HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 BLOCK 6 LOT 3 RIVERHOUSE CONDOS UNIT 1 LEGAL.pdfuJ o
J
o-
o
9
o z o o
=F
Q o c
i2!*iE u 3 !!;:Ji:EE'i.i'- z a.z ?+ i'= -.7
5t-c-:. a
E ii;- z
?:.i.32 ;o:El!>..: - o= E
-= e r - C i i : = ;=
= i;i:i iii?i:E i ! ..8 i
i 2 y=-2"'
--r9iFEj .: : i : 5 :E;!:::
Ei !* !?*
ro
@
t-
o .{
o E .g L o
o (J
(t
o.
=E
o !
o (J
(U
.A 5 o
!-(u
d,
+
(u
(J
att
o-
=o
=(t
@
o!
(J
F-,
(\I
@ o (\I
z
'p
()
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-l q
a ',-
c
ol 9
-l -|
I orl (Jl
(r,l !l
irl
(Ul !l
I
I
I
I
'a
n
o
p
(n
L L o F
€L 6
(J
z
.\ t-Y ,.i
- 'f. q,)gF-€>x
-22 cos<
5dz a) < L/;a\:-z"v =Zi H..t isz ;, >o
^
LrJ t,/
' c( '"FtrZ zuF Lq\-
<c<=QF--J a< ca
oiE z 3FF *lrJ<F:i F<Y
Q;a<l=z F!r>Z.,^<-y
pE+3
---\ l.* F ,^i F-
ilto>5;caO 9>:'.i z *.-YV
HtRs _<F<X
lr. rr o( X
FZU:tr;<u USXH -FYl itrftil F-9>F.
tlt a-
-e.
--t rF?
tFi k d
*6.
FR
tfl
F
-a.J a rr{.f-
ar?
-H
-f .F)a F
t.t..f\EY
l-
-F{F?
-11 l9
F\aa f-l ts tr a
*l!
Ll f-l
{=7
lF|
trt
6.rFl d t-f qp !{-l
fl-rFf h A o
t
o z
==G
uJ o-
ll o (o
Ol (o sr
(o
cn
IJJ lu l!
L
=E
uJ
-d t4/-..- sg / q/q
,\qsh D l'{)I $$S-
ot ?-rtt | =d, <L!l d F' co FI <: lJ .o l5<
uJ ttr (,:> ltr- <LJro=F r(9o rn tZ-t6F
t=
UJ
o
E
E
2 z
o
o z z
.A ul
z
z
=f 6
.6
o z
2
:
a $.
f.-ct
X
cf\\
l!J
uJ o
z
tr
IL
tll
F'd 'o
a 't- -\
;.-)
R<\i--(5 >1 +i
{\(l
q/
E
(D
3
F
q)
o
q)
(E
o E o o
o)
==
dl
E
o
=c l
o o
o o.o
;
.9
o
o)o
o
o)
o
c
o
It
an
o
6
N
.A
'o F
o
o)
E
o o o
G
o
o
o
.at
I
o
o
o ](5
-:- o)
o':(E
'i9o,*.o
E8E
E;e E.: F
o xE c-o
IE;d'! =c96
E:E v.=
8Ei
=:E FOO
.j: o E;s
!q! c .=- (!
CL(U CL
sEE o- o-
=fie E6:EE b Oc:afE !: x
-eC 60-c; q)
--E 6rO€eEt -9i3 3d>,
c-=
Tfi E hfe 9E-o
eEg
-o(o
(\
c{
(o
L()
O
cf)
o
Of
c o
lr)
rr)
F-.i
Lf)
F
=tz
uJ o-
z
=
(o
Y
C)uJ I o z
J
o-
J
9 E F o
rlJ J
UJ
o z
@
=J o-
o z
-o t!E
UJ
uJ l!z I
uJ
o
uJ
o c
o
c0
3
UJ t
uJ
z
6
uJ
ah
UJ
z
tu J
x
F
ul o
.t)
uJ
uJ l!
F
=
UJ o-
-l
F o F
z
o
J
F
u,-)UJ
z 6
=
E
=T o
UJ
NOrlVnlVA
C
{-
c L
YC
5+;>
Z Z tL9
:: :< v+F ^ an zc
: l Z YY F 9 O Ei 6 6 Ea 2;C:)L oon ozX-t! < u(o \ i!tlJ ;'i Eq !f x uj c r 6 ?..e j<ri
rn
.U L
L o
{J
rt
-c (A
(F
z
tr
)
{l!
CE
o
UJ
o
l--
o llJ
x
J
z
E o o
z
tr
F
=UJ z
I
!)
tr z l z
F-
o o
=z f
z
lu ;o
ul
UJ E -o z
I
F IL
=t-I
E I
F
z
z
o
llJ
uJ
UJ z o F
=(r
UJ (L
J
z o
E
qJ
l J
E
a a
UJ z Y
i
z
F
J l a z
Ol
co
ol{:to |'l.ltl/,
o c
+,
{J
co
+,P ++
d
o)
=3
UJ
o
CE
uJ Crl-:o
\o
Or
co
I d
cv
@ O c!O O
nttr
z
oP ze
coo
=z
(! rJ-
ut
tr
U'
(D
o -)z o
F o-u,Y
U dl
o F
tr
E
lrJ
o-*l \.. I i"l .|cq x\rd
H Lr,l bE zo
tr
E lu
o-E
EO
E<ctl 6(,)E2 a9 vcE
5E E dL E E=Q "i c
o ='-. \J t!E oo 9 !u.t E XO-t x>€=F a ".t o=eI
uJ o
---
E
=g.
lrJ o-z 9 F (J f,
E,F o z o
C)
=.1 ol
uJl
:l
<l >l ttl ol
zl
pl
JI
al >l
EI ol
zl
=l ol FI
I
I
I
I
I
el
.l ol rJll
5l
<l >l
rr-I ol
3l s ol u FIF
n
N
1 ol
al .A g
CI
CI
-t
=
c)
c.)
=
.g
=E
tr
JI
<l >l
rLl ol
zl
3l ol FI
-o
=
.6
rd
I
-l -l rr)l
".1
ol
FI
EI
FI
()(u
UJ
CJ
ul
=
tr
a al Ll
El -1
(ul o{
il
=ac'
=tL
d)
F o J
o
+)
!
L L
F
ii
=z
dl o -)
l-,l .nl
I (Ul ol -cl (ol
o-l (ol LI <l
I rr,l
r-{ |L.)I
F-r I
I 9a g
s J a
=
L L
F
=
L .t'
(J
llJ
z
C'z
=)(t-
(r
F
F z o
z
T
(J
uJ
=
E ir
=
Oz
o
(r
-rO <F (rO uJ<zE
.42 o o
)
E
o
uJ
tr
=
1=E=i r.r iu o co>
J <O Q?.3E
U'q,l
F o z
o z o
€o z z
N
hlt
$l^h
\
a
N\
o
sl
al
h
N
bil
=(E
HY
zrY
:-51tr q)i:
I l_lgl,
:lglFlEli 3l$lEt;lf dl=lHl Hl;
x
F
UJ
(t,
tr,
UJ
lJ-
ts
=(!l
J s
/-r i
FI
ll
U t
rE
il
ll
IH
U'
u.t
UJ u-F
rlJ
'E i9 l<
IF
l3?
==
NO[vn]vA
n-r]
\4t\
z
(5=zQ
>z
d8
J -t<
6.* s
f,:uJ
tr
u-.o_-.lru.l Od lrJ<,o ztn
!a_F-
o FX
G Clrj
aF
)-.+*r u.s-l h]]El
o--uJ I 3-41 L -tr- |Fol _r uJI
:r;l
tllf I
J u,--l{{
^:atJ YJ
0
E
o
@
E
o"o!
o
q,
E
t-
'e)
0)s.o
v--c
o '_)l JI
UJ
ttl (rl z
u)
2
qJ q
z
F
o
6 o
/^
l<
ILU
=i ol
^l
Bti
IJJ ll ztl
-
o 3
(J
UJ
z 1!\(,
=trJ
7z YO bo- O
=J <o;Fg
=;xo vz 3[
o- (J >o FO
<.i
F-
Jt!
Nlr
o z
o qI
E
J
o l!
=
JO <r-c(J
LrJ <
I,U F 9z o
C)
:P
='3 :z
()
KED
PERMIT NUMBEF OF PROJECT INSPECTION REOUEST
TOWN OF VAIL -l
it,t DATE r i JoBNAME
l
INSPECTION:READY FOR
LOCATION:
CALLER
TUES WED THUR FBI AM
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS
tr FOUNDATI
/ STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
ON / STEEL
)
tr. FRAMING
;ROOF&S tr GAS PIPING tr
tr
o
tr
OOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING
INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
SHEETROCK NAIL tr
o
tr FINAL E FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANlCAL:
O HEATING
O BOUGH E EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL tr FINAL
O DISAPPROVED - E REINSPECTION.REQUIRED
'. ' ,4.: / .1 .'.'. .-*,"-/a)' - -
E APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
",)
tffil
DATE INSPECTOR
PERMI
DATE
T NUMBER OF PROJECT
INSPECTION:
INSPECTION REQUEST.
TOWN OF VAIL
JOB NAME
MON
CALLER
TUES WED THUR FRI AM READY FOR
LOCATION:
B
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
o
tr
UILDING:
FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W,V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
FOUNDATION / STEEL
FRAMING
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING O GAS PIPING
INSULATION O POOL / H. TUB
SHEETROCK NAIL D
c
D FINAL O FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
O HEATING
U ROUGH O EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT O SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL O FINAL
O APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED O REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
tffil
(t
INSPECTION
'-t
REQUEST
PERMIT NUMBER OF
DATE
PBOJECT
/ , :. JOB NAME
INSPECTION:
TOWN OF VAIL
CALLER
TUES
(iij
THUR FRI READY FOR
LOCATION:
MON
| | it I
WED
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS
D FOUNDATI
R FRAMING
/ STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D,W,V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
ON / STEEL
PAt pS/{. r'/:-'/x/'
- ROOF & SHEEB " PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
I rrusuurroru tr POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
tr
tr
n
D FINAL D FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
O TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT
n
tr SUPPLY AIR
n
tr FINAL tr FINAL
OVED D DISAPPROVED O REINSPECTION REOUIRED
CORRECTIONS:
INSPECTOR
DATE T i JOBNAME
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:
CALLER
MON TUES WED THUR FRI
INSPECTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAIL PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
AM PM
BUILDING:
D FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
O 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
tr SHEETROCK NAIL tr
!fr'
O FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
O TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
EI
tr
o
ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
CI APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED D REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
n L/
NAME
INSPECTION REQUEST.
4*.e-"--TOWN OF vAlL
/ o.< i -.=',q /c
PERMIT N BER OF PROJECT
DATE
UM
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:
BUILDING:
D FOOTINGS / STEEL
PL
tr
tr
D
tr
tr
tr
UMBING:
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
UNOERGROUND
ROUGH / D.W.V.
ROUGH / WATER tr FRAMING
n ROOF & SHEER " PLYWOOD NAILING GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION POOL / H. TUB
tr
tr FINAL
o
D FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
E TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr
tr
tr
ROUGH o
tr
tr
EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL D FINAL
APPROVED O DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
CORRECTIONS:
,/ tQ F/"DArE 'f ' t/7 4? rNSPEcroR
C'O e':-l cd J.
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
l) I ,l<t1 DATE " i 'I J O*.' JOB NAME
INSPECTION TOWN OF VAIL
',i ,, l,'.-
REQUEST
READY FOR INSPECTION:
CALLER
TUES 'i*i;WED THUB
LOCATION: 't
CORRECTIONS:
BUILDING:
N FOOTINGS / STEEL
PL
o
tr
tr
tr
tr
E
!
UMBING:
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
UNDERGROUND
ROUGH / D.W.V.
ROUGH / WATER tr FRAMING
D
tr
BOOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING GAS PIPING
INSULATION POOL / H. TUB
O SHEETROCK NAIL
tr
tr FINAL O FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
D HEATING
E
tr
tr
ROUGH tr
tr
tr
EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT SUPPLY AIR
/rrruer-O FINAL
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REOUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
-\ .' \\i')
tl.7 .-) , u'
o
INSPECTION
TOWN OF
REQUEST
VAIL
AM) r?tdr-
DATE
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
.Jt-,E NAME
READY FOR
LOCATION:
CALLER
TUES INSPECTION:MON "{vEo, 'Tr-rrjn't
PPROVED tr DISAPPROVED
FR
/ /,'ila
tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
CORRECTIONS:
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.O FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING tr ROUGH / WATER
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
INSULATION O POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER O HEATING
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL
INSPECTOR
RTC'DJUN271985
Edelweiss Condominium Association
103 Willow Place.Vail, Colorado 81657
June 26, t9B5
Va1l Town Councll
Torn of Val1
/J South Frontage Boad West ValI, CO et657
Rer Torressl Appeal
Recently, Xou as a governlng bod.y approved a request by l1r. Torressl of the Rlverhouse that was prevlously denled.twlce by the P]-annlng Conmlsslon. Thls declslon has had an
lnmedlate lnpact on the onners 1n the &leLwelss that face the Torressl ad.dltlon. As a representatlve of the &le1we1ss,I see two problens lclth your decls1on. Flrst, your grantlng of the ad,dltlon appears to be arbltrary ln rel-atlon to the
two denlals by the Plannlng Conrnlsslon along wlth a lack of
support from the Town Staff. ft appeared as though a clear preced-ent had. been set. In the vlew of the Eclelwelss, Mr,Torresslrs problenos were not archltectural ln the least but
rather personal and. neohanlcal . second., wlth the exceptlon of Lhe Town Councll- I'leetlng where the flnal declslon was
mad€, I was notlfled of each neetlng that concerned thls eddltlon €o that the &telwelss eould. be represented accord.-1ngly. Thls lnc1.uded the two PLannlng Connlsslon neetlngs
along wlth a Town CounclL neettng when Fir. Torressl orlglnally
wanted. to appeal (after h1s ftrst Plannlng Comrnlgslon denlal).
lJhen a flna1 dec1elon was to be nad.e, the &lelwelss ?tas ex-
cl-ud.ed. fron the process.
lluch to ny surprlser the addltlon 1s now nostly bul1t
and slts uncomfortably on top of the Ertelwelss property 1lne.In the future, I sbrongly urge you as the Town governlng bod.y to act 1n a nore conslstent manner so that a falr denocratlc
process ls served rather than some other lnterest.
\ncerely, .-t;aw.H--6-^--
Fred.erlck 1.I. Halternann
I'Ianagtng Agent
Managing Agent: Burke Management Works, Ltd.
(303 )47 6-7 L 33, P ager 949 -7 294
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2245, Yail, Colorado 81658-2245
Project Application
Date
Proiect Name:
Proiect Description:
Contact Person and Phone
Owner. Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot Block Filing Zone
Commenls:
Design Review Board
Date
Motion by:
Seconded by:
APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL
a
Wedn APPLICATION DATE:esday, 15 i{ay 1985
DATE 0F DRB MEETING. Wednesday, 5 June 1985
DRB APPLICATION
*****THIS APPLICATION }lILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNTIL ALL INFORMATION IS SUBI4ITTED*****
I. PRE-APPLICATION MEETING:
A pre-application meeting with a planning staff member is strongly suggested to
determine if any additional infonnation is needed. No application will be accepted
unless it is complete (must jnclude all items required by the zoning administrator).It is the applicant's responsibility to make an appointment with the staff to find
out about additional submittal requirements. Please note that a C0MPLETE applica-
tion wil'l streamline the approval process for your project by decreasing the number
of conditions of approval that the DRB may stipulate. ALL conditions of approval must
be resolved before a building permit is issued.
A. pR6JECT DESCRIpTISN: (Section III. ADDITIONS-RESIDENTIAL OR COI'{I'{ERCIAL)
roximatel 97 sf addition to exlsting condominj-um unit. Addition
located within footprint of exlsti A11 materials, finishes,
trirn. palnts and stains, and detailing to match existing.
B. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
rT-r+ #1, Riverhouse Condominiums, 83 l'Ii11ow Place Address L,,rr." tJ
Lega'l Description Lot Bl ock r:1:-- Vail Village 1st r1 r]ng
Zoning Hlgh Density l,lultiPle FamilY
C. NAME 0F APPLICANT: Richarci i'i. Torrisi
(c/o FULLER Ai{D COI'IPAIIY)
One Park Central. 1515 Araoahoe Street telephone
Denver, Colorado BO2O2
APPLiCANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: PEEL/VJARREN ARCHITECTS
P.O. Box 3370. Vai1. Colorado 81658 telephone 476-4506
OWNERS:
David l"I. Peel for Richard Torrisi
D.
F
Address
NAME OF
Address
MME OF
Si gnature
Address
292-3700
H1
telePhone 292-37oo
F.
(See applicant above)
DRB FEE: The fee wil'l be paid at the time a building permit is requested.
VALUATION FEE
$ 0-$ 10,000
$10,001 -$ 5o,ooo
$.50,001 - $ 150,000
$150,001 - $ ,500,000
$500,001 - $1,0oo,ooo $ 0ver $1,000,000
$ 10.00
$ 2s.oo
$ 50.00
$100.00
$200.00
$3oo . oo
II',IPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THE DRB:
l. In addjtion to meeting submitta'l requirements, the applicant must stake the site
to indicate property lines and building corners. Trees that will be removed
should a]so be marked. This work must be completed before the DRB visits the
si te.
2. The review process for NEl.l BUILDINGS will normally involve two separate meetings
of the Design Review Board, so plan on at least two meetings for their approval .
3. People who fail to appear before the Design Review Board at their scheduled
meeting and who have not asked for a postponement will be required to be
repub'l i shed.
I{AME OF PROJECT:
LEGAL OESCRIPTION:
STREET ADDRESS:
DESCRIPTION OF
The following
Board before
A. BUILDING
LIST OF MATERIALS
DITION
a
IAD LOT 3 BLOCK 6 FILING vail VlIIage 1st
R iveffiffi nd om 1 nffisi-E3T i t I o w PTac e
roximatel-y 97 sf acldl t10n exlstl-n
condominlum unlt. Additlon locate
ootorlnt of existlns cieck.maler finishes,
tr5.m, paints and stains, and detalling to match exlstlng.
information is required for submittal by the applicant to the Design Review
a final approval can be fiven:
IIATERIALS: TYPE OF MATERIAL COLOR
Aggregate to match existlng.Built-up aggregate.
TORRIS
Roof
Si di ng
Other l,lal'l Materials
N/A
Stucco.?o natch existing.
Fasci a
Soffi ts
hli ndows
l.lindow Trim
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck
Fl ues
Fl ashi ngS ..
Chimneys
2xt2 To match existing.
Plywood To match existing.
CLad casement.Bronze tone to match existing.
C 1ad.Bronze tone to match existing.
r\I/A
N/A
Rails N/A
N/A
Sheet metal .Paint to match existing.
N/A
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
0ther
B. LANDSCAPING: Name
PLANT MTERIALS:
PROPOSED TREES
of Designer:
phone:
Botanical Name
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Common Name Quani ty Si ze*
EXISTING TREES
BE REMOVED
T0 None.
*Indicate caliper for deciducious trees. Indicate he'i ght for conifers.
PLANT ]IIATERIALS:
(con't)
SHRUBS
Botanical Name Cormon Name Quani ty Si ze
N/A
N/A EXISTING SHRUBS
TO BE REMOVED
GROUND COVERS
TvPe Square Footage
s0D
SEED
TYPE OF
IRRIGATION
TYPE 0R M!T!00 0F mla
EROSION CONTROL Roof clrip line fa1ls into existing gravel-
fi11ed planter.
c.oTHER LANDSCAPE FEATURES (retaining wal1s, fences, swimming pools, etc.) Please specify.
N/A
qite pla?t= ro'-otl
riverh
vail v
blocl b'
. 11 rv|rhowe cond t
.$
- Po'ftiT,Si
odclw oisr
ul illoru placa
partinq areq
f5
i-7i\--\-\\-----\\
t-lrq",- !.)\
" t -tc.
! ra Lof .ll '+l
| -.t,I
i
I
i
:
-;
i
vll 11 t' AR|(lt'o
lN
'P. I rt B-
I
EI
I
l rrh! t 2t oR'l r n''ur.rbilt;"0
o.
?5"f:tt
\
--.-i-'., =)
6
\\\-
B[.@GK
-$,J OtJ'
--Ploce--- --t
Yril Vlll.ti
,34).t -^lt
a
WDe@ttl
[; aur,l'
!
:ea:6r' 6-d. fq *?ryp (l tf ',frd c-d itq a'g{p jfr e'-rk' ra.
,J6 W AFT6. +l 1'*9. yl-t:-f.',
,':'7.
't l--.i
t i;-:ro t r--
*-5. ;
t-l
I
t'*'-f :---
--! *"..
t
I
---- - I
Stto r.|;lgfi a
i
i
a
exiol'mq qlair
'oxvdinq llow plan /l=l-on
' l' I ex,vtfiq ilaf J
roviaed {t* don k''l-oo
o
-l tl
=?s o +-
SB
B
(u
tF s3 qJ
I
a It
1)\..:
L o -s
s
.\}-lk
:a-)
-s,+r s s
G
c E os't
o.=
SS
G6
s\S 'Re
#p
<.=
EEE'
,S-sF st*
EEs
Fs
I
-r--oF
$
-s er- \)i
FE
:a -l-
*
E +-tt
tL,|qr
-s #:'o \h lll rii
\s \1 s '5
.."F
rs,E
d.h
pil
+F'
EE s
_EF,
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Town Counci I
Community Development Department
May 7, 1985
SUBJECT: An appeal of the PEC decision to denv a
vam ance
requested density control of GRFA to an existinq o add 97 square feet unit i
Appl i c{nt:
BACKGROUND OF REQUEST
The attached memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated April 8' i985 explains the request made by the applicant in order to enclose an existing deck on a unit in the Riverhouse Condominiums. Because the unit is in a multi-family building and would involve exterior alterations and additions to the structure, this addition could not be handled under the newly passed
GRFA amendment. As the Council may recall, this amendment allows for'existing units to add up to 250 square feet of GRFA if certain conditrons are met.trlith respect to multi-family dwellings, one condition that rnust be satisfied is that the addition not involve any exterior additions or alterations to the structure. Because this proposal would require an addition to the buiiding,it cannot be handied under the provisions of this arnendment. consequently,the.applicant requested a density control variance from the Planning and invironmental ssion in order to alIow this proposed deck enclosure.
E PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning and Environmental commission voted against a motion to approve this variancg by_a 5-2 vote. Those voting against the motion to approve this request cited a lack of physical hardship that is required in order to qrant
a variance. One commissioner felt there would be a negative effect upoi the light and air with respect to the pro.ximity of the dec( to adjacent structures.Another commission member felt that the council had sent a strong message
when they eliminated these types of proposals from the provisioni outliied in the GRFA amendment. It was felt that to grant this variance would be incon-s'istent with the provisions of that new ordinance.
Commission members voting to approve this request felt the variance was warranted because it was not a grant of special privilege, it would not be detrimental to the public health or injurious to properties in the vicinity, and that there were special circumstances that did not appiy generaily io other properties in the same zone.
'i verhoJid'-Tondqm i n i ums .
Richard Torrisi
REQUEST
MENTAL
FOR APPEAT TO TOWN COUNCIL OF PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISION.
On.behalf of the Owner, I'Ir. Richard i"l. Torrisi, I
to request that the above project be added to the Vall Town Counej-I agenda. We wlsh to appeal the
RE: Torrlsi Residence Addition Unit #1, Rlverhouse Condominiluns,tot.3, Block 6, Vail ViJ.lage First
would
I4'ay 7,
PLanning
Environmental Commi.ssion denial, dated April B, 1985.
David ltl. Peel-, AIA
Yours ?ruly,
PRESENT
Eric Affeldt
Diana Donovan
Duane Piper
Howard Rapson
Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
Jere l,r|alters
The meeting was
Planning and Environmental Commission
April B, I985
called to order at 3:00 pm
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Tom Braun
Kristan Pritz
Rick Pylman
Larry Eskwith
Betsy Rosoi ack
by Duane Piper, chairman.
It was moved by Donovan and seconded
vote was 7-0 in favor.
2.ue:t for a density control varl ance order to enclose a deck which would add 97 square feet to nit #l o
I
ouse Condom st Filinq.
ni ums at ver
83 l^Jillow Place on Lof Va age cant:
in
an
V
Tom Braun made the staff presentation and gave the background on the request. Braun reminded the board o-f the previous.request which had be6n denied in reUruary. He added that the staff was rbconunending'denial due to riifi oi-pnvsicit rrarJsn"ip.
Richard Torrisi, the-appl'icant explajned that some'i nformation had not been submitted gt tfq February meeting. He statbd that 97 square feet would not be big enough to add another bedroom, and would not be big enough ror more peop] e. He nia-fiiqe an app'lication in I984, but had withdrawn ii on tie re.or*enaiii6n-ot l[" piunning
:!3ll If9 Pointed out that a new ordinance which would permit 250 square fbet was De]ng planned. Tomisi said that he had a memo from thb staff whicli statea-inat the deck was a qood candidate for enclosure. Now paragraph H in 0rdinance +-precluAed multi-family dw6ll'ings from enciosing aects. Torrisi said that the Edelweiss conoos could look down on his deck, and he 6ad noise and pollution from the garate-wtriin was directly across the driveway.
Rick Ha] tennan, manager of the Edelweiss, stated that the owners of the Edelweiss were-opposed to the enclosure. He added that at one time he had managed the Riverhouse
l!d-l!ll..l!9! uny problems that Torrjsi had could be taken iare of by the ranaser ot the Riverhouse. He felt that the traffic from the Edelweiss was minimal. -
Sid Schultz felt that-he had no problem with this request and pointed out that the-original intent of Ordinance 4 was to allow minor addiiions such as this.viele feilt that the council had strong objections to encloiure of decks in multi-family dwellings. Braun replied ttrit the Council's concern was that the arcnltecture of the multj-family dwellings would be changed if many decks were enclosed, and so one revision oi the ordinance allowed deck enclosure on the first floor-only. " this was changed wiren itre iown attorney pointed out that this would discriminate against the owners of decks above the grbuna iloor. The council
roval of minutes of Ma!'ch 25, 1985.
Rapson to approve the minutes. The
felt that deck owners could sti'l 1 go through the variance approval process.
Rapson stated that he disagreed with the staff memo in that there was an effect on light and air because of the proximity of the deck which ir encioieJ r;;i;--encroach even more. Diana Donovan stated that is reading the directions in an old memo from Larry. Rider-concerning variances and thd hardshif-ruii , iii"could not find a hardship. Affelt wondered if there was any leewiy in-ine Jelni-
l]ol,gr hardship.. Donovan answered that there was nothing iut and-orieo,-lui ln this case the hardship seemed self created.
Dave Peel , arch'itect for the project, stated that the addition did not encroach any farther than the deck at plesent. He added that a roof and railing could be.put on the deck, and it would leave a small space that could not friie-giiis under the present conditions, but which could be'enclosed if a variance-wIre-!ranteA.
Alfeldt moved and Schultz seconded to approve the densiiy control vari ance because i to the public health or be injunious to propbrties In the vicinity, and that there were exceptions or extraordjnary circumstances that did not apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
The vote was 2 in favor (Affeldt and Schultz) and 5 against approval . The request was denied.
PEC 4/ 8/85 -2-
3.uest for a flood lain modification in order to build a tio and edestrian easement a Cree on the east si eoft
p | 'icant:rvices, Inc.
Bui
frislgn Pritz. presented the staff memo and showed site plans which showed the location of the 100 year flood plain. Ihg applicant hid submitted a flood plain impact stEudy that had been compieted by Hydro-Triad. ihe irea of encroachmeht is'located on the east side of the ouiidiirg. ltith respeit to the design of the wall, a letter was included in the memo fr5m ,:ohn-vioianJ-Rrchuleta, p"ii. .i*po'inted out the letters from David Cole and Fred Butler.Buff Arnold, architect for the project, d'iscusied-lhe-fict that it would be neces-
:ary.!o obtain approvel of FElfi before construction. He added that the entire bu'i lding was in the flood p1ain. Pritz stated that Bill Andrews was concerned a.bOut FEMA an-d the Army Corps of Engineer approvals because of insurance-ina tnat these approvals were ni:cessary befoie any construction woJta be allowed on the east patio area due to the impact -ot ttre flooi plain.--- - "'-''
Viele stated that he would be the contractor on the job, so would abstain from voting.. lti.lr read a letter from Fred Butler, attoiney for 0tto stork, owner
9l tle, building immediately south of the A & D Building, in which he stited that stork nad an easement to the east of the A_& D Buitding for the purpose of accessing the east end of his building. stork was atso at the *6.ting, inb statea th;i--'he had a l7 foot easement. patten stated that the u..Jii'iiitt existed, and would.be_insured because the Town of vail was requirinq i pedestrian easement for the Towh before a building permit would be iiiuea.'- ''
| -:- 4/8/85
Jay Peterson, attorney for the applicant, stated that at the oresent time there were trash containers and one could not get through. piper wondered if thjs
had been an oversight, and was told that the acceis easement to Otto Stork,s door had been discussed before. Buff stated that access by vehicle right now
was impossible, and an access wouldbemaintained, but not necessarily ior vehicles.Piper wondered what size easement must be maintained and why it was -a concern
now.
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, verified that access must be maintained for ingress and egress. However, he stated that the easement was written in such a mann6r that it was debatable whether exactly 17.6' of access actually had to be maintained.Buff Arnold added that he hadn't known the easement existed ai a clear .|7.6
feet' but it was his intention to provide ingress and egress in the design.Eskwith pointed out that the easement was noi for excluiive use.
Piper rem'inded the board that the issue was of the floodplain encroachment,not the easement. Discussion followed concerning the access to Storkrs door
and whether or not he would haveadequate space in which to stock his deli.
with respect to the flood plain modification, Arnold stated that it did not affect anyone else further down the creer.
l'lalters moved to grant the flood plain modification per the staff memo with the
change to condition #l to read: FEMA approval to be in place prior to occupancy."
There was no second.
Affeldt moved to approve the flood plain modification per the staff memo with the jnclusion of FEMA approval exactly as per the memo. There was no second.
More discussjon followed concerning Stork's access.
Donovan move4and Rapson seconded to approve the flood plain mod'ification with
jmpact the- access to the adjacent lot and following the staff memo with the-three conditions.
4.Request for a conditional use permit in order to_q5e the parkj_!gJ_q!__q!_!_hg
\Iillage 7!h, Jor q staqing=area for new and used construction_ggglpqgn'! and
foF baaa
the construction of the Vista Bahn lift. Applicant: VaiT-Rssocia s
Peter Patten presented the staff memo. Joe Macy of Vail Associates stated that
new lift staging would be uphill, and Golden Peak and the west Day Lot would
be used to store the old lifts. He added that most of the activity for the two areas would take p1 ace in May, June and early July.
i.Patten explained that each site should be addressed separately because the public
notice inadvertantly did not include mention of the west Day 1ot, nor were the adjacent property owners notified. Patten pointed out that a letter from Joe
Macy was part of the memo, as was a letter from the helicopter operator.
favor Viele abstai ni ng.
PEC 4/8 las -4-
Patten stated tht the^construction s-taging areas were a very important element in the facilitation of the Phase I Mouitain_Developmeni piair to'Ue imprementej this spring through fal1. The Council feels, as does the Communitv b.u"iop*.^t Department that Phase I will have a very posiiive long term impiit-"rpor'irr.'lionomic development.of.the_community, and the sta!ing a"eas aie i n"cesrury evil for this mountain development plan. patten mdntioned ttre impalti-;i-i"he-h;;uy-i"r.r,and of the helicopters. He stated that Macy indicated that at Golden pea-t< ttrJ heavy vehicular equipment to and from the staging area could be fac1litatea Uy coming into the west side of the proposed site. -
The helfcopters will certainiy have a negative impact upon the res.idential areas
lea.lly and ali feasible mitigation to th6se negative imiracts was being uiterpi"a by VA and the helicopter company invoived and iooperatibn is needed. -The stbff recommended.approval and encouragement to VA to uie the on-mountain staging areas to the greatest extent possible.-
Macy stated that vehicles would access both from the bus stop and uphil l from the snow.making-pump house. He added that the_he'licopter woilta noi'truu. to-ity over residential areas. He stated that it would be pi-udent to give notice of -
the.helicopter flight days to the media. .Piper askea ir nettcofitei iiighis-wouta cont'inue all summer., and Macy explained that'the Vailey siies wbuld be uieO in-May, June and July but helicoptei'flights couid continire ai late as octooer iit depending on the weaf,ner.
Jack Rush of Manor Vail felt that he needed more specific information on f1 ights over the Golden Peak area and added that Manor Vaii did much convention uusiieis in the summer' He felt that flying in 6:00 am was unaccepiaote.
Macy.repeated that taking_down the old lifts would start in May with a total of
.20 flying days in the pr6lim'inary construction schedule. paiten suggeii;a inut vA meet-with the adjacent properiy owners. Macy said that it would seem most convention meetings, would be insiie. Piper feli that the hefiCopteri-woria-u"a necessary part of construction. Donovan felt that lodqes shouta have notices :9 !h9! they realize that.the noise is, and atso ine "idi;;. she also-trgg"it.o that the bus stop be moved into the Goiden Peak pariing-ioi when the bus turn
slgyld..T: |:ing, used bv.the heavv vehicres. Donovan itui"a ttrat itttroush-rh.h'oulo vote tor this conditional use of helicopters, she did not support iny further he'licopter flights.
le moved and }Jal rs seconded to a rove the staqi base at Golden Peak e vote was avor o use perm
5.uest to amend the Town Vail zon I n code, Chapter .|8.69
Hazard 'l ations nc tude rovts ons or u lat ono cons tructi on n geo ca sens'i t i ve area ]n a rts Town VE en identifi as havin tential qeolo
of
re -i-
wn
Peter Patten presented
discussions. New maps
p I lcant:
the memo and draft ord'inance
and studies had been made. A
and reviewed previous
video of 1984's mud slides
U
PEc o,Qu -3-
was shown. Patten then explained the process the current draft ordjnance had received stating that the staff_had proposed a number of alternative approaches to the Council ranging from pub'l ic notice only to requiring all new devbloprnent to be mitigated as per a site specific study. The council chose a middle-of-the road approach whjch would require mitigation only when a new dwelling unit
was being proposed and not for all additions as well. This was'l ater chinged to requiring multi-family proposals to mitigate" but.lor single family and duplex t0 hitigate only forimpacts on other properties and Town of Vail properties.
Patten stated that the staff could not fully endorse this ordinance being proposed
because it was not ful 1y consistent with the existing procedures for flo6d'plhin
and avalanche which require mitigation for new dwelling units. The staff did not
agree with a1 lowing a new'ly constructed residence to be destroyed by a geologic
event when the potential for for such an occurence is known.
After much discussion, Ron Phillips, Town Manager explained that the committee to write this ordinance included Ron, Peter, Larry Eskwith and stan Berryman of the Public Works department. The committee tri ed to be reasonable and nbt cause
undue hardship. Phillips added that this was a different situation than the
avalanche hazard, because so many properties were located in the geologicaliy
sensitive areas. He added that a difference of opinion was not unhealthy.
Discussion followed concerning public notices and putting the notice in public
record and making certain that potential buyers were notified.
$aPsorl moYgd and Viele.jeconded to recommend approval to Council to amend the
hazard ordinance to add regulatjons regarding landslides and rock fall iei fhe
vo r.
6. Request to a!lenq-!!g-rgw!._m!!i_qlpal code to add a new section, .l8.58.320 u;r-ffiot=--enti il ed,, sateiiil;:fi:ffintennaes,,
The.staff requested to table this item to April 22. Viele moved, Rapson secondeo to table to Aprii 22. Vote was 7-0 in favoi.
7. EgqUest for. a cgnditjonat use pemit_j_!__9-{dgl_lq_!qlstrtg!_g!__arn!.[i!!qe!q at Fora pa
Rapson moved, l^lalters seconded to table to Aprii 22.Vote was 7-0 in favor of tabling.
The meet'ing adjourned at 6:45 pm.
Peter told of the presentation of the vail village study on Thursday, Aprii 11.
o2 -{-L€.-'.'\
- EJ--
5-. D
variance in order an existing unit
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The Planni.ng commission may recall this request from its February 11th meeting. At that meeting, the applicant requested a setback variance and a densi ty contror variance to encLose an existing deck in unit I of the Riverhouse condominiums. The pEC unanimouslf approved the requested setback variance because i t was fel t there would be no substantia 1 impacts on adjacent properties if the deck were to be enclosed. A1sor by a 4-O vote, the planning
Commission denied the requested GRFA. Foll owing denia 1 of the requested cRFA variance, the applicant appealed thjs decision to the Town council. Before this appeal could be considereci by the Town counciLr it was withdrawn by the applicant in lieu of an amended application tha t has been resubmitted for consrderation by the Planning commission. The p ..-u u€ck encLosure 1s essen-tiatly the same as was reviewed by the plannjng Commisston jn February- The appl.icant has amended this application rvith a written statement outlining a number cf reasons as to why this request should be granted. The applicant's statement has been enclosed for your information.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
denial. of
Consideration of Factors
With respect to neighboring developmentr the Riverhouse Condominiums are not unlike other properties in the Willow Circ.le area.As demonstra ted in the following tab1ez mul.ti-f ami 1y development in this area is well over the aLLowable GRFA under existj.nq zoning.
0TO:
FROII:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning and Environmental Commission
Communi ty Developnent Department
April 8, 1985
A request for a density control to add 97 squa re feet of GRFA to in the Riverhouse Condominiums Applicant: RichardTorrisi
Riverhouse Condomini urns
Edelweiss Condominiums
R'iva Ridge North
Riva Ridge South
l,lillows
Allowable GRFA
9,628
9,497
7,.l6.l
g,l 99
9,259
EXlStlng rjRfA
1q olR LJ ) J | !
20,970
l3,126
1 9 ,824
t 6 ,236
Amount 0ver
6,297
1 1 ,483
10,625
7,978
The ee to vhich relief fron the strict or literal in tation an orcement of a cified ation is necessa to achleve
cottr ty and uniformity of trea tment amonq sites in the vicin or to attain the objectives of this title nithout rant of special prlvilege.
The staff has generally not supported requests for additional
GRFA over wha t is allowed by existing zoning. In considering these requests, the staff has heLd strongly to the criteria outlined in the Variance section of the zoning code. These criteria require that there be a physical hardship in order to justify the variance requested and that the variance not be a grant of special privilege.
Thi s regues t ra i ses an i n teres ti ng question with re spec t to special privilege when one considers the GRFA ordinance that was recently passed by the Town Council.. If the applicant,s property were not in a multi-family building, this request woul.d not require a variance approva L and wou.l. d be dea I t wi lh through the new GRFA ordinance. rn light of thisr the resuested GRFA
rna y not invoLve a grant of special privilege. Howevei, variance approval is required for this requestl and in order for the variance to be grantedr the applicable criteria must be satisfied.Among these is the question of physical hardship. The applicant has outlined a number of prob.Lems with his unit that could be sofved with the enclosure of this deck. Among these are privacyr noiser safetyr s€curittr and ventilation def j.ciencies. White the staff does not question the fact that these problems may existr they are not consistent with what has been interpreted
a s a physical hardship in the past. physica I hardships that have been supported by the staff in the past would include flood plains or utility easements that dramaticarly reduce the buildable area of a given lotr rock outcroppingsr or a stand of mature trees that could be saved by granting a setback variance.
It is felt by the staff that the problems outlined by the applicant could be solved in ways other than enc.losing this deck.
gf p_op.u]a tiorlr tF_alr.s.portati_on and traf f i c facil_r!!SE!_pub.].1 e facilities and utilities, ind pubLic safetv-
The effect of the r qted va4iqnce on liqht and air, distribution
There are no significant effects on any of the above elements.
RELATED POLICIES IN VAILIS CO!,IUUNITY ACTION PLAN
No policies are directly relevant with respect to appJ.ication.
APPLICABi:
!L.: ^
DEEMS SUCH CIIHER FACTORS AND CRITERTA AS THE CO}IUISSION
TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE.
FINDINGS
ission shall nake the fol]oying
ce:
That the granting of the varjance wil. l not constitute a qrant of special privilege inconsistent with the I imi ta tions on other properties classified in the same distrj.ct.
a
7
Tha t the granting of the varia the public healthr safetyl or to properties or improvements in
That the variance is warranted
rea sons:
nce will not be detrimenta-1. to weffarer or materially injurious the vicini ty.
for one or more of the followinq
The strict or litera.l interpreta t the specified regulation would result or unnecessa ry physi ca I hardship objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordi conditions applicable to the site do not a pply generally to other
zone.
ion and enf orceme n t of
i n pra cti ca I di ffi cul t1z
i ncons i s te nt wi th the
nda ry circumstances or of the variance that proper ti es in the sa me
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privi leges enjoyed by the owners of ot.her properties in the same di s tri c t.
STAFP RECOI'II{BNDATION
rn reviewing this requestl it is difficult Lo not consider the recently approved GRFA ordinance. This ordinance allows a property
owner up to 250 square feet of addi tional. GRFA if certain conditions are met. With respect to units in mutti-family buildingsr or€of these conditions is that the additional GRFA be added without
any exterior modi fica tions to the structure. This application quite obviously requires a physicaL addition to the bxterior of this building, and consequently cannot be approved under the provisions outl.ined under the GRFA ordinance. As a resultr this reguest requires approval of a variance and that variance must be reviewed with respect to the applicable criteria used in any other variance request..
As has previously been statedr the staf f does not feel there is.a legitimate physica.l hardship as reguired in order to supp::-!i this request. without the presence of some physical hardi-hip,the staff quite simply cannot support this vaiiance. As wa s stated in previous memosr it is the feeling of the staff that the problems with this unit could be mitigated in ways other than enclosing this deck.
o-
II(A). The applicant wishes to;1. Correct certain deficiencies and problems of Unit 1,
Riverhouse Condominiums,2. lmprove the safety by eliminating certain hazards
that now exist to occuDants,3. Upgrade the function and usability,4. Increase the energy efficiency, and 5. Improve the asthetics of the unit, the building and
Ine area,
for the benefit of the unit occupants, the building owners,
the neighbors and the town.
The appiicant proposes to accomplish t:re above by removing a
presently existing deck and a visuajly objectionable hot tub
and to replace them with an adciition to the unit of
compatible architectural quality and character that will
enhance the existing structure and environment, while
accomplishing the above.
The building currently is non-conform'i ng with Section 18.20.090
Density Control and Secti on 18.20.060 Setbacks. The proposed
removal of the exist'i ng deck and addition to the unit wjll re-
quire a dens'i ty variance to allow an additional 97 square feet
of enclosed space. 0n February 11, 1985, the Planning and
Envjronmental Commjssion unanjmously aoproved a setback varjance
for Unit 1 of Riverhouse Condominiums.
(B). Privacy, noise Ievel, safety, and security: The unit has a
elweiss
Condominiums. The unlt's interior can be easily viewed from
several of the Edeiweiss units. The deck is accessible by
french doors and has a large hot tub sitting on the open
deck. The roof system of the main building has a drainage
system that dumps ice and snow loads onto the center of the
deck, creating a hazard to anyone stepping out on to the
deck. The french doors are easily accessibie to intruders or
thieves since they are ground level. Additionally, despite
best efforts to weather seal the french doors, objectionable
noise and fumes from the Edelweiss fireplace chimneys and
carbon monoxide from the Edelweiss garage directiy opposite
the deck occasionally seep into the unit. The applicant
feels that by enclosing the deck, a privacy and sound buffer will be created between the Edelweiss garage and the living
space of the unit, affording more privacy, safety and
security to the occupants of the unit.
(C). Ventilation deficiency: The unit currently has no operable ffixchange air or provide normal ventilation. It only has doors which, when open, make the . unit easily accessible to walkers by. It is felt t-hat t.he
addition of operable windows would permit a cont.rolled (and
secure) cross ventilation system for normal usage and
ventilation for those occasions r,rhen carbon monoxide and
firepjace smoke fumes enter the unit as described above.
This hazard was brought clearly into focus when at 2:00 a.m.
on the night of March 1, 1985, the occupants were awakened
-
--
-i o
and forced to evacuate the unit because of smoke fumes that
had entered through the unit's own chimney flue, even though
the damper was closed and sealed and the unit's firebox had
been sealed off with a glass fireplace enclosure which was closed. After the occupants were satisfied that the building
was not on fire, they returned and opened the doors to let
fresh air in, causing a severe heat loss and the inside
temperature to be lowered to the uncomfortable staqe. A
controlled cross ventilation couid have prevented ihis
dangerous situation from occurring.
(D). Usage limitations: Riverhouse was constructed in 1972 =:======--=e then existing G.R.F.A. Subsequently, the or-LUr \]r g LU L
area was downzoned, creating a cument G.R.F.A. overage of all buildings ln the area. At the time Riverhouse was
designed, the space in Unit l was seriously compromised by
removing from it the space used for the entryway and the
entry hailway, making the space some 150 square feet less
than the other studio unit in the building. 0f more serious
consequence was the reduction of usable wall space by angiing
a corner of the unit to enhance the architectural character of the building entrance. This placed serious ljmitatjons
on furniture Dlacement and made it difficult to olace even
one bed within rhe unit, making it less usable, desirable and
rentable than simiiar units of its size, character and cosr.
The building's other studio, Unit 2, has two queen size beds
and several large pieces of furniture inciuding two sofa
beds, substanti al Iy enhancing its usabi I ity and rentabi I ity.
As a resuit, Unit 1 suffers by comparison. The applicant feets that this request does not constitute E-JbEElaT-
\,
e, stnce asK i n or Drlv are not
alrea en 10 nc
(E). Planning efforts: Although the applicant attenpted to
exercr-Se oue-nTTigence prlor to plicnasing the irnit, it was not possible to perceive in the summertime all of the possible environmental conditions and unit deficiencies on a four season basis. Rather, emphasis was given to the quality of the buiiding, location and the potential to improve it.Local archrtects were hired to maximize the units potential
through an extensive remodeling program and town pianners
were consulted with the applicants plans to improve and enlarge the unit. Just prior to making application for a variance to the G.R.F.A. in l,larch or 1994, it was suggested that the appiicant withdraw his application penOing iFe
-P o
developnrent of new proposed regulations being contempiated by
the planning commission, allowing for the expansion of units.
Because of other priorities put upon the planning staff and
conrnission, such as sumner mud slides, the formation of the
new reguiations were delayed throughout the summer, although
the applicant was courteously kept informed by the planning
)LOt t.
The applicant proceeded with extensive remodeling to the unit's interior in anticipation of what appeared to be a positive attitude of the planning commission..
0n 0ctober 8, 1984, the planning staff recommended and the
planning commission approved regulations permit*uing the
expansion of ground floor, multifamily units up to 250 square feet; however, the town council, for reasons of concern, saw fit not to pass the regulation, leaving such matters to the
planning commission by variance on an individual appiication
basis.
(F). Summary: It is the hope of the applicant, therefore, that
fFe pfanning commission will exercise its rights and privileges uncier the variance procedure and will appiy its previously stated good intentions to allow owners to improve
and enlarge their units by examining this application on its
own merits and to permit the applicant to solve the other
problems srated herein while at the sdme time allowing him to
make an asthetic improvement to the area's environment and to
reduce potential hazards of safety and securiry.
It should be pointed out that the building has no other
baiconies or decks on the east side of the building eliminating any concerns of architecturai disharmony.
0n the contrary, removal of the deck and unsightly hot tub
and use of the space to construct a function3l, harmonious building element would add considerably to the privacy,
safety, security, and asthetic environment of aTT concerned.
It is the applicant,s plan to become a full-time,contributing resident of Vail and hopes that Riverhouse, #1
9gn be improved as requested herein so Lhat it may serve as his home.
-,-'-!
III. Zoning check Riverhouse Condominiums
Lot 3, Biock 6
Vail Village First Filing
High Density Multiple Family District
Lot size: 16,046 square feet = 0.368 acre
18.20.060 Setbacks:
20' required by current zoning for all setbacks.
Existing builiding setback is 3'6" on Northeast corner
and 2' on Southeast corner.
Proposal is for the enclosure of the existing hot tub
deck.
18.20.080 Height:
Not applicable to proposal.
18.20.090 Density Control
Maximum of 60 square feet of GRFA for each 100 square feet of buildable site area.
ALLOHABLE GRFA - 60% (16,046) = 9,628 square feet
EXISTING GRFA = 15,915 square feet
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL GRFA = 97 square feet
18.20.110 Coverage:
ALLOWABLE = 55% (16,046) = 8,825 square feet
EXISTING C0VERAGE - 7,113 square feet
PROP0SED ADDITI0NAL C0VERAGE = 35 square feer,
<.
Arthur G. Bishop & Compari, ur,t
Realty 6c Property Management
t
A Division of the Lancaster Group. Inc.
April 2, 1985
Richard Torrisi
One Park Central, Ste 1600
1515 Arapahoe St.
Denver Co. 80202
Dear Mr. Tomisi:
I talked to Tony of Fireless Chimney Sweep Company about the
problem of the smoke down drafting into your Riverhouse unit
number one. He said it was a structural problem. He has tried to correct the same problem in other units and found that the
simplest way to at least help elivate it would be to leave a window partially open to cause on updraft in the chimney.
Si ncerely,
302 Hanson Ranch Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 o (303) 476-5681 o r(,r.r.fRrf 800-525'9396
ApplLcant:Rlchard lf. Torrl,e I
The accompaaylng memos explaln quite clearly the requests that were presented to the PlaonLog Connlssion Ln early February.Brlefly, these lnvolved a requested setback and a density control
varlance to eoclose an exlstlng deck at the Riverhouse Condomialune.Staf f recomtnendatlons on these reques ts were to app rove the
setback varlance and to reconmend denlal for the requested addltlotral CRFA. The accompanying rnemoa outllne ln nore detail our reasoos for these recomnendations.
TIf,DIf,GS OF TEE PLAIINING AUI} BUYIBOITUBXTAL COUUISSION
The Plannlrg Connlsslon was sympathetlc to the requested eetback r'arlaoce. rt I'as felt that there would be no substantlal inpacts on adjacent propertles 1f this deck were to be enclosed. The setback varl.aoce waa approved by a 4-O vote.
denied the requesced
, Planning ConmLssloners oot be alloved under
GRFA ordinaoce. Othe r
exi e t Lng development
allowable GRFA, aa a
denslty.
by
D
uses ano structures in the vicinity.
The adjacent structure to this proposed construction is the Edelweiss condominiums.
:." tlhile the exist'ing deck is on'ly 1.6 feet from the property line, it is felt " , that the enclosure of this deck would not create an adverse impact upon the Edelweiss. The original proposal for this variance was to expand thb deck r area up to the property'l ine between these two properties. That application
was amended to the plans before you today. It was felt by the staff that to expand on this area up to the property line wou'ld, indeed, have an adverse effect on the Edelweiss.
T0: Planning and Environmental Comrnissjon
FROM: Conmunity Development Department
DATE: February ll,.1985
SUBJECT: Request for a side setback variance in order to enclose an existinq
deck at Unit #l of the Riverhouse Condominiums
Applicant: Richard M. Torrissi
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
4t lit" present time, the Riverhouse condominiums is a nonconforming structure in that it encroaches across all four setback lines. The degree oi encroachment
ranges from .2 feet from the rear property line to .|.2 feet from a side property line. The applicant wishes to enclose a deck which presently lies .|.6 fbet'
from the side property 1ine. As proposed, the enclosure of th.is cieck would not increase this encroachment. Proposed construction would be limited to
enclosing this deck area.
I|9 appt-icant has cited drainage and freezing problems as two reasons why this enclosure is needed. It is felt by the-airplicant that the use of this
deck is limited because of this drainage problem during the winter months.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
!pqn, heyie! of Criteriq gnd Findings, lection 18.62.060 of the Municipat
uode' lnq uepgrtmenl of,Communily D=eygloqmen! recommends approval of the
requested variance based upon the foilo@
Ccnsideration of Factors
The ree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
en To a spec'rtiecl requlation rS necessarv to acn I eve
ormjty of treatment amonq sites in the vicin t.y or to attain
ves of this title without qrant of special pr vt leqe.
It is the fee'ling of the staff that to grant this request would not be a grant of special privilege. As has been stated, the existing deck as well as the entire structure encroaches dramatically into this property's required setbacks. To allow the enclosure of this deck-would not rbsuit in negative
impacts on adjacent plopertjes. The exjsting deck is a nonconforming-structure
and its enclosure wou'l d not realistically increase the degree of nonionformity.
T0: Planning and Envjronmental Commission
FROM: CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
DATE: February 11, .l985
SUBJECT: Request for a density control variance in order to add 94 feet of GRFA to an existing unit in Unit 1, Riverhouse Condominiums
Appl icant: Richard M. Torrisi
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The appi icant has requested a variance in order to add 94 feet of GRFA to
an existing unit in the Riverhouse condominiums (see accompanying setback
variance memorandum). This additional square footage would be created by the enclosure of an existing deck on the structure. At the present, the-Riverhouse
condominiums are 6,277 square feet over their allowed GRFA.
,
8,__
-7
rS:
Consideration of Factors
t^lith_respect to GRFA, the Riverhouse is not unlike its neighbors in the Wiilow circle area. The following table demonstrates the existin! and allowable
GRFA for these condominiums.
Edelweiss Condom iniums
Riva Ridge North
Riva Ridge South
l.lillows
Allowable GRFA 9,628 Existing GRFA .|5,915
Propo sed
Additional GRFA 94
Total GRFA with this proposal , .|6,009 square feet
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
E ?(r
I rs I oL
/^ -A l-\ ./ ()
Al lowable GRFA
9,487
7 ,161
g,l gg
9 ,259
Exi sting GRFA
20,970
tJrlzo
19,924
.l 6,236
Amount 0ver
I I ,483
5,965
l0,625
7,978
As demonstrated by this table, existing development in this area is dramatica11y over the allowable densities.
t Torrf GRFA -2- 2/11/85
The eff ct of the uested vari ance I iqht and air. di tribution of trans rtation an traffi c facilitie bl ic faci ities and utilitie safety.
There is no significant effect on any of the above elements.
No po1 icies are directly relevant with respect to this application.
and criteria
lation,
and publ i
Such other factors
varr ance.
FI ND I NGS
the commission deems applicable to the
?lanning and Environmental Commission s!all make the followi findinqs before rant I ng a var 'i ance :
Thatth-e granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special pr.ivilege
U'go-tl9i!!elt-!,t1th -the-11lr.rlg!i9!Lon other propelli_eq c.lissjfi_e{ !!-ir,. t!*u disirict.
: Ilgt-3L.:fe!$!ng of !!re v-aiiance wi'll not be detrimental to fhe pubtic heatth,. safety' or welfare, oF'materially injurious to properties or imprbvementl-in tne vi ci nity.
}|.:
"': That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
. ' The strict or TiteFal -interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in-practical ditriculty or unn"ieisu"y-physical hardsnip iiconsistent with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app'l jcab'le to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other propeiiies in the same zone.
The strict or 'l.iteral interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation -ryouJl deprive-the. applicant of privilegei."j.v"o iv the ownLrs of other properties in the same district.
srA[E_8EqqryE[q4II9!!
-:---_ -- -
Staf-f:-recommendation is for. approval of this setback variance request. If this proposal were to increase the existing "n."oui[r"ri"i.io the setback, the staff - wou'ld not be able to support.this request. Howevei,'itris appticatjon is merely , "!o-lnfill an existing deck that is already u noncJnio"ming iltuifion. 'it"is
:felt that this infill will not have a negitive effect upon adjacent properties.
. .: .,: r ,-:;::ii.: l: ,;, li i
o Torrissi GRrA J 2/l/s5
FI ND I NGS
.a grant of special privilege.
I l owi nq fi nd i nqs before granting a variance: ---
That the.granting of the variance will not constitute a_grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on ottrer prope"ii.i iritiifjed in the same district.
I!l!-the granting of the variance will not be detrimentat to the pubtic heatth,sgfgty' or welfare, or materiaily injurious to properti;; ;" imprbvement;-i;-;h"vicinity.
That the variance is wa*anted for one or more of the following reasons:
The strict or literal -interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical.ditriculty or unnecessary physicai i.'uiasrrip inioniistent with the objectives of this titi;. -
There.are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not'appiy generaily to other properties in the same zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the,^applicant ot privlieg...niov"a lv-in" owners of other properties in the same district.
STA[_BqE!U{ET!AII8T!
The staff is unab'l e to.support this.request for an addit.ional 94 square feet gr Qnfn. This is due to lhe fact ttrai'ine exist.ing oevetopment on the site ,, ,is 6,287 square feet over the allowabte Cnrn. -i" ioiiiio;, iil ii.ii-r,ii"generalry ''jnot supported variances of this nature and to support ih.,s "eqrert wou.ld be
It should be noted that the applicant has delayed this submittal during the development_of our new GRFA oi^dinance. Rs you'k;o; i;o;-iour rast review, the enclosure of decks or any external additioni to multi-iimiiy owellings will not be allowed under the new ordinance.. It is ueiaur. oi'il,i. changd-t; ih"GRFA amendment that.the appricant had-cnosen io-pu"ir" inii variance request for the additional density.
It is difficult to address a-request of this type that involves two d.ifferent variances. This is especialry drue when one request courd be supporiea,-w[iie the other cannot. t,lhire it miy appear confusinj that-the-st.ri-i6rii-i;p;;;i-
lr:.:::::"9^:g!b::k-yifi1199 white,recommendins denial qf ihe requested GRFA,r the staff feels it necessary to address each request indiviiiaiiJl"ii"uXi'li ' itself, the encrosure of thL deck wjii-noi-hun""i-signiii.unt .impact on the adjacent properties. However, when considering enfRl the staff is unable to
!!nno11 this request when the existing developrient on the site is so aramaiicarty _ over the allowable GRFA.
t Torissi GRFAO- z/i:/Bs
The degree to which relief from the ltrict or literal interpretation and enforcement
of t""atr"nt u,nong siles in,tl'e vi.i!it.u of
Historically, the staff has general 1y not supported requests for additional
GRFA over existing zoning. As was stated in the memo concerning the setback variance request, the appl icant has claimed a physical hardship-of ice and water runoff from the roof above hjs deck as a reason for needing this deck enclosure. It is a feeling of the staff that these prob'l ems could be mitiqated
in.some other way. Because of the staff's previous position on requests oi this nature, it js our feeljng that this variance request would be a grant of special privilege.
ef of the uested riance on liqht nd
ac
air, distribution of ities and utilities. an rans rtation an traffic fac ties, publ ic
safety.
There are no significant effects on any of the above elements.
RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN
No policies are directly relevant with respect to this application.
a
I
'lon,
Such other factors a4d criteria as the commission deems licable to the proposed
vari ance .
r
K
s
s
edelutoiq,
\.u*s-
$
.$):t
rs a
I r r{xn
ttq PlaQ f' ri-.tr f'"dlh:tt\
'nq[tr --.
l'
=n,rth
__i;, ' fiV.?rhunU olndonjrfiut --,;-. riv.?rnm?, oondoninlumq
=_ [l' L{yli,fir,r ^tllr _
ii
rri a
exie{tn1
q'- a/+il
dav
I
I
q'- q/+x
/{
t
rEl bt r$
si
e t
..r'-1\/{
.{/
1,"
\\ '\ \.--l a-=r
-!=t
')
r-\
h .\
\
\
\
b
ti:-F
dovid m. peel
kothy wqrren
orchitects
2588 oroso dr.
p.o. box 3370
voil, co. 81658
303.476.4506
February 14, 1985
Vail Town Council
c/o Joyce HaLee
Town of Vall
75 South Frontage Road
Va11, Colorado 81657
RE: Density Variance; Rlverhouse Condomlniums, Lot 3r Block 6t
Vail Vlllage First Flling, Mr. Rlchard M. Torrlsl , Owner.
Dear Ms. Halee;
Mr. Rlchard M. Torrlsi would like to appeal the February 11,
1985 declslon of the Plannlng and Envlronmental Commlssion to
deny hls request for a GRFA variance.
Please include this appeal to the Town Council on the agenda of thelr next regularly scheduled meeting on February 19' 1985.
Yours truly,
Kathy Wa-rren, AIA
Planning and Environmental Commission
February ll, .l985
2:15 pm Site Visits
3:00 pm Public Hearing
T0 BE l. Request for a final plat review of Vail Woods Subdjvision, a TABLED revision of Special Development District ll which would divide
the remain'ing area into li duplex 1ots.Applicant: I.K.S. Vajl Associates (staff rec: approval)
2. Request for a setback variance and a concurrent GRFA variance
in'order to enlarge and enclose a hot tub area which would add
162 square feet to Unit #1 of the Rjverhouse Condominiums at
83 tlillow Place on Lot 3, B'lock 6, Vail Village 1st Filing.App'licant: Richard M. Torrisi (staff rec: appr for setback, denial GRFA)
3. Request for setback variances and a concurrent GRFA varjance jn
construct an 85 square foot addition to a resident on Lot .l7,
Bighorn,iferrace. Appl icants: Howard and Virginia Sherr (staff rec: approval setback, denial GRFA) -
4. Request to amend the zoning code by the addition of paragraph
18.22.030N in order to allow as a condjtionali'use,'eiting, drink.ing,recreation or retail establ ishments in a PA zone.Applicant: Bradway Enterprises, Inc. (staff rec: approval)
' 5. Change date of public hearing for zoning of Spraddle Creek
subdivision.
6. Update on Parks Master p1 anning project.
Planning and Environmenta'l Commission
February ll, .1985
PRESENT
Diana Donovan
Duane Piper
Howard Rapson
Jere l'|alters
ABSENT
st for a setback variance and a concurrent
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Tom Braun
Kri stan Pritz
Rick Pylman
GRFA variance in order
J'im Viele
Duane Piper, chairman, called the meeting to order at 3:00 pm.
Donovan moved and l,lalters seconded to approve the minutes of the meeting of January 28. Vote was 4-0.
1. B$Uest fgr_a f]nal pla!-review gf Vail Woods Subdiyis.ionr_q_reyllen of Special Deveiopme ea
2.
en ta e ano enctose a hot tub area ich wou add 16 eet
a ano enc tose a .of
Vail Villa e lst Filin
Tom Braun made the staff presentation, explaining the request and that the staff reconrnended.approval of the setback variance, bui denial 'of the variance for
9liA: P9ui9.Pee1, representing the applicani, Richard Torrisi, give-i-preientation
and explanation of the request.. :,' .. ,) :
.Rapson moved and W as n favor.l)
Rapson moved and Donovan seconded to de_ry_llg_ggfl vglance request on the qrounds
ofTenffi.
-3.geqt for setback variances and a concurrent GRFA variance in order to conllruct an 85 square foot addit on to a res ence on Lot rn I errace.cants: Howa Vi rg'ini a rr
?,/en '--:_at
Kristan Pritz explained the request for setback variances on three sides of
31"^:-]!9 and the request for a GRFA variance of an additional 50 square feet ln order to expand the dining room area of the structure. The staff reconmendation was for approval of the setback variances and den.ial of the GRFA varianie.
Dave Peel , representing the app'l 'icant, requested tabiing until March ll.Rapson moved and walters seconded to tablg_gg reqle$edl vote was 4-0.
Richard sherr, applicant, spoke on his behalf,.explaining his overall plan to upgrade the structure and property. The Planning Conrnisiion discussed'the hardship
in. the-Bighorn Temace units, precedence set by others in Bighorn Terrace, and other items.
Donovan moved and Rapson seconded to apprgJellg.__gelbqqk yarl_q-ncr._Igq_Ugtl.
lonov_qn.r]oved and walte[:. secon{ed to gqprovg lhe request for a GRFA vallqqce.ThefindingSwerethat,'thestrictorliteral
of the _slecified regulation would result in practicl1 ditliculty or unnecessary physical.hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the title, and would depiive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the'
same distict.
The yotg wgs 3-l i!=favor.wi.th=Piper voting aoainst approval . piper's reason
was tnat hrstorrcaily he had always voted for denial of this type of request
and campaigned for air ordinance ti deal with this situation.
4. Bequeqt to amgld the zon'inq.code.by the addition of paragraph .|8.22.030N
'tn oroer to ailow as a conditjqnal use, eating, drinking, recreational
' Inc'
Kristan Pritz gave the staff presentation and expla'ined that the staff was
reconunending approval . _The applicant's presentation was given by Art Abplanalp.
The discussion,by the Plann'ing Commissioncenteredon the need foi the ambndment,the conditional use prccess, and allowable percentages of GRFA as commercial
space.
on the Spraddle Creek Subdivision proposal and requested
hearing date to March 25. Donovan moved and l^lalters
5.
?/11/85 -2-
date as requested. The vot@on
6, Update on Parks Master plann.ing project.
Pritz and Donovan gave the parks planning update.
llr
The meeting was adjourned at 4:46.
&pso4.moved qnd ttql!qrs sqconded to_r:gcommend approval to the Town council accorolng to the findings in the staff's memo. The vote was 4-0 in favor.
heari n raddl e subdivision.
Patten gave
a motion to
seconded to
aga i nst.
an update
change the
chanqe the
o
CAtrA
L tl /k'f ,e K
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ ECT:
Pl ann i ng
Cormunity
February
and Environmental Conunission
Deve'l opment Department
ll, 1985
i ums Applicant: Richard M. Torrissi
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
4t!l'e.presenttime,theRiverhousecondominiunsis%
ranges from.2 feet from the rear property line to l line. The applicant wishes to enclose a deck which I
.2 feet from a side property
degree of encroachment
line. .The applicant wishes to enclose a deck which presentty liei j.o-tbei
from the side property 1ine. As proposed, the enclosure of ihis cieck would not increase thjs encroachment. Proposed construction would be limited to enclosing this deck area.
Il 9 uppt_jcant has cited drajnage and freezing problems as two reasons why this enclosure is needed. It is felt by the-abplicant that the use of tlris deck is limited because of this drainage problem during the winter months.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
ni heview of Criteria and Findin Section .|8.62.060 of the Muni
epartment o ommun i t eve opment recomme s aDDrova
vari ance nt nq factors:
Ccnsideraticn of Factors
The adjacent structure to this proposed constructjon is the Edelweiss condominiums.l'lfile the ex_isting deck is only I.6 feet from the property line, it is felt that the enclosure of this deck
It was felt by the to expand
effect on
on this area uo to the property line would, indeed,the Edelweiss.
staff that
have an adverse
It is the feeling of the staff that to grant this request would not be a grant of special privilege.
. To allow the enclosure
impacts on adjacent properties.negati ve
K,\"t q,oL^.^-
of this deck would not result in
TorrisJFA -2- 2/11/85
eef ct of the ue s ted vari ance on ht and air, distribution of I ation ,rtation an traffi c aci l it'ies ities and utilit anc ublrc safety.
PLAN
No po)icies are directly relevant with respect to this application.
varl ance.
FI ND INGS
or_ more of the fol i owi ng reasons:
and enforcement of the specified regulat.ion or unnecessary physical hardship jnconsistent
circumstances or conditions appljcable to
apply generally to other properties in the
ituii"..orr.narfion i. ro If this
Thatth-e granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of speciai privilege
incorsiste_nt ry!t[.thg-ligtlg!iq!s_9r1 other properties clissified in tne sime disirict.
filt-tlg gfgnling of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,safety' or welfare, oF materially injurious to propert'ies or imprbvements in the yigin!!y..
That the variance is warranted for one
The strict or liteial interpretation
would result in practical diff.i culty with the objectives of this title. -
There are exceptions or extraordinary
the site of the variance that do not
same zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulat.ion "ryoul9 deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of othei pioperttes in the same district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
would not be able to suooort this reorrpsr llnr.,arrav. +hi
the setback,-the staff able to support this request. However, this to infjll an existing deck that is already a nonconiorm.ing felt that this infiil wiil not have a negative effect upoi
application is merely situation. It is
adjacent properties.
T0: Pianning and Environmental Commissjon
FR0M: ConmunityDevelopmentDepartment
DATE: February 11, .|985
SUBJECT:
Applicant: Rjchard M. Torrisi
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant has requested a variance in order to add 94 feet of GRFA to an existing unit in.the Riverhouse condominiums (see accompanying setback variance memorandum). This additional square footage would be cieated by the enclosure of an existing deck on the structure.- At the present, the-Riverhouse
condominiums are 6,277 square feet over their allowed GRFA.
Allowable GRFA 9,628 Existing GRFA .|5,915
Proposed
Total GRFA with .this proposal , .|6,009 square feet
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
rs:
Consideration of Factors
With respect to GRFA, the Riverhouse is not unljke Circle area. The fol Iowing table demonstrates the
GRFA for these condominiumi.
its neighbors
existing and
in the Willow
al I owabl e
Edelwei ss Condomini ums
Riva Ridge North
Riva Ridge South
}Jillows
Al lowable GRFA
9,487
7 ,161
g,l gg
9,259
Existing GRFA
20,970
.I3,
126
19,924
16,236
As demonstrated by this table, existing development in this area is dramatical'ly over the allowable densities.
Amount Over
Tori ssi GRFA -)rn, rcu
The deqree to wh rel ief from t tri t or Iiteral inte retation and enforcement
a specl ati on s necessa i eve itv an ormi t
treatment amon sites in the vicinit or to attain the o ectives o thi s
grant ot spec a I prr v'l lege.
As was stated in the memo concerning
varjance request, the applicant has claimed a physical hardship of ice and
water runoff from the roof above his deck as a reason for needing this deck
encl osu re.
Because of the staff's previous potiTion on requests of
this nature, it is our feeling that this variance request would be a grant
of special privilege.
safety.
There are no significant effects on any of the above elements.
RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN
No policies are directly relevant with respect to this application.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed
vari ance.
Torri ssi GRFA -s- Oirzas
FI ND I NGS
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privi'l ege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified jn the same district.
That.the granting of the varjance will not be detrimental to the public health,sgfgty' or welfare, or materjaily injurious-io-piop".;i;; ;" .improvements .in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
The strict or literal .interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation w9y]d. result in practical .difficulty or unnecessary physical irardship inionrirt.nt with the object.ives of this title.'
There.are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not-appry g.r".iiiv-to-itn"1^ prop.i,^!i"i-in-the same zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by in the same district.
of the specified regulation
the owners of other properties
STAFF RECOMMENDATI0NS
This is due to the fact that the ex.ist is.6,287 square feet over the allowable GRFA. In addition, the staff has ge ;not supported var_iances of this nature and to support this'request would be a grant of special pr.ivilege.
neral ly
osen to pursue this variance request
this type that involves two different
one request could be supported, whjle nfusing that the staff could support
ending denial of the requested GRFA,
ach request individual ly. In and of t have a significant impact on the 'idering GRFA, the staff is unable to
lupport this request_when the existing developrient on the site is so dramaiically over the allowable GRFA.
."-1fi f .--v^:.erv(
t iz I 'l.,r,^{e-
^!^
(- .
"r z) ./{ I
". - L-!on,u n"
Lr\--"'\--{-{'^--*Q
x
*.
*(
s
edelwviq,
"''
-_------:uli ll orl:f A o c :=
#
/,twfw
o
' t' | .exvTwq qlqr
a,
-:-x:vIvsqAolr:?law uN,_l. ou
ex ilti,u I nlav
i
o o
iq $.
\r l--j
tl
er'o
tl rl_
i 5
s ql E lrl
_-
=ci
_\F.t rll
'+l 'l
I
ti- ol
rfiturlt
f ilinr
a?1, l'
A--
\
\
tn;r
,ffi
6wt orc* ;
.,ltr."i t-I-
\II M
,tYtgx
,$
rs'
c.,
| -,,
x.
vdcl*vin
Don"lJ C. S.l,in.
llOlG.,'e.n St"*t
Son F on"i, *, Q.olifo""i" 94lO9
January 29,1985
Thonas Braun
Town Planner
Connunity Development Department
Tovrn of Vail-
Vai1, Colorado
Dear Mr. Braun:
I an the owner of unit #3A6 in the Edelwei$s
vhich ls next to the River House.
When the River House was built I fel-t that the
setback was inadequate.I strongly object to a setback
variance and a concurrent GRFA variance which would
bring it even closer to our property and that such an
encroachment shoul-d be denied forthwith.
Sin
onald Schine
P.S. We were not
1l-th neeting but
officially notified of the February
l-earned about it indirectly.
AP?LIC.P.TIO}i
Application DatelJanuar" 14' 1935
FORi'1 FOR A VARIA}ICE
I.Th5.s Procedure
The application
is required for any Prolect
wiLl not be accePted until
requesting a Variance '
all inforinaiion is subnitted'
Richard M. Torrisi A.NA}4E OF
ADDiESS
APPLICA..\T
One Park Centrat - 1515 Arapahoe St'pHoNE 292-3700
PHOj'TE r76-4506
r..1fJ.\ I,2 92- 37 00
NA,ilE OF
ADDRXSS
c.NA','1i 0F 0 pe or lrint)
81658
ard orrlsl
Denver, Co. 80202
APPLICANT' S RE?RTSE:JTATI\/'E
P.O. Box 337O, Vai1, CO
M.
D.
SIGN;TURs
ADDRTSS One Park Central - 1515 AraPahoe St'
Denver, Co. 80202
OF PROPOS-TJ LOCA!ION
ADDR,ESS
(83 Willow Place
LEGAL D:SCR;P?ION lOt 3 block 6 F.i I i no Vail Villaqe First
PA]D E.FEE. $100.00 :.
A lisi of the names of owners of a1i property adjaceni
""lj""t PrcPe=iy and their rna i'i 'i nc adCresses:
1. Bill BishoP
C/O Arthur G. BishoP t ComPanY
P.O. Box 667
Vail, Co. 8'l 558
2. Riverhouse Condominium A ssociation
C/O Arthur C. BishoP 6 ComPanY
P.O. Box 667
Vail, Co. 81658
3. Edelweiss Condominium Association
C/O Arthur G. BishoP 6 ComPanY
P.O. Box 667
Vail, Co. 81658
+^ +...r;
(
Torrisi Remodel
#B40l
March 26, I98q
A.tl
€
The applicant wishes to enlarge and enclose the hot tub deck on
unit il at ihe southeast corner of-the Riverhouse condominiums. The
;";tdi;g currently is non-ionforming with Section 18.20.050 Setbacks
and section 1g.20.0g0 Density contfol. The proposed hot tub enclosure
also involves these two sections in that it will requi re a setback variance
.6inling the existing two foot setback on the Southeast corner to a zero
setback and a densit"y variance to allow another 162 square feet of en-
closed space.
Because of it's ,Present |ocation, the hot tub is subject to fa||in9
snow and ice from a roof twenty-five feet above it- Dripping watet- from.
the roof freezes in the winter and forms mounds of ice, creating a hazard
when entering or exiting the hot tub.
The proposed addition would roof over the deck eliminating the snow
and ice hazard and would enclose the space creating a hot tub solarium'
thus minimizing heat loss and creating a view of Gore Creek below'
{
tl'' Remodel
March 26, 1984
Zoning Check Riverl'rouse Condominiums
L-ot 3, Block 5
Vail Village First Filing
High Density Multiple Family District
Lot Size: 16,045 square feet =
'l 8.20. 060 Setbacks :
' z}t required by current zoning for all setbacks'
Existing building setback is 345', on Northeast corner and 2ron
Southeast corner.
Proposal is for zero setback at addition on East end of building-
18.20. 080 Height:
Not apPlicable to ProPosat.
18.20. 090 DensitY Control:
. Maximum of 60 square feet of GRFA for each I00 square feet of
bui ldable site area.
ALLOWABLE GRFA = 6? ( l6,046) = 9,627.5 square feet.
EXISTING GRFA = 15,915 square feet
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL GRFA = 152 square feet'
0.368 acre
';
18.20.1'l 0 Coverage:
ALLOWABLE = 55? (15,046]
. EXISTING COVERAGE
PROPOSED COVERACE
8, 825 square feet
7,113 square feet = 44?
7,289 square feet = 45?
!!,:t
Januarv 2, 1935
i'ir. P.ichard j"i. T orr 1sl-
President, Torrisi and Cc;nPan1"
FULLER AiiD CO.,'iPAI'IY
Cne Park Central
1515;rraPahce Street
Denver, Colorado BO202
Yours truf 1r '
On Sunday, Decei:icer 3O, 1984' tne Riverhouse Conooniniun
Association u;ranimousljr arproved your request to enlarge
a.nd enclose ihe er-isiing l-'bt ttrc ciecl< cn Unit #1- at the
Southeasi corner of ?iverl-iouse Coreicniniums'
,ijte Associai;ion entnusiastlcall"i r:'e:o;:l;len jeo al:;l'I-oval-, ;n'i
'r'ie ieel inat rne enc losure ""iir be a cec iced i:r'orlove::en-b'
both aesihetlcall; tt-tA t'"n" tionatl;r '
-co 1'-our unit r-'nci tne
ai\rerhouse Conjoniniuins.'l-ot only- r:iou1A lir9-enclosure el-in-
inate the ciangerous ial1in1 snc"v and ice buj-1d-up haz?r''
i-i ivculC aLsc vi s-rallJ' enianse -t-i e e':terior a'cpe'-;^"t'e of
iiiverhouse. ,rf tircugh" ihe r'sscci a-''icii 3allno! s:eFi icrbire
adj ac ent Etiefl'ieiss dondo;:lin i uils ' tre iee I that the sol ariun
.,.;ould certainl-y p"u=""t a far ottter alrpearanc e than the
current hoi tub deck.
ihe Asscc iation is p1e ased ''vi ti-l J'our eff orts in the in'r'erior
re:.rooe1 of your unj-i. 'viitn proper and conpatrole design' ihe
nel.., encl0sure ,viir-iie of irenLf it io you, Rirrerhouse condor'ln-.'
iuns anci itts ne ighbors '
i^,
" ,1.'. l r- \- i i-'" -/t-.'--'
...
..larie C uri'an, P re si ient
i.IVIRIIOUSI COI'l:JOi'lIIIUri "SSIJCIATIOII
il*it
@
oo
SITE F1-AtrJ 1rr=Zol
Rvenil oi=e a{wvNttji'te
Vetu vvtA# FR€'r fillila bwoK G wT 3
.i
--...-
L---.\
Rrrzr*iladee
I
l^3/1ffi.
w?ryt€t9a
I
'r4''''h;q,
'f r /t
ff
\tltllr,,t pi^I t.t:e
o o
,>
{
r--- 'i
'\--
- ------';
1 ilal lrJa l
EXi lpoK LAti
o o
€
,J LI
trtr
ff#Oe;rc) R,fMcCS;
Hq ril''
1ft'-- 1|o
!l -t
'!;R -2"
Rtil t/.f:
-\\9t
dT lz.o ;F
i'n $L
6F
fi
sl
$l
Il
r-_--.-1 ti L___ j
i1 L ___..
ll
\\\\\\
\\
I
I
I
t_
SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, TIIE EXCEPTIONS CONTAINED IN SCI'IEDULE B AND
THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS I]EREOF,
TTTLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, herein called rhe Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in
Schedule A. against loss or damage. not excecding the amount of insurance stated in Schcdule A, and costs, atlorneys' fees
and expcnses which the Company may become obligated lo pay hereunder, sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of:
l. Title to the estate or interest describcd in Schedule A being vested otherwise than as stated therein;
2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on such title
3. I-ack of a right of acccss lo and from the land; or
4. Unmarketability of such title.
lN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Title Insurance Company of Minnesota has caused its corporale name and seal to
be hercunlo affixed by its duly autlrorized officers as of the date shown in Schedule A, the policy to be valid when
countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of the Company.
J't.t l*sunoruce f[|,**uroto Iotrto"t OF
A:;
'"/"ri"
r,7r,",^,^ / (r,t,,r', * ro*l:'l'lg
Authorized Officer or Agent
a4-za-
Zr/ President -4t..y_*.f*_
Secretary
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy:
l. Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning ordinances)
restricting or regulating or prohibiting the occupancy, use or enjoyment of the land, or regulating the character '
dinrensions or location of any irnprovenrent now or hereafter erected on the land, or prohibiting a separation in
o*nership or a reduclion jn lhe dimensions or area of the land, or the effect of aoy violation of any such law,
ordinance or govern menlal regulation.
2. fughts of eminent domair or governmental rights of police power unless notice of the exercise of such rights
appcars in the public rccords lt Date of Policy.
3. Defects, liens, encumbranccs, adverse claims, or other n]atters (a) crealed, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the
insured claimanl; (b) no( known to the Company and not shorvn by the publ.ic records but known to lhe insured
clainrant eilher at Date of Policy or at the date such claimant acquired an estate or inleresl insured by this policy
and not disclosed in writing by the insured clairnant to the Company prior to the date such insured claimant
became an insured hereunder; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created
subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or danrage which would not have been sustained if the insured
clajnrant had paid value for the estate ot interest insured by this policy'
..> Fo..n r30 2,/73 3OM ii, Copyrighr 1969 Am6.icsn Land Titte A3ioci.lion
,1his pohcy, oI (tll, ll tttlc to irtii csidt'v ,r lCon nittJ ott i't5'Jc bi'A l"j/'l
,O ,.
TII'1 tlrtrr rr<,'r.s Fi,r.ni .:'.:i L:;::
F i I ' l,l,:,. rJr-ri-riA'-i;l l
'.:;f:H[filt! F it
r,,., I i,-, f'1,:" Q7.44lt'1 ,:17
i.u,,-, rt r; l- 'r 1 55 , {:)i )(:}. a,r-)
A.1,Jr l : e
1. F,:l ic'r' frate: '.iAijl-lAFiY 1-:r 1 f i'l-i+ et l:l:i-!t-, A.l{'
:.! . l,lan,e t, f I rr s rl r' ': d :
FIL::HAF:fr I"1, TL-tFtlI:iI
3. Tfre estate rrr. irrter.ar.t irr th€ I af!,J ,i,::.r!- j, l'*d irr tlris ';:thrjdu l€ Blrr-J
urhi ':h is c,:,v*t-ti,J f''r thi -c. Fr'l i i''' r:r
A FEE
4" Title t* thr+ sstat€ *r' i rrt!r.i,'g | 1 ;,..' 3 1- .-'. r:l l' '' thi = p,:, I i,:i ;i.t tfre d:te
hrJri?nf i: v'-,sti?'l I !'!:
ll I L:HARtr l-1. TlrRr-l I:;:I
=. Tiri: I arr,-J r.c-i,3r.r.e,J t,-r irr tl'i i. i. r..iiir'-' r:' f '; ti-ratt-'-1 i!-' trAt-i'L-f l:!:tlJrr ti'!
l:.,:' I ':,r-a,J,r, at''d is ,Jer.rr'i ti+'J p-: i'-., I lr-::;r;:
l:r.-ltlr[_rf'lIt.lILlM t_ti.lIT ] " F, l: vERl-.lr.rr-l:::E r::L-ri{iii1i-iIr.lIi-1i"1':;. A!:lt::irFiLrIl"lii Tit THE
r::r:rNnr::i"1INIUt1 l'lAF THERET:rF REr::r::F.trEn rrEr.E|']FF-E 1',r: ' i1-'/l:i Ir'l Fr:lr:'i'.: ':32 AT
FAr:iE 45-," ANII A= IrEFIr'IEr,r II.l THF r:.:rlf.lIr:-rtlI r'1Tiln! !!Er::i--i:rRftTIDt'l FEr-:itRi:JErt
IrEr::Ef,iBER 1?, 1i?7:l I l'J Fr-tr-Jli. ',i:::i: AT F jirl:[- j-i1::r: i: r-rl-!l'lTY L.!F EA!:;I-E ' ':TA'rE r:tF
r::r:rL r:rf{ALrfl.
Fa.se L Tl-ri s F":l i ':-,' ...s. I j.,J ,:'rr'l 'i jt: llirfr'"-rJu l a' F: is af tath.:e'J.
o o
This p,rl i r'" d':,*s rr,:rt in:.rtr.e a.s,ai rrst Ii'g: i'r' derrair* tr'r' !- i:a F':,rr ,:,f tl-re
f c, I I ,rur i rrs:
1. Rigl-rtS 'tr' alairrs ':'F rrar.t j,cr-- ir! F:,-'9.s.*: t j
':, ir frrlrt 1-l-r'trt.Jlr t,',' .the rr:llir
r'ecnr'ds.
':, Eas<-nrerttg,: Fr' !:-'l airi,s ,:,i *.; -qrarn:i!t9: .:.'t Lir'::l:!!-! L,' tl-'r" F'JL:,
.ljl lPlf,r,li"
:jl. fl i s ,: r' e p a rr a i e E , {,rrr{l i,:t=. i.n t, 'i iJ r: 'j a !- 'r' 'i i r;'::,. ':. !-r ':' r taqr* irr e.r'ea'
e fr i r' c' e ': h nr€ tr t s. , +.nil a!-,r iar t: rcl-; i tf' B ':':ir r-rii.t s.ur'v'i,l i arrd irrsPL-{t i,:, l-t
*f tfre Pr'*trri 9<:3. trr,:'u l'J 'Jistl t:,s.? afli t,if!!,-h ; r'<a rlnt 9l],-Jun bi' the p'lt' I iC
r.,_: r: {, r. d s. ,
4. Arri, I ierr, {'r' f.istfrt t,: 4 I i+rr. i,:,t -..i-:. i'y j.f il : ' ia.t,'-,r', ':, !- n:ater' j.al
ther'etc,I,:,f i- nr' hgr'+.1{:t<: r' +:r.ii- !-:1! f:':,.i. ltiF+s+ti l.'' latu arrd n,:'t -€.hf'Lrrr hf
th.-" r'uf, I i': r.ec,:'r.'_1s.
5. ANY Af.ln ALL- TAXF:l Al''ll:r '.:)::'r::E::':::l i[:;ji::.:.
!:,. l_l EN:a Fr:rR {-.lf..jF,A}I.r t-.rA-rfFi Ai.ili :::EL.ji_Fi i:.H!.n',-i:_i:-_i:; , iF: AiiY.
7. RiGHT [rF FFr!:rF.Rl,FTr:ri:i r:rF A V[Ir'.! r]iF: Lr-rl-rtl -l-r:r Eji;Ti:tqr.:T i+i'itr F:Ei.1r:rvE HI:i r:'liE
THtrFiEFFT:rl'l !;r-l*!_!l-Ij TFiE ::;Apii: t{E F',--rl-if'jlr Tir tr'[l\ji:]'!;iAT5 r:rFi I l,I'f IF::]Er::T THE
FREtlIS:F::i A':; RE::;t::RVEf| IN Ui'rITFI-r '::-ifiTE'_: Fri fF:i'lT F'll--r::DRnEtr .-ll-lLY 1:. 1i--i'.ir'.7r
Itl FJr:rr:rli 4E AT FAt:'iE 475.
E. ftlrlFlT l:rF l^JAY FL-{R IIITr:l-lE:-; r_rjl r::4i!AL:-: r-:i:il\r'.:;TF:l.ll:'l.Ej.l f:tY THE Al-lTHr:tRITY r:rF
THE t-lt'JITFL-r lTFrTfi:i A::; RE=:F-FVFfi Ii.! t,ltJITeir :i-iFrTF:f FATEi'l'f FFrr:rRnELt ,-ll-lt-Y
1-,,.' 18,?::.,,, I l.l Fr.h-ri,l 4.ir AT FAt:iE. 475.
?, RESTRIT::l-Ir.JN::; l.illlr::H rir:i I'lBT i.:r:ii.'lTAIf'J A Fr.-rFFE.i Il_rf::F r--rR F:EVEF:TER r:[-Al-.!=E,
FLIT r:rtlJTTIhlr:.i RE::iTRlr::-[ Ir:ril::;r IF rii.jY. tsA::.r:[, r-r1''1 F":Ar-:E, r:t:rl.r:rF: : RFL Ir]Ir:rN,
[R fJATIT:ri..lAl_ r-rtrTtiTl.J., A::; l:ilj..!.i.]ItiEi_! Tri Jrr':il-RI-!l'iilli.!l- F:Er::r::FlirFn 41.-lt:iLt5T 1{-t,
1i-/{-,? ' I N Filtt:tl,: 174 AT Fitl-i!: L ./'ri.
1i--1 . l-lTJt--JTY EASEI*]EN-I::i 1rl f:FET Ir'..| i,JII!I',-l A!-!.ir.\i'l lrlilrF:FA::;TF-F--LY Al'ltr
l.lr:rFTHL]r:::;TFF|Ly L_L-IT LIlil-r:!j A.J :-::Flrllrr'.i r:rl.j l l-iE ri_i_tT"
11. F:Nr::Rr:rAr:HF1E:F.lT r-rF Tl-.ll: Fr-iJl.rrT!'.lt-i ihi-ir:r A ii-r F.r-!r.r-f t-lTTt-I-iY FA::;Fi'iEtlT Frl-tlrNll
NI-TRTHFASTL:RLY At,![r hllrRt-t,ti..lF!:-l-t-fi!._'i L_r_rT L-Ir.l:::: 11':; !f lr'tl.Ji.J L-rl.t Tl{E
r:r:lFirilJI"tI r{ I l-ri"i I'14F.
1:, EA:IEl"lENT GFrAN-l-E[r Tr]' l:L'i,1r'-l!.rFlil-\, 1'trt_!:\rI:::lL.ii.l it'.t'...'i::;Ti"iLll'lT, II!l!::. FY
INi:;TFil.-llYENT F:Ei-:,:iFrnFfi I_rE,::Er'lFj:':i 1.;, 1':',i-.i: i;i.jrifr-R r'tl;r:EFTTT:rl.l l"Jr:r. lt-r?787,
1:{, THarSE FRr:rVI:=Il:il..li:;. r:.:r:tVE!\jr)i,l-r::r Aiifi_r il:r-rl..ll_iIl-1::!1..:r:r. EAr:;E!"1El,lT= AiJrl
FE5TRIT::TIr]N5, f+lJIr:H ARE A Eir-rF:trE:1..1 'rr:i -t-f:E r::r:!l_J[r:-,i'l ItiiLii'1 Llt.jIT frESr:.RIFEtr
J N 5'::ljEnLlLE A. A:i r::L.rt'.ll-A I r.tEn l l,t I i,t:_-jl-F:i_ll-itrltl- RE r:.arF:tliFrr t.Ir:'EIllJEFj 12,
t?7 .=t, I hl Eil._rr.--|tr. .:: __-t"f AT F,Ar:iE 45r:r .
Fa.sc- :
- ;'t: ':-'tt '---- -
F,:1 i,: r' l'.1,i . A744-l:]27
,- '- ---:;a':::za:=':' 't ---t::'e.=: :
TIM tlirrr rr.e r' F,ir'nr i:.I-; 1.ll Fi I * lrtr'. \-|!:)1-i'1"-; -','.1 j
-_---;-!!r
F,rl ic''" FJ':'. 4744'J??7
::r::HEnr-!l--F ir
14. TEFil.15, f:fit'lfiITInFl,: frt'ltr FRl:rry'l,r;Ir:rir:= rjF It,ltTt;llll'lFtl-r F.er:r:rFifiEft '-IfrNUAFY:-r'
1:?7,.f, I f'.1 Fr- :rt::' :!rij AT FAr:iE '.-r'l:::.
Fas* :{
lcrnrtinu.d flor| utsi'!. !rorrt tlap)'
(b) The Cornpany rvill pay, in addition to any loss
insured against by this policy, all costs inrposed uPon an
insured in litigation carried on by the Company for sirch
insurcd. and all costs, attorncys' fees and expens€s in
litiBalion carried on by such insured with the written
autlroriza tion of tlte Cornltrny.
(c) When liability has been delinit'ely fixed in accor-
dance with the conditions of this policy, the loss or damage
shall be payable within 30 days thereafter.
7. Limitation of Liability
No clainr shall arise or be maintainable under this policy
(a) if the Conrpany, after having received notice of an
alleged defect, [en or encunrbrance insured against here-
under, by litigation or otherwise, renloves such defect,
lien or encuurbrance or establishes the title, rs insured,
within a reasonable tinre after receipt ofsuch notice; (b) in
the event of litigation until there has been a find determin-
ation by a court of cornpelent jurisdiction, and disposi-
tion of all appeals therefrout, adverse to th€ title, as insuled,
as provided in paragraph 3 hereof; or (c) for liability
voluntarily assumed by an insured in settling any claim or
suit without prior written consent of the Company.
L Reduction of Liability
AJI payrnents under this policy, except paynlents made
for costs, attorneys' fees and expenses, shall reduce the
amount of the irsurance plo tanto. No payment shall be
made without producing this policy for endonement of
such payment unless the policy be lost or destroyed, in
which case proof of such loss or destruction shall be
furnished to the staisfaction of the Company.
9. Liobility Noncumulatire
It is expressly understood that the amount ofinsurance
under this policy shall be reduced by any anrount the Corr'-
pany may pay under any policy insuring either (a) a
morlgage shown or referred to in Schedule B hereofwhich
is a licn on the cstate or interest covered by this policy, or
(b) a mortgage hereafter executcd by an insurcd which is
a charge or lien on the estate or interest described or
referred to in Schedule A. and the anount so paid shall be
deemed a payrnent under this policy. The Company shall
have the option to apply to the paynrent of any such
mortgages any crnount that olherwise would be payable
hereunder to the insurcd owner of the estate or inlerest
covered by this policy and the anrount so paid shall be
deenred a paynrent undcr this policy to s:rid insuretl orvnerr
10. Apporrionment
If the land describcd in Schcdule A consists of two or
more parcels which are not used as a single sitc, and a loss
is established affecting one or rrore of said parcels but noi
all, the loss shall be computed and settled on a pro rata
basis as if the antount of insurance under this policy was
divided pro rata as to the value on Date of Policy of each
separate parcel to the whole, exclusive of any improvements
nade subsequent to l)ate of Policy, unless a liability or
value has otlierwise becn agreed uPon as to each such pucel
by the Conrp:rny and ttre insured at the time of the issuancc
oi this policy and sltown by an express statement herein or
by an endorseutent al.tached hereto-
11. Subrogation Upon Payment or Settlemenl
Whencver tlle Company shall have settled a claim under
this policy, all right of subrogatiotl shall vest in the Com'
pany unaffected by any act of the insured claimant- The
Con,p"ny shall be subrogated to and be entitled to all
righ ti and retredies which such insured claimant would
hive had against any person or property in respect to such
chirn had this policy not been issued, and if requested by
the Company, iuch insured claimanl shall transfer to the
Conrpany all rights and remedies against any Person or
proplrty necess:riy in order to perfect such right of subro'
iatibn and shall permit the Company to use the name of
iuch insured claimant in any transaction or litiSation in'
volving such rights or remedies. If the payment does not
couer llte loss of such itlsured clairnant, the Company shall
be subrogated to such rights and remedies in the Proportion
*.hich sa'id payment beirs to tlle amount of said loss. lf
loss should iesult from any act of such insured claimant,
such act shall not void this policy, but the Conlpany, in
thal event, shall be required to pay only that part of any
losses insured against lrereunder which shall exceed the
amount. if any.-lost to the ConrPany by reason of the
inrpairment of the right of subrogation.
12. Liability Limited to this Policy
This instrunlent togctlter rvith all cndorsenrcnts and
other instrurnents, if any, a(tached hereto by the Company
is the entire policy and contract between the insured and
the ContpanY.
Ary claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on
negligcnce, and which arises out of tlle status of the title to
the eitate or interest covered hereby ot any action asserting
such claim, slull be restricted to the provisions and con-
ditions and stipulations of this policy.
No anrendment of or endorsenrent to this policy can be
made except by writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto
signed by iither the Piesident, a Vice Presidcnt, the Secre'
taiy, as Assistarrt Secretary, or validating officer or author'
ized signatory of the ContPattY.
13. Notices, Where Senl
All notices required to bc given tlre Conrpany and any
sta{ement in writing reqr,rired to be furnished the Company
shall be addresscd to its I lome Ofllce. h{inneapolis' Minne'
sota 55401.
Notc: 'fhis policy valid or)ly if Schedulcs A and B are att:rched.
lnteresl i
to
o
EXIItBII 2 T0 LlICLAllriTI0ll t]F
RiVERIIOUSE CONDO14 iN I Ui.l
VAIL, COLORAOO
n Conlruon Elenrents Appur tenant
Each Apartment L,l ni t
CONDO14INIUII
UNIT NUI.IBER
SQUARE
FEET
PTI]CiNTAGE (]F OI.INERSH I P
II.I COI4MON iLTI"IEflTS AilD
OF COI.IIION iXPENSTS
r.,lor,J
aDl drJl<
560
-t a\ 'l
.|450
t45C
I450
.l.150
t 450
1450
1450
2065
4 .1 6);
5 .23i
t0.751,
10 .7 5t:
10 .7 5:!,
10 .7 5"!,
I
10.7 5,1
10.75i
10.75)t
.l5.30:i
I
)
+
5
o)
7l
o
9
ln
RICFIAiiD J,I. ?ORRISI
i{Ai.JCY RICII
ALEJAI'IDRO ROCFIA
SUi,II.IERS ASSOC IATES
iiRS. ALTOIV COATS
IRA ROTHGER,BER,
IRA ROTi{GERSER
EDI/ARD JOULLIA1J
SI_IIRLEY FULTOiJ
iili{: & ..LARIE CUiTR,iUI
TOTALS:I 3,4S0 '100 .00ri
January 2, 1985
Mr. Rlchard M. Tomisi Presldent, Tomlsi and Company
FULL!:R AND COMPANY
One Park Central
1515 Arapahoe Street Denver, Colorado 8O2O2
Dear ltlr. Torr1si.,
On Sunday, Decernber 30, 1984, the ilivorhouse (londornj.niunr Assoclatlon unanimously approved your request to enlan.ge and enclose the exlstlng hot tub deci< on ijnit #1 at ti.ie Southeast corner of Riverhouse Condominiuns.
The Assoctatlon enthusiasticaLly reconrnence(i :.iill)rova1, anrl we feel that the enclosure lvirr be a rleciiied iinnr,Lvernent,both aesthetically and functionalry, to your unit anci the Rlverhouse condomintuns. I'lot only wou1cl the enclosure erim-inate the dangerous fal ring snow ancl ice buil-ci-up hazard,1t would also vlsually enhance the e;<terior appearance of Rlverhouse. Although the Associatlon cannot speak for the adJacent Edelwelss condomlnlums, vre feet that ihe sorarium would certalnly present a far better appearance than the current hot tub deck.
The Asgocletlon Ls pleased wlth your cr'forts in the interior remodel of your ,{1!. Wlth proper and cornpatible design, the new encLosure wlll be of beneflt to you, itiverhouse conclornin-lums and ltrs nclghbors.
Yours truly.,
Marle Cuman, Prcsldent
RIVERHOUSE CONDOIIIINI LII{ AsSOC IATrOl,l
o z
ts
=e.
uJ o-
(c
c
)o 'o o
o o
o
c\l
an
IJJ
uJ tl.
L
=E
TU o-
!"Ytlt#*)\l
....{' $hlE*
1l
Nl :
li;r
$iE=
ul
o
E
f-
t F I
==o
z
o
UJ F
z
z
6 !
o
co
=z
ul z
=
ul I F
z
t!J ul o
=
CE o tt
E o
ul z 3
l!o
.i
o
o
o
E
=l
E o
o
o.
o
'.q)
o
O'i G .Y'
= 6;11 disn 9EE;
:.e:l€
*E g 8 F.:(u -
=3.:O 9 6P:E c-o>'r 3 s:5o lE
=!:i c9cF
35t:
E EE:-9oc
g.;;E
E!te
cL (5 cL-$Ets oiE-or
:*:€
€6:i
:EgH
crES _ o.,l: o
(! 0'-.:c; o (,,
E€E€;glE 96EE
lf;E;9E o -eEg:
- o 6:
d
C\I
L.|
(\l rO
(7)
o o
O ..{
o lr)
N
==E ur 6-
z
:
Y o
uJ
z
J
t-
tu J
lLl
z
J
o-
J
2
I
uJ
=
uJ
LU
z
tr
tu
o
uJ
e.
co
3
UJ
uJ
z
6
uJ o
o.
uJ o
o-
z
UJ
o
x
IJJ o
(.r',
[u tu u-
F
=E
uJ
J
F
F
z
o
3 6
J
F o lu
t!
z
ao
=
c
o z
IJJ
=
NOrrvn]v^
ul +l q
q
=:Fl nl
!.,1 0,
4,1
1 0l
E
G'
.o
=
'-(U
x
3
IL
z
tr q-
E o
IJ o
J
E
uJ z
UJ
c)\<-
iurN
=co(\l
zz 99 q5
rP o
a/, o z>-O i:)<)z r!<o\
o.- 9 >x
.i$i
-c
L o -c vl
rt'L (u
o ttl
q-o
G'3
(t]c
E
-o
ao
=
J-
@
OJ
I
2 o
J
ll'
(!
IL
JO ,E
uJ ;9 -F
rJ)
E
c
UJ E
z
E o o
z o
F
E
UJ
=z
!)F z l z a F
o
=z l
=IJJ
=o
a ut
UJ
E
o z
F
=F r
tr I
uJ l
(!
a
UJ z Y o
I
F
z o
F
5
U)z
F l
F
z
o
uJ o
UJ
UJ z
at)F
ul (L
J
z
E o o H.'k -o9
.d
o,
I
(u !
an P
z
tr
@
(7'
I
r{
F{
co
F{o O
UJ F o dl o ?z o).t
(L
ut Y
IJJ dl
o F
F
(l
lu (I
tl o
o o
I
ts
uJ
o.
uJ o z
l o 2 .9 F
E
o-
JF uJ-h>
o-- E
=o-Ou-9o \LU X(!x>EF
J
Ir
UJ o
F
c o F cl o
o
o E
E -c t
E
E o (,
E
=E
lrJ
o-z I F ()
E F a z o o
gu
2E
trr!
z
.no
Z*.d)o
=z JO (! l!
dfi (5(J=
=6F,=
dd=
E}E}tr
(u
(J
=L
U'
(U
tr
cil
uJl
cEl
Jl
<l >l
rl-l ol
zl ]l ol FI
I
I
ol
=.1 ot
IJJI
1l
fl'
st c\l
ro
I o)sf c'l
dt ot
(f)
o z
o
tu E
J
t!o
z 3 o F
vl !o o
=
C)
=tr
Ol t\
sf
I or <f ol
-l ol *l
I ol
=l ol
uJl
1t
al >l
a!l ol
zl
3l
9l FI
o o
L o-
U)
tr
r\cft
I C!
o'l (\t
o
L
c)
(u o
E o
tn
L o
=t-dl|r)
=lo I c,)Elr ru l(o 0JlN sl+tt1 | -
otF\.- llr,J l(o I r--r ot6
rf) l(J d:u{ 'r-q|.o H>
J>
=o
ul L o
]J !6
t{-
d
(U
-c F
=g
I
I u)l OI
2l OI
:l u'rl
=l
ill >l
E,
z
u-
o !
(u
d,
o
(u
E
tt q)
d.
vl
L L
F
L*i
=z
(D
-)
z
I
IJJ
=
E o F o
E
z
E ir
Ft-o2
O
JE <o ()F
-<:,. E ;F -)z
>Y
=<EE fF JZ (!O
-rO <F tro uJ<zE
(nZ
t
uJ z 3
? <.>fifr :o
6
2
H
s
lr
fr
0
b
s \
\
\
(n
LlJ
UJ t!
L
G l!
o-
o qJ
F
z
z
=l
Co
z z
!:EE
E8
F.s
=Y (Etu
o(!5u
=n :';c9
5c o.9
x:
5O
=y tE!o-aE o<o-oP6-g
.9= og)5 s*:*ii
;(/,"oo dio c !?O iF!;"'erE9:
!i::.J=
-d;g;
c;o(/)E i.*5.b 6*-cEE E:E;5 ;6 >.=r;O.!:;o)c-=->iFFge .Eg 6- g >.9^F=4g;G:le o-o ^>6 F I @.q,-c: =l >
-o(E.i:i
R t\
9
"i
q
ry
o
\
,o
fvi
.U
s
s
e
cx
t);
e
uJ
o z
-()
UJ
z
C)
ul
z 6
=f
J
()
z
I
=
UJ
uJ IL z
tr
lu E
!!
E
(D ;t!
uJ E z
6 tu
gJ
z
tu
o
x
F
uJ
a))ul
trJ
F
=uJ
J
F
F
z
:f
F
g,l
tr
z
=
o z
-(J
UJ
NO|lVn'lvA ,l
'l
I
r.u F
N{I
FTsS*l- o -.:
I Y.a I e-\l- 6EA
IEg=E;
igEN
,.1
$l
!t
$l
+
el
$
:\
&
{t
{r
N
Y q
.\I
D
v)
\l \ll iFl
$t
{l
{
lJ-
cc
o-f o
uJ
F
z 9 F
l J
c\.U
F
\t:
t:
o
\z o
F-
El
9Jl ':I <l
^l
-l
=l rr.i I zl
uJ )
G
UJ z
;
F
z o
F
f
<J)z
Jl
SI
ZI
tl tl I'tl
q F 2 l z 9o FUJ <o R5
=uJ zt
dl oo <z
q)
F z,.
z=..: F d6 3tr
z
.. >l o
r.lJ
ut
UJ z
q)
=
IE
UJ
J
z o
E
o (r
o
=F
!J
o
uJ o
z z
@
*l
R
\1
!:c lcE (D l-tr l=E e!
=b'-tt
F
E
UJ
o-|r o
qJ 9z { crY fr zQ.
= coo 9>z
I dr
ar d r-lT-'lr-'l > LJutl
IJJ :h=J .'[ #X > (l. oriY g b
=E<5 P =oi o !f =uJ;g i d.d=i Xrr
u,
o E.
CI o o
o E
c
o
3J
o
R q
N t1
\
,\
-1
>l
()l
t
UJ z
=o
aL
$$$
$di
el 3:l
bl
I t\\
i\)
I
;IN :l ,i.
;t +
3l q
\JI UJ FIF
n
d
R
"r
^l AI
$t
\
=l ql
trI
IF ts
N ts
IN I vj
\i V q
I
E
E
ll l\.1 I \l
xl -c(l
^l R
=t
3 ol ull I 1l w
3l s ll.tl ot I zl ,l
Bt ;l Fl Fl
tx't3 ta l$t,l
f.$l
\
$-t
*
a t
d {
\
\)
s
u
E F
z
ci
rlJ
J
z ;l
I
,l
cil gJI
,-l
al >l
tr.l ol zl ..t
pt E
=g
i
a
{
t
lT |l ti t\
lcl
F+l t,-l | tr'l t'-l l\l \l
rol F-t r..l uJl >l <l zl col ql
-t
J <O oo LrJ lJ,l
F
tu F
?
<F eo L!<zE
(nZ
<o ()F
FE ;F
---t Z !
!?o 1t
=f !z 4O
<^oF
E3 ri-
iz
=$
=+G o2 o (J
t-
'e)a,-s o
v
l-o -?
---.-.--)
O
INSPECTION REQUEST PERMI
DATE
T NUMBEB OF PROJECT
,'| ,,. r. . t9r** oF vAlL
INSPECTION:
JOB NAME
MON
CALLER
TUES THUR FRI READY FOR
LOCATION:
WED PM
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUNO
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
O FRAMING
n ROOF & SHEER " PLYWOOD NAILING O GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION D POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
tr FINAL
tr
tr
tr
o
D HEATING
ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
I] FINAL
E APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REOUIFED
DATE INSPECTOR
m
o
INSPECTION REQUEST PERMI
DATE
T NUMBER OF PROJECT
JOB NAME r TOW-N OF \/AIL
READY FOB
LOCATION:
CALLER
INSPECTION: MON TUES WED THUR FRI ' ' ,'A1\,1 PM
tr DISAPPROVED O REINSPECTION REOUIRED tr APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
O UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
T] ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
n ROOF & SHEER " PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
tr
tr
rl
E FINAL / )O FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
O ROUGH
tr CONDUIT
MECHANICAL:
O HEATING
tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr SUPPLY AIR
otr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
DATE INSPECTOR
tml
I ,*rt"toN "rL{:!
EINSPECTION REQUIRED
READY FOR INSPECTION:
LOCATION:
tr APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
DISAPPROVED
JOB NAME
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
n ROOF & SHEER " PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
tr FINAL
tr HEATING
tr EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL
DATE INSPECTOR
,*ril"toN REeuEsr
TOWN OF VAIL
DATE JOB NAME
CALLER
INSPECTION: MON TUES WED THUR FRI READY FOR
LOCATION:
AM PM
I
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUTTIBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
rr ROOF & SHEER - PLYWOOD NAILING T] GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION tr
tr
tr
POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
tr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr
tr
tr
ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIB
tr FINAL tr FINAL
tr APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
Application oatep
APPLICATIO}T FORM FOR A VARIANCE
I. This procedure is reguired for any project requesting a variance.
The application will not.be accepted until atl information is submitted'
A. NAME OF
ADDRESS
APpLICANT Richard M. Torrisi
One Park Central - 1515 AraPahoe St. PHONE 292-3700
Denver, Co. 80202
APPLICANT' S REPRESENTATIVE
500 Lionshead Mall - Vail,
B.
c.
NA,TYE OF
ADDRESS
The Ruoff PartnershiP Architects
Co. 81657 pIIONE 476- 3051
(type or print) Richard M. Torrisi
€-€.
1515 Arapahoe St.pHONE 292-3700
.NAME OF OWNER
SIGNATURE
ADDRESS One Park Central -
.Denver, Co'802 02
LOCATION
ADDRESS
OF PROPOSAI,
83 Willow Place
LEGAL DESCRIPTION l-ot I block 6
E. FEE. $100 . 00
F. A list of the names of owners of all Property adjacent to
subject Property and their mai'l ing addresses.
'1 . Bill BishoP
C/O Arthur G. BishoP t ComPanY
P.O. Box 667
Vail, Co. 816s8
2. Riverhouse Condominium A ssociation
C/O Arthur G. BishoP E ComPanY
P.O. Box 667
Vail, Co. 81658
3. Edelweiss Condominium Association
C/O Arthur G- BishoP 6 ComPanY
P.O. Box 667
Vail, Co. 81658
PAID 3 /z t /f / H., -/oo rZ')- t
''
'o
t"'n'/t-
+ha
C/rt - ?
applicati"" ? for a variance Pase t
Four (4) copies of the foJ.lowi.ng information:
A statement of the precise nature of the variance reguested,
the regulation involved, and the practical difficulty or unnnecessary
physical- hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title
that would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforce-
ment of the specified regulation.
A site plan showing all existing and proposed features on the
site, and on adjoining sites if necessary' Pertinent to the variance
requested, including site boundaries, required setbacks' building
locations and heights, topography and physical features and sirnilar
data.
C. Such additional material as the zoning administrator mal' pre-
scribe or the applicant may submit pertinent to the application.
III. Time requirements
The Planning and Environmental Commission meets on the 2nd and
4th Mondays of each month. An applicatj-on with the necessary accom-
panying naterial must be submitted four weeks prior to the date
of tbe meeting.
II.
A.
B.
Torrisi Remodel
#8401
March 26, 1984
Zoning Check Riverhouse Condominiums
Lot 3, Block 6
Vail Village First Filing
High Density Multiple Family District
Lot Size: 16,045 square feet = 0.368 acre
18.20.060 Setbacks:
20' required by current zoning for all setbacks.
Existing building setback is 3!5" on Northeast corner and 2r on
Southeast corner.
Proposal is for zero setback at addition on East end of building.
18. 20. 080 Height:
Not applicable to proposal.
18.20.090 Density Control:
Maximum of 60 square feet of GRFA for each 100 square feet of
buildable site area.
ALLOWABLE CRFA = 6? (16,046) = 9,627.6 square feet.
EXISTING GRFA = l5,915 square feet
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL CRFA = 162 square feet.
18.20.110 Coverage:
ALLOWABLE = 55? (16,046) = 8,825 square feet
EXISTING COVERAGE = 7,'113 square feet = 44?
PROPOSED COVERAGE = 7,289 square feet = 45?
Torrisi Remodel
#8401
March 26, 1984
ll. A.
The applicant wishes to enlarge and enclose the hot tub deck on
unit #1 at the southeast corner of the Riverhouse condominiums. The
building currently is non-conforming with Section 18.20.060 setbacks
and Section 'l 8.20.090 Density Control. The proposed hot tub enclosure
also involves these two sections in that it will require a setback variance
changing the existing two foot setback on the southeast corner to a zero
setba?k and a densiiy variance to allow another 162 square feet of en-
closed space.
The proposed addition would roof over the deck eliminating the snow
and ice hazard and would enclose the space creating a hot tub solarium,
thus minimizing heat loss and creati ng a view of Gore creek below.
Because of it's present location, the hot tub is subiect to falling
snow and ice from a roof twenty-five feet above it. Dripping water from
the roof freezes in the winter and forms mounds of ice, creating a hazard
when entering or exiting the hot tub.
Torrisi Remodel
# 8401
March 26, 1984
il. A.
The applicant wishes to enlarge and enclose the hot tub deck on
Unit #1 at the southeast corner of the Riverhouse condominiums. The
buitding currently is non-conforming with Section 18.20.060 Setbacks
and Seition 18.2d.090 Density Control. The proposed hot tub enclosure
also involves these two sections in that it will require a setback variance
changing the existing two foot setback on the Southeast corner to a zero
setback and a densiiy variance to allow another 162 square feet of en-
closed space.
Because of it's present location, the hot tub is subject to falling
snow and ice from a roof twenty-five feet above it. Dripping water from
the roof freezes in the winter and forms mounds of ice, creating a hazard
when entering or exiting the hot tub'
The proposed addition would roof over the deck eliminating the snow
and ice hazar-d and would enclose the space creating a hot tub solarium,
thus minimizing heat loss and creating a view of core creek below.
Torrisi Remodel
#8401
March 26, 1984
lt. A.
The applicant wishes to enlarge and enclose the hot tub deck on
Unit #t at ihe Southeast corner of the Riverhouse Condominiums. The
building currently is non-conforming with section 18.20.060 setbacks
and seltion 18.20.090 Density control. The proposed hot tub enclosure
also involves these two sections in that it will require a setback variance
changing the existing two foot setback on the Southeast corner to a zero
setback and a densiiy variance to allow another 162 square feet of en-
closed sPace.
The proposed addition would roof over the deck etiminating the snow
and ice hazard and would enclose the space creating a hot tub solarium.
thus minimizing heat toss and creating a view of core creek below.
Because of itts present location, the hot tub is subiect to falling
snow and ice from a roof twenty-five feet above it. Dripping water from
the roof freezes in the winter and forms mounds of ice, creating a hazard
when entering or exiting the hot tub.
t
Torrisi Remodel
# 8401
March 26, 1984
il. A.
The applicant wishes to enlarge and enclose the hot tub deck on
Unit #1 at the Southeast corner of the Riverhouse Condominiums. The
buifding currently is non-conforming with section 18.20.060 setbacks
and Seition 18.20.090 Density Control. The proposed hot tub enclosure
also involves these two sections in that it will require a setback variance
changing the existing two foot setback on the southe6st corner to a zero
setba-ck1nd a densiiy variance to allow another 162 square feet of eh-
closed space.
Because of it's present location, the hot tub is subject to fafling
snow and ice from a roof twenty-five feet above it, Dripping water from
the roof freezes in the winter and forms mounds of ice, creating a hazard
when entering or exiting the hot tub.
The proposed addition would roof over the deck eliminating the snow
and ice hazaid and would enclose the space creating a hot tub solarium,
thus minimizing heat loss and creating a view of Gore creek below.