;;";ropo=..1 ent r.y acld i t.i o, co building No' 1-rr'rs; i r"irr".iri pirctr mot"f,irrg Lh.L or t-lre sloped roofs ",, fr"If ,"'"irrao,ni,riu, buildiriqs.c'
ffi.i=efi+{sl.r-u t! s rs i-+q-_s- ::,-c !r}e5eJ.Q b l o_c_li_
,' fi a;i; r{-r"'E:+I ffi i,
" [-r:j
?lris proposal. cornpl ies wiHr these nr.rtel.ial.::. .l,lre entries "iIf ._b9_ ,Lu""o. '-rlo.irontal
woocl siclirrg wi I I be adtled to guitcline-#j t;"*ia.tr,ruitding il1. ,r,rim colors and stain ""i"iu Jiri'*ror"rr for both buitdings.
D.Facades Transparency:Tlris congiderat_i_c
-s etlue re_r_e-1Lr o
"
o,,?##5EeE
--......=-..-prrmari 1 legnd floor encoura es ttre use o winaows for stoicCi:qnEC
P.
Even thouqh this proposal is a resident_ial ex'arr:;ior..,it should be noted tilat irre nlw-con=tructi.orr vri.t I ..have an adequate amounl_ of transparcllcy rr.orrr.lllttrn.the expansion. ,rr,e n"* ;;ail'ir;i n;rrly wlr)durr$ (rt(l shartow bay wirrdo'rs or:c r;;;;;";;- at tlrc r:o,., tcruirr:ro,rr;of tlre balconies f". ,r,r-.!io;;-;;.
:I"1,::;=:,,:I_II;
This consideration refer.s prirnarily Lo cornnrorciirl decks. As the ap1.r1ic""L f,;;'";;ia",.t, ,,t.f .rr.rov/existins balconiei- 3i g"il!!"s-ij are proposect ro De :::I:::d-by b?y windows. rheie "*i"iiit-;;;;";:.are not functional il--a:51n" of-pJovfaing seatinq for dlninq, sunnino or any other o,rtdoor act.ivity.,, -Renaining deck and u"i""ny-;.iii;;= on Buirdinc, l2 ii: ." be repracecl wirh riiiirg"",i,"t"ili".J-D"i:.irlI,
f- ifi*i-li ilili niiioo\
'lhe applicant lras. st.a Lecl that, ,,,fo assure Ura t, tlrorc,rs no ross of rerief t.o rhe soutrr-facaoe-..i"iirii.iii,q
'o J
#2 due to balcony-enclosures, awnj,ngs are proposed to be intesrar wirh !l.u uuv "i;6o;";==gTbry. Awninss wirr be canvas, wirh ;-;"i;;-;;d'iu..".n acceptabre
:;"";::8""1:;;":, Board. eJaiiilnlr_ ran.!,.apins at
in"ruJ" -"i;;; i ; i':":13"3,'jn:nf j;l:' ",,3lil,tii il,
",
="1:o,proposed for. the ";fir;";;;;;".. scaff ,s opinion is that r mcsrry r" .".*.r.l:t';::::. ";:;:; striceline rerers
::l-lild'"io: i^i.",ements,irr onii, r,ll:.iinl;t"t appearance of this project. -o;.-;pi"i;;-ir-*,oi
.r,"ar'rningrs are not necessary to natntain r:elief to che
i:::1. facade. Hor.,ever, ttris is a oesign Revie,,r tscer-::
The proposal adds additional of the west entry and on the prol ect.
Staff believes that these inprovements are in compriance wirh rhis consiJeiation ;;i";-;".;urages the use of plant materiai-io'a.c"nt buildings. .
STAFF RECOMMENDATTONS
Steff reconnends apprcval cf #-he exterior .,rl tot.ci.i c,n reguest, ft is our.opinion that the propcsal ccmplies wiEh all of the oesign con=iJ".tiJns for Lionsheai. The
5::j:::.creates sieniricani-i;;;;;"*"nrs to rhe rieecops
Iandscaping in the area south sicle of the
V.(
(
I o
TO: Planning and Envlronmental conrnisslon
FROMr Conmunity Development Department
DATE: June L, L9B7
SUBJECT: A request for a density variance to enclose l0 decks at the l'reetops Condominium lluilding ll 2
APPLfCANT: Treetops Condominium Association
I. DESCRTPTION OF VARIANCDS REQUDS.TDD
The Treetops condoniniunr Association is requestirrg a density variance to enclose 1"0 existing outdoor decks on the south side of the ,building. The Treetops Building ilz is Ure east:building belrind the Treetops comnercial building. Five of these decks are 39 square feet each and five are 46 square feet each, wlrich creates a total additional GRFA request of
425 square feeL. The existing GRFA on the site is J6,i69 square feet,, ?he allowable GRFA in Conmercial Core II for this project. is 30t952 square feet. The project is presenlly over the alfowable GRFA by 5,4L7 square feet. If this :
request is approved, the project would be 5,842 sguare feet over the allowable
tt. BACKGROUNLON TnE REqUEST
fn August of 1983, the Treetops Condominium Association requested a rezoning of their property frorn ltigh Density Multi-Fanily (.6o) to Comrnercial Core II ( .80) zoning. 'l'his request was made in order to construct the commercj aI
expansion to the norbh of the two residential buildirrgs.
Under lligh Density MuIti-Farnity zoning, the project was allowed 23,2L4 square feet of GRFA. Due to the rezoning, tlre project is now allowed 30.952 square feet. The rezoning
increased the allowable GRFA by '1 ,738 square feet.
In ilanuary of 1984, the Condominiun Association rerluested an exterior alteration in order to add the ret.aif expansion
above the existing parking structure.
fn JuIy of 19S6, a request was made to enclose 1O decks for an additional GRFA of 665 square feet. Staff recommended denial of the request, The Plannlng Comrnission noved to deny the requestf as it was felt that it would be a grant of special privilege to approve the additLons. The vote was 6-0
in favor of the motion. Tlre Treetops Condominium Associatiorr
appealed the Planning Cornmission's decision to the Tor.rn Council. The Tobtn council upheld the Planning Comnrissionrs decision to deny the requesL.
l "g':
,/I
IIT. ZONING STATISTICS
Zone District: Commerclal eore II
Site Area: + 38,690 sguare feet*
GRFA! (.Bo)
Allowable: 30,952 sf Existing: 36,369 sf
Amt. over allowable: 5,4L7 sf
Proposed: 5 decks € 39 sf = 195 5 decks 0 46 sf - 23O
Total Proposed: 425 sf
Ant over after additions: 5842 sf
Total GRFA after additions: 36,794 sf
Units: Allowed: 22 d.u.Existing: 26 d.u.Proposed: o
Cornmon Area z (2AZ of Allowabl"e GRFA)
Allowed: 6,LgO Existirrg: 4 ,39O Proposedi bridge 80 lobby 260
Existing
& Proposed 4t73O
Rernaining 1,460
Site Coveraqe: (7o*)
Allowed, 27,083 sg Existing: 2I ,670 sf ProPosed, 3oo sf Exist & Addlt. 2L,97o st.Remaining 5,113 sf
Setbacks
o
Required 10 ft all sides. No impact with proposal
I
Landscapinqt (ZOt of site area required)
Reguired: ?,7J8 sf Existing: 12,OOo sf approx.
Heiqht: Allowedt 48' sloping, 45' flat
Parkinq:
Exlsting and proposed: sane
The units tlrat lrave dec)< expansions lrave exisLing GRFA totals that range fron 1315 sf to 1326 sf.'l'he deck expansions of 39 sf or 46 sf do not rncrease- the square footage above 2,Ooo sf whiclr is the breaking point for additionaJ. parking,
lotal site area was calculated bv Engineering Group, fnc. property
square footage is .r. 38,O9O square
of the requested variance to oUrer existin and struCeures-Tn TEe viainTFt.---
The additions are compatible with the existing uses in the area._ Thg general upgrade of the entire proj6ct will have a positive irnpact on ules in the vicinity.
Bud Stikes, l'he lines do not c1ose, so feet.
rv. CRTTEEIA ANp FTNDINGS
Upon review of Criteria the municipal coder the recornmends denial of the following factors:
Consideration of Factors;
and Findings, Section LB.61.060 of Departnent of comnunity Developnent requested variance based upon the
e without qranFof lpeci-dl- p-rivileqe.
Staffrs opinion is-tha! this request would be a grant of special' prlvllege due to the fact that there is fro physical hardship which would warrant the variance.
.ft ir- the applicant's responsibility to prove physical hardship and the fact that the granlinq br tne^viriance wl]I not be a speciar privilege in oider to get approvar for ilrc
The relationshi or potent,ial useG
Thg deqrge, !o $/hich relief frorl the strict and literal PlsprrtuF -Effiii'"n i"lrecess.rry ffi and u'ifor*itv ;ff tl_g a trlg iit amo rlq- sf r, e s -f. rlEGll c i-,ii b y o r €alffui ;- r, "
I o
V
densiby variance.
Due to the fact that it is difficult to nake the arguments of physical hardship and Lack of special privilege when reviewing a density requesL, ordinance lla oE 1985 was adol:t,ecl to allow for small GRFA additions wit.hout tlre need for variance approval. Unfortunately, this ordinance does not provide a neans for allowirrg additions to units in nrulti-fanily buildings. Units of this type were omitted, as the
Town Council and Planning Conrmission \^rere concerned about ttre potential to increase the bulk and nass of nrtrlti-family btti,ltlings Lo a lroint where there would be rrec;ative inrpacl-s
clue l-o the .rddibions. Lec;.l I issues also conLrjbr.rLeel to tlre inability of this ordinance to accornnodate muILi-fanrily additions. In respect to this request, ordinance ff4 does not'.provide any relief from having to review nrulti-falrily additions with the density vclriance criteria.
'Ihe ef fect of the requested_variance on_J_i9Lt!__gn.l_g.ir.,qELi@--Ele l e p-etgF-iF nL.:ild-Fr-q t. r j ;,
.[r].9_i] i-t-_1es, pubLig_f ag-1.!i,!f9_g-_S.lt{- g_g-f_l_i_ttgi:r.__g-15! 17_11.1,11 ,ic;
es-f g Ly_:-
'l'here are no sir;nif icant inrpacts on any of tlre above fact+r-s.
RELAI'ND POLICY IN VNILIS COMMUNTY ACTIOI.I PLAI{
Comnunity Design
2. Upgrading and remodeling of structures and site
i.mprovernents should be encouraged.
5. I'taintenance and upkeep shoulcl be a priority of l)ropert-y owners and of the Town.
This proposal for the deek enclosures and the other cJenerclI
inprovenents to the project supports the Conrnunity AcLion Plan policies.
Strch other fncLors and cr:iteria as tl'ro conrmissir:rn tlectns
.1ffi_. i_c;6i e Co ttG_p io pos eg yg_ri_qiltE=
VI FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmerrhal Commission-ehe11 makc Elrg followinq f indilgs -before ctrantillg a va.E1_e-11ae_i
That the granting of the variance wilI not corrstit,utc a gr.'lnt of special privilege inconsistent. with the Iimitations orr other properties classified in Llre sane district.
I o
That the granting of the variance wirl not be detrimental to the public health, saf ety or wel- f are, or materially injurior.rs to properties or improvements in Llre viclrriLy.
That the variance is warranted for one or rnore of the followincr reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulatLon would result in practieal difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent uith the objectives of this titIe.
There are exceptions or ext.raordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the sarne site of the variance tlrat do not apply generally to other properties in ttre
same zone.
'fhe strict irrterpretatiorr specified regulation would privileges enjoyed by the the sarne district.
STAFF RECOMMSNDA'TION
or err f orcement of t.he deprive the applicarrl- of
owners of other properties in
The proposal involves both a density variance and exterior alt.eration request, The exterior alteration criteria are
used to review the design issues related to the request.
Even though the proposal compares favorably given the alteration crLteria, the staff rnust recommend denial of the overall request, as $re cannot support the density variance.
The original concern of the Council and Commission concertrinc_;multi-farnily additions was that the building's bullt and mass
may be increased to a point where negative impacts would occur from the expansions. In this situation, the
expansion and overall inprovements to the property are
considered to be positive. Ilowever, staff must abide by tlro variance criteria, and tlrerefore rnust recomrnend denial oI ttrt:
request.
Basically, the staff has thc same position tltaL wa$ outlinecJ
ln tlre July 14, 1986 rnenro when L0 deck etrclosures tvere alscr
being considered for this pro jecL. IL is t-ruc tlrat tlrere are
no signif icant inpacts resulLitlq f rorn tlris proposal,
Itoi.rever, the staff does feel that it would be a grant of special privilege to approve the reguesC. rt must aLso be
noted that the property is over the allowabl,e cliFA ancl nuuber
of units for development urrder Conrmercial Core 1I zoning.
VI
Ill A. VARIANCE RggUE:/
In accordance u,ith that-provision of Orcrirrance No. 4 allo'ing for an increase of 250 square flet to-singre-i,r,r .ruoior-i"urii"g"r,,its as 0rr inducenrent for tlre upgrading of exisilitg sLructures, the"Ti.cetops Corrttornirriurrr seeks a variance to ailor,r a totar adcti tion of 4zs ,i.,.i:o iuur tu u,o existing GRFA total of 35,97r square r'ect - a^ incrcase oi l.r:;
Tlre proposed additional GRFA courprises of 4 balcony encrosur.cs ond I deck enc losure at-39 square rebt <rnd 4 balcony oi.ioiu.Ji orrrt t deck enclosure at 46 stluare feet caclr.
The balconies to be enclosed are 3.s feet wide, They provide l.i tLle to no roonl for outdoor furniture, i.e. rro outcloor a.iiiitu, trt t,ou.beerr utilized as storage drcrls visiblc'frorrr trrc-viiiniiy-ii u'o bike palr.
The area is being addect to the living roorns, not the bedroonrs ilrus thc bed base and/or density wfl't not be increased]
The request and subsequerrt approval of this variance.i s neccssary fo'the Association's approval of the entire up-grading packige rrricrr i rrc I udcs ;
i. Added protected entrances to both buildings.2, An increase of landscaping a)ong the bike-path.3. An increase of ia'<Jscaping at trie west buiiaing errtrance. .\This feature faces East Liorrshcad circlc an<l vril I prr.rvicre a utore attractivc public foroground Lo t.hc builctirrq.4. Additiorrs of wood,sidirrg to ilre cast builc.ling ancr i:cnrorJclirrg of lhc east buildjlrg b.rlcorry rail irr0s to provide .r visu,:l consistency of nr.tterialsr <JCttril ,rnd color bellcerr thc trvo residential l_rui ldi nqs.5. An upgracte of exterior Iigtrtirrg.
A-l
The requested variance does not effect other existlng or poLentiol uses and structures in the vicinity.
A-2
The literal lnterpretation of the or<Jinance:a. l'lakes inrpractica'l the use of existing balcony space for its intended use as r1n outdoor sittinq.rrea b. P'o'rolcs continuing difficulty oF po)icing and nrointai'irrg the given balconies due to their propensiiy to be utiljzerJ as general storage areas c. Precludes unit olners Fr'onr taking advantoge of incluccrrrenl offered other-(single ancl duplex) urtit ovriers to upgrarle thei r properties d. 0isallovrs at this tjrne a structur.ed, unif,icd and visually consistent approaclr to balcony enclosures that otherr.lise rnight nol occur if and when Or'dinatrcr: l.lo. 4 was to tre
arrrendcd co includc rrrul ti - forli I y rrro.iccts e. Precludes_a1l of tlrose aclvantales to unit, owners througlr
addi tional GRFA that have .rccrucd to uni t ovrners in otlier projects who have clorrdestiru:ly cnclosccl thcir bolcorries
vtsuAL IMPACL!F REQUEST -
500 sq.ft.
allowable
addi tion to GRFA
= 10/of total
Comparison indicates that the al lowed visible greater than that requested by Treetops.
irnpact of a duplex nray be 9 tirrres
Tree tops
359/l sq. ft.
Reques ted
425 sq.ft.
addi tion :e
actua I GRFA
= l.lX of total
cq!4pARrsoil 0F_iltpAcT 0N ALL9IABLE GRFA Vs ACTUAL GRFA
Al I owabl e
GRFA:
3124 0
The rerluested 425 s
Allovrable GRFA and
The appl icant bel ie
against the several
the Lionshead appea
A-3
Ac tua I
GRFA
35971
Reque s ted
425 sq.ft.
addi tion
= l.lX
Requested
425 sq.ft.
, addition
= i.3X
q.ft. has almost equal significa Actuill GRFA. The difference is
ves that the variance request is
upgrading inrprovenrents that wil
ra nce.
nce vlhe rt
.21 or
cornpared to the
60 square feet.
a reasonable trade off I add berrefit os vrell to
The_request.variance does not effect distribution of population, trarrsportation.traffic facilities, utflities and public safety.
Dupl ex
5000 sq.ft.
--n':
STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Kristan Priti Betsy Rosolack
the chairman, Jim Viele.
was made
approve
1.
a I
8
A,
Kristan Pritz explalned the request and showed site plans and elevations. she stated that the existing garage and covered stairway currently project about 2.1 feef Into-the front setback at the structurers northwest corner. The variance reguested was for 2.1 feet into the front setback area. The staff recomhended approval of the request. Buff Arno1d,architect representing the applicanti further explained the request.
xristan added that there were at present, two kitchens in the primary unit, and that one must bL renoved prior to construction of the reguested addition.
Diana Donovan rnoved to approve the request per the staff memo prus the condition that one kitchen be removed frorn the prinary unit. Bryan Hobbs seconded the motion. The .roi. iuu= 6-0 in favor.
A rgquest.for an exterior alteration and a density vprianbe ks at.
I
Planning and Environmental Cornmlssion June 1, l9g7
PRESENT
'DIffii-Tonovan
Bryan Hobbs
Pan Hopkins
Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz Jln Viele
ABSENT ilil-Eol1ins
The neeting was called to order by
5/Il . A motion
Bryan Hobbs to in favor.
re est for f_ro4t setback variance in order to n ar ean aI area above a garaqe on .),ot
B Vail v age 6t l icants:Neil and
Approva] of_rninutes of 4,/27 and by Diana oonov@ both minutes. The vote was 5-0
e Treetops Condoniniuis lo Clrcle.
EpE-ticE'nt:Treeto Condominium Association
Kristan Pritz explained the elevations. She explalned of the exterior allerations
request, showing site plans and that the staff recommended approval and denial of the density variance.
Tom Briner, architect representing Treetops, pointed out to the board that the staff nust look at the property in blac)< and white, but that the board could look at tne giey areas with respect to the zoning regulations. He stated that the increase in GRFA was mininal, that the decks proposed to be enclosed were useless because they were so snall and that they were unsightly because the owners rnerely used the decks for storage.
Parn.Hopkins felt that these were good arguments in favor of the variance reguested, but stated thtt she dia not have a legal htay to approve the decks. She felt the improvernents would enhance ?reetops condos. sid schultz agreed with pam ancl askecl if the staff would look at ordinance 4 again to try to fincl a u/ay to include small changes to rnulti-family builclings. Diana Donovan felt the enclosures were not decks, and that she coulrJ not vote for the enclosures as enclosed decks. she felt that the space was used as a wal.kway, not a deck.
Kristan stated that the concern when writing ordinance 4 vJas that balconies and decks would be encl-osed and result in flat facades which impact rnass and bulk. rt was dif f icult to knov.,L,here to draw the line, perhaps a percentage of exi.sting GRFA would be appropriate
Peter asked if all the units r,rhich would enclose their decks had other outdoor space, and Briner replied that aII of the units did have other outdoor space. Briner arso stated t,rat all of the windows would become bay windows which would .,e relief to the facade. He added thit awnings would also be added
'Jin Viele thought perhaps there could be a way to rewarcl irnprovement to the property with additional cnrl . lte felt that the set of criteria was narrow and added that the improvements to Treetops were more beneficiar than negative. He also felt it-wourd be good to go back to ordinance 4 to see if changes coulcl be nade with reference to rnulti-fanily units.
Linda Average, one of the Treetops owners, stated that one reason Treetops wanted to do this now was because of the 1989 World Cup races. She stated that they were willing to be the scapegoats because she felt they would set a goocl example for the rest of the conrnunity and inspire others to fix up their property.
Percentages of GRFA insrease were discussed. Tom Briner estimated that ?5t of dollars to be spent on the project woulcl be for enclosing the decks, and possible lst for lan-scaping.Diana felt there rnust be some r.ray to allow proJects whicir benefit the coromunity to such an extent as this. peggy
osterfoss asked how long it would take to have a work session and effect change, and Peter answered it could be 3-4 nonths before there would be a change in the law. peggy felt a policy
change was needed. Pan felt t,hat this was such a ninimal
amount of GRFA it would be a good standard on which to bo I a policy related to percentages.
Diana Donovan noved and Hobbs seconded to approve the variance
on the basls that this is the type of project the town would
like to see for three reasons:
1. There ls a ninirnal percentage of increased GRFA.
Substantial landscaping and substantial improvenents to
the structures wiII be done in excess of that reguired,(This is a rnajor ernphasis of the proposal and does not
include rnaintenance and upgrading which would nornally be
required. )
UseabLe balconies on the same elevation as the enclosed
balconies will rernain for each unit.
The vote was 6-0 in favor.
Diana Donovan rnoved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the
reguest for the exterior alteration. The vote vas 6-0 in ,\favor.
3.
'V[,'t lrttJourtctl
iJarr"2, tQr rlOT
ilann6
denial . Tom stated the Planning Commisslon had recommended approval of the
extension for,one year only with the following recommendations to Council:
l. The Town Councll look at the parking requirements; it seems they may be
overly restrictive.
2. The App'l icant injtlate talks with the Vaii Valley l'ledical Center like last
year regarding shared parking.
Peter Jamar, representing Vail Holdings, urged the Council to hire a third party to
study lodges, hotels, etc. parking needs; he did not feel it would be near as mucn
as what was required. He commented the Applicant would agree to a twelve month
period, and the landscape plan is underway and should be done by September I, 1987.
After some discussion by Council, Mayor Johnston made a motion to approve the
resolution, conditional on the landscape plan being completed. Kent Rose seconded
the motjon. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-1, with Erjc Affeldt opposing.
The next itenr of business was an appea'l of a PEC decision on a request for a dens'i ty
variance to enclose ten decks at Treetops Building No. 2. Eric Affeldt called up
this item because he noticed they were breaking new ground by enclosing the decks.
Kristan Pritz reviewed the reasons the PtC appr"oved the enclosures:
l. There was a minimal amount of increased 6RFA'
2. Substantial landscaping will be done in excess of that reguired with'the
fact that this was a major emphasis of the proposal and did not include
naintenance and upgrading which would normally be required.
3. Balconies remain for each unit and are usable.
Peter Patten gave additional background information on the item. Staff recommended
approval of the exterior alteration, but denial of the density variance. Diana
Donovan commented on why and how the PEC made its decision. Tom Briner commented on
why he felt the variance should be granted. Gordon Pierce made a motion to uphold
the PEC decisjon to approve the request, and Kent Rose seconded. A vote was taken
and the rnotion passed 4-1, with Eri c Affeldt opposing.
Under Citizen Participation, Diana Donovan remarked she was upset that the four-way
was cold and uninvitjng now with the new street lights. Stan Berryman explained the
design approvals by the State, and that we actually were able to get ten foot
shorter posts and non-standard lights approved.
Ron Phil lips stated there would be no Town Manager's report.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Respectful ly submltted,
i ,,0,,
AITEST:
I o
lnwn
75 3outh fronhgc roed
vell. colorsdo 91657
(303t 476-70@
June 29, L9g7
olllcc ol communlty devctopmcnl
l,[r. Torn Briner
143 East Meadow Drl_ve Vall, colorado g1657
Re: Treetops Deck Enclosures, Sunmer Lggz
Dear Ton:
Recentlyr. you carled ne and asked if it was absolutely requirred that a]l the decks.at the Treetops project ue constructed at the sarne tine. Thls question arlse-du6 to the fact that one or two of the condominium owners are not abre to g- tnro.rgh lrith the construstion for varlous reasons.
r.suggested two alternatlves for handling the situation. The ry:! approach wourd be to take out a uufuaing-peirnit for aIr of the deck enclosures. _ The generar site irnpioiements wourd ar.so have to be included undei the buildi"; ;;;ri[. rhe site improvements vere an important part of the-pianning conrnissionfs decision ti approt L tt" ;"il;=i:-";;"i.u choose this.alternati.ve, rt would-Le requirea dnai-a:.r-or'the decks be constructed according_ to plan beiore a tenporaiy -ertificate of occupancy would be released. This alternal,ive ihouta only be used if you feel very confident that the condominium association wirl be lble to convince the two owners that they should participate in the construction or ttre-oeck encrosures.r suggested this alternative onJ-y if it i".r"a-r"iy realistic that some way could be found to iay for the two AelX enclosures.
The second approach would be to revise your proposal and resubnit the design-to the Design neviei aoa'ra.' on.. again, it would be irnportant. for the geneiar site imfio".rn"nt" to be incorporated into the new pioporai. once you trive received Design Review Board approvir, a buirdi.s-pirril'-"J"ro be taken out for the project.
EXHI ,F t
I
O
/
o
After talklng to you on Friday, it seens that a new submittal
to the nesigi Rev-iew Board is probably the wisest approach. It
novt appears that other condominiun owners may rot lrant to
partitipate in the deck enclosures and this couLd present
iroblerns if you use the first alternative as far as getting a
Lernporary celtificate of occupancy. In addition, the final
appearan-e of the south elevation of the building would be
changed to a greater extent, as more than two o\dners are
guesf,ioning pirticipation in the project. This change would
f ifefy warrant DRB revl-ew.
I hope this letter clarifies our conversation over the phone.
If I can be of'any further help, please feel free to call ne at
476-7000 ext 111. Good luck
sLncerely,
0, | ..0.1
trnflan Kr1l Kristan Pritz
Town Planner
KP:br
cs: Peter Patten
{fi I
^PR
2 2 1991
tirllrririlill. llellelri*irr b 3imtu PC'
75 south trontage road
vall, colo.ado 81657
(303) 479.2107
off lc€ of torvn attomey
April 18, 1991
Mr. David Murray
Attorney-at-Law
He l I erstei n, Hel I erstei n and Shore, P. C.P.0. Box 5637
Denver, C0 80217
In Re: Treetops Condomjniums Densjty Var.i ance
Dear Mr. Murray:
After reviewing your letten of April i1, 1991, dealing with the Treetops
Condominiums Density Vari ance, as I stated to you during our meeting oi the other day. it is my opinion that the variance which was obtained in
1987 by your c1 ient has now expired and that if your cl ient still wishes to proceed with the desired improvements, it is necessary for them to
once again obtain a variance from the Planning commission of the Town of Vail.
/ \: t")l39t
I enjoyed meeting with you the other day, and
'i s not what you would have liked, but I think
Section 18.62.080 of the Municipal Code of the
I am sorry that my opinion it is required given
Town.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please don't call me.
Very truly yours,
,.r'. ; . - ,.,'.'' \\-' ' rt''tt't'ctL (_ - t<-,/Li-1J L'4'
tarry rskwi ttr '//
Town Attorney
F"
Jt""''
MACKINToSH BRowN P.C,
ATTORNEY AT LA\|r'
TWo UNITEo BANK CENTER
l TOO BRoaowAy. SU|TE I 5O5
DENVER. CoLoRADo 8O290
ApriL 22, 1991
TELEPHoNE (3O3) 894OAOO
FAX (3O3) A3+4262
Attention: l{ike Mollica
Planning and Environmental Commission
75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 8L657
Re: Treetops Balcony Enclosures
Dear Mr. Mollica:
My wife, son and I own Condominium Unit 2-C in Treetops II in
t.he Lions Head area. The following is a summary of the history of
the proposed balcony enclosures for Treetops II. On June l, L987,
the Planning and Environmental Commission ("Commissionr') approved a
variance for the enclosure of eight balconies and two decks at
Treetops II. A copy of the minutes of that meeting are enclosed with a drawing to illustrate the proposal. You will see that the
Commission worried about increasing the GRFA but decided that,
since the Association was going to make other substantial land-
scaping and structural improvements in time for the t 89 World Cup
Races, the variance should be granted.
What your records may not reflect is that this proposal was
made by Linda Averch, who was then the president of Treetops Condo
Association, without the knowledge or approval of the members of the Association. When the proposal was finally disclosed to sorne of the members, it was pointed out to her that the Treetops
Covenants require approval of a majority of the menbers for any additions, alterations or improvements to the general anil lirnited
common elements of the Association in excess of $120.00 in any one year. These balconies are limited common elements, which by
definition are part of the general common elements.
After several meetings with the members of the Association,
this proposal was finally submitted to a vote of the menbership
along with ten other proposed improvements. The results of this balloting dated April 22, t988 and prepared by Jerry D. Ladd, who
was the new president of the Association, is enclosed. The balcony
enclosures was defeated.
Planning and Environmental Commission
April 22, 1991
Page 2
As you know, most of the other work approved by the members
has been completed, including installation of new railings on
Treetops II which match the railings on Treetops I. The two
buildings now complement each other and present a uniform
staternent.
The new proposal is to enclose different portions of the
balconies in the E stack only and two of the four porches on the
ground floor units in the C and E stacks. The proposal is
therefore quite different from what vtas approved by the Commission
on June L, L987 .
This new proposal was approved by 62.86\ vote of the Treetops
members at the annual meeting in December of L990, but part of that
proposal was that all costs of the improvements, including
architectural, engineering and legal expenses, are to be paid for
only by the owners of the seven condo units seeking the enclosures.
Aside from the increase in the GRFA which these enclosures
would impose, it is the feeling of some of our membership that the
solid glass face on one side of Treetops II building will impair
the uniformity and symmetry which was achieved by the remodelling
in 1988 and 1989.
I would appreciat.e being kept informed of all developments in this case.
Sincerely,
,42/' t,:4-l6ftea+
26cxrNros# srft.owN
(
MB:ms
Enclosure
ter " ,t
t Planning and Environmental Commission ;fune L, 1987
PRESENT
6f,a-iE-Donovan
Bryan Hobbs
Pam Hopkins
Peggy Osterfoss Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
ABSENT
,f.J. Collins
The meeting hras call-ed to order by the chairman, Jim Viele.
5/LI . A rnotion
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten Kristan Pritz
Betsy Rosolack
I.
2.
Bryan Hobbs to in favor.
was made
approve
(Kristan Pritz exprained the reguest and showed site prans and elevations. she stated that the existing garage and covered stairway currently projeet about 2.1 feet into-the front setback at the structurers northwest corner. The variance reguested was for 2.r feet into the front setback area. The staff recommended approval of the request. Buff Arnold,architect representing the applicantJ further exp).ained the request.
Kristan added that there were at present, two kitchens in the prirnary u1it, and that one nust bi renoved prior to construction of the requested addition.
Diana Donovan moved to approve the request per the starf memo plus the condition that -one kitchen be- rernoired frorn the prinary unit. Bryan Hobbs seconded the motion. rne voie-was 6-0 in favor.
the Treerops condornln=ffiE-ToEE at 452 East Lionshead Circle.
3.
t II1:!ll pritz explained.the request, showing site plans and erevations. she exprained that the staff iecomme-nded approvar of the exterior arterations and denial of ttre-a""ritv ,;;i;;;;:
Approval of rninutes of 4/27 and by Diana Donovan and-EecdAeaE both rninutes. The vote was 6-0
A request for a front setback variance in order to g*lef""_ . or.r ro-_8,Blockf@
(Ton Briner, architect representing Treetops, pointed out to the board that the staff rnust look at the property in black and white, but that the board could look at tne giey areas with respect to the zoning regulations. He stated that the increase in GRFA was minirnal., that the decks proposed to be enclosed were useless because they were so snall and that they were unsightly because the owners merely used the decks for storage.
Pan.Eopkins felt that these were good argunents in favor of the variance requested, but stated that she dia not have a tegal way to approve the decks. She felt the improvements would enhance Treetops condos. sid schurtz agreld with parn and asked if the staff would look at Ordinance a again to try to find. a way to include small changes to rnulti-faniry buildings. Diana Donovan felt the enclosures were not decks, and that she could not vote for the enclosures as encrosed decks. she felt that the space was used as a walkway, not a deck.
Kristan stated that the concern when writing ord.inance 4 was that barconies and decks would be enclosed ind result in flat facades which impact mass and burk. rt was difficult to know where to draw the line, perhaps a percentage of existing GRFA would be appropriate.
Peter asked if arl the units which would enclose their decks had other outdoor space, and Briner replied that all of the units did have other outdoor space. sriner also stated that all of the windows would become bay windows which would. give relief to the facade. He added thit awnlngs would. also be added.
Jin Viele thought perhaps there could be a way to reward.improvement to the property with additional GRFA. He felt that the set of criteria was narrow and added that the improvements to Treetops were more beneficial than negative. He also fert it wourd be good to go back to ordinance 4 io see if changes could be made with reference to rnulti-farnily units.
Linda Average, one of the Treetops owners, stated that one reason Treetops wanted to do this now was because of the l9g9 World Cup races. She stated that they were willing to be the scapegoats because she,fert they would set a good exampre for the rest of the comnunity and inspire others to fix up their property.
Percentages of GRFA increase r^rere discussed.. Tom Briner estirnated that 75? of dollars to be spent on the project would
!3 for-elclosing the_ decks, and possibre 159 for ianlscaping.Diana felt there must be some nay to alrow projects whicir benefit the cornrnunity to such an extent as Ltris. peggy osterfoss asked how long it would take to have a work-iession and effect change, and peter answered it courd be 3-4 months before there would be a change in the r.aw. peggy felt a policy
(
\
(
ta ," f
( change was needed. pam felt that this was such a minimal \ amount of GRFA it wourd be a good standard on which to base a policy related to percentages.
Diana Donovan moved and Hobbs seconded to approve the variance on the basis that this is the type of projeii the town wourd like to see for three reasons:
1. There is a minimal percentage of increased GRFA.
2- Substantial land.scaping and substantial improvenents to the structures will be done in excess of that required.(This_is a.najor emphasis of the proposal and doe-s not include maintenance and upgrading-whicn would. norrnally be reguired. )
3. Useable balconies on the same elevation as the enclosed balconies will remain for each unit.
The vote was 6-0 in favor.
Diana Donovan moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the request for the exterior alteration. The vote was- e-o in favor.
(\
C
a o
-['
N\J +\o
N^\F\ :!h.r \ -I
iN{HF tr c\E N\[z rd -\, J fn\{c
H
P z
(n
FI <-
-+--s
2-
It ru 5tt
X
z
o
l,z
c)
F:'
tr t.)tfr2 -!s- , ^u v\t
9ii
I IJ
| -r\l/\)
ITTT | \'\lrtr
I'
I t\
l-\t\l t-\l ll nv t\lv
I lLl tr
I
I
t
tlt X
H r:
FI
o
F3 o
t4
H
tt
lil
t,E rt
(n 3 H
F]
.x F . trl
H z
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
JERRY D.LADD
Association Treetops Condominium
Jerry D. Ladd
April 22, L988
RESULTS OF BALLOTING
A total of 28 of the 29 units in Treetops I and Treetops II compreted and returned. their ballots regarding barcony encrosures,items of repair and.maintenance, and proposed new impiovements. A clear consensus was achieved on eight out of ten items on the ballot regarding repairs, maintenance, and new improvements. An individual recap of each item follows:
Item #I: Repairs and maintenance in the corridors - approved by a vote of 25-yes to 3-no.
Repairs and maintenance in the of 25-yes to 3-no.
Repairs and maintenance to the f and llreetops II - approved by
An enclosure.
€q (, r/
Item #2:
Dy a voce
Item *3:
Treetops
4-no.
Item #4:tops II and the upper 0-yes to 28-no.
Item #5: New entryways to Treetops I and Treetops II and an enclosure around the trash dumpster - the vote was 12-yes and l5-no, but two of the nnon votes were conditionally cast and were in favor gf some improvements to the entrance to Tree-tops II and to the enclosure of the trash dumpster. A new entrance to Treetops I has been voted down. There is an uncertain vote regarding the entrance to Treetops II. There is a tie vote on the issue of a dumpster enclosure.
Item *6: New balcoriy Item *6: New balcoiy railings for Treetops II and repaired EIISiffis on TreetopJ r - theie were 14-yei votes and i4-no
stairways - approved
bridges between a vote of 24-yes to
of the elevated bridge between Tree-level garage - defeated by a vote of
votes, but four of the 'no' votes were conditionally cast,expressing support for the repair of the Treetops I railings.There ls majority approval for the repair of Treetops I railings, and a tie vote on the issue of ne!,r railings for Treetops II.
2O5O West Severurx Avelur o Delvrn Oor-onam r 8O2O4 o t3O3) 573€442
Treetops Condoninium ApriI 22, 1988
Page Two
Association
Item #7: New windows on the east side
dETE-ated by a vote of 5-yes to 23-no.
- Item *8: New siding and painting for
Ey-Evote of l0-yes-to 18lno.
of Treetops II -
Treetops II - defeated
K(
Iten il 9 :
ti-eteatea
Item #10:Effips
The enclosure
d.efeated by a
Landscaping of the lawn adjacent to the bike path -by a vote of 9-yes to l9-no.
Upgrades to the boilers in Treetops I and II - approved by a vote of 22-yes to 4-no.
of the balconies on Units 2E, 3E, 4Er and 5E was vote of 13-yes to 15-no.
The Board of Directors of the Treetops Condominium Association has
noL had a chance to meet and discuss the results of the balloting,but there is a dedication on the part of the full Board to properly
executing aII items of repair and maintenance during the upcoming
sunrmer season so that Treetops I and Treetops II will enter the next winter season in tip-top shape. In addition to the repair
ancl maintenance included in ltems #L, *2, and *3, action will be taken to remodel and repair the entrance to Treetops I and to repair and,/or replace all of the balcony railings as appropriate.
The necessity of replacing the balcony railings on Treetops II will be carefully investigated, and if necessary, will be under-taken. In addition, the Board will identify and execute an
economically feasible enclosure for the trash dumpster. As
expressed above, there is a fairly equal split in the vote regarding the entrance to Treetops II. There is not majority
approval for a 5421477 entrance as proposed in the balloting, but there does seem to be a consensus of support for less expensive alternatives, which could include the installation of some glass in and adjacent to the doorway, with perhaps improvecl lighting.
There will be more conrmunication with the Unit Owners in the
coming months to keep you abreast of ttre work that is undertaken.
Jerry D. Ladd
Secretary of the
Treetops Condominium ASsociation
JDL/jab
$
l'4-l
"ill
tl
,lrl"l.l.l '{.1 |
VI o ,-Z crl
I
{
ll*ll
nl"l l"l
ll llol *
...l I I I Z:F ^lx vfxl :x
"l l*l ll
l*l l*ld
lIll
I tig
l"l"l'd
"l lll{
l{ l"l I
'{ l.l l"l
"l
I
I
-l ll
l*l*l
*kl t'.l l-ld
ll'dll
l-l I l-l
Itl
tl I
'l
I
4-|',
ll
-lgiN
Itl
l-l',0,{
F€IUI
E 619l
E#l;I
fffl
- r Elol
;fi3ffii
fi',t AlEl
T #|:I
fi'€tEl
E$f|;I
r elel
$ alst
.l*lxl I l,l,,l.l-l xl l"l I d o
ll-l "l lll l"l ld
ll'll
t{
I'l
l"lll
l"l"l I
"l I l'l
I l"l @ l*l lul *1,{ l,{ 4=
*l.l l"l"l #
t1-tlI
*'
\4
tl
{*l
tl
*l"l
"l l'.1 ll"
l-l l-l.l
ll
l*1,
*kln
tl
"lul
"l.l l4 I l"l,{ | @xl.lxl I
c z 'l"l
ll
I
"l
6 H
fi I th
E>rr
EHI
tp
H
|.'r
El p
tr
rc l'{ I
l.l lll
-l l1 11
.l'{
|
ll'l .ll
'llll"l
d l*4
l'.1 A
"ll
l.l
I .l
lt l
,.ltlulul
a z
>
crl v.^,\)
"l vl"l "l"l
"l'.1 " l*l
xl"l"l"l
t'l lll
l,ll
"l l'.1
ll"ll
l-ll"l
'{"Bd'{ "l l"l l.l *l"l €"1 Xl
)-
'lrl
ll rt I ll ll s4\F | | | | ,n!
xl"l glxl S*l
ti -3 ax * H:.+,Ar .... (i\ H ' )+'
9\st F5 Y
JI
@
l"llll lllll lllll lllll l'.ll.
I h{-l$ 'J4{'{"1 "l"l"l{'{ -l'{dd.l "l l-l
x
FeeH nns@$ nean@ $$s€@ $n$ta
+Jl
Edt ,$
l*l | | rl"I,{xlx
r{r,j" lt l
&l>{-H.l *l*1"
"l*ltl
,ltt
lrl
I
-l I
l'.1
tlr'l
;l
I
*l
I
"l l"
I
l"l ,
l*l
I
*1,
"l
I
,<l
f
I
j
*1,
l'{
I
"ll
| | lrl'.
s Elel
$ ilsr
;ffiI
"l'l"l{nl
Itl lll'{"1 +l ll"l
.l',1"1,{ "ltl ,1*l(+l'{-l"l
-l
l"l
"lll ttl ttl
*ld
I
" I'i
ll il
x
Hq
,{
llIl l{l"l
*J,.l,J"l"l "l"l"l"lrl "l'.1-l"lt{ }
l'{
ll
4l
g
c
-l g
tl tl
t4"l
I
I
"l l'4"1d "l.l"l{"1
nffi
*'$lsl
$ .Hler
b l \?T
.)
)g
t
x
2
o )
o
\
o t
J
1
g
I o
a
]
t
J
I t
C.',e
"f*/ ^4 "^';-,? .(^
,> ,^""-4* ry. # 2.
,6 -Dr-J n/r,,*?L,
+ Ud.tt;*t
,1t-
7,"4 tV*z ft
dz
Af4 /0, n?l -('ffi- .
4'(7 7( 5f./1 *1 tl-Xl P+a' e Tatutl,' tu>(/ i{
W% & .ry /24;-# .* e"'^'-V' t/z '7'*"'<
-f^ 4 -f "// & blR 2"e<&,/ fr".6-.41 t .ze-a.JiX
,fu ffi a,tz--e F -* fu* / /(t ^+ "-"Y& */%,7^4Mfrn
t- Af?'uA.-A- ,
,/,4,o // ///,/ - ,//z tfui 4/ZZ11z)
75 south trodag€ toad
vall, colorado 81657
(303) 479-21st
ofllce of town attomey
April 18, 1991
Mr. Dav'id Murray
Attorney-at-Law
Hellerstein, Hellerstein and Shore, P. C.
P.0. Box 5637
Denver, C0 80?17
In Re: Treetops Condominiums Density Variance
Larry Eskwith
Town Attorney
+J' /{b i,un/N
,,: iel'u /
Dear Mr. Murray:
After reviewing your'l etter of April 11, 1991, dealing wjth the Treetops
Condomjniums Density Variance, as I stated to you duli ng our meeting of
the other day, it is my opinion that the varjance which was obtained in
1987 by your client has now expired and that if your client sti'l I wishes
to proleed with the desired improvements, it'i s necessary for them to
once aga.in obtain a varjance from the Planning Corrnission of the Town of
Vail.
I enjoyed meeting with you the other day, and I am sorry that my opinion
is not-what you would have liked, but i think jt js required given
Section 18.62.080 of the Municipa'l Code of the Town.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please don't call me.
Very truly yours,
LOU IS A. H ELLE RST E IN
STEPHEN A. HELLERSTEIN
IIARTIN H, SHORE
JAN ICE HOFi4AN N CLARK
EDWARD P. O'BR IE N
ROBERT E. 1.4 AR KE L
ROBERT W. SMITH
SALLY K, ORTN ER
DAVID F. f'4 U R RAY
EMMY H. STONE
BARBARA P. KOZELKA
lvllCHAEL A. VELLON E
DAV ID A. SHO RE
Hr'LunsrrrN, HEr-lEnsttu AND SHoRE, p. c.
ATTORN EYS AT LAW
II39 DELAWARE 5TR E ET
P. O. BOX 5637
DENVER, COLORAOO 8O217
TELEPHONE
(303) 573- tOSO
TELECOPIER
\3031 57t- t27l
April l I, l99l
Lawrence E. Eskwith, Esquire
Vail Town Attorney
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
In Re: Treetops Condominiums Density Yariance
Dear Mr. Eskwith:
We are writing on behalf of our client, Treetops Condominium Association
("Association"), concerning the Vail Town Council's affirmance of the Planning and
Environmental Commission's ("Commission") grant of a density variance on June 16, 1987
in connection with various improvements and construction in the Treetops project,
including the enclosure of certain balconies. Since the time of the Commission's grant of
the variance, the Association has spent substantial amounts of money for improvements
and construction contemplated under the variance and it now wishes to proceed with the
balcony enclosurcs which constituted only one of many proposed improvements.
Because the Association has slightly revised its plans concerning the
balcony enclosures, it reccntly prepared a Design Review Board Application in order to
obtain the Town's approval of such changes. We are advised that the changes reflected
in the revised plans affect matters which would only concern the Dcsign Review Board
and that variance considerations have been unchanged. We understand that the Associa-
tion's architects, Friztlen, Pierce and Briner, contacted the Town's Zoning Administrator
prior to submitting the Design Review Board Application to the Community Development
Department ("Department") and were advised th.lt it is your position that the density
variance has lapsed pursuant to the Town's ordinances. The purpose of this letter is to
offer additional background information and facts concerning the Commission's grant of
thc variance and the completion of certain improvements contemplated thereunder, and
to request that you reconsider your position concerning lapse of the variance. The
following is a brief summary of our understanding of the chronology of events in
connection with this matter.
On or about May 25, 1987, the Association submitted an application to the
Design Review Board requesting approval of an exterior alteration and density variance
for thc enclosure of ccrtain balconies and a pedestrian bridge, as welI as redesigning and
improvemcnt of a lobby and lobby entrancc. The application also proposed substantial
improvements and landscaping of the project, including improvement and repair of
Lawrence E. Eskwith, Esquire
April 10, l99l
Page -2-
entryways, balcony railings and sidewalks. Enclosed with this letter and labeled as
Exhibit nA. is a copy of a memorandum dated June l, 1987 from the Department to the
Commission which outtines the Association's request for approval of the proposed
exterior alterations. Section I of that memorandum outlines the Association's specific
request for the enclosure of balconies and enumerates the additional improvements which
the Association had proposed. Sections IV and Y of the memorandum indicate that all
of the proposed improvements to entryways, landscaping, lighting and new sidewalks
were in compliance with and would further the purposes of the Urban Design Considera-
tions for Lionshead. In its recommendation concerning the exterior alteration request,
the Department's staff recommended approval o[ the exterior alteration based upon the
proposal's compliance with all of the Design Considerations for Lionshead.
Also enclosed and labeled as Exhibit copy of a memorandum dated
June l, 1987 f rom the Department to the Commission which outlines the Association's
request for a density variance to enclose ten balconies in the project. Section IV of that
memorandum indicates the Department's position that the proposed improvements and
general upgrade of the entire project would have a positive impact on uses in the
vicinity. However, notwithstanding the proposal's attractiveness in terms of the Depart-
ment's alteration criteria, the Department's staff recommended denial of the overall
request based upon its position that the granting of a density variance would violate the
town's zoning regulations and ordinances.
On June l, 1987, the Commission met to consider the Association's applica-
tion. At that meeting the Commission discussed the recommendations of the D€part-
ment's staff and ultimately approved the variance on the following three grounds as
quoted from the minutes of the Commission's meeting:
l. There is minimal percentage of increased
GRFA.
2. Substantial landscaping and substantial im-
provements to the structures will be done in excess of that
required. (This is a major emphasis of the proposal and does
not include maintenance and upgrading which would normal-
ly be required.)
3. Useable balconies on the same elevation as the
enclosed balconies will remain for each unit.
Enclosed and labeled as Exhibit "C" is a copy of the a bove-referenced rninutes of the
Commission's meeting on June I , 1987.
The Commission's decision to approve the proposed exterior alteration and
density variance was upheld by the Vail Town Council on June 16, 1987. A copy of the
minutes of the Vail Town Council's meeting is enclosed and labeled as Exhibit "D."
Subsequent to the Vail Town Council's decision upholding the Commission's
grant of the variance, Town Planner Kristan Pritz wrote a letter dated June 29, 1987 to
Lawrence E. Eskwith, Esquire
April 10, 1991
Page -3-
the Association's architect, Mr. Tom Briner, wherein she addressed certain questions
concerning the proposed construction. In that letter, a copy of which is enclosed and
labeled as Exhibit "E," Ms. Pritz stated that the general site improvements proposed in
addition to the balcony enclosures were "an important part of the Planning Commission's
decision to approve the request."
Subsequent to the Town Council's affirmance of the Commission's grant of
the variance on June 16, 1987, the Association commenced work on the various improve-
ments contemplated under the variance. Specifically, between July 1987 and July 1988,
the Association expended approximately $ 195,000.00 f or various repairs, improvements
and landscaping contemplated under the variance. This work included major entryway
improvements, installation of new balcony railings, new facia and other exterior im-
provements as proposed in the Association's original Design Review Board Application.
Between August 1988 and August 1989 the Association expended approximately
$65,000.00 on additional improvements and repairs contemplated under the variance,
including enclosure of the walking bridge, substantial landscaping, new sidewalks,
drainage improvements and balcony railing repairs. Since September 1989 to the present,
the Association has expended approximately $31,000.00 on f urther improvernents and
landscaping contemplated under the variance, including construction of a dumpster
enclosure. Additionally, the Association has paid approximately $ 15,000.00 since June
1987 for work done by its architects in connection with the proposed balcony enclosures
and other improvements to the project contemplated under the variance. This figure
includes architectural services rendered in 1991. We would be happy to provide you
with copies of account ledgers and billing statements reflecting the costs incurred by the
Association for such improvements, landscaping and architectural services completed on
behalf of the Association.
Section 18.62.080 of the Town of Vail Ordinances provides as f ollows:
The Zoning Administrator shall issue a variance permit
when action of the Planning Commission becomes final,
subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the
Commission. The permit shall lapse if construction is
not commenced within one vear of the date of issuance
and diligently pursued to completion. (emphasis added)
Our review of the Department's file on the Treetops project indicates that the Zoning
Administrator never issued a written variance permit subsequent to the Town Council's
affirmance of the Commission's grant of a density variance as required by the above
ordinance. However, we are advised that it is not unusual for the Zoning Administrator
to not issue a written variance permit and we presume that this omission has no substan-
tive effect upon the validity of the variance.
The foregoing reflects that the Association has incurred substantial costs
for improvements and repairs that were specifically contemplated under the variance
granted by the Commission and that many of those repairs and improvements were
commenced within one year of the Town Council's approval of the variance and diligent-ly pursued as required by the ordinance. As you can see, the Association has spent more
than $300,000 on improvements which the Commission considered as the basis for its
Lawrence E. Eskwith, Esquire
April 10, l99l
Page -4-
approval of the variance. As with most condominium associations, the Treetops Associa-
tion is a relatively slow moving and inef f icient political body. However, the Association
deliberately commenced signif icant and costly improvemcnts under the variance within
one year of the Town Counsel's action and has completed the majority of the contem-
plated improvements in continuous stages up to this day. Quite simply, the Association
first completed those improvements most important to the Town and now wishes to begin
the final stage of the proposed improvements - the balcony enclosures. Accordingly, we
believe that the variance granted by the Commission remains valid and effective and
that the Association should be permitted to proceed with the balcony enclosures, subject
to the Design Review Board's approval of the revised plans for such improvements.
We believe that our position is in accordance with the express provisions
and spirit of the Town's ordinance. As stated by Ms. Pritz in her letter to Tom Briner,
the general improvements were an important part of the Commission's decision to ap-
prove the request. To deny the Association permission to proceed with construction of
those improvements which were of primary importance to it, af ter other improvements
which were inextricably linked to the variance have been completed, would be unjust
and frustrate the essential purpose of the process.
As a side note, we are advised by the Association that the owner's wishing
to enclose their balconies have agreed to convert their fireplaces from wood burning to
gas burning in the event they are allowed to proceed with the enclosures.
Please contact our office after you have had an opportunity to consider the
foregoing to advise us of your position on this matter and whether the Association may
proceed with its Design Review Board Application in connection with the revised plans
for the balcony enclosures. Your assistance in this matter would be appreciated.
Very truly yours,
HELLERSTEIN,HELLERSTEIN AND SHORE. P.C.
David F.
, .^.- .A *J=t'Murrav /''/
V DFM/jm
Encls.
June 1, l9B7
A request for an exterior alteration to encLose t0 decks and redesiqn entrie" t" itre .Ireetops ff Condorninium euilaing Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association
r. THE PROPOSAL
The Treetops Condoninium Association is reguesting an exterior al-teration and density variance* for the foll0wing construction at the ireetops rr nuirai'q (east condominium buildirig) :
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
The
1.
Planning and Envj.ronmental Comnission
Community DeveJ_oprnent Department
1. Enclosure of:
5 existing decks @ 39 sq ft per deck
2 - Enclosure of
3
*
.i *,jry" _l ,ffi,
: 195 sg ft
: 23O sq ft
8o sq ft:
Additions of wood siding to the east builcling and remodeling of ilre east building balcony iuiiinq=-t"provide a visual consisten"y oi materills, a"liir,and color between the two rlsidentiur ir"iiai;;;:-,
An upgrade of exterior Iicahting.
A density variance is reqtrired for the 10 deck enclosures, as the_ project is already over the allowable GRFA. please see the memo concerning the density variance for a more detaired analy=i"'Jr-lnr"request.
5 existing decks Q 46 sq ft per deck
Enclose pedestrian bridge ,
Redesigning the existing Iobby and creatir"rg a new lobby .nfry, 2s0 sq ft
association is also proposing to do an entj.re upqracle the existing project wnicn ,",ita-i""I;;";"-t-- "..Y
An added protective entrance at the east entry.
An increase of .I?lg:""ping along the bike path (south side of the project).
3. An increase of landscaping at the west buildi.ng entrance.
E,,4"
II COMPLIANCE WTTIT TI{E PURPOSE SECTION OF COIIMERCIAL CORE II ZONE DTSTRICT
Section 1-A.26.01-O purpose
The Commercial Core fI zone district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of mu1t.iple dweJ"J.inqs, Iodc;es,and conmercial establ-ishments in a clustered, uitiiiea deveropment. commercial core rr district in accorda^ce with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide pran ancl Desican considerations is intended to ensure aclequate liqlrt, ai.r]open space and other amen j.ties appropriate to t.lre permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable quatities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standardi.
'I'his proposal is in compliance witir the intent of the Commercial Core II zone district.
III. COI"IPLTA}.ICL I.]T'I'H T}IE URI]AI.I DESIGN GUrDE PI-AN I;.c)It L I OI lll I i fii, r.r
P"99"! t lg! _ sIe s__to ov e rcome tne cqqyo_q_e*r1gc q 9 q tg I ] _ bu i Id iirgs_ . -I t sJ'a t.js ttr-at'i6u-if afri?i-ex pa nC&r r,,shal] generally be lilnited to one storv an.l twcl slal.+ qenerallv be. Irnrt,ed to one story and tvJo scorrgs o{ qs c+l be_derlonstrated to have a posj,ti.,,,e vrsual and functional_ effect, "
Staff rs opinion is that the inrproved entry i,/ays,landscaping, Iighting and new sidewaLks wiLl- furtfrer def ine pedestrian areas. The height arrcl rnassing of the entry is only one stoly which coniplies rvittr 1,lr js
consideration.
I'here are no sub-area concepts that relate to this proposal- .
IV. COI'IPI,IANCE WITII 'IIIE URBAN DESIGT.I CONSTDEIiAI'TOI,IS FOR
LIOTJS}IEAT)
A.Hgiqht an{ Massincl: This considerat_ion_erriphasizes the creation of a vrel"] clefined qiounallr:
Roofs: Flat, shed,__f_a!!tecl or dome roofs are es"e._r,_g-uUl-!e-ETL]='{|,,,s_e_xp.q1ET.9ffi irt:to inl-eclf_aLe expansiorrs wich exist_irrg buildiiits-sc
@& -
il to ct'.",r*-, i .rua-rj qi-r-41
Lionshead.
The.applicant has proposed an entry addition and deck additions that are compatible with the ex j.sting condominium builcling. ^ .Ihe proposed entry oaJidi.or., ro building No. l_ iras a. forrn "ilo bi["n *at"i.,i.,q-irrit""f the sloped roof s c-rn botlr conciorninrum bui.ldirrc_rs -
I g g q g e s. -. }l q I ] sts*! Ig r!-Slgi_lg n_c_1e r e, c o t.r c r: e r e b I o c 1..
This proposal compl ies entries wiIl be stucco.be added to Builcling #z colors and stain cofors buildings.
wiLh these nrateri.al-s. ,t,he
Ilori z onta I wood siclinq will to natch Building #1. ,I'rim
will rnatch for both
n
Even though this proposal is a residential expansion,it should be noted tirat the new constructron wi. l.l have an adequate amount of transparency tt)roLlr;l).lrlr.the expansion. 'I'he new entry ha's many w j.rrclor.rs .irrti shaLlow bay witiclows are proposecl at tlre Len l.oc:rt, rolt:;of the balconies for Treet.ops II.
ge€++4!. @nal decks or-*_p-e_r !o: r_f-rlE-ereme.rc Ll_ I,ie11ghead anci aFe triqtif ; ltra_g€q/_orr _q i.!l]gq- t_lre round or second ffoor fJvef.
' This consideration refers primariry to conrnrercii,rl decks , As the
_ appl icant. tas statecl , ,'l,l.rrrow existing balconies on BuiLding #2 are proposeci to be enclosed by bay windows. theie existing Laiconies are not functional_ in terms of providin{ seating for dining, sunning or any other ouldoor ac€iviiv.,,Remaining deck and balcony.railj-ngs "n guiiJing fl2 are to be replaced with railings nratching nui:.A:.n.J #1.
F. Accent El"ements: Juclicious ysg,"f qglg-ftil!,q_c_Ceq!
@ t u;ffi" }:_._uq_,-gll il l;l(. r.,:, r" -() l.Lionslreacl --qe errcotrlnggtl .- --
The .rpplicant ilas st.ated tftat, ,"Io assure i-s no l-oss of rel_ ief to the south facade
tl)at there
.rt Building
adclresses prrnarrly qround $cor comffi=encouraqes the usffi.fft;-t;.
#2 due to balcony enclosures, awnj.ngs are proposed to be integral with the bay window ass6rnlfy. 'e""i"g=
wiLl be canvas, with a iolor and pattern acceptable to Design Re.riew Bcard. Additionll IanCscaping ac the west entry and along the bicycle path will include annual flovrers and shrubs. New Iightinq is also proposed for the entire nroi er:t - si..af r r,opinion is rhar rhe accenr "r:;:i:';;to:ii;; i"r"r=mcstly to commerciaL areas. Howevei, the Iighting and landscape improvements wilI only irnprove the appearance of this project, our opinion is thac the alnings are not necessary to na j.ntain relLef to the south facade. However-, this is a Desrcln Review Board issue.
G. Landscape Elements
(
The proposal_ adds additional landscaoing J-n the area of the u/est e.ntry and on the south side-of the
Staff believes that these improvements are j-n
compliance with this consideiation which encourages the use of plant naterial to accent buildinqs,
STAFF RECOM}4ENDATIONS
Steff reconmends apprcval cf r_he exEerior ;rlte racion recruest. f t is our. opinion that the propcsal ccnp.!- ies wich al-1 of the Design considertions for Lionshead. The project creates sJ-gni f i-cant improvenents tc the T::eecops proj ect,
(
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning and Environmental commission
Community Development Department
June l- , L987
II
SUBJECT: A requesL for a density variance to enclose 10 decks at
the Treetops Condominium [luilding #2
APPLICANT: Treetops Condominium Association
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
The Treetops Condominium Association is requesting a density
variance to enclose I0 existing outdoor decks on the south
side of the building. The Treetops Building #2 is the east
building behind the Treetops commercial building. Five of
these decks are 39 square feet each and five are 46 square
feet each, which creates a tota.L additional GRFA request of
425 square feet. The existing GRFA on the site is 36,369
square feet. The a1lowable GRFA in Commercial Core II for
this project is 30,952 square feet. The project is presently
over the allowabte GRFA by 5,4I7 square feet. If this
request is approved, the project would be 5,842 square feet
over the allowable.
BACKGROUND ON THE REQUEST
In August of 1983, the Treetops Condominium Assoc j-ation
requested a rezoning of their property from High Density
MuIti-Farnily (.6o) to Commercial Core II (.B0) zoning. 'I'his
request was made in order to construct the commercial
expansion to the north of the two residentia] bu j-ldings.
Under High Density MuIti-Family zoning, the project was
allowed 23t2L4 square feet of GR!-A. Due to the rezoning, the
project j-s noqr allowed 30,952 square feet. The rezoning
increased the allowable GRFA bY 7,738 square feet.
In January of 1984, the Condominium Association requested an
exterior alteration in order to add the retail expansion
above the existing parking structure.
In Jul-y of 1986, a request was made to enclose 1o decks for
an additional GRFA of 665 square feet. Staff recornmended
denial- of the request. The Planning Cornrnission moved to deny
the request, as it was felt that it would be a grant of
special privilege to approve the additions. The vote was 6-0
in favor of the motion. The Treetops Condorniniurn Associatiop
appealed the PLanning Commission's decision to the Town
council. The Town Council upheld the Planning Comntission's
decision to deny the request.
/// IIT. ZONING STATISTICS
Zone District: ComnerciaL core II
Site Area: + 38,690 square feet*
GRFA: (.80)
Allowable: 30,952 sf Existing: 36, 369 sf Ant. over allowable: 5,4L7 sf
Proposed: 5 decks 0 39 sf = 195 5 decks € 46 sf : 23O
Common Areaz (2OZ of Allowable GRFA)
Allowed: 6r 19O Existing: 4,3gO
Proposeds bridge 80 lobby 260
Existing
& Proposed 4,73O
Rernaining l-,460
Site Coveraqe: (7OZ)
Allowed: 27 t1g3 sq Existing: 2L,67O sf Proposed; 3o0 sf Exist & Addit. 2L,97O sf Remaining 5, 1.13 sf
Setbacks
Total Proposed: 425 sf
Amt over after additions: 5842 sf
Total GRFA after additions: 36,794 sf
Units: Allowed: 22 d.u.Existing: 26 d.u.Proposed: O
Required 10 ft all sides. No impact with proposal
Landscaping: (ZOZ of sj.te area required)
Required: 7,738 st Existing: 12,OOO sf approx.
Height: Al}owed: 4Br sloping, 45' flat
Existing and proposed: same
Parking:
IV. CRTTERTA AND FINDINGS
The units that have deck expansions have existing GRFA totals that range from 1315 sf to 1326 sf.The deck expansions of 39 sf or 46 sf do not increase the square footage above 2, OOO sf which j_s the breaking point for additional" parking.
lotal site area was caLcul-ated by Bud Stikes, The Engineering Group, Inc. propert| l-ines do not "io"", uo square foot.age is -t- 38,690 square feet.
Upon revie$, of Criteria and Findings, Section l_8,61,060 of the municipal code, the Departnent-oi community Deveropment recommends denial 0f the requested variance balecr upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
The additions are compatiblr: with the existing uses in the area.. Th9 general upgrade of the entire project wiII have a positive irnpact on uses in Lhe vicinitv.
The degree to which rerief frorn the strict and riteral -ffiio,, i=
ttecessa ry to acnTFlre-c?rlp+I riE a nd un iio?mlFjtF.=:treatrnent amoncr sites i[--ttre-viEi-nlEv or !o at!_aiir the qrant of sp""i.r rrtiiir"os_.
Staff's opinion is_that this request would be a grant of special privilege due t.o the ract that there is io physicar hardship which would warrant the variance.
It l= the applicant's responsibiLity to prove physical hardship and the fact that the granling or the'vlriance wilr.not be a special privilege in order to get approval for the
e to other existinq or potential uses an
density variance.
Due to the fact that it is difficurt to make the arguments of physical hardship and lack of special privilege when reviewing a density request, ordinance fl4 of 19Bs was adoDt.ed to allow for small_ GRFA additions without the need for variance approval. Unfortunately, this ordinance does not provide a means for allowing additions to units in multi-fanily buildings. Units of this type were onitted, as the Town counciL and Pranning conmission were concerned about the potential to increase the bulk and mass of multi-family buildings to a point where there wourd be nec-lative irnpacts due to the additions. Legal issues also conl-ri.buted to tlre inability of this ordinance to accommodate multi-family additions. In respect to this request, Ordinance #4 does not provide any relief from having to review multi-familv additions with the density variance criteria.
The effect of the requested variance on tiqht and aj lgllq_snq_3r!r,
ies ancl utilities, anci r:ubl i racr.rr_cles, puDt rc tacllrtles ancl ut.ilities, anci ].)ubl je
There are no significant inrpacts on any of the above factors
V, REI,ATED POLICY IN VATL'S COMMUNI'Y ACTIOI,I PLAI,I
Cornmunity Desiqn
2. Upgrading and rernodeling of structures ancl site irnprovements should be encourageci.
5. Maintenance and upkeep should be a priority of property
owners and of the Town.
1'his proposal for the deck encl"osures and the otlter c;eneral
irnprovements to the project supports the Comnrunity Action Plan policies.
Such other factors and cr:iteria as the conrmission clcerns apr:LiEalre Co ttG propose.t _yef$ q.
VT. PINDINGS
The Planning and Environmeutaf Commission shall make the follow ance:
-That the granting of the variance wi]r not constitute a g].-;rnt of special privilege inconsistent with the Iimitation= oil other propertj-es classified in Lhe same district.
That the.granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public hear-th, safety or werfare, or materiaJ-ry injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity,
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the forr-owincr reasons a -
The strict or literar interpretati-on or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficuttly or unnecessary physical hardsirip inconsistent with the objectiir"= of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the sane sile of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation woulcl cleprive the applicant of privi-reges enjoyed by the owners of other- properties i'the same district.
STAFF RECOT4MENDAl'ION VT
The proposal- involves both a density variance and exterior arteration request. The exterior alteration criteria are used to review the design issues related to the request.Even though the proposal compares favorably given the arteration criteria, the staff nust recomrnend clenial of the overal-I request, as we cannot support the density variance.
The originar concern of the council and commission concernrncl nultj.-farnily additions was that the building's bulk and mass-nay be j-ncreased to a point where negative impacts would occur from the expansj-ons, fn thj-s situation, the expansion and overall improvements to the property are considered to be pos j-tive. llowever, staff muit aUiae by the variance criteria, and therefore nust recommend cleniaf or tllo request.
Basical-J.y, the staff has the same position tirat- was outli.necl in the Juty 14, 1986 memo when l-0 deck enclosur.es were al-so being considered for this projecb. rt is t-rue that there are no significant impacts resulting from thj_s proposaL Ilowever, the staff does feef th.1t it would be a grant of special privilege to approve the request. ft must al.so be noted that the property is over the al-lowable GRFA and nunber of units for development under Commercial Core II zoninq.
III A. VARIANCE REQUEST
In accordance with that-provision of 0rcl.i nance No. 4 aliorving for an increase of 250 square feet t0 single arrd duplex dwelling r,,it, or-i,,inducenrent for tlre upglaOing of existirrg structures, the Treetops Corrdorninrurrr seeks a variance to allow a total adclition of 425 rqru.u feet to the existing GRFA total of 35,97r square feeL - an increase of i.r:,,
The proposed additional GRFA cornprises of 4 balcony enclosures and I deck enclosure at 39 squ.rre feet .rnri 4 balcony enclosures arrd l deck enclosure at 46 square feet caclr
The balconies to be enclosed are 3.5 feet wide. They provide'l itlle to no roon for outdoor furniture, i.e. no outdoor activity, but have been utilized as storage arcas visible frorrr tlre vicirrity ot" tlre bike lralir.
The area is bejng added to the living rooms, not the beclrooms thus the bed base and/or density will not be increaseo.
The request and.subsequent approval ol'tlris variance is necessary for the Association's approval of the entire up-grading package vrhicir
i ncI udes:
l. Added protected entrances to botir buildinqs.2. An increase of landscaping along Lhe bike patlr.3. An jncrease of Iandscaping at the l.rest buildinq entrance.This feature faces East Lionshead Circlc ancl vril I prr:vide
a Inore attractive pub)ic forcAround Lo Lhc buililinq.4. Additions of wood siding to the cast bui)ding and ienrorJclirrg of the east building balcony rai linqs [o provide a visual
consistency of nraterials, detajl and color betrveerr trre two residential buildings.5. An upgrade of exteri or I i ghti n9 .
/lt
The requested variance does not effect other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicin.i ty.
A-2
The literai jnterpretation of the ordinance:a. l'lakes inrpractical the use of existing balcony space for
i ts intended use as an outdoor s ittirrq .rrea b. ProrloLes continuing difficul Ly of policing and nraintainirrg
the g'iven balconies due to their propensity to be utilizetl as genera I storage areas c. Prec ludes uni t olners frorn taki ng advantage of .i nduccrrrent offered other (single and dupiex) unit oviners to upgrade their properties d. Disal lows at this tinte a slructured, unil,ied antl v.i sual ly consjstellt approach to balcony errclosures that otherr.rise
might not occur jf and when 0rdirranct: I,lo. 4 was to ue
arrrended co include ruul ti-farrrily projc.cts e. Precludes any of those advantages to unit owners througlr additional GRFA that have accrued to unit ov,ners in ocner projects who have clarrdestinely enclosed their balcoriies
VISUAL IMPACT OF REQUEST
Al I olabl e
GRFA:
3l 240
Comparison indicates that the allowed vjsible inpact of a <juplex nray be 9 tintes greater than that requested by Treetops.
COMPARISON OF II.IPACT ON ALLOWABLE GRFA VS ACTUAL GRFA
500 sq.ft.
allowable
add'i ti on to GRFA
= l0%of totai
Requested
425 sq.ft.
add i ti on
= 'l .3?
Ac tua I
GRFA
35971
Treetops
35971 sq . ft.
Reques ted
425 sq. ft.
addi ti on to
actua l GRFA
= l.l?of total
Reques ted
425 sq.ft.
addi ti on
= l.l%
The requested 425 sq.ft. has a'lmost equal significance vrhen conrpared to the
Allowable GRFA and Actual GRFA. The difference is .2% or 60 square feet.
The applicant beljeves that the variance request is a reasonable trade off against the several upgrading inrprovernents that will add benefit as vrell to the Lionshead appearance.
A-J
The request variance does not effect distribution of population, transportatiorr,traffic facjlities, utilities and public safety.
Dupl ex
5000 sq,ft.
Planning and Environmental Commission
June l- , 1987
PRESENT
DIana Donovan
Bryan Hobbs
Pam Hopkins
Peggy osterfoss Sid Schultz Jin Vie1e
ABSENT J.J. CoIIins
The rneeting was call"ed to order by the chairman, Jim Vj-ele.
1. Approval of rninutes of 4/27 and 5/11. A motion was made
by Diana Donovan and seconded by Bryan Hobbs to approve
both minutes. The vote $/as 6-0 in favor.
Applicants: NeiI and Nancy Austrian
Kristan Pritz explained the request and showed site plans and elevations. She stated that the existing garage and covered stairway currently project about 2,1 feet into the front
setback at the structurers northwest corner. The variance
requested was for 2.1- feet into the front setback area, The staff recommended approval of the request. Buff Arnold,architect representing the applicants further explained the
request.
Kristan added that there were at present, two kj-tchens in the primary unit, and that one must be removed prior to
construction of the requested addition.
Diana Donovan moved to approve the request per the staff memo plus the condition that one kitchen be removed from the primary
unit. Bryan Hobbs seconded the notion. The vote was 6-o in
favor,
3. A rgquest.for qn e{teriof altgr_ation qnd a 4ensitv-variance in order to encl-ose 8 balconies and 2 decks at
Circle.EpEfEEnt: Treetops condomi-niurn Association
Kristan Pritz explained the request, showing site plans and
elevations. She explained that the staff recommended approval
STAFF PRESENT Peter Patten Kristan Pritl
Betsy Rosolack
E ,C"
of the exterior alterations and denia] of the densit.y variance.
Tom Briner, architect representing Treetops, pointed out to the
board that the staff must look at the property in black and
white, but that the board could look at the grey areas with
respect to the zoning regulations. He stated that the j-ncrease
in GRFA was minimal , that the decks proposed to be enclosed
were useless because they were so srnaLl- and that they were
unsightly because the owners merely used the decks for
storage.
Parn Hopkins felt that these were good arguments in favor of the
variance requested, but stated that she did not have a Iegal
way to approve the decks, She felt the improvements would
enhance Treetops Condos. Sid Schultz agreed with Pam and asked
if the staff wouLd look at ordinance 4 again to try to find a
way to incl-ude small changes to multi-family buildings. Diana
Donovan felt the enclosures were not decks, and that she coulcl not vote for the encl,osures as enclosed decks. she felt that
the space was used as a walkway, not a deck.
Kristan stated that the concern when writing ordinance 4 r,/a s
that balconi-es and decks would be enclosed and result in flat
facades which inpact mass and bu1k. It was difficult to knovr
where to draw the line, perhaps a percentage of ex j-sting GRFA
would be appropriate.
Peter asked if all the units which would encLose their decks
had other outdoor space, and Briner replied that aII of the units dj-d have other outdoor space, Briner also stated t\at all of the windows would become bay windows which would , .,e
relief to the facade. He added that awninqs would also be
added.
Jim Viele thought. perhaps there could be a way to reward
irnprovement to the property with additional GRFA. He felt that
the set of criteria was narrow and added that the improvements
to Treetops were more beneficial than negative. He afso felt it
woul,d be good to go back to ordinance 4 to see if changes could
be made with reference to rnulti-farnily units.
Linda Average, one of the Treetops owners, stated that one
reason Treetops wanted to do this now was because of the 1989
world cup races. She stated that they were wil1ing to be the
scapegoats because she felt they would set a good exampl-e for
the rest of the community and inspire others to f j-x up their
property.
Percentages of GRFA increase were discussed. Ton Briner
estinated that 75? of doll-ars to be spent on the project would
be for enclosing the decks, and possj-ble 15? for landscaping.
Diana felt there Inust be some way to alfow projects which
benefit the cornmunity to such an extent as this,Peggy
Osterfoss asked how long it would take to have a work session
and effect change, and Peter answered it could be 3-4 months
before there would be a change in the law. Peggy felt a policy
change was needed. Pam felt that this was such a minimal
amount of GRFA it would be a good standard on which to ba I a
policy reLated to Percentages.
Diana Donovan moved and Hobbs seconded to approve the variance
on the basis that this is the type of project the tol.rn would
like to see for three reasons:
L. There is a nininal percentage of increased GRFA.
2. Substantial landscaping and substantial irnproverngnts to
the structures will be done in excess of that required.
(This is a rnajor ernphasis of the proposal and does not
include maintenance and upgradinq which would nornally be
required. )
3. UseabLe balconies on the sarne elevation as the enclosed
balconies will rernain for each unit.
The vote v/as 6-0 in favor.
Diana Donovan moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the
request for the exterior alteration. The vote was 6-0 in
favor.
y:f,'#* ryncit ,t'tohw
'rrbrat l?t lq67
denial . Tom stated the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the
extension for one year only with the following recommendations to Council:
1. The Town Councjl look at the parking requjrements; it seems they may be
overlY restri cti ve.
2. The Applicant initiate talks with the VaiI Valley Medical center like last
year regarding shared Parking'
Peter Jamar, representing Vail Holdings, urged the Council.to hire a third party ro
tirJv ioag.i, hot.ls, etl. parking needs; he did not feel it would be near as mucn
a, ni'.t wis required. He commenttd the Applicant would agree to a twelve month
;;.;;;, i.a ttrrJ lanaicape plan is underway'and should be done bv September 1, 1987'
nft.r rorc discussion by council, Mayor Johnston made a motion to approve the
,..iofriion, conditional on the landslape plan being completed. Kent Rose seconded
the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-1, with Eric Affeldt opposing'
The next item of business was an appeal of a PEC decision on a request for a densily
ui.iin." to enclose ten decks at Treetops Building No. 2. Eri c Affeldt called up
ttris item because he noticed they were breaking new ground by enclosing the decks'
Kristan Pritz reviewed the reasons the PEC approved the enclosures:
1. There was a mininral amount of increased GRFA'
2. Substantial landscaping will be done in excess of that requjred with the
fact that thii was a tiiot emphasis of the proposal and did not include
maintenanceandupgradingwhichwouldnormallyberequired.
3. Ealconies remain for each unit and are usable'
Peter Patten gave additjonal background information on the item. staff recommended
approval of t[e exterior alteration, but denjal of the densjty variance' Diana
Donovan commented on why and how the Ptc made its decjsion. Tom Briner commented on
rfr'-f'. f"fi the varjancl should be granted. Gordon Pierce made a motion to uphold
the PEC decjsion to approve the request, and Kent Rose seconded' A vote was taken
and the motion passed 4-1, with Eri c Affeldt opposing'
Under Citjzen Participation, Diana ponovan remarked she was upset that the-four-way
was cold and un.invitint now'with the new street iights. stgn Berryman explained the
U.ii'r ipprovals UV thE itit., and that we actually were able to get ten foot
shorier posts and non-standard lights approved'
Ron Phillips stated there would be no Town Manager's report.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p'm'
Respectfu'l )Y submi tted,
E ,,D"
Rose,
ATTEST:
lnwn
75 soulh tronlegr road
vEll. colorado 81657
(3(xl) 476-7000
June 29, L987
otflce ol communlty developmenl
!lr. Ton Briner
143 East Meadow Drive Vail , CoLorado 81657
Re: Treetops Deck Enclosures, Sunmer 1987
Dear Tom:
Recently, you called me and asked if it was absolutely required that all the decks at the Treetops project be constructed at the sarne tirne. This question arose due to the fact that one or two of the condoninium owners are not able to go through with the construction for vari.ous reasons.
I suggested trvo alternatives for handling the situation. The first approach would be to take out a building perrnit for all of the deck enclosures. The general site improvements would also have to be included under the building perrnit. The site
improvements were an irnportant part of the planning
Cornmissionts decision to approve the request. If you choose this alternatj.ve, it woul-d be required that all of the decks be constructed according to plan before a temporary certificate of occupancy would be released. This alternative should only be used if you feel very confident that the condoninium association will be abl-e to convince the two owners that they should participate in the construction of the deck encLosures.I suggested this alternative only if it seerned very realistic that sorne way could be found to pay for the two deck enclosures.
The second approach would be to revise your proposal and resubnit the design to the Design Revier,r Aoald. Once again, it would be important for the general si_te irnprovernents to be incorporated into the new proposal. Once you have received Design Review Board approval, a building perrnit could be taken out for the project.
EXHIBIT r"
i
\ ------ -"" " '-
After talking to you on Friday, it seems that a new submittal
co tn. oesigi Review Board is probabJ.y the wisest approach. It
now appears that other condominiun owners may not want to
partiiipate in the deck enclosures and this could present
iroblernl if you use the first alternative as far as getting a
i.rporary ceititicate of occupancy. 11 a!af!i9n, the final
appl.ranle of the south elevation of the building would be
changea to a greater extent, as more than two ohlners are
guesfioning pirticipation in the project. This change would
likely warrant DRB review.
I hope this letter ctarifies our conversation over the phone.
rf I can be of .any further help, please feel free to call ne at
476-7000 ext l-11. Good luck.
Sincerely,
r/, I ..{).I
trnflan Kr1l Kristan Pritz
Tovrn Planner
KP:br
cc: Peter Patten
Project Application
/ -/'1 --{ -4.r - \ ,. . n..,l,?r i ,,a( ,r.l 'Jr(u,"f -<)
EC,tt n (,/
o^," /ofs, /?o
Projecl Name:
Project Description:1s--iL LH /1 ,/\ t tr<.t €
contacr person and enon" Y]\ a yr.{ &a-n*n'u,,"- a ) 6 - 2 zz /'
Owner, Address and Phonei
Architect, Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot Block Filing Zo^e
-
Comments:
Design Review Board
Date
Motion by: / t, ,(
seconded ,, Ln ' Vhf
APPROVAL D ISAPPR OVA L
*o( /" a"I ctfL/Summary:
K ,4t/.,[.
Town Planner
,^r" to/st ,/qo
E statt Approval
DRBAPPLTCAITTOII I i ^..
DArE ApplrcArroN REcETvED: t " ltQ I 7'l
DATE OF DRB UEETING: , I
*****THIS APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNTII., ALI, INFORMATION
IS SUBMITTED*****
I. PRE-APPLICATION I'IEETING:
A pre-appll-catlon meeting with a planning staff member Ls strongly suggested to determlne lf any addJ-tlonaL
lnformation ls needed. No application w.111 be accented
unless it is cornplete (must include all items required bv
the zoning adrninistrator). It is the applicantrs
responsibility to make an appointment with the staff to find
out about additional submittal requirements. Please note
that a COMPLETE application will streamline the approval
process for your project by decreasing the nurnber of
conditions of approval that the DRB may stipulate. ALL
conditions of approval must be resolved before a building
pennit is issued. Application wiII not be processed
without onnerrs Signature.
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:Lionshead,/rirst Fi ling
B.I€CATION OF PROPOSAL:
Address 450 E. Lionshead circle
Legal Description
Subdivision Zoning
c.NAME OF APPLICANT:Treetops Condominium Association
Mailing Address:450 E. Lionshead Ci-rc1e
Phone 47 6-6982
NAME OF APPIJICANTIS REPRESENTATIVE:Marvel Barnes
Mailing Address:f43 E. Meadow Dr., Suite 397, Vail, Co
Lot Block
6f of /
E.
Phone
SIGNATURE (8) :
Mailing Add,ress:
Phone
Condominium Approval if appticable.
DRB FEE: The fee witl be paid at the tirne a buildinq nermit is paid for.
F.
G.
VALUATION
$ 0-$ 1o,o0o $10,ooL-$ 5o,ooo
.+iqo*Of *: - 'f,_ T5o-;Tflr)
$150,001 - $ 5o0ro0o
$500,00L - $L,ooo,oo0 I Over $Lr 000r 000
FEE
$ 10.00
$ 25.00
s s0. oo
$r-00. 00
$20o. 00
$3 00. o0
,LIST OF I-TATERIAI,S
7l'/a NAI,IE OF PROJECT:
I,EGAL DESCRIPTION:
STRXET ADDRESS:
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
I'T-
The followl-ng informatlon Ls
Review Board before a final
A. BUILDING I,iIATERIALS:
Roof
Siding
Other WaLl Materlals
Fascla
Soffits
Windows
tlindow Trin
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck Rails
FIues
Flashings
Chimneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
other
B. I"ANDSCAPING: Name
requlred for subnrlttal to the Deslgn approval can be given:
TYPE OF I.TATERIAI, COI.OR
feoa/ess t4/u,r,.o /a.55;'
7t oZ
PIANT }TATERIAI,S:
PROPOSED TREES
of Deslgner:
Phone:
Botanical Nane
,a/ -n 1< rnoo<
Cornrnon Name ouantitv Size*
art/ arzV oio-
EXISTTNG TREES TO
BE RSMOVED
*Indicate caliper for declduous trees. MlnLrnun caliper for
trees.
Indl.cate helght for conlferous
PIANT UATERIALS: Botanical Nane Comnon Nane Ouantity Size*
PROPOSED SHRUBS
EXISTTNG SHRUBS
TO BE REMOVED
*Indicate sl,ze of proposed shrubs. Mininun size of shrubs is
5 qallon.
Tvpe Square Footaqe
GROUND COVERS
soD
SEED
TYPE
OF IRRTGATION
TYPE OR METHOD OF
EROSION CONTROI,
C. OTHER IANDSCAPE AAATURES (retaining walls, fences, swimming
pools, etc. ) Please specify. Indicate helghts of retainlng
walls. lltaxinurn height of walls withln the front setback ls
3 feet. Maximum height of walls elEewhere on the property
is 6 feet.
ua"*to/s , /q o
6 -u(
/&&fu
n )4 @=a4,.2/ q.u'_z-14/
k.*1r @f u/o--d44-
7
I{INUTES OF ANNUAL MEETING
OF TREETOPS CONDOMINIU}I ASSOCIATION
Iriday, December 29, 1989
Hotel Sonnena"lP
PRESXNT AT THE MNXTING:
AIso present:
Andres Banos
Mike Bernstein
Mackintosh Brown
Antonio Cortina
Jeff DePree
Phi-lae Dominick
Ivli.chaef Dow
Rhea Dow
Normand Gautreau
tr{1chae1 Johnson
Gary Klein
Mickey l(lein
Jerry Ladd (ProxY for J.B- Ladd)
Ala"n .Peterson
lvli-l1ie Peterson
Carlos PhilliPs
Donald Simpson
Leslie Stern
Ma.deline Stern'
Bernie \Teiss
Lynn 'lfeiss
Marvel Barnes - Vail Home Rentals
Jeff Brown - Treetops Resident Ifanager
Dale Pflerger, Accountant - Pfleiger,
Alderman & Co.
Andy Klatzkin, Atto.rney - Carpenter
& Klatzkin
Jerry Ladd, Board Dlrector and President of the Association,
opened thl meeting at 4:10 p.m. Jerry introduced the other two Direc-
tors present at tf,e meeting, Gary Kleln and lr{ike Dow. Jerry commented
that the remaining two Directols, James Beirnes and James Tierney, \YeIe
not in Va.i1 a"nd. therefore unable to attend the meeting'
ROLL CALL AND CERTITYING OF PROXIES:
A ro11 call was taken, proxies were identified, and it was deter-
mined that a quorum was present, with 89.71o Of the membership repTesented'
Marvet Barnes stated. that the quorum.percentage might be in question, due
' r(UTES OI AI.INUAL
.EETII{G - TREETOPS
Page Seven
Option to Purchase is exercised in five years, the members would
recei-ve a $410,000.00 lump sum payment, with a.n additional 970,000.00 "up front" for garage maintenance and repair. The purcirase price would be spread over ten years, rvhich would help the Association ivith some tax benefits.
Don Simpson entered the conversation, stating that when he agreed to the Lease and to maintain the gara"ge structura.Ily, his intent wa.s to keep the garage dry and to keep the building from falling down. . .his underst.anding of the word "structure" meant inside structure, and not the ice problem between the buildings. Any attempt to se1l the re-tail space q'ou1d be unsuccessfuL, because a nerv buyer would not accept the langua.ge of the garage Lease in its present form. The Lease needs to be cbanged to reflect. an equal sharing of the garage structural
maintenance between Treetops and Pierre Lalces.
Don stated that negotiations rvith the Committee resulted in one possible solution: Ile would sell the Manager's unit for $70,000.00,and rvould contribute the $70,000.00 to Treetops to cover the gara"ge repairs whlch the Boatd wants to ha.ve done. The Lease would then
need to be re-clarified. Carlos Philli.ps pointed out that thls ap-proach creates a problem for the future if tire garage moves, creating an obligation involving possibly millions of do11ars. There rvas dis-cussion regarding insurance, collateral , financials, Assoc j-ation obli-
-gations regarding new buyers, etc. Jerry Ladd gave a brief history of the snorv and ice probl em in the five parking spaces under the lr{an-ager's apartment affected by the ice. Discussion aLso centered around the deficienei-es of the original Lease, the Manager's apa-rtment space,modification of the Lease, liability involving the ice problem, etc.,
and severa,l illotions were made, discussed and never voted on. Expert advice has zr"lready been sought regarding a. solution to the ice prob-
1em, and it has been suggested tha.t one possible solution is to in-sta.}I drain gutters with heat tape, or a heater, across the back of the building. The members were j-n agreement that thc ice problem,
and associated liability issue, must be addressed immediately.
With a lvlotion by Bernie lTeiss, seconded by Carlos PhilIips, it
was unanimously i
' RESOLVED:That the Association movc fonvard with repairing --.--r
the problem rela.ted to the roof run-off and roof I drain creatj-ng an ice build-up in the lower drive-.^^^ ...i - r_1^^ -ci r-^ ^...r-^-r l^ *^*r-i ncr snnhr.s IVc \\.Ly a.L rt4 -LlL L,lI!-- IIv(t \,,LIUD.LLtI-' P.-l,I -r!rrr6 rp4veo
do not intend that this be an admissi-on tha.t it i i is our responsibility, and we reserve the right I
to recover money from Pj-erre Lakes i .-J
|'0lr t,'.acal
BCONOMIC DATA CORPORATION
Colrutt i tAurrttflY I tlHlrclxd
'!o '6rllh
cltirr ItlltY
lultr l0C
OlNvtr. Coror^aC aO!tl
October 3, 1990
I't. l{aohlntgEh Er*rn
Tr,'o tltiltcd Eank Canter
1700 brwdr*aY, gultr 1503
D6nvBt, Si 80250
Darr Frchr
InrrrrPorrectI]yp\lslngu!ry.'thrlodg.att/lon8hBqd.?harcIaFFr$/e6 o! the Flanr for your dwprtrr Elrergtr'
B8gardlng tjrq brrrial og tlle Fd'm{ pfpg! Te trY}d rc$llrs Uut the sroa
be rcddd orut rt rollilir"g f,o""n;t-ii'.;ii h vall, and the Eround would
ba base for rpntha.
?Ielae rot nE lgrort tt yon harre any gr'lertlonr' thanh ysu wtY tllJch'
::.-,,t;.
MACKINTbSH BROWN P'C.
ATTOINEY AT LAW
T\rTo UxtttD lAlt( CENr.e
l?OO lroaot raY, lurrf lto!
gtxvtr. CoLoaADo lcllgo
ilurY 30. 1990
fsLErHori? (SO3) g l{OOOO
F^x liolt atTtlaa
Hr. Robrrt E. 8ryanl ilrr r lrogldant ;i; ilG;-at'r.,Io'ns itrad tiondomlnl'n Arroclatlon
eio s;"i,ti clitrrv 6trert, 6ultg 306
Dsnvrrr Cslorado 8b222
Dart Bobt
ianwrltlngonbehal!o!thctrr.etopsCondomlnlumAssociatlon
{rrrrmtopo') m'Eoiirf iiiuiirlT.Filei:li Tll?l r hrvt dlrcugsad
irifr-ii"'lel lr,-e-ililEiiriiioi-o1 tirl water ararl3ge (lil"';3ol:Pi.liti;a' bt rh; r,odgl"iI-;iil;.ncid condto Assoclatl'
EScatoPfr proporal lr ru tsrLower
1. TrcctoPr slII tnrgall e rater-dralnage,PfP!-. aEEloxtmatrly
ftvc ieet iesp ifli"ii-outlitr lnto Gore Croek on thc graEg€d area
ownod by thr r."i.,il-liai"intns ttr66to9s_Jutr eact_of the tlnbcr
sugport natt on'lte-"iit--il[" "r-[[-e-ci6'topa II butldlng' r'hlr
wllt br conncetrd, wlth dralnr. ftrom thq IrcstePE garage reol,_.-
FoukJ-ng or." uri-ali;l*iy,- Thu coEt o!_thto work and inatatlars -shrll b6 patd "Jr.iI'Ey-ti.rtop.I--irri-r,ogg: nay alro attach to the
dra{n plpr," ona or'noie draj.ni-ltot--it" I,6d99'i Uultatngt but the
eort o! work ani i-*t'Jrfiri-ior-rilii-U-dltloni:. dralne ahitr bc aala
for by thr l,odge.
2. ?lorE orr chta dra[ntgr pipo yy pt-!c, perfof,red untll ''
alter Brptenrbcr-ir-illg-;;A nfi"-clnpreieA, Trettone wL1l aod over
thr dralnage pJ"pe ln 1990, ".otii"i-l-."",fttingt os lt not, ln the
Bprlng o! 1991.
3. lthc cxlcting conoretc-drain in thla. grartv arsa rhlch
atarLE ar trsqtonl;-iir"Ii;y-yiti'u"--r-oio"la ui tpetoPf aTg-rodded
rlth grors "ono,rllenlii-;i[h lii--toaaiig-oi'tl'E navs drlln plpr' all
et Ersetotrllf exPanlo.
A, When ttrc draln ptpe ha$ bcrn lnltalIod' Triltops-rhaIl-
have Lhe ccr,t.rriia-ii-Iy,-"-irpt--;ai-uultt* curvayed bv a llcrnsed
aurvayor and thc Lodga agroes to tonv"i ts-TtestbDs a non'sxolugLve
pcrmancDt ,ooer"nE-[fircr-leEt on litnei iic" of tire centrrllne ot
_,, q r(fE F,.8.
I L'!J lttLrJ ru.
E L r-r jlut,t I L. uH I l.l
9. t 990 15: r2
L Ul.rF ,
fgi"*"1rf,6 "von 'r *'
llsiff fi f "'giof l"o'f :"Hilf il.lff lrrTrf "rri,*!rl"to.h;., j""#,
fl.iili-itF#iii.x.]{*:fiit'$ii#iitr#"'#r.';*;
ff*H*g*;p-grr**#l't-
- _ _ vrl/l.)ll8e
ltB lnr
- Thc etl ot
cnd agrced to tht!p>4
-aaaaB
r--,
i dfsx^,"i*
'\
a
f l, ,' 1o,./ . t
o+o I Ll^ n,
/)
7 dot.-,.^ r/1r.)
,--r1 - 1122 /'/1u "/)c.7/e/
u/r:*"-& 7?1-'
,l-tt?:Urrn
--e
/\)^ / y'' e-<u
(1
,o Ir o,,,r
I
n*-
c-qrQr./ -
du-fc, '\
t^r, ( f ,Jt ,
/ r{( ar
S a.r -,!/ t /LJI|I 10 DG.t- t/\
1*M:
,--,, 1/ ( &'(
a'7
{
m Iq !-o l-rR E l;6 l lmh d l9s 1 lri g ItrP o lis g l=e
=!5
o<
dE
-G E6 ctt >l ="9 mr)o _n
m
{
flmro <trE
tn=
=oc)YP t-
t]TD 'n!Or
z=o(D >=
=O z.
T m fr 3
{
9z
=q mt
l^l lxo I'i O F 'I't<L-o | 'Tl
l-: !'Ym
f
-{o
@ m x
m .It
I
o z (-
TD a {m
l-P z (n
P H OF r-- C)
CDE
-{O
-9n -=m 1z >m of,,--{ >
=
z
=IT
H F EI
EI H o E v,
v,H F
o H
4 D ti
t
tr H
d
z
3 m
H
rq
H
ru
z
P a v)
.)B
=D <F
t>
FE FB
1,-.ls
t:
t*':tI<rlF
o, lU tlo Nl{N'I r.r lU *l?
I
9r :2. r
P=
A=
z
-l
i
m
--l
:o
r
Z.\
4_i >;
o
z --t
-t
\
I N
l.J
11
D
>
z (n
H
.)B
=t><F
[>
FE HH - tl;j t-ls t(,t-t"- t3 i lg
rto Nlq PI !llt
I
\o
N)0\
I
I
=
U'F
rq
tr{rl]
F-l F H c)
l-r
l€
lz lo
ll t>l-
l6 lz
l"
te
| \.r
l*
i-{ l'n lo l-t€ t<lzl lo l3 ll li;t: tF tt'!Ir- l>t!l tm tu)lo lH lz lA t9 td I lrl ttc tl'E l+.1 in
| \(!al c/)tuttl ltxl l-l tl tl
Hfn to ti t€E tzl Inu
|;F l-k trF tm Fr leF
FT
tLt I ti I t-!Irl]tr ll ll tl ll
o o z (n
{n c c){o z
;H3d - o9d
idR€
;q ii e'e; B :.<R{o.{ E o
==B€(o o:1 =A-.oor
F 3;:(i 9;o;.- <
^' i- qt o i s a6
cif o, *5 *o
=(o9+@
de{€
il.5=F
:l=6*
E;1_5 r_ o ci' *
EgiE i=3P @Atl
ts'dt 6=l e e;'F=s5;e
= (h
--<o_:
0:a P o'rq;;ijaii=.
83 a 5 .,ERA
90=:::cro=.
{
c l
a
u,
E.
-
(o
f
o
-'
,o)lf
+c)+F +El +>+z +E +rd ?+H +o
>gr z^o2 i>
mc
YM
20 m'n Po
€z
m
o
o o z {a
o --t o
.n
o
-
a m l-_n
l!
lx
l.I
F
I
:z :
z
t-
!m a
=-t a z
m m
m
z
2 -t t-
an,-o
!
lfio<>'nf,
*l'
m
=t-
(,
IP la
t-
I
I
I
:;9 :
>:1z 6
zz f
I
-ll
!l
z>o8
Io I<'.:.: <
>0
fliJ ao z c z
r 6
z
,
c m
z m €
-l m
I
^2
F !t
=z
rrl
H -t
m
c
:o z
H H tI'F
e1
F
H z F
r{
an
ut H
{P r
tr{
v)H
tr.
v)H F
z
CA z
{
F{,
z c)trl
ECN:a; o _-{fiE 8i -Fto
rlr > 'rt d; =a >^8 \2
=vc)ul *:o 3 !9o= E b
=z at i.lo o o h-nzz 6€
Fi;
I<
3
N o
z
7)
I
I
o €
o
z
z o
F
.
z
z o -l m g,
z z
=z 6 i
-.t
-.1
m
us2l tdol
uti I Kjjl
QI F>'
gDl
ril
xl
Eot --4.r-fr|
\ol
s H c)
F r!F
€
H r{P x
i
|-
!m
=
='Tl
m m o
a
m
-{
rn
z c
m
2
m g
z
m
m €
!
m c)
m
z n m m
tn o I
z.o
t-
3
z
m
m
o
_9
z o -m o x
q,
-
=
m
=
.It
m n
='Tl
m m a
VAEUATION
!m
=z o
H
H
fi
=m
z
..
c
=g z
m
m o
o
-
@
7
z
o\F tJl
6
5
|.J
tJl o lJl NJ u,@
l.)u)s.
cr\w
$s $$
I o tr m
gi"cl 9a ig ig E5
IE tr
2Z tst
(, u m-a I !m t 3
tr
@
E -I 2 o
trtrtr
gs
o(D
3;2
EE
=tr trkt :.3()t4
=()gF
q I,m;
c),o z q
7 c o {6 z
!FI 7
=-{
o
Cc
\c C
.l
I
H a a
#,
t2
Fe
td
i.-><r(x >(>(>(
o o 3e Pf,Yt o !
3E g!
o
9p -ac
8E
de
8-1n ;o
=-l 52 d9 u-
Oz'9a*- m3-u2<>m o!{>oF n
t o a
m o
o €z m a
b
@ 2
=m
ti
l3
Fc
PF .i C,c)>
o
G
:!
z o
ar
P'o
H
ry
il
(-i
..J
c1_
!!E
-
=;l
-(D
()
lr
t
o .tl
;
!tn
P
2 o
I
{m
m
o t
s
s
t Itl
P t2
{rl
l|
v:)N c',
C\
IFE
\J.l
a
:r-o
Ol
p-
o
i)
L
()
!I
nJ
1l
C
o
0J
P.
o
!I ;
N tr
I
1'',
f.,i$
EE
BE
EH
tl*S; o lCl()ti \l -;ltsl-' b I
*lfilH E
SlHcf - ^
*lHE r g
rlli E
e E
HIIE E I ;lsE A e
FI;;
o o
d z
!m !
=-t U'
2 ttl m c,|lt o l<"
12
t2 t{
t>lF
!m
{
6 t z
qt o
P
F
m
iliEE
EEiii 3d eiF
i:; iF
EiiiE
zfr -{>
f;e sl !u |lt -o
trl 'n
PO t
s
o t
n o t
E 3
cn m |-.ll
E|3II
NF
\
-l -\
t5 touth |ronhg. rcrd
t|ll, colondo t1657
(303) 479-21.38 ot 479-2139 olflc. of aontmunlty dovrlopmcnl
TO:
EROM:
DATE:
su&TEsr:
AI,L CONTRAqIORS CT'RREIITLYL REGISTERED IfIITI TIIE
TOWN OF VAIL
TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS/COuMIINITY DEVELOPI'IENT
!,IARCH 15, 1988
CONSTRUqIION PARKTNG & MATERIAL STORAGE
In aunmary, grdinance No. 6 states that Lt is unlawful for any person to lltter, track or deposit any soil , rock, sand, debris or naterial , Lncluding trash dunpsters, portable toilets and norknen vehlcles upon any street, sidewalk, all.ey or public place or any portlon thereof. fhe right-of-way on all Town of Vail streets and roads Ls approxinately 5 ft. off pavenent.This ordinance will be strlctly enforced by the Town of Vail Public tlorlcs Department. Persons found vlolating thls ordinance wlll be given a 24 hour written notice to renove said naterlal .In tbe event the person so notifl.ed does not eomply wLttr the notice wlthin the 24 trour tl.ne speclfied, the puLtlc Works Departnent gill. remove sald naterial at the expense of person notifl.ed. The provlsions of this ordinance shl[ not bl applicable to construction, nal.ntenance or repair proJecte of any street or alley or any utilities in the right-a-rray.
Io-review Ordlnance No. 6 !.n full, please stop by the Town of VaLI BuildLng Departnent to obtal.n a copy. Ahank you for your cooperatLon on this natter.
1A- 7-7A
Date
(t.e. contractor, owner)
profess ionol structurol engineers
Hav 10. 1990
TREETOPS CONDOHINIUM ASSOCIATION
1221 Pearl Street
Boulder. Colorado 803O2
Subject, Structural Repai rs
Treetops Plaza BuiIdln9
Vai I . Colorado
o('
6ent I emen ,
At the request of I'larvel Bannes of Uail Hone Rentals I am expounding on ny
report to you dated l,larch 2o, 1990. The enclosed dctails are my proposed
Eolutions to the more serious problens r.rith the Treetops Plaza Butlding.
Specifically theso details addness the east concrete r.ra.l I at thc south side of
the building, the fnench dnain on the east side of the building' the north
foundat ion r.rall uaterproofing and dnainage systen, the gutter and ice guard
systen fon the roof and the steel strap to be added to the instde of the uest
Iou level foundation uall.
boyle engineering, inc
/
I hope that these details provide you r,lith the infornatlon to obtain sone
competltiv€ bids for implementing the repairs. 0bviously there ls more than one
r,lonkable solution for any problern. These sketches describe what I feel are the
most straight f orr,rard and economical solutions to the different problens.
Houever, I am open to suggestions fron the Association menbers on Mr. Sinpsonrs
consultants in ihe inlerest of arniving at solutions that ane nutually agreeable
to al I partles involved.
Please give fie a call if you have any questions or cotlnents reganding these
details.
Sincerely yours t
Tilrothy
Pres i den t
BoyIe,
K\..'a\sTE
H('
i'.:'..$,
i5
,"tei
:;":
;€
)'.
.qS
"" c\
$iz
$:,:J'-l;":(
<)r
a
.+: j
3*
r*-i l4sea
l$rno,gifl'.ut:
k;i'a"c
143 e. meodow dr., suite 390 o crossroods shropping cenler . voil, colorodo 81657 . 3A3/4762170
o o
o
BCONOMIC DATA CORPORATION
Cotruflt tAurll.lxY t ,lNllrolxo
llo1r ttr'{lal a[O l6u?h erlir{ tltrtY
lurrr l0C
DIHYtr, 6o!oi^aA aOlt l
0ctober 3, 1990
l-lr. Maoklhcogh Ererrn
$p tlhltcd Banh Ccnter
17oo brc,sdmY, g'rltr 1505
Dcrilrer, Si 80250
Itrrr lleokr
InrrrPoneetolorulJquljl''thrtodgratt,lonehaad.ttharelapPro\|e8 o! ttn F1anr for lsur d'"rpltrr BhsltrE'
Bsgar{.ng the br.sial og !,}E ssmr ptp!! Tu F}}d r€quJ'rs tlut the arca
be coddd ore" rtscE-E""iiii ao.tn;i-lo'Gti tt vallr and the Eroud would
bc bgl|e for lcnth6.
pletFr lot rre lsro* lf pu tnvt any queltlont, zhanh rou rrul'ruch.
3.The exi
at Treetops' expense.
MACKINToSH BRowN P.c.
ATToRNEY AT LAw
TwO UNITEo BANK CENTER
| 7@ BRo^oway, SU|TE | sos
oENvER. CoLoRAoo AOZ9O
.Tuly 30, 1990
drain in this
e g of the
TELEPHoNE (3O3, 494{em
F^x (3O3, 4394262
11 be Paid
whLch
sodded pipe, all
llr. Robert E. Bryan, ,.Tr., president
Tbe lod.ge at Lions Eead, Condominiun Association 650 South Cherry Street, Suite 506 Denver, Colorad.o 80222
Dear Bob:
I an writing on behalf of the Treetops Condominium AssocLatlon (nTreetops") to confirm Treetopst proposai which r have discussed wrth-you for the instaLlation ot the iater d.rainage prpe on-i"na-gwned by-The Lodge at Lions Head, Cond,o Associatioi tifri "ioa;Ji.Treetops! proposal is as follows:
1.Treetops wirr i-nstaLr a water d.rainage pipe approxirnately five_feet d,eep wlich outrets into Gore creek oi tfrE-gr#!;d;;;owned by th9 rodge adjoining Treetops just east of tfie timbei support will be parking shall be
erF one or more drainE tro the
waLl on the east side of the tieetops II building. This connected, with drains from the Treelops garage r5of,area and, driveway. The cost of this worl anO materials paid soLely by Treetops. The Lodqe m"i "i"J itiacfr to the
2- work on this d.rainage pipe may not be performed, untir-i-ftel septenber 1, 1990 and when-compreled, rreeio?s= will ioet-oveq
Spring of 1991
cost of for by
4.
have the surveyor
Permanent
work and the Lod.ge.
starts at Treetopsr driveway ffi with grass concurrently witir the
When the drain pipe has been installed,, Treetops shall !.
easement three feet on either side of the centerrLne of
.11 Pipg for its maintenance and repracement in the future arl incrud,e a reasonabre iigni--or .lce"r ioi "".r, purposes.
.. ..Treetops agrees oB or before the completion of the ration of the drain'pipe to-ionRrl?!_"@,bin located in its aiiie"r"y oi -it
adequate fence or 'creen bloqks the view of the traitr-uitr- uy the second and ttrird units in the Lodge,s buitcring id:"i"G; r;;;;;p;:
wouLd. appreciate your reviewing this proposal with your of directors and ii it i, ;;ii;i1ct-ofyr indtcate your ationrs approval at the bottor-"i trri" letter on the encrosed rf you wirr then return it t; me, r wir-r have-iur. signed by esident of the Treetops associaiion and roii cai-proeeea. we peful to start work oir a new aril""g" :yst;; ioi o.", garage next few weeks so I wogla appre-i;G ;;i;ii iiirpt response cur board,. Thanks for this ir;i;:
')
lert E. Bryan, ,fr.0, 19g0
re foregoing proposal_
2proved this
Sl-ncerel.y,
I'IACKINTOSH BRO9TN
_is_accepted and agreed. to this 1990.
THE LODGE AT ITONS EEAD
CONDOI'{INIUM ASSOCIATION
Bv .rresLo.ent
day of , 1990.
TREETOPS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATTON
:. MLchael Dow
.\;\ Sl
\-\rv
Rt
nQ\\v
s\
$\
\ \,
L)
\\
-\\
$-r
\.
\sl
*N
0(
i-
i-
Fire
D
D
rii,ii i."i , cr i.n
is ol ihis carde
nc isr i.tance ol
lher data shall
requiring ihe
and other
\,\N\\Y\
F$s ,'N
or cf any other 0rdlnance ol the iririsdi
\
^.- Y -. '\
ST j
"-l
r\i
\l N \\r
, i'lt
\ il\y
\ \.n
Town of Vail
.,NATF.
\'
I --i
I
I
:/
$
\\
\\4
N N
\
-\- G:o q '?;-'
5
S E={.<c!
3
=
._l --l
I
l_
l*\lzs -l^
i_
I
I
1
I
I
i\
l1
l1
A
I I
\\SA
\J >r
u$.a
\
e.
a-\s
\
2u
\
,\F
-/ \ iI^\s.d) \)!\ >t tn il
f
t.
I (-r
\,
+{
sl
\
\
I
I
I
I
\-S
ffiii"'"'";E14 -i l4e 6s :-'"
6'l.ij,!1!1.?l
tt€ f?arLfl57arTg
't tl '/+ /rI 1e €n6 +
@Llt+ 5 Petl'f Vot-I1 o * 6
boy'le engineerftg, lrc.
l4l e. m€odotl dr. zuite 390
crocsroocb shoppng cenler
voil, cdorodo 61657
nu4762t7O
I
rr-lfa ??FtF ?ffe *+Pee?.'Lqe
fr{-€ t<lp*t+P @?t+4
alawT
tHf"
el,l{'lt$cl
?cFfi+
rHfa
tl tt*6
-\t $
\il tt
\)
$t
\T
\F
F \L
\rt
cpt*tEol Hl ll1lo .-'W
Yt t5lfiiq ; I ?cl^tfl j I rl ll-
(
\\
ltloA GAr.9p b dnttov
4\osl d
llt ,lt
lrl
rE r$
ls
r-+/I l*
-^, l1 // l*I !3 tz
**"1) 4tp9o \$\_
o .J
vl
eaJeT t*q pFlnt
-Qa'/ ua$I R..-.& u*e 10
oxarj 4Ur+?
$I s-
$
-J f\
rrnrr 4; vwV-I r.lg,!l vt*z ./
?ou1 Ft-Ft1 rul
/6\ fz r-J-ll ttt
\--/ t*o"ttl
ltvu
tFito
utt6l
zh
43o
7>r
1o
?
4
I
4 uTfv
1a?o
lo-e"
*( 3.
FZE
u
T
boyle engineerir€. hc.
l4{l e. m€odow dr. suile 390
crossroocb shopping cenler
voil. colorodo 81657
3ou476-2170
,
\\
\* --''l>e( -<\'t, \':
laL t^JPFp - l- 4"+ ?r?€1 --lttF.ff,>Ie ?4F,tYzT b @ *t o* Ia bL
>Fqqe," iii P ?pficP 4151El4
Cz*Au-iio_D7o FovL oA
6vt6T t*Q P,:F priayttr{ Q
JJilLF.. + lcij 4JP7?s lo LxlbH?
f Jvv Lefr,21H o? t4 oF1 A + 6odT+4 F,ptzF6,
-tu)1TeF3 Ja f.ti6ctlpF4t tlTc AerTep
?o t4 H 6(a rll 5 t,lt l t / <? t4rlza1 Jo UilP LP cj(o]Nr:.
??l-rtJ 1161LY,,
tn UTT L loL ''4 JhF 3 SETTIU
t|lP.I
4n1T e p
o =cl^Lt
f F"LI oF+Fi A.} A I vt e/
.$i;*eig
r-T 14s
L2- | O ,10
/'k/
d;,"
( *\
LLvv >Tton
,ft
2- lt,'+t.b. JrrL4,€r<-,A 6HAr-. tLt
boyle engineering, inc.
'143 e. meodow dr suite 390
crossroods shopping center
voil. colorodo 81657
n3/476-2170
---,i-,/.t'+n,b,
I t'-- lt- o"
1o
,- ly F€€ ff-ri t
$
r/L
t/i'+, ,
? i?L l/" ll
t )'+x @ b;,u=x-*p f,s tN SrpE,oFANtl L, ?apqzs 1lr6re
.i^rrFl L L ?l?uil5
(Vx,51 | il;)
ileH 4 zr2.^t/+^llr,,'l'l"
1-/""d n u,(+l
1Ap,l hilqrL'
HE.. 4zx1*/+
?Ftu:rer ftrt z
>^*L t/+r O x. 11
/*", o" BL t*J?w*4es
, lt-dl
tl -9
6t-r'1 f-i b
4 " = r'-o"
bl ?L 6fl ,2lJ ti u PF P
lPLt1 o( /; ('-rt-r
lo''t4, 'qt
f,$li;i{-3"1 zdi;ie"""g
trio r+eo
'2o tj trt ?F tcFE-i6
boyle engin€erir€. irc.
143 e. meodcm dr. suite 390
crossroods $topping cenlgr
voil, coloro@ 81657
3f,3/476-2170
Hotg', o?F,--e ??f-*?14 e +
ll
,4 '*' ? ?'
lr 2'/.4fl,ft.
dtr 1*Peb>r:' ?ul2
L>vVh ioll
/a rzne
tl
ll ,,
w1L /+ ,it*l-l
l'/4't v. ?t?t 11Aarv
4ELv be Jo t+1
/o" w-
ll
lb€toto ?-.
s)olel lo(a147P ?ctbr€ fi*sHe?
rl Z .' ,vq-"4 yl.B. Ap.L t+ Bgaoref
cllbg p
7t-A2 h
no
l" -- lt- o
9*tL
t- Jo.bi AW I W.loH?
3Lo1 lon A ,44-j''t lt'et'
blPL snoA
rFLalo13
lo - L1 .
6it.;;if1q ZdJ.;|r","t"+OS
tri l4e6
14oFTl ?FNCYE16
boyle engineering, inc.
143 e meodow dr. zuite 390
crossroods shopping cenler
voil. colorodo 81657
303/476-2170
Nyt{ t1'1
Ype,.t- i,i
'1evs'
p:*tflir14 1t|
'/""h ,nt/l'v'.. b'e
4 *>r4 * lq x b'l
hi 'tw' sl;rl+
*qo ld'r".
frc,ri l^lAY
dYF 9"h\-?t]b 1)/,vv
?PtvL * 6foy1
AFott-l * 1r 2+: -
O t rp t' a-t.
beiilvefl s1l(ts
q vu t Je il,Avv
TntL ?uc
UH1F- tZ"- td'bebN Vrve pb
faP lot bv*+Lo6 /+'/fr,1o In A eF61
exErtH q
ao H cebl E
U rvv
I
V> I'r1 lfll
p oo\ r 11q
fltrrPq+trt
beol
Fu vv <u FFFaE
4,^bY I AtziP 4HAf1tltv 1A
r2h1vt4l1
VtvAFt 1e e^rl oF "3tv6hlAY
61+r#i18 S..'"1'$iilf:.i
Lo.rlo.'
-$
tr! 14e6s
-:tF-- tl rHPll' 4 b crtu
Tr-Lc1o7*Tz, h2 r
la -'2 1. 4 O
=/4,' .ltr'
-, . ]d
o
tr n-\
lt-t^\
| 1., / t ,l3
h?P FaJ P 3h7 t h1
'4a;D Ioltll' 6a,trvL\
hVa]n ,Vt:4i* aF
)c lt , ( ;l L61 1,1 A L L Ha 6oF'L
i ? L?To? s r rbLb
boyle engineering, inc.
I43 e. moodow dr. suife 390
crossroods shopping cenler
voil. colorodo 81657
3o3t47G2170
-['Z - 9/e Q r 7'/-- 2u?l.".?'' r'l
bellg
il
i
-[
sfiep,J />r3F.o
6i?A 4 tr I)
It uL
5S
61.i;*413
r--'j r1496s i-.
'fr:i:)
l,i
l.o
tl
i F-Jf r O, n?I lr lVr'tuY ZlfzVf
h - lo -qo ,/k/U
Jg{ 84 ',91 11:3BRl'r EOYLE ENGINEERITG INC. VRIL, C0,P.tn
LffiTrtrryF TmANSMITTAL
W'joab Arnnrfo* ehN
ffiffir,1)durrr atEppfigoanE rdr@Eb8l6!i7 i3we.2j-n
TO
tr Shop dravingr
)Ocoe, of l.u.r
E For epplovrl
pnn, rou, ,.
tr Ai ilqucatd
tr
tr
tr
tr
n
19- tr PRINTS RETURNED AFTER IOAN TO U3
wE ARE smortyou fntrrra EFrrfhurrttrac "a f)c wfollowins itrrns:
tr Flenr tr Samplrs tr Specificct'tottt
c<rttEt NATE ,to'o€8cR|Fr|0N
THESE ARE TRAI{SIIITTEO es dreckd bal*
tr For rrvlar and cfrrmant
tr FOR BIDS DUE
tr Printr
E Gfiange ordcr
Apprcvod s iubmltbd
ADprclr.d as mtql
Rlturncd lbr conrctistr
O Ro&bmlt-@p1.6 tor approual
E $blfilt-coC.s tor dlsttlbutlql
0 Rdum
-corrct€d
prids
REMARKS
@PY TQ
SIGNEI':
tmtat /ffi?Eh,b. |t|n.lt ar*fa-ra- an toa aa naaa4 tttdlt .r.''llt ga d t''o.-
JFN E4 ',91 11:39Ft't
Eoylc Encl nacrlng t Inc.
143 Emt llcrdou 0rlvr, Sutta t90
Urlt, Colonado 8155?
303t176-2t70 FAX
6REAT OIUIOE CO{STRUCTIfi
P.O. Box 25?4
Uall, Colorrdo 81658
I|'tc. VAIL, CO.
Ortc: January {, lg9l
SubJcct: Eact tlal I Rsconctructlon
Trcrtopr Plaza Earagc
Uall. Coloredo
EOII-E E€I}EffiIT{G
o
P.Zft
Thlr fr to contlrn thrt I havs nadc a vlsucl lnapoction of lhc connootlon ol
thc prscaal Tccra to thc narly pourod concrotc rrral I at thc cart rnd of tho
Iossr lsycl pcrktng erca ln tha abovo notod butldine.
Fosr ol tht stx !trn! had b6cn connoctod to thc top ol thtc rall rtlth t !t!cl
6ngto uhlch ts boltcd through thc atcn and acldld to tht cabod plrt! in tho top
gf th! urll. Thcac arc rpprovcd u noird. in cddltlonrl connoctlon rhould bG
inttaltcd at thc Tca on thc gouth cnd 6t thc arca !s lt l! not yct conncctcd
to ths r,rall. Thc onc on tha north 6nd doas not rtqulFr . conrcEtlon ar ihr nct
uall i. :upportrd at thrr cnd by thr cxiattng prpcndlculer lall.
lrrtng ihis viclt I alro oxanlncd thc arachs tn ihs atcr ol co;g of thosc Tle't
at lhlr car! gnd. I lcol that fhooc havc oxtltcd for quilc I rhllc 6nd lhit
thay do not Juotlfy roncdlll noasur6! ct thll tlnc.
ccr TrcctoFr ilanagcnont
Tiaothy ll.
Frcct dont
DEC 6 ,98 B:,:1BR''I MYLE EISII'EffiII'G II.E. VFIIL, CO.
v
Boylc EnolnclrlnOr Inc.
113 East llcador Drtvc. Surlc 390
Uall, Colorcdo BIES?
toSlalB-2r76 FA;(
P.!/?
*frl;:.:'::::-:"::"Vatl' Colorado 81657
Attachcd r! r nodlttcd dstatl of thc connoctlon bctuoon th€ top ol thc ncu caat
uall rnd thc 6t6trs ot thc prcc$t toer for thc Trcctopr Pllla Butlcllng.
Aa thr contrrctor dld not inrtall th: rtcct anglce rholtn tn thc original delall 'I hrvr nodltlod thtr conntctlon so lhat hc ctn ?lr!t pour the uall lnd thcn
tnctall thc anglca.
Tha Frocoat tcc dlaphrcn supportr thc iop of thla nco uall and thlg connccilon
l! crttlcrl tn provldtne thlr cupport. Tho lorn tlor r.rtll ccrvc no ltratctut"al
purposc oncc tho ualt i! pourcd. I do not lccl that thoy rtll bc lny norc
vulncrablc to nolaturo lhan lha snlp ttos on c tyPtcal baacnont lcll' and ca
ruch I an not concfned ulth thelr polltblo corrollon.
Ploacc alvc n! 6 c.ll rf you havo any QuGltlons rcglrdtng lhts tattcr.
I I Plsaac Rcply [xI No Rrply Rcq'd
cc: Trcctopr Condonlntsn Aaroclatlon
6roat glvtde Conrtruct lon
SOYLE EN6I
Tir.rothy l{,
Prcal dont
f ili-,,'i-, ' ig90
Dalc; Occcnber 4r l93t
SubJcct: Eart Rcnadlal Uall
frcetopr Plara
Usll ' Colorado
DEC 6 'g E:l;19ffF1 E0ILE EhGII.EERIiG Il'8. VAILI CO.co P.2/Z
boyb endneothg.hc.
'14:l a meodolrrdr *ite3fil
cr6roo(lshopphgcenlel
vdl, cdss(b E1657
w3l4lb-zl7ct
uD+
1r+"+Wf
t*taTt*4 (ft.+e1 'T
I
fHeAs4*1rl+ri
2
Atv?Afg llt^W
o f \r Nghl
h"+r 3T*t'
6x?trlste$l
a1.1€
flestrtw Tor 0F bh4r LI|LL v7rflL
f ?LL1o?+rLtsZh
l1_- 4- 10
rNsttoN
H>:'
REQUEST
VAIL
'. 6 '<r'
PERMIT NU
DATE
READY FOR
LOCATION:
MON TUES AM PM
.?,//'7 L
ROJECT
INSPECTI
dro, *ot.
CALLER
WED
ii:r
BUILDING:/ ,t \ PLUMBING:
! ./ ,. ( \/srFFl t, {r'U"l ft\',/ trUNDERGRoUND -----_i-FOOTINGS
tr FOUNDATI
tr FRAMING
ON i STEEL tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING D GAS PIPING
tr POOL / H. TUB
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRIGAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANIGAL:
tr HEATING
ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
O FINAL tr FINAL
F,iPPBOVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVEO E} REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
ptF$op
NS
IHUry, FRI
'l '"'
REQUEST
VAIL
PEC
T(
it
N
OF
ON \o
t ,,-l!.
/N
rl
W
;T
OV
/,1
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT :l i-. - lr''t ;t: i 'l { JOB DATE NAME
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:WED AM PM :L, t-'
'q neeRoveo
CORRECTIONS:
N DISAPPROVED D REINSPECTION REQUIRED
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS i STEEL
PLUMBING:
E UNDERGROUND
O ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
'o pouruonrroN / STEE-
tr FRAMING
- ROOF & SHEEF " PLYWOOD NAILING O GAS PIPING
D INSULATION tr POOL / H, TUB
tr
D FINAL
!
tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MEGHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr ROUGH tr
tr
D
tr
EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT SUPPLY AIR
tr
tr FINAL FINAL
DATE
J
lNqPtra:TnR i 'L-
t a
,*rt"rroN REeuEsr
PERMIT NUMBEB OF PROJECT t ,t-) ^/, /
"or. I //7.C /4,^ JoB NAME
/r,
TOWN OF VAIL
4 7- 0-
CALLEB
READY FOR
LOCATION:
{ FRI ,)'--' t
INSPECTION:MON TUES WE THUR
fr'r' u,
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS i STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
r-r ROOF & SHEER " PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
tr FINAT
tr TEMP. POWER tr HEATING
O EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT O SUPPLY AIR
/6 -t/ttL- l/,t r{ tt tt'Lt(
'/
O FINAL fI FINAL
APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
niFsxop
.., -:\ -. I
.-..' '' .. \ \
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
oor, \--=-5 -\ JoB NAME
INSPECTION REQUEST
i " TOWN OF VAIL
-i-\.. .:''- \;, t] i.,"... .. _..:.=,r\.
CALLER '-) .r)i\"
MoN ruES (-wq THUR FRI AM PM READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECT.ION;il,. \-.'\r , -: \-'\-- r. \
BI
EI
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
F
M
ILDING:PL
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
.
UMBING:
FOOTINGS / STEEL UNDERGROUND
ROUGH / D.W.V.
ROUGH / WATER
FOUNDATION / STEEL
FRAMING
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING GAS PIPING
INSULATION POOL / H. TUB
SHEETROCK NAIL
FINAL tr FINAL
le CTRICAL:MECHANICAL:ELEt
trT
trR
{c
t .-,
tr_
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
HEATING TEMP. POWER
ROUGH EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT SUPPLY AIR
a'fi FINAL FINAL
APPROVED ..,.'' .,,;.tr DISAPPROVED O REINSPECTION REOUIRED
CORRECTIONS:
INSPECTOR
ON NOF
t'. (, -
crl
TOW
N I st REQUEST
VAIL
Y"'Pu
PERMIT
DATE
READY FOR
LOCATION:
NUMBER PROJECT
,.1 |I ] JOB NAME
INSPECTION:MON
CALLER
TUES ,r r:i',
THUR ' FRI
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PL
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
o
UMBING:
N FOUNDATION / STEEL
UNDERGROUND
ROUGH / D,W.V.
ROUGH i WATER tr FRAMING
,-.., ROOF & SHEEB
" PLYWOoD NAILING GAS PIPING
D INSULATION POOL i H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
T] FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
O HEATING
O ROUGH EXHAUST HOODS
NDUIT '.
'
LE SUPPLY AIR
tr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
tr APPROVED ET DISAPPROVED ef.tRer ruspecroN REQU tRED
CORRECTIONS:
"'t', i, lr (
I,J A I E INSPECTOR
..i '.,-1 /-,! (. / |tNSPEcn,oE|, $FsuEsT PERMI
DATE
T NUMBER
;-t .
PROJECT OF
INSPECTION:
JOB NAME
MON
CALLER
TUES WED THUR FRI PM AM READY FOR
LOCATION:
BUILDING:
O FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
O FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
U
tr
ROOF & SHEEFI
PLYWOOD NAILING E GAS PIPING
INSULATION tr
tr
.
POOL / H. TUB
EI SHEETROCK NAIL
tr
d+rrunr-tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
O TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
D HEATING
o
D
tr
ROUGH tr
tr
o
EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT SUPPLY AIR
D FINAL O FINAL
gj-.appRoveo
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED O REINSPECTION REQUIRED
INSPECTOR
Tbe lteus below
gtvlog a pernlt
Please check off
FINAL PLI'MBING
INSPECTIONI S
ueed to be couplete
a final C of O.
J.n the box provided.
COI{PLETED
before
DATE:
FINAI UECHANICAL
DATE:
IUPROVE}'ENT SI'RVEY RESID. NAME:
FINAI, BUILDING EAST SIDE:WEST SIDE:
TE}'POMRY C OT O
Fr
tr
L]
tr
tl
DATE:
CERTIFICATE OF OCCT]PANCI
DATE:
LANDSCAPING DI'E
DATE!
FILE NAUE:\\Nb
P.ar*VZV*f*;4**'Z**fl 14aff,rz/-'/-;ffi/?l
DEn
#/ 'Ue,24zytr,l