HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 11 BLOCK 3 LOT 9 PART 2 OF 2 LEGAL?ro ', Lo{g, gtv 3 v") }tn 11lr 6,1;,5
2-24-97
Town of Vail
Planning Dept.
75 South Frontage Rd.
Vail. CO 81657
Attention: Dominic M.
Dear Dominic,
I am finally getting you the color pallet for the Tuchman/ Hughes
Exterior. Thank-You in advance for your patience while waiting to
receive this information you requested quite some time ago.
ARCHITECTS
The photographs I have scanned do not clearly represent the exterior colors because the
original photos are not particularly good. The following is a list of exterior color scheme
fni I Fascia: Cabot Stain - Spanish Moss #0153 semi-solid (not stained @ this time)
Siding: Cabot Stain Dark Grey #0147
Stucco: #816 Clamshell
Stone: across the street from the Kempfresidence (see photo enclosed)
Windows : Weathershield Forest Green (Tuchman's side)
Weathershield Rose (custom color) (Hughes side)
Soflit: natural. sealer
I have included a copy of the DRB application, Materials List. Some of the companies and
consequently paint or stain names are different but the colors are quite close to original
Please contact me will any questions or comments.
Ntk
L:\tov224.wpd
PlanningaArchitectureolnteriors
'f 650 East Vail Valley Drive Fallridge C-1 r Vail, CO 81657 . fpbarcht@vail.net . fax (970) 476-4901 . (97O) 476-6342
Laura Nash
oo
6BWtl WtN@w OY TacttrlnVts
h'fiw
oo
ttUhltPA daqful CotoK Bo'* WNbW€
ffa Hrtrzil ffirW F^Fr)
$
\n
\
$..
iN
$R
\iR.i$
SA
s$
R$
q\
N\
v)-=
Ns
9pAlE Ad'Fa |HE t rFar4 reHPH PE€.
LIST OF II{,ATERIALS oNAl.,lE OF PROJECT:
LEGAL DEscRrprroN: Lor-l eLdcx 3 suBDrvrsroN VatL,rtt,,a\r' llfrrunS
STREET ADDRESS T'
The following informaLion is required for submitcal Lo the Design
Review Board before a final approval can be qiven:
04
A. BUIIJDING MATERIALS:
Roof
Siding
OLher Wa1I MaEerials
Fascia.
Sof f its,.
Windows .
Window Trim
Doors
Door Trim.
I{and or Deck Rails
FIues
Flashings
Chimneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
Recaining Walls
ExLerior Light.ing
OEher
TYPE OF MATERIAI,COI-,OR
,(\\?ft- ?yt€tLl{:\\, A (b'f ",'\I\ rl-\')
z,( gt \ -.2aUtO
zavrte :j't::tvi rt*Vf F 7154;")
l'r1ot)tLw;qigs)
t,lYrcD C{t t" a).\cN,Jl )h cql - (2 3
CA62T -?t ^t5t{ r'\ 1(':x2 Lf7
)tL-1
lu'sAL HoL^'Ztl'>
\q2 YL€- r,4NYoFl *42eO
4mLjily:
uj{r.} ntu-tt-6€,4I W ol4?
, ',tri],2t*?;li:, c 42D4t)
rtnp t tnurnl .Dosv l47o4o
( A 61 5T1"N \
-?€ ra^ I -'.rLiO
ntrhu
(Auao tt
ta4lt-w *:.GrrL fuqF
TW6TAC'rn ErA L OrDF
*jD''\t
A,.l
Designer:
Phone:
LroA L ho\^_tf (1"_
4 A rSor
tJOLrtcP'e O'rec 6"2a1 & ol4k
vlAE.raL Qtc-v-(.f' rT\ ,,uf.€ ( JA-L
LANDSCAPING: Name of NI,A
^i-IGign Review Action F
TOWN OF VAIL
catesoryNumber o"" lltl(qO
eroieaNane: TtttLa',t ^/l 14 ghes fio(t\e-'r .
Building Nana: TOcLrl.^-n tha.13a. J-^ a G"auerl f) b""{,
h
Proiect Description:
Owner, Address and Phone: '-l-LrzAa,,<-.
'r
Architect/Contact, Address and Phone:
Lsgat Description: Lot 4 Btock 3 suuoivision U,. ; \ U, | {ata /l t" ' Zone Distrist e
Project Street Address:3flD 6^a+t^ Lreek Drive.
Comments:
Motion by:"o"ro@o;;;-\Vote:
Seconded by:
U Approval
I Disapproval
dstaff Aoprovat
Conditions:
Town Planner
o^r"' qf ftf FL DRB Fee ere-paia $zCI, o o
92 213 Pr.r T UCHmA}|
DESTGN o"ot"rn'C*"o
pa1,,g necEIVED:
DATE OF DBB MEETINGT ,_
I. PS9.IEeT JNFORMITIoNT
A DESCRIPTION: Addltlon & Reuodel of Easc Slde of Duplex
'
P BYPE OF REI/IEW:
.:.-New ConsErucE,ion ($200. OO)r\r AddiCion ($50,001 -Minor A1 beraBion (920.00)
-coneepLual
Rerriew : ($0)
L,EGAIT DESCRI PTION : Iro E g' . B].ock 3subdlvtston vau vrrlaiETltETr-J-rne
-
If groperEy ts described 6y'g 6eees and bounds leqa1descrlpsi.on, please prowid- 6n a separstse shee! a;d acE,achLo ctrie Bpp].lcacioD. ,j:
ADDRESS: 3[10 Booth Creek Dr.
ZONfNG: Two Farnlly Resldential
APPI.,ICAIVT:
Address:
APPI.,ICANT'S REPRES 8M: Bill PieLce ._Address:
Phone Li6-6342.
QF OWNER(S):
b,tailing Address: /?OO
: oo caEcK . ${+l t 5 DAIE : 1
DRB FEE: DRB f,ees, as ghownSUo*re,l are uo be paid au EheLime o! submiLeal of .rha Dffiitpirp.rior,. --r,-alei. wten::itrils"':: int";ili:i;i,$*_i:*,it;i;il$l;i:r:j:iq:tt
i3"o:i::=li'n '"
E.
,G,
al-
T
\t,
NAME OFltai I i ng
NA}TE OFMall lng
FE-E_ SCHFDULE:.
VAI.,UATION .;q o g Ioj910,001 -$ 50s50,001 -$ 150$r50, oo1 $ soo jI
$500,001 - $1,0001
00
00
00
00
Tosrglu0!0 r-f.{
kt,ur,r
FEE+ zv. uu$ 50.00
9100. 00
$200,0'o$aoo - oo
$500.00
{, A\1'qir
0$ over $1,000 00
DESTG}' REVIEW BOARD APPAFPR9VIIJ UIIIJESS A EUIITDINOI8 STARTED,
EEPIRES ONB YEAA AFIIER FINAIJrg tr8SUED AND CCINgTRUCTION
s0: 't
gQ/ao/ol
Fritzlen Pierce Briner
September9, 1996
Dominic F. Mauriello
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Vail. CO 81657
Dear Dominic,
Ow client Ken Tuchman would like to make some alterations to the previously approved Tuchrnan / Hughes
Duplex. We are hoping these changes can be staff approved. I have included two copies of the second level floor
plan plus the elevations to graphically explain the alterations.
1. The existing house plans have a sitting area at the top of the stairs (level two) - the area is very open to circulation
and thus not useful living area for the Tuchmans. By moving it off to the side they can also open up their entry to a
two story entry space. Although this new locations is sitting area and not sleeping area we will add an egress
window.
2. The Tuchmans want to overframe additional roof above the garage. They feel the roofextension enhances and
balances the street apperance ofthe house.
3. The Tuchmans want to add additional windows to their Master Bedroom to increase their view of the waterfalls.
4. Tuchmans want to add a window to their loft bedroom on the south (creekside) of the house.
5. The Tuchmans want to add 6 -16 foot evergreens to the North side of their half of the duplex. These new trees
will help screen the highway.
6. The roof material is approved as metal standin seam roofing. We would like to change the entire roof material to
wood shakes.
I have also included a copy ofthe Improvement Location Certificate for your records.
I am submitting a exterior lighting plan . Electrical plans were submitted as part of the Building Permit application
but have not been submitted to the Plaruring staff. Please review and note that there is one exterior fxture per l00o
square feet of lot area.
Laura Nash
&r*rWt-
1650 East Vail Valley Drive Suite IC. Vail, CO 81657 . 1-970-476-6342. Fm: I-970-476-4901
T(fIJhI E}F UFII I-
tl'scellmeotrs Cdl
89-tB-96 l3: B4r BB
ReceiFt i 296229
Flccount+ CK+7115
ieiiilEn prERcE BRIHER\DRB FEE
g*o,rit-t*tto*t*O ) ?S'6s
Iten Peid bnnt Paid
616g0s41s3t6ag ag'w
Charrge ret'urned ) B' etf
TH',aHr< voLl
Vour caghier P€ffTHff
FILE C
t
OPY E*r5D
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-213V479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
August 13,1996
Department of Community Development
Bill Pierce
Fritzlen Pierce Brincr
1650 East Vail ValleY Drive
Vail, CO 81657
RE:Hughes/Tuchmanprojectlocatedat3ll0BoothCreekDrive
Dear Bill:
on August 12, lgg6,the Planning and Environmental commission overturned the staff
interpritation ofderno/rebuild privision ofthe 250 ordinance as it relates to the above referenced
project. Staffwill be preparing an amendment to the code, at the PEC's direction, to clarify the
appti"ation of the demo/rebuill provisions. Staffwill make you aware of any proposed changes
and *clcomes your input in the process of amending the code'
I am sorry for any inconvenience this has caused you. Clarifications to this provision should
prevent this from happening again'
Thank you for your patience in the process.
If youhave any questions, please call me at479-2148'
p'A[J*,oe-
Dominic F. Mauriello, AICP
Town Planner
{p rrn"tuo"u"*
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
August 12, 1996
An appeal of an administrative decision relating to Section 18'04'065''r;;'tiie6Jib, oitne rori"oiVaiirtrunicipal Cide, as it relates to Ctapler 18'71'
Additionat Gross Residenii"iffooi Area. The property is located at 3110 Booth
Creek Drive/Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing'
Aooellants:DianeHughes,KingHughes,KendallBulney'DebraTuchman'and
Ken Tuchman, represented by Bill Pierce
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
I. SUBJECTPROPERTY
HugheyTuchman project. Located at 31 10 Booth Greek Drive/Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village 11th
Filing.
II. STANDING OF APPELLANT
Statf believes the appellants have standing to file an appeal in this case as they are the owners of
the subject property.
III. BACKGROUND
On August 15, 1995, Ordinance No.6, Series of 1995, was adopted. Tftis.ordinance amended
Cn"pi"?fe.zf''AddiiionatGross Residenilal Floor Area" of the Zoning Code adding the languSge
tnii'ieitricts the granring oi aOOitionat GRFA to projects which are not demo/rebuilds and adding
the definition of a demoirebuild. This code amendment was the result ol 6 months ol debate and
iuheioui pubtic hearingJ Citi.en and tocat architect input on this issue was extensive. During
tne puOfic fiearings, me-queition otine effect ot removing a-roof was specifically questioned and
ine lnOerstinOin! ieacnlA Ouringthose hearings was that if a rool is removed and thereby
i!*posJO SoJl or irore ot tne GRFR tnen it is co-nsidered a demo/rebuild. This is based upon the
deiinition of a "building" in the Zoning Code.
The discussion also revolved around the intent and purpose of Chapter 18.71 'Additional Gross
Residential Floor Area." Statf, the PEC, and Town Council found that the original.ordinance was
Ueing aOuied, as the use of the additional GRFA had been mostly for demo/rebuild projects'
Therefore, property owners were taking advantage of the additional square footage as if it were a
credit to OuitO i new structure. The inient of thebrdinance was to provide an inducement to
owners of older homes to upgrade their homes by making small additions and other site
i*prouements such as paUh! driveways, upgrading the exterior l6h1ng lo meet current
requirements, and the like.
IV. NATUREOFTHEAPPEAL
on January 22, 1996 the applicant recelrled approvalto utilize 500 sq. ft.-of additionalGRFA (250
sq. tt. per unir) under cn"i[Ji'r a.ii;nooitioniicrois nisioenrial Floor Area" of the Zoning code'
ro make building aooitionla"nO';;d;ib;li;rniiJ oiinis duplex' This chapter does not allow the
granting of addilional GRFA for a demo/rebuild proiect'
During the 'remodel" of this duplex the entire rooJ was removed and all exterior walls were
removed, leaving aOout SbiZ' olttle exisfing building materials within the structure' The Town's
Buitding Division ano rre-owner'i supeiintdnOent oithe qrojgc!, QtV_Q19c1a, estimated that
approximately 70o/o olthe building is new construction- bn .tuty 22:1996 and July 23, 1996' statf
ilft-;d ii,6p"ltionr oit[; t rttiid determined trattne proiec!w.3:. jn violation ol Ghapter
18.71 .Add1ional Gross Residential Floor Area" as it perAins to the delinition of a demo/rebuild
found in the Zoning cooe.- on Juv 24, 1996 a stop wbrk order (redtag) was placed on the proiect'
According to Section 18.04.065 a'demo/rebuild" is defined as:
,'...the destruction, demolition, or removal of fifty percent (50%) or more of the gross
residential ttoor aiea of an exisfing dwelling unit br structure. The determlnatlon of the
fifty percent lsO*Jirraii be catcltated uion "gross residentlal floor area" as defined
in Section 18.04.130 of this Chapter."
According to Section 18.04.040 a "building" is defined as:
,,...any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls, or any other enclosed
structure, lor the houslng or enclosure of persons, animals, or property'"
The definition of "Gross Residential Floor Area" is attached'
Staff has consistently interpreted this definition since its original adoption onAugust 15' 1996' to
mean that it one removes the roof of a structure and the removal "exposes" 50% or more of the
GRFA in a dwelling unit then the "remodel' is considered a demo/rebuild OR if the exterior walls of
a dwelling unit are-remoueO to 'erpos e" 50/o or more of the GRFA in a dwelling unit then the unit is
a demo/rebuild and therefore not dliglOte for additional GRFA under Chapter 18.71 of the Zoning
CoOe- ngain, the ftoor area is calcuiated in accordance with the definition of GRFA'
The applicant is appealing this interpretation of the definition ol demo/rebuild.
Attached is a copy of tre definition of GRFA (Attachment "A"), a copy of the approved building
peimit pfans (Rtiacnment "8"), a cqny of the 6riginal stalf memorandum to the PEC dated
blcem'oer t i, tsss (ntticnriint;c;'i, a copy oithe floor plans as subrnitted to the PEc for review
of fre oiiginaf'request (Anlcnment "O'), cobies of the oridinal applications_for additional GRFA
iuUmittei Uy the'appliiants (Attachme'nt'E), a1d a coptof the 'ovvhereas' statements from
Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1995 (Attachment "F").
2
V. REOUIREDACTION
uphold/overturn/f,lodify staff's interpretalion of Ghapter '18.71 ',Additional Gross Residential Floor
Aiea" and Section 18.04'065 Demo/Rebuild.
The Planning and Environmental Commission is required to make findings of fact in accordance
with Section 18.66.030 (5) shown below:
5.Findings.TheP|anningandEnvironmenta|commission(ortheDe-signReview.
Board in tre case oiOeiig;guiOetineiiinal on all appeals.make spe-c1ic findings of
ract oaseo'oiiectrv on ttiJp"-rti.rlar evidence preseni6d.to it. These findings of fact
rust rrppott ionlUsionsinat the standards ind conditions imposed by the
requirerirints of this title have or have not been met'
VI. STAFF RECOIIMENDATION
Staff recommends that the PEC uphold the staff's interpretation oI Chapter 18'71 'Additional
Gross Residential Floor niea'anO Section 18.04.065 Dbmo/Rebuild and recommends that the
PEC make the following findings:
1 . That the community Development Department intelpletation of ciapter-l8'71 . .
,,Rooitionit Gross iesidentiiil Roor Arba'and Sectidn 18.04.065 Demo/Rebuild is
,onrirteni*iinine Oefinition of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) as defined in
Section 1g3;.ibg; th. 2oning Code and appropriately apptied to those dwelling
units;
Z. That the Community Development Department interpretation of Cfiapter 18.71 . .,,AdOitionit Gross R'esidentii noor Arba" and Section 18.04'065 Demo/Rebuild is
consistent with the purpose statement of Chapter 18.71 and the original intent of
Ordinance No' 6, Series of 1995.
g. That both dwelling units located on ttre subject property are considered demolished
due to tneiemovit ot more than fifty perceirt (5b2") of the GRFA within the existing
dweling uniis in viota1on of Chaptei tA.Zt, Sbction 18.04.065 and in violation of the
building permit for this structure'
4. That the Community Development Department was justified in issuing a stop work
order (redtag) on the Project;
S. That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Ttle 18 (Zoning)
have not been met.
F:bvsryoneFocvn6tYto\hu gho8.81 2
Atto.lnrneat 'd
ZONING
f8.04.130 Floor area, gross residential (GRFA)'.
Gross residential floor area (GRFA) means the total
square footage of all levels of a building, as measured at the
insidc face of the cxterior walls (i.e., not including funing'
shectrock, plaster and other sirrilar wall finishes). GRFA shall
include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stainrells at
each level, lofu, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical chases'
vcnts,. and storage areas. Anics, crawl spaces and roofed or
covcred decks, porches, terraces or patios shall also be included
in GFSA, unlcss they meet the provisions of subsections A or
B below.
A. Within buildings containing two (2) or fewer dwelling
units, the following areas shall be excluded from calcula-
tion as GRFA:
l. Enclosed gamges of up to three hundred (300)
square feet per vehicle sPace not cxceeding a maxi-
mum of two (2) spaces for each allowable dwelling
unit permined by the Zoning Code.
2. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet (5') or
less, as measured from the top side of the strucural
members of the floor to the underside of the struc-
tural members of the roof directly above. Attic area
crcatcd by constnrction of a roof with tnrss-qpe
members will bc excluded from calculation as
GRFA, provided the tnrsses are spaced no greater
than thirty inches (30") apart.
3. Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not
grcater than twelve (12) square feet in area, with five
fect (5') or less of ceiling height, as measured from
thc surface of the eanh to the underside of structural
floor members of tbe floor/ceiling assembly above.
EDITOR'S I{OTE: Thc Amvisioas of this Sectioa sball lot bc cffcctivc for
rily application for dcvclopmcut wbich brs bcc! subnittcd to t}c Dcpanmcot
of Commuuity Devctopncut, and rcccptcd by the srnc, oa or bcforc July I'
1991, udcss .Fcrd to by thc applicant subEittilg Oe applicuiou bcforc July
r, 1991.
(v!il +9t 306-2
DEFIMTIONS
4. Roofed or covered deck, porches' terraces'.Patios or
similar feature, orup"t"j with no more tban three
iil t"A"i*"us and a minimum opening of not less
i[- **ry five percent (25%) of the lineal perime-
;;i,h; ;* of said deck, porch' terrace' patio' or
similar fearure or sPace' provided the opening is
;G;;<l tully^open fr-om floo.1to ceiling with
- Jior"*." for a railing of up to three feet (3') in
c.
d.
footage
thirty five-
permined on
a. Common
airlocks:
b. Common lobbY
Common encl
Common
solar rock
systems.footage
tion as A shall be thc
vided such
total square
shall not exceed
allowable GRFA
elevator shafis and
or vendlation sYstems,
or othcr mechanical
from calcula-
square
maintenancerequired to allow for tl
atiin of such mechanical
t1 illltr and convention facilities;
closet and storage areas'
to such areas is from common
d*"Ut*t "t ;om-odation units, the following a'
ii r.".-tilr be excluded from calculation as GPi
Enclosed garages to accommodate
or part of the following sPaces'
bs. are common sPaces and thaY
306-3 (vril 4-95)
fla ||
9nit
:i z
{
FSUIFt!!
3J€lqs:! l't'.rvr o/sJ-
s:t€fH ./ Nv|^t{nl i,' i:r!ll
I
H"*.1,"^
raurr[IacJaldwlslr.{
!t F
T
o
p
I
i rl ii !r E
It
r-!jn
II. l tri ri l*i
i t: i' Eii
| $i; ;;iiiiiii
p l ,,i L i;i 'iiii$:
ulI
toti r
$irit:liii
I
!*i"! I
i"l3,ts
:i8$:li!t i*c
;FE;$i6i3!
it*
F! Er!
iiitit
iiiii
siiiii
:
;t did R
:R TdiP
Ei!
6c$
i
:a
3e3
=i!
F
$
s!!
!s
:88i:r
:F
! , .*rl
-lt
ir!ifii 4,,1i".gs+LJLL
(r)
=stua\o
Xu.lo
=
+avt+'t
ft&
{.at,
*a
U
7
ul
a
U)
ul
v
J
T
(
rt
N
0
,r
i'Jil
T
Z
{f
T
Ul
t--
3d
l{r6
93
id
TE95- I.J.g
ldr$u'r *
E
i"E
IiE$
r\fflililll]ll t, I
F$ffi#;l$i $
tlt
a
U)
t-o{t!
I
z
sT
0
F
I
UJ
J
t*
(r)
itlrt
r'i !
i,Es=l /n I; *-
.9.:tX::."t
Fffi ;'#=,l"uH:'il:i; iil;
ta\t
z\_l
n
t1r
FtJ
9uJ
EgLr-cN
a
ltr Iil ;
:iiil I
tijii I
il
,lsl -li
Ilr,iil
il iii! $
I|l
3t }ig
eo
=
S i'" -".S-:-'---' O
J
3
.-f
<)
q
AJ
{
t
a
lt
t!
-Lr8EurEc)
l.|-3
{1
a>,z-\tt
={
ar
u
n
tr_
tll
u.J
_l
u
LJ.I
n
o
.,
n>1-(
=d. .o q-
4u$r_
\:(d
5l-
! ":36o
i."
n*tii$
t
I rt
6i r !e
I
Tffiffi?Jarduelzlrrd
N
N
iir
g 6!I
I L,-*tr D xtcrx t ro'r
3CN30F3U NVnHCnl
suf.rr gNNNY-td runJ.crtrHcuv
JaurJgecJardueIzlIJJ
rr)
N
E:(}
z{_l-o
v
C\
c\
-Jll*
'-t
rtl
UJ
-J
|.-
!ro
q
llr{0
It
ul
2
EI
*m;rumi !:r i!
ilir ;H; :A?,U;:""i",',*
v
(\
. ':
G{(4 **}t o/F*-,.'*'./:#{;o
brCk"' D- 7u. r, AfA.stnfirefit r-
F
6;-0 <TVr*'*{ rlLE mP'Y
MEMORANDUM
fOt Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: .DePartment of Community Development
DATE: December 11' 1995
sUBJECT: A request for Additional GRFA to allow for additions to be added to both sides of
the duptex tocated "iiiro Booth creek Drive/Lot 9, Block 3, VailVillage 11th
Filing.
East side-Debra & Ken Tuchman
WrttliO.-Oi.ne Hughes, Kendall Burney and King Hughes
Jim Curnutte
Applicants:
Planner:
t.
In 1985, the vail Town council approved ordinance 4, series of 1985, which created a new
Cn.i,i.i irA.Zrl to the VaiiMuniliaiCoCe, ent1led "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area'"
This Chaprer attows for1'i'i;;SOEr"t" t..t of additionalGross Residential Floor Area (GRFA)
to be added to a dwelling'(u.vono tne maximum allowance), provided certain criteria are mel
The purpose of tne nOOition"i Cnfn Ordinance is to providi'an inducement for the upgrading of
existing dwellings units, which have been in existence for a per'od of at least five years' by
permitting up to two nunOiea tifty (250) square feet of GRFA to be added to a dwelling unit'
In August 1995, the Town council approved ordinance 6, Series of 1995 which amended
Chaptef i 8.71, lor the purpose ot etiminating the ability to use the..additional GRFA when a
dwelling unit is "demo/reUuitt." The new Ordinance also requires that all requests Jor additional
GRFA, that invotve "*t"rir changes to a building, be reviewed and approved by the Planning
and Environmental Commission.
with this proposal, the applicants are requesting. to add approximalely 1,449 sq'ft' of GRFA to
both sides of the duptex.'he proposeO iemoOJl will use ihe remaining GRFA for the entire lot'
as well as the full 2s0 atlowanie lbr each dwelling unit. Addjtionally, all remaining sile coverage,
for this property lapproximaiety 75 sq. ft.) will be
-utitizeO. The proiosed remodel is summarized
as follows:
East side
On the first floor, the applicants are proposing to extend the unit's entry funher to the west' This
addition will add "pprorit"i.fi3l;q.
fi. ot C-nfn" Also on the first level, portions of the existing
garage will be convbrted to GRFA arid exis1ng GRFAwill be converted to new garage area'
i.rrf"tins in a GRFA reduciion of approximal.iy_ ] ] tq. ft. On the^seco.nd level a new master
bedroom witt be added
"Oou"
tnefiuing room (eeg sd. ft' of new gllnt' A third levelwill be
added to the building to
"c.ottoOate-a
new beOrooh and bath' This portion of the addition is
412 sq. ft. in size.
<*-
o
West side
On the first floor, the applicants are proposing to convert some existing GRFA into garage space
and extend the living toi,*"ppiotiniatdly 3't6 the soutn. This living room extension will add
.pproiit.tefy 75 sq-. ft. ot dddr irea to the building; however, this new floor area is offset by the
iiiuction in GRFA tiom tfraiarea being converted-into new garage spage.. On the second level'
.n .iGii.g Uedroom win d;-pa;;a ino an additional batli willbe added (approximalely.300
rq.ii.f . n-OOitionally, a new bedroom and bathroom will be added to an area directly over the
eiisting living room (approximately 338 sq' ft.).
All exterior building materials and colors of the proposed building.additions will match existing,
in.frOirg siding, sfringtes, windows, doors, etc. S6e the attached drawings for more detail'
tI. ZONING ANALYSIS
The two dwelling units on this property meet all applicable slandards.oullined in the Residential
fwo-pamtty (Ou-plex) Zone Oistrici and are eligiblb'to apply for the additional 250 square teet of
GRFA.
III. CR]TERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Chapter 18.71 - Additional GRFA, the Community Development Department
recommends approval of the requests for additional GRFA based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental
Commissiorishall corisider the following factors with respect to the proposed use:
existing slructures.
The proposed additions will have minimal impact on the site, and neither
Orairiag6 nor grading on the property will be atfected. Some low growing
bushei will UJ retoclteO in 16e areai of the entry and living room additions.
The additions will match the existing building (materials and colors) in
arctritectural character, and not appear out of place'
lmpact on adiabent proPerties.
sratf believes that the proposed additions will not have a negative impact
on adjacent properties.
1.
3.
section 18.71 .020 (R of the Town of Vail Municipal code requires that any
drr,relling unit that proposes to use Additional GRFA shall comply with the
standards outlined in the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines. These
strandards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway
peing and general maintenance of the property.
devel op me nt sta ndard s.
o
uponinspectionbyslaff,wefindthatthispropertyisincomp|iancewith.
tne-rownls ionin giequirem e nts and al I applicable d evelopm ent standard s.
D"riil;;;fi; uiiit *i did however, notice various pieces of lawn furnilure
|ocate-donthestreamtractdirectlybehindthisproperty.Staff
recommends that this furniture be removed'
B. Findings:
The Planning and Environmental commission shall make lhe following findings before
granting approval for Additional GRFA:
l.ThatthegrantingoftherequestedAdditiona|GRFAwouldnotnegative|y
ereci eriiting toiog raphy, vegelation, drainage and existing structures'
2'ThatthegrantingoftherequestedAdditiona|GRFAwou|dnotnegative|y' irnpact adjacent ProPerties'
S.ThatthegrantingoftherequestedAdditionalGRFAwou|dcomplywitha|l
rown zoriing req-uirements'and applicable development standards'
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application for
Additional GRFA. Statf believes inat he review criteria have been met as discussed in the
;;;. iegarding tre Rn-ings, statf believes_ that finding 81 is met as lhe.proposed additions
minimany ifipact ine eristing-;iie.
-Finding 82 is.met, in itatFs opinion, as the proposed additions
will not negatively irp""1
"O]"""nt
properiies. Finding 83 is met,. in.staff s opinion, as the . '
.
proposed additions compfy-iitn-aff loriing requiremenis and applicable development standards'
Staff recommends approvil with the coniitiori that the lawn fuiniture, which is currently located
on the stream tract directly behind this property, be immediately removed'
FLvsryone\pecvn amos\uchm an.n t I
{rr::
I
trti
5r
rIxt|DTlltEllltlSC|{Efa XvttHSnr
ttI
at
-:=:= EuoltElr{ eNh}tvld :nru'cllHcuv
a=i raurrgacraldualzllrga)-a-
o
.o
OAr*qrnr^t"Dt'a
tl.
r.
t,
ti
tiI
--=-l -q:l
-;a-)- -/,'l./o
I/.
q
H
$
H
II
{t.
,4tl
,r(,
.$
i
IIllllt)ttr./;
S))
I
l.
$
I
I
!
It
I
It
T
\
,rl
$
$r
,dg'
tl
oo
l
I
i
o
={
d
q
oo
d
$a
-lq
sa-I
'l
rurltttlrrttITCF|I|I|IrG I
I -w
I ot
,1.!r!ir'
I
oo
oli
={
d
q
oo
d
I
rl
Etalrtltlt||rlacntrllt t
-=::=
rel,|alra.ayu irruElr{rcv
=: rqrgeqreldtr.tsu*l
NoN
i
I
hl il Inmlil-wlll
C
={
d
q
oo
d
$
|rJ
-l
t-lLo
-ll
l
I
oo
!
o
q
It-
f;
ttr
=..1
zo
l--
{
llJ
--ltlJ
x
l--uo
=
IHE
zotr
s
tlJ
.--l
tlJ
x
l--f,o
u-)
!
T
tIl
!
o
.l
I
\
rii*lItt,
=o
l--
T
rlJ
-*ltu
l--
(f)
{
l{J
i
I
III
t!
I
!I
t
t
I
bl
t
0
I
!
!I
FII+++
F
I
I
I
d
#!}?9
ilti
ilEl
-q>?lirl
[,,
EI
je
+
ti
lll
Io
I
!s
.f
rfi
-lS\,
u)
zo
l--
{
rlJ
--l
trJ
Iq
l-.zrlt
l--
(J.)
tu
=
t.
.
O' frl}rel.arrt $ b-to
oatu ot Apptlaatio n ]0l2JE-
Dare ot DCB Meeung-L!l!^&,-.-.-,-.---
Dato of PEC Ms€tlng (lf nscassary) . -.
A pre-appttcatlon conler€nco w'!h a membet ot the plannhg statl te stsongly €ncouragod to
dlscuEs thg provlslono und€r which additional GRFA can bo added to a slle. lt thould bB
understood that thls ordlnanCo does nol assvfe each propedy an addltional 250 square loot ol
GRFA. Rathor, lhs otdinanco allows for up lo 250 Gduale fool il the conditions set lorth in
Chapler 18.57 or Chapter 18.7J ol th6 Town of Vall code aro met,
Appllcauons lor additlons under thls a€ctlon wlll not be acc€plod unloss lhoy aro conrploto.
This includso all lnlotmation regul.ed on thls lorm gl$llg Oesign Revlow Board aubmillal
,equlremonE.
ilI. ABPLTCAI|OJTNFgRMATTON
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
408_aF nuPtx _.. . ._._ _
"*"*t- "t t*"""^r -
A&rcs SllO bnt tR&k- ORlu€ -
Legar ooscrrptton: uor 7 atocx;L _ F\E\g tnil- nl(A^ti /fi]t FlLi^16
Zone Dlatrtct,, TlJa mnLv E4J<tnNftrt<a
-
NAME OF APPLIGANT:
NAME oF Apprl cANls REnREsENTAT 've.l&g,_ Pt &. €
E, NAME OF OWNEFT(S):
4o,<. ----+ ^. Slgnature(s
Phone.S-9j:83-t_Eae
rodaSFillog Fee ol $200.00 ls required at tlms ot subminal ot a standard 260. Fo. q
request Invotving an EHU, lhe t€e ls walvad -..-,t -1 . t loln /q(/4(i<bT., t I't'
*20Df1n-/( lt'@)
ooEl alasrir NsrzJ.rdg r08t9rt0r6 rYd tortT ,o/9g,/ol
o
...
lo/o!/05 I I t62 t.i\t $io.r70a90t PNITzLEN PIENCE @oor
l{u/,ts
h^^
Oato of Appllcatlon
DEta ol ORB Meotlng-
oato of PEC Moollno 0t nocescary)-
APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL GFFA (250)
I. 'TYPE OF trEOUEST
X_ Standard 25O
_ Typ€ | EHU 250_ Typc EHU 2So
_ Typo V €HU aso
rr. PRE-aPPJrI9ATIONCONFEFENCE
A pto'appllcallon conterenco wil.h a momber of tho plann,ng slall ls strongly oncouragod lodlscuss tho provlslons undor which addirlonal GRFA can b; sddod to a sli, tt shoutd boundarstood rJ|at this ordinanco doos nol a3suro each p.opcdy an addltlonat ASO squoro togt otGRFA. Flathor, tho ordlnanc€ altow3 ror up to ?5O lirrirsr€ te;t It tho condlllons soi torth tn
Chaptor 18,57 or Chaprer I0.71 ot tho town orEiiZoEsTE rnot.
Appllcatlon! lor addltlons undgr ihls socllon w nol bo accspled un,ess lhoy aro comploto.
Thls lncludos all into.mation requlred on thts torm gWjL!!' Dostgn Revrew goard sr;bmtttalrsqul(sments.
.'N. APPLTCAT|oNTN.FORMATI9N
A. PROJECT oEScRrpTroN Apolnd i ftnooo- oP ll*i- ao€ 4F
'8. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
Addross 3llo _q6-Itl dF6* gR.
Logal ooscrlpllon:Lor 1 arocr ,3 FntnqJ|nrLlll+llg1-lllt_l1gNb
Zonc Otstrict TNo FAltlLY CeSt D€NnAr-
NAME OF AppLfCANT: DA!€ K..FU6r'f,5. l6lar ru U- StgtJe'L l4rJL
Addross 46 H|6rt|altro De.157)9
D. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: BIIL ?I8TE . ,.
Add(oss
NAME (JF OWNEFT(SI
Slgnarurc(J
Adrcss
F, Fifing Feo ot $?oo.0o ts requlrod at llmo ot submi at ot a standard A5O. Fo, a
requ€st Invotvlno an EHU. the tor |3 walvad.
f
6wcs
I
i
I
I
I
ORDINANCE NO.6
SERIES OF 1995
AN OFDINANCE AI'ENDING CHAPTEF 18'71 OF THE
MUNICTPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PRECLUDE
A DWELLING WHICH IS A'DEMO/REBUILD" FROIII
BEING ET{TITLED TO ADDTTIONAL GROSS RESIDENNAL
FLOOR AREA TO OUALIFY FOR THE ADDITION OF UP TO
250 SOUARE FEET OF GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA
AND ADDING A DEFINITTON OF DEMO'REBUILD AT 18.04.065
OF THE IIIUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL.
WHEREAS, prior to 1985 the Planning and Environmontal commission entertained many
requssts lor GRFA varianc€s for small addit!,r13 to homEs that provided Primary residenc€; and
WHEREAS, such applications w€re to lmptove thE property and enhance lts livability such
as a mud room, an airlock, €nlarging an €xisting room or adding a bathroom; and
WHEREAS, much ol the housing stoCk was originally built for vacation use and n€eded
small improvements to b€ bett€r adaptable to lutl lime living; and
WHEREAS,thesedwe|lingunilsinmanyinstanc€sdidnotmeettheDesignReview
Guidolines in regard to landscaping, paved driveways , paved parking areas and und€rgrounded
utllities: and
WHEREAS, it was apparent that the increass in GRFA would be oll-s€t by the
onhancements to the propsrty whlch resulted in a b€netit to the Town by improving ths housing
stock and
WHEBEAS, the Town council has studied the effecls of chapter 18.71 in th€ Town of vail
as it has been applisd; and
WHEREAS, tris examination has led the Town Council lo find that there have been abuses
ol the addilional GRFA process and that the odginal int€nt ot thg allowance of additional GRFA is
not boing m€t in th€ maiority ol th€ "250 additions"; and
WHEBEAS, Th6 Town Council linds that allowing a dsmc/rebuild to lake advantago ot an
addluonal 250 square le€t has nol met the purpos€ and intention of the odinance and does not
prove to b€ an inducem€nt lor thE upgrading of €xisting housing stock but rather simply @nfers a
benefit upon an individual with no benefit being conferred upon lhe Town; and
WHEREAS,counci|findsitisinappropriat€toa||owanadditiona|250square|€e|inthe
instance of a demo/rebuild wh€r€ the same advantage is not provided lo a parcel ot land' or lot
similarly situat€d lhal has never bgen developed.
fth..cr No. e. S.tLa ol 1195
,l
srArEoF6q-o^ oO l
COUNTYOFSUMMIT )rc.
)
o
AFFIDAVIT
l, Jim Currr.rte, upon being duty sauion0d and swom rhte |hc followr.ng:
1. That | 8m preccntty employed by &rmmit Coun$ ar phnning Menager.
2. That I wer prlor ro my- f.e!t cmpbyment. employed try [leCommunlly Dcvetopmert Depsilmffi ';'senior phnncr.
3- Pursuant b my duilGE with fre Tqrn sf Vill I rms ardgrrcl to and handhd thc applicationof lhe TuchmaruHrrghe proFcl
4' Thls apdicdlon, wltich inddcd .ddirionat GRFA for both rhe eaSt ild rrest side of thsduplex, rec describ6d as an .eddlion ardnnpdcl,.
5- At no rimr In'the epprovar process wat h'rE any indicaton m,ds by any protbormdreptesetting these applbents tfut there rras b be-. domolil'J-#
"r"rr,g hddang-
e' The drawings frlt-T:n pt!€nbd !q apprwrl rrnco consiatent wi[|l t|. rtscrbliorr qf'addition ard rnmodet'by exhrrbfting mffrrcl of remodelbto0l fio .,st and rEddwclllng unitc.
7'
3*1ff cert and ue.t sides of thc dr'prx we'" nqtnsuns in additiond 250 rq. rt of
8' ltb.neegryroreach ide ofrhe rluplexb irdepcnderrfly qualfyfurfic eddilionat GRFAand rhers cen br no pooring ot ure eiiFA h ono or rhc other side of the dwrax.
9' D|'iE lhe rpmnlproccss I tno marry(rlsq|q*oru wrrh leura Nash, ardrbctrr[h FfthnPierce Bdmr' and atro time- * r*= .ru;pr*enbilon that tho oonrfircilon thct wucF oorygunle rhrcouree ortt.b r"',.deri-iu i"roivil;ilra;; mon tran so96 ofthe erirtlrq GRFA in elthcr half qf rhe duplq.
10. On tlovcnrbor 1?. lggs,.a l1 (x) a.m., |,ndbruOwnl hours with launa Nreh atwhidrtlmc wo rcvraned lhe prans that rt"a'reen cubmrn d G";"t i; ,h. apgri(#on ildqrmrnqt a'Ery deiar, ffoor by fioor, and leurr Nrrh rorffieo-"nli, iiem of conr&.cflonl"-gl-th9,gry both sides of lhe dqplsx end ncither rpreil;,i'rh.s projrcr b be edcmo"ebuild nor Heriifiecl popced denriti'rrn ur*wour ll8;v;r.t frt t"d a demo rebrlld.
Tfln of vdt h the
71.Aller |hh rr€€dng nrfi rr' M.'r on Noyember 17. lgoo, but b.foru consirer'tiffi by thePlannirrg end Ewironmentil commradon Ju,r"'.pproti*, I mado I sfit vict b tho
Irugrxr/rucrtman duprer rigr E1 prorcp, emirbd wih F,rtbr; pil,il-;,il;efi un*.dthror€h ewrv roorn of the dr.prex rtut Biir pde-d"rng . t lr cxprenation in eacfi fttom a,
b mturr tr-rrrgdnr g.11Q qr*ehq,r u'. F# rd
n n p's."fr Ji"ffi fr ffi i ffi 'il'f"ffi
I F'rnd a mefl'o,urdtm b the pl.,,ilrg eirr En,rormenu commission on ths s.d{acof thc |bq.Esr br ad.il0on|l GRrr O #fr .;tho|. b be ddcd b boft J(|.3 of rDduphr bcetcd at 3t 10 god, Cn*t Dri*rfidiio* g, Valt Wtage I lth Fitrng.
l,\,ilrfr fto mffElrlcrn t sp.q'ltcdty cat brtr ttr nn- c "*niii ffiffi tid fi G*t'ids,; {ffiffi"f,:,*? ;l;elnrnfiq fi€ ablltty o,r"" trc.jIt"ie6ii",t- a rhntlng unit is dcmorteouilt,
In my rmmmndwn I rg..n*y qrr,,d thc prennrng_ enc gttnrncnar commioionto m.ke uc tolortlu finc,rgB b"frrL gr|lrnms ";frrd b;dC;,.'d#:
1. Th.l ille Santing of rhc leqrebC dd,t"rqqRFnwoutd not mgrh,dy aflbce{tfitg bpography, rcgddor,, Or*r , ina mtrg';ffi:"-
ffi ffi n'c
'usre$d ddilfin.l ctFA rnqrd rrc nrlrhrcty imp.cl
3. Th.tOF $uthe{tfic.F$* crtEid Onfer..uU compty wi$,8I Toul. ang leqfrncntr and ari*cttr on*pncnt-d;;A:
15- ft6 |Fpllcdiort.ws aFprq'Il u,Er !r spscfia nnCngE ,t lrimourly, E{.
FurtherAfirntrd0r nd.
otO Ufr | fl,. day otAr{uat, tg$.
Snnnr to rnd t{tEcrfred befrre ms trb 1/ *, n 1086byJim Cumdb.
MyComnbdon
12.
13-
lrr- t
ATTENTION
PEC BOARD MEMBERS
Item number 8, on the Augu st 12, 1996 PEC agenda, is an
appeal of an administrative decision. As with any appeal,
you should not discuss this issue with anyone' including
Town of Vail staff and the appellant, until the public
hearing.
There will be no discussion on this item at the pre-meeting
or on the site visit.
75 South Frontage Road
'Vail, Colorado 81657
970479-2100
FAX97G479-2157
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNW OF EAGLE
The undersigned hereby certifies the foregoing is a full, true and correct transcription of
Agenda ltem No. 4 of the Vail rown council Evening Meeting of August 15, 1 995, as it
appears in the original records of the Town Clerk's office.
STATEOFCOLORADO )
) ss.couNwoFEAGLE )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of August, 1g96, by Holly Mccutcheon,
Town Clerk. Town of Vail.
//..t
",^am,il,H&l,HtBTsMycommission"rpire' wco9T'iltffiffi$3'oti"'g
)
) ss.
)
Dated August 9, 1996
McCutcheon, Town Clerk
{g un"uoruo
Transcription ofthe August 15, 1995
Town Council Evening Meeting
Agenda Item No. 4 re: The 250 Ordinance
PO Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1995, second reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 18.71
of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail to preclude a dwelling which is totally
removed and replaced from being entitled to additional gross residential floor area to
quahry for the addition ofup to 250 sq. ft. ofgross residential floor area and adding a
definition of demo/rebuild at 18.04.065 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail.
RTM Thank you Peggy. The ordinance that is before you has had the arnendments that were' suggested at the last or fust reading that has a provision that five years must have passed
since the unit was issued a certificate of occupancy, whether temporary or final or in the
event a certificate of occupancy was not required for use to the dwelling at the time of
completion from the date of the original completion and occupancy of a dwelling. .We
believe that this addresses the issue ofthe requirement ofthe certificate ofoccupancy.
The ordinance does reflect that these applications will be reviewed by the Planning and
Environmental Commission, however all proposals wil stiU be required to conforrr to
the Design Review Guidelines. The ordinance eliminates 250 eligibility for any dwelling
unit not in existence as of November 20, 1995 or one for which a completed Design
Review Board application for the original constuction of a dwelling unit has not been
accepted by November 30, 1995. That does not mean that or have anything to do with
submitting an application for 250 eligibility. That will stand or fall on it's own, this
means that no building that is constructed after that date or is not in existence would be
under any circumstance eligible for a 250 additional GRFA. There was a question raised
in regard to catastrophic loss. It is appropriate to address that issue as it is inappropriate
to address it in this section because it is addressed in another provision in the Code at
Chapter 18.64.090 our Code provides that whenever a nonconforming use which does not
conform with the regulations or the district in which it is located, or a nonconforming
structure or site improvement which does not conform with the requirements for density
control is destroyed by fire or other calamity, by act or God or by the public enemy, it,s
use may be resumed or the structure may be restored, provided the restoration is
commenced within one year and diligently pursued to completion. This provisions
clearly pertains to any structure that has received the benefit of250 additional GRFA and
that would be normally permitted within the zone district. So it's not necessary to
address that again in this particular section. You will notice that we have added some
additional whereas clauses which I think reflect more clearly the discussion that has
occurred and comments that have been received from the community. I would like to
point out that I think that the wording in the forth whereas clause could be a little better.
It presently reads: whereas these dwelling units in many instances did not meet the
Design Review Guidelines in regard to landscaping, gravel driveways, parking areas, and
overhead power lines. I think that's kind of inconsistent and it should be meet the
guidelines in regard to landscaping, paved driveways, paved parking areas, underground
PO
utilities, and inappropriate signing. I think that that would more clearly reflect what the
Design Review Guidelines are. There was additionally and a question in regard to the
unit having received it's final certificate ofoccupancy and the issue that was discussed in
regardto that was to make certain that the building, as it was constructed, had met all the
requirements that were placed upon it at the time of construction. we've had an
opportunity to discuss this with the building departrnent and we believe that those issues
can be addressed through subsection A, which is in Section 2, and that we can remove B,
which states the single family dwelling or dwelling unit shall have received it's final
certificate of occupancy. Likewise as to Section 38, the building has received it's final
certificate ofoccupancy, we believe that that is covered and it's not necessary to state it
there. It's stated right above it in A and based on our review with the building
departrnent which George Ruther can go into in greater detail, we don't believe that that
is any longer necessary in this ordinance. There has been one other suggestion, I had a
message from Art Abplanalp and Diane Herman is also present here today, in regard to
the fact that a 250 is not available for a demo/rebuild. That is stated in the title of the
ordinance. It is also clearly stated in the purpose clause ofthe ordinance, but I believe
Art's comment is well taken and I would suggest that we addat2, between H and I the
wording, "that any single farnily dwelling or two family dwelling which is to be
demo/rebuild shall not be eligible for additional GR.FA.'Likewise in provision 3, I think
the same addition should be made between I and J. you'll notice that the following
provision addresses a concem of Council: "that any single family dwelling or two family
dwelling which has previously been granted additional GRFA pursuant to this Section
and is demo/rebuild shall be rebuilt without the additional GRFA as previously
approved." So in other words, if a building had received a 250 addition but it is going to
be demolished it would have to meet the present requirements for GRFA. That's all.
okay. Thank you very much, Tom. This has been quite a process. we have used this
many times over the years and I think this time made some changes that may really make
some sense and still be really fair to those who have expectations based on the ordinance.
Are there questions from Council?
I just had one. This asking for letters approving from the condominium association... I
just wondered why ... why does that matter if it would be interior only.
we ask for a letter, Sybill from the condominium association since any improvements
that could occur to the building... you are correct that they would be interior but often
times they include changes to possibly windows or the location of a door exiting out onto
a deck where the main entrance to the unit. So since those units do effect the buildins as a
whole we require an approval letter from the association.
Or more critically, (inaudible.)
Okay. I understand, thanks.
SN
GR
PJ
SN
o
PO Other questions?
'JS Yes, the ... tr assume this is already been in here tlnt when someone comes in and says a
list of things that need to be done one of the things that's required for someone to get
their approval is they need to provide the Community Development Departnent uiirt of
the names and addresses and stamped envelopes ofall ofthe adjacent property owners.
Why do you ask for that? (
GR We ask for that again because the 250 in part is a separation from generally the total
allowable GRFA on the property. And if you read in the purpose section of the ordinance,
it discusses that one of the review criteria that will b€ looked at with the application is
impact on adjacent properties. So we ask for notification to the adjacent property owners
so they are aware of what is occurring on the property.
JS But that's against then...of one property, adjacent property owner was against the 250 that
that would be enough to deny it?
GR Not necessarily, no.
PO Not likely (inaudible)
RTM In fact, your next item is an appeal by a neighbor granted 250. so we'll see how that
works.
PO Any other questions? Merv.
ML Tom, I was plaruring to following you, but you were going a little to fast for me. Did you
get into the fact that the 250 goes to PEC and not DRB?
RTM Yes we did.
ML Where is that?
RTM Page 2 at the very bottom there. '?roposals for the utilization of the additional GRFA
rutder this provision shall comply with all Town of Vail (inaudible) requirements."
ML No problem. I gotcha.
RTM "If a variance is required for a proposal it shall be approved by planning and
Environmental Commission in accordance with 18.62." That's the one section. And then
additionally on page 6 at the top of the page, "Upon receipt of the completed application
for additional GRFA the Planning and Environmental Commission shall set a date for a
hearing in accordance with Section 18.66 (inaudible). Notice shall be given and the
hearing shall be conducted in accordance with Section 18.66.080 and (inaudible).
PO Okay. Any other questions? Are there... is anyone here from the community who'd like to
make a comment or ask.questions?
(Many people talking at once.)
PO We've gotten a couple of letters from people who at times I think have been very
concemed with this and several I know have expressed an opinion that this is a very fair
resolution of the matter. So I think we were hoping to reach a decision that corununity
members would feel comfortable with.
RTM You know, seriously Peggy, we've had some input that has been appreciated and has
been included. I know particularly Art Abplanalp has spent a lot of time making
suggestions which were very good suggestions and we appreciate that. Thank you.
PO Alright. Thank you. Rod.
RS Peggy, I haven't had a chance to read the ordinance totally or thoughtfully, but ...
PO We cant understand why.
I am still opposed to it because I think the cut offdate of November 30, 1995 is unfair. I
think if someone has held a piece ofproperty for years and years and just hadn't been
able to afford to build or it wasn't right for them to build... Is that conect?
MM Well, notreally.
RTM That, Rod, refers to homes that are not yet in existence.
RS A vacant lot?
RTM Yes. It wouldn't be built yet.
RS Right. So if I've owned a vacant lot for 20 years and I plan on building in 1999, I will not
be allowed this 250.
RTM That is conect.
RS And I think it is just another reason that we chase people down valley and take away
rights that they though they had. I again, and I have spoken to you all before, I don't think
you can tell a property in this valley that has the 250 and has utilized the 250 square feet
and one that has not. I don't think size and impact is the issue. I really don't know what
PO
TD
the issue is. But I think we are taking away aright from someone who has not built and,
unfornrnately, those who haven't built are generally peoplq in the outlying areas where
the highest values are not. And we're impacting them morb than we did. Those values
have already risen so much. So based on that I would oppose it.
Okay. Thank you very much, Rod. Yes.
Hi. My name's Tim Drisko, I am an attomey in town with Chapman and Drisko. My
point is similar to Rod's is that people that built homes in the 60's, and there are a number
of them left. We represent a lot of them. My family still owns a home on Forest Road that
was built in 1963. My father's retiring as a physician. He wants to move up here. He was
kind of relying on that 250 square feet. A number of tre homes were built in the early
60's and 70's have to be torn down. They're you know, there's no question. These are the
people, and a lot of those owners are owners that were original owners. They are the
people being hurt by this. I think you're being vgry short sided by just wiping this offthe
block. There are a lot of good people out there. We represent a number of them that have
owned for 30 years and they're not going to be able to take advantage ofthis and they did
rely on it and they have relied on it and I think you need to look into a little bit more than
perhaps the five year. I mean it's very arbitrary for people that have owned for 30 years or
more, 20 years, who knows, but they obvious tear down homes. I think that needs to be
addressed. The 250 is gonna really hurt them to have it taken away. you know the
developers obviously it's been taken advantage of. Its been taken advantage ofon Forest
Road and Beaver Dam Road and the golfcourse over and over and over again, however I
think there are a lot of quality people out there still own older homes that relied on the
250 and should be able to take advantage of it some way or other. Perhaps some kind of a
moratorium or something, but to cut it offat November 30 is really giving them a short
amount of time. Our firm's gotten a number of calls and I think its to short of a time to
cut this off. And I also think that its directed... you know, cutting offthe 250 is directed
toward people that took advantage of it. There were a number of people that didn't take
advantage of it that have relied on it that have owned homes for a long time and I think
you should consider that before you pass this.
Tim im confused of what you're telling us. Excuse me. The November 30 is only on
someone who is going to build a brand new house on a lot that has not yet be constructed
on. So that's not who you're talking about. What the other section of the ordinance is
talking about is a complete demolition of the house. Those people would not be able to
get the 250.
As of tonight. If you pass it.
Right.
Right. Same difference.
JS
TD
PO
TD
JS All ofthe people that you are talking about could avoid this by not tearing the house
entirely down. Because you understand that the purpose ofthis isjust not to give
everybody (inaudible) 250 square feet. The purpose of this was people who originally
owned homles and wanted to add a littte familyioom or something little that was over and
above what the town already liberally gives people in what GRFA they have. That is a
little thing so that I wouldn't have to come in here and getting variances all the time. So
im not really followingwhat (inaudible.)
Well, a complete tear down home at this point if you vote for this to the vote against this
ordinance from now on you cant... you have no more 250, right?
That right. Ifyou tear down and start all over again you will not get the additional 250
because we feel that if you tear down entirely you've already eliminated the obstacles of
adding, rearranging the bedrooms and adding on what you want. why couldn't you do
that creatively?
Well, I mean its been taken advantage of for years here and I think the people that retain
their homes, you know, hoping and waiting for that additional 250 cause it has to be tom
down...
Well they can still do it as long as they don't tear it down more than 5002.
Yeah, but they're ... buy my point is that there are a number of homes that were built
prior to 1975 probably 100 or more in the valley here that have to be torn down. I mean
they're ... the construction's poor, the design is poor, I mean they,ve gotta go down.
original owners. That's who im addressing. And those are the people that are going to be
hurt.
I think the point Jan's trying ... I mean the point he's made, I think very well, another
component of that is that for someone who just has a vacant lot now its really unfair that
someone who is going back to that sort of situation with regard to zoning, has an
advantage. I mean the point is that once you're starting over you should be able to work
within the parameters of the zoning that we have. And if the zoning is not appropriate
within the Town of Vail, then we need to look at that, as a s€parate issue. I mean maybe,
if we need to up-zone the community and allow more squile footage, and generally that's
not been the message that we've gotten back on surveys and things. people seem
somewhat concemed with that. That would be another way to handle it. I mean if the
point is that someone really just needs more space than they're allowed under zoning, I
think we should try to address that in a different way.
well I guess my point is that a number of people that own older homes that are going to
be demolished are gonna loose that 250. And they are people that have been solid in this
community, including my parents who built in 1963 and they are the ones that are going
TD
JS
TD
JS
TD
PO
TD
to be hurt by this. You're taking it away from people.
JS How would they be hurt? I don't understand the .,hurt,, part,
' TD Well because they are loosing you know, when property is selling from anywhere from
$500 - $1000 a sqrxue foot, it all of a sudden wiped that offtheir ability to use that as
their retirement or for whatever reasorL or to rebuild a home and add onto it for
grandchildren or a larger family. And I think that's a disadvantage
JS I don't think anyplace in here does it suggest that the purpose ofthe 250 ordinance was to
make people rich.
TD Im saying...
JS And I think that's what the argument here is that you're looking at this as a financial issue
and the comrnunity is lssking at it...
TD Well it has been a financial issue in the past up until now and to cut that offfrom a
number of people that have held onto it ... and also a number of people that need to add
on you know for a larger family and other than that its...
JS They can still do that. (Inaudible.)
TD How?
JS You can have your 250. Anybody can do it as long as you wait five years, ifyou haven't
built your house yet. We're not taking ...
ML But not on a demo/rebuild. But the other thing, Tim, in your parents house in particular,
because of the way the zoning now calculates, which was other legislation that was
passed I think in 91, they effectively got probably another... In your dad's house,
effectively got another 4 or 500 square feet that they weren't allowed because of the way
the mechanical rooms and stairs are figured. And in some cases, as much as up to 800
square feet. So ifyou think your house is maxed out now, you need to go to an architect
or someone to figure ... cause I think...
TD We've been all through this Merv, you don't need to tell me about that.
ML And what was the end result? Did you gain more oryou didn't?
TD We retained more, but I think the additional 250 has been put into a lot of peoples plans
that we represent at West Forest Road, Forest Road, Rockledge, and Beaver Dam Road.
ML And, just out of curiosity, how much was gained?
' TD Pardon?
ML How much was gained because of the changed in the regulation?
TD Gained specifically where?
ML Because ofthe calculation of ...
TD Well, the 250 was a straight forward.
ML Yeah. Without the 250, how much was gained?
MM (Inaudible) Merv, so its really hard to calculate that. George did a calculation (inaudible)
about 40Yo they're allowed in GRFA. So they're not maxed out so you can determine the
arnount of surplus...
ML Oh. So you have a lot of capability.
TD I just, yeah. Well im not talking about you know my own family house alone, but I just
think the 250 is gonna hurt a lot ofpeople down the road that have been around a long
time. That's the people we represent so that's...
RS Does the demo/rebuild, and you have to leave 50% of the GRFA, does that mean you cant
even reconfigure a bathroom within the 50% you leave? I mean do you have to leave it
absolutely as is, same size rooms?
PO No. No. Tom why don't you explain it. I mean in general it just means that you cant
demolish more than 50%.
RTM If you destroy it more than 50% , if you are taking away 5l%o of the existing GRFA then
you do not qualifr for an additional 250 square feet.
RS If you leave the walls, the exterior walls, and the roof, or maybe you build a new roof, but
can you within that 50olo reconfigure?
RTM As long as you're not destroying...
RS Destroying what?
RTM the square footage. Gross Residential Floor Area. So as long as you are...
RS So if you leave the outside walls, if it were three rooms and you made it one room, that's
okay.
RTM Yeah. If you do not ... If you leave the exterior of the house intact, I don't think that
would be qualified as removing Gross Residential Floor Area. If you knocked the roof off
of the house, then you would be effectively removing that Gross Residential Floor Area
from existence. (
RS If you Ieft the walls, but took the roof ofl
RTM Yes.
RS What if you have to replace tle roof cause it its 30 years old?
Well then you'd better...
RS I think you need to define very clearly what the 50% means and what it does not mean.
RTM What it refers to is and incorporates the entire section with calculation of Gross
Residential Floor Area. This is something that the Planning Departnent does on a regular
basis. And it brings in a standard that is worked with and understood by the Planning and
Environmental Commission and by fhg planning Departnent. And that's why we have
used that as the standard that is used here. Because it is understood and it has been felt
that 50o/o... removal of 50Yo or more would be destruction of the building. And I think
that just to say whether or not you took the roof off, im not qualified to say right now
whether or not that would be it. That would come up to a decision of the planners. I think
that the idea is that the incentive would then be gone. once you are desnoying the
building, the 250 as it was intended was to impr,ove... make improvements to existing
structures. And that once you remove more than 50% which is what the discussion has
been, that then it's not in fact an incentive. It is a bonus that is not appropriate.
TD I think it's going to open an incredible can of womn
PO Further discussion.
I would like to move that we approve Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1995. Should I read this
whole thing again or did you already do that once?
You know, I think that you probably want to mention some of the changes that Tom...
he's made some additional changes here. You want him to go through those or can he
just say the changes you made?
I think that Tom detailed (inaudible.)
JS
PO
JS
PO Okay, Motion by Jan Strauch. Is there a second?
PJ Second.
(,
PO Second by Paul Johnston. Is there further discussion? All in favor?
PJ Aye.
JS Aye.
SN Aye.
PO Opposed?
RS Nay.
ML Aye. But I want to clarifu my opposition.
RS Its either vote yes or no, Merv.
PO Okay, the motion passes by avote of 4-2, with Rod Slifer and Merv Lapin voting in
opposition. I voted in favor.
ML Rod, I voted against it not because I agreed with you, but because id like to see the 250
go away completely. I think the amount of square footage that will be added because of
that segment ofthe 250 that's allowed to stand will further deteriorate the quality of life
in the Town of Vail because of increased density.
PO Okay. Next item on the agenda is Town Council call up of the DRB...
l0
75.South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970479-2100
FAX97M79-2157
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNry OF EAGLE
The undersigned hereby.certifies the foregoing is.a full, true and correct transcription of
Agenda ltem No. 3 of the Vail Town Council Evening Meeting of August 1 , 1995, as it
appear in the original records of the Town Clerk's office.
ne E. Wright, Executive
Office of the Town Manager
Office of the Town Attorney
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNry OF EAGLE
,3.Uelg.nO sworn to before me this 8th day of August, 1996, by Anne E. Wright,
)
) ss.
)
)
) ss.
)
My commission expires:
HollyL Mc0nilchon
Notary hrbllc
75 S. Fnnhge Rd.
Vail,C0 81657
ot.o7.qh
My Commislon Erplms 0l07r!9
{jo"nt"oruo
8/l/95 Town Council Meeting
PO Item #3 - Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1995, first reading of an ordinance amending
Chapter 18.71 additional gross residential floor area. Mike Mollica, Tom Moorhead.
RTM Thank you Peggy. After work session Mike and I have attempted to incorporate the
changes that council requested in ordinance No. 6, has that been placed at your....
JS No, it has not. Oh, I'm sorry I have a new one.
RTM The first thing that you will notice is that we have deleted all of the highlight and
strikeout. The highlight and strikeout had become incomprehensible so we've started
over. What I'm going to do is just go through this and point out where we have made the
additions or changes that were discussed at Cormcil. On the first page you will notice
under the purpose clause that it is sated immediately that we are talking about dwelling
units that have been in existence within the Town of Vail for a period of at least ten years.
Onpage2,
TS Tom, before you move on.
RTM Sure.
I think there's a typo on the 5th line, at least seems incomprehensible to me. Chapter
does not assr:re each...that doesn't seem to follow to me.
RTM Thischaptermeaning,ChapterlS.Tl.0l0doesnotassureeachsinglefanilydwellingor
dwelling, that should be rmit located within the Town of Vail an additional 250 sq. ft. In
other words, just because you have a dwelling 'nit that's within the Town of Vail........
[inaudible]... Thank you And there may be morr, I appreciate your pointing those out
because we found some since we've done this.
On the second page, the first section deals with single family dwellings and two family
dwellings. Under subsection Ao at least l0 years must have passed from the date the
single family dwelling or uwo family dwelling trnit was issued a certificate of occupancy
whether temporary or final, or in the event ofa certificate ofoccupancy rvas not required
for use of the dwelling at the time of completion from the date of original completion and
occupancy of the dwelling. This incorporated the ten year period that Couucil has
requested and we've also incorporated the definition that was suggested by Art
Abplanalp. The second provision, I'd just like to explain, this is a carryover from what's
presently in existence and I'd like to explain the differcnce between A and B. Section B
states the single family dwelling or dwelling unit shall have received it's final certificate
of occupancy. The purpose of that is in the event that we have a dwelling that has a TCO
but they have never taken care of all the requirements to get their certificate of
TS
occupancy, they are required before application to get their certificate ofoccupancy, in
other words, to come up to the requirements that were originally set on the Foperty. This
is one of the ways that the granting of the 250 or the application of the 250 insures that
properties are kept up the way they should be kept up. So that's the..the first section,
Section A sets the time period for the building to be in existence, Section B deals with
making certain that it has met all of the requirements that were placed upon the property
when it was built. Under subsection C you will notice that we have put this under the
purview of the Planning & Environmental commission, that's the las sentence, the
applicant must obtain a building permit within one year of final planning &
Environmental commission approval or the approval for additional GRFA shall be
voided.
Moving over to page 3 at the subparagraph H, at the end of that paragraplr, no application
for additional GRFA shall request more than 250 sq. ft. of gross residential floor area per
single family dwelling or dwelling unit, nor shall any application be made for additionat
GRFA until such time as the allowable GRFA has been constructed on the property. We
have instances hs Mike pointed out where individuals will request a 250 and they have
not yet used all of the GRFA that applies to the site.
And finally I, Merv this addresses the issue that you had raised earlier, any single family
dwelling or two family dwelling which has previously been granted additional GRFA
pursuant to this section and is demoirebuilt shall be rebuilt without the additional GRFA
as previously approved. Starting here with Section 3. This deals with multi family
dwellings and the changes that were incorporated for the single family and the two family
dwellings have been incorporated here. You'll notice under subsection A, the ten year
time period has been put in place and likewise with I and J, the additional provisions that
we've discussed are also applicable to this type ofa building.
Tom, is it necessary to make clear that multi family dwellings are not eligible for
exterior?
RTM If you look at H Merv, no deck or balcony enclosures or any exterior additions or
alterations to multi family dwellings with the exception of windows, skylights, or other
similar modifications shall be allowed under this chapter.
ML Any you think that's clear enough that it means that you can't use the 250 in an
manner.
MM That has not changed at all.
RTM That's the same that's in existence.
ML
SN Are you finished TonU I had a question.
RTM On..... on page 5, under procedure a new paragraph...first of all under fee you'll notice
that we changed that to a fee pursuant to the current schedule shall be required with the
application, we took 200 out ofthere, and then subsection B, upon receipt ofan
application for additional GPSA the Planning & Environmental Commission shall set a
date for hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.070. Notice shall be given and the
hearing shall be conducted in accordance with Sections 18.66.080 and 089. Then finally
under eligibility, no dwelling unit shall be eligible for additional GRFA prusuant to this
section that is not in existence or a completed Design Review Board application has not
been accepted by the Community Development Deparment by September 1, 1995.
PJ Should that not be Planning Commission rather than Design Review Board?
RTM There is actually going to be a Design Review Board application, but we'll look at that.
The procedure clearly will be a review by the Planning & Environmental Commission,
the Design Review Board application may be the appropriate applicatioq but we'll check
that. Mike believes is the correct application.
MM I believe that it is what heard from the Council is that the intent of ... if someone is
applying to build a new house they would make an application to DRB. If they had that
application in and it was complete on September lst they would be allowed to work
through the process.
PJ My only point was that earlier in this ordinance you changed the approval process to the
Planning Commission.
MM Right. The Planning Commission will be the board that will review the 250 applications,
but this is specific to someone requesting DRB approval for any dwelling unit. That was
the reference to DRB.
RTM Right, this doesn't deal with the approval or denial of the 250. It doesn't deal with
making your application for you 250 prior to September the lst. What this deals with
Paul is the house either exists prior to September the lst, 1995 or you have made a
completed application which has been acceprcd for the house.
PJ Up to this point and time you would have applied to DRB.
RTM For the hor.rse you will continue to apply ...
PJ I understand
PO This is the trigger mechanism.
RTM Exactly.
SN On page 3, H, where it says no the application be made for additional
GRFA until such time as all allowable has been constructed on the property. Wouldn't
you be allowed to apply for a 250 in conjunction with finishing offthe rest of what you
maybe had an allotnent... we'll let's say that your house was 500 feet short and you
wanted to expanded to 700, you wanted to add 750?
MM You could do that. The intention here was to not allow individuals to apply for a 250
until they had made an application for utili"i"g the allotnent of GRFA on the site, we've
had numerous individuals attempt to get approval of the 250 when in fact they have
available GRFA.
TS Well the way it reads though youhave to have....
RTM ..... constructed. What we may do is add constructed or applied for on the property.
SN Yeah, it just needs to be slightly reworded. I *on't attempt the word smitling, you can
do
PJ In 48, this afternoon there was issue made about incomplete applications, should that say
upon receip of a completed application. It is below in 5.
RTM Rigbt. Um, completed application isn't a term that we have used in other portions of the
code when we are talking about scheduling it for Plaruring & Environmental
Cornmissioq and in fact matters will be scheduled for Planning & Environmelrtal
Commission hearing and staff will work with the applicant to bring their application up to
completion. If it's not brought up to completion then many times it's table, but they go
ahead...
PJ So again at 5 that's a trigger mechanism. Your okay to not be consistent in that.
RTM Yeah.
JS Tom, could I ask youjust a question on procedure here.
tonight, this is a first reading?
RTM Yes.
JS Then we see this in a second reading in two weeks?
RTM That's correct.
Assuming that we approve this
JS That date is what? Roughly the
JS
JS
PJ l5th.
RTM August l5th.
JS And then, if we approve it that day, does this thing then become effective when? That
day2
RTM At 5 days after completion or is it 4 days? 4 or 5 days. 5 days after completion of the
publication of this ordinance.
JS And how long does that take to publish it?
RTM I'm not certain.
MM
Could you take a guess.
Friday in the Vail Trail.
So that would be the l8th maybe and then it comes out 5 days later, it's effective 5 days
later? So the 23rd. What I'm driving is at here is I, I again as I mentioned this afternoon,
if we have this thing come effective on the 23rd of August and we make an application
date of September I , I do not believe that is fair. I don't ttrink that's proper notification
and I would suggest for everyone to consider that we might want to say that this thi"g
will come effective 90 days from the approval date or December 31, whichever one
comes sooner. Because this may not be approved in two weeks either. We may have
another to do in here and we may want to reconsider it, there's no promise. And then
we'd have to go back and rewrite this thing because we may be approving this thing after
September 1. So again, I think we owe it to our public to provide arnple opportunity for
people to read about it, to plan for it, and I would suggest that we do that. Other than that
I think is some very good revisions here.
Okay, other comments by Council members? Anyone in attendance who would like to
comment, please. Go right ahead Art.
For the record I'm Art Abplanalp and I appreciate the Council's willingness to listen to
my comm€nts earlier this afternoon and I'm flattered by your incorporation of some of
the changes that I've zuggested in my letter of last week. I have two, what I guess would
be technical concenu and one substantive. I think that the point which was brought up
regarding the subparagraph H touched on a problem that the resolution doesn't really
resolve and has to do with prohibiting the application for the 250 until such time as all the
allowable GRFA has been constructed, either suggested or applied for upon the property.
The problem is that it doesn't take an application for what you have under zoning. I
would suggest that what you..that needs to be fleshed out a bit and you need to make a
PO
reference along the lines of..that has been constructed or an application for Design
Review approval has been submitted in association with the 250 application. It's going to
be a complicated sentence but I think that ifyoujust say applied for that's subject to
interpretation and I for one know what you have to apply for to get you what you actually
have under zoning. The other technical area has to do with Section B of both the multi
family and the single and duplex. You have the same problem there that you have in A
which is what Tom mentioned two weeks ago I guess or a week ago, two weeks ago. The
single family dwelling or dwelling [inaudible] I've received it's certificate of occupancy
some dwellings have never done that and this requirement is inappropriate. I would
suggest that like paragaph A you add the words if required at the time of completion.
That effectively takes out those that werc constnrcted prior to building code that requircd
a CO or TCO. The substantive problem I have, which I think gets back to the question of
fairness, is the adoption ofthe ten year standard and the people who have either
purchased units or have awaited construction and use ofthe 250 based upon their belief
that the five years would apply to them. I think that the three month delay in
effectiveness would help to alleviate that but there are people out there who do not have
the financial ability at this point to go fonrard with a 250 who might within a year when
their dwelling is seven years old or it's eight years old but this basically puts them on
hold for an additional one to five years in a circumstance where they may need an extra
bedroom for someone who is 10 years old or 12 years old but five years down the road
will be in college and the need will be gone. So I think that it ges back to the question of
faimess and reliance of people on the five year standard and those who purchased
properties with knowledge of this and knowledge of their flexibility. I'll grant you that
it's a weighing of the individual benefit versus the community benefit but the rolling (?)
standard is going to be there and whether it's five years or ten years I have diffrculty
trying to quantiry that as far as the appearance of the Town of Vail. But the people who
are going to be affected by the change will be affected in some circurnstances that you
simply can't deal with. It's going to change their lives and I would suggest to you that's
really not within the fairness standard that the Council has uied to adopt. Thank you.
Thank vou Art.
RTM Peggy, in regard to Afi's comment in regard to Section B the building has received it's
f,.nal certificate of occupancy. Mike and I do want to talk to the building department
about that. I believe that what Art is suggesting may be morc limiting than this particular
provision. What this provision contemplates is that even if a person has not received
their certificate ofoccupancy they will be given the opportunity to go ahead and carry
through with that obligation so that their qualified for a 250, Under the suggestion that
Art has made, ifa person did not get their certificate ofoccupancy it could be held that
they could never apply for a 250. What we arc trying to do is make certain that even
though a person didn't do that, cause it may have been owned by someone else, they may
not realize when they buy the property that the certificate ofoccupancy hadn't in fact
been issued, and will allow the building inspector to go in, look at the property and then
PO
issue the certificate at this time. So we are intending that this be available to expand the
applicability as opposed to being a limiting factor.
AA Perhaps my comment was misunderstood. This was intended to apply to buildings that
were constructed in the 60's let's say, when no CO was required and they could never
measure up to the standards that would now be applied to them in order to get a CO. In
those buildings I think if the verbiage I suggested isn't appropriate, some other
recognition of that fact I think should be included here, otherwise those buildings which
perhaps need the 250 most of all would not be entitled.
RTM The code that is reviewed or applied is the code that was in effect at the time the building
was built so that a building that was built in 1970 isn't being held to today's building
code but rather it's being held to the code *rat was in effect at the time it was built. And
that was one of the things, one of the particulars that we wanted to talk to Gary Munain
about to make certain that he still felt comfortable with this provision. Wp muy come to
you with a variation of what's there now and after we talk to Gary we may incorporate
Art's suggestion. It is our belief right now that we have it in it's broadest application
right now.
PJ Cause yotu really considering rwo possibilities, one that Art refers to, that it could be a
case where it was required but the intent that I heard you outline is somebody who was
satisfied to live with just a temporary CO and not finish up the punch list items as it were
RTM Exactly.
PJ and get the CO so they would be required to go back and finish up that punch list, get the
CO, and then go through the process.
RTM That's exactly correct.
SN Do you think it would be reasonable to add the line that per requirements at the time of
construction. I think he brings up a good point that some of those buildings would never
meet, you know ifthis was interpreted that you had to be up to the current code.
RTM I believe that all we can require is that it meet the requirements that were in place at the
time and that's what has been applied. We'll review it with Gary Munain and if we need
to add some language such as that we'll do so. But the intent is not to hold the building
to a higher standard than it was held to at the time of completion only to do as Paul
suggested, make certain that they've fulfilled all of the punch list requirements that had to
be taken care of.
JS .Just another point, I confused. I thought when people asked, got the 250 and they
8
remodeled, in fact they had to bring their house up to code.
RTM Exactly, in some aspects they will be required to, yes.
JS So it doesn't go back to the, what was in existence in the beginning of time. It goes..
RTM OnIy..
JS So I'm confused, which way does this go?
MM Well they have to bring it up to code in regard to zoning issues but they don't have to
bring it up to code with regard 1e luil.ling, electrical, plumbing issues.
JS Well this needs to be clarified.
JS
That's a good point, to clariff the ordinance.
So we don't get confi:sed. I also would agree with the lawyer that just spoke I think that
this changing the thing to l0 years is just an absolutely arbitary new requirement that can
be extremely onerous on people in this community that don't even know that we're
discussing this. I see no benefit ofdoing this. Your absolutely righq there are golng to
be a lot of people sitting around waiting, not only just the five years to go by but be
financially and their children planning, and that we don't even know about that this is be
tremendously detrimental to, to very little benefit to us to make the goal for ten years.
It's still going to be developed if they want the 250 and whether they do it in a 5 year or 6
or 7 year period I still don't see the benefit and I know you've been pushing this and I'd
like to have some more input on this.
I'm not really pushing it Jan, I was arguing actually both sides of tle fence this afternoon.
I mean I could make a case for either scenario and quite frankly I agree with you as far as
the five year. This is why I said I could go either way. I think there are benefits to either
argument and the five year, as far as individuals is concerns, I think your right. In terms
of what my understanding of why this ordinance was done in the first place, of upgrading
the community, I think usually a house that's only five years old doesn't need resprucing
and you know you stretch out the time frame and consequently you have, especially know
that we're putting a stop on it on new ones that you have a longer period of time where
the density increases and also you have maintenance over ten years instead of well in five
years. One of the arguments I've heard about getting rid of this is well what happens
when the guy uses it and five years later he comes back and says he needs it again. Well I
think the ten year argument makes a case for that happening less frequently. So, I think
in a way that one argunent kind of can out weight the other which is why I say I'm
sitting on the fence and I'm not sure which is the more important.
SN
JS I'd just like to add one word,of response to that and then I'll be quiet on the situation, I
think that the time period of when people want to remodel their houses should be left to
the owners of the houses not the government. And for the government to say well you've
got to wait ten years because that's how we think it should be is intrusion in private
property. So, let the people who own the house decide when's the proper time to add the
room, or qhange the color, or add a dormer or whatever their going to do with the 250 if
they ever want to do it. So, I'll leave it ...
PO But we already had five years out there. Do we consider the 250 by right zoning, it that, I
mean I guess that's the other comment I'd make.
RTM No, as I indicated to you in thepurpose, the chapter does not assure each single family
dwelling or dwelling unit located within the Town of Vail an additional250 sq. ft.
PJ A thought occuned to me on that D issue about the certificate ofoccupancy, when you
went through the fus section that it might be more clear to say, before submitting
application.
RTM Okay, in regard to that the next sentence also deals with the additional issue we had been
talking about, proposals for the utilization of.the additional GRFA under the provision
shall comply with all Town of Vail Tsning requirements and applicable development
standards. But we'll work on both of those issues to make certain that it's very clear.
PO Thank you. Who else would like to comment? Good, well it's fine to form line.
I had a question on the first page, the second to last senteuce, it talks about an increment.
Does this mean that more than once you can come and add less than 250 feet to your
house?
MM Yes, up until 250 [inaudible] apply for a portion of the 250. You could apply for 150..
Well I don't think the language here is clear that you can only add a maximum of 250. It
looks to me like you could add 200 this year and you can go and apply some other time
from another 200. Your language here is not clear.
JP? Well later in the ordinance it says clearly you only get it once.
RTM Well I think it says it hear Carl?, actually it says the 250 sq. ft. of additional GRFA may
be granted to existing single family dwellings, existing two family dwellings, and
existing multi family dwellings unit only once. But may be requested and granted in
more than one increment of less than 250 sq. ft. And that's is in existence at this time.
But we've never had any problem with anyone coming in and indicating that they thought
they had the right to ask for more than 250.
10
PO
BA
Okay.
Thank you.
Bob Armow. I always make everybody else do this so I've got to follow suit. First of all
I'm sure that Design Review Board will be disappointed that they don't have to look at
this anymore. And the Planning commission will enjoy oru longer meetings with more
delicious dinner that we do have. I really like what the discussion and what the staffand
what your work has come up with. Yes there is some tweaking that needs to be done.
I'm on the side ofthe five year as opposed to the ten. I think you've nailed the
demo/rebuild with the 50olo removal of gross floor are4 I think that was something that
was very definitely needed a something clear on. I'm real pleased with where it's taken
the Plarming commission, the staff, the council, the community members have put in a
lot of time on this. I think you've nailed it pretty good with the fine tuning that will be
needed. I totally support this ordinance
Thank you very much Bob. Who else would like to comment? Any other Cormcil
members wanting to comment? Merv..
Well, the aspect of the ordinance that I don't like is the fact that the number, the amount
of density that can be added with the existing 250. That still concems me and in a letter
that was sent to us by the community Development Department dated December 19,
1994, it points out that we still have a third potential DU's, that means that there are
presently 1,757 existing dwelling units and there's a potential for another 853 dwelling
units which allowed density by themselves, but when you add to that the potential of all
of those, and these are single family duplex, primary/secondary nnits, adding 250 sq. ft.
on top of the existing 2sning, yow looking just at the 250 sq. ft. adding 624,000 sq. ft. of
density to the valley and that's only talking about the .rmount of density that will occur
based on the fact that most ofthese buildings are three and four and five thousand sq. ft.
buildings, nor does it take into consideration that fact that almost all of the units in West
Vail and East Vail in particular, but also some in mail Vail have not been built out to their
total GRFA. So I see an enornous incrcase in the visual impact of wall to wall buildings.
The 250 does not solve the problem. A down zoning would, but a 250 adds to the
problem. By allowing it to go forward either on a five year or a ten year basis is not
solving the problem. All we're doing is making the problem sbetch out over a longer
period of time. I think our quality of life is very much dependant on the amount of
GRFA, gross residential floor area or the amount of density that we have throughout the
valley. Now multi family units, we've been told, only have the potential build out for
another 4%, so we can add another 33% roughly of DU's under single family, but only
4Yo inthe multi family. But even tlose are going to have a tremendous affect on quality
of life in the valley. Because they can add a million two hundred thousand GRFA albeit
it's not going to be as noticeable because it can only occur intemally, but when people
add250 sq. ft. to multi family internally it can easily be another bedroom which is going
PO
ML
ll
PO
to be a more intense use of that particular project. Now, I don't in anyway think that the
million nine that this memo suggests could be built, would be built. I don't think that
everyone's going to take advantage of it, but I think over a period of time what could
happen here, certainly in the area of the single family and duplex units adding 624,000 sq.
ft., will happen. And I think that's going to have an enonnous afiect all on it's own. I
would like to see the ordinance go away completely. I think it was a mistake initially, the
purpose of it was to solve a problem of a particular neighborhood or some particular old
units to add basically mud rooms and some environmental things that were needed and I
think that the users of this, and there have been I 76 so far, have basically been the houses
on Beaver Dam Road, have basically been the second family homes and it's been
basically an economic, been used economically because an additional 250 sq. ft. on a
duplex obviously is 500 sq. ft. and when it costs between $100 and $200 a sq. ft. to build
and the selling price goes anywhere from $400 up to $1,000 a sq. ft. it's an economic
situation. I think that there are some people, and agree with Art, that have anticipated
using this to improve their house and some of the 176 people have done it to improve
their house. But I think we'r€ overlooking complete, or to a great extent, the fact that
when we simplified the zoning change in 1991 that up to 850 sq. ft. was given to
everyone. In some cases there are some howes, that because of their way they are
designed, got nothing. I agree to that, but there are some houses that got basically four,
five, six hundred sq. ft. added to their zoning and I think that's going to have a
tremendous impact. Most people do not understand that their house is not built out.
Most people have the ability under the simplification that we did in '91 to add a lot more
than 250 sq. ft. to their house. And that's what they should use. There are some people
and you know we heard from them last weelq that I sympathize with that have had it
checked, have gone their own architec! and they find that they don't have anymore. But
I titink that the greater good is the affect on all of us of adding such a tremendous amount
of GRFA to our rather small valley. We're going to look like some communities in
Southern Califomia with zero lot lines. It already looks that way when you go up from
Spraddle Creek or from Potato Patch and look down on parts of Beaver Dam Road and
Rockledge and Forest Road. And it certainly looks that way in Mill Creek Circle and it's
going to look even worse as the golf course continues to buitd out. I don't think wall to
wall houses is the quality oflife that has created th€ property values in this valley are
going to be to our benefit long term. I think that we are going to hurt ourselves by
continuing to allow over building and I think 250 is just a little bit of the problem. What
we really need is a general down zoning, based on what people have been able to do with
our existing zoning.
Thankyou Merv. Who else? Tom?
I'd like to ... historically in this town when the originally developers came in they put
rather dense zoning allowed on the property. Fortunately the Council at one point saw
the dangers because ofthe boom that was going on and down zoned across the board one-
third. with the conclurence of the real estate community, because they saw what they
TS
12
PO
PJ
were going to end up doing is killing the golden goose that had started to come out of that
egg. The Council also passed real estate transfer tax to try to down zone more by buying
up open space, both for open space and also to remove it from the land stock. Both which
has made Vail what it is. I have opposed the 250 from the word go, because it's
constantly been trying to buy or get more favors to allow more growth, more growth, to
undo what was done originally to control the gross density in this village. So, once again
I'm going to oppose this. The only exception that I would even consider would be if the
250 was restricted totally to employee housing, which again is a trade offbecause need
both. But jus to give a developer a bonus in my house alone with a duplex lot, I would
have a bonus with what land values and building costs and so on of a quarter of a million
dollars on my house just with this nvo 250's and I think that is short changing our future
growth. People that vote for this are taking the short view and that's not what has made
Vail great.
Thanks Tom. Other comments?
I own a business that was affected by I think two down zonings, which made it kind of
long and tedious and brain damaging to go tbrough an approval process to upgrade it to a
current point of where I think our industry wants to be, should be, needs to be, so I can't
really comment Tom if they over allowed in the begirming or if.the down zoning in the
'70s was inappropriate. There are certainly some benefits. I think that the transfer ta,r
has probably been one ofthe greatest mitigators, by all ofthe open space that it has
allowed us to have and the parks that it's allowed us to get, etc., etc. Those numben are
intimidating about what we could expect to happen if this 250 is allowed to stay. I take a
little bit of issue on the 850 that it's an absolute gift because my understanding is that's
what had been counted in other capacities, whether it was closets, mechanical closets,
stairways, double stainvays, whatever. But there is not question that units have gotten
bigger, people I think are now looking at the properties that they build orthey acquire as
a possible full time residence rather than just a weekend ski hut, house, condo, whatever,
that they are looking towards retirement or towards working out of a house via
telecommunications or whatever. So I think that there is, rather +han just a demand, there
is a need for complete residential capability for permanent occupancy by families of
whatever size family's happen to be. So I am as some others have commented from the
audience excited about the ordinance wherc it is now and I do support it and my style
would be to go ahead and make a motion, but if other people want to talk I'll wait a little
bit or somebody else can make a motion.
You know I think Galen Aasland wanted to comment on this.
My name is Galen Aasland, I live in West Vail, actually think I was herc last time and
spoke about this. I think it's much better written than it was previously. I think a couple
things that it doesn't address are if someone were to have a catastrophic loss ..
PO
GA
l3
GA
I'm sorry.
If someone were to have like a catastrophic loss, like a flood or a fire, and under the code
they are allowed to rebuild their house exactly the way it is, but the way I read the
ordinance it doesn'q it would seem that if they built it exactly the way that it exists that
they should be able to apply the 250, obviously ifthey changed it and redid the house
then they shouldn't, under the demo/rebuild they shouldn't be able to do that, but ifthey
built it exactly the way it was and I didn't see that addressed in the ordinance. I do think
that what Paul said about the people, when the zoning changed a few years ago, people, I
mean if you look the old zoning you used to get250 sq. ft. for storage, 50 sq. ft. lor
mechanical, 25 sq. ft. for an air lock, plus counting upstairs didn't, when they overlapped
it didn't count. And so, I think that in a lot of cases you really didn't get an exfia bonus
with the 4Zl,youbasically ended up being very close. So, that's all I have to say, but
thank you for your time.
What is the comment on the catastophic loss issue?JS
t4
RTM That was exactly what we were talking about at work session today where we indicated. that if the house burned down you could rcbuild. I'll go back and look at the
nonconforrting section, cause that's wtrcre it permits you to rebuild to the
nonconformance if you do it within a year and it is due to a catastophic loss. If that does
not adequately tie into this, we can v€ry easily put that provision in
Jim S I would say that most people that rebuild their house, Galen your an alchitect you've
known this nuch longer, you have a much longer history on this, but I would say thar
most people that rebuild are not golng to rebuild exactly as it was.
GA that's exactly right...
Jim S But I would bave some leeway with that, but clearly...
GA For instance there are houses in town by current code couldn't be bUilt, like [inaudible]
house in town. That house, at this particular time is too tall, but they'd be allowed, if
there was something tbat happend to ig they'd be allowed to rebuild it rmder the curren!
under the, the way the building code reads. And that's just one example. Bu! then one
etfusr thing.
ML Is that right what he sai4 he said tbat they wouldn't be allowed to be rcbuilt because it
was too tall, if it burnt down?
RTM He said it would be allowed.
GA It would be but it's like if you ried to do that from scratch today you couldn't do it.
ML Why's that?
GA Because it's too tall.
PO Not allourcd bv zone.
Height.
GA It doesn't meet building height. And it ...
RTM Heightrcstriction.
ML So if it's nonconforming and it bums down, it could not be rebuilt.
RTM Could be rebuilt.
l5
PO
JS
[inaudible]
RTM As long as you rebuild it within one year.
Jim S We're about to get into another issue.
GA Actually the one other thing because it was packaged with this or in the same table, was
that this development standards that was passed out, that went with this, in ways it's like
4 in my mind cause tlds is what, I'm an architect and I deal with this, it's kind of a quick
one page summation but when you read it, if you look at it, it's really kind of half, some
of its very true but some of it's kind of half truths, because some places yoru allowed to
basement that doesn't necessarily count as square footage. Like in Beaver Creek the 35
ft., there's the one house right at the entrance there that's like seven stories high on one
side because you can average heights and so, in ways this addresses most issues, but in
ways there's some real kind of half truths in this too.
Thank you Galen. Additional comments? And I think two points that were made relative
to the discussion this evening were the effective date in the ten year versus five year, so I
guess we'll wait and see what we come up with then.
I'm willing to go ahead and ty to propose an ordinance that we adopt this Ordinance No.
6, Series of 1995 on changing the 250 sq. ft. ordinance with I've got six different things I
think we talked about and I would recommend that we try to do it, and before doing it,
I've heard the good arguments that are here and I think that no one in this Council is
looking forward as Merv suggested that we're going to end up with wall to wall
buildings. We don't have curent zoning that allows wall to wall buildings, and if we do
we should fix that. The 250 sq. ft. ordinance at the outside, at the biggest outside is going
to increase the square footage in this community probably way less than 5% since every
building doesn't quafiry for it. And whether you'd even notice this little percentage is
not, I don't think is going to be negative to the community when you think of the _
that it was set up and the _ were to allow people not to ask for ordinance, or
changes, variances, excuse me for simple things that they needed to do to fix their houses
that they bought or built when they were really old and they could not afford to build
what they really wanted or their family didn't require it. And if we got ride of this we
would go right back to that thing again. So, I think that this will be a benefit to the
community, it's something that a lot of people were counting on and it probably does
work in most cases and where it hasn't worked maybe we could work, and I don't see
anything in here that would be, would help the problems with it because we wouldn't be
able to fix the problems as Tom has already told us. We can't allow it only to be given to
people in certain incomes and certain neighborhoods and certain home sizes. So I would
suggest that we pass this with the following changes. One is fix the typos that exist in
there. I still believe that we should go back from the ten back to the five years, because I
continue to not to see any benefit to extend it. I think we need to redefine the certificate
l6
o
PJ
JS
of occupancy issue tlnt has plagued us and we need to resolve that. I think we need to
clariff because the paragraphs of where the application will go to, is it going to go to the
DRB or the PEC, it doesn't seem to be clear, the two paragraphs there. And again I
would suggest that we start this ordinance 90 days after it's official approval or by
December 31,1995, whichever comes first. And if there is some clarification needed on
what happens whefi therc's a catasbophic loss we should address that, if that is not in
here, I'm not sure it is or is it not. And with those six cbanges I would suggest that we
approve it.
Thbt's a motion?
Yes.
PO Motion by Jan, is there a second?
S.N. I'll second.
Second by Sybil. Further discussion.
Jan would you consider like 60 days and December St.?
Sure.
Rather than 90 and the 3lst?
JS I just want to give proper notices. To do it September lst is wronB, so 60 days would be
fine to me, yes. 60 days orNovember 30th.
RTM Does everyone understand what that date, the sipificance of that date September the lst,
1995?
PO Please go ahead and explain that Tom.
RTM What that is, is the date by which a house either must be consbrrcted or the application, a
completed application has been accepted by the DRB. This ordinance will go into effect
immediately. And what that does is it puts everyone on notice that any house that is buitt
after that date or was not in for its application, application hadn't been submitted by that
date, would be ineligible for a 250.
Js And what I understand is this, the way I'm suggesting is that we're going to give people
two months to respond 1s tfuis thing and get an application in if they want to do a 250.
RTM But the ordinance becomes effective 5 days, I just want to make sure that everyone was
PO
PJ
JS
PJ
t7
clear.
SN Can I ask Galen, he's here. I hazatdaguess that 60 days is moot because, correct me if
I'm wrong, I find it a stretch to image that somebody was trying to beat this ordinance to
the punch and started tomonow could get a completed application on the table in less
than 60 days.
PO Forbuildinganewhouse.
SJ{ For building a new house.
TS Are we talking about 90 days or
SN Well we're talking, no, ure're talking about changing it to 60 so I, it may be, if it's not a
worthwhile period to extend it, is it even worth talking about.
JS I guess the question is, what is the rigbt amount of time to get, what is the proper
notification so somebody could say, read it tomorrow and say, gee I want to do this I
better do something right now. How long would it take them to get into the works.
For a2502
SN No to have a house. Do a whole, plan for a house. I'm asking your opinion, is that even
possible to do that in 60 days?
Inaudible]
GA [inaudible]
PJ And it's their application for 250 not.
No, it's an application for a house.
RTM Not for a 250, the application for a house.
MM That's why it goes tbrough DRB.
PJ? It says shall be eligible for additional GRFA that is not in existence or a completed' Design Review Board application has not been accepted but before additional GRFA.
JS The point here we're saying Paul is that ...
PJ It doesn't say for a house permit.
l8
JS Yeair it does. It's saying which houses are going to qualiff for a 250 in the futtre. Let's
say I have a vacant lot and I want to use my 250, I haven't even built my house yet, in
order for me to ever get that 250, I need to have my application into build my house by
this date.
ML But your argtrment's the very reason why someone shoutdn't get 250, they're going to
build the house that they want now with the anticipation that they can have 250 later.
JS Cause they can just afford to maybe, make a small house, maybe it's to get their 250. It's
a stretch.
ML You mean benveen 5,000 and 5,250?
Js No, maybe their not going to build a 5,000 sq. ft. house right now. Maybe their going to
build a little house right no and have ten kids.
PO But then they won't use all their GRFA.
PJ But if what I understand is righg if they got in an application for a 1,500 sq. ft. house, it
would quali$ them in the funne for 250.
That is correct.
SN And what I'm say, is we're sitting hene arguing over the differ€nce between 10 days, 30
days and 60 days and 90 days, but what I'm asking is ifthat even makes a shadow of
difference?
GA lt's seems that what Council's really asking is two questions, it seems what the Council
wants to do is shut somebody offfrom doing a demo/rebuild or starting a new house on
an empty lot today and being eligible for 250. And so it seems that that part of the
argument [inaudible] if that's the way the Cormcil votes should be started on September
lst or [inaudible] five and ten year, if someone's actually eligible right now for the 250,' but [inaudible]
JS Their both important. [inaudible]
PO Which would lead me to then comment Gale4 just looking at this from a common sense
standpoin! I'lljust address this to you Galen.
GA [inaudible]
PO Having considered both sides of the five and ten year argument I would say that probably
there's going to be more difficulty changing from five to ten years then is worth it.
l9
PJ
PO
Ten to five, year.
From five to ten.
SN .. From the benefits that we gain.
PO In other words, going, lengthening the number of years that you have to wait. Earlier we
discussed that there are pros and cons. The pro ofgoing to ten years is that it, as Sybill
said, it spreads the whole thing out over a longer period of time. The con is that you get
into these sorts of technical things. Now there's a rush before the ordinance goes in effect' or before this that or the other thing to be sure that you get in on the five year time line
since now it's going to get changed to ten years. I'm not sure it's really worth it. Plus I
think ttnt it will be a point of irritation, because people will be able to say as Art has once
again reminded us that this isn't fair, I thought it was going to be five years. I stayed in
this house instead of moving to Singletree, when the baby was born, because I knew that
in t}ree months I was going to be able to add 250. And now it's five years and three
months, and you know, that sort of argument and I, I'm not sure if I thought a lot of good
was going to really be accomplished for the community as a result of taking that position,
that would be one thing. I'm not sure that over time, I mean that it's really that big a
deal, whether it's in five years or ten years that it's worth fighting through the
implications of perhaps not being fair.
ML Well, while your using common sense, [inaudible]
SN Let me just finish my question, given that we're going to keep, right now the motion is to
keep the five years not the ten, given that it's still five years, then we're not talking about
a 250 application, we're talking about an application to build a house from scratch on a
lot that may want 250 in five years. What is a reasonable arnount of time to accomplish
that task to ger it into DRB?
GA It depends on the [inaudible]
Iinaudible]
PO it ro* we're all enjoying the fact that there's less pressure than dnring some 250
discussions so, I don't know whether we should break into small groups and sit around
and chat or you know, what we should do.
Jim S If I may ask a question?
PO Yes, Jim.
Jim S How long is an application good for?
20
,, RTM One ygar.
Jim S Okay, canyou
. RTM Anapproval? 25Oapproval? Is goodforoneyear.
Newhouse?
RTM New house? I rhink it's three years.
JS ' And can you change the design ufiile yorn.l.
RTM Sure.
. Jim S So you've got tbree years before you have to perform. Thp only thing tbat this says is
you have to apply. So you have tbree years bcfore you bave to perform in tlat tgilding.
Am I correct?
Youhave fo have acompleted application.
MM lt's oneyear. ADRB approval isvalidforoneycar.
Jim S Okay, ale there any e:<tensions?
MM There can be.
ML Oh '\at's right the whole house will go ro DRB not ro pEC.
. MM Risht.
Jim S So maybe that hetps. You bave a year, as long as you get your application in he can have
any client he wants. Surely they won't take 66rc rhnn s ysat to do that and then you can
extend if you want
Iinaudible]
JS We're a5king an architect just how long does that take?
RTM It depends onthe clienl
MM It could take 30 days it could take 60.
JS On a nrslr, good client basis.
2l
TS Oneafternoonhesaid.
Iinaudible]
90 days.
' PO Even Mr. Art Abplanalp eadier on the frirncss issue commented that based on
notification, unas this at a previow meeting, the people know that this is in the works, I
mean time hn< already running. Was that a point that you made?
22
AA The mle of thumb I used earlier today is that if the seven members of the Council can't
decide what this says, you can bet that the staffis going to be arguing about the same
point and it's meaning 6 months dgwn the road. And I think tbat what was going on here
illustrates the fact that this particular subparagraph 5 needs to be more specific as to
whether it's talking about a compJeted Design Review Board application related to a' ho*. or the 250, because I think it's subject to interpretation
"itno
*"y and it was being r
read bottt ways. I would suggest that you modifr it along the lines of 4 basically, no
dwelling unit shall be eligible pursuant to this section that is not in existence or the
subject of a completed Design Review Board application for original constnrction or
something similar to that to clarify the fact rhat we're not talking about everybody
rushing in for 250s. I think Mike and his staffare gorng to be challenged with that
argument if there is in fact [inaudible, Sybil t tkingl
ML First of aU I think that it's meant to be for either case. Either the 250 or the new house
because ...
AA You're reading it differently..
ML Well but I thinlq that wasn't the intent It was just for the 250? Or the new house?
RTM Newhouse.
ML Oh, that's right because we changed the ...
RTM That can be clarifie4 that can be easily clarified.
AA Thankyou.
PJ So is your motion..
JS To keep it 90 days. Yes.
PJ 90 days or December 3lst.
JS V"r.
PJ And yoru second is thag Sybill.
SN Yes, I thought I was aski'g a simple question.
PO Are we going to get a rush of new house applications nor{?
[inaudible]
23
PO In spite of our best efforts to keep things moving at slow pace, I mean I hate to think of a
rush. [inaudible]
TS Shortsighted again.
ML I agree with Tom. Fint of all I think what people are, the point that is being forgotten is
that it's five years from the time the house was built, or ten years from the time the house
was built. It's not five years from when someone bought a house. If the house was built
in 1985, it's eligible for the 250 now. You know, I don't agree with the, you know the
concept ofshortening it. The purpose ofthe ten years is, the purpose ofthe 250 was for
people who had small changes that they rvanted to make to make their house more
liveable. It was not to make it possible for everyone to increase tl16fu 2sning by 250 sq.
ft.
SN We're not shortening it, we're leaving it the same.
ML [inaudible] No, but I wanted it to go to the ten years.
SN Yeah, but that's lengthening it, this is not shortcning it.
ML See, cause I think that's more in keeping with why the 250 was oriEnally....
JS I don't know where everybody's....I don't see where every penron whose built a house in
the last ten years has built a big monstrosity, multi-million dollar hor.rse. A lot of people
have built nice small comfortable houses here.
Po well let's not I'm not sure .... I think we're now giving philosophical opinions, excuse
me Jan I didn't mean to ... hone in on yorl but you know.
PJ Well I believe Jan's motion calls for a fine tuning, tweaking, correcting grammatical
enors, clarifications, etc. and I call the question.
PO Okay.
RTM Change of date to December l, 1995?
MM Riebt.
PJ No.
SN 90 days.
PJ 90 days or December 3lst, whichever comes first.
25
RTM Well, we need a date for this.
PO Let's, yeah, let'sjust pick a d4te.
90 days.
RTM Yeatr,weneedadatespecific. Notg0daysor, Imeanifit'sgoingtobeDecember3lst,
this is the date at which the application has to be filed for and we really should, for
clarity, because this is going to be codified, this isn't when the ordinance goes into effect.
' JS But I'd say it's November 30th, cause that's 90 days from the theoretical September I
date tfuis thing is going to be done.
PJ lt's 60 days.
PO I'd suggest 90. [inaudible]
PJ OrNovembEr 30tlU I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
JS November 30th will be 90 davs.
PJ Okay Sybill?
SN Fine.
PO Okay, all in favor?
Aye.
PO Opposed?
Opposed.
PO Okay, we have voting in opposition Jim Shearer, Tom Steinberg and Merv Lapin. So the
motion passes 4-3. Thanks very much for your participation.
26
o
75 South Fronnge Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2100
FAX970479-2157
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF COLOMDO
COUNry OF EAGLE
The undersigned hereby certifies the foregoing is a full, true and correct transcription of
Agenda ltem No. 4 of the Vail Town Council Evening Meeting of July 18, 1g9S, as it
appears in the original records of the Town Clerk's office.
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.couNwoFEAGLE )
subscribed and swom to before me this 7th day of August, 1996, by Holly Mccutcheon,
Town Clerk, Town of Vail
)
) ss.
)
Dated August 7, 1996
McCutcheon, Town
My commission expires:
l|ir*nntorut
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING
TUESDAY, JIJLYl8, I995
Agenda ltem No. 4
DISCUSSION REGARDING 250 ORDINANCE
PO: Okay, the next item on the agenda is Ordinance #6, Series of 1995, first reading of an ordinance
anending Chapter 18.71. Additional Gross Residential Floor Area. Tom Moorhead and George
Ruther.
TM: Thank you Peggy. We have a most recent'draft which has been in the back of the room since the
meeting began earlier this evening. There are several items that I would like to point out in regard
to this revised ordinance. It is noted in legislative fashion with stikeout and highlight the areas to
be stricken from the ordinance are lined out. The new provisions are in highlight. '
PO: And for everyone here, please be sure you have the most current copy. We did discuss this briefly
this aftemoon at work session and some changes were made at'that time.
TM: Based on the findings of Cotmcil, particularly after reviewing what has occurred since the
adoption of the 250 Ordinance and reviewing the demographics as far as where the 250 was used,
pwsuant to Council direction, we have presented an ordinance that removes the opporttrnity for a
demo rebuild to take advantage of additional GRFA. Demo rebuild is described as "rernoval,
destruction of 50 percent or more of the GRFA." Under that circ 'mstance it would not be
qualified for the additional 250. This was based upon Council's expression that it does not believe
that was consistent with the intent of the ordinance and that it really did not provide an incentive to
upgrade existing houses and merely provided an oppormnity for an individual to take additional
advantage of GRFA without affecti'g the existing housing stock within the Town of Vial. AIso,
you will notice that the ordinance now gives the oppornrnity for the additional GRFA to stnrctures
which were constructed and are in existence since 1985. I think that the date that you will see in
the Ordinance is to have received their Temporary Certificate of Occupancy by December 3l of
1984. Additionally, they must still have a Certificate of Occupancy prior to being able to apply for
the GRFA. That's consistent with the ordinance as it was in effect previously and I think that staff
has found that is appropriate to require the Certificate of Occupancy prior to the availability of ttre
additional GRFA. That is essentially the primary shanges that bave been made and I think that
you'll see that the strikeout and the highlight thrcughout the ordinance is consistent with that. I
would recommend that we do go back and proofread the entire ordinance. I think that on a close
observation of the existing ordinance that there are some proofreading issues that should be taken
care ofbefore its final passage.
PO: Okay, thank you very much Tom. Questions from council members? Questions from anyone
interested in the ordinance? Now, just to claiff and summarize, the changes include defining a
dwelling that is eligible as one that was in existence prior to 1985, which meant that it had a TCO
(Temporary Certificate of Occupancy) prior to December 31, 1984 and then eliminating the
provision for the application for the 250 ordinance in a situation in which a demo/rebuild has
occurred. We did make a third change and that is to allow this ordin rnce to be used in conjunction
.ini:1
PO
PO
PO
with deed restricted rurits. Yes. And please come forward and ask questions so that we can ansiwer
them...hear them.
(inaudible)... for seven years. What was the basis of the decision to go with all dwellings built
before 1985?
Well, this was seemed to be... was a result of a discussion with members of the real estate
community. They advised us that there were structures that had seven foot ceilings out there and
you know Tl l l I guess and that were built at ta time when it was questionable whether or not Vail
was going to be successful enterprise and that, therefore, people didn't invest significant amounts
into these. They were strictly vacation homes and that working with the consbaints that resulted
from that kind of cohstruction made it difiicult for people to necessarily do what they needed to do
to upgade and.update those properties.
What occurred in 1985 to change that? I guess...
(naudible)
What occurred in 1985 to shift the quality of construction to where everything built after that is not
a concern?
Well, I think we assume that there's a gradual evolution. But one of the things to eliminate was the
scenario in which people build in expansion potential for the funue and obviously this would
eliminate that concern. And I think there was a feelirg, and maybe l9g5 is not the right year.
Earlier today someone suggested lg92.Imean, maybe its l987...there was a point in time at which
it was assumed that Vail was gonna be a successfirl undertaking and that people were probably
more likely to iavest significant sums in building a stnrcture that was more liveable.
May I tell my story briefly?
Sure.
I moved from California to Vail seven years ago. The house that my wife and I purchased was
built in 1987, We moved from about a 5,000 square foot house to a 2,000 square foot house. But
an interesting aspect to this house, and im finding this is not that unusual, even though its 2,000
square feet, my living room/faurily room is about 12 x 15. So it's about 180 square feet. And im
finding out that this is not that unusual. The house was actually constrr:cted as a second house. But
we decided because of the views up in the Potato Parch area that's where we wanted to live. rily'e
were told at that time that we had a progressive council that thought through that
(Laughter)
I can't imagine anyone ever saying...
that if the house had been in existence for 5 years there was a 250 add on and so this.,.r,as
something that my wife and I looked forward to and really had been s6ying essentialll to do our
PO
PO
BA
250 room addition. You mentioned something earlier about family values in the town and I totally
concur with that. I think that w1th72% second homeowners I think the values of creating a family
environment in this town is a value I think we all support. Julie and I have been very active in this
community in all different aspects and really want to continue to raise our two boys in this
community, but I think the decision that's coming before the council tonight is rather arbitrary. Its
a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water. I think you're trying to solve a problem that
maybe is not as blatant or is not as strong as you might consider it. Anyway, that's my story and I
just wondered ... if you do adopt the resolution as its written, essentially I don't have the
opportunity to add my 250. So... I would wish you would reconsider that. Thank you.
And thanks very much for you comments. Who would like to comment next? Yes. Go ahead,
Bob. And why don't you plan to be right after Bob so we can keep it moving here.
So we can line em up and move em out. Bob Armour. I live in Vail. I'm an equipment operator for
the Vail Golf Course. What I would request right now is that for the viewing audience at home for
the people that come up and speak, if they could give their name, where they live and what they do
for their living. I think that would be enlightening. The problem with the ordinance, the perceived
problem, the intent... this has gone round and round and I've read the minutes and have just
packets on that. The intent of the 250 ordinance when passed, was to help somebody like me, with
an addition l0 foot wide, 25 feet long. That would be great for me. That would be a batbroom and
a bedroom. In some of the instances whsre this has been used its merely a mud room. The misuse
the demo rebuild, the ultimate remodel has been the perceived problem. Prior to this, PEC, I a6
also the Chairman of the Planning Commission, had to wrestle with variances requested by
applicants to increase liveable area in their homes. With no real hardship due to lot size it was
impossible. The Council, in its wisdom, thought that a 250 ordinance would be appropriate for
locals trying to upgrade and trying to stay in the valley. I am in support ofthis ordinance. I think
the demo/rebuild should be removed. I think we should keep the 250 as written for people that live
here and need to add on and not the ultimate remodel of tearing the house down and starting over
again. That was not the intent and as Ordinance No. 6 reads now, I believe a lot of locals would
support this. I do. Thank you.
Thanks very much Bob. We did ... one comment I'll make is that since we've focused... have such
a fine oppornrnity to focus on communication with members of the community you might be
interested in knowing that when we did our community survey this year, item number one in terms
of priority significant issue was open space. These were people finding these to be their fust and
second most significant issues chosen ftom a list. Open space preservation came out as number
one. Affordable housing in Vail came out as number two and number three was new development
regulations, and the comments attached to this indicate that these are individuals concemed that
we should have more regulations to limit density. So just for your infomntion, this is all feedback
that we're all getting from members of the community. Go ahead.
My name is John Henchman. I live at 30054 Booth Falls Road. My wife pwchased our half of the
duplex in 199, we're full time residents. The house was built as a vacation home. Our ... we knew
when we purchased it that we had the option of adding 250 square feet to modernize it and helped
to convert it to a full time rcsidence from a vacation home. We have a postage stamp laundry, it's
in a closet. We have a small master bath. These are things that we would like to enlarge.
PO
JH
ML
JH
ML
JH
ML
JH
ML
JH
ML
Unfornrnately, we had to spend $20,000 to coovert our in floor electrical heating to hot water
baseboard because we had a fire. And that postponed or delayed our abilit| to do this addition.
Now, all of a sudden, we are confronted with the ordinance here that says, while, our house is nine
years old we can';t do it, but a house that's one year older can do it. You know, if someone said
that two or thrree years ago now, in 1995 they're going to change the ordinance, of course we
would have done something about it then. We love where we live. We don't want to move down
valley. We're fitll time residents. We want to stay here, but we need to upgrade the house. It was
built as a vacation home and we want to maki it competitive with what's available down valley.
So I would ask you not to penalize the people who thought that they had tle five year oppornrnity
and for us, your choice of 1985 isjust a one year too early as far as we're concemed.
John, before you leave, are you built out on your GRFA now?
Yes.
And how do you know that.
I was told that.
By?
I was told that when I purchased the house.
Okay. And you bought the house in 1987?
91. I am the third owner.
One thing that seems to be a confirsion factor that most people don't realize is that back when we
changed the 250 ordinance, we also changed the way GRFA was figured in terrns of mechanical
rooms' and staircases, etc. And that was liberalized to the tune of a roughly, depending on the size
ofthe house and how a house is configured, anywhere from roughly 200 - 400 square feet. So
many people who think they are at a max truly are not and they probably need to have that verified
by the Community Development Deparfinent. Because most houses, when they are refigured under
the way it was changed and simplified back ... do you know ... remember what the date is ... when
we changed this, Tom?
1988 was when this ordinance was last amended. It was considered for some changes in 1991.
Originally written in 1985 or 1986?
1984 was written and passed in 1985 I believe.
I mean, that's the basis of the 1985. watermark (?) that was always my understanding.
Well, this happegrs6 while I've been on council and I've been on since '87 so it had to happen...
TM
PJ
PJ
ML
PO
TS
PO
ML
Well we discussed...
You're talking about two different things. You're talking about the 250 ordinance which was
passed in '85, you're talking about when we ... simplification of all the zoning laws and so on
which was about four yea$ ago, five years ago.
'912
'91. Is that corect. (Inaudible) So I think that many people have between 200 - 400 square feet
that they probably don't think they have when we simplified it. And one ofthe reasons that some
ofus feel that the 250 can go away is that they actually got that bonus that they don't know that
they have. And the impact of what it means to add 500-600 square feet, you know, up to 5,000
units in the valley. That's a little bit of wtrat the concern is. So some of you, if you're not sure, I'd
encourage you to get a hold ofthe building departrrent and veri& what you do in fact have.
It's the Building Department that I go see?
Community Development.
Who do you want to? (Laughter.) Okay. Go to your architect is what the advise is of our
Community Development Director.
There's a reason for that Merv, because there... in the calculation someone may take a position
that's contrary to a position that's being taken by Commrmity Development. If Community
Development tells an individual "your ma:<ed out" and then later an architect that they hired
doesn't agree with that, it makes it appear that community Development has mislead the
individual. You really should rely upon a professional that you engage to calculate the GRFA. And
then once the application is made, Commrmity Development will make an assessment also.
How many square feet in your house, Bob?
About 2,900.
Okay. Cause its ... even if you're maxed out it's always possible to reshuffle that 2,900 to get what
you want rather than adding more on the outside.
It really isn't possible. We have thought about every angle we possibly could and it really isn't
possible.
It's called "gutting".
Now, let me understand then, I need to go hire an architect to figure the GRFA and then if the
architect says I'm ma:<ed out and then I come back and you pass this ordinance I'm dead.
That's right. And that doesn't sound right, d.rcs it?
JH
PJ
TS
TS
TS
JH
JS
JH
JS
JH
PO
LF
ML
LF
(Laughter.)
No. Cause I paid an architect to find out that I'm dead.
Doesn't sound like a good deal to me either. Cause your argument is still good. Let's say, for the
sake of argument, that you are maxed out and you still want to do this project and everyone else
had and you're a year too late. Its a very good argument.
And I could have done it several years ago.
Thanls very much. Lynn.
Well, I'd like to address the enforcement issue as someone who has to interpret these rules and
make it such that the council sees their vision. So I am Lynn Fritden, I am an architect in the
community. And one of the things that's very difficult to enforce is percentages when it comes to
construction. And if you remember prior to the curient allowance for demo/rebuild we had a fair
amount of conflict in reinterpretation about'what the nature of demo/rebuild is. Is it the foundation
that's (inaudible) whatever. In my opinion as a practicing professional, 50% is opening the door to
multitudes of interpretation. What is 50%?
What would you suggest then?
Well, I think that there's a good reason that we eliminated that. In the first place and, because,
when you get down to the foundation often times you get down that far and you find out that the
foundation isn't good. And you have to take out the foundation or you have to reinforce the
foundation. There's many regulations now in force and good ones - that I am totally in support of.
Like rock fall hazard, wetlands mitigation, debris flow mitigation, that were not in place in 1985
and often times people who are redeveloping their homes need to address all these issues.
Sometimes you do need to go down to the bare bones to redevelop properly. Now whether the 250
is appropriate for that use or not, I think is open to some discussion. I'll tell you to go through and
calculate for somebody their existing GRFA ... I'll just tell you my office time, I know what it
takes one of my technicians I would say a 4,000 square foot single family or duplex we're talking
at least 70 (she may have said / hours of technical time to re-input the information such that you
can get accurate square footage takeoffs and that's about the same amormt of money as some
peop-le plan for their whole addition. So it is a tough situation. Throws a burden on the applicant
and maybe not unfairly. You know real estate prices here have gone up considerably. You know,
maybe people do need to reassess how much square footage they have. I guess .... there's two
thoughts I have. I have always been a supporter of controlled growth and when I was on the
council I certainly ambivalent about several issues but I have continued to support that. It says to
me that we are restricting development or restricting additionat square footage on the lowest
density zone districts in the Town of Vail. You know, commercial districts in this town are not
limited by floor area ratios because at the time the zoning ordinance was adopted and still
fimctions today commercial is still encouraged because we never really had quite enough of it. At
least in our own political mind. Why I mean, I can see restricting the 250 but maybe we need to
look at our commercial zoning. Maybe that's where we're get,",ng the additional sqruue footage.
Certainly as a resident of West Vail, I arn vergsensitive to the :ssue of expanding commercial at
ML
ML
LF
the 4-way stop. That intersection is toked to the max and anybody, and you don't have to be a
professional planner to know that trip generation for residential. And especially a residential
addition as opposed to new commercial. There's a big spread here. And actually I came here to
tonight for the Commons first and I missed my big opportunity so that's my speel on that. I know
everybody's heard enough of that. But you know, it is a sensitive issue. I guess I would like to
have this ... if we are to take away the 250 I personally would like to see the enforcement issues
addressed and secondlyo look at it in terms of the larger zoning ordinance.'Where is our new
square footage coming from? Where is our traffic generation coming from? Where is the visual
disnubance coming from? You know, I 'hink people have a lot of different opinions about it. And
lastly, I'd like to say one think that happens in interacting with clients and I admit my biases and
prejudices . But the 250 is a no brainer. You know it's easy to enforce, it's easy to explain to
people. It is a quantity that is definable and people accept it. You know, my father developed a
product here in Vail many years ago that ftst quantified speeding. The speed of cars. A very
simple device, but up until that time, officers had the duty of going to someone and telling ther4
"you know I think you're really going too fast" and somebody would say, '$ell no, I'm a very
competent driver and I am goingjust the right speed and I don't think I am going too fast and I
think you should let me go on. This is inappropriate.' Until speed limits were quantified and
enforceable that didn't mean a whole lot. The 250 is a quantifiable, enforceable entity that seems
to be working and seems to be something that people accept. And I won't say anything more about
the Commons
Lynn, before you leave...
(Applause)
One of the things that you brought up that I wanted to try to get an answer to is you said that the
50Yo,the way that we're defining a demoirebuild, as if you had 507o, what would you do other
than that to define it? Is there a better way to?
You know, maybe you could define it as a strucfural component. I don't know, but where... there
are so many new regulations that effect those bare bones items. I 3imply don't see how you can do
it. Its a new world. The tecbnology and the rcgulations today, not only from the Town of Vail, but
within the profession and nationally, are so different then they were in 1985. They're different
than they were in 1989. To comply with all of today's expectations often t'qres you have to rebuild.
nume_rous elements of the building. And...
Is staff satisfied with the definition?
I think that we were looking forward to the discussion this evening. I ttrink we were also looking
forward to some feedback from the architectural community. We have not had any feedback yet
from Lynn and people in her profession and we would welcome that discussion and we anticipated
that there be discussion between the Community Development Departnent and the community in
that regard to see what is the most effective manner to define a demo/rebuild.
Who would like to comment? Art,
TM
PO
AA For the record I am Art Abplanalp. I'm an attomey here in Vail and while I don't live within the
Vail limits, I represent many clients who do. And many of those clients are going to be caught up
in what I think can be characterized as an aggravation of the last settlers syndrome. We're not in a
situation where the door is being slammed immediately, we're in the situation where the door is
slammed l0 years retroactively. Unless you have a house which was constructed l0 years ago, you
are not entitled to an ordinance which people have been relying upon since 1986. And what the
motivation is for that we don't know, but we hear rumors. We hear its density. We hear its abuse
of the knockdown capabilities or polential of properties.'I think it would be worthwhile to reflect
upon the fact that while this ordinance was originally adopted in the mid-80's, it was effectively
amended by the Eagle County District Court in I think 1988 when the Town of Vail was told that
it could not prevent the use of the ordinance to permit the 250 addition in the case of knockdowns.
In reaction to that decision, the council had two choices. Either to refine the ordinance to prevent
its use in the knockdown situation or to enact regulations permitting its use in the knockdown
situation. The council at that time chose the latter. And that's one of the questions you're wrestling
with now. My purpose in being here is two fold. Fint of all, as someone who has represented
public entities for a period of time, I'd like to see government work and I'd like to see ordinances,
regulation s on the books that everyone knows the meaning of and that have the effect of fulfilling
the intent. That's not what you havg here. Secondly, the people I work with, many of them are
going to be caught up in the results of what you do if you go by this latest change of taking not
only the 5 year period away, not only the l0 year, but make it a flat, if the house wasn't there in
1985 you weren't entitled to relief. There are two problems with the ordinance from a drafting and
technical standpoint that need to be,addressed. First, ofthem being in the purpose section, "the
Council" the ordinance we have before us uses on half a dozen occasions the word, "existing
dwelling units." Under the original draft that was circulated today it was ambiguous as to whether
"existing" meant existing at the time ofthe enactrnent of the ordinance or existing at the time of
the application. Now it's aggravated by the fact that ofthe halfdozen references to "existing" one
ofthose says, "in existence prior to 1985." Reading through the pnrpose section, you're asking for
arguments as to what the intention of this ordinance actually is. Secondly, although I'll grant you
that the vast majority of struchres that go up in the Town of Vail, particularly now, have
temporary certificates ofoccupancy issued. Some have not in the past, and under the test that you
have imposed, the basis is whether the building was in existence and a TCO was issued by a
certain date. If a building was in existence and it went directly to a permanent CO it will never
qualify here. You need to address the fact that a TCO has not been issued for all ofthe buildings in
Vail and you need to address it in the altemative, either a temporary or a permanent certificate of
occupancy. As to the density concem: two new items of news that I'd seen had suggested that this
ordinance pemrit the use of interior space whether its a 20 foot high living room ceiling or a20
foot high garage, for the development, and that would not be affected by this, that's not true. I
suggest that there is not reason within your pulposes, if the purpose is density within the Town of
Vail or appearance of density to prevent tle improvement of interior space, which does not effect
the bulk of buildings. Although twice that has been in the newspapers its not in the ordinance. As
a matter of fact" the two items that come closest to that relating to the conversion of garage space,
are very much in conflict between the single family and two family dwellings verses the
condominium. And there's no reason for it. I suggest to you that you ought to review those and
they ought to be made consistent. I'll grant you that the inconsistency is in the ordinance as it has
existed in the past, but if you're going to try to redo this and try to make sense of it then that's
something you should address.
ML
AA
o
Art, could you explain that a little clearer?
well, if you look at the provision relating tosingle family and trvo family dwellings...
What page are you on, Art?
It's at the top ofpage three. Ifany proposal provides for the conversion ofa garage or enclosed
parking area to GRFA, such conversion will not be allowed unless a new garage or enclosed
parking area is also proposed. Plaris for a new garage or enclosed parking area shall accompany
the application under this chapter and shall be constnrcted concurrently with (inaudible)
conversion. The similar provision is related to multi-family dwellings is found at the top of page
four. Portions of existing enclosed pa*ing areas may be converted to GP.FA uder thiJordinance
if there is no loss of existing parking spaces in said enclosed parking area. There is a differcnce in
application whictr, if you're looking for consistency in an ordinance that people can rurderstand
and rely upon, as Lynn talked abou! you ought to look at making those look zubstantially
identical.
Could you explain how you feel that's inconsistent?
Well, the ... in the case of the multi fanily dwelling, you have to have no loss of existing parking
spaces in said enclosed parking area. In the case of the single family dwelling, you have the option
of construcring a new garage elsewhere. Why the difference? And in neither of those, in both of
those cases, even though there is no increase in density, you still can't do it if the building was
constructed or a TO or a CO was issued January the l5ttU 1985.
I understand that issue. But this is a first reading and for those who aren't familiar with our
procedure, its these kinds of things that we do want to pick up...
That's why I'm addressing it this evening.
But before you go forwar4 Tom do you have an answer?
Well, all of the parking regulations are different between the single fanily and the multi family
structure. It's calculated differently and the obligations are different. And I think it's consistent
and ugrderstandable that the regulations would be different as far as the addition ofthe 250 as it
pertains to the parking.
That's for the Council to decide.
He does have a point though, that a lot ofhouses never got an occupancy certificate of any kind,
my own included, because there was no planning and zoning in the county or in the town. There
wasn't any town when the house was built. So there was never one issued. So therefore, even
though under the definition here, I couldn't get the 250 ifl wanted it.
There was previously included within this ordinance and you'll notice the strikeout and I don't
have the page right in front of me, it refers to ... on page three under provision 34 and previously
PO
ML
AA
ML
ML
TM
the ordinance and presently the ordinance says at least five years must have past from the date the
building was issued a TCO or aminimum of six years must have past from the date the original
building permit was issued for construction of the building. That actually provides for the situation
that Art has described, where a building is in existence but has never been issued a TCO.
AA But it may not apply to Tom's. Did you have a building permit at that time? I'd be surprised.
TS No.
TM So that's the way the ordinance is written at this time and the ordinance at this time requires one of
those two things.
AA There are otherpeople who would like to speak, but the message I would like to convey is the
ordinance is intended to address a problem which it doesn't address. If someone wants to qeate
additional GRFA within the boundaries of the existing dwelling, who cares? If people who have
relied upon this for tJree years, six years, nine years, are now having it pulled out from under
them, there's offense to be taken. And that's not what they expect their govemments to do. If you
want to establish a date as a cutofl perhaps you'd better... you might say a CO or in construction
for five years, and the building was constucted prior to whatever the effective date of the
ordinance is... in August, of 1995. People then have notice. People will not have relied upon notice
only to have this council change the rules after they have relied on them for anywhere up to nine
years. Thankyou.
PO Thanks tut.
PJ When was the reannexation of West Vail (applause) complete?
TM That varies. I think up until 1988 they were still going through it.
PB Yeatr. (naudible) for three years.
LE The reannexation of West Vail,I think it was about ,82 - (inaudible)
PB Actually, the effective date of the de-annexation, I will never forgef was September I l, 1985, and
I think it took us about three years to get the various areas back in.
TM So it was about 1988, Pam?
PB I think when we got...
PO Kent had his hand up for a while and then Dalton. Was your comment specific?
DW My comment is with something Art brought up.
PO Oh, well, then why don't you corDe u1, here ... (aughter) I'm just tryingi.to keep this moving
because we're you know, running behi:d here and we want everyone td have a chance to
10
comment.
DW My name's Dalton Williams, a member of the Planning Commission. I think one think Art
brought up about the conversion ofgarage space... what ifsomeone is required to have two
parking places and builds three when they have kids that are in the house and they need three
parking places and then later they want to take one ofthose parking places which is in excess of
our requirements and use part ofthat against the 250 to tum that into liveable space. I haven't read
this since I wasn't at the meeting when-we went through this on the Planning Commission, but that
seems like a loophole. That if somebody has built excess garage and its within the town rules and
they then want to convert some ofthat space and still have the required interior parking, I don't
see why we would not allow that to be used in the 250 because it doesn't enlarge building and
doesn't decrease the amount ofrequired parking
PO Thanks Dalton. Okay, Ken.
KW I'm Ken Wilson I reside atT9?Potato Patch. I thought I knew what I was gonna say, but between
Art and Dalton I don't even know why I'm here anymore. (Laughter) I'm totally confirsed. First of
all, id like to clariff something that Peggy spoke of originally in her comments. I think the 1985
date was originally picked because that was the date of the ordinance. The original ordinance. It
w.ui no magical date that the Realtors worked with or anything such as that in our work session.
And we also talked about that date rolling and not being a set date. To pick a set date would mean
that not only the ordinance and the houses would be obsolete. Because you gotta keep rctling. You
cant just use a set date. But hopefully that clarifies that. I don't know how many years I've come
before the Town Council. How many times I've come before the Town Council on the 250 rule
and I'm still not sure what the problem is. I'm not sue why we need to change it. We talked about
some abuses and it seems to be in the demo/rebuild area and I think we've come to that conclusion
that there's a way to solve that problem. I don't know if it's 50%. I don't know if it's 80olo, I don't
know what the solution is but that is a cleady an area that ifthere has been abuse, its there. The
rest of the idea of the 250 I think in the intent was to make a matter of choices of families that live
in this town and that plan to live in the town so that they can stay here and enjoy living in Vail.
That they don't have to move down valley. I think we've heard fiom other people, myself
included. I've expanded my house and my family can stay here because I was able to expand my
house. I think what it all boils down to is that in order to compete, whether its in the real estate
market or whether its selling lift tickets or whatever it is, you have to renew and you have to
revitalize. And I think this is what this ordinance allows the town to do. You can get something
that was old and you can make it better and you can make it new and you can make it shine. And
to take that away, I think, hurts the people in the town, the town, and it goes right on through to
transfer tax rcvenues as far as you want to go. So I would encourage you not to make such drastic
changes as you're proposing here and to set a date and this thing still needs to be worked on.
Thank you.
(Applause)
PO Okay. Who would like to be next? Thanks Ken.
FM My name's Frank McKibben. I reside at 5095 Main Gore Drive. $ e spoke in our work sessions
ll
o
PO
about the transition of use and I heard an example here tonight of what I would define as a
transition of use and that is somebody who... where a house was previously used as a vacation
home and now its being used for permanent use. Permanent habitation. And obviously a lot of
houses that were built in Vail were built with the idea of being second homes. And I think this
ordinance has a lot of people... to make Vail their homes and not to have to choose to live
elsewhere. Those of us who are involved in the real-estate profession see people making these
choices daily and we are not only in a competitive situation with other ski areas, but within our .
own market there are competitive choices to locate in other towns as well. And I think eventuallv
those choices, if they go against the Town of Vail to frequently, will be to ow disadv-tug., rr"'il
find the center of growth the center of interest, gravitating west and the town just being left as an
older, not as useful, place to live and people being able to find a more productive residence
elsewhere in the county. I'm a little bit confused by the message that you all seem excited about
the 99 world championships and the economic growth that would come from that. And it's my
personal opinion that if you have economical growth without physical growth it's only gonna
translate to higher prices, exasperating the transition of people outside the Town. You know, I
think we always have to deal with a certain amount of physical growth. I also ask the question that
Ken asked. what is the problem? You know, its always been very ambiguous. Nobody's ever
pointed out to me that house is a problem, that house is a problem, I don't see it. I've seen some
very old, dilapidated ski chaler tumed into magnificent homes. I don't feel they're too dense. I
don't feel they're crowding out the wilderness and I don't see the problem. Thank you.
ThankyouFrank. Galen.
GA My name's Galen Aaslan. I'm an architect and I live in West Vail. I have a house up there andjust
to address a couple ofthings that have been mentioned. Peggy talked about that one part ofthe
survey that people were concerned about development regulations and I probably signed that, but
it's like if what I believed I signed when I signed that probably had to do with the fact that the
regulations are ... there's so much regulation that it's just basically some of it's kind of
unintelligible and I think this is actually... the 250's very, as someone else said, is very easy to
understand. I mean, sae thing that Merv addressed before was that when the... a few years ago
there was a redefinition of what GRFA is, but before there was all kinds of bonuses given for a
mechanical room for different things. For a vestibule and stufflike that and, for instance, in my
particular house I didn't do anything when I first did it to increase the mass or bulk of the building
and so, basically it's a wash for me. I mean I didn't ... there's certain houses that did snrffto
increase mass and bulk but in my particular case I mean I basically built an average house... you
know a house with average stuffand I really didn't get anything exta for the change on that. There
was credits given because staircases used to double up. You only counted them once but you don't
get that credit anymore. So basically it all balanced out. But I'm against the adoption ofthis
regulation. I think it's really against what the original intent of the ordinance was. The intent was...
I started my house,-I got my building pemrit in 1989. When I did it I couldn't afford to build my
house the way it was. I'm very lucky to be able to have a house in Vail. I intend to live in Vail the
rest of my life. When I did it I couldn't afford as much as I did, but I built as much as I could and
so I didn't build a living room and I basically set aside a space based on what I thought I would
have. And I have a small lot in West Vail and so I basically assigned a certain amount of square
footage that would hopefully I would be able to save in a nurrber of years and be able to do this.
This ordinance, if you adopt it, would affect me greatly. And so I do see the challenge with the
demo/rebuild. I don't know a particular answer for that. If the Town wants to study ttat I would be
t2
PO
willing to you know work with the stafffor some time because I do see that as a challenge that a
lot of people seem to take offense with. But I rcally think that this just encourages people to move
down valley and really the intent ought to be to keep families like Ktnt Hanson, hopefully me and
other people to stay here and want to stay here, but it seems that when I read this ordinance the
Coutcil's really saying it's like you know you plan for this down the way or you've got a house
that was done after this '85 date it's too bad, that's just the way it is. I think it's a really negative
ordinance. Thank you.
Thanls. (Apptause.) Whoever would like to be next should be ready to go. Dave, are you next?
(Laughter)
I came right from the tennis corut. My name is Dave Cole and I've lived in the town since 1972.
My address for the record is 1450 Buffer Cfeek Road. I agree with all the prior comments and its
obviously a complex situation and you folks obviously are trying to do ufrat you think is best for
the town and we appreciate that. I think there's an issue of consistarcy that you need to address.
And that is when I first came to the town, lets say from 1972 - 1977178 the Town Cormcil and
specifically the Planning and Zoning folks were kind of in a down zoning mode and you knew that
in the futue you $'ere likely to get down zoned in'some way. And then the climate sort of leveled
out and you knew you could sort ofdepend upon ufrat was there and it wasn't gonna go up and it
wasn't gonna go down. And then somewhere in the last ten yearc we got to what I would consider
to be a more enlightened approach and it had to do with the redevelopment of the Village and
Lionshead. And that approach was if you improve your building, if you redevelop your building
which was done all up and down Bridge Street to I think the benefit of the toum significantly, there
were some tweaks done and some enhanccments done in the 2sning that you would allow
specifically things like the Sonnenalp because there was a major advancement in quality and
image to the town. And im suggesting, att everyone else is suggesting that that same opportgnity
needs to be maintained in the housing base and it's inconsistent if you go and allow improvements
and tweaks and increases on Bridge Steet and over in Lionshead, but you don't do it to the
residential housing base. So I'm asking you to be consistent one way or the other in addition to
everything else that's been said and I apologize for coming directly from the tennis courts.
(Laughter and applause)
Anyone else wanting to comment? Hermann.
Thank you. My name is Hermann Staufer and I live at 1067 Ptarmigan Road. I don't want to
repeat anything which was said or the things we said earlier when we had a work session. I think
the ordinance which was adopted some ten years ago served its purpose. I think it was a good
ordinance. It still is a good ordinance. I think ifit isn't broken" don't fix it. I take exception to part
of the ordinance wherc it starts to say that it is a benefit to the individual. No benefit to the Town
of Vail at all. When we, the early people came to Vail it was very fashionable to ski and then sit in
front of the fireplace and drink some wine and eat some cheese. It was a wonderful evening. We
have grown up to be a world class resort. You have five star hotels here. The consumer is so much
different now than it was 25 years ago. Now the 250 ordinance haq dtswsd some people to scrrp
an old building and build a new one. Now you tell me that you didn't have any benefit if
DC
PO
l3
o
PO
somebody did this. We knew what we know right now that retail hasn't been as it should have
been last year. The sales tax was down. Big surprise. Well we knew that already in February if you
had asked some of the restauranteurs or some of the shops. Now real estate is a big, big part of this
town's economy. There's absolutely nothing wrong if somebody makes a profit for selling a house
tearing it down and selling it to somebody who is able and willing to build a big house. And I give
you an example in my neighborhood. My next door neighbor you knew sold her house. The ten
years before she sold her house she never had cleaned up her garden. The dishes were as high as
up to the first floor. The house was sold. It was tom down. I'm sure you pocketed (inaudible) real
estate hansfer ta:<. The architect made good money because he gets a good percentage of the fee.
The building must have cost I don't know how many millions of dollars. You had from every facet
of the construction company input to this town because people are working in this town and
people worked on that building and now after they furnished it I know I've been in that house
there's a lot a lot of galleries which sold in this town to that particular individual where you got
sales tax from and every day there are gardeners out there and there's a maid there and there's
absolutely a wonderful, beautiful building where there used to be a shack. Now you tell me that
you didn't get any benefit out of that transaction. Now you tell me that the real estate people don't
have a benefit a wonderful benefit - a great impact to thi$ town. Im not a real estate person, I don't
sell real estate, im'not a developer. But ill tell you one thing, you take away the real estate
transaction of this town and you've seen the percentages, how much it.was over the last few years,
what the heck have you got left? Please do not eliminate the 250 ordinance. Leave it the wav it is.
Don't tangle wi0l it. It's a good ordinance. It works. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you.
(Applause.)
Hi. My name's Larry Eskwith. And im really attached to the original GPCA ordinance the 250
ordinance.
Did you write it, Larry?
I wrote it. And not only did I write it, but it worked. You know I mean there was a problem that
the town was faced with and it was a real problem. Planning Commission was getting overloaded
with variances for small additions of GRFA to existing homes and they really had no legal way of
$anting those GRFA additions because the variance sections of the code has very strict langlags
relating to hardship. So the solution was the 250 ordinance. And it was passed and it's been in
existence for a long time. And indeed the problem that was presented to me and to the council to
solve was solved by the original 250 GRFA additional GRFA ordinance. I guess the question I
have now is why.are we doing away with it if it works?
Well, we're not talking about doing away with it, Larry.
In a way you are, Peggy, because what you are doing is you are locking it into a date which
happened a very long time ago. People are going to continue to build houses in the Town of Vail.
Those homes are going to continue to become obsolete. People are going to continue to have
families. Thay're going to want additional bedrooms. They're going to want additional hot tub
LE
PO
LE
PO
LE
l4
PO
PO
enclosures and they'll no longer be able to get those because their home wasn't constmcted and in
existence prior to 1985. I'd like to talk about the provision of the ordinance which is directed to
tear downs and rebuilds. That occurred about two years, maybe tbree years after the ordinance
was originally passed. We had a tear down and rebuild, they came in and asked for the additional
250 and it was controversial. The council didn't know which way to go. There was a lot of'
discussion at that time and I think what Lynn said tonight was one of the prime issues at the time.
How do you determine what a demo and a rebuild is. And its not as easy as it sounds. Its very
confusing and the council decided that they's rather not try and make that determination. That
there was no definition that suited them. The other issue I think which was considered by the
council was that ifyou look at the purpose section ofthe original ordinance it talks about the
ordinance being an inducement to the upgrading of single family dwellings and dwelling units in
rwo family dwellings constnrcted within the Town of Vail. And what's the ultimate upgraaing of a
dwelling? Well, if you take an old dwelling that is in need of repair quite badly, you;; it doqm
and you build a new dwelling. I 'rink tbat's the ultimate upgrade and I still think that the Town
has been benefitted rather than hurt by that addition to the original ordinance. Again, I think it
solved the problems that it was meant to solve. I see no problems that it's created. I feel like the
rest of the people who have already spoken here tonight What is the problem that the council's
been presented with that it needs to legislate against tonigbt? I don't see it. I think we have an
ordinance presently which works. It ought to be left alone.
Thank you.
(Applause)
Anyone else want to comment? Okay, if no one else... oh yes.
I got one. I'm not into real estate, I'm not into building...but
Cleaning. You're in everything.
There's a link therc, Lou.
Lou
PO
Lou Okay, Hermann brougbt up somerhing and he missed one point. How much rEvenues did the town
get for building fees and the destination tal( that's ta(ed onto the material. Has anyone ever figured
that out? This Council always seems to base everything on economics. You're loosing
approximately a half a million to 3 million dollars in tax revenues for the remaining 1I:OO *itt
that are single family and multiple family that this applies to if they did the 250. And that's just
basically based upon the building fee cost period. Not the tax on the material.
PO Thank you Lou Any other comments? Okay.
KW Good evening. My name is Karen Wilheln and I rcside at4289 Nugget Lane. Im a Realtor and
three years ago my husband and I were faced with the decision to stay where we are in East Vail
that we love and remodel or move down valley. We could have gone down valley and purchased a
single family home with a three car garagc on a fairway for what we invested in our home to stay
in East Vail. By so doing the rpmodel, which we wouldn't have done without the 250 rule. we,ve
l5
PO
increased the value ofour home and the appearance ofit and the value and appearance ofthe
neighborhood. Without Vail Associates putting the money that they do into the mountain, without
the businesses creating the ... or you creating the incentives for the businesses to improve their
businesses we wouldn't be looking at the '99 situation. We wouldn't be looking at the success that
we're enjoying today. If we don't create every incentive possible for residents to also make capital
improvements and investments in their property, it won't continue to be world class. Its more than
just the core, it has to reach to the outlying areas. Thank you.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MC Im Michael Cacioppo. As most of you know I served on council back in the late 80's. I supported
the 250 back then. I still support the 250. I think its on e of tle best things rve ever did to people in
this community. As I read your ordinance, I find it to be arbitrary and capricious. I certainly expecr
somebody's going to sue you on it. I predict yore gonna loose. I've been pretty good at those
predictions over the years. I think you ought to continue to give people freedom. You've moved a
lot of people down valley. There's a lot of people down valley that wish they could still live in
Vail that have spoken to me over the years, but they really feel like yore driving them out. I think
this is another nail in the coffin to continue to drive them out. If that's really what you wantto do I
think that's the way to do it. If you pass this but yow sense of community up here from the people
im talking to, is diminishing and I think you all know that. And I think this is bad law. Where do
you come up with five years or ten years to decide what someone can add to and somebody else
cant? That's pretty weak law and I strongly recommend you drop it. Do something for the people.
Thank you.
PO Thankyou, Mike.
(Applause.)
I listened to everyone talking and hearing about density and I was just thinking if we're talking
about density... my neighbor has a house with four walls and a roof and he wants to have that as
one big room as bam. Or if he... and then suddenly he wants to change that. And he wants to make
that a lot of different rooms, break it up into a lot of space, unless he's turning it into a bordello
and invite me over im gonna complain. But on the other hand, what difference does it make? The
zoning I think is what's critical and if family increases yore increasing some density in a
residential area. I hear you got some feedback in your questionnaires, but I don't know how many
people thought this through, but you increase your density a little bit in a residential area, its not as
much impact as long as you don't have adequate parking as you would by going out and building
in your open space. But it seems to be even more of a concern to community is taking away that
open space. I think this whole valley needs to look at keeping their density in the community that
we have. Its one way to keep it and let it still be that way without taking away what we all came
here for is to have some ofthat open space area (inaudible). And im a contractor and I think I don't
know how many 250 additions I've done, including my own, but I have yet to have one that
wasn't for a farnily looking to increase space forpheir own lersonal use or their grandchildren, or
whatever. I bet you all the problems you've had"$ave probat 1y been illegai ones rather than ones
l6
PO
that went ttrough the town. So I think you oughta... I'd rather see more than 250 if somebody kept
it within the confines of the house that he has. I don't see any reason why.it would make that big
ofa difference. Thank you.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
Okay, if there are...
Peggy, maybe ifyou could get a show ofhands ofpeople who support the council...
Let me... maybe I should in all honesty explain where we stand on this situation. We do have
several council members and I think the comnents been made tonight this is difficult to tum into
.... its easy to deal with this as a black and white issue. The easiest course of action is to eliminate
the ordinance entirely. Or to keep it intact. Some of us had hoped that we could work out a
compromise and we could eliminate some of the provisions that we feel... you know, the
demo/rebuild I guess the reality of it is that if yore gon,,a demolish a substantial portion of your
building, the question really comes back, why at that point, arc you not able to work within the
zoning regulations that we have? And I think that's the questions that a number of us have been
ranestling with. And furthermore, demo/rebuilds that have been done really... we asked the staffto
come back with a map and tell us where these were and all that And really, these are second
homes, folks. Now I think that makes a case that if yore gonna have to include demo/rebuilds
along in a scenario in which we're trying to benefit people are trying to remain as local residents,
is difficult to make a choice.
Do you not want second homes? Is that why you (inaudible)
Frank, I think that its not a question of the real estate community crumblirg, its not a question of
not wanting second homes in the community, its a question of the reality of if someone's gonna
demolish and rebuild their home, what is the valid argument that says that that individual deserves
a bonus of additional square footage? Why cant they work within existing regulations? Don't we
allow enough GRFA? Should we allow additional GRFA across the board? I mean I would be
more in favor of that sort of reqponss rhan taking the approach that we'[re taking through the
demo/rebuild. Now and im just clari&ing the situation for you here because I rhink some of us
have tried to work in a compromised direction. But...
But how is it any different than PtlD or Special Drum (?) District on Bridge Street and because
yore getting a whole new building out of the thing you should (inaudible) extra GRFA because it
makes it economically viable and its a tade offfor getting a brand new building.
You know, I don't really, I mean, I just wanted to clarifr the situation. I mean if we're in a
situation where this is all or nothing that may cast a different light on it for several of us up here.
But why don't we take some time, you know to hear what council members have to sav.
I'd like to make some comments, Peggy.
PO
PO
PO
PJ
t7
PJ
Sure, go ahead Paul.
I was involved in passing the ordinance in'85 and I think that our time perspective is fairly
parochial. At that point in time the town was all of 23 years old. And we somehow picked five
years as a (inaudible) for validating needs, values, whatever. And the reason I asked the question
about the annexation and the reannexation was because we were at that point in the frustration of
the de-annexation, not the solution of it and im sure when we were addressing that ordinance we
were not at all sensitive to the status ofhouses that were subsequently annexed into Vail that had
not been built according to Vail building codes, ordinances, standards, or whatever. And whether
that five year would have been different or not I don't have any way of knowing, but that's
certainly, I mean our total community was not a part of the decision quotion? as it were, but if you
look at five years or 23 years as one fifth and so now we're all of33 years old. So does that mean
we ought to be thinking in terms of seven years, I don't know if that's any more relevant tlat the
five years. My munfanation at this point is because we still have a large part of our community
that has not been impacted by the use of the 250 that certainly the community could be benefitted
by their implementation of it. I think that I would be inclined to see Vail stay with the five year.
The demo/rebuild (inaudible) of the big problem with excluding that. I can accept that concept that
a large, well that a demo/rebuild of itself does not warrant a bonus. That probably a good living
space can be accommodated hopefully within the ordinances of a demo/rebuild in a lot of
instances. By the same token, if somebody has a home in West Vail tlnt has an unordinarily sndl
lot that was annexed into Vail, maybe that substantiates hardship. Maybe that substantiates and
warants variances that would allow a more habitable living situation for a permanent resident,
whatever. And I know, you cant discriminate, blah blah blalr, but im having real problems with the
arbitrariness ofthe ten year or a 1985 date and I suspect that it does need to float. I suspect there
are a lot of people who under the belief that they had a five year measuring stick, have not been
able to save the money required to do those kinds of things that we would be disadvantaging by
making that change. So my inclination at this point would be to agree with the change on the
demo/rebuild, and to the change proposed about the employee housing issue, but not to change the
five year.
Okay. Thank you very much.
Im sitting here thinking gee, you would think given the quantity of time the discussion and interest
that's gone into this issue was the most important thing that happened in the last ten years. I think
we've had I don't know how many work sessions on it and its the second or third time...
You haven't even been here for most of them.
I know. And you know what comes to me tonight is that tnrly every time we address it there's a
new problem that comes up with the new version that makes it just about as bad as the last one. I
think we end up with a balance issue here. I don't really see that what we have here tonight is that
much of an improvement. I guess I feel like Paul does regarding the demo/rebuild. I feel like if we
can ... somebody starting from scratch they ought to be able to resolve the problems in the house
with architectural solutions. I've been here 14 hours, I'm having a (inaudible). But I think Lynn
brings up a very good point and im not sue that we're in a position right tonight to address and
that is how does one define at what point it is demolished. And I think that maybe that needs a
PO
SN
PO
SN
l8
PO
TS
little more care in the definitions. Id like to hear some more input from people who are in that field
and this is the first time I've heard anybody mention anything about new regulations that may
have changed the conditions under which you can keep portions of the structure in place. We;ve
never talked about that. I cant believe therc's some aspect of this that we haven't talked about at
this point.'The five, ten year doesn't make that much differcnce to me either, but I do think the
1985 flat year is probably unrealistic. I think that we should leave the community some flexibility
in enabling them to improve their homes so that they will stay. I don't see that the abuses
outweigh the benefits. And as far as the one minor change in the employee housing. Certainly I
think that should be addressed. But im not sue we're in a position to vote on this ionight with
proof reading and definition changes. And I'd almost suggest we table it.
Often what we can do is make changes between first and second reading. I mean since we are at
fust reading here instead ofsecond. Obviously tabling is another option. But on a standard basis
we often make changes between first and second read. Tom is that ...
I have advocated over the last eight years that we do away with portions of this ordinance. I still
feel that way. There are local small house situations that I feel for, but unforonately we cannot
discriminate against big lots, big houses, etc. My main problem is that there have been a few
architects and a few builders that have abused this and they're so far the ones that harb used it the
most. My concem with the five year limit is, and its already happened, that people build in to their
buildings areas which are not covered as GRFA but they're just waiting for their five years to go
by so they can kick the wall in and suddenly its GRFA. Those are the kind of abuses that make me
react to say, "stop it!"
(naudible.)
I have the floor. If you want to speak after me, fine.
Please don't debate.
As far as im concerned definitely do away with the tear downs. And I see no great problem in
setting a definitive date and living with it. The houses that are being built now in five years to
come back in for a 250 when they've had the opportunity to use all their GRFA all the latest
techniques and so on, why in five years are they entitled to 250 more square foot when the lot next
to it that was not built on doesn't get that 2502lm not saying that... our suweys indicate that
people are concerned with all these gross big houses that are being built and I agree with them.
Thank you, Tom. Jan...
I think the best thing said in here, why the hell are we even discussi'g this. I don't see the
problem. I don't see the abuse. And I think if we've got big houses its not because of the 250
ordinance. If that's what we want to do away with, we've got to approach the problem from a
completely different issue. So I don't see why we want to make any big changes in it because I see
the benefits. I think the reason that this 250 ordinance was brought up in 1985 still exists. Ifyou
go up and you look at Forest Road and you think that's terrible. I think we should be envious that
we have such a wonderfirl neighborhood. And ifthe 250 foot ordinance helped create that
TS
PO
TS
PO
JS
l9
LF
JS
neighborhood, God bless us. Cause I can see it all the time... (applause.) The problem with this
community is not its greatness. The problem with it is where we haven't lived up to our potential.
And we should use every possibility to encourage people to redo their homes. And I think that this
has proven so far to be very successful. A lot of people who we've talked tonight. Kurt, a couple
ofother gentlemen here said that they wouldn't have redone their houses or even stayed here had
they not had this oppornrnity. I believe that. And there's a lot of improvement that we still need to
do in this community. So I would believe that the basic intent of the 250 is still there and I would
like to see us continue it. I have a question on the only one I have this question in my mind is ...
beyond lthink we need to eliminate our restricting it to deed restricted units. I think they should be
able to participate in this also. In the demo/rebuild issue. Lynn, maybe you could help me with this
cause you brought it up. IfI had a house and now its old. I built it in the early 70's and I've been
waiting, waiting, waiting, finally to add my 250 square feet and I started to do it and I found out
that I had sub-standard foundations and I was in some kind of zone that I needed to fix and I
needed to change all my siding and my electrical floor was against code and all I had to change it.
And I had to tear the thing down literally. Now are you going to take my 250 square feet away. So
im not gonna do it. Im just gonna leave that house sit there aren't I? I mean, isn't that a scenario
that's possible?
(Inaudible) yeatL it actually happens.
So in a sense, this demo/rebuild is a big issue. I can see that you don't want to give it away. But I
don't understand why. I mean if people have waited and they want to tear down their house and
make it completely new, axen't we all gonna benefit out of that?
Could I press on one thing? The controlling issue for the smaller lots as you get into West Vail and
I can say this (inaudible). When you get into a lot that's under 15,000 square feet, site coverage
and height are the strongest restrictions. GRFA is no longer the control anyway. So this
eliminating the 250 is going to only affect probably lots that have more than 2,000 square feet.
Unless you go back (inaudible). But you know the other issue (tape ends here)... Yeah we are
(inaudible) our residence restrictions that ifyou have enough (inaudible) you tear it down. You
have to conform back to the zoning. And I knoq I know I've had several applications where we
have had non conforming residences where we have had (inaudible) conforming through a
demo/rebuild. So in my mind, this (inaudible) aspect of the ordinance needs to be modulated as
well with the residential. I (inaudible) certain discriminations, and the reason I see the
discrimination is because the 250 is such an easy taryet. Its easy to understand, its easy to enforce,
and its easy to poke holes in. I personally would like to see a whole reexamination of our
commercial zoning ordinance and its a very difficult issue to address.
Thanks. Thank you.
Last but not least, I would suggest that 250 square feet new in a home to a lot of people is really
one of the major opportunities of creating any (inaudible) for themselves and their family. And I
swear that there's not anyone in this room that has an eye good enough to see a house that was
built before the 250 and after the 250 and (inaudible) say, "Oh, God, look at that big monstrosity,
they really have... that 250 really chenged that... (laughter) Boy, im movlng out of town - its too
much." 250 square feet is less than I 0% of anybody's home here in geneial. So I don't think wed
LF
PO
JS
20
even see it and particularly if it isn't gonna change the fooprint. So the only thing I would change
in this ordinance is to get rid ofthe deed restriction penalty and ifthefe's any other typos in here
thai you suggest, I think we should correct those.
PO Thankyou,Jan. Mr. Shearer.
JimS This isn't gonna feel good to anybody in this room. I think a great deal of ... Id say the vast. majority of the people that I see out there, a lot of you are my friends and I think we all should be a
little embarrassed starting at 1985 forward that we ever passed something like this to begin with. If
you know ofanother town that has 250 square feet that you can add later after you've already said
heres how many square feet you can have whether we call it GRFA or square feel I don,t care.
And then say okay, well in a few years you can build a few more. Id like to know where that came
from. Yet it ends up being something that we get our blood in a boil aboug what, three or four
times a year and then we tdlk about... and when I first got on cormcil, was the one that said we
should table it cause I didn't want to deal with it. But we consistentty say lets table it so we can
think about it again. I don't really want to table it cause we'll go tbrough this same apount of time
and amount of brain damage. But the part that's gonna hurt all of our feelings, and ill identiff with
this to is this is one of the most intelligent cormties in the state of Colorado. And we cant seem ro
come to grips with how to handle this. I started to begin this little talk by saying im for250 and
long live it just so I could get applause. But let me tell you that's an insult to our intelligence. That
doesn't say we're one of the smartest counties. And I would love to get the people with Vail
Commons issues back in here again because that really doesn't settle anything. It doesn't move
anybody. Its a ... it doesn't even make you feel good I don't think. And thank God, we don,t
applaud each other for making proforrrd statements whenever we tbink we make err up herc. We
axe not dealing with this I don't think, in an adult fashion or in an intellectual fashion. When we
first brought this up the other day, some very good people from the Vail Board of Realton came in
and we talked about how maturely we were going to approach this. Some of you are back. And its
in the old way again If I had my preference on how we handle this and the only win, win sinration
is to pass a new ordinance that says everybody can have 250 square feet, I don't care ifyou had it
before, I don't care ifits an old house, I don't care ifits a new house, but never again do you again
do you go outside 250. Whatever it is, just say, "That's it!' And if an architect cant be creative
enough to make that work within his existing stnrcture then we either need a new architect or we
need a new home. Sometimes we do outgrow it. And thank God for inflation in the Towu of Vail
and the County of Eagle. You can move into another home because you can make some money on
whatyou did and you can move up. You just pay the difference. Its not like we're just boxed in
and maniacal every time we cant put 250 square feet and I agree with you Jan. You cant drive
down the street and tell the difference. Most of the time you cant go through the house and tell the
difference. This is an issue I wish we could just put to bed and be through with. And that's why it
keeps coming up because we keep dinking around with it in the Planning Departrnent to the point
that we need more personnel to take care of it then we do on the real big issues. Whether they're
commercial or residential. It makes no difference. They need to deal with real issues and whar
they're dealing with is this 250 something that they're trying to get 500 square feet out of or is it
really 250? Do they deserve it? Do they not deserve it? Then it comes through each one of the
boards and each oue of them has to kick it back and forth. I mean every time it comes up that DRB
or PEC has looked at a250 issud we always aralyzethis on ours and question whether or not we
should call it up. And how manf times we do, as you well know. '-hat's a waste of time. There are
2l
PO
ML
other things that are more important to deal with. So that's my speel and that's why im against the
250 rule. No applause. Thank you.
They're holding their applause. Merv Lapin.
You know I think fornmately all of us basically y have the same goals. I think we all want
basically the same thing from Vail. Whether its an economic help or if its a quality of life. The
problem that we have and it goes basically to the 250 nrle in some regards, its our definition of
what's the quality and how we define it. I am against the 250 ordinance. If I had my preference, I
would do away with it completely for several reasons. Number one, we've got approximately
5,000 units in town and although all of them couldn't use the 25, or wouldn't use the 250, its a
potential for about a million and a quarter square footage. We're 92o/obuiltout interims of land.
But in terms of GRFA, in tenns of what is built on that 92%o we're probably 50 - 60% built out in
GRFA. Imagine, if you would" what this town would look like if the amormt of GRFA throughout
this valley was basically doubled. And that's truly what we're looking at. Nowwill the 250
completely solve the problem if the ordinance goes away with? It wont. Because the problem is
the fact that we have b very generous GRFA ordinance on the books now. I object to the fact that
we've made it even more generous than it needs to be. 250 square feet even if its by half of the
units, the latter halfofa 1,600,000 square feet. Crossroads is about 60,000 square feet. I don't
think its desirable for any ofus to have a valley that has another 10-20 Crossroads spread all over
it. So that's Franlg what the problem is interims of how I look at it. The other problem is a logical
one. What do we do when everyone uses their 250? Aren't we going to have the same problem,
"Oh my God, I just need another 250 square feet because this bedroom's too small or this room
doesn't quite work." I mean the problem just doesn't go away with everyone using the 250. You'll
have tlre same arguments from tbe next generation of people that want to live in Vail. The reason
people move out of Vail, although there's some examples where people have stayed or haven't
stayed because they could or could not expand their houses, is because there's a difference in
terms of what you can build for and what you can sell for. And isn't that really what the argunent
is from most of the Realtors? Another 250 square feet is another profit, in some casies, up ro
$1,000 a squre foot. If you can build bet'ween 100 and 200 and in Vail.mainly for 200 and you
can sell it for 400 or 1,000.
No. (Inaudible.)
well_I think it is.
(Inaudible) .. to live here, we want to raise our kids here, we want to prosper here, but we're not
(inaudible).
And Eric, in your particular case I don't have a good answer for you. I mean I respect what you're
saying and I agree with you and I feel for you. But to feel for you means that im going to have to
go along with an ordinance that I see adding between 6 and 700,000 square feet more to the town
and I think that's a mistake.
ML
ML
Over 5,000 units in the tgwn to date in our 30 years, how may people have taken aclvantage of it?
22
ML
ML
ML
PO
ML
Well it isn't a 30 year situation. There's about 175...
so you're predicting that the build out is going to increase exponentially (inaudible.)
I think the reason that the build out ... well it has increased and I think the reason that it has
increased is because the difference between what you can build for and what you can sell for. Not
in all cases. But in the vast majority of those 175 units as Peggy has stated, are second home
owners.
(Inaudible.)
That may be.
Let's avoid... its getting late. Lets all be kind to each other. Lets not debate with each other. Lets
take tums. Now Merv, are you finished with your comments?
In terms of demo/rebuild I think'that... I find it hard to believe that anyone needs a 250 square feet
as an incentive to rip down a house and completely rebuild it. One of the reasons that I had
thought that we had simplified the ordinance a few years ago wns in fact to handle the kinds ... it
was basically a simplification. And in that particular case we gave people, not in Galen's case and
not in all cases, but in general we gave people, upon how they constructed that house
originally and whether they had a lot of stainrays and mechanical rooms, between 2OO - 4OO
square feet. And I think that would satisfr most peoples desire to have an additional sqgare
footage for the house.
okay. Thanks Merv. well, I'll speak for myself fust and then ill try to sum this up. you know,
when we discussed this previously I think there was some real honesty about the fact tfuat the
demoirebuild as d component of this ordinance is just not a really viable, justifiable, component of
the ordinance. For w to really describe a scenario in which people buy property in Vail, Colorado
and will not tear something down and rebuild it unless they get additional square footage. And in
fact they can get additional square footage if they put a caretaker rmit in because if there is a unit
that's deed restricted you're able to take advantage of the 250 square foot ordinance initially. And
so were talking about people building large homes who would probably benefit from having a
caretaker unit anyway. And that's the scenario that benefits the whole community because it gives
us some people living in neighborhoods that are heavily populated by second homeowners. So we
had had what I thought was a very realistic discussion and a discussion that really focused on lets
try to salvage portions of this that make sense for long temr locals, but lets not try to fool each
other about some of the realities we're dealing with. And so im disappointed that we've stepped
back from that because I ttrink that that was a very sensible approach. Its not the all or nothing
approach. I think it was a reasonable compromise. Now in terms of other council members I think
that Jan is really the only one who is interested in continuing the 250 ordinance with regard to the
demo/rebuild scenario. with regard to a date before or after which this would apply, I was
impressed with Art's comments. I think that personally I've always focused on trying to be
extremely fair and perhaps that is the ... maybe that's the viable climax point to just say to people
you know, going forward there's not a bonus out there somewhere. I mean pedple in other towns,
in other resorts in Colorado redevelop without a 250 square foot bonus. Is Vail a place that from a
PO
23
PJ
PO
ML
development and economic level is so undesirable that no one is ever going to improve their
property unless they know that they're gonna get a bonus ofadditional square feet? I mean the
logic of it... im'just lost on that. I think fut made a good suggestion because it addresses the
fairness issue which is of concern to me and a number of you raised tlrat and its also realistic. So
now that's a different angle than anyone else has had, I mean I think we have a couple of members
down here at this end who are willing to take a look at continuing something on a (inau{ible) basis
and we have several others who ...
You've got me on the far right. (Laughter.)
The far right and the far left. (Inaudible.)
Let me ask you this, maybe there's another way to handle this situation and that is, because I agree
with you on a faimess standpoint. Although the phone is coming in all of a sudden from a faimess
standpoint because some people abuse it and some haven't. Suppose we made the ord.inance '
effective at a date certain. Like a year from now. Can we do that legally? Can we make the
ordinance effective into the futtue in order to get people that want to do the 250 the opportunity to
do it rather than shut it offas of right now?
I'd have to take a look at that Merv, I wouldn't want to say right off, you know how far you can
pass an ordinance now and (inaudible - more than one person talking).
Well why don't you look at that. Id be receptive to that because L.. it may not be a complete
solution for your situation but there are people like yourselves that could come through, get the
250 ordinance and under investing? I believe you can have up to three years after you get it ... to
build it. So it would basically give you from an economic standpoint four years to get it done if
you cirme in and we made this ordinance effective someday in the future.
And maybe there should be some additional flexibility that says in addition to starting it either
now or some date in the future, even if you don't meet that criteria and you have a home that was
built before whatever the date is, you could still get in on it later. I mean as far as im concerned,
that would really be going the second mile or to try to be really fair to everyone.
What did we just say, any house built to date its good for it. Any house built after this ordinance is
signed is not good for...
I mean that's another approach.
In the interest of time and the remaining agenda I move for approval of Ordinance No. 6 on first
reading subject to changing Section I and Section 2 subparagraph (a) and Section 3, subparagraph
(a), Ieaving in the five year must have passed from the date, etc. In Section I I suppose you could
leave in the condition of existing dwellings, but not removing the sentences which read, "which
have been in existence in the Town of Vail for at least five years."
So you're changing the ten year to a rolling five years?
TM
ML
PO
JS
PO
PJ
ML
24
PJ
SN
PJ
JS
PJ
JS
ML
JS
Yes.
I would second that if Paul would add that we request a review of the definition of demolition
before second reading.
Well, I suspect we're gonna review all of this on second reading. Though I do not have a problem
with adding that.
Are you also gonna take out paragraph 2, the restriction on deed restrictions units (inaudible).
No. We're gonna...
You want to change that. Right now it says you cant use the 250 for deed restricted gnits. Are you
continuing to support that?
Yeah. I think we want that...(inaudible.)
That ordinance needs 1s be shanged
(Many talking at once.)
...that we take that restriction out, Paul so tbat it would be available... the 250 ordinance would be
available to som@ne with the deed resticted rmits.
PO
PJ Yes. I thought that had 6sea ghsnged. Tm sorrl we've been here a little long. Yes. I would add
that to the motion. Would you add that to the second?
SN Yes.
PO Furtherdiscussion.
JimS The only thing that, while you're doing some research, id like you to look into Tom if you would,
how complicated it would be just to go thru a rcgular variance prccess to get approximately 250 if
something like this didn't exist. Because I think that's still a good process, I tbink its simpler.
PO And the only timg tl6t... did you call the question, Paul?
PJ No. I didn't call the question.
PO I want to discuss... I, you know, as someone who was considering going for this this evening, I
will say that I will not in the end support the five year rolling concept. There will need to be
something tlnt makes more seuie I think in terms of the long range input of the community. So
that's... im gonna vote for it at this time rmder the sceuario that we're able to discuss that and
come to some other resolution other than a five year rolling situation. Any other comments?
ML Paul, could you give me a sunrmary of w. lat you're changing? You went thru it real quickly.
25
PJ Page l, Paragraph l, reads withthe change of "upgrading ofexisting single family" can leave
"existing" and "existing dwelling units" but then eliminate that next addition "in two family
dwellings constructed" and leave the existing sentence "which have been in existence within the
Town of Vail for a period of at least five years". And that same basic change in Section 2(a) and
Section 3(a).
So basically, you're changing the existing so that you have the five year? Is that the rez6on..,
Section 2(a) and Section 3(a) would not change.
But what's the purpose of taking out the existings that you are?
Because you went from five to ten years.
Basically, Paul, you're saying leave that provision as it presently stands in the ordinance.
2(a),3(a).
Rieht'
And Hermann you want to ...
(Inaudible...) look at you" well I would recommend that you vote this ordinance down and you
table (inaudible) because you yourselves (inaudible) there's an opportunity for (inaudible) to be on
this council for tlree months and I think for maybe personal reasons some of you want this down
for the community. So if you really in your heart feel like it should (inaudible) then vote that
motion down. Table it and let the new council decide whether (inaudible) the community would
like to have (inaudible) because you're making law today which ef,lects people down the road and
I bet right now some of you feel very strong about it, some of you might (inaudible). As I pointed
out earlier I tlink some of you do not represent interest of the community now and I think that
could change very recently. So I would urge you to do (inaudible) to vote it down. Table it for
three months.
(Applause.)
MC The comment I would make in regard to what Merv said, what other community adds on 250
square feet is what I thought you said. I think on thing you're missing here is that if you go to
Eagle (inaudible) cause a lot of other communities (inaudible) bigger homes. The problem is the
square footage is too small in the fint place so rather than go through this (inaudible) more
piecemeal stuff, I think you also were the one that suggested (inaudible) is to add 250 right across
the board and reduce the stress on the planning requirement. You save the overhead there and
everybody's happy except Merv. Merv got his and Merv had Crossroads way back when. Yeah I
hear him complain about the bulk of the building when in fact you owned it. I don't disagree with
your numbers, Merv, if its a l0% increase maybe I could (inaudible) but I don't see it doubling
(inaudible) for stuffthat isn't built yet, but I think that's (i, rrudible) that's a real reach. But with all
due respect that (inaudible). ri
ML
PJ
ML
PJ
TM
PJ
TM
PO
HS
26
PO Thank you for that thoughg Mike. I think I mentioned that earlier. ln any even! is there any figther
discussion?
PJ Call the question.
PO Okay, Paul has called the question. .dll in favor.
PJ Aye.
SN Aye.
JimS Aye.
PO Opposed?
JS Opposed.
JimS Opposed.
ML Opposed.
TS Opposed-
PO Okay. I'll vote in favor and we have tbree members voting in opposition Jan Stauch, Merv, and
Tom Steinberg. So the motion passes.
PJ Good. I don't understand the count, but good-
PO Oh. Did I ...
SN I think its reverse.
PO Didn't you make a motion Paul?
PJ Yes. _
PO I voted in favor of your motion-
SN Threeofusvotedinfavor, butJimvotedagainst.
PO Ob, Jin voted in opposition. Im sorry. I didn't hear that Okay. So now we had one, two, thre,
fonr membcrs voting in opposition. So the motion hils.
JS I don't think that we fixed it properly so I had to vote against that, J '\ink we,re still moving to far
away from the original intent. This rolling five years I ddn't understand. So im confused what
you're doing so I couldn't vote for it since I cant see it yel
27
PO
ML
Okay. Does someone want to try another motion?
I'd like to firy another motion. That we approve Ordinance No. 6 with the change for the ... you
know for the deed rcstricted units and I think that's all... was there a question Tom... were yorg
was it resolved what your problem was? Whether you were, your t)?e of situation was covered?
I think under my situation it was not covered cause there was never any building permit, never any
certifi cate of occupancy.
I think that needs to be corrected. Because those are continuing situations.
I don't know that we've ever had an application since this has le€a in existence where we had a
building that had no temporary certificate of occupancy, no building permit. I don't know that, has
that ever been confronted?
(Inaudible - many people talking at once.)
Could be a state privilege. Cause there wasn't any building deparunent at the county level.
Between first and second, id like to see that resolved.
PO Okay. What else Merv?
ML I believe that's all. Id like the date certain. The aspect that im willing to look at for the second
reading is making it effective sometime in the future so that there are people that are pending out
there they would have the advantage like Mr. Hanson. Well I think im gonnaneed legal advise in
terrns of how far forward we can unless Larry Eslcrrith wants to give us legal advise too. We had
the same question come up when you were town attomey. What was the resolution of it?
LE I'm sorry, Merv. I didn't hear you ask the question.
ML Can we... one of the problems we have is making an ordinance effective into the futue. And I
thought that we could.
LE I think that you can make an ordinance... the ordinance becomes effective, but I think the terms of
the ordinance can state that the ... that that will be the time period when you can still utilize the
250 GRFA. That doesn't stop the ordinance from becoming effective, but the provisions of the
ordinance allow for a period of time within which the 250 can still be obtained.
JimS Am I correct, Tom on that same issue, pardon me Merv, that if we voted for that today, future
councils a month from now, two years from now, could change it to whatever they want it to be
anyway. So...
TM That's correct.
TS
ML
TM
TS
ML
G{auaiure.l
28
PO Well we've done it before. We said it was something (inaudible) with the building permit or a
TCO or one of those as a benchmark and we said that if it were in fact issued by..>i', date, some
date in the future, then that the old regulations would apply. So Im sure that we can accomplish...
ML Okay. Id like to make it effective July l, 1996 so that people that wanted to take advantage of it
have a year to get their plans in order and to make the presentation and then jn investingi they
have up to three years, I believe to accomplish that.
Po rhank you. okay, wait. Let's have a second. Is there a second to Mery,s motion?
JimS Ill second that because it answers Hermann's issues.
Its just an observation, but if Merv is uninterested in having all this square footage built ogt then
he'sjust sounding the alarm to have it done. I mean you do not have enough peolle nor do you
have enough people on you staffto be able to control landslides of business that will occur
because your putting a deadline. So every time this comes up in the paper I think you probably'
hear phone calls about oh, I'd better go in there and get my 250. Put a deadline on (inaudible.j
(Inaudible.) I had a 2600 square foot home, 5 bedrooms and a living room the size of a postage
stamp. It doesn't work to convert. So somebody else (inaudible) in the same situation. gitn"r its
gonna be a second homeowner (inaudible) wants to convert that to a primary home or the local
who buys it from a second homeowner. (naudible) and if that doesn't occnr in the next year or
tlree years or whatever you propose, tough luck. And you were talking about whether you don't
know what other town has this rule, maybe other mormtain tonnrs do. Because metropolitan areas
in other cities are (inaudible) where all the property is rental. And its a lot of problems for
redesigning. (Inaudible) and some.imes you just cant get it unless you go out. That was the
situation with us. (Inaudible.)
A variation of Merv's motion would be to say homes built prior to the date of the passage of the
ordinance are able to take advantage ofthe 250 and those built after 1995 are not. That would
eliminate some of the rush that (inaudible) is describing. People would know this going in and I
don't know if people now are building second homes in Vail that are so inadequate from a square
foot'ge. I doubt it given the whole real estate market here. So that might be another way to risolve
the issue that you'rc raising.
It wouldn't do away with, I mean effectively, why change the ordinance when because you're only
going to effect 8%?
You're dealing with the futtue rather than the past.
I think Hermann's point is well taken. I don't know that we need to table this for tluee months, but
I think its a mistake to try to doctor this up in our current state of mental alertness. (Laughter.)
We're sitting up here, I think were fishing to try to end these discussions and I can assure you that
there's not one of the seven of us up here who wouldn't rather end discussion of this than me. But
I don't think we're going to make the best decision at this time. I really don't.
PO
ML
PO
SN
29
ML Well we'll have a second reading on this particular issue.
SN Yeah but so we're going to go thru the whole rigamorole again. Wouldn't it be better just to have a
time when we're alert? We can weigh the things that have been said tonight, think about some of
the things that Lynn said, work them into the ordinance and still give it trvo readings, rather than
try to doctor this up and say, "Oh my gosh I never thought of ttrat because my mind was a
marshmallowby II:30."
PO Some good ideas have come up I think in the course of discussion. Hey, did we have a second to
Merv's motion?
TM Merv's motion does not address eliminating demo/rebuild, I just thought id point that out.
ML No. Im going along withthis which does eliminate demo. The ordinance as written.
TM Okay.
LE (Inaudible.)
TM Excuse me.
ML Does it not does not the ordinance as written do away with the demo/rebuild?
TM Yes, it does. But you never...
ML I'm leaving the ordinance in that regard as it is.
SN And still stands firm on the 1985 date with the exception of the one year (inaudible)...
PO No. No, Merv's jumped that up to the future...
ML No, no. No, no. I'm leaving it 1985, but im not making this ordinance effective rmtil July l, 1996.
If you don't think its a good ide4 I could get four votes by making it effective right now I would
do that also.
SN But titis is my whole case, though, we don't even know what we're voting on.
TM Im having a very difficult time following, ill tell you that right now.
ML Alright. Let me state what I think we're voting on. We're voting on Ordinance No. 6 as written
except that in terms of the deed restriction we're making it consistent. Is consistent the word
you're looking for? Wasn't that the problem?
TM Uhmhum.
PO (Inaudible.)
30
ML We're keeping everything else the same.
TM Okav.
ML The only other change is that the effective date of this ordinance... im sorry, it becomes effective
upon the second reading, but the date under which the 250 cannot be applied for for anything
except for those units which werc built before December 31, 1984, will be July l, 1996.
TM What about the demo/rebuild?
ML Demo/rebuild becomes effective riow.
LE Becomes effective now?
ML Yeah. Cause I think that is an abuse.
PO Now...
TM You also made a commsng Merv, inrcgard to resolving what has been identified as aperceived
problem with the prop€rty having no temporary certificate of occupancy, no certificate of
occupancy and no building permit.
ML I would like you to come up with a solu..if Tom's problem is a legitimate one, because there are a
lot of people that night have that situation, id like to see that resolved by the second reading.
TM Okay.
PO Actually, youhad yourhandup, Jim Shearer.
(Inaudible.)
JimS I did him second because it pushes it forward and answers some of Hermann's issue because then
it puts it in the hands ofthe next council just in case. Just to let you know that.
PO Okay. Discussion. Go ahead.
DR Thank you. David Rikhardt. In a kind of a superintendent on the building over here for Bob
Lazier and its the last one of five. And the other thlee 6uildings that were built prior were finished
in 1982. Now the people in t6t 6tilrlings; that bought these units were under the impression that
they would be able to add a certain anount of square footage when the following t$'o buildings
were finished. We probably wont be done with this final fifth building until about November. And
if you pass this ordinance, they can no longer qualiff for closing in their porch, which is only 100
square feet. I think you're gonna have about 58 people that's gonna be real upset enough to file a
federal lawsuit against it when this has been in effect for about eight years.
MM Dave, those are multi family buildings, they are not eligible for ".rcterior changes.
3l
DR lts not exterior.
MM Yes it would be. That is an exterior change (inaudible). So it really is a moot point
DR Okay if it is, I would throw out I thought it was under roof and it would be considered. This is
what they've been told for eight years. So if it is, if im wrong, I withdraw. I don't think I am.
(Many people talking at once.)
PO Okay. Do we have any... Dalton.
Many people talking at once.)
DW (naudible.)
PJ I know we have a motion on the floor, but I think we should table the next four items on the
agenda
PO Lets deal with this motion and then lets go on to, you know, lets vote on Mew's motion. There's a
motion and a second on the floor. All in favor.
ML Aye.
PO Opposed.
PJ Aye.
TS Aye.
PO Okay. At this point, we have four of us yqting againsit Mery,s motion...
PJ Five I think.
Po oh. See I cant even (inaudible) at this hour. Paul, sybill, I voted against it and ...
JS Tomvotedagainstit.
PJ And Jim voted against it.
PO And Jim voted against it. Okay.
JS I would like to suggest *rat Paul make his original motion again and because I did not understand
your motion. I misunderstood it and if we could re-vote on that issue because I...
PO What about tabling?
32
o
JS I think tabling is the second bestthing.
PO I think that's a good suggestion at this point be"-* you know,.I think that we are all loosing
track.
ML I make a motion that we table Ordinancc No. 6 series of 1995 until the next regularly scheduled
meeting.
JimS Second.
PO Motion by Merv, second by Jim. Discussion. yes, pan-
PJ Jan orJim scconded it? Who seconded it?
PO Jim.
SN Jim.
PB ' Is it for an wening meeting or do you ne# a work scssion?
PO I think we should go to a work session
ML Yeah. Work session. Im doing the next eveoing mecting, but a wort session is not something you
need a motion on.
PO Okay. All inFavor.
PJ Aye.
JimS Aye.
TS Aye.
SN Aye.
ML Aye.-
JS Aye.
PO Opposed. pss565 rmanimously. Okay.
JJ
83 AmJur 2d ZONING AND PLANNING $ 796
*Utt'lT,'ililfi
i*"l'ffi:lil:;::lJru'I"'ff ttt;1;:il"l
5:;'.,*^Ti:tl::ll,{li:Hil't',;'l#n$*;:"""a.{r":f ;l
mx;:i"r1;11'.S!tf r:**iuff$iti:rtr*'.*,'ru*,*i
;:ni..'l,:,.,?f '"T",:p{r".t-";.li.iiii:t;}:r1,.ji#i]ft$lfi:5
3j'*E'il'"ffi lt'fr $t3-1l:;111$ir:t::+;i;xir':
:r:r":Tri"iffi i;tlt$$**fit*+,...,1.;.;'1.lq
i:slxi:.,".:.':;;l -ff'll:c
"x"x*
$:*f b*t
i:
oi; ;l iJ' ilJ:' ";il'; i fl't',".t' l''
; li;l *
;* : ;'::*i'l:'rft i'r if :
*iffi:;:l:ili.'i,., .,oon rre,.l:-d-e,,',1'ty:i.lllllf,: il,:',ff:'::1."-'.:::
Bi:ili;;if "r"',*n*'iqf,ffi 'l'.i{#[il{lJr#f :i{*:k:}i
ffi ;\:'3:H,",1; Sli:'3;i
(2d Dep$ 3 ?
"'J;"'"l1li'ii"1'$
3af"1Tl"""l*: :': "'
53. schofield v Zoning so";or Re'iew' 99 ,it:t'Tffii
r' \{urdock' 16 \tisc 2d 789' l8l
RI 20,r, 206 .\2d 524.';;;";;-
board of appeals has a legal right
,"' ;;i;'ii ;; in' esrisation -of
a :"'ltg;i
tl,1;,Tlil,i'l'il;lil?.'f lio'J.oo n t lpp Di'
za tgo, .tsg NYS2d 920'
54. \{acNevin v Zoning Bd of Reliew' 94 RI
407, l8l A2d 232.-;;;;J;"t
support its findings br kno'l'
.i;.";;i;J',t''",isi " :i:"--{ :T"f,i'['[:and a're'ieoinq coun .nlll grre'
'JL*:t'?',;',:.'f ;,:i'${:k-T .'t:"; " ;T;
NIS2d 671.
55. Crol{n Cent Petro-le.um ^Com
l Baltr-
ffi :: iill 3t
:.i3:,T i'L: i'? ^*+3'i'3ll
f {{- tiil,f tl'i'd-il'-J
"i}':'"::i;
;'ifiel':iJflXo";;;'on"
Bd or Rerierv'
"-ir-," o.*t"u knouled-gercf board members
as basis ior decision' see I 'vi'
60. Hearh r Baltimorg' l8lrttlt?"t;'"t"?, i3$
?99, Do.o, Inc. v Zoning tso (
Rl 587, 218 .'\2d 4'
- ll*"1*l'::','$i' r*'J:,.'lr':'TJ":i,l:
*ttu;tl.lll" nll*;t*
rl+ nza oog.
,3';Ji""1.: ri r*' I i;ii'?:"li":
(2d DeP()
oz. sn1d.. \' 291'.'r.p$; "l t):l''il.''rt1 :i
l'.1;.::g- iT"?1'*fi'l'o ;'n:"""'" -
u.,
be spread-on the record, or such knowledge will not support a conclusion ofthe board.B
The general rule requiring disclosure of facts discovered in the course of apers.onal rnspection has been restated frequently, and followed.s Failure toorsclose such knowledge and ro afford the parries an opporrunity ro refute itmay constttute a denlal of due process of larv.s
$ 797. Governmental r€ports
. A board of . ad1'ustment. should not rely upon deparrmental reports, orlnrormatron garnecl through conl'ersations rvith municipal officials, unless therntormation gained is on rhe record.s where a board of adjustment. relieswholly upon rhe reporrs or opinions of administrative officials-, it defaults itsresponsibility ro exercise its discretion.o rhe recommendation of these offi-cials is to be given consideration by the board, in connection rr'ith the other
tacts ln the case, and if the Board, based on er.idence to the contrary, does notagree with the recommendation of these officials ir is not required.to followtheir recommendation.s
$ 79E. Opinion of municipal attorney
$ 7e6 ZONING AND PL{NNING 83 AmJur 2d
It js, of course, proper for a board of adjustment to receive advice from alnicipal attornev.s Horr'ever- denial of ,- .".,rr"", fnr relief rnlalv nn th.icipal attorney.s Horr'eler, denial of i request for relief solely on rhe
the a tron rr'as approred in- viert of the opinion of the torr.n aitorne.v, willbe annulled anci remanded *irh instructions 'that the board exercise iti
-or,;n
discretion in the matter.?r
llll Praarce guide:.If counsel believes rhar rhe opinion of rhe city attomeywill coincide rrirh his or her ortn, a memorandum of larr. on tire mattei
should be sought frorn the citv arrorney nell in advance of any hearing.This will expedite rhe hearing and ai the same rime circumvenr rh-e
disaster that can resutt from -attemptine to arzue the larv beforb the
members of a lay. commission ^rvho. may iesent rfie implication that theirmembers of a lay commission rvho may iesent rfie iparticular knorr'ledge or vierr. of zoning iarv mav be in
memoers 9r a lay. commrsslon -lvho may resent the implicatic
particular knorr'ledge or I ietr. of zoning iarv may be incorrect.?2
,33: b",ia lrl:'t"t Bd' or Rerien' e7 RI ilf it'A:'ii;I6.lmJur rrials ee' RelierFrom
Basis in record for decision olito.,* ott' 6?. Anderson, American taw of Zoning 3dsonal knowledge of board members g 79{. $;'i.3d:'"'"-"
- 91-Tol-!" v Sherk, 256 App_Dir -938,.9 66. Hofiinan v Batrimore,ry!?q 99!, reh den 256 App'Div 1003, u A:2;z;9."^" '
NYS2d 557; Callou.ay r Libiiman.\yszd 557; Callo$ay r Liberman (Sup) 206
N"lS2d 724; Hopkins v Board of.{ppeals. 178 69.813 Associares v Zoninq Hearins Bd., 84
Misc 186, 33 NYS2d 396. ' ' Pa Cmwhh 420. 479 Azd 67?-.
munlclpal attorney.* tloh.ever, denial Of-a request for relief solely on theground that.rhe municipal arrorne), issued an opinion ro the effect' that rhe
f9a1,o was wrthout poser [o. granr rhe requesr, is a denial rr.ithout authority.?o
Slmllarly, a vanance granted after notice and hearing, but on the ground thatSimilarly, a varianci granred ifrer notice ind hearine, but on the sroundthe application rr'as appror.ed in r.iert. of the opinion-of the rown "ito..r""
187 Md 593, 5l
Pa Cmrrfrh 420. 479 AZd 67i.
65, Hot Shoppes, Inc. v Clouser (DC Disr
Col) 231 F Supp 825, affd l20.4pp DC 353,
346 F2d 834; Giordano r Ciry Com. 'of \e'^.ark,
2 NJ 585, 67 A2d 454.
66. Dal lt{aso v Board of Counrr. Comrs.. 238Itd 333,209 A2d 62; Reinauer Reakr Coro. v
Paramus, 34 NJ 406, 169 .{2d 814.
Practice References: Conracting cirr. officers
670
Practice References.. Lesal ooinions. l6 Am
Jur Trials 99, Relief From- Zoriins Ordinance
$ 40.
70. De Flavis v Hill (Sup) 158 NYSZd 436.
71. Lusby v Shoemaker, 14 l\lisc 2d 421, 179
NYS2d 15.
72, l6 .{m Jur Trials 99, Relief From Zoning
Ordinance ! 40.
83 AmJur 2d
Appeals, erc.. l6i lnd APP 50^l '-:silih v Board of APPeals' : '\Silitr t So^td of APPeals,^?. l
314 n'E2d 881: Badanek r'scnr'
I lnd APP 5ul' :
of Appeals, ? ]
n".le'netr t Schrr
$ 799. GenerallY
In qeneral, a board of .a'
disclo-se the basis for its de'
Dermit a litigant to Parttctl
H;;i;st *uy"be PrePared I
board.?5
The failure ol an aomu
reDaired bt a subsequent tr
iindingt must be .mad.e
authoritv of the muntctPattt
llll Caurion: e '$g\9'b1' a zoning board tarls
of fact and concluslor
oblieated to consider
,cce-Pt as factual ever
Morlover, the board
legal conclusions'?t
?3. Hamilron l Board of Su1
Dist) 269 Cal APP 2d Ot'-75 '
Clark Heating Oils, Inc r Zont:
peals, t59 Conn 234, 268 A2d :
6""ii .f zoning APPeals'.252
NE2d 337; EasleY v MetroPortan
Z(
Salah v
.{op 582. 175 Nw2d 78{; Fara
v';in .roo 198' 157 N\l2d 9ulin roo 198, 157 N\12d I
Lacev t'o'.nshiP Bd. of '{djusrl-"iev id":tshiP Bd. of Adjust
supei t3+, 529'AZd lo63; xent
Au'ro Collision, Inc. v Zoning I
(4rh Dept) 159 ,{PP Dit 2d.^91
791: Schimmel v KemPner (zo
Div 2d 781,214 NYS2d 961; G;
Zoninq Bd. of Adjustment, 4. P
287 A-2d 698: Bellevue ShoPPtnt
r Chase (Rl) 556 A2d 45' aPPe
(Rr) 574 .{2d 760.
In acting uPon an aPPlication
a Board of .{djustment must
forth its factual findings an0 cor
L.l.lU.-{. Partners v Northtale'
5r2, 530 .{2d 839.
\{hile an inrerPretation -of
nance b! a board of aPPeals n
in an.\riicle 78 Proceeding' sur
nol oroceed where the record d
a ttioroush examination of tl
board. \\';h \\'hitman Game R<
ing Bd. of .{ppeals (2d DePt)
r83. {0.1 \\'szd 123.
a'Do^
75 South Frontage Road
VaiL Colorado 81657
970-479-2 I 07/F ax 97 0-479 -2 I 5 7
Ofice of the TownAttorney
August 6,1996
VIA TELECOPIER 827-qO I 9
Mr. Rollie J. Kjesbo
President
Nedbo Construction, Inc.
Post Office Box 3419
Vail, CO 81658
Re: 3 I 10 Booth Creek Drive, West l/2 Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado
Dear Rollie:
Attached is a copy of the executed agreement to allow work to continue on the Hughes portion of
the duplex pending the outcome of the PEC hearing.
After our conversatioil yesterday, I verified that Town of Vail statrhad conversations with Bill
Pierce, the architect on this project, three to four days prior to the issuance ofthe red tag. I felt
certain that was the circumstance when we talked yesterday, however, I did want to confirm that.
RTIWaw
Attachment
R. ThomasMoorhead
{g*o"ot""uo
,1',,'.4;a
AGREEMENT
Town of Vail and Tuchman/I{ughes
WHEREAS,
leeated et 3110 Beetlr ereek Drive, Veil; eeleraCq aad Diane K. Hughes, Kendall K. Bumey
and King B. Hughes are presently the Owners of the west side of the duplex located at 31 l0
Booth Creek Drive, Vail, Colorado: and
WHEREAS, a contoversy has arisen concerning whether thefire unitsareBftiUed to an
additional 250 sq. ft. of GRFA pursuant to Charter 18.71 of the Vail Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, due to this controversy a stop work order was issued by the Deparhent of
Community Development on July 24, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to allow for protection of the property from the elements
and improvement to the extent that it will not interfere with a decision to be made by the
Planning and Environmental Commission at a hearing presently scheduled for August 12, 1996.
NOW, TIIEREFORE, it is hereby agreed as follows: :
l. That Bill Pierce, Architect, and Rick Rosen, Attorney at Law, have full authority
and approval of the Owners to enter into this agre€ment and the Owners agree to be bound
hereby.
2. That the red tag will be removed and construction can continue as follows:
. framing. install sheathing. install windows and exterior doors. install soffit. install exterior installation. install roofing including shingles. install rough electical 0imited). installroughmechanicalOimited)
3. That no interior finishes including sheetrock will commence until approval is
received from tle Planning and Environmental Commission.
4. The entering into this Agreement will not interfere or restrict the Town of Vail's
ability to enforce its zoning regulations as it pertains to this project and the Owners rights to have
all issues resolved pursuant to prescribed due process oflaw are not restricted in any way.
lP"^
?t,?-
i:
' -'' ?'.r' l',r, .. -
' 11 '
..,.:#:.
,t
f
o
6' This is the entire Agreement and can be only be modified or altered by written
agreement.
THIS AGREEMENT has been entered into on the
1120 Lincoln Street, Suite I100
Denver CO 80203
TOWN OF VAIL, a Colorado municipal corporation
Town Clerk
iitden Pierce Briner
1650 East Vail V
Fallridge C-l
Vail, CO 81657
Rick. !6sen, Attomey aHaw'
Richard P. Rosen, PC.
Fltxhm.n.{r
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479 -2 1 07/Fax 970- 479-2 I 5 7
Office of the Town Attorney
July 31, 1996
Richard P. Rosen, Esquire
Richard P. Rosen, P.C.
1120 Lincoln Street. Suite 1100
Denver, CO 80203
Bill Pierce
Architect
Fritzlen Pierce Briner
1650 East Vail Valley Drive
Fallridge C-l
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Town of Vail and Tuchman/Flughes Agreement
Dear Rick and Bill:
Attached is a proposed Agreement which will allow for the setting aside of the stop work order.
Construction could then continue to protect all elements presently located on the property.
If the Agreement meets your approval, please execute two copies and retum them to me for
execution. I will then forward a frrlly executed original to you for your files.
Very truly yours,
TOWN OF VAIL
.ftu>h
R. Thomas Moorhead
Town Attorney
RTM/aw
Attachment ,/xc: Dominic Mauriello r'
Mike Mollica
{g r"n"uoru"*
AGREEMENT
Town of Vail and Tuchman4lughes
WHEREAS, Ken and Debra Tuchman are the Owners of the east side of the duplex
located at 3l l0 Booth creek Drive, Vail, colorado, and Diane K. Hughes, Kendall K. Burney
and King B. Hughes are presently the Owners of the west side of the duplex located at 3110
Booth Creek Drive, Vail, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, a controversy has arisen conceming whether the two units are entitled to an
additional 250 sq. ft. of GRFA pursuant to charter 18.71 of the vail Municipal code; and
WHEREAS, due to this controversy a stop work order was issued by the Department of
Community Development on July 24, 19961' and
WHEREAS, the padies wish to allow for protection of the properfy from the elements
and improvement to the extent that it will not interfere with a decision to be made by the
Planning and Environmental Commission at a hearing presently scheduled for August 12, 1996.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby agreed as follows:
l. That Bill Pierce, Architect, and Rick Rosen, Attomey at Law, have full authority
and approval of the Owners to enter into this agreement and the Owners agree to be bound
hereby.
2. That the red tag will be removed and construction can continue as follows:
. framing. install sheathing. install windows and exterior doors. install soffit. install exterior installation. install roofing including shingles. install rough electrical (limited). install rough mechanical (limited)
3. That no interior finishes including sheetrock will commence until approval is
received from the Planning and Environmental Commission.
4. The entering into this Agreement will not interfere or restrict the Town of Vail's
ability to enforce its zoning regulations as it pertains to this project and the Owners rights to have
all issues resolved pursuant to prescribed due process of law are not restricted in any way.
By:
5. It is anticipated that this Agreement will remain in eflect up to and including
August 12, 1996, at which time the matter is scheduled for hearing before the Planning and
Environmental Commission. This Agreement can be extended by the agreement of the parties
hereto.
6. This is the entire Agreement and can be only be modified or altered by written
agreement.
THIS AGREEMENT has been entered into on the
OWNERS:
day of_, 1996.
Bill Pierce, Architect
Fritden Pierce Briner
1650 East Vail Valley Drive
Fallridge C-l
Vail, CO 81657
Rick Rosen, Attomey at Law
Richard P. Rosen, P.C.
1120 Lincoln Street, Suite I100
Denver CO 80203
TOWN OF VAIL, a Colorado municipal corporation
By:
Robert W. Mclaurin, Town Manager
Attest:
By:
F:\tudrmu..gr
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECTYOUR PROPERW
PUBLIC NOTICE
'-' t - ::1Ti:"'#menatcomt,.northerownorVail
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that fie Planning ant
uril hntd r nilhtie trearino-in'accoiOance witr Section ig-66.OeO of the Municipal Code ol-the Townwill hold a public hearing in accordance
ol Vail on August 12, 1996, at 2:dl P.iiilldiffil]ilfi'i"irliiii'"-ii'"'n'Jr vdii rurrnicipai euirdihs. ln consideration of:
A request for height and lront setback variances to allow for the construction of four triplex
frjiiaffi;;iili;d%ils94 tio-nsrloge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridse Filins #3'
Appllcant:Steven Gensler and Stephen KaE
George Ruther
A request lor a condition4 ule permit to replace an existing well and pump station' located on the
lowei bench ol Donovan Park.
Applicant:Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, represented by Gail Lucas
George Ruther
A requesr ro amend sections '18.24.020,18.24.030, 18.24.040, 18.24.050, 18.27'030' 18'28'030'
i CeErirO
-anO
r e.iSOCg
-of th; A;ing b&e to aOO Brew Pub as a conditional use in the
Commercial Core l, CommerciilCoie?, CommercialCore 3, Commercial Service Center and
Arterial Business Zone Districts.
Planner:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Planner:
A reouest for an amendment to an approved site development plan to allow for a shift in the building
;di"d;i'diioini *a, r.rcated al-disze Kinnickinnick hoad/lirnsbruck Meadorvs #8.
Vail Associates, represented by Jack Hunn
Dominic Mauriello
Bob Borne
George Ruther
A request for a renewal of a conditional.use-permit to allow for the continued operation ol a mob-ile
catheterizauon laboratory at 0'G Vail virreipteoical center, located at 191 west Meadow Drive/Lots
F & E, VailVillage 2nd Filing.
Applicant:Dan Feeney
Dirk Mason
A reouest for a landscape variance to allow for a building addition and additional surface parking'
tocatbO at 2131 N. Frodtage Road/ Lot 3, Vail Das Schone 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Saleway, Inc., represented by Dennis Wyaft
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
A reouest for a worksesslon to discuss a variance to allow detacfred garages in he front setback'
tocatb<l at 28Sg and 2833 Kinnickinnick Road/Lots 7 & 8, Block 4, Vail lntermountairvLooges al
Timber Creek.
Applicant:Jim Marx
Dominic MaurielloPlanner:
Applicant:BillPierce
Dominic MaurielloPlanner:
illlllllll
Sign hnguage interpretatbn available rpon request with 24 hour mtification. Please catl 4792114 voice or 479'2356 TDD
br informdion.
GommuniV Development D€Panment
R"blished JUV 26, 1996 in the VailTrail.
An appealof an admlnistrative decision relating to Section 18.04.065, De,qro/BeF$ld, o! the Town of
vaiiftlnGipafdode, asit retates to Chapter 1d.71, Additonal Gross Residential Floor Area.
TOWNOTVAIL
REQTIIRED FOR FILING AN APPEAL OF A STAFF, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OR
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION
ACTION/DEC]SION BEING APPEALED:
B,
c.
DATE OF ACT]ON/DECISION:
NAME OF BOARD OR PERSON RENDERING THE DECISION/TAKING ACTION:
D.NAME OF APPELLANT(S):
MAILINC ADDRESS:
E.
DESCNPTION OF APPELLANT'S PROPERTY IN VAIL:
STGNATLIRE(S):
Page I of2
F.Does this appeal involve a specific parcel of land? y * If yes, please provide the following information:
areyouanadjacentprop€rty owner? Yes- no-E
lf no, give a detailed explanation of bow you are an "aggriwed or adversely affocted person'' "Aggriwed or
advenely affocted person'' mcans any person who will suffcr an adverse effect to an intuest protccted or
fi[thered by this title. The alleged adverse interest may bc shared in common with other members of the
community at large, but shall exceed in degree thc general interest in commufity good shared by all persons'
hovide the names and addresses @oth person's mailing address and property's phylcal address in vail) of all owners
of property which are the *bj* ;f ,bt;ppeal.and all a--rljac€nt property ;wn€rs (including properties sepratcd by a
rigfit-of-way, sheanr, or otber intervening baniers)'
On separarc sheets ofpapo, specifi the procise nahrre ofthe appeal' Please cite specific codc sections baving
relEvance to the action being appealed"
FEE: $0.00
c.
F :\EVERYONE\LAUREN\APPEAL.UIPD Page? of2
Printed by Doninic Mauriello
From: Dominic MaurieLlo
To: TOm ]i{Oorhead
Subj ect:
3110 BooLh Creek Drive, vail
co, Hughes /Tucbman addition
===NOTE====cc: Mike Mollica
Tom,
Georg'e Ruther and r performed a site
inspection of the above referenced
proberty on Mondav, Jttly 22, 1995 anci
touna tne new construction on tshis siee
to be substantial ' There was no roof
on the structure and all of the wa11s
had been removed.
chuck Fefdman anal r followed-up with
another inspection on Tuesday, ,Ju1y 23,
1995. chuck is a building inspector
and r felt his expertise was needed in
evalualing the construction on- site -
rt was hil opinion that at Ieasts 65t of
the structure was new consEruction-
The superintendant on the project, Guy
Cuccia e49-27371 stated in both mY
presence and chuck's presence thal the
figure was more fike 70t new
cons truc tion .
A redtag was issued on wednesday, July
24, 7996 at 10!00am'
FYI ,
Dominic
4 /96 1:03pn
Page: 1
oi
-.v
hrf Elrrb{rl,r
?t!o D.rt 663P'0r'
*t$rr{|idr."l
Ea$ sb/r*rrt
atto Sntt- c&91*+or/ril/urr
?F rr3
DfA
?hrrrl
ao
Scott^ Elanhnr'tfo Sutt-Ctut Sn
l+.rt\.3r7lfiprr
5ogilr Slrllr;r
tSO ldrrtrr frOr@
rFlr
DtA
lferlr,
Drrr
Sultr- Etrrr.|rt'ltro D..rr-<r..t gr. ?rtlf
lftrdL.s/tfrts.^. SlA.
*,thrF Gbilrrr.
3ttO GocilrG+b$ ilf.
tt rtUtffafftD.
?F:fr
o
FILE COPY
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
97 0 - 479 - 2 1 3 8/47 9-2 I 3 9
FAX 970-479-2452
Department of Communiry Development
March 21, 1996
Bill Pierce
Fritzlen Pierce Briner
P.O. Box 57
Vail, CO 81658
Re: Remodel of the Tuchman /Ilughes duplex located at 3l l0 Booth Creek Driveil,ot 9,
Block 3, Vail Village I lth Filing.
Dear Mr. Pierce:
The Design Review Board at their March 20, 1996 meeting approved yow request for a remodel
of the above refercnced duplex. You may now submit for a building permit on the project.
Thank you for your patience in the process.
Ifyou have any qucstions call me at479-2148.
Sincerelv.
0,{tl*"jJ*
Domhic F. Mauriello. AICP
Toun Planncr
,O1 o"-,.r rnoor""r7
f Momidc\wpfi les{eft rs\hugh.s,!Dd
Project Application
' project *^^", a-,tL. '.-., // tLrjln t - (p*o At I a I (c s' A "* e
Project Description:
Contacl Person and Phone &; \\ Pie,ze Lt)6'63qZ
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and Phone:b; ll Q;e,rre
Legal Description: Lot 1 Block F iling vl l/t^, Zon" (
Commenls:
Design Review Board
Date lAarcL 2 O /( ra
DISAPPROVAL
Summary:
Staff ApprovalTown Planner
o^r", MartL'll,l44L
D
Tclhll{ CtF UFIIL
tlilccllnaous Cdt
g2-2?46 15136146
----:---:--*--
f;::trl I'*t[ * 6?8r
inii{iul PIERcE' gRIHEpTPPD DRB FEEs
' fru;unt-r'enoereo > sa'ffi
tr|r Prid hrni Paid
61s00041531006 50'@
ChangF returned > B'SB
Tl{FlF{r< 1/o|-l
ihr c$lrr 'lD?
---j-a'----?-*-
|Irt
TOWNOFVAIL *,."n ,o._*Ia.l,_
I'E ATTMENT OF OO:I}I['NITY DE!'ELOPMEI\T
AI}DRESS
CRECXS,I{AIIB
'AYAAI.B
TO TOWN OP VAJL
AcootNTNo. - ' ' - -'.- trIlr."-. .- .. n.- .--^- -' !{G i.-.'Trx-:-*' cgnDs.:r " llofrlJ,'
0l 000041540 ZONING AND ADDRESS MAPS $5.00
0l 0000 42415 UMFORM BUILDINGCODE $54.00 *
0l 000042415 UNIFORM PLI.IMBING CODE s39.00
0l 0000 424 | 5 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE $37.00ot firco 42415 UNIFORMFIRECODE $36.00(,1 0O0O42415 NATIONAL ELECTRJCAL CODE $37.000t fi)00 42415 OTIIER CODE BOOKS
0l 000041548 BLUE PBIITS (MYLARS)s7.00 I
0l oo00 424 l2 XEROX COPIES $0.25 I
0l 000042412 5 t ut ,t.bs
0t 0fw424t2 TOVFEES COMPUTER PROGRAM $5.00
0r oo00 42371 PENALTY FEES / RE.INSPECTIONS
0l oo004t332 PLAN REVIEW RE.CHECK FEE [S4O PER HR.I-
tl
li:
it-
il'
-
!
0t 000042332 OFF IIOURS INSPECTION FEES
0l 000041412 CONTRACTORS LICENSES FEES
0l fi)00 414t3 SIGN APPLICATION FEE s20.000l (X)oo 4t413 ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE FEE [SI.OO PER SQ.FT.I
VTC ART PROJECT DONATION
0l 0000 4t3it ERE PAID DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FEE a1)t)-0+00004}3+r I}WESTIGATION FEE ( BUILDING)
3t 000045110 TOV PARKINC FUND
ot oooo 22027 I(,V NEWsPAPER DISPENSER fUND* 0l 0000 2ll12 TAXABLE@4.5ffi
+ 0l 0000 41010 ,n @ 4r0z LroItN)0l m00 42371 BUILDING INVESTIGATION
OIHbR
;l
0l fi)00 41330 ADDITIONALGRFA "250"s200.000l 0()00 41330 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT s2(ru.000l fi}00 41330 EXIERI()R ALTERATTON [LESS T]IAN 100 SO.FT.I s200.000t 000041330 EXTLRIOR ALTERATION TMORE THAN IOO SQ.FT.]s5u).00
0r 000041330 SPECTALDEVELOPMENTDTSTRICT rNJWl s I,500.000l 000041330 S PECIAL DEVE LOPM ENT DIST R ICT TMA'-R NIEND-s I,000.000l m00 41330 SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MINORT'END $2UO.000l oo00 41330 SUBDIVISION
0l fi)00 41330 VARIANCE s250.000l 0000 41330 ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS s250.000t 0()00 4t3.i0 RE. ZONING s200.00
OTHER
OTHER
f i ^ A I
=",*^,", -t[,-rfu, ftdd thun
t)
crs'r l,**,Itffil ,M.oLr u..r", L(N
o
! r\ 9T o{?6l8ot PnlTzr'EN
RBvffi{ EOIRD APPIrfCf,tlON
I,ll
I
roy . e0[,|id. 0Ey, I]EPfi "..PIE8CF
r0.,0$ ' r.r ll:iz:rvlrr/. r/ ll ttl
DTSIGN larilI of v^l&, coulnroo
D TD REcElvDDr -2:.?4',1b -
?
A.
DM Of DRB HEFfINGI
r iatiat.. a
ERQJ$CT LNr9rItr^gIPN'
DsseRrprroN: eg.P.$lgt'l t EYlooEl-,9,F h,tFF'tr StD€ oF,9v+F{
F rype Op RrVIEvt!
-..-Neu' cenricuctton ($zOO.Oo) . xinor 11 rcrreion (l?0'Oo)
Enaorcion ltio.oot --cone.Ftull
Ftwrcw (f0)
ADDRESS; J
r,EcAL DEgCF,IPT:ONi , Loe cl .llock 5-
--subdrrr:*:o" Varu Vrur_t6E-TFhl FIUNQ -
If proPerty ir drscrlbed by a ns€lt rnd bounds legrldesiribcion, prCase Provtdi on e g€prrlte thett rnd lt't'ash
co sh i, s appl ica t ion.
zoNrNc: f$o F64tuY Rlflq6NlleL
D.
Y,NAfiE OF AFPLTCAN? | qwe E ftit6tlt5,K. gn^,Ei{
Mailing lddrcssr
c.IIAJ'IE OF
HaiIIng
Cdndo,r :nrul|t Approvtl l f
DRB FEE: DRE feeg, gs s
li tlid.
APFLIEAND'3 REPRIEE}}TI?IVE:
Add res s I L
l{.NAHE QP . '.l'NEl,(Sl I
oHNE4U]J) srcNA'tuEE,
Mailrnq tddrora;
APPLTCAfIONS Ut&L NOr AD n&EgggD nzr$ow ot^ral's 5t6jt'.ruft
t
licable,
t ime ot submi r tal o! r,heapplying for a buildincvaluat inn of the propotatec Eccor.ling to thc lab
abovt,\ are to be ptlA tg thoepplipactoa. Lrg3t, whentl, prbace ldcnEl!y Bhc rccurtge
Tha Town o! Vctl wirl tdJurt ehr
betow, to errlure. tbt corrccl tcc
v,,lui?toNl'! g 3 lc,oocs 10.001 r ,50;600| 50,00t | 150.000$150,001 s 5o0.000t500,001 t1.0b0,ooot ovcr t1.0j00, OOg
PHI9l1-!u_v_Igw lorts r'rroyrL Exsrrl8A?DRovtI., u!r&E!r A DsrrrDiNS pznr.Ei rrIg STARTED. 'Jf
7EE3 20.000 50.00
ftoo.00
t?00.00tao0.00
f500 . o0
out Yttt ll!!r Frxlr,:s8uED ArD CoNtaascasorr
.9_c1-69-95 f VE s2:43 P r.r
./'' - rr.r o t/.l{/st
. DSSTGN REVXEW
lH
, =AZ 994 4143
APPIJICATION ' TO1IN OTi"' CQIjORhDO
P-62
DAIE RECEIVED:
DATE OF DBB MEETINGT
--..-.- -ttltalltaa
iallttltttt
I,
A
B.B9JEcT {NFORIIIBIoN r
DESCRIF{DION: Addition 6 Renodel of East Side of Duplex
.
B.IYPE OF REVIEW:
JNew ConsE,ruc'Lion (S2OO.O0lrtx Addi t,ion ($ 50 . 00 )
ADDRESS: 3ll0 Booth Creek Dr.
LEGAIJ DESCRIPTION: IJoE g B].ock 3subdivl.sion van vlltpE!-lEfiEire
-
If, lrroperty is described by L meeus anat bounds LegaldescrlpE,lon, pldase provlde gn a Eeparage sheec eia aEEachLo ttria apFItc,aCion.
"Minor ALLerat,ion (920.0o)
-coneepuual
Rerriew (S0)
c.
r.
tl .
r.
,I .
zoNrNc:
NAI,TE OF APPI.,ICAMI:Mailing Address:
NA.IvrE OE
Ma il ing
APPI/ICANT'S REPRESAddress:
Phone lj6=6342.
NAI.{E qF OWNER(S) I Tuchnan
ISMTR
Mailing Address:
APPLZCATjrON9 FErr. NOT BE PROEESSED WITHOW ORIIVEA'S S'GrdATgR.E
Condomlnium Approvaf if appllcabre.
DRB FEE: DRB f,ees, as shown.untt FEE: DRB f,ees, as shown, ,bove,l are uo be paid at Ehe
ii[ifir"]t]" I'il,i:, :ii:f6$rTiiih!i"ii.",liit;"-*1",...vs-raqLrrJ{r rir Errc p{oposat . ',$flre Tarim of Vail witr l adjugt Lhg
f ?"-lg:otdins Lo -tri"'u"[i" dB-i;*, Lo enaure Ehe correcr, re€1s paid. 'lyt
wal-uation -of tbc propoial .
FE-E SCHFDULE: ,,i
\/AIJUATIONQ o I :"c,ooo910,001 -$ 50.000$ so, oo1 - $ 150;0oo$150, oo1 $ 5oo. doo$500,001 - $1, ooo,boog over $1,000,000
E.EE
+ zv. uu$ 30.00
$100. 00
$200 ,00
+400 - 00
$s00. 00
DEsrG:N REvrEI.t BoARD APPRovAIr.: tKprREs oNE yEaB eHlgR FrNArrAPPROVAI, UII'JESS A FUTIIOTNG rlA.UrE Ig trgSUED AIID CON9TRI'CTTONIS STARtrED
1,t
'';
lri
scrrgrd NslzIlu.{li.
FarnlLv Resldentlal
ro6r9r,t0l0 11{ 80: tI 86/ao/ol
NN,IE OF PRO.TECT:
LEGAL DESCRTPTI
STREET ADDRESS:
The following information is
Review Board before a final
A. BUIIJDTNG }TATERIALS:
Roof
Sidinq
Ot.her wall MaEerials
Fascia
soffir,s
Windows
Window Trim
Doors
Door Trim
.
Iiand or Deck Rails
Flues
plashings
Chimneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
ReEaining WaIIs
ExLerior Lighting
Other
LANDSCAPING: Name of
3 SION UArL rrtt,r++/. llfrftUplBLOCK
required for submit,t.al t.o t.he Desiqn
approval can be given:.
TYPE OF MATERIAL COIJOR
't.F<tt . caeoz,-t lceaYz.4g3-- -lArF-?
'€tvrl
-,nU\D
CA6zT nTlo^t5
t€r/nt(*Ll(7
15 L,^)
t',-:tL t+,,tLL+
9A YLL fztruYo* * +26'0
ucbO navv (a€,tT * oH?
' LWAL ft6ln f tL a .,, ffi-)Zr-' -Z'iil",t * 4ux0
t --.^, - r-t rr.zy .rl ,.A^) t1
(/;.r4(Lo fD
tvt+?-V vtGr*L Aa?
r/hErAL Ol-o€
Designer:
Phone:
7
E_rf::t-rrrr\{ r \r-(-/
CAT$I :TANS
* +1qo
:t€ yt\t -;-LtO
';r?',#ot,,\oa ,.4!*6e|y ! pn+
\,gwL
€ar-lgsA vnirr i"ll.
f^^Aaz\\ tasfbtf P^tztc
B.
:il"::::":.'v I
Al.l_++--r-T:ft
Minimum caliPef for
height for conrterous
n1
c. LANDSCAPE LIGHTING: rf ext'erior lighring is proposed, please
show the number of fixLures and locaLions on a separaEe
Iight.ing plan. rdengify each f ixcure from t'he liqhting plan
in the ipice below and provide Lhe height above grade, type of
light propOsed, Iurnen ouLput, luminous area and a cuE sheeL Of
the light f ixEure. (section 18.54.050 .T)
Yl
l- 76AC:
*rndicat.e caliper for deciduous trees.
deciduous trees is 2 inches'." Indicate
**IndicaEe s
5 qaIlon.ze of proposed shrubs.frGimumJize of shrubs is
Square Footaqe
GROUND. COVERS
soD
SEED
TYPE
OF IRRIGATION
TYPE OR METHOD OF
EROSION CONTROL
OTHER IJAD{DSCApE FEATURES (reitaining wa1ls, fences, swimming
pools, eEc.) PIease specify. IndicaLe heights of retaining
walls. Uaximum helghr of wll1s wiUhin Ehe front. setback is
3' . Maximum heighu of walLs elsewhere on Lhe properEy is 6'
.li. '- a -.-sffi-11l
Single Family Residence, DupIex, erimary/Secondary
ZONE DISTRICTS
DAIE: /A- q'qD
Block Subdivision tlrH r/ur,/e
D
ARcHrrEcr blLL fliRoe 47L-63+2
zoNE Drsrwcr 2 FAl"4lLf RtzQnENrl^L
PRoPosED usg BEQr OENT|AL
Lor srzE t1ro57'4? f BUTLDABLE Lor AREA ?4ll'5
Height
TOTA] GRFA
EAqT-Prinary GRFA
w6r-$ec€fid.a#y GRFA
Se Lbacks
PHONE
PHONE
ALLowed Existino
(30) (33)
-
+ 425
-F 4 Zi
X4ot
Proposed
9?'
7c4
FronL
Sides
Rear
20,
15,
15',
lto ohangc
/ /74.42 Changd
clunfrc
Si t.e Coverage
Landscaping
ReEaining walI Heights
Parking
Garage Credi t,
water Course SeLback
Do Finish Grades Exceed 2:L (5Ot)
?frrr 4,247 U4 Z4tt
F*it?
(30) (s0)
YES_ NO
1) Flood PIain
2) Perceng Slope (< > 30t)
3) Geologic Hazardsa) Snow Avalancheb) RockfaIlc) Debris FIow
No X
reques t?
Does Lhis regrieuL j.rrvuive a 250 Ari<iition? Yft-How much of Lhe arlowed 250 Addicion is .rseEffiEis
Previous condit.ions of approval (checX propercy file) :
Tocal
4-,At
+r*
?aaE
lTob
2 neqrd 4 enct
....--\r:oot6oo)(eoo) (Lzoo\ 6M Ert'5taE'
Drive, Na ClWW lZ Zit*f 6 permirr,ed slope t proposed Stope %
Conplies wit.h T.o.v. Liqhting ordinance yes v No
Envi ronmen La 1,/Ha zards :
Na nau eto eycraAa
,', N/4 L
4) Wetlands
View Corridor Encroachment: yes
lToo .
10
f
HvrKY/[E€f Ex/orb
hqur afu ourcex)
EN\4Y/WH f,lsro
Meaf ow tuflCx)
\
Exl'r7a EA7T / '
\
( e A+T -.,tDE DL)1LEX)
EX/;T/6 tYoKft/ \(weer QoE Do'PLEx)
II
rlt
a,.
Fga/a (burrl
€,o,n QioE arP puTc*)
Extef 'a
Nfr'f or(E
it'i
ll
tuofi'l
n, trl Fl \l-/v'f e-r/\,//
a'
ET d
-{
Fil
r-: iFt|J
f,/,lr:T6, 17;ctfy'l . .
. '(Wed 6toE Dr"fLEY,t . .r
( war - F,Alir z<ENllaTut-|
fillazl €, !.z4tfti
(f^"r .,iDE [)(/ii:l l)
7 xlLi qa
Community Development Plan Rou
Approved X Denied (cite detailed reasons)Approved with conditions
Submr r\eel
--ting Form
-
Greg Hall, Public Works
Todd Oppenheimer,
Mike McGee, Fire
Routcd To:
Dominic F. Marniello, Community DevelopmentRcturn To:
Hughes addtion and remodel
3l l0 Booth Creek Dr.
Lot 9, Blk. 3, VV l lth
Proposed remodel and addition of west side of duplexProject Description:
fdXS trr rf ttlue ,{fax\ Y \r:i\t r nl'c if.d toa is.:y fr ctrl p icun lziart tt'l'rK
cc.ilhfwe
l\ 5rurd,,:":. o!,r\kl fEht{, Z.- -ftra:ru !c,\v-s 6!F '1go\ (:.@}
\te txap.z.O rnc.r n hoc;r
v13. rl.r bi r tft\t dq_?jnL tleLtn Jha,t 1;- ,.,6.-y1; lruitt
+
:l
f:\.iEryooe\domv. rttorm
TO: MIKE McGEE
5
€
TODD OPPENHEIMER
Relurn lo ,.JUr CURNUTTE.
Town Planner
PR9JEQ.TI Resrc ea)oete sus[4rreu DATE oF pueltc HEARTNG
COMMEI.ffS NEEOED BY:
BRIEF D|:SCR|PT|ON OF THE pROpOSAL:
fl&l;h6,u * ,\e^^*J.;L'b c *s{ =).lc e€
1nc (.td r*t3 & So qfp().r4r@4,
irgineoring:
Reviewecl by: -Itrrr Moyirea Date: nc,toba. lB.tclc]s
Comments:
'--* lfr"ff,ffi:ffifi:lnl*nvo*soothc calr naa o( yhc-\ot. ?baca
?#x:e,-;g#-T"q;,n?-!.h,ng)ff .ffiy-^
4'gan ceognr$t*nc eMoe rhz ari{€vJat (? ,ou'arv)
ty,xrJio)ttQlutc toEg gfi?ei a"r rrr 5c4Y\€ +'o+t ,'4\an
Ncr "e?rol,,2d
. ?rpa'ra (cSJorrirk'
landscaplng:
Dale:Reviewed by:
Commenls:
ol,-ytex
Fire Dept.:
community Dcvelopment luuring Ro.*
Approved Denied (cite detailed reasons) / Approved with conditions
Routed'fo:Creg Hall, Public Works
Teni Martinez, Public Works
Todd Oppenheimer, Public Works
4vtifidMccee]m,,
Rctum To:
:
Dominic F. M:uricllo. Curnmunity Dcvclopmcnt
Daic Routcd:2t28t96
Rctum By:3t6t96
Projcct Namc:llughcs addlion and rcnrorlcl
Projcct Addrcss:3 I l0 Booth Creck Dr.
Projcct l-cgnl:l.,rt 9, Blk. 3, VV I l ah
Projcct Dcscription:Proposcd rcmodel and addition of west sidc ofduplex
- /t.t D"tf lrch,rl,,-, r':u,:;f ()r,ve L'nlU )roD,(
t1. c] r-,fC
Dntc rcvicwed: L 'Zli '7'
,i.ilgn Review Action Ftt
TOWN OF VAIL
catesory r'rrmuer Z' o*" Jq n t . ,z o^ Y 2F I a? 8.
erq"att^"' 11sCL,n-^,ar rr-l ?5a q4o1 ,Vrbz-
Building Name:
Owner, Address and Phone:
/ ,<.:
.€+L
le
{.t' Lr\ f k" t | 'Tv' ,' [i ,u., r,
f*
/ /<)/\J
.e{
T-. /
,a- t,L-\
,[r,.rc L ,
',c-L m - 1 1"i I t(ct.,, l-16r- €t*, (^.'. /..et+c: :,
Architecvcontact, Address and Phone: L:, (7 'cL. '' i 7t/-'- o- / i .-/-
FC. Gcv Sz t/-<,'L,Ccz- ?reS,^-
LesalDescription:mt ? Block 3 suvaiuirionU/oi(V((oJrp t/+/, ZoneDistrictT{A
projectstreet naar"""t 3' I lC L\a'o{(, C,,^'e<u l) t"' - €lqsf s'r.'i<
Comm€nts:
-:_-,.
- --- -- ;,--:-:-..
eoar6{_S.taff Action/ , f,Molionbv: r-t /l/ vote: L 14.
Seconded by:
fl Approval
Z Dyuioval
E/Staff Approval
Conditions: - --(r
e O'( at V.
.-/',r,1-.i4 c<-,
/ L-t L- t.+L+ /'t/vtevz*
/ EC <: A-.
TdwnPlanner /onn'- t =,'-'.it ,-'5 Q9
DRB Fee Prc-paid -fy' "'t---
1
t
1. A request for Additional GRFA to allow for additions to be added to both sides of the
duplex located at 3110 Booth Creek Drive/Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing'
Applicants: East side-Debra & Ken Tuihman '
West side-Diane Hughes, Kendall Burney and King Hughes
Planner: iiin-Curnune
Jim Curnutte summarized the request and said that staff recommended approval.with one. minor
condition. He said that staif feeld bomfortable with the request since it is a straightfoMard
application.
William Pierce had nothing to add.
Rick Rosen, lhe legal council to the Hughes, said both parties have reached an agreement.
Greg Moffet asked the Gommission for comments and they had none.
Jeff Bowen made a motion that the request for additional GRFA for additions be approved per
the staff memo.
Dalton Williams seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0.
2. A request for a side yard setback variance to allow for an addition to the Wimer
Residence, located it ZeeOW Aspen Lane/Lot 17, a Resubdivision of Tract E, Vail Village
11th Filing.
Applicant: Frank Wimer
Planner: George Ruther
George Ruther gave an overview and mentioned that staff recommended approval with one
condition as mentioned in the statf memo.
Frank Wimer and Joyce Wimer, the applicants, stated that the remodel would bring the wall out
flush with the existin! cantilever. The addition was to have an artists studio in the house.
Henry Pratt thought there would be no impact with this request, however, just because there is
an eiisting overhang does not mean you have to use the space underneath.
Dalton williams asked staff why the I'tree was a condition for the request. He did not think it
was necessary.
George Ruther indicated that the two trees were intended to mitigate the visual impact.
Jeff Bowen said he thought the addition was an excellent improvement to the house. lt would be
nice to have a large treelbut no one will see the tree and he is ambivalent on the trees being a
condition of approval.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
December 11 . 1995
o
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
December 11' 1995
Minutes
MEMBERSPRESENT: MEMBERSABSENT: STAFF PRESENT:
Greg Amsden Jim Curnutte
Greg Moflet RandY Stouder
Henry Pratt Georg-e Ruther
Jetf Bowen JudY Rodriguez
Dalton Williams
Kevin Deighan
Public Hearing 2:00 P'm'
The meeting was called to order by Greg Amsden at 2:15 p'm'
Greg Amsden announced one vacancy on the PEC Commission due to Bob Arrnour's election to
the Town Gouncil.
The Town Council wants to leave the opening vacant until the February time frame when Jelf
Bowen, Dalton Williams and Greg Amsden's terms expire'
Jetf Bowen suggested electing a Chairman now.
Kevin Deighan nominated Greg Amsden.
Henry Pratt seconded the motion.
Jeff Bowen nominated Greg Motlet.
Dalton Williams seconded the motion.
A secret ballot was held and the new Chairman is Greg Motfet'
Kevin Deighan nominated Greg Amsden for Vice Chairman.
Jeff Bowen seconded the motion'
Greg Amsden nominated Jeff Bowen.
Dalton seconded the motion.
A secret ballot was held and the new Vice Chairman is Greg Amsden'
Planning and Bnvironmental Commission
Minutes
December l1' 1995
t^'f.a :*rt <f?r*u< u'l nef'znJ'{*;o''
&.tL{*t' D- 6/4'4' -- - ^^-rr6-o <fy'rw^-ect ,*nr"o*o*ou" FILE ffiI
Planning and Environmental Commission
Department of Comm unity Development
December 11,1995
A request for Additional GRFA to allow for additions to be added to both sides of
the duplex located at 31 '10 Booth Creek Drive/Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village 1 1th
Filing-
Applicants: East side-Debra & Ken Tuchman
West side-Diane Hughes, Kendall Burney and King Hughes
Planner: Jim Curnutte
I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPnON OFTHE REQUEST
In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, which created a new
Chapter (18.71) to the Vail Municipal Code, entitled'Additional Gross Residential Floor Area."
This Chapter allorvs for up to 250 square feet of additional Gross Residential Floor Area (GHFA)
to be added to a dwelling (beyond the maximum allowance), provided cerlain criteria are met.
The purpose of the Additional GRFA Ordinance is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of
existing dwellings units, which have been in existence for a period of at least five years, by
permitting up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA to be added to a dwelling unit.
In August 1995, fie Town Council approved Ordinance 6, Series of 1995 which amended
Chapter 18.71, for the purpose of eliminating the ability to use the additional GRFA when a
Oweiling unit is "demo/rebuilt." The new Ordinance also requires that all requests for additional
GRFA, that involve exterior changes to a building, be reviewed and approved by the Planning
and Environmental Commission.
With this proposal, the applicants are requesting to add approximately 1,449 sq. ft. of GRFA to
both sides of the duplex. The proposed remodel will use the remaining GRFA for the entire lot,
as well as the full 250 allowance for each dwelling unit. Additionally, all remaining site coverage
for this property (approximately 75 sq. ft.) will be utilized. The proposed remodel is summarized
as follovus:
On the first floor, the applicants are proposing to extend the unit's entry further to the west. This
addition will add approximately 33 sq. ft. of GRFA. Also on the first level, portions of the existing
garage uvill be convefied to GRFA and existing GRFA will be converted to new garage area,
resulting in a GRFA reduction of approximately 11 sq. ft. On the second level a new master
bedroom will be added above the living room (389 sq. ft. of new GRFA). A third levelwill be
added to the building to accommodate a new bedroom and bath. This portion of the addition is
412 sq. ft- in size.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
<s-
o
West side
On the first floor, the applicants are proposing to convert some existing GRFA into garage space
and extend the living room approximately 3' to the south. This living room extension will add
approximately 75 sq. ft. of floor area to the building; however, this new floor area is otlset by the
reduction in GRFA from that area being converted into new garage space. On the second level,
an existing bedroom willbe expanded and an additional bath will be added (approximately 300
sq. ft.). Additionally, a new bedroom and bathroom will be added to an area directly over the
existing living room (approximately 338 sq. ft.).
All exterior building materials and colors of the proposed building additions will match existing,
including siding, shingles, windows, doors, etc. See the attached drawings for more detail.
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
The two dwelling units on this property meet all applicable standards outlined in the Residential
Two-Family (Duplex) Zone District and are eligible to apply for the additional 250 square feet ol
GRFA.
III. CRITERI,A AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Chapter 18.71 - Additional GRFA, the Community Development Department
recommends approval of the requests for additional GRFA based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of ,Factors:
Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental
Commission shafi consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use:
1. Efiect upon the existing topography. vegetation. drainage and
e$sting structures.
The proposed additions will have minimal impact on the site, and neither
drainage nor grading on the property will be affected. Some low growing
bushes will be relocated in the areas of the entry and living room additions.
The additions will match the existing building (materials and colors) in
ardtitectural character, and not appear out of place.
2. Inrpact on adiacent properties.
Silaff believes that the proposed additions will not have a negative impact
on adjacent properties.
3. Gornpliance with the Town's zoning reguirements and applicable
&velopment standards.
Section 18.71.020 (F) ol the Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that any
tuelling unit that proposes to use Additional GRFA shall comply with the
sEtdards outlined in the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines. These
stdtdards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities' drivewayc-- padng and general maintenance of the property.
upon inspection by staff, we find that this property is in compliance with
the Town's zoning requirements and all applicable development standards.
During our site visit we did however, notice various pieces of lawn furniture
located on the stream tract directly behind this property- Staff
recommends that this furniture be removed.
B. Findings:
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
granling approvd lor Additional GRFA:
1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively
efiect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing slructures.
2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively' impact adiacent properties.
3. fiat the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply with all
Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards.
lV. STAFF BECOiilENDATION
The Community Devel@rnent Department statf recommends approval of this application for
Additional GRFA. Statf believes that the review criteria have been met as discussed in the
memo. Regarding the fmdings, statf believes that finding 81 is met as the proposed additions
minimatly impact tne exbting site. Finding 82 is met, in staff's opinion, as the proposed additions
will not negatively impact adjacent properties. Finding 83 is met, in staff's opinion, as the
proposed aOOitio-ns comply with all zoning requirements and applicable development standards.
btaff recommends approval with the condition that the lawn furniture, which is currently located
on the stream tract directly behind this property, be immediately removed.
F leveryone\pecvn emostudrmen. n | 3
:,. 2 ,
tt/rs'/q s/' r
I| ..(g-r * i-epe tucctz /'. a*l,,^s<- lqA /o
Urvd"+V! n6u 4Q
Y/<-t:te-f =at 4 S-O
iT<sef . ^r^ ?5o -
rcf *la {',f[tt - rL*-Y
h^uu tv-ec|A qP ?3t"?yr,'.if L'-'f a: e@
*io-'s +@ erefk-,(-rfr-
"Ie €? 6 - ,v\ovL lo 'rbr6Ce'1o fuqA
G6eg fut.- Z e-4- t??s'
-5- e, -.
+++ Tovo
ner
IL/I7 /Si 15:08 FAX 9?04?84001 FRITZLEN PIERCE Q oor
Fritzlen Pierce Bri
\ovembcr t?, 1995
\\
linb,uaure
towbgfVail
Fa:r Nritsber:479-2452......
tlut
il*eh
II
L_
DeuJim.
Re: 'ftchmen / Hughes Duplcx Applicotion ftr Remnining GBFA , Additional 350',s for each side and Rcmaining
Sitc Covcrage
The results of otu me€ling at I tan today were Es tbllows:
Totat Allovablc ORFA = 4806 sq. ft'
+ 500sq. IL (2'250rs)
c{
5306 sq. ft" Total GRFA
Aspcrtheflootplmreceivedbythe!wo-9!Jaiflog*awll-15-95vc.havepto.!os15?29ui-fr'loaving?7
sq.ff.ofaveilahleGRPAonUJtit. ft SZgsq.ft.ofane-'wascalcuJdedbytheplamerJim Or11rutte' Thrtoral
. srca cdillatEd B farrrC e fri,J* pi*. Sft,i Arcnt was less by approx. 25 sq- ft. It was aErecd bv budt
purics rird if disre.sioned cgil illal were Fovidcd wit t*tpon'Oiog *ea.calcularions the ovenll GRFA
number woulrt be anendcd to rEfiec: EDy greatgr tr bsscr anount of GRfi availalte o[ tic site' If dlnernsioutxl
GR'A plus arr not prnwiae6 t " n".iptf i" * bc submincdon Moad zy | 1'27-95 would reflecr 77 sq- ft' of
additional GRIA
As pcr Jiu Cumutte's $ito coverage calcutatigo+ thgf is ? sQ' fr of-siE-mvntXT:iyt tu th€ stl€ The loral
nllowable Site Coversge ir 341 I sq fl' and tho t'otrl lroposc'l site coverage ls r'lut $q' rr' '
plcalc notiSmc in writing or via &,.( if ynrr disaSree with any of lhc above staEments' Tlank-You fortaking the
dneto meet wi6 me todaY,LnulR, | | , l-r.
Gonn)r tr olort* bu* l'ir 10 ,wi Je.q
L*t*,r W Y-?-*.o (Y1f' Y:l*f:,!:
,{ry^fr,i{,f;.# XF::{':'i,
ffi*t t^,rt- .,*€&tE'f i'L-:i:i7*raLs ?F rla ?;9gvr';;J ".t=- Lu, L*'/ I" w, (( $< Jscusste.f ftr,s
Alrhft.sDfe lrl rninB l[tcrlors ./ tl - ,\ t/ - ^ ^G t,, tl ,o.e T
/ .S st-' e w ; +t, +1-P .f ( a na€l' 5, w /^c e-Z
r\/,, rl q;;'fi'(,,:/::'.: |i-r1tr:,Y;;tr"ihi* ;''r ^:"a? 6(
@ &.J't0l:D-;ft4 co El6J7 ' t '3t)J474'o512 ' r u' t'sttL"
deP e e({ @c} r tds 4 eq+4' ^^8'\ lA/\
4- Clos€ CouPle Kit (WTK)
faceplat€,one insulated
s€e dimension drawings'
{3OG28l contains one i nsulated
exhaust PiPe, elbow and fittings.
See dimension drawings.
Concan/r'b Vant/lntake Air Roof/Watt Temination Kit lOptional) -
F."irii"i&-tt"t"tGtion of combustion air intake pipe and flue exhaust
.i"" kii rei'grozcE t60G77) contains concentric termination assembly'
ii'.-,jriiiig.lt-p, ro&flashing, reducer bushing and 45 degree€lbow'
iiii ieo u iiee sin'sle hole penetlation of roof or wallfor installalion' Kit
il dd.l"7c.ci.A. ""ttlti"o and must be ordered extra for fiald
installation. See dimension drawings'
Ventttn& Air Wal! Tuminaion Kit lOptiona',- Facjlitates installation
oicoliil,gon "it
intake pipe and flue exhaust pipe' Kit must be ordered
6xtra. Selecl on€ of the folld,ving:
1 - Ri]|q Ft L+49107C8 (1sFr/tl contains 2 stainless steel ourqids seal'
c"p's, i g"ltanizsd steel inside sealcaps' 4.seal rings fo,rthe caps
in'o i*i. t+szt.)insulation sleeve for sealing and isolating intake
"na "o*,"uat
piping penetration of wall' Maintain a maximum of
o incrt"s trsi rhmJbewveen the inl6t and outlet openings in the
i*tatl"tion of the pipes' See dimension drawings'
z-;i;- c;;[ Iiit LB-4slo7cD (22G441 consists of- il"*"d;dsiOe'Uy-siOe PVC piPing with galvanized. steel wall
;;;;t for seaiing andisoiating piping. penetration of the
*"rr. itiping spacing andlength ls sizcd {or .proper wall
instalhions. A.G.A. certified. See dimenslon drawlngs'
3 - ;i;; d;d. iit wittr Extettsion Riser (wrKX) ll)Gntl is used- iln-erc
- -enenOeA gradeline clearance is . required' Kit
i*t,rO.s 3 ft. (1m) ixtensionriser contsining both vent lines
(;;;; u"ni 'intrt.t"ot and wall securing bracket' see
dimarsion drawings.
In-Lhrc Mufflers lOPtionalt -Two mttfflers LB-52057CA.167F81I are
ffi;;J;;e;rsi 6e ord"red extra' Mufflers field install' vertical or
;##;fi;;;in inJint"L" line and one in the exhaustline' see
ii#;;i;dt";ilgs.Two mutfters are required on -80 &-100 unirs'
9 |I*tine Attqtuators lc,Ptionatt -Two attenuators field indall' v€nical
;r;;;;#;;;in tn" int"r" tin"
"nd
one in the exhaust line' GPA-3030
ii#;i;;#;"'t*Js0 in. o62 mm) lons attenuators' GPA'3019
ii;#i ;;i"";ne 30 in. (762 mm) anenuator and one 19 in' (ttgil mml
k;.;t- fot reduced clearances' See dimension drawings'
Dorn-Flo Additlve Besc loptiona',- Additive b-ase is required for
;";;;;;t;;dets instaited on combustible floors' Ba^se is not
ir1-,ti.tt-"4 ",io
must be ordered exttaforfield installation' seespec-
;i;;;;;;tl;. r.toiiequirea in add-on cooline coil applications'
H(}'i'tontEl SupPort Fnme Kt lOPtiot'", - Kit p-rovid€s support of
ii;;;iiili"-'ii";i;i applicationi' Kit consists of (2) 1in' x 1-1l2in' x
;;;i;. i*;; i ga'ir''" x 82emm) and {2) 1in' x 3in' x.53-7l8in'
tz-sil-r" r, iern- x 1368mm) paintsd. heaw gauge cold rolled steel
,-uooo.t "tt"nn"ls
with assembly and susfending hole-s' Bolts and
;;g;;; i;;;;Gd for field asiemblv of channels' Suspending
rJ;;;"i;;l;inistred bv installer' Kit is not furnished and must
blordered extra. Ses specifications table'
C@densata Drain Hast Cabta Ki's loPtioaall- Self-limiting wattage
;;;;;ilt";"nts condensate driin from ftaezing -when
unit is
i;;il;;;;";oiiionea spate. rit LB-s6s3sDA (38G80-l h.as 100ft'
igoi'-iiit "l-t-*tte.
rit Le'sonsooA (39G011 contain-s 25 ft' t7'6 m)
;-i;i;n;. s;licins Kit Les6530DA l3!tG02). available-ror cgnnectins
;ffi;"i;; dtspices. lnstailation Kit LB-sateTCA (38G81) contains
necessary inslalling ha rdware'
r'
Model No.GSR Il\r:l€0 GSRzlVsql fcsRztvs-roo
\
80,000 (44)80.000 {23.4)loo,ooo (29.3) \
Input - Btuh (kW)
76,000 (223)76,000 (22.3)92.000 (27.0)
.r...^.*
-
er|lr lLvvl
94.596 94.6Vo 92.0Y"
92.5%92.1o/o
30 - 60 (17 - 33)
89.7%
Calitorrua 5€asonal EfllclEnsy 45 -75125 - 11l.
G perorre risE range - 'F ('C)40 - 70 (22- 3St)
I r!-L i-.:^ ^^-iai^,{ hr, A E-TEEa-inwo.(Pal .80 (2{Xt).80 (200).80 (200)
rrrgr, !@a ee'u"vv -r
1/2 (r3)1/2 (13)1/2 (13)
Gas Plping Size
l.ps.-in. (mm)112 (',t31 112 (131
rLPG/?ropane 1/2 (13
G;fr.t"re "'"Epe s''* connection - in' (mm)2 (51)2 (51)2 (511
6"det!.1, dt"i" connection - in' (mm) sDR1l 1n fi31 ln (13)12 (13)
11-12 xg €79 x ?291 11-1/2 xg 1279 x229,
ei"** *trEl "ott*al
diameter x width - in' (mm)10 x 10 (2$ x 254)
I {746,\ 1(746)
Blower trstor hP (W)u2l373l
12.O 1 4
Blower motor minimum circuit ampacrty
rrl-Ii-,r-t frse or circuit breaksr sizg (amps)15.0 za.u
,rl ?or ?5x 1 (5O8x635x Z5l
tNumber and size of filters - in. (mm,
-:r-1/2-5(12.3-17.6)G-'*i """tG tt"t can be added - Tons (kw!2-3(7.O-10.6)3-112-511:2.3- | t.ol
| 329 (14s1)
-
| 33s (1s2)
Shipping weight - lbs. (kg) 1 package 317 (1/r4l
ElBctrica$ €haracte ristics
:
ll 12o"ow
issorirs (Must Be Ordered Extral+. roPtional Acc :rcd T-iu+astzecM (zsx6o)
LPG/ProFsnB kit
BcernalFils Rack Kit
Catalog No.LB{,Z5ZUA tOrllul' lr{rr rvr(,t nrJt -
(1120x25x1(508x635x
#
25)
ro ltr. ln L.!l-No3
size of filter - in. (mm)
H---;-1 Srpport Fta." Klt - Shipping weight ll I ll-5b4:t5t A tJvrtr,.J, tArr rvrrJuE'r, - 'v 'v'' r-
tl
tilslgl 111;Is:g::T,"-dliilsl;-"re r.ri,,.rment without sddins Eny pans.
ngeovet';i^iiiiii-ii uiiiiziaion Efticiencv. lsolated combustion svstem re.Annual Ftrsl Utilizstion bfircrancy' rsorareq sqrrreq!r'e" "-""' '-"""i;r;i:,bii6
"itve requires simple sdju$ment.liF6il;;;;;;ii;";iumist'eo stlnaard with unit lor lield chang€over'
se€ in3ddlslion ins't.uctions'
tNot fuf nidhod in CanEda.
-1-
, :-_.: r: :.r.,"+i:L;-*1 .I;r. _
I The mapte leaf synrbl in this bulletin denotes Canadian only usage wh6re spplic€bl€ , -^,-- 01994 L€nnox lndustries Inc. ::lNOTE - Dre to Lcono( ongoing comminent to quality. SpeciUcations, Ratings 8nd Dimsnsiofls subi€ct to change without notica
i:l.-*
GSR2lV "PULSE21@" SERIES
HORIZONTAL/DOWN.FLO GAS FURNACES
*92.Oo/o to 94.6% A.F.U.E.
80,000 and 100,000 Btuh (23.4 and 29.3 kW) Input
2 thru 5 Tons (7.0 thru 17.6 kW Nominal Add-On Cooling
'l!ol.t.d Combu.tion Synam Radng lot Non-Waatha.i:.d Fut ltc.a
GSR?|V
Bullstin #210060
September 1994
Suparssd€3
#480U8 Mlrch 1992
#{85073 S.ptomber 1992@@@Typical Applications
Horizontal Attic Installaiion
Down-Flo Closet Installation
Down-Flo Utility Room
lnstsllstion
Ho.izontal Cr€wlspace lnst€llation
Kon end Debrr Tuchmsn
thFrw*age Road
olordo81657
,roFumlj7
hFronm$cRoad
,Iondo81657
r Frcntogc Road
'ordoEI657
ttf@O Lr,o<.f a1 S/.
#tqco/
[t;J.re f /Ce,, gC7O3
Rose Gillett
1000 S. Frontege Rd. Wcat
Vatl, CO 81657
Bernd Jurgen HlnE
17 Ave. Du Merchal MruneutT
75016 Parts, France
0,ope f(r'Ls , Kcr&o(l bwx*)r K'ry #'Y&ds
V4o5 ++g\(n'd Dr"
bacco,s TX 15eos
o
TH|s |TEM ilAYAFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOT]CE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that fie Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance wifr Section 18.66.060 of the Municipat Code of the
Town of Vail on November 27, 1995, at 2:00 P.ll. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
1. A.request for amendments to The Town of VaiiMunicipal Code, Chapters 16, 18 & 2 to
allow for modifications to the Sign Gode, Design Review, Commercial Core l, Commercial
Core ll and Supplemental Regulations.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Randy Stouder :f
2, A request for a setback variance to allow for a residence under construction to e,ncroach
into the front setback located at 2850 KinnickimicMlot6.Innsbruck Meadows
SuMivision.
Applicant Am. Bros. Development Inc., represented by Bob BornePlanner: George Ruther
3. A request for an additional 250 square feet of GRFA to allow for an addition to a
residence located at 992 Ptarmigan Road/Ipt 4, Block 4, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicanf Ray andMary Kelley
Plenner: George Ruther
i A request for an additional 250 square feet of GRFA for an addition to a residence located
at 3l l0 Booth Creek Drive/Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village I lth Filirig.
Applicant Bill Pierce for Diane Hughes; King Hughes and Kendall BumeyPlanner: Jim Curnutte
5. A request for an amendment to Chapter 18.39 of the Vail Municipat Code ( Ski Base
Recreation) and an amendment to the previously approved development ptan to allow for
the redevelopment of the Golden Peak Ski Base, diated at 48S Viil Vall6y Drive / Tract
F, VailVillage 5rh fiting and Tract B, Vait Viilage 7th fiting.
Applicant: VailAssociates lnc., represented by David CorbinPlanner: Jim Curnutte and Lauren Waterton-
6. A request for an amendment to chapter 18.24.050, Permitted and conditional Uses
Above Second Floor, to allow for a modification to the Zoning Code.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: George Ruther
MPV
t
A request for an adlltlonal 2s0 squan hd.d GRFA to allow br an addlilon b aredderce tocated at t o42 ragbb Nast CtddLot 2, Btod( 1 , Valt Vilage 8th Filtng.
o
I)anDelodst
Georgo Rufier
Slgn|ltgury f$Frffin rvlltlr t+on nqrdutrr Aa tur noillcdonTDDbridomdirr.
,:q..:
7.
Apdlcant:
Planner:
PLu cd ft$at r Yobt or at$,Ut68
THIS ITEM MAY AFFEGTYOUR PROPERW
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE ISHEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hoH a prDlic hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of VaiI on December 11, 1995, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Buibing. In
considerafui of:
1. A r,equest for a major SDD amendment, located at the Vail Athletic Club/ 352 East
Mdow Drive and more specificallydescribed as follows:
A prcal of land in Tract B, Vail Mllage First Ftling, Towr of Vai, Eagla County, Coloradq oornm€ncing al the
N;rx;16a31 co.nor of said Trast B; lhe;c€ N 7S'46!0' W along fre Nonherly line ot Vsil Village, First Filing, and
alorg th€ l.ldtherty line ot said Tract B 62286 feet; hEnca S-06'265U W a dislanc€ ot 348.8:l toel lo lhe
S6xdnvg5t q nrertt*,a parcet of land dEscdbed in Book 191 al Pag€ 139es recorrded January_10, 1968 and filed
in Reoepdon l{o. TOZSZA'h fie Eaglo Cour y B€cords, said comer also beinglhe Tru€ Poinl of Beginning; rhence S
ZgOnUif E anO atong lhe Sourherly line ol said parcel 200.00 teet 1o the Southeast comer lh€rBol; ftenco N
6f5flf E and slon! rtre Ho*reAy tine of that parcel of land described in Book 222 at Page 51 3 as rscorded in .t-t tn 1t6 sagle Coinfy n -rOs, a distanca of 66.78 fe€l tolhe Norfpaslerly comer ol sail parcel of hnd; sai{
ccner UelrB oi rtre Weiterty ;gtrtof-way line of Gore Creek Road, as p ned in Vail Mllage, Fifh Filing; th€nce_N
?7-r3gf 1ii a disr anoa al?.* teaaloirg said Westerly righl-otway line ot Gore Creek Road; thence N 89'29?2'
Wa dstance of 1280 tedrofie NorthEaJterly comer oithar parcelof land described in Book 191, PaOE 139 as
recorded &nrary I O, 1 986 and fled in Reception No. 1 02978 in lhe Eagle County Fe!9rds; thence Norlhwesl€rly
26.S1. feer dong ihe arc of a 37.50 leet radiui c*rrye to the lett having a central angle o1 40'30O0' whose chord
bears N 53t |()iO' W a dislanc€ of 25.96 leet ro a point of langency; lhenc€ N 73'55'00' W and along said langenl
1€6.44 t€st &€nca N 85"1 021 ', W a distanoe of Sd.+0 feet to ihe NortlM6ledy comar of lhe Moumain Heus
Parc€l; thaic€ S O? 1 8'O0f W and atong th€ eastedy |ine ot said Mountain Haus Parcel e dbtanc€ ol 1 m'm feol lo
Ore Soi.drea<erly comer thereof; thend S cs"r g'ss' f a dislanc€ ot 38.7) leet to the True Point of Beginning.
ning 31.485 square feel, more or less-
Appfcant .IwT 1987 Vail Limited Partnership, (d/b/a Vail Athletic Club), represented
by Stan Cope and Michael BarclaYPlarner: Mike Mollica
2. A requestfor a an additional 250 square feet to allow for an addition to the Tuchman
. residance located at 3110 Booth Creek DriveiLot 9, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing.
Appficant:Mr. Tuchman
Jirn CurnuttePlanner:
A request for an additional 250 square feet of GRFA for an addition to a residence
located at 31 1 O Booth Creek Drive/Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village 1 1th Filing-
Applhant:Diane Hughes, King Hughes and Kendall Burney, represented by BillPierce
Jim Curnutte
A request for a sirle yard setback variance to allow for an addition to the Wmer residence
located at 2860W Adpen Lane/Lot 1 7, a Resubdivision of Tract E, Vail Village 1 1th Filing.
Applicant Frank WmerPlanner: George Ruther
Planner:
4.
5. A request for a Minor Exterior Afteration in CCI and a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a
new outdoor dining ded< located along the east side of One Vail Place located at 244 Wall
SfeeUA part ot Block 5C, VailMllage lst Filing.
Applicant: Klgndra Hoover and Julle tverson
Planner: Randy Stouder
Sign language Inte.pretstlon aveilable rpon reqrett with 24 hqn nodlicatbn. Please ca! 4792114 roice or 47$235€
TDD for inbrmation
THIS ITEM MAYAFFECTYOUR PROPERW
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS FCREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission ot the Town ot
Vait will hold a public hearing in accordance witn Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on December 11, 1995, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. ln
consideratioo of:
1. A reqrest for a major SDD amendment located at the Vail Athletic CluU 352 East
Mea&w Drive and more specitically described as follows:
A parcel of land in Tract B, Vail Vilhge Firsl Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Golorado, oornmencing al lhe
Northead comEr of said Traa B; thenca N 7946!0' W along lhe Northedy line of Vail Mllage, First Filing, and
abng fhe t{onh6dy line ot said Tract B 622.86 teel;rhsnc€ S 0625'5? W a dislanc€ of 3r18.8:l fe6l lo lhe
Soudtwea oner bf that parcel of hnd described in Book 1 91 al Pag€ 1 39 as r€cotded Jatluary 1 0, 1 966 and filed
in ReceFidon No. 102978'in the Eagle Cot nty R€cords, said mmer abo being the True Pdrn of Beginning;lh€nce S
79.O4Ili E and along the Southerly line of said parcet 200.00 feel to $e So{rlhead comerlhotaof: lhence N
6?52IXf E and elong $e l.lorfi€dy nne of rhar parcet ol land desctib€d in Book 2. a Page.513 es-te99r{! in .
1971 h the Eagle Counry Records, a dislanc€ of 66.78 feel lo ths Norlheaslerly oomel of sail parqrl ot hnd; sejd
mrner beirB on rhe Wesierty riglrtof-way line ol Gore Creek Road, as platted in Vail Mllage, Fith Filing; th€nc€-N-_
2ft3'9r'Wa dbt ance otZZ.gt leaalo'ng said Westerly righr-of-way line of Gore Creek Road; lhence N 89'29'22"
Wa dstince of 1280 feer b he Northeastedy comer of that parcet of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as
recorded Janrary rQ 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the Eegle Coudy Recotds: lhanc€ Norhwesletly
26,51. fee[ alongih€ arc of a 37.50 teet radiua cuwe to lhe lett having a cenftal ar]Sl€ of 40"30O0' whose chord
Ueari tU sfnO'OO' W a distanc€ of 25.96 t€€t to a point of tangenc)r; lhenc€ N 73"55'00" W and along sald langer
1G6.44 te€t thenca N 85.1021' W a distanca of 50.rm feel lo lhe NodtM6ledy corner of tha Mounlain Haus
earca; Oenca S 02.18'OO'W and along th€ €aslerty lhe of said Mounfain Har.rs Parcel a dstanca ol 1m.00 teet lo
th€ Solfieaderly comer lhereof; lhence S cs"t S sii' g a distance ot 38.70 feet to the True Point ot Beginning,
codaining g).486 squar€ feel, more or less.
Applicant: JwT 1987 Vail Limited Partnership, (dibla VailAthletic club), represented
by Stan Cope and Michael BarclaY
Planner: . Mike Mollica
A request for a an additional 250 square feet to altow for an addition to the Tuchman
residence located at 3110 Booth Creek Drive/Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing.
Appl'rcant:
Planner:
Mr. Tuchman
Jim Curnutte
3.A request for an additional 250 square feet ot GRFA for an addition to a residence
located at 31 10 Booth Creek Drive/Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing'
ApplEant: Diane Hughes, King Hughes and Kendall Burney, represented by Bill Pierce
Planner: Jim Gurnutte
A request for a side yard setback variance to allow for an addition to the Wimer residence
tocated at 2860W Aspen LaneAot 17, a ResuMivision of Tract E, VailVillage 11th Filing.
Applicant: Frank WimerPlanner: George Ruther
4.
5. A request for a Minor Exterior Alteration In CCI and a Conditionat Use Permit to allow for a
new outdoor dining dedr located along the east side of One Vail Place located at244Wall
StreeUA part of Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Fillng.
Applicant Klendra Hoover and Julle lrrersonPlanner: Randy Stoude
S'gn language interpretetion aveilabb upon requ€st wittr 24 ho,rr notificalbn. Please ca! 47S21 14 vohe o. 479'2358
TDD for infomatbn
t
\'i'-'
d,-1
i'.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
IIEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Department of Community Development
November 13, 1995
A request for Additional GRFA to allow for an additional level to be added to the
east half of the duplex located at 31 10 Booth Creek Drive/Lot 9, Block 3, Vail
Village 11th Filing.
Applicant:
Planner:
Debra & Ken Tuchman
Jim Curnutle
I. BACKGROT'ND AND DESCRIPnON OFTHE REOUEST
In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, which created a new
Chapter (18.71) to the Vail Municipal Code, entitled'Additional Gross Residential Floor Area."
This Chapter allows for up to 250 square feet of additional Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA)
to be added to a dwelling (beyond the maximum allowance), provided certain criteria are met.
The purpose of the additional GRFA Ordinance is to proMde an inducement tur the upgrading of
existing dwellings units, which have been in existence for a period of at least five years, by
permitting up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet ot GRFA to be added to a property.
In August 1995, the Town Council approved Ordinance 6, Series of 1995 which amended
Chapter 18.71, for the purpose of eliminating the ability to use the additional GRFA when a
dwelling unit is "demo/rebuilt." The new Ordinance also requires that all requests for additional
GRFA, that involve exterior changes to a building, be reviewed and approved by the Planning
and Environmental Commission.
With this proposal, the applicant is requesting to add approximately 960 sq. ft. of GRFA ro the
east side of the duplex. This remodel will Use the rernaining 870 sq. ft. of GRFA for the entire lot,
as well as 90 sq. ft. of the 250 allowance. On the first floor, the applicant is proposing to extend
the unit's entry further to the west and expand the living room to the south. The two additions on
the first floor will add 100 sq. ft. of GRFA and 65 sq. ft. of new site coverage to the property,
thereby utilizing all the allowable site coverage for the lot. On the second level a new master
bedroom will be added above the expanded living room (448 sq. ft. of new GRFA). A third level
will be added to the building to accommodate a new bedroom and bath. This portion of the
addition is 412 sq. ft. in size. All materials and colors of the proposed building additions will
match existing, including siding, shingles, windows, doors, etc. See the attached drawings for
more detail.
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
This property meets all applicable standards in the ResidentialTwo-Family (Duplex) District and
is eligible to apply for the additional 250 square feet of GRFA.
!t
III. CRITERN AND FINDINGS
Upon reviar of chapter 18.71 - AdditionalGRFA, the Gommunity Development Depanment
recommends approval of the request for additional GRFA based upon the following factors:
A. Consideralion ol Factors:
Before acting on an appllcation for additonal GRFA, the Planning and Environmental
Commission shall consirier the following factors wift respect to the proposed use:
1. Eflect upon the e-lstlng topograpl\r. vegeiatlon. dralnage and
exlsdng strucfrI|Es.
The proposed addltions wlll have minimal impact on tre slte, and neither
drainage nor grading on the property will be effected. Some low growing
bushes will be relocated in the areas of the entry and living room additions.
The additions will matdt the existing buiUing (matedals and colors) in
architectural charactgr, and not appear out of dace.
2. lmpect on adlacent propertl$.
The proposed additions would not appear to have a negathre lmpact on
adjacent properties.
3. Compllance with the Town's zonlng raquimments and eppllcable
development standards.
Section 18.71.020 (F) of he Town of Vail MuniclpalCode requires that any' dwelling unit fiat proposes to use Addltonal GRFA shall comply with the
standards oudined in the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines. These
standards irrclude landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway
paving and general maintenance of he property.
Upon inspection by staff, we find that this proparty is in compliance witrl
the Tovvn's zoning requiremenls and all applicable devetopment standards.
During our site visit we diri however, notice various peices of lawn lumiture
located on the publicly owned stream fact directy behind this residerrce.
Statf recommends that this furniture be removed.
B. Findings:
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the lollowtng findings before
granting approval for Additional GRFA:
1. That the granting of the requested AdditionalGRFA would not negatively
effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing struch.tres.
2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively
impact adjacent properties.
3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply wih all
Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards.
IV. STAFFRE@MMENDANON
The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application for
Additional GRFA. Statf believes that the review criteria have been met as discussed in the
memo. Regarding he findings, staff believes that linding 81 is met as the proposed addition
minimally impacts the existing site. Finding 82 is rnet, in staff's opinion, as the proposed addition
will not negatively impact adjacent properties. Finding Bg is met, in stalfs opinion, as the
poposed addition complies with allzoning requirements and applicable development standards.
Staff recommends approval with the condition that the lawn furniture, which is currently tocated
on the stream tractdirectly behind this residence, be immediately removed.
Flfl eryon.\paclIaanatudlman. nl 3
.)
@t
i',
I,
ri
ti
Ir
q
l.{
$H
l,l
{, /-/l
(/
t\ r7
!i
H
0l4
-----l --11
I s-;11,,,7
\
\
\\
,,!
,/_
x3
6i.#,{H
\\\
I
tli
v
aat l||r D.tta I!E'tl.ttliprm rw}r|tnr
t
t
2
:=:: suoErN| cNr{'.Y'l{ :urlg:u"|<rcv
ffi; raurrgecJerdualzlrrd
I v
0
o
Nx
N\
\
'
.y'
\
I
I
I
L
4i
I
I
iS,\\
\\\'\\\
oo
\o
_l
tlts
\
tlJ
\.l
{(J
(f)
$$
i!
P
t
$
F
I
iIdiI
t
II
I
t
s
I
I
d
:rl{l
i$
Fol
I
zo
l---
{
IJJ
--l
IJJ
x
l--
uo
=
It
t.I
s
t[
rt
ilr
\
t
I
FIt
I
-W
$ffi
o
-l
I\s
\
rii.-l
{
U(t)
t'm $
zo
l--
{
IJJ
--l
IJJ
x
l--f,o
u)
II
E
t
d
$I|{
E{
ItL
$
$tl{
o
F
Il.
PI|
ii
I
d
${{
xI|
s
-lrlrlta
a
ri
Ft
$
llo
g
b
It
II
I
I
I
tt
I
It
$
ui
-..l
{()
(f)
ot
I
H
$l+=o
l--
{
IJJ
--l
IJJ
l--
u)
{
IJJ
iii
o
\
o
rl
ll\b
\
rri\.l
{
U(t)
I..'8
o
zo
l-
{
t{J
--lu
!
u
l--zl!
l-
(r)
IJJ
=
+
tlioi'
5l;
olLI
*iuti
I
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
i
I
e$i:rl
ii6
p].
$
tll1i$'$a
I
$
il:f;:5n$
a
FI*
R
Ft
$
t$
ll
ti
HX
b
l
Ft
I
t
@oo2a3o3t esol E v srrRvEYrN"
o
FRTTZLEN PrEncE
fiT4m
a
. .-4{'n
l4:45
z(
z((-
F
d
fiLtAf
4tfo
tlvg
z
5
0c
4(
,
I
('
oA
_s
dr
D
ft(t
,fl
. -.t:u s>>I.J F.z. rJ.(r! 6r F{ gt
rr| ltl E Ez. g,t.'' {'| {(O ll l'J
$(Jt
(n
m
$
at
EB
f,.'o
o
+ (tl
Gt tngta
I*) r.too
c'o
.N
z,E
CD{
IJ
G}
o
cq
frt
I
It
I
II
Jt.
I
I,.i,l-l
II
z.B-7m
|.JqsGt
lt trl + r:(Jl (D Ul F
(,,1 .- Cr {
= flta. (JJAtDo5aD.Dat cl (J ttH - :E TTI
r 4n f-u>
tl
C,
._.1{
(a a-r t!} 0@{fll o' -t! OsN5' goaJ-lO. @ o('0t1] o. =o o
-JC
o(r(I!lll(9€'tt6a(9ocl{.ss.suthlrS{
aroGltntn':O r. |- tD.oao@@o tt qr
.taf\tNFut{{no
\r{o(,(..t (t O G,ooooo<>o'o
q
o
oo
o
rt r-Irrlaz.5 :OCf5(6 rt{to{ r(]lCO FS('J.mo D. {!ma.JEHL){ zd|\tct <)t3.
T!'. ],taEtr$(t 9N-ta
.+rf,
(,
:.'
N
fl('(J|glOO14O
'3 llt t$ c,olJa{{
a(nE|co!{rrlONOIIIo (It tt (D
Ri\'":
L'+r-N
' ftr
\'t,\i
*$
0\
'i-:r-
EP.002TXIRX NO.206411/06/95 13:,44
Single FamilY
ZONE CHECK
. FOR
Residence, Duplex'
ZONE DISTRICTS
Primary/SecondarY
DATE;
IJEGAL DESCRIPTION: lot BIock Subdivision
ADDRESST 3
P}IONE
ARCHITECT
ZONE DISTRICT
PROPOSED USE
PHoNE 4T6- 6*5''(2
" I r '^ f1,,,',.eo LpTTCi lP
iJ"i e-rr iu<' | /t a2 i+' At c J'
r6-p Ftt^*lc' t e,r Ii1 7z
HeighL
TOLA1 GRFA
F*q,t'# GRFA.:- ., awte4
{!t!€-r?Y=GRFA
SeUbacks
Sibe Coverage
LandscaPing
Rebaining wall
Parking
carage Credit
Drive:
r,or srzE ,Vl 4.cg er l\OS7 * -uut"oou"" Lor AREA
AlLowod nxist-inq Propoqed Total
,''y(3i) ".'-1-'-1 'o/l 3> - ,,,rl41
ns6+Esa laoetr 3-fr5L 1Y+? $tre-v,AY,23 ?# 1o?qw_ ee6 ?)e77
FronL 20'
sides 1"5'
Rear 15'
a{Pp-';rtti 3:36 +- 7vll4
p-7"1'* lrTw c)
Heights 3' /6' ' '{4
Aneqra 6
'
(3oo) (6oo) (eoo).(1,{o-o) 7Y2f
PermiEEed slope tA Proposed slope 'ot*
complies with T.o.V. Light.inq ordinance : Yes -ry
No
waLer course seuback O@ OK'
Do Finish Grades Exceed 2:1 (50t)
.ly's P,."# No
EnvironmenLal/Hazards :1) Flood Flain
2l Perceng SloPe (< > 30%)
3) GeoLogf,c tlazards
a) Snow Avalanche
b) Rockfallc) Debris !'Iow
4) wetlands
View Corridor Encroachnent,: Yes No.
Previous condiEions of approval (check properuy file):
"\o'fi
J
Does Ehis requesu invoive a 250.ricidit'ion? -&9How much of Lfre allowed 250 AdditiJn-is useE-iffiis requesL?
esz,@t)
OIZ't /-'7rr'rry
O ,--a --4': :-\('tfPt---
-=------"--1tb2 -
t.SsaE
lF
ffi
r 0/oc/03
trttraa tf2rat
I ! : $Z l.'..\ I' 9?or78a90l FR ITZLEN P I ERCI'
Oate of Applicatlon
Dala of ORE Meethg , ._ ,-
Oat€ ot PEG Meoting (lt necasssry)_
APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL GBFA (350)
wPE OF FrEouE-s.IX StBndard 290
Typ€ | EHU zS0
Type lt EHU egO
Type V EHU 250
III. APPLICATIOI,! INFORMATION
A-PROJECT DESCRIPTION
!D oor
tt.
A pre'appllcatlon conference with a member ol lhe panning slall ls srongly encouraged todlscuss the provislons under which additional GRFA can ui added to a stto. lt Ehoutd beund€rstood that this ordinEnce doos not assure eaoh property an eddltlonat zgo sguaro teet otGFIFA' Rather, the ordinanc€ altowc tor uo to qsd solar;leitlf ure conoitrons sei forth lnChaptEr 18.57 or Chapter 18.21 ot rne roG-oJEiiEEeEiE-met.
ApplicatoB for addltlons under thls soction wltl ngt bo gcaepted unless they gr9 comptete.Thls inclucles all intormaliqn requlred on thls form gs weil ai Deslgn Bevlcw Board sribnlttalrequirements.
B. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
Address 3llo
Legal Doscription:Lot-l- stocr .3_ Filins@
Zone Dtsrrid TNo FATilLY €e$ENnAr- _
c.
llulEs
\CIrr,lll.
;bE.
ta
Addross 4+or5 lfu6rtrenP O/. frvstS 15?n5
D.
v. bo- BtuSd
NAML. ()F owNER(S)i
SlEnature($
Address Phone
F. Filing Fec of $2oO.OO is required rt time of submiual ot a slandard 250. For a
requesl invorving an EHU. th€ feB ls wgived.
t
NAME OF APPLTCANT"S REPFESENTATIVEI BIIL FIEBI€ .--, .
o
TOWN OF VAIL n,.cE,,rro.-A 7/6
DEPARTIIIENT OF COMMUIIITY I'EVELOPI}IE}IT
PR(\'ECT
D^r. ,/0 , 3a,2{
CHECXS MADE PAYABII TO TOWN OF VAIL
AOO(X''ITN(,.ITEM llltt ' T,Ax - c(xll tr rfrr^L
0l fr)00 4 540 ZONING AND ADDRESS MAPS $5.00
0r 000042415 UMFORM BUILDING CODE s54.00
0l oo00 4241 5 UNIFORM PLI.JMBINC CODE $39.00
0l 000042415 LNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE $37.00
0l oo00 42415 JNIFORM FIRL CODL,$36.00
0l 0000 4241 5 NATIONAL ELECTR]CAL CODE $J7.00
0t fi)00 42415 OTIIER CODE BOOKS
0I 0(,00 41548 BLUE PRINTS (MYLARS)s7.00
0l fi)00 42412 XEROX COPIES $0.25
ot aoffi 42412 STUDIES
0t aonn424t2 TOVFEES COMPUTER PROGRAM $5.00
0l 0000 42371 PENALTY f EES / RE.INSPbCI IONS
0t otno 41332 PLAN REVIEW RE-CHECK FEE [$40 PER HR.]
0l (xxn42332 OFF HOURS INSPECTION FEES
0t (x)(x)414t2 CONTRACTDRS LICENSES FEES
0l (xxn 414t3 SIGN APt IATION FEE s20.00
.::
:-t
aq
E]r"l
=l
FI
rH
FI
0l 00004 4t3 ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE Ttb, tSI.OO PER SQ.FT.I
0 | 0000 42440 VTC ART PROJECT DONATION
0l 00004 JJ I PRE PAID DESIGN RF-VIEW BOARD FEE d3)?
0l 0000 42371 IWESTIGATION FEE (BUILD]NC)
31000045110 TOV PARKING FUND
0l oooo ?2027 TOV NEWSPAPER DISPENSER FUNDr 0t 00002llt2 TAXABLE @ 4% (STATE)r 0l eo00 410t0 TAXABLE @ 4% (TOW\)
0l 0000 4237r BUILDING INVESTIGATION
OTIIER
ruu AffLtcA lt(,N }ttr;s
i
0l 0000 4 330 ,Dlll I IUNAL UKIA -.1)0-$20u.00 eAA0t ooo04 330 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT s20u.00
0l o(rco 4 330 EXTERIOR ALTERATION TLESS TFTAN IOO SO.FT.I $200.00
0l 0000 4 330 EXTERIOR ALTERATION TMORE THAN IOO SO.FT.'I s500.00
0t 0()004 330 SPECIALDEVELOPMENTDISTRICT tNEW]$1,500.00
0l 0000 4 330 SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAJOR AMEND s1.000.0u
o I o(xx) 4 330 SPECTAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TMINOR AMEND s200.oo
0r 0m0 4 3i0 SUBDIVISION
0l Ofrn 4 330 r'ARIANCE $250.00
0r 00004 330 ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS $250.u)
0l o(xn4 330 RE. ZONING $200.00
OTHER
OTHER
IToTAL:4,r2.Dt
COMMENfS:l. t
t-
cAsu t---t cK.' t Itl.oLl REC. BY:-
, I0.',o$.9i I I :trr l r\ 9:n{70r001
I I r.er.r. r/ltrt.
/ ols:cN RBvrEn sorxD
rOv-c0ill$il, DE\l, Da{.'
D TE RECE3UDDI
DAIE OT DI'b XEETING;
t ttttaaa. I
EngJ sgr T.Nr9RMrlII,aN,
=3531- :i.i7:.|:. AgP
PTITZLSN PtESCF
APPIrfCf.8lOlt tr9w$ O? VA:L. COLORIDO
?
A,
B.TYPE OF RTVIEW:
D.
--Neu'contEEuctton
($ZOO.OOI . .lrinor 11 E:raEioa (tZO'Oot
XiiJoiiiqn lrSo.oot --cone'Ptull
R'vt€r' (to)
ADDRESS: J
a nocts and bounds IeEltr;;. iepa"et" rbeet rnd rt'caqh
I,EGAL DE89RIFSIONI
SUbdiv: e r en
I! !,ropercY it dtscrtbed U_Y
deecripc.ion, pldrse provtde
co th i s appl icaLion.
Y,
ZONINC I
NA''IE O?Mailing AFPLICANTAddress:
FArllLY RegggrJTlnL
Ket0etr.Fbr6 €i,.l+rqilg'
c.lt.tjvlE OF
Mai I 1n9
APPLICAT*?'3 REPRTSETinATIVE:
Add res s r
l{.NAMG QF t'*fro8lt(Sl :
owNq\(g) ,"srailAlanE,
l.tailrng Addrals!
APDr'teA?roNs tttLtJ ,tou tD Pt0f,,aggED nr?rtow onilEt't 5zGl{i^fltF
Condo,r:nrun Approvr! J f 6pplicable.
.|DRB FEE: DRE fe?s. fs shorn abova,\ are Eo be prtd at tho
cime o! submistal of rhe pRl tppfiFerloa. Llglt, whenapplying fcr a burLdinc nerntl, prirs€ ldtnt,ily Bhc aecurftevrlu.r:-nn of rtre propotri.T; Tba Town of Vail wirl fdJulc tb.tec EccqrdlnE to t,he tablr beros, to enlure lhr correct tee!5 toid,
ylz yxxo, t 4*O -cnW'K ,s, Lt{a .^aE, to/aFp,u..,7. (!zb
PEq SSHEDuLE:
v,lIJut?loNi o s 1c.003I 10,00r t 50,.000I 50, 001 t 150,000
$150. 001 | 500.000
$ 5Oo , OO t 11 . 000, O00s ovcr tl.000,000
DISIqN RZvIEw DOll,D ttrtovNr ExDlBtgADIROVAIJ U!{ITEST r DSIIJDTNO PERT.Iii I!I8 STAN,TED,
FAE$ ?0 .00I 50.00
Itoo.00
f?00.00fao0. o0f500. oo
ou! Yt[R rl3!r Pr]r r,r8sulD A$o eoNgragcT8orl
! LIST OF MATERIALS
NAME OF PROJECT.:fl
IJEGAL, DESCRfPTION: LOT BLOCK 3 SUBDTVISION VAru VtLLA6tr llTtt Ftuh/6
STREET ADDRESS: 3
The foLlowing informaLion is
Review Board before a final
A. BUIIJDING }IATERIAI.IS:
Roof
Siding
Other Wa1l Maberials
Fascia
SoffiLs
Windows
Window Trim
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck Rails
Flues
Flashings
Chimneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
Retaining Wal1s
ExLerior Lightinq
Other
reguired for submittal
approval can be Eiven:
TYPE OF IITATERIAIJ
1ATLI+ e,;rsTtN6
nfiraH ExlSTt^lb
Lo the Design
COLOR
bLo? 'Tc' nPrr4./y'' hJ.^rAhJ fRrH
^ r,
I'l.lA
nln
A{U A(€f,lt{G
B. LANDSCAPING:Name of Designerr N )Aphone:
PI,ANT METSNI*:.
PROPOSED TREES
ADID SHRUBS
Bot.anicaL Name OuanLit.v Size*.o*,notu..
*Indicate caliper for deciduous trees.deciduous t.rees is 2 inches.Indica te
Minimum caliper forheight for coniferousc,rees.
* *Indicate
5 qa1lon.
GROUND, COVERS
Qnn
SEED
TYPE
OF IRRIGATION
TYPE OR METHOD OF
EROSION CON"ROL
f
of proposed shrubs.Minimum size of shrubs is
Type Scruare Footaqe
NoN€ FKoPaseo
LAIIDSCAPE LIGHTING: If exterior f.ighting is proposed, pleaseshow che number of fixtures and ro6atiois on-i-!.p"rut."lightinq plan. Idenrify each fixqure from t,he fignting plan
J{I the space below and provide Lht neiqhi-abo".-g;uae, Eype ofllvht,proposed, rumen ouLpu[, ruminous area and a cut. sheeL ofthe liqhE. fixr,ure. (secribn 18.54.050 J)
0{pN}g PFotus@
OTHER LANDSCAPE FEATURES (retai.ning wal1s, fences, swimmingpoors, etc. ) prease specify. tndi6ate treighG-of 'retainin6walrs- Maximum heighr ot wi,tts within tte-rror,i seLback is3" Maximurn heighr-of warrd eisewhere ott tne-piop"tty is 6,
D.
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2 1 07/F ax 970-479-2 I 5 7
Oftce of the TownAttorney
October 18. 1995
VIA TELECOPIER AND U.S. MAIL
Richard P. Rosen, Esquire
Post Office Box 4137
Vail. CO 81658
Re:Tuchman/31l0 Booth Creek Drive
Dear Rick:
I am responding to your correspondence of October 12, lgg5 to Jim Cumutte.
The Town of Vail has always taken the position that the allowed GRFA on a duplex lot can be used
on a first come/first served basis. There is no regulation that gives the Town the authority on a
duplex lot to allocate the GRFA. Where, however, an application is submitted that shows an
addition located on property owned solely orjointly by the owner of the other side of the duplex, the
Town requires the adjacent property owner's permission to be granted before the application is
accepted. I do not understand that to be the circumstances of the Tuchman application.
In as much as the Town is not a party to the party wall agreement, we take no position in regard to
that document.
If there is any function the Town can serve in an attempt to assist the parties to reach a compromise,
we would be happy to do so. It seems since both of the parties are represented by the same architect
that should lead to a suitable resolution of this dispute
The application for a 250 ft. addition, submitted by the Tuchmans is currently scheduled for planning
and Environmental Commission review on November 13, 1995. If we receive a request from the
applicant to table this matter to a later date, we would be happy to accommodate that request.
{g *"""""* '*"*
If we can be of any further assistan@, plcasc don't hesitate to aontact me.
Very truly yours,
TOWN OF VAIL6'fu-&
R. Thomas Moorhead
Town Attorncy
RTIrdAwxc: Jimcrmufte ,/
t
Dl.aoe krghee, Kendal1 fbg &rrney, &[48 &rgbee
44O5 Eigbland Dr.
Dallas' IX 75205
- Rooe iil-iGdt*
f00O So. Froutage Rd. W.Vall, C0 81657
Berod Jurgea Elntz
17 Ave. Ihr lterchal. lfauuautT
75016 Paris,.France
,I
I
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERW
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE [S HEREBY GIVEN that the Ptanning and Environmental commission ot the Town of
Vail wilt hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code ol the
Town of Vait oi November ig, tggS, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. ln
considera$on of:
. A request for a an additional 250 square feet to allow for an addition to the Tuchman
residbnce located at 3110 Booth Creek Drive/Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing.
Alplicant: Mr. TuchmanPEnner:. Jim Cumune
A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Christmas Tree lot to be located at
23n3 North Frontage Road/Lot 3, Block B, Vail Das Schone Filing #1.
A*rylicant Steve UncksPlanner: George Fluther
Arequest for an amendment to Chapter 18.39 of the Vail Municipal Code ( Ski Base
hcr6ation) and an amendment to the previously approved development plqn !o allow for
tbe redeveiopment of the Golden Peakski Base, located at 485 Vail Valley Drive lTract
F-Vail Village Sth filing and Tract B, Vail Village 7th filing.
Alplicant: VailAssociates lnc., represented by David CorbinPEnner: Jim Curnutte and Lauren Waterton
Arcguest for a minor CCt exterior alteration to allow for the addition of a bay wildgw_tg
.tb Lbrd Latigo Shop tocated in the A & D Building, 286 Gore Creek Drive/Lots A-D, Block
5D, VailVillage lst Filing.
Afplicant: Barry Florescue, represented by Chamois PiersonPlanner: Lauren Waterton
Arequest for a Conditionat Use Permit to allow for a telecommunications anlenna to be
igalled at the Evergreen Lodge to be located at 250 S. Frontage Road WesULot 2'
ftck 1 VailLionshead 2nd Filing.
AFplicant: David Crispin for Evergreen LodgePtanner: George Ruther
A equest for a modification to a previously approved plan to allow for a reduction in the
nrrnSer of dwelling units located in the Lodges at Timber Creek Development located at
ffi3 and 2893 Timber Creek Drive/Lodges at Timber Creek.
Agtrlicant Chuck OgilbyPkrner: Randy Stouder
Aequest for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a private club to be located on the 3rd
arlcil4th floors of the Serranos Building located at 298 Hansen Ranch RoadAot C, Block
2,I/ail Village 1 st Filing.
Agcticant: Gretta Parks, represented by Glen Healan.
Phnner:Jim Curnutte
Sign languago int€rpr€tation available upon requesl with 24 hour notification.
TDD for infrrnation.
2.
3.
4.
b.
6.
7-
,0
WT.,rtq:
PfeasE caff 479-2114voiceorqZS'ZSSS\.' [C l'
a
Tcrr.f,ir-J fiF uH I l_
I'li:.r*l i =nec,u=. tls:fr
:': :.: ',ti i:.,;r:.r1; l.-
1 .: L_. . .r I ,r L. li -! -. .j. r-1 '*' j.'
f.j'-,.:,-',-:, , i. .ii t:;;i ii
1;F. ii;l-Eti, r :IF:1L-.[I
1-1iir1,:-r;, 1 i:,::.1-,i+,ie,-j :
I t-errr p;i d
fi :1, t}: t jr {1:r.,; i I :l t:r,j t:1 tjt
l-:l-r.+il,,l4t t-* 1.!_i i-ir*,1 .:
:'il lirl .i rr,i,it- tiFii-!i
:riir , it-:i
Hrri*unt peid
;fifi, [1t-J
-rHFlr-{F: '-'JcLl
', r-:.,, i" r.:,:i l r,. i 'll_lf ,' '
THE LAW OFFICES OF RtcHARD P. ROg_TN,
October 12. 1995
l{'
ocT 16 tsss
DENVER
r 120
LINCOLN STFIEET
sutrE I roo
DENVER COLORAOO
4o203
TEL 303 432 | 900
FAX 303 463 04 | 2
FO BOX 4137
VAIL COLORAOO
a 1658
lEL 303 471 t940
IOV " C0lvlrvr. D[\i, 0k r
Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested
Mr. Jim Curnutte
Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail. Colorado 81657
Re: Owner: Mr. Ken Tuchman
Property: 3110 Booth Creek Drive
Dear Jim:
This office represents Ms. Diane King Hughes, the owner of one-half of the duplex
located at the above referenced address.
It is my understanding that you are the planner in charge of the Tuchman request for
additionat square footage for his unit as well as the redevelopment of part of the unit.
Given this request, it is imperative to put the Town of Vail on notice that Ms. Hughes
will also be submitting a request for additional square footage for her unit. It is expected
that her application will be formally submitted within the next ten days.
The concern with the request from Mr. Tuchman is that approval of his request for
square footage basically eliminates the ability for Ms. Hughes to enlarge her unit. This
is important in that the Tuchman unit presently exceeds Ms. Hughes square footage by
approximately 600 square feet. The party wall agreement presently recorded for these
units is a 50/50 ownership.
It is not our goal to stop Mr. Tuchman. Rather, our objective is to reach a compromise
on the available square footage for both units. It should be pointed out that the same
architect, Ms. Laura Nash of Fritzlen, Pierce & Briner is designing both renovations.
And, I believe both parties are willing to work out a suitable use of the remaining square
footage.
Accordingly, I would like to go on record requesting a delay in the hearing for Mr.
Tuchman's application. A delay only until the DRB heanng for Ms. Hughes. A single
hearing would be more beneficial for all parties involved.
In the event a delay is not granted, I would like to issue my strongest objections to the
Tuchman application given the unfair utitization of square footage, the lack of approval
Mr. Jim Curnutee
october 12,1995
Page Two
from the adjacent duplex owner, as required in the party wall agreement, and the
overwhelming building mass that will be constructed when comparing the larger unit to a
smaller unit presently zoned duplex and not primary/secondary.
I look forward to your immediate reply to this letter. As always, thank you for your
considerations.
Yours very truly,
RICHARD P. ROSEN, P.C.
cc: Ms. Diane King Hughes
Ridhard P. Rosen
F:+r"*ii-,i * il:ii:-l';
-1.1,:;'_ i . ": li ,_ t ii c *'. -'
rF:ITil. i:ti- i',15Fii:ri FrFlIiiIr:'.Ii:'ir i.j-':i F[:'-r
ili;ia,i-rf i i. i-r:i r,-j* i';:'j '' 5;i"::'ir
Itenri Paid Brir*unt Paid
'i1iillt-1r1'.-1':iil:11iri'l :i:" "ji!
ll:i.--.r r::.i: r i: ;: I ; -' j ''
_f Htrlt_lFi rr.i_-il_l
',:,;,r-,; ,;.;.r! ,it,i iji:ii i
oo
TOWN OF VAIL NECEIPT NO.
oF ooMtl
,^r" ,/0, q,7:
CHBCXS MADE IAYAILE TO TOWI{ OF V^IL
acroottNTt{o.uev llo' tlx - coaTtr.. T0T^L
0l 000041540 ZONING AND ADDRESS MAPS $5.00
0l 0000 42415 UMFORM BUILDING CODE s54.00
0l 0000 42415 UNIFORM PLI.]MBTNG CODE s39.00
0l 0000 424 I 5 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE $37.00
0l 0000 424 l5 I.JNIFORM FIRE CODE s36.00
0t oo00424I5 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE s37.O0
ot 0000 424 t 5 OTIIER CODE BOOKS
0l m00 41548 BLUE PRINTS (MYLARS)s7.00
ol oow 42412 XEROX COPIES $0.25
0l 000042412 STUDIES
0 I 0000 42412 TOVFEES COMPUTER PROGRAM s5.00
0l m00 42371 PENAL] Y }EES i RE.INSPECTIONS
0l 0000 41332 PLAN REVIEW RE.CHECK FEE [S4O PER HR.]
0r 0000 42332 OFF HOURS INSPECTION FEES
0t 0000414t2 CONTRACTORS LICENSES FEES
0l 00004t413 SIGN APPLICATION FEE Itz0.00
i rl
'll
I.l
n.l
T!l
;1g
El
0l 000041413 AD|-'U rUNn L S|CNA(iE rrr. lSr.00 PER SQ.FT.I
0l ffiN4U!'TC ART PROJECT DONATION
0l oo(r413 ts,E+AID DESIGN RLVIEW BOAR.D FEE 4 -rt/
0l 000042371 II\WESTIGATION FEE ( BUILDINC)
3l oo00 451l0 TOV PARKING FUND
0t m00 22027 TOV NEWSPAPER DISPENSER FUND
0r ooot zttIz TAXAELE @ 4% (STATE)
* 0l 0000 41010 TAXABLE @4% (TOWN)
0l 0000 42371 BUILDINC INVESTICATION
OTIIER
PEC APPLICATION FEES
0l (X)00 41330 $200.u)
0l 000041330 CONDITlONAL USE PERMIT s200.oo
0l 0(}0041330 EXTERIOR ALTERATION ILESS THAN IOO SO.FT.I $200.000l il)oo 41330 EXTERIOR ALTERATION TMORE THAN IOO SQ.FT.I stoo.00
0r fl)00 4t330 SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DtSTRICT [NEW]$1.500.00
0l 0000 41330 SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NAJOR TNiENDI sl.ou).00
0l fim!0 41330 SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT [MINOR AMEND]s200.o0
0r 0000 413i0 SUtsDIVISION
0l 000041330 YARIANCL,$250.00
nl 0r 0{t00 4t330 ZONING CODEAMENDMENTS $250.OO0l 0000 4r330 KL. ZONING s2(X).o0
OTHER
OTHER
Tre'TAI:
COMMSNTS:
, ,.2- rJ a}-t-.9-=::--
REC. BY:QrsEI- I '*', (92LK,;.;;
To@ cREG HALL ToDD onnENHETMER ,
Return to ..Jil CURIflITIE
PROJEC'I':
DATE SUBMITTED:
COMMEI.ITS NEEDED BY:
Date:
Date:
Town Planner
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
€slcl*aw -a, a)
BRIEF DI:SCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:"rl&l', i;';";ty;[;i"L c e.# =]-l e e e ol q tuF
tic (.'d'4 * so qfP C.o*'6^,
Engincering:
Revieweclby:
Commenls:
Reviewed by:
Fire Dept.:
Reviewed by:
Landscaping:
Comments:
4to our",
Comments: I ) .'z/ztta'rz's''t"\
z) rl'/' .'/- t
.-/...-, C '/O-/,r'z t
/s //
.- t._,,/ S _
,,-n,P ' ,47 o OV'f '-
-..-/,.prtoJ ant PP*Fu-2/ '''*'7
DistriLrutcd to the Fire Department, public works, and Landsc aping on %f I \ .
:t,
MIKE McGEE TODD OPPENHEIMER
Return to . JIII CIIRNITTTB
Town Planner
BBIEF DI:SCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
n?vl:h:,;,;-;,,y;J;L o € e.4 =)-tc e€
ric L"d,4 *so qfpc.o+@?\,
Engineer ing:
Reviewecl by: -Itrrr Movirne,z Date:
^c,robtr
tB.!9q5
Comments:
1g6 '[vre t.yuoi dgnvrvrod ai.l(hn\eocrkowS oo]ha fu.7V 5\&a of yha\ot, ?ba€
E tu,nit "' (l'!t'tl\cYe ljruel ' -
;laltocu.,c r.o(^ cv6roa/lDrh^3:tac€< C^,*J ftT-llg \rp(,z: a\sslrGrrn
ingcrlr vo.*o?o' ccrrrrr tlru rc^dius ,r&rh't L!' o^ orl\aet a'|deq ho ca4rul '
4 pad culttrei,oV mc erd'ot.rw driua'r-11 '.t!" '1varv;-
gin3rrpp*.i Yo9 e'*ce) zt 'ln 'jqY\e ?o+5 ' 'czf\ar'
N"r aqgrovtz) ' ?rr"a fe6\igrn1\'
PROJEQ ;
DATE SUBMITTED:
COMMEI.ITS NEEDED BY:
Landscaping:
Reviewed by:
Commenls:
Fire Dept.:
Reviewed by;
Comments:
Aes ;clentee -@a)
J,,ytex
Date:
Date:
tt
Distributrrd to the Firo Department, public works, and Landsca t'nn on Oc* i \ ,'
I
t
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
t
t.
Datu ol aPPfioation 1.9./9J9J .-
Date ot DCB Meeting rllr 12.2. ,, . -Dato of PEC Meetlng (if nocessary
TYPE OF FIEQUESTffiamEso
Typa IIEHU 250
Tltpe V EHU 250
II. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENGE {\ \\\N'
A pre-appllcaUon confersnoe w'th a member ot the planning statf ls $trongly encouragod to
di$cu$s the Provisions under whi€h additional GRFA can be added to a site, lt should be
understood that thts ordlnance does not assurE each property an additional 250 square teet of
ORFA. Flalher, the ordinance allows for up to 25q square lsol il th€ conditions sst forth in
Chapter 18.57 or Chapter 16.71 o1 the Town ol Vall code ar€ met.
Applications for additlons uhder thls section wlil not be accoptod unless tney are cornplete.
This includgs all Information required on thls lorm as well as_ Design Rovlew Board submittal
rsquirements.
+il. AP-zuCAT|OJ! |NEORMAT|ON
A. PROJECT DESCRIPT
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
Address
Legal Doscrlpilon:LollBrock-_5!_ Filtns t/fttL t//L(Aq Ltft FMI
Zone
c.
Add
D.
NAME oF AppLrcANr; Dgg{ d A6t_-_7wtnftAl _ _
hue --+
loln lr{
NAME oF ApplfcANr.s REpREseNTArtvE? 4tL pt&lF __... _
aaa,tn 0.N BV 57. , tkrL r ,tO. 8l
E. NAME OF oWNER(S);
Slgnature(s)
eaaressJ/oo Llnca/-t | -5Q 3 - ]\47' YJO.t,W 1ez_Mte_Phone._eo _3 - g ? ? -??o
F.bolaSFillng Fee ot $200'00 ts required at trme of suuhi(ar ot a stancrard 260- For a
request invotving an EHU, the fee ls walvect.
A (o<lo'/ ,,\r *200Yn(r/2'@)
aousld N$IZJ,IUS r08?9trozD IYt t0r?r E8/90/0I
;e5 rr'r I rrLrar.rF ry
-i
tr:r+ +l zl,4 p-142
"'.' '-" ";;; o*"""1^* Appr'rcArro* . ror{N ol*o, corroRhDo
DA9E RECEIVED..
DATE OF DRB MEETINGTttttallatat
ratilJtttt
T.
A DESCRIPTIOI'q; Addition & Renodel of East Side of Duplex
FS9,rEcT _XNFORTq.ATION :
EI IYPE OF RTVIEW:
_-New. construchion ( g 2O0. OO)r'^ AddiEion ($50.00)
ADDRESS: 3110 Booth Creek Dr.
jMinor Al.LeraEion ( 920 . 0O)concepEual Rewiew (90)
If grropergy is described bydegcrj.pcion, p:-daae provid6Lo Ct\is app].icaeion.
a meegs and boundgon a separate eheeE
legalend at tach
zONfNC: Two Farnlly Resldentlal
P.NAIIE OF
Mai l inq APPI/ICANT:
AddEess:t
Phone
G.
Dhone
I.
J.DRB FEE: DRB fees, as showa i
!1^F ?f eubmircat of rha oRi
gbove,l are Ect4applibacion.e,l are Eo be paid aE EheIipacion. LaBer, wtrenr*.r.E !,r_ Eu(,mr. E gaf
. ot . the DRBr4alrplipacion. t lter, wtren3l?ly:ll_f?I i. ruirdinf p"-friii'irease id,enEifv tshe acc.,ii"i[i.i"-Ji In!"**qrng permtc, prease^idenEify ghe accuraleroa .:e.a^_-r!-_ .._ pfonos3l . Tbe Tow11 e6 vail wl.ll adiusr ihcill adjucE, thef:"-:i:o'dins to ii;1ili; b3fi*:'fi il";::'.il:'l"liiEi'rltis palo.o h
VAL,UATTONQ o I tc,ooo910.001 -$ s0:0OO$ 50,001 - $ tso,oo6q150,001 - $ soo;000$500, 001 - $1, 000: oriO$ over $1.000,O00
DESTGN RDVIEI,| BOAXD APPRO1IAI!. EKPIRES
iPPROVAL TIITIJESS A BUIIJDEN€ p88.Ui,l reIS STA.RTED.
FEEe zu. uu
$ 50.00
$r00. 00
$200, oo
s400, a0
$500.00
ONE TEAB AFTER FINAII
tr,EgT'ED A}TD CON9TRUCTIOII
Id10'l\l01lll1|03-A0r
g00l 0 up
gCUIId Ng'IZIIEI
NAME OF APPI,,TCANT.S REPRESTIITATIVE: Bi]-l PierceMailinc Address,
Pnone t 76=63+?. ._-_.- -_ .. .-..-.
QF owNER(S) I
Mail-ing Address: /?OO
& Ken Tuchman
sr
APPLrcAvroNs NrEr'L Nor BE
'RocEssED wrr*ow otnr'R,s grcrfer.,^.E
CondomJ,nlu,m Approval if apptl,cabte.
ro6t9l toz6 r-r-{ 80:Dr E6/ao/or
. NAl,lE OF pROJECT:
_LJST_ OF MATERTALS
MAN ADptnAl
LEGAIJ DESCRIPTION:-LOT-A BLOCK 5 SUBDIVISIO;t/ /, I TH r/L/N6
srREEr ADDRESS : Sllo wH 44 DRJV7
The following information is required for submitt.al
Review Board before a final approval can be given:
A. BUII,DING IIATERIAI.,,S:
Roof
Sidins
OLher waII Materials
Fascia
Soffits
Windows
Wi.ndow Trim
Doors
Door Trim
t{and or Deck Rails
FIues
Flashings
Chimneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
. Reeaining Walls
Exterior Lighting
OEher
TYPE OF MATERIAI,
/44rc+1 Ex,rcr /b
to the Desion
COLOR
Hfrfq Ext6T'a
MATA b(/€f/6 ND. €tDtitb
4TUca Ta mar4 Ex/5r,4
MATA| fupT'e;
MArcH Ex/sT/6
Hfrr4H Ex r.4 '6
ALaF Ta, Mrt+l WNDW T4IU
Net( Ww e e/A4 b,trpy tup
Mkral
V@ - PAlltr To l1ATcd €iDlN6 € TRA
rAINT TV HATLTI RHF aLoR
H4rdf1 Ex/ert6
Na cilANaE
N
RYlhrcnEx/576 - Nrw L7i e
B. LANDSCApING: Name of Designer . ,V/*phone:
.. t il:il,HTIU'
AI\D SHRUBS
Botanical Name OuanLiLv Size"
N/*
-----........--
*Indicat.e caliper for deciduous trees.deciduous trees is 2 inches.Indicate Minimum caliper forheight for coniferousLrees. Mi f o si**IndicaLe size of proposed shrubs. uinimum size of shrubs is5 qallon.
Tvpe Square Footaoe
GROIJND. COVERS
soD
SEED
TYPE
OF IRRTGATION
TYPE OR METHOD OF
EROSION CONTROL
C. LANDSCA'E LT.HTING: rf exterior light.ing is proposed, pleaseshovr the number of fixLures and foiaciois on a separaE.eIiqht.inq pIan.. IdenLify each fixt.ure trom-ine lighting planin t.he space below and provide- the treiqni uUorr" grade, type ofrighr.proposed, fumen outpuL? ruminous area and a cut sheeL ofthe light fixEure. (Seccion 1g.54 .050 J)
OTHER LANDSCAPE FEATURES (reLaining waIls, fences, swimmingpools, er.c. ) ptease specif y. rnaicace h;iqh;;-;I'r"r.uir,inqwarrs. Maximum height of wirts wichin crr"-rtoni setback is3'. Maximum heighu of wa1ls,eisewhere on tne-piop"rty i.s G,
D.
NNE PkFae
Category Number
olgn Review Action Ft
TOWN OF VAIL
--t I r^
."
- \--lProiect Name:
Building Name:
Project Description:
Owner, Address and Phone:52l-I
o5
/
Architecvoontact, Address and Phone: t'- , L,
Jr ,.' / z-l'-t t/c>Y '', \.*,[, ( o
LesalDescription:Lot d7 arlcx 3
"uoorur"ron
v",,,L \/; I L*?. I/ti zoneDistrict:i i r<'
projecrstreetAaar""", ?. ) lO i'2--*4/, C,^s<- k O7, ltr'-: + : tr-'i'l'
Comments:
0r, &Lhg
,z--: -:-::-i-I--::1-
Board,/Staff Action -,
Motion by:
Seconded by:
! Approval
Z Dynrcval
g/Staff Approval
r /o " t'--t'r ., c'r ( "ai 4 (.1
('to(or,,L'
L-,-- ;
DRB Fee Pre-paid
4.
f ILI $EPY
Considerable discussion ensued and Jelf Bowen indicated that although there was no
doubt that the staff's interpretation was lechnically correct, to preclude ski storage use
of the tiny space in question, made no sense from a public policy standpoint. He
advised that he intended to change his vote.
A 4-2 vote overturned the staff's decision on Appeal #2 with Kathy Langenwalter and
Allison Lassoe opposing.
A request for a worksession lor /an amendment to Section 18.71 (Additional GRFA)
anct Section 18.57 (Employee Housing), to delele the section providing tor Additional
GRFA (ttre 250) and to incorporate the 250 GRFA allowance in the Employee Housing
Section of the Zoning Code, to be used exclusively for deed-restricted employee
housing.
Applicant Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
George Ruther made a detailed presentation per the statf memo and explained the
associated charts and exhibits to the memo.
The PEC members commended George on his eftorts on this item'
Mike Mollica stated that it is the planning stafl's leeling that the 250 Ordinance is not
accomplishing what it was originally intended to accomplish.
Greg Amsden said it appeared to him that approximately fifty percent of the 250's were
used to upgrade existing resiclences.
George Ruther reviewed th€ tour alternatives to the current 250 Ordinance with the
PEC and explained the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative'
Jeff Bowen felt that the 250 Ordinance should be done away with as it cunently exists'
He felt that a 250 addition would be acceptable in conjunction with employee housing
units but that the PEC should review lhese units prior to construction. He lelt that the
PEC should be the board that reviews this type ol request instead of the DRB.
Rick Rosen suggested that the 250 Ordinance not be repealed but instead it should be
'cleaned up" in order lo encourage locals to stay in the community but to not condone
the abuses which we see now.
Kathy Langenwalter telt that interior 250's could be a good thing but that some
amendments did need to be made to the cunent 250 Ordinance. She questioned why
lots that met the 15,000 square foot minimum requirement were allowed the 250. She
suggested that it should be limited to smaller lots where the need is greater'
Greg Amsden suggested that demo/rebuilds should not be allowed to apply for an
additional 250 square teet of GRFA.
Phnl*E J|d €r irumentrl Cq |rb3lrn Minut|E
De€mb.r 19, t99a
5.
Bob Armour did not feel that there would be community support for repealing or
amending the 250 Ordinance. He felt that the elimination ot the demo/rebuild as an
option had merit.
Greg Amsden suggested that this item come back before ths PEC as a worksession
again so that the members could discuss it further'
Bill Anderson lelt that the 250 Ordinance was beneficial to the locals because they
could turn around ttreir properties for a sizable sum ol money. He felt that the smaller
lot sizes should be eligible for 250 additions.
Rick Rosen asked what insurance does the Town have that the units will be used for
employee housing as opposed to a caretaker unit.
Bill Anderson felt that it would not be possible to legislate enough laws to prevent
abuse.
George.Ruther asked the PEC to look at Page 5 of the slaff memorandum from the
Aprit 8, 1991 PEC meeting and pointed out that possible legal ramifications could result
from any changes that are made to the 250 Ordinance.
Kathy Langenwatter suggested that the 250 be reworked to get it back in touch with its
original intent, which was to improve substandard properties.
George Ruther asked whether the PEC would be open to looking at rethinking how
GRFA is calculated.
The pEC did not feel strongly about changing the method in which GRFA is calculated'
Kathy Langenwalter suggested that stafl talk to Tom Moorhead conceming the
repeicussions on properties where a home is four years old and will be eligible lor a
250 addition in the near future and how amending or repealing lhe 250 Ordinance will
affect such properties.
Bob Armour stated he would like to see the 250 maintained but changes need to be
made to the odinance.
Greg Amsden suggested that once the changes are made to the 250 Ordinance, it will
be important to educate the community about the changes as soon as possible.
A request for an amendment to Sections 18.24 (Commercial Core l), 18-26
(Commercial Core ll), 18.27 (CommercialCore lll), 18.28 (Commerciat Service Center),
and 18.29 (Arterial Business District) regarding the outdoor display of goods.
Applicanl Town of Vail
Planner: Lauren Waterton
Plrnring rnd Enviltlm.nol Commbaioo undes
D.crr$- 19, lge{7
I
ALTA ow'|c?'r Policy * la,l -97!
tzl,I'0N t0:9I I6/9 0/0 i
.PQLICY OF TTTLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY
S'f E\&'AFTII TITLI}
GUARANTY COMPANY
SUBJECT TO THE €XCLUSIONS FROM COVEFAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE CONTAINED IN
SCHEoULE B ANO THE CONOITIONS AND STTPULATIONS. ST€WART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, A T'X.t
corporrt;on, hercin callcd the Company, insur65, rt of Dsta of Policy rhown in Schedulr A, rgainst loss or damag6' not
€xcecdinn the Amouni of lnsurance statred in Schodule A. sustaioed ol Incurred by the insured by reason o{:
. t. Title tothe eslate or interest dgfcribed in Schedule A being v6ted other than as stated therein;
?. AnV dctect in or llen or encumbrance on tha titlc;
3. Unmarketabifity of the title;
4, Lack of e right ot 0ccest to snd from the land.
The Company witl also pay thc cost3. ottotneyi'foe3 and oxp€nset incurred in defcnsrt of thtl litla, 13 insurcd, but only
to the extant provided in the Conditionr and StipulttionS.
' lN WTTNESS UTHEREOF. Stewart Title Gu.rantY Complny htt5
duly authorized otticers as of the Dare of Policy shown in Schedule A.
caurad thit policv ro be sigrlcd rnd terlGd bY its
P4rt-@@-STEAVAfT'T 'TI'III-Eoulnr.xrr oofl^rY
Cha.rmm of the Boar<l
ft'unrattil,rad:
@mprny
ciw' srore rxcurloiE tl(tl @YETGE
Iha lotlc.rins nqll?r: orl .rPtcrily etcl'Jdid lrom ttrc <ovcrcg: Ol fhh pofny ond lhc Conpony will nor poy lors or dornoge' (oqlr' oiofnGy{ lGer oI
:rprares whidt orirc bY noson of:
'1. (o) Any low. ordiaano or gcvemmcr ol rugulntion (rndvdhg bvl nol lnihd rO bvitding ond rahg lo*1, ordinor*cs. or rlo['hlionr) nrriCrrng'
,.orrrLing, 'prhilili"g or 6lotini toii) d;;.r,p.;;;; ot un'rdt*o of r't" lurd; Ol) r\c thorocc.r,.dinren:ions or iaorbn o{ onv irnprovlxnt.l nor or
hermttcr errstrd on rhc lond; (iiDo t Fot€iion in oencrhip otc crronge in Ci di*nllnt ot srco of thc lond or ony porccl o{ which.ttc londicorwolo
po6; or {iv) rnri?ormenbr p-r*ti;'.,;'il;;il-;i;;frbt"il;J-rur" t*r, ordinqnc?r or gov.r ncntol regvbrion', 'xttPl lo lic crlcnl thof o
noricr ol the cnfc.rcfi. lhcrcol or o notir. ol o drfed, lien or .n.r.uio"..i**nf i-i o tioi"rion - ollcard tioloticn olfcctlng thl hnd hcr 5or"
recordcd ia rhr poblk rucordr of Dott of Pollry' . . .
(b) Any lorcrnmrnrol pollcc portr nOi ii.chdcd by (o) oborr,-GrcePt fo lhc cr|lol lhol o noliGe ol tht rxrrcirc lhcrco{ or o notk' ol o detrct' l'rcn
or .|rcuobrsrcr rurulring from "
tii;;'; .ilrc; tiiior'lin "ttccing
I lond hcc bccn rsorded in lhr public record: or Dore o.f Posct'
?. Rigirr of rninear aoroin unori ili.. oi rfi "r"r"i* rt ooor $r"ilr'ir.ordti-i" rli irui. rscoidr ot Dote ot Pobq, but nol axdudins lrorn
coveruec ony roling whidr hor otcur'Jpt'". * O"l" "i-i;"fi7
*ilt *ould b" btrding oo the rightr ol o pvrchorct {or voluc whhoul kmwlcdgc'
g. Oclacts, lim:, enembnnccl, odvcqc doinr or olhct fioltarr:
(o) crcolcd. rullrtrd, qst ln€d or ogrud to by {re inrlrcd claimon+;
i;i iffffi;;;;'c;;,;"Y;;;;iilfii;;;;; Dore of potiq, bur knosn.tc thc irrurrd rloimont ond nor dit lored in 'ririns to
ttr di;;;; -il r;r;-;il;;t ;tio. to ir'e a"r. rri" inrvrcd cloimunr becomc on inrurcd undcr thi: policv;
1.1 .3f|lltinc in no lon or dofiog& lo lhe in:ul'd dorn|ont
i4 oto.hitrg or cr.otd rubrcquenl ro Dai? of Folic/,-,of
(.1 rcrulfing in lB3 o, do,nog.'rlrich rould not hovc bccn:v:toincd if the inrurcd cloirnanl lrod pcid toluc for th' erlolc or idltEn inlured by thir
policy.
"10-9941
- 283032
200'd rzlI'0N xu/xJ ,0:9r 96/90/01
Ij
Fa>i.? fi
-T CDF(\lF33 R E4.. 5 r!ts @F4i o iF! c!
H6 I
F.a
FUIlr
6
>- q,JEr{<u .-rz.>
- SP.,i
a siaaz oi:co=< Ki;9 e
AE
-P
U.r v)
I! c|Eu-
ooABo;tsurF
=Y!qJO
.O CL
FOv, (Ju, z,
rl5r";r:Ls
F.34,!lF4i'a' at:E6ha
. r|.ta owrlEF"s PoucY
3Cltn
. Order No.:Policy No-:o-99+L-28303?
1.
2,
AT.IITIOR I ZED COUInIERSTGNAfl'RE
EURNEY AITD KIIIG B. HUGHES
is covared bY tnls Pollay l8:
FEFCEL C.
Book 364 at
S'TB\dART TIIT[,}:
GUATA TI COI?AI TPtqc 2
3. Tlila to thc 6stat€ or int€roal In th€ tand ft vestad ln:
DIANE K. HUGTIE5. KENftALt K. BURNEY AND KING B. HUGHES
4. The land reterred to in this policy ic described rs follow$:
PARCIL B,bogatb.€r wltl. an undlvlded It lnteresE ln and
CARL SUT{MERS DUPLT'{Accordlng to the pl.et recorded ,fu3.y 29, L983age 7O5 as Receptlon No. 26LO32.
to
Ln
Dateorr",,Jt::;:ember le. rgEB Ar ro:34 A.fmountotlnsurancc:$ B?a,g00.00
Name of lnsured:
DIANE K. HUtrIES, KEIIDALf, K.
The estat€ or Int€rest In the lend whlch
ITEE SIHPLE
C(DC OOr, {n r- trA
10/06/9s 16:07 TXIRX N0.1724 P.003 I
.ALTAOWI{Ef,'S POLICY
ORDER NO.:4154-V scHEDULE 3t
Policl, No,:
Thts poticy docs nor Insure asainst loss or drmrgo (.nd ths cornpanY will nor o", tt8iiP8't*;eGl0 I 3
fesg or expenses) which ariss by rlaaon of:
1. Rights or ctaims of plrtics in possesslon not 3hown by the Public .ocotda-
2. Easamenta. or cllims ol easgmentA not 6hown by tho public 76gerd9'
3. Di8crepaoci€3, Contlicts in boundarY linas. shortage in arer. encroichmente' and any flctt which
a cortecr survcy ond inspection of the premisos would discloec end which ato not chown by the
public records.
4. Any lien. or right to a lion, lor servlces, labot or matariat herotofoto ol hetolttor furnished.
imposad by law and not slrown bry rho publie tecoTds'
5. Any and alt unltafi tetGa and aglersnents and any unredeeEed
tax eales.
5. I'lrc effect of lnsluslona ln any general or specl'flc l'tacer
conserveney, tiii protectlon, ioil conservatlorr or other
district ol tnitus-lon ln any eater servlce or Etrcet
. uprovonent erca.
7'RtghtofProprl'etorofevelnorlodetoexEractandrelovehlsorE tlrerefroi should the sefie be forrncl to Penefrete or
intersecttheprellgegaSrecer!'€dlnUnttedstategPatentofrecord.
a. RtEhE of qray for dttctres or canals conBtruqted by t4e 4uthority
of tl-e unit-eo Statea, as re3erved ln untced states Prtent of
record.
9. Restrlctlons trtl ctr d'o not contaln a forfelture or revetber
claure. but onltting rcstrlctLons, if eny, baed on race. color'' r-f i.gf6n. or nattoail or1.gln, as contained lrr lnstru'ent
reco;d.ed ln Boolt 221 at Pige laor and auended by lnstrunent
recordedl ln Book 254 at Page 865-
10. Utility and drainage eagenent6 a6 stt6titn On Blre PlaE of said
Fub-dtttslon 1n lnitrunent recordccl ln Eook 22L aE PaEe 141 as
Reccptlon No, 115816.
11. TGrus, condltlons, reserl,ctlons and sblpulatlons as conEalned
ln rolrnhouEe Declaretlon recorded JwLy 29, 1983 ln Book 364 at
Pagre 705 a8 Reception No. z6to3l and as amended bl-Anenduent
reEorded Septenblr 24, L9E3 in Book 369 at Book 177 as
Reception No. 255097.
12. Easenenhs, restrLctions and rlgtrtE-of,-wiys aE shottn on the plat
Of Plat of CerI Surners Dupler recorded.Iuly 29' 1983 in Eoofc
364 at Page 7O? a6 RecePtlon No. 25L032.
Page 3
F'TT:\'vAItT TITT.}:
oE^l^lrtl c()l?aLl5t3lFtlv O EZ)
I0/06/95 16:07 TXlRX N0.1724 P.004
rvr lyr rretrJ attu rr r?l'ltl,llt ru[l.l
^ Ihe.folloring t?rrnr whgn u5ed in lhi, polic, m"o,l;I , Le/ 'ntu..C: thc inrurad oomqd rn Schiduf6 A, ond,5ubiC tO cnv rirtrtor qercn!8 th! Lofitpon; wor.rld hove hod ogoinrr lha no.tled iflit rad. th;r. ;ho5iJ_Keoo ro tn€ rnttrttl ot
'lic
ndn:ed inrlrcol by Opcrofion of lor Or d iogui;hg{
:r_o]1- lvJEh lrc flctlJqrng, bur nor tirnh.d ro, heirr, dir''ibutcc!, dcyircfi, lurvvoo,p9691:l,f.ep.cladlolivir, ncrl o{ kin, or orpotort o. lidvciory ruc(G$orlt-{D, Inlura<r Clorrnonl": on inrumol clOiming lO$ Or dOmOO€.(<) "lnowlcdgc" or "loqvn": ocrvqt kno,.,f.dge, noiiin:r"ricti"e t^q*leOooqr
'lglrcc-whr(tl mdl bc rmpulcd fo on iarqrpd gy 1gg36n of tho Oubhc rcccrdr ircratn6.t t.t,fiit3 potiE/. or.on/ othcr rero.dr which import Gonit'rt.,(rive n6t,ra efmqn€,s olracnng the lond.
(dJ -"lond': thr lond doxribcd o. d.t.cd to ia Schcdulc A, ond jmprovc-
'tlcntr oflir.d.therrlo whirh by low conrtir{rtc .."1 proertv. fLGr'.lii"l-.oqcs nor Inctudc ort p.cardy b.yond lhe lincr of the o..d d6c.ibrd or rq{erredto In s(hedula A. nor ony right, title, intlrc5l, ettofc or edlafiant h obufiinotreeJJ, ,!Od5,,qycnu6t, olley!-,lorat, wo'4 q?,rdtarwcF, but norh,ng hor,cin r6ollmootty. o. rrmtt tho G ent to whi(h e right cl orros to ond froo rhc lond irinrurud by lhir pol;ry.
-, . (c) ",nortgog.": mortooge, decd ol rrurt, tft./rt daed, or otlrr :ccuriryInltUmanl
. , (l) ."publk rocordr"; recordr ltobli:hed u,rd€r rtot rotut!, et Ooi. of Fol-lcy tor.lhe tu.por€ ol iDponing contruclivc nolice o{ ftottoat rddtr,rg ,q ,csl
Pt.oP€ny lo PUtOs$f3 to, volec ond w;thout lnowladse. Wifi fc$rd ta S.cfio6lloXiv) qt thc Ertlurionr Frorn Coycrogc. "public ricordg" rhoh clro ,ncludcenviron'n?nrof p.ote{tion lirnr {ilod in rhirc(p;ds ot thr clcrk cf til U;ir6d sror.Jditlr'd caurt tor dl6 dilirisi in which rhs lond ir locohd.
^. ^lp] ."9-t*"Fbility oJ thr.ti{e": on ollc_ged or oppq'?nt mon ' qlleding
he trfie lo the lond, not rrcluded or €x(aptrd frorn covcroge, which would rntillco pur.fid3ar. ol thc olrole or infcrcrt drr(;bed in Sch"dulc-i'fo li i"t"o*a fro.
rnc. oDrrgorto-o to p.lrchglr by ridu. ol o controcti,sl <oodirion requiring thcd.lave.y of nfo*.tqble title.?. cdrrflr{uAlloil ot trfitJtAitcE AFrcr co||yEyrr|cE Ot r|'u.
, ThG cov!.ogs. of.thjr policy rholl oatinur in lorre qr o{ Dorr q( pslicy intovor ol 0n rorurud only lO long or tfic inrured rctoinr On altOtC or iatrr t io thc
lood. of fioldr dn indcbfedner: rcurtd by o purdrosc mOncy nrafgogC givcn byd purche*r {rofii thc in.{,,..d, or ooly.ro.l6ng or rie inrurud iho hi*i i.iiritV Uirtoron or tovaflont: ol wofiohly rngde by the;n:urad in ony fronlfar Or coovcv,
orr(e of thd .Jrota or inbrcrt. lhb ootsri droll not coalinui in forr in fovor 6{
ony_ purrhorcr lrorn rhr inrvrrd o{ ciihor (il o^ artstc o( ht crt in rh6 lqnd, or {ii}gn andeblcdna$ r€curld by o putdlor monay nortgooo Oivan tp tho rnrsrsd.3. NOnCr O[ Ct^tt IO tI ctvl]t By fi]urED dAthANt.
,. Tbc inrvred- rholl_ notily rhc Compony promptlt in *rrring (i) in cot: ol onylitigstion ot rc forfh i^.S.dion {o) bclow. (ii} in co* lnovl-djo rholl rornc lo
on InsJred hcrcundGr ot ooy Clcim o{ tirlc or intcred whkh ir odvrira to tht t le
lo. thr ell+ o? ;ntrrcrl, or inrurcd,. ond which mighl coure losr or domogc lcr
whi<h rhc, Conporry noy bc lidbl. by virtuc ol $t polir.y. _or {ii} i{ titlc to ttr.
l. DEnt{|ltoil of tE$6.
€rtole o. inlemrf, or iolured, ii reirctcd os unnrolkrfible, ll
rrol be givtn ro thc Cornpony, fhcn ol ro tha inrured qll lisbi
€rfOfe o.,rTlemd, ot aolured, b reircrcd o! unmdrkatoble, ll OrorhDl notkc iholl
nol.be givrn ro n Conpony, thcn ot ftr thr inrur.d oll licbility ol rhr Coopony
rhcll fcrminoia whi ragcrd to th. rrrofirr or rnoftco lor rhi6li prenrpt notkc ir
[d) ln oll <o:ar shcrc lfri: poFcy pcrrrrilr or'rcquiro tfio Conrpany ro oiq,r!-
cvfc oi providc lor rhc dclcnm ol ony ooion or jroocding, th; ir;rr6d rhqlraturt lo thr Compony fhe riohr lo so plorarutr or provide dg{ont. in tnr qsnon
or procrtdiag, ond oli oppcolr ficrcin, ond pcrnit tlrr Cornpony to uia, ot it!
gption, rh! nome of lhc ingrci for rhie purporo. Whcncver' 'iqu;tcd by l}c
Cottlpony, the insurod, ol thc Compony's oxponlr, rholl givc ftrr Comoony qll
rqc5onobh o;d (i) in ont oction or proccodiog. nuring ovidcnce, obtoiirinO *it-
ncsar, prorecuting or dalcnding thr c.gi9n or proccding. or a{fcoing lttlc.ficnt, ond (i') in ooy other lqr{ul oa which in rha epinion bl the Comoonv rnovbr nftctao.y or derirsble lo r$oblir} tha litla to *o oriot or mlc.art tit ;nisrcJ-
ll thc Compony '5
greiudiccd by the loilure ol the incurcd ro {vrnirh the requircd
cooperorio., thc Cmrpon/r obligotionr lo rc in$rrcd undrr rhe golicy rh;ll ier-
minotc, lncfuding qny lrobility or obljgotton m defund, ptorccvts-,6t co'ntinve aryliigofbn, with regord to lh6 rnqftor or msllcn ruquiring sJch rooocrolion.5. mf of t oss ot oAfi GE
fn oddition to ond oftar the noticet rcqvirad undcr Scction 3 of r} cte Condi.
tronr qnd Slipulotionl hovc bccn provided ihc Cornpony, o 9r9of of lorl ot docr.490 rign.d ond :worn lo by rhr inrurcd cloinronr rholl bc firrnirhad b thc Coo.
pony wirhin 90 doyr ofr' thc inrurud clpirnont ollorc3rtoin fh. lqch oiyino rit.
io ttc lor or donogc- Thc prpof of lo+r or domoge rholl dcrcdbc ttc -dcfc-A in.
or lian er cncumbronce oo ltr! tiila, er othor nolc' innrrrd ooqiorf by thir oolict
wfiich rcnrtifulo: the bqsir ol lcrs or domogc ond lholl rtotr, -to lhr oxtcnt'porsi'-
blc, rho bor,r of colculoting tte onornr ol ifie los or domqsc. tf rhc Conainy ir
pt.iudi(.d by thc loibre of thc iniur€d doimoni to Frovidc fhr recuircd groo{ ollorr or domoga,_the Corrponylobligcfionr to the irurrd onder thr po$cy rholl
lgtmina|', inclvding ony liobiliry or obftotion ro defrnd. prolccufr. ir <o'ntinuc
o.ny litigction, with rugord lo lh6 otlrr or hott t /eqviriog iuch 9?oot o{ lo$ or
ito mcga.
In dddition, rhc inrpred (loi gnt mof rcoronobly be roqrrircd lo lubnt,t to
rxominolion under oqth by ony outhorhed rcprorsnlbtivc of ihg fqmg6ny g.6
rholl produrc for croarinotnn, inrpc<iion ond copying, ot tuch rcoroniblc-fimcr
snd ploc$ or mol, bc dc3ignatcd by ony oulhpizcd rcprat'lnlelliye ol 'ha Coftr,-
pony, cll r9s9rl5, bookr, ledgers, (hectr, corcrpondanct gnd $cmoronds.
rhcther bcoring o dore bcf,c.c or oher Dqle ol Poli(i. ,rhich rcoronobly perloin
fo fhe lot! or domggc. furthc,, ii regverted by on7 outhorirad t',qr'/''/raaliy? o,
tho_Cocpony, the insurcd cloimqnf:holl gro ift permirdon, in iriting, lor ony
outherirsd rcprclenroliyc o{ the Cornpony lg exomin€, inrpecr onJ copy oh
rccordt, booh, ledger:, chctlr, corretpondaftc ond memorondo in tht cu ody
or torrtrol of o thi/d pq.ft, which rcoronobly pertoin to lhc lorr or doDrcgc. All
iolormotion drsignoted os $n{idcntiql by lhc inrurcd dcimont pmvided io the
Compony gurruonl to thrs Scction sholl not bc dirdored to olhcn unle*, in the
.aoronqblc iudgmcd of th. Cornpsoy, 4 ir na<€$ory in the odminirtrotioi ol !h€
cfoim. Foilure of rhr inqred (loinont to tub;it lor exominotion uadr,r aprt, orc-
dlcc ather reo:onobly requeled infornotion or grenl prmiition to rsrurg ;so-
ronobly nxrrrory intormolion {rom third podi.! or r€quir€d in thil porqgrcph
lholl tcrrino?. o^y liqbilily qf lhc Conroony under thir osli(y oa to rhor .lqlrn.6. O?IKINS rO F{Y Ol OIHETW|SI Sfntt CrArrrtl;rErilNlllolt of uAsluTv.
. . In cqse ol c (lo;m uodtr thir policy, tic Compony cloll hove tltc lolowing
ttrn rlgoro ro rnt mgfnlr oa mgftct! no, tficn ltro|n9t noncc |'
rcquircd; providcd, howcvar. lhol loilum to nofit thc Comoorvshollin no core
prcjudic; lhc rightr of ony inrured undcr thir policy unlcrs t6o (ompony rholl bopriudrcd by ihe loilvrc ord ti.n only to thc crtcnt of tfis grciudicc. '
4. DEEI{$ AND PtOilCWKll{ Of ACllONs: IxnY ot lHlUtED
(o) Io lcy or Ie d.r loyrnrot o{ thr Ancsnt c{ Inreroftc.
fo poy oi tcndlr porrnonl of fhe cmount of inruroncc vnde. fiir[o poy or tendar po],mont ol fhe cmounl o{ inruroncc under tftir policl
togcthcr with int (o:tr,
.
sllprnefi' hor_ond crpcn*r incurred by. tha inturrd
cloimqnt, which were oulhorirod by th6 Compq1y. up te lhc timc d{ poym.nl or
rendcr of poyrrrent ond rhich thc Compony ir qbligqtcd to poy.qbligqtcd to
cd&ficnol oorionr:
(o) Io lw or
t€nd.r of poy'ne.l ond rhkh th.cl fAtAt{t lo coo?cRATE.
(o) Upon wrhrrn roqu.$ by dr. ,nrurcd cnd rvhE{l io fho ogtiom conroinrd
in Scdion 6 ol thcrc Condition: ond Sfipulotionr, the Compd'|y, ot ih oryn (qfl
ond withovt unrcstonoblc dcloy, rholl providc for ri dcliruj ol qn inrvred in
litigolron in wlicb ooy third porfy otscrtt o d€in odv.'$ ro Aa t;d! or ;rtcfr t 05
inrurcd. but only os lo lhot rtohd rours of orlion olleghg o defcd, lion or
cntumb.onca or oihtr moitr inrurcd egqrnrt by ttrir policy. Thc Cornpony rholl
hovo th€ right to seloct squnrl oi ilr chokc (rubicct ro th.;iChl of $r rntuicd ts
objo<l for rcoronobh ccuta) f,D ragrlront lhc inrurcd qr lo lhorc rislcd <qut r ol
qdioo qnd rhsll nor be lioblc for ond will oot poy rhc fru ol ont dho. courr.l.
Ihe Compony will n6t poy ofiy f!e!, (o!tr or erpcnrer ixuned by lhc inwrod in
rhe delcnsc of thor courcs o{ odion which ollegc mottcr! not inr;rrd ogoinrt bf
thir policy.
(b) Ihe Conpony rholl hqve the right, ot itr own corf, lo inst'rlute ond pTorc-
cvi! ony oqt,on or pmccrding or l,o do qnt oth.r osl whkh in ih opinioo moy be
ncsosory or dctisbLp ro prloblith rhe title to the eltole or iftforert, ot intuiod, or
lo prevenl or rcducr los or dotrldg. to lhc iotorcd. fhe Corlpoay 'noy iolc ony
oppropriote oction under rhe rcrrnr o{ rhi3 polic/, w$ethcr or nor ir rholl br liobb
heieunder, qnd rholl not thercby concede hob,lity or worve ony prov'rion ol lhir
poficy. lf ths Compony sholl erarcirc ih .ighlr (.rde. 'h.s porogroph, ii lholl do ro
dil'gently.
(cj Whenevcr ft. Compony sholl hovr brought on oction or int..po3cd o
defemc or required or pcrmiitrd by lhc provirions ql thir polr{t, the Compony
moy purlu. ony lhigolion to finol ddirftindion by o (ovrt o{ onprtent iwidic-
tron ond arpre$ly .atrrvar ,ha right, in if! 1016 ditclcrion, to oppeol lronr ony
advcrse iudgmenl or ordcr.
Enatar or poyrnenl ond rnrn lna Lompony rt qurgqrco 19 poy.
Upoo thb ercrtira by #e Conrpony of thir option, oll liobility ond obligorions
to lh" inrured undsr lhis policy, olher lhon lo noke lhc foymcnl rcquirrd, rhqll
upoo tlre crcrtEa Dy tna LoBpeny or m|t oplron, olr ltoollfly odlt ootrgonons
to lh" inrured undsr lhis policy, olher lhon lo noke lhc poymcnl rcquirrd, rholl
irrnrinoti, rncluding any liqbiliry or abligqtion lo dcf!4d, pror..uls, or continvo
oal l;rigotnon. onJ the poliry rholl be rurreadctd to thc Can pony Io,
concollsfion.
lb) To ?oy .? (tlh.iwir. Sciflo lYirh ?crticr Ohrr lhod drc lrtultd ot
with'thr tmuid Cloimsnt.
(i) to pqy or olherwirc rcilla with othcr p6rti* for or in thc nome of on
inrurrd clqimonr ony clorm inwrrd ogoirul under lhir policy, logothct with ony
tojlr, ctfo.ngy{ leor ond erpenres incurrcd by thc inrorcd cloimont whici were
oulhorired by rhe Compony up ro ?ho rme 6{ pot'n€nr ond which rho Compony
ir obligotod fo por; or
(ii) 16 pdy or othcnvirr ranlo with the inrured cloimotrt lhc lort or ddm-
ogc proldcd lbr vndcr rhic polcy. togefher *ilh ony cort, oltornoyl'tcat ond
cipahrer incuned by thc rncu'ed clojmqnt thi(h wcre qutho/i.:od by tho Com-
pdnf up lo thc t,ms of poymsnt qnd which tho Cornpcny ir obligofrd lo poy.
Upon thc erercjt€ by the Coopqny ol oithGt of thc optionr pfovtd"d to. hi
porogrophi (b){i) or (ii), fhe Cornoony s obligorimr lo rha iorursd under thir F}ol'
icy fo, thc cloimcd lolr or donoge, other thqn tl'e Potmenl! required ro bc
nbde, rhcll ternrnote. including ony liobility or obligcrion b drfaad. prorccurc
or confinuc ony litigorion.7. DSrErilfiATbN. EnEM Ot UABIIIY ANo COlNSUtAllcC.
thir po{icy )r o (onlro?l o{ indrnnrty ogornll o<tvol nonilory lorl et dgrn'
aoa rutlattad or rnturrad by thr inrurcd cto,rrronl who hor svffgred lo$ gr dcrn-
aic by .coton o{ mqttGrc inrurrd ogoinrt by ttrir policY qnd only lo lh€ lrlcnt
hcroin drxlrbcd.
(conlinued and concludgd on le3t pag€ ql rhir policyl
f^.1irl1l Tl..|ile Ailrr CTIOI ll ATla.lllC A^^]\a'.da
l0l06/95 l6:07 TXIRX N0.1724 P.005 t
{continuad and concluded {rom revm ridc of Policy F*al
"r
-
(") ih; regirity ot rhr compqny vndee rhir ,"uo 3 erceed $n roq{
d,', ll?.f",ff,Jr",td,:,l#.qifr:;Y"f"l"tllfrilii-diEffi
(i) rhc Amounl of hruroncc rtottd in S<hcdutc A; or, h tstfrcci to the clqin hqd lhit.poliry,nor- b'en tsttldl It tFlfltT-:I':::l:I tiii ric d,f{c,o.rc bct rcn rhc volur ol thc insurcd c+totr or int f.rt o3 pony, thc irrsrcd cbi|noot rholl tronglcr to- thc conpony on frgNl qm tcmcsEs
;i,u,"a J# ii'l '"}'-,i liiffl'l;;':;i[;;il;".'i'iii,-'rli-" tiJ a't.ii-ir- ;;;ff;;il";; or pd'porty nctesrory in order to Perlcd lhir rishl ot tvb'e
ot "n uitron." in.ured ogninrl b thit policy.
lbt ln rhr cvcnr thr Amount ot lnruroK. rtorad in Sdrrdulr A d rh. tlot! o{ rqih in thq no"" oi rh. i*ui.O dqimont snd ro ilF ihc nomc ol lhc inrurcd
pdt ):i i:;:ff;U il;;;il;; vot,.rc ot rhr in'Jr.d crrorc o, ;nr.Jii rhl aoironi in-ony t'on3dction or litigolion invotving itge righls or rernedier. . .. -
i"-ff.!lU-".o*o" p-.'J6rltroiona, *rriit """, ;ir"o. o,if iuiroqL"i r"-irt" itiJ o poyri.nr oJ ooount oI o cloln docs nor fdlv covor rfir los of thc
;?'p]ii.;;;i;il,;;;;;;;;i ;;;rl r.J "-i'i.i rit.coii,'rrtc 'oruc oi *l inrurod rtiiniont. th! bi"iilv it'ott be rubroeorod ro rhla rioht ond nmedicr
;nrur.d
",tore
or inte.?ir by st teorr l0 percenr ovcr the Arnount of lmuroncs ia 6c proportion tiifr ffiit;;.ti p4tlnf besn io the-wholc ornounl ol
tmrcd in S.h"drh A. rhon drit Policy h rubieo m thc irllovingr tfr: los.- {i) whcre no rubreqscnt inlprovGmcnr hot bacn rrrodc, or to qry pgr. { lorr ftorrld resll lrom ony oc'l of lhe inrvnd cloimcnl. or doled obove'
riqt los, d; c;il; il;fi-n*i';dffi'il:';;;;;.T';i;;;p;i;--rtlith; rhor oo rtrilt nor 'oiJ rhir poriiy, bur the.compcnv, in rhof ovcn?, rhofl bc
c,,,qt,nr of imursnce or ocre or pol;.i-uco,"; ti;br;i ;fi;ii tir l"ir"i .iqL;,J iJ eqiij*y rhar [i a{'onv ]oY| '11ts:gf"ll!t^lltfry:},1i*oti or tntersl ot Dore of Policy; o. lholl cxccad thr omou t, il ont,.lot_ro lht LollP9nyPy faolon or tno rmPdrr-
(ii) r,hcr€ o rublcqucnr imirovcmcnr hcs been modc, or lo ony pcrlkrl ronr by $c iq:ured doiironro{ thc -cqpS{l:-ql:1lt 'yb.69olion'ro", *," Ei'fritty irr'"]i'"ili piiih" tors pro roro ;n rtu pmpocixr ifr[iiio tft t!* Corr?ory'r llghtl Aoohrt lJcninrurd obllcrn'
pcrcent of the Amount ot totu,on(o rrorcd in sdredute A bein ro rto tr.ir iii ik c;F;/t-;iitrr oLru.o6orion "goinrl
noninrwrd obligcn rlloll cxitl
lrnounr ot Inrwon(. itofcd in StrtJ-urii onl ;;;;;;;-da; 6; th; onO rtrotl ioOrhi'ri t;-'jr limitEtioi, rh! fig[t of thr lnrurud ro ind'mnithr, tuo-
rfitprOY FtlGfr',
fha orovirionr ol thir mroorooh rholl nor o9gly b c6lr, c ,o(ncta,lGGr ond tlont conrolncl in thosc inrlruncnlr which provide for :ubrogotion riglrtr by reo-
ffr:nk"*iiHff*nx':,l:15:l3l\1,#i.Tds*#* it llili'fl'Y*
l-rmrir ij rnru-n l i1oi"d in S.1"eut" A. Unlols pohbit.d by opplicoblc low, cithor thc Conpony orrhc inrurcd moy-icl n. 'i;iry rfll poy o.li *-. (o.rr, on6.n y!' Iea aad arprnn de;d oriilrotio, punlroiri toil e,titlc rryl9arlf{_,lottot tulrr o{ thr Aacti-
inqrrrcd in o*.otdoo(e wifh seslicn i ;i[;a;;;il;lia si p"r.i"; con Arbitrotioo Asrotiorbn. Arb roblc irofii.r '''ot inchda, but orc nol linilad
g. Apt(xllo mE L t6, oryy conroverry or clo;m betwrcn lhc cornlmny cnd lha in5u?cd otiting ouf oi
lf th. bnd drtttibld in Schcdulc A conrirh of two or non porcalr vfikfr ore oi rct6ring ro rhir'pdi.q' ony rnkc of th q?1rrPgll-t] -noactiolr vlth itt irtu-
^"r "J of" .i.gr. sif.. ond o toai-ir riioutirtrea olf.ding o;c ot ro16 oi iii on.. o, di. brcocfi of L policy provirion-or otlrer oHigorion- All orbitoblc mot'
oorcclr bur nor oll. tha lorr rholl bc ronpuicd ond !.it.d on o o. |€m 6;b ii tcn *hon tfic Arnosnt of insutcn<. ir tl,00o,000 or lrd rholl br oAirored ol lhr
fil;#;i;t ill'iilirli:ilirliiJl"r.y ""i i'"iiilie.o,ir[;;;-rh;;; gliion of eithcr rhr compony c, to^!"tcrC.1l|"'..qfablc nto ccr when tha
""
"o"i'J'?' iirf; oi i",t iipoiori pd..rt ro thc 'hota, r'duti,.';i;;i l-.ount'ot- tnturcncc ir in qicrr ol i1,000,000 rfioll be qrbhrqt# onlv whon
irnDrcEm./rrr rnodc tubtceucn1 rq ilotJor pou"v, urlr,,' o [otitiry ot -1|ii ogrorr ro by both thc €ompony ond thc inrured' Aflfirorion pe?tuad to lhis
;iffii-ilT:il'ilffi;ru;;.f il;t;iil;-d;#iliiiit+'iiii,'J piticy ond uidl rtrc tutc: ih cficaon rho dote thc--danrond r& orbitrqtion ir
ot lhe qme ol the i*uonc' ol rhit policy ond 't'i*i by on cJpt"it trort"m li iy "rodl ot' st the og'tion o{ tfre imurgd' t{re Rulcr in
'ff'Gt
af ool' of Poliv tholl
io "iao.r"irnr ono.hod ro rhir iolicy b" ii,'iii';G;" i["-PPlt:1]!:fY,11-1yi*9"-"-f11fj"-:1[1}1
9_ UtlI lloltl OF UAUUfy. ' low: ol rs itsle in which th. tond rl locot.d ptmrf o (oun m o1roro sflornlvr
(at l{ thc Co6oory ertobli:her rle rirle, or rrmov6 thc oltccd drhc, fcn fiii ro o priroiting po'ry. ludgtant uPcn rh't,o.otd rrndrrd bt rh. A6'110'
".' J;,ilL;;;;giii,6;i["-'i;.-i"j; ;r;'h;"i;;;;tni;l[.-1g;4, o. to(t-moy'b. r-nlatld in lny tor:rr hoyins iu?irdioion tfisrcor.
rur* rhe &im ot .,r*no,t4obilpv o{-it1i". ji;;il;if, i;;;;;fuaid; ' 'fhjlo* ol rha rir"r. of ihc lond sholl dpply lo on ottihotion undcr the Tiflc
;;.; b;;;t;.thoJ. iicludin'o iirioomn ond rha comlletbn of oav opic& lmuroncc Arbftrorion 8ul*
*,:i*ri*{:li;":;,:li.rifun*rl*{:,'lrl#'#'f ," ,.i'tffih" ,,. iitil# ff"*';'ffi'hffisi1l5sc+ifiisrsiffiiH"*' .""" ffi i;6"il;'1i liy'iiiffiii ffi;jil rirjifiii'[i-rti'a" ponr cr wtrh --
-tii-iNi euV rcecthar.with oll cador:cnrenrr, it oav' anochcd .he.cto V
fl,. i;id;;/, ;;ir, rt'. tiip-"ry iiirltl," io tLuilitl tirt rori * tJioii rhc Coirpony'ilhi rniirc oolkv ond conrmc bcrwccn rhc imrcd ond rhe cottt-
unfil rhcic hbr becn o tt.ot aorr-iioiiil'i;; #?'.fiil;t iirt-Ji.tit, fony. rniir.i.p'.riis ony i.o"iiion o{ rhir poticy, rhi: policr rholl b. con ruod ot
ond dirpoririorr ol all opprob thrrcfrom, odvcftc lo fh. titlc or intwrd, o thola,-'* [itf,:"c;;;;'fii'il-i; lioble lor torr or domoor to ony inrsrcd for (b) Any clqirn of los or donrogr, irh.tltor or not borcd on nogtiloncc. ond
tiobillni voluntolilf or.ivmad by the lolvrrd in reFling ony cldim or wh without tlu vhicli c?irer ost ol lh? rffw ot th+ ti " ic lha atlole o' |tfcr€f ootcrco n"r.Dt or
Jii3,lil"'lii.!^,1T;iliil;*. by oay odion osartire ruch doin, rholl b: rcrhktrd.ro thir policy. .i0. tED(rcIlol{ Of lNSUltl{G: lEDtJCIlOtt Of IBI|NAflON (c) lto onondmrnt of or.ndortomont to th'! Polgf con De nuo. tr(opr oy- fiF-fif-ifi*,- o rrtii'ng cndo'rd h-6r.or1 or ofiochod hrratg igricd 5y eirfic.r.tlc k?i&nt, d
iil i'oiillirt'una.. rhir policy, ."sopr pormcnh nodc lor co r. otrmryr' Vica friidini. tha Sotrclol, on Alli*orl Srritory, or volidoting ol{iccr ot
frcr ond riponrr, rholl rsducc lh? omouht of the ir'ruron<l pro tot|lo- gulholLl{r^1ltq9? ot ths lonPony.
I I ul&uw NoilclrHul rlYE. 16' SEYIIAD|UIY.
lt ir crDr.tdy und..rtood thdt thc omovm of i^rurcnc9 pndcr thir policy rhsll In tlrc oonl ony ptovirion ol thc.policy ir hcld invotd or ,rncnlotooblc under
b" ;ilT#?";'L]i'"Iiir'i tjii-pi;;;r-ff;;:;;; piilli6;"til; oppttoltcia.. rtro'poti<y oatt bc dooned pr-!o indudlhot proviion ond oll
;r;A;i;H',;';;r.d ltlil;iu'J'"i l'.'ca.oi'obnct rJ 6r itt" oihir provirionr sholl rcm'oin ;n lul {orcr ond offact.
,n u?.d dnd wn,cn ,! o cndro. o. licn on lhc c'tdli or inlcr& dorcribdd or 17. NOIIGEs' WHglt SCM'
'ii'",iiuii-1"'itli.a,jtr i'"=ititti iii"li * i"iJitt"fL";;;i;-;"yr*; All noliccirequirld to b: siwn lhc Cornpony qd onv totcmc''r in.,wririnq
ddc, rhb polrq to fio iniurud owner. rrquircd to bc (uoi'nhod rhc Cornpony rho[ indudlitc numbsr ol lh's poliq ond
ii. -nVlhff Ol Ois iio'ti uioid.ir.a ic rtre Con pcny A p.q. rox ?0?9, houlton. rcrct 77252.
tdt No lonrcnt rholl bc mcde withoi/r producrno rli: gdicy ior tndonr il[ ni po"i"t .g*m.a in.SchiaUe A ir thc ontire <ho.rgo lor. octcptoncc of
,,,.,*'il iri [frinj;; ;;t"; il'ilfu';;;[.j;l;;-*'ai-rrj,*-ji.--r'tf -- drL F initudo choisa {or titlc :aorch ond.crominorion il ronro ;t n domory ol
;;;i;i ilr'.;'j;;;;;;;-til;ii Ei'i.i ii-i.li t'i 'oijJJio,i ofth. c".p"'y. 'cquircd to be rhowi in fir $orc in {hi.h ih. Foltv i3 irq,.d.' tb) Whcn lielility ond th. crt nt o{ lon or dornogc ho: boon dolinitcly
{ixcd-in o<<crdoncc wit}r {rcrc Conditio^t ond Stipnlddon!, lfir lol or dcmcgrr
rholl bo oavoblc within 30 doyr thaootlrr.
13. suf,rdcATKril ufoll F{Ym$lr ol stttEmEilI.
{o) lhr Compony'r li3ht J Sublogolion.
ivhrnevrr thi Cohlon!:hsll hove le lcd ond poid o dcim uadrr lfiir pol-
iry. oll r(hr o{ rrrbrogoiion iholl ve:i in lhe Compony unof{rcttd by ony oct of
thc inrurcd doinonl.
t5'f F;\t',t ll'r Tr1l'LF:
(r lt aRIFTY (r()Xtr^rY
10/06/95 t6:07 TXIRX NO.l724 P.005
;,':..: i},i*!&:"'
r^w-J-Q6i
J0lni tic'i it i:!liLLlPs
EAC t-l CT'l.. i::i:(}0 n0ER
T(I JN IIdJSE DDCI-,:TATICT'I
for
Lt 9, Block 3
vail vi11a9e llth Filing
Eagle CowItY, Colorado
JirL Z.,q l0 ss frll '83
HLIEREAS, carl w. sr.rrmers ( "DecLarant" ) is the ovrner in fee sin'ple of
the fol-1o^ring described real estate ("subject propertv") situate in the
County of Eagle, State of Colorado to w-it:
I-otr g, Block 3
vail viilage lIth Filing' Accordilg to
the record6cl plat tlrereof, County of Ea91e and
State of Colorado.
WHEREAS, Declarant has cdrstructed on t}re sr:bject prcperty residenLial
inprovernents and associated fea:tures r.rtrich n'y 5" divided into tlro units:
VIIERFAS, Declarant w'ishes to prorride for separate onnerstr'ip of such
tnrits and ccnllpn onnership of the rqnairdng poreion of the subject prcPerty
and,certain separately cwned prcperEy, a party wall separating such urrits'
tnefootirrgsunderlyingsuchpartrywallarrdtheroofoveqsuchpartywall:
Nor, IIIER$ioRE, jn cgtsideration of t]re prernises, the Declararrt hereby
mkes, pr:blishes and declares the follcr.rjlg eassrEnts and restricLions wtt-ich
shall hereafter nrn r+ith tl.e lard ad be bindirq r4pon and inure to the
benefit of Declarant, fris hej:s, successors and assigns forever:
1. The subject, prcpert-v is hereL4z divided into tlrree parcels
as follcrrs:
Parcel A
Parcel B and
Parcel C
Such parcels being more particularly described in Exhilcit A aLtached lereto
and herebY made a Part hereof.
2. Tte subject prcperty, together with all i:rprcvenents tltereon, is
hereby divided into ttrc seParate estates as follols:
' Urdt A consisLing of Parcel-A together with all
jnprovenrents ttreieon (scnetjnes herein called an
.,apartrren!"), all easeJrents.ard rightsrcf-way
atrpurtenant iJrereto-as prwided herein and an
Gbiviaea one-tra1f intercst il and to Parcel C
tt
"t /.i t't',.
,'l\
i
In-ffiiifi
V-5'la
-
together r.rith the easernents and rights-of-way
appurtenant ttpreto.
ftnit B corsisLing of Parcel B together with all
inprorrenents thereon (scnetjrnes herein called an
"apartrelg"), all easrelrents and rightsrcfr,vay
aFpurtenant thereto as prorrided hereirt and an
. urdivided cne-half intenest in and to ParceI c
togetlrer with easenents and rights-of-way
appr:rtenant thereto.
3. Both such separate estates shall be held subject hereto and may
for all pur?oses be corveyed and described as Unit A and Unit B pursuant to
this Declaratior, respecLively. Such separate estates sha1l be inseparable
and Parcel A strall not be sr:bject to volurtary or invofunta4r ccnveyance
without the rypurtenant undividql jnterest in Parcel C nor shall Parce1 B
be subjecb to voluntaaar or inrroluntaqr con/eyance without the appurtenant
u:divided interest in Parcel C, nor slnll eitler urdivided jnterest in
Parcel C be subject to voluntary or involuntarlz conrJeyance without the
applicabJ.e Parcel A or Parcel B as the case may be.
4. 'olvr1trr" as used herein, unless a contrar]t intention clearly
appears, shalL nean either the party or parties hoj-ding title to ttnit A
or the party or parties holding.title to Unit B, as the case nEIy be ard
"ottrer o,,rner" shall rean the party or parties holding title to the other
such urdt.
5. The o'ners shall, at ttreir joint enpense (in the ratio of 508
to Unit B ard 50e to Unit B unless other prcportions are agoreed qlot for
parbicular uork frcrn tjnE to tjme), provide o<terior rnaintenance and
exEerior repair upon each apartnent and the unfuprwed portions of the
parcel r.pcn vfdctr tbe sare is located inc}ding, brt not United to,the
er<terior walls and the roof. If ttre need for repair is caused through
tle negligence or w:Lllful act of any svrner, h:ls fanrily, agent or invitee,
srrh ovmer stnll bear tlre entire costs of such repai-:c or reconstnrction.
6. Each o.iner shall be responsible for rnaintenance and repair of
tte inside of h-is aparqen'--t inclucling fixtures and inprwernents and all
ubility Lines and eguiprn:nt located ttrerein and senrilg such apartrtrent
qrly. In perforrning such mainterrance and repair, or in inproving or
alterilg his apartroent, no cf,^rner shall flo any act or work which inpairs the
structr:ral soundness of eitler apartrent or the party wall- or which
interferes with any eassrent granted q resenred herein.
-2
.,r-r-
-
7. Utility or service conneccions or lines, faci[ties or other
utility equiprent and prq:erty lccated in, on or r4)on either parcel, in any
aparbnent, oI h, trr or Lpon Parcel C which is used solely to $.pply a
seryic€ or utility to one aparllent sha1l be o,rned by the curner of the r.rnit
ccntaining the apartnrerrt using stnh ulility or sel:vice and all openses and
l:iabilities for rqair and nraintenance shalL be borne solely by the onner
of such unit, who shall have a perpetual eassrEnt ln and to that part of
zuch other rnit ccntajniag such prcperty as is reasonably necessary for
purposes of nraintenance, repair and ilspection.
'8. No crmer shal-L nrake or suffer any structural or design changes
(includirrg a color schgne clnnge) either permanent or ilpe:rnanent and of
any tlpe or nature whatever to tlre exterior of any inprcnrarent and of any
tlpe or nature whatever to tle exterior of any inprovanent on ttte subject
prcperty without obtaining the prior written ccnsent ttereto frcm the
otter crner. In case of danage to or destnrcLiqr of fuproranents ryplicable
to ttrit A on tlrrit B, tlre c!'nrer of the other r:nit may. with-in ten days of
such danrage or destnrction dsnand rqlair or recststmdion of the danaged
porbicn of zuch cordition as applied prior to the danage and if the
oiner of zuch danaged i-rqlrovanents does not ccnnrence such repair or
reccnstnrctior w:ithin 30 days, such other cetner m;Iy do so; provided,
ts,ltever, that such repai-r or recqtstrustion stnl1 not be udertaken
w'ithout prior notice to any holder of a recorded mortgage or deed of tnrst
enombering ttre inprovanrents danaged or destroyed and further prcvided
that such rnortgagee may by reasonable nolice, refuse to consent to srrch
repair or reconstruction. Co6ts Of any sr:ch rqair or reconstruction shall
be paid for by jnsr:rance appJ-icable to the danraged irrprcnrenents. If tlre
cost of repai.:c Or reconstruction er<ceeds such insurance, tle excess shall
be paid for hy the o'rner of ttre darraged irrprorrenents.
9. TtE said party wall (being tte fully enclosed wall placed
egually divided on a porEion of the ctnrnon bor:ndary of Parcels A ard B)
shal1 be csrstrued as a partft wall between such units under ttre laws of
the State of Colorado excet as qlecifically terein provided.
10. Each o,rner shall have a perpetrrat reciprocal eassnent irt and to
that part of the subject prcperty cwned by the ottrer cnner and on wtfch said
-3-
party r^,al-l is lrcated, for party walt,purposes, includilg maintenance,
repair ard inE>ectior.
11. The cost of nnintaining the party wall shall be borne equally
by both crtners except that maintenance, repair and decoration of the
surfaces bf such r,n1J. facjng either apartrnent, shall be the responsi-bi]:ity
of ttre o*ner of such aPartment.
L2. In ttre event of danage to or destruction of said party wall frcnt
any cause, the owners shall, at joint el<pense' repair or rebuild said
party wal-l, and each ohtner, hiS leirS, perSOnal representat5.ves r suCCessors
ard assigns, shall have the right to the full use of said party wall so
repaired and rebuilt. If the negligence of any o!,6er or parties cfairning
under him shall cause danage to or destruction of said party wa1}' such
negligent ir,srer shall bear ttre entire cost of such repair or rec€nstmction.
13. Each owner shall keep his apartnent and aII fj:<tures tlerein
insured agailst loss or danage tryr fire and extended c€verage periJ's
(incl"rding vandalign due to mallcious rnischief) for the ma11j1mm replacenent
rralue thereof . Any qvrler nay, at any Ljrne qre year or J-crger after the
last appraisal of tte sulcject EroPertlt, obtain a written appraisal
ttrereof frcrn a curpeterrt disinterested atrDraiser clrarging bottt crrmers
with the costs ttereof.
Each o,rner shal-l prorride and keep in force for the protection of
himse]r general public liabifity and prcperEy darnage irrsurance against
claims fon bodily injr-lcy q deatl or property darnage occu:ring in, on or
rpon Parcel C or any non-e:<clusive easeflent, in Umits of not less than
$300,000 in req>ect of bodily injury or deatfi to any nunber of persons
arising out of one acqident G disast€r' or for damage to prq>erty, and
if higher limits shal-l at at any tille be custqnary to protect against
possi.ble torE liability with reEEct to sirnilar prcperty in the Torm of
Vail, Colorado, such higher Emits shaLl be carzied.
Each cnrnrer shall be separately responsible for all insurancre corering
loss or damage to persoral prcperty rn his apartrnent ard iiability for
injr:r1r, deattr or darnage occrrrirrg jrrside his apartment, r4)on his parcel,
or deriving fron ariy o<clusive eassnent.
-4-
,1,
Each or.rmer shall deliver to the other o,mer certificates evidencing all
insurance required to be carried under ttris paragraph, each containilg
agneements by the insurers not to cancel or rodify ttre policies without
giving the other olrrter written notice of at Least 30 days. Each ourner
shall harre the right to inspect and copy all such insurance policies of the
otlrer crmer ard regr:ire evidence of the payment of premiuns thereon.
Nottring provided in th-is paragraph shal1 prevent the o,zners frcnt
jointly acquiring a single polic.y to cover any one or more of the hazards
reguired in this paragraph to be separately insured. against by each c,htner.
14. E:<cept as otherwise specifically provided in wriLing, each
o*ner shall be responsible for qre-half of all expenses, liabilities and
general pkeep responsibilities wittr respect to Parcel C ard all
inprorzenrents thereor. The cr'mers shall r:rdertake such landscaping and
general outdoon inprorenents as thelz may unanirnously deanr proper fc tl1e
harrurious'inprorrenent of Parcel C. Each ouner sha1l have equal reciprocal
rights to use Parcel- C fon the putpo"." of access, landseaping, gardening,
q)en s[]ace, recreaticn, ard parking; for aLl purposes reasonable wittr
respect to arryr easeflEnts, utility senrice lines or other rights inciderrt to
Parcel C; fc all ottrer reasonable pu4oses, and to enforce all
reasonable Urnitations on use there6f w:Lttrout hindering or encroaching
r4:on the laryful rights of the ortlrer crmer.
15. Ccnmcn utiliQr or sdnrice ccnnections or 1ines, cctnncn
facilities or other equiFnent and prcperty located in or on either
Parcrel A or Parcel B but used in cowpn with the other pa.rceJ-, if any,
stn1l be cmmed as tenants in qnrpn in eEral undivided one-halE interests
ty the q^rners of each unit and, except for any e)<pense or Liabilitlz caused
through the negligence or wilful act of any ovrner, Lt.is family, agent or
irnritee (wtrich shall be borne solely b]l such ormer), all elpenses and
liabilities concerned. with such prcperEy shall be shared prcporti-onately
with zuch cnrnership. lte ounren of the unit on which such property is not
located shall have a perpetual easenent in and to ttnt part of such other
urit cqttaining such prcperUy as is reasonably necessary for purposes of
naintenance, repair ard inspection.
16. Canncn parkirq and access facilities are currently located
on a porticnof Parcel C and may be revised, enlarged, or redrred in size
-5-
or soq)e and in location frcrn time to tjrlE as the orners nay
r:nanirncrsly agnee. The cniners shall have egual rights to ttre use of such
access and parking facilities and no ovmer shall hinder or permit his
iavitees to tliJrder reasonable ac€ss by ttte other cnvner and his jrvitees
to ttre buildirrg antl parking arieas, and further. no cr',ner shall take on
peunit his invitees to take more ttran one-ha1f of the parking sPac€s
frcnr tinre to tirne provided without the consent of the other cn'rter. Each
q/nrer may keep no more than T qars permanently on the pranises. D<terior
parking of boats trailens, can6Ers, AIVts, recreational vehicles or a
nrnber of cars in o<cess of tr,o fc each urrit is protdbited. Maintenance,
repa-ir e inprorrenent of srch parkjng and access facilities nay be
required frcrn tine to time, and ttre sanre shal1 be undertaken upon the
unanjmcus agresnent of the q^rners who shall- share all expenses equally'
trrless othenrise povided in writing.
n. the eassnents ard restrictiors hereby created shall run wittr
and bild the }and, for a terrn of 20 lears frcrn tlre date hereof , after
wlulch tjme (unless at least qre year previously revoked by all q,mers and
first rortgagees \l instn:ment in r,vritjng) they shall be desned to harre
accepted ttre sale with the urderstand:ing that he is bound tereby and
entitled tb the benefit hereofr.all to tlre sane e:<tent as tho4h such
person had signed this jastrunent. TtE undersigned, in er<ecutilg and
delivering deeds to the above stliect prcpertlz may provide, by reference
in said qsweyance, ttnt ttre sane are s:bject to the terms, conditiots.
resenraticns, restricticns and @\zenants herei.n contained, ard may
desigrnate the book and page of the record jn whictr tiris instnment is
reorded.
18. Ttese easgnents and restrictions may be anended or rerroked
cnly rrycn ttre recordilg of an instnment duly ocecuted and acJcrcofledged
by all of the tlren recond q^/ners of the subject property and alL holders
of recorded first nrcrtgages or deeds of lnrst thereon.
19. If any provision of this instrtment or any section, sertence,
clause, plrase, or word. or ttre application thereof in any circrimstance,
is held invatd, the vaLidity of the rsnainder of this j-nstnnent and of
ttre application of any such provision, sentencer cJ-ause, phrase, or word,
or the applicatior thereof in any cirqnnstance' is held invalid, the
validity of ttre rgnainder of ttris jlstnment and of the apptication of
-6-
of any sr-lch prwision, sentence, clause' phrase, or v'prk il any other
ci-rcunstance sha1l not be affected ttrebry.
20. Any disputes arisirrg hereunder, not othenpise settled,
shall be settled by arbitration as follours: ttrc party or parties
clajrning any relief shall give roritten notice to any Party or parties
of whcm relief is clajrned specifying generally the relief clajrned and
the circr.unstances underlying such clairn and providing tlp neane and address
of sqne jndividual, not a partlt to the dispute, seLected by zuctr clairnant
as arbitratc to settle zuch dispute; within ten days after such notice,
tle party or parties of whcnr relief is clai:red sha1l girrc r^ritten notice
to zuch clairnant ard to sueh arbitrator of the nane and address of scrne
irdividual noE a party to the dispute, selected by zuch party or parties
of whcm relief is clained as arbitrator to settle such dispute; if
such traro arbitrators are rrtable to nnke an award settling tJ:e 4ispute
wittlin ten days of ttre noLice appointing such second arbitrator (r-rrless
both such arbitrators agree on an e:<tensicn of a ftrrther reasonabl-e
tfuie, in which case, if at the o<piration of such further time they have
been r.rnable to make an al'rard settliag the dispute) such arbitrators
strall, by notice in r^ritirg to all parties to the dispute, prwide the
nane and address of a third jndividual, not a party to the diq>ute, who
shall alone, by notice in writing to the parties, within ten days of
zuch appointnrent rnake his award settling ttre dispute. tlnless scne otter
al-location is prorided pr,rrs:ant.* *u above arbitration, each parW to
such dispute shall in equal- shares, rejrnburse such arbitrators for the
reasonable fees, costs and elpenses, including attorneyrs fees.
2I. Any cr,rner shall have ttre right to enfcrce, by any proceedirg
at l*r or inequity, alL restrictsicns, candiLiqls, covertants, Ilens and
charges nov or hereafter inposecl pursuant to this Decla;aticn; any c,vJner
recwering ir full the rel-ief requested shall be entitled to juiEnent
for all costs and reasqrable attorney fees o<perrded in pursrrit thereof.
Failure by any q^rner to errforce any c€\renant or restriction herein
contained shal1 in no event be deqned a waiver of the right to do so
ttereafter.
22. All qmers of any irtterest in the subject Property by arcepting
by accepting a deed to any interest thereto waive the hcnestead e<anption
or any otlrer o<erption of the lavrs of tlre State of Colorado or any federal
I
-7-
,
Law orly as it relates to any lien filed by any cb/ner pursuant to this
Declaration. ottrenarise such e><grptions are not tereby waived.
23. If an q.rner, at any tlme, shall neglect or refuse to perform
or pay his share of any obligalicar required hereunder, tle other crrner
nay, but shaLl not be obligated to, after l0 days r+ritten notice (unless
ttre circunstances reguire innediate aqtion), make such paynent, or' ql
behalf of such ottrer cb,ner, eq>end such sm as Inay be necessarlz to
perfcrnr such obligaticn ilcludihg, but not 1imited to, tle paynent of
any insurance pranrir.uns required hereunden or the undertalcing of any wwk
reguired hereurder for repair, restoration or maintenance, and such other
qner shalL have an easetrEnt in arrd to that part of zuch defaulting
ctuner's urit as is reasorabty necessarlt for such repair, restoration or
naintenance.
A11 suns so paid or e<pended by an cr"ner' inch:dilg reasonable
attorney fees incr.rrred in crcnnectiqt therq,rrith, costs ard injunclicn
bond pranr:lunrs, if any, wittr interest thereon at the rate of 12 percent
per lear frcrn ttre date of such palment or e><penditure, shall be payable
by the cn/ner so failirg to perfcnr (the"defaultiag crrner") r.pon danand
of the other q'rner
AJ-l sums so dsnanded but unpaid hy the defaulting o,mer shall
ccnstitute a lien on the r:nit of the defaulting cwner jn favor of the
other owrrer prior to all othen'Liens and enqmbrances, except: (i)
Iiens for tarces and special assessnents; and (ii) the lien of any first
nrrtgage or first deed of trust of recond encwnbering such un-it. The
lien shall attach frcrn the date when the unpaid sun shall beccrne due and
may be foreclosed in like rnanner as a nortgage on real- pr@ertlt tpon the
recording of a notice or clairn thereo'f ocecuted bV the ndndefaulting
omer setting forth ttre ernrcunt of the urpaid indebtedness, the nanre of the
defaulting cr^rner, and a description of the r:nit. In any such foreclosure,
the defauLting o'rner sha1l be regtrired to pay ttre costs and extrlenses
of such proceedings, including reasonable attorneyrs fees.
fn case of sale or oLher t:ansfer of a unit rvith req>ect to which sr.rns
shall be unpaid by a defaulting o,,ner, eccept transfers to a fi-rst
lienor in connection with a foreclosure of its lien or a sale in lieu
of such foreclosure, ttre purchaser or other transferee of an interest
in srch unit shall be jointly ard severally li-abJ-e with ttre sel1er or
-8-
J
transferor ttereof for such unpaid surns.
lJpon r^rritten request of any cr,lner, nortgaqee, prospective rnortgagee,
purchaser or other prospective transferee of a unit, the cnner of ttte
otler trnit shall issue a r,'ritten statsnent setting forth the anount he
is q,red under ttris paragraph, if any, with respecL to such writ. Such
staterent is bilding upon the executing ovner in favor of any person who
nay rely ttrereon in gcod faith. Unless a reguest for such statslent
shall be conplied witJl witluin fifteen days after receipt thereof, all
rrrpaid suns wtrich becanre due prior to the date of making zuch request
shaLl be'subordinated to the Li€n or other interest of the person
requesting srch staternent. lltre existence of a recorded notice of llen,
hcnaever, shall constitute notice to prospective purchaser of a claim by
an cr^rner and shall not be affected by the foregoing request for information.
24. Each qnner shal1 register its rnailing address r,rittr ttre ottrer
cnner and all- notices c demands jnterded to be serrred q>on anners shal.l
be sent by certified mai1, trnstage prepaid, addressed i:r the nane of ttre
orner at such registered nrailing address. In the alternative, notices
may be delivered, if in writing, perscnally to cn'nrers. Notices shall be
effective cr receipt.
25. If any encroacfment, tV the inprwements nGlocated on ttre
the sulcject prcperty, c any minor encroachrent deriving frcm replacernent
tterefc and for nraintenance ttereof shall ocist
26. No "tine sharing", ninter:\ral o,vnership" or sirnilar interests,
whereby' onnenstuip of a r.urit is strared Lryz o,vners on a time basis, shall
be established cn the sulcject ptqerty without the prior wsitten apprwal
of all cbiners and first rprtgagees of the s-rpject prcperty at such tjne,
which qprwat shall be reflected in a docurnent of record.
27. Dccept for itgns incrrred as a ccrmlcn expense as provided
for herein, if any clamer shall cause any nraterial to be furnished to
his unit or any labor to be perforrned therein or ttereon, ttre other
ovner and his unit shall not r-nrder any cjrcunstances be liable for the
payment of any eleense incrrrred or fon the value of any work done or
material furnished; all such vrork shall be at the o(pense of the crner
causing it to be done, and such ovrner shall be solely responsible to
cdrtractors, laborers, rnaterialnen and ottrer persons furnishilg labor
or naterials to tr-is unit,.
-9-
E<cept as provided herein with respect to an c&.rner's right to a
Iien on the other crrner's unit, if, because of any act or crnission of any
chtner, any nechanicrs or other involwtary lien on order for pa1ment. of
nonel1 shall be filed against Palrel C or against any ottrer ourner's
urit on against any other crlner) whether or not such lien or order is
vaLid or enforceable as such), ttre o,ner whose act or crnission forrns tle
basis for such lien or order shall at his c*n cost and e:<pense cause tlte
sane to be cancelled and discharged of record or bonded by srrety
cqlpan]t reasonably acceptabl-e to such other o!.rner, within 20 days after
the date of filing thereof, and fi-rrther shall indemrify and save the
other qnrnen harmless frcrn and against any and all costs, e>q)e!'rses,
clajms, losses or damages, indhxting reasonable attorneyrs fees resulting
therefrcrn.
28. No exteric nounted radio, shortlvave, television or other
tlpe of antenna whatsoever or tank of any kind, either elevated or
hrried, or clothesline on incinerator of any klnd whatsoever or outside
storage of any personal prcperty sball be penr[tted or maintained car t]re
subject prcperty srittput the prior lvritten approval of bottr Grners.
29. . No animals shall be kept or maintained in, on or r4>on the
subject property, except t}at eAch csnrer rnEry keep and naixtain within
his apartnent one dcnesLicated dog andr/or one dcrnesti-cated cat; provided,
ho,ever, that strch dcnesticated animals are kept r:nder control at all;
tires and do not present a nuisance to the other cr,\rner.
30. Each unit shall be restricted to a single farnily residential
dr,velling as a permitted use, and cpnditional and accessory uses shall be
as defined by ttre Toem of Vail Zoniag Gdinance.
31. No cwner nay convey or lease (for a term in excess of 180 days)
all or any part of his unit witlrout previously having offered the sanre to
ttre other c[^rner. tJpor recreipt by the selling oruner of an ececuted offer
to pr:rchase c 1ease, the selling chrner, in order to ccnplete such sale,
rmst provide to the otler qmrer a ccpy of such offer and the otlrer cnnner
shall thereafter have twenty days within which, by notice in wciting to
tte sellirrg cnner, to undertake to purchase or lease the unit on the sane
terms, corrclitions as such offer, except that if the offer preoses ctosing
-10-
,
to occr:r less than 60 days after notice to such otlrer crumer, the other
qnrer rnEry in his notice of accqltance dgnand and shalL be granted an
er<tension of closJng 14> to such sixtiettr day. IJpor expiration of troenty
days fron receipt of notice of the offer, the cr,rner shall conclusively
be deqnetl to have walved his rights hereunder (with respect only to the
particular offer of which notice was given) ard sale c lease pursuant
to such offer may be effected as therein provided.
If not otheffise satj-sfactorily proven, a selling onnrer may prbve
ccnpliance lrereradth bV his certificate (1) that notice was rnailed to
the otter c&ner at the address thereof last )orcrn to the selling o,vner
and at the address last strolrring at recprd, specifying both, and (2) of
the day of suctr mailing. Attached to such certificate sha1l be ccpies of
U.S. Postal Service (or its zucessor) docunents sturring such mailing,
ttte date of receipt ttrereof or ttre fact of non acceptance tiereof and a
date thereforr each such date shaLL be at, least 20 days prior to zuch
qertificate by tlre selling crner.
32. Any e<ercise of any right granted herer:nden by ore o'ner
with respect to ttre otlrer cr,nrerrs trnit includlng but not limited to ttre
use of any easqnent granted tercin shall be er<ercised jn a manner
dtich shall- not unreasornbly hinder, fupede or irpose r.pon such ottrer
q,,trrerrs use of lr-is r:nit.
33. Except as ottrerwise'provided herein, t}uis Declaralion shaLl
be binding rpor and shall- inr:re to tlre benefit of Decl-arant and each
o'rner and the hejrs, personal nepresentatives, successors ard assigns
of each.
34. When necessary for prqerty construction, the rnascrrlile of
any word used in this Declaratiqr shall include the feminne or neuter
gender, aria tfe singular the plural, and vice versa.
-11-
J' J, OO
I{J J
,.rhtt.,'1#
2S. iri ,s 7
?AGE
AI.'{ENDMENT
TO
TOI,IN IIOUSE DECLAMTION
For
Lot 9, Block 3
Vatl V111age llth Flllng
Eagle County, Colorado
,i,ll'l!' ;+ I :', ii ?.ihit'-
Sir Z$ ll ru il{'83
L7. The easements and restrlctLons hereby created shall run wlth and blnd
the land, for a term of 20 years frorn the date hereof, after whlch time
(unless at least one year prevlouely revoked by al-l onners and fLrst
mortgagees by lnstrunent ln wrltlng) they shall autornatically be extended
for flve successLve periods (wlth s{ni1ar revocatlon rlghts) of ten years
each. Each and every person acceptlng by deed or otherwLse any portion of
the subJect property shal-l be deemed to have accepted Ehe same wlth the
understandlng that he is bound hereby and entltled to the beneflt hereof,
all to the same extent as though such person had signed thls lnstrument.
The underslgned, ln executlng and dellverlng deeds to the above subJect
property may provLde, by reference in sald conveyances, that the same are
subJect to the terms, condLtLons, reservations, restrlctions and covenants
hereLn contained, and may desLgnate the book and page of the record 1n
whtch this instrument is recorded.
25. If any encroachment by the improvements not located on the
subJ ect property, or any minor encroachment derlvlng from replacement
thereof, exists upon arry parceJ., a valld easement. therefor and for
maLntenance thereof shal1 exLst.
f
.)
IN Wt.INESS WIIEREOF,
:':
'1,
the rrnders ignetl
o
execuEed thls lnstrument thlshas
))ss
)
Carl W. s rfimers,
was acknowledged before ne t
$-ry--, By carl w. sunmers'
r,r"J;4-
Jr.day of JA
l{ltness my hand and offlclaL seal.
.-Jfl10", "t--J*{*- - ... . -,reg51.4
STATE OF COI,OR/\DO
County of Eagl.e
The foregoing lnstrurnent
;
\
Profecl Application
Project Name:
Project Description:
Contact Person and Phone
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and Phone:
erock 3 , r,,,nn U. \J. [\[ ,.o""
r, i;rt l-,f' \
Design Review Board L \</fr.'1Detc@
Motion by: J"^4
seconded r' 6t''n\hM
APPROVAL .r nt{- r I
OISAPPROVAL
E statt Approval
orr,-rro{ron
FOR PROPERTIES IN
o
FOR AOOITIONAL GRFA
E)(CESS OF ALLOI.'ABLE GRFA
Date of Appt ication-.,Qffu!1f1frf
Date of Dat ueetins 2/tOlg1
A pre-application conference with a member of the planning staff is stronglyencouraged to discuss the provisions under wrrictr-aloilionif enfn can Ue JiAIOto a site' It should be uirderstooa-ttrit_tnir o"oini'ii"-ii.r not assure each properryan additionar 250 square feet of GRFA. Rather, ttre-oriinini" iir*i-i;r !g16'250 square feet if certain conditions are mer.
Applications for additions under this section will not be accepted unless therare comp'l ete' This includes all inrJrritlon required on this form as vlell as-Design Review Board submittar requirar"ntr. r) rvr'r d) vrerr ds
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
l.LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
.)
Address
Legal Description: t_ot ? glock-*3_Fllin1
Zone Oistri r, Z FAnity FreroA-tT-l^t_ ( e)
c.NME 0F APPLTCANTz D/Arte' Ht *He+
Add"""t hone2t4Szl 6161
D. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATWt: f,Ju_u/ayn Qr-r p
Add""r, hone-47,-L_6ZZ_
r. NAl.tE 0F 0ilNER(S);
** Signature(s) ,
Address
F. Fi I ing Fee of $100.00 is required at time of submittal
The foll.o*ilg'information, ln addition to DRB submittar requirements, shalr bercquired with this submittal:
l. 'Yerification that the unit has received a fina'r certificate of occupancy.2' l{ames and mailing addresses of adjacent property owriers and of owners of
li:::r3l,lniriii!.t.r. rhis inrormation is'ivi-rrioi. i"o'-*re iigii'cirntv
3.
{.
Condominium association approval (if appl icable).
Existing floor plan of structure.
PROJECT:
DESCRI PTION :
ADDRESS:
SCRIPTION OF
LIST OF MATERIALS
The following information is required for submittal by the applicant to the Design Review
Board before a final approval can be fiven:
A. BUILDING MATERIALS: TYPE OF MATERIAL COLOR
Roof
S'idi ng
0ther I'lal l Materials
.2., | '/E ,' l. ,-
/t
Fasci a
Soffi ts
l,|i ndows
}lindow Trim
, Doo,nsI tr[|
Door Trim
Hand or. Deck Rails
Fl ues
Fl ashi ngs
Chi mneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
0thcr
,t,!Ntzrlt auoaQ
I r tlN onr2
tl -.^ ttl, IA,4.f)
I I rrl, l44r-
zlt P,a= tt
tt/l^J" ,-' /4)tz-<cct t
/-.vt*r.
-ANDSCAPINGI Name of Designer:
phone:
Botanica'l NamePLANT I'IATERIALS:
]
PROPOSED TREES
IXiSTING TREES TO
8E REMOVED
Common Name Quani ty Slze*
fb
Indicate he'ight for conifers.
(over)
Irlnllcate calipe' for deciducious trees.
;,Qd R,q\oc Nhi*,l'|tr1 u
, U'l
rk uio^i, r'+snr'{-[
secondary enrn 5D?e ({/EST fr31_,r
Setbacks: Front
Sides
Rear
}Jater Course
1l\Site Coverage , o(LJ
Landscapi ng
Fence/Reta i ni.ng tllnl I
Parki ng
Credi ts : Garage
itlii ommmrrm-mr I Btock -3 Fiting
ADDRESS:
Ot,lNER
ARcHt ttcT ----------- phone
ZONE DIST
DISTRICTS
PROPOSED USE
LOT SIZE
Hei ght
Total GRFA
ZONE CHECK
FOR
SFR, R, R P/S ZONE
Al I owed
(:011311
20'
15'
15'
( 30) (50)
Proposed
Primary GRFAtd% S4JT
&"tt*, *t
t,t)1. f 8]is
ll98_a1fr_UA m,*.a"v. UJffis )/ffi)
r.f.
Heights
(300)(600)
(eoo)(1200)
(50) ( 1oo)
(zs115e1
(2oo)(4oo)
All-);,
,#4,
fD
wwrt
wa&
Mechani cal
Ai rl ock
Storage
Solar Heat
Drive: Slope Permitted
Envi ronmental /Hazards :
Comments:
lq3
If
o/o :
Aval anche
Slope Actual
Flood Plain frL
Slope
-'|rJetl ands
Geologic Hazards
Zoning: Approved/Disapproved
Date:
)f,aTT Srgnature
o wg-5{sr)ffTb
DATE susrllileo' t/ l./61=
cor'.,'4ENTS NEEDED AV,-arl-fi184
ERIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
o,tZrL-/E7 -
lVO Co.tr,1,3_7,g- ry /t ry
U
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Conments:
Date
POLICE DEPARTI4ENT
Revier'red by:
Comnerrts:
Rev i ewed .by:
Co;;ents:
REC i;EATi OI,I DiPARTHiNT
Date
Date
DCg a-ls'-
PUBLIC NOTICE
NorrcE rs HEREBY crvEN that the Design Review Board of the
Town of vair wilL hord a pubric hearing on February i.5, 1989 at
3:O0 PM in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
1. A request for additional gross residentiar floor area under
the 250 ordj.nance for Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village ltth.
Applicant: Diane Hughes
2. A request for a satellite dish to be located at VaiI Run
Resort.
Applicant: Ciscorp
The applications and information about the proposals are
available in the zoning adrninistrator's office during regular
office hours for public inspection.
TOWN OF VAIL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Published in the VaiI TraiL on January 27, 1989.
frn!sn,{4 f3,1r.i;" i,r.: 1:
I
Tom dcrima
31104 Tvin falls
Vail.Colorado 81657
(303)476-1040
'-r i.i -.:'fl
TO: BESIGI.i REVIEhi Bi-]APD TCIWN I-JF VAiL
RE: PROFSSED E,{PAi.iSII]ii !F }"/'iTLLi]\iG i]I{ LiJT E, ELNTH 3, VA;L I.TiLLAGE
I 1i.h FILING. BI./NER DIANE HU6HE5
Desr Erlarri l'lemi,eri,
I am lhe Dlyner nl the eilsl hsli ;i t-he dr.:pler: shswn above. tsU rii'l-re ri thE
l-!'rYnh[uge rgreemenl L:u{r-]ililr1 this pr-r:pertu eEch Dryner muxt gl '+e rTri ti.en
consent f or arrg e;ctericr rhwges.
Fnrl'r'-o,i ic r rnn', -f thr :r:rrClnnni.t*nr:c whif l., SetS tne tefi.ns Ci Brtf
It]nsenl. i heve recieveri verbei appr';val of ltiere t,:riii: ir;rir iir; nuqhus bi.ri
at 0f get have nr-rt SEen the plans flr appi-rrval iri- i-Etisr'erj i'iij 'r.+-;ir
ackn0wlerlgemEnl. nf t-tte ffr:teFl-anc* r-rf t-he ter!'i;r ui ine,:iirji!liEil letier i.lf
n,qreement. Untii sarrie ig drrne | fi,1,/e rrir allerriati+e brrt-',.,; pusi liiil '.rbiecitoriio anu charrges.
ifeel confident this'rviii sE resulveri:;tiurii'l bLit rreert t* rlrr irn recsrri wit-h
guu until il- is.
Thanks for usur consideratton.
Or/*9''*^
tarulrne Scrirnn
Klt$l;
Tom dcrima
1 -.1 7- j:i,.i
D+ar Drane
i hop+ this letler liiide ;'rc;-t and i'+ur: t'"'+li.
I r+ci+r+d trrday rutlic+ frr.rrn lhe tt-rl^ffr 0f i+r:r pla.nS t+ +ipa.td irot-tr ii,im+ irr
Vail. As we discussed witi pour agent prior t^: your purchas+ '/,re lial'e rio
+biecti+ns under orj.r b]'c?ttli0li:+ agi++tij*Iii i,'r;''ii.Jeri tl:+ i+1ir.i'.,',.:ing tr:
agr+eabl+ t+ yorr,
-V,ie aFprfiIIF isrrf Flin'-1. '-laid ai'pr'rtai ti+t b; be Unr+aS+rrabii,' i':iii h+iJ
-yotr hav+ a p+nalilr clause wf.h ''1p5r.'nintreiit:r strptrlntllg that lli +:lr;riiir
worF. slrall be complebe ','"rtf,ritr tffiays f1,in'1 sl;.'rtt. i :;;gB+sr.; $i[,i pyi ,:.lai
Feflalty payable h; y+u. Ttrings tp her+ ig1fl f.'; iJrag +n arid i.ln 'ririi::riui;uifi
a claug+ and qualitir c+ntractors don't obi+cl to tlus
-you agree f* gi',re nle .3.pFro''/al ui ltre +vent i +irlzr,ii rril,' ii:;ii.+ti iii g;.i'ag+
and y+u. agr++ to alk1w m+ +,;:: t3:;+ t:F f.:: I 5i s,:lu.J r+ f++t- +i li'iii-:i 3;-i'-'1.r.: *
footag+ and or ground coverag+ allor'uanc+ il n++d+d arrd if -I,'nu fiarl* sar.{e
available af br yotir garage -b+,Ir(ii;ffi +h?alltirrii.
-on both L''r +ith+f e:pansion i're nrrltlall'f agr++. f+r 1.1:e qui+: +rii+;,'nr+nl: +i
trur Froterfies, lfiat ro vrr.'fk sha.li lregin befitre i1._1i) a:n +f {l'ifiijfirj.+ pa.si l:.ilit
MIlr.
i nop* this all rnakes sense tc irol1. I would h3.t16 hlisri i;l siri-ri.:*l: !;r l,rtllJ.
abouf this persoua.llil tiut urrf+rfurraf+ly ihe t*'wrr's n')tic* arriir*'j Uriiir f.s6s;
bef+r+ rnle are t+ i+;l'*e f+r a trif-r tqr H4.1,'*ra.ii. S,r+ vdli tle fi;:1ill: :-i.:1-'3'+ ii -t'+t
have any questions
If a1lis agreeable plea:+ dale an,J sign bel+w.
$(
C6'* So"^"--
BESTCOPY
AlAlLtgtE
311OA Tvin fallo
Vail.Colorado 81657
(303)426-1040
HUGHES ADDITION
r,oT 9, Br.,,ocK 3, vArL vrLraGE LlTH
February l-, l-989
I.ZONE DUPI,EX
II. Allowed GRFA: 3949 s.f.
East Unit Existing GRFA:
West Unit Existing cRFA:1st level
2nd levelTotal Exlsting GRFA
Proposed Addition:lst level
2nd level
Existing GRFA+ Addition
Total GRFA
Mechanical
storageStai.r
GRFA Ex. + Proposed - Credits
Allowable GRFA
Ordinance #4 for 250 s.f.
GRFA Proposed Under Ord. 4
GRFA Remaining Under ord. 4
L974.5 s.f.
824 s. f.752 s.f.
L5'76 s. f .
287
629
s. f.
s. f.
916
L576 s. f.+91-6 s. f .
2492 s. f.
2492 s. f.
- 50 s.f.
-L93 s. f.
- 58 s.f.2L9L s.f.
2L9I s.f.
t974.5 s.f .
2L5.5 s.f.
250 s. f.
-216.5 s.f.
33.5 s.f.
O O {n}rrr}aa*
. t ---)fU6tt6 f1re,@taLor a, fro& 3, (,+'t't- V/LL.+6E 'l7H Fttt^ta
VntL 14,
Lter ar ,&J,leqr ftoeryY Orat*.
Lor a,'l-oT- -T 1d'-L4Ot v V 3,&t "' ( Et247 glee)
6:4Pe.ie A.F/rnA
A .1-r ', /a a^--.-1
. r-1.4 tt44-. e- ' ^ t-.. . a. .
a//a A ru/N Far-6' (tum erer-) 'vt 'v
Vniu )4. B/a67Vniu )4. B/a6+
l-o16, 6cpe- =, V/lJ*
V.+it-,Co. BraT
J}, etn ownta s pot-rcv
SC I trr
Order No.:
4154-V
SCHEDULE A
3. Tltle to the estate or Interest In.the land ls vested In:
DI-{!IE t(. HUGHES, KEIIDeLL K. BUrr.rrt Nrn
Policv No.:' o-99+t -2t:r03?
Amount of lnsurance: SDate of Poli"Y' -seFtenber rg, lggg At L0: 34 A,11
l. Name of lnsured:
DIAI'IE r. HUCdEF, tm{DAtt X. BIJFJ{E! Arifi lilnc E. HTjGHES
2. The estate or Interost In the land whlch ls covered by this policy is:
HEE SIHPLE
332,5r1(r.00
rITG E. }TI-'GHES
4.The land referred to in this policy is described asltq$ows'
FARCEL 8, \\together srittr an undlvlded 1 fnte\,it 1n and
CAS.L SLIH},TERS DT'PLE}.: \According to the pla$rgcorded iluty\.a, tge3age 70€. as Reception \,:\ ZiLO3Z.
aIlTHnp TTFn frntftrtrrp c rrarrtr'firrDtr
F}NCEL C,
Book 36{ at
STTE\fAR.TTITLB
GOAt,^||tt colt^xt
to
1n
COOE 612 (F.v. GrED Paoe 2
ALTA OWNER'S POLICY
ORDEP tto. r 4154-V SCHEDUTE B
Policy No.:
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the company will not pay
fees or expenses| which arise by reason of:
1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which
a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the
public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material herelofore or hereafter furnished,
imposed by law and not shown by rhe public records.5. Any and all unFiid taxes and assessuenr-E ar'ii s-!'.j'unue'i€€rn€d
tae sales.
:i-;J;Jtl-.'l'.ll't!
co'sts, btl6rnEys- '- -
5.
7.
Ttre effect of incluslens tn an1' gen€ral c.s iFeciflc watet-
conservanL-y, f 1re protection, soil ao.rusg r;4tio!'r o!' ?tLr?L-distrlct or lneluslcn Ln any e{ateu servlce pr streetlnprcvenentarea. \ \ \(-. \ \ \Right,of Propriet$r'iof a veln or lode to extr3ct and r€ni,--r',.'e hi;
ore ttrerefrcn shorlld tte san€ be for-uid to peneirat€ ,:'r'
lnteriect the
record.
\B. Rlght cif iwafof the United
rec,3rc.
preniEFs as re-:err,td 1n l.inited States Fat*ni ':'iIi\t\\../for dltches or canals constr'ucteC t'i the luli'i.:rlti'
Scates, as r€served ln Onite{ Stai€s Fatent if
9. Festrictions whlch do nat c6nr,ai.n a forfeitri!'E ol- revrrterclause. but onitting restrlctior-rs, if an1, iasi ,-rrr ra:€, cc'}ar/re1lgion, or natlonal c'rlgln, as containe,i. irr i!'lntrumeni
recc,rded ln Brol:2?I at Pag: 14t1 , and ae-ienCei ty inslrunent
recorded lrr Eook 254 aE Fage S65.
10. Utllity and drainf,g€ easen€nts as lho,.Irr orr th€ Flat of eals
sub-dirrlsion irr lnstrutnent recorde.l in Bc.:'!: 2?1 at Pag: i4i Es
Receptj.on Na. 116815.
11. Terns, condltions, restrictlons and stif-'ul;.(i:,ns ag c.ntaine.-iin fo'^,r-rhouse Declaration recor.led, .?u1), l,-t, 1-.r8,: ln E:.,;1.: :rr,,ri at:
Fage 70€ as Receptir-'n Nr-r. ?€'iCl1 anci as ani:ndea h.; .Fnr:nlirn*rit
reccrdeil, Septenber ?4, L98? in E:ck 3,;9 ai Erol:1?I a.e
Reception lJo. 265497.
12. Easements., restrictions &rr,l rigiris-c.f-rrais 1s shc+rr-r:.n the Flafof FIs.t of Carl Sunmers Buplex recnl:de.C ,ruit ii3, l!$i in B:nl:i64 at Fage 707 as F.eceFtion llc'. 261li,-a2.
STE\vART TITLH
OI'ANAXTY COXPA!IYlev 6 871 Page 3
='f ,'ftt
5,4" n*^-..-) ,,(R r/ y't* L? ss
'#-\))*hf 4 Y t1"r
Ptw\ -
ffi a, y'. C'otz++y-
'3-s-/
-2 J-a
.'-..--........-vr,/
I
7r o
lrb I
t J.
.P *? /f?'r J;4, sft ,a 4'/-V,, 1 vn\- c-z_j
,.)[,/ 4ry* L? is'r
S-lLjlL
/e Yt t-
e )" \
f,4'J
'f ,'ltl hf 4
ltu,
"t'iCr*.'-
'ii'ffit o'y'' cbt'P''ual< /r
ll zr't) * ^Jtr',' ,
ii (+ 'u' /"''/''r'az')
S,
'5-s-l r. J,
-) -sn
v/, 1
I
?r o
.r_\ f
I f? 3 (4, tri U ->12:, ! (,,^v\ <-a-
) ''\
75 south fronlage roed
Yall, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
Town of Vail Zone Check:L2l3L/85: Kristan Pritz
1978 allowed GRFA
1795 actua'l GRFA' f83-r€liffis-
'182 bedroon. sunroorn. closet addition
aPProved 12/3L/85 if built
' East Unit:
/24e-
U^|L'
West Unit:
S'i te
rO1V
. \ ..'' s
-,/')
1978 allowed GRFA
1427 Existinq GRFA
-551 4;f . Rema ining GRFA
Coverage:
3411 :a'llowed
>-q e3 *3084'5 existing-ffiremaffim's
-1€&O addition approved 12/31/85 r addition is built
.l t 9s1 ilPt-a-
V,^ lr4 )II tlo Itt
.lAt,{,^fe.t,s€tr 1\,,[ao
SDnfo."rn /baAn"-''-'
ttc># \.'t^t adA'[""r
-' (t ..1€5 3f feu'"'^r n r *e\
RFf;
Wo'f ,
>oo
* tl
0t
+^ ?L L'r q e ,,r(
[h",{, {- -*L ,, q.- !f(n,,*
G llep Aozrt<4 i.,*, fir/
+ &Ca- 2-So'/-Eo/
1/ rfororte qY A .f ? s- tr 4oA 7 sr-6org+
I
lnttn r ltff I
.75 soulh lronlage road
vail, coloraCo A1657
.
(303) 476-7000
January 6, 1986
Feter Looms
4269 ltugget Lane
Vai1, Co. 81657
Re: Scrjma Residence, Lot 9,3iock 3; Vail Vi11age 11th
Dear Peter:
I t';an'"ed to wli te and confirm for you that'r,he sun roofli and badrcomiddiiion for l.lrn Scrin:a r-r.sidi,rrre lri:s l:,,rn :ll;rf f i.1,1:i.r,v'rt. lirr, r,r..1 rrn,i tlrlrs otre \QUot t] ftrrrL ol (,H! A r.,.;i,., inirr_o. llre r.rt,st ui,jt 1,,,. 5hl .cu.:re feetof re;-"ajning- GRFA. 0nce the aaci',-ion is construc.r-ed, ..he reria.i ning sitecov'erage will be 190.5 squar"e feet. staff's only concern about theadditjon is that'i f duning construction, the eueig.een located to the eastof the sun room is daiiaged, the applicant will agiee to replace the -rree.
If you have any o^uher ccncerns sbout ihi s app:-or.a1 pl e zse fee'l f ree t,ogive rne a call.
Si ncerely,
g
Kristan Pritz
Town Pi anner
KP/bt f
'F' . ,z
I
-l
iI
I
!
i
II
I
I
qr
(J
c
aa
ol(J
o-ltzoU
?
FooE
i i g i:EOE E,E E:
rsiir i
;€+; i.i
; EEiI+*:i 3 E 3;; o: i.! >.
.: v q-; c
Et !r l;i i l: l=
= E;.E: ie!;:E:E ', .2 .-E i.! ?: i FF*iiE:+r!?;3:
EEi: g;
Ei i:;?;
(se,qtr
=
\,, il
tl
|]
.Jlr \l =\. lJl o\\ dts\\ \to
r '\\l€
N}.8\t(N\
\\\
\)
rO@or
or
(u
=-
I
l
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_l
+rlFrl
-'l
orlol.ol,-l
=l=lr-t
(ol
=l
-lJIolol
EI
I
1o'l
PI
OIJl
I
I
v
=
+)
!!
toPt1
o,-
U
F
<r-{.irN
z
F
bD
I't
+)c(lJE
q)E
(!
U
3
(o
Id.
ll]L!(1
l.LY ,.ivEa9!)<>xQr.ru
RE?
iE<al a L.l)!' r- i.-z"Y-=EFr![>fi(1 l{ \,-{.^r-tr2
Gqn<F<=r{ Ft rJF4(aFa
oE z: r-'l-\kr<H:iF<Y
O;a<l5z>A><-P
i E ,.r l-a|< - -I. \J
=.'l-Li\
'.'' lQ
^=l\*lil*o>-; hO€tu3
nF:x\JF -SoFAFZU.-ff;<Eosxs.^F:-
FsSE
{tts
-r.
F
-0-ltl{fr
Ettr.R
EN
F
-t.iJEH.,FF
-FF
E{
fl-aF
fHe
ts
-FTEt
trt|e
F\aaL.F
-d
*FHLafr\sv
rFf
EI
Atl{dLIfaJfH.l-tlrlhe.g
z
ctz
ts
=tuIo-
u
OOrf)
(\l :.)
oo
r.o
<\l
(n
tft
uJ
lJ-
F
=t
IJJc
-re;ir7'i+)
@
sf
+
$J
s9ltl!ooz
o
lu
F
Ftn
=
zz
o
uJF
z
z
=
.6
=z
3tHo : to€6 I=g€ lFa3 lF- (E tv.0.! t5tlO, rl<'; o. \1trE.o ll2
€.€. it8
- -s laE
E',\J19re s -\ \r=
-r \ alg
E'-" j li
IENE3
E FSI!i
Eil,I*Z
EE6
EET :
p?t 7
EEl i
i'J7t
!w1
otiqt'=oqt
g8E
F.e s?.Io 6tQc-.= (!
o xE
:EE
c96
EsErEi
=:E,FOO
iEo
€ eet!! c.=- 6
c)-(! o-
sEg
oP o.
EPpefi!
e e.EE'-6
EEE_aee: c(I'o-.c; q)! --c
S€E
sE19,!a
.Y;E.T dhte9E-or
€Eg
-o(E
C\lr.r)
C\C\
O
tf,<ir F.(\c rr)(\!+
+
F
=
UJ
z6J
6
Y()
uJ
oz
(L
9EFolu
uj
z
t6
Jo-
oz
o
UJ
UJ
uJu-zoF
uJ
uJ
G,
6
o
tD
=u,l5u,
z
6
uJo
F6
u,
z
tl,Jo
x
F
ulol
U)
uJ
uJl!
F
=E
UJ
o-J
FoF
ozo.J
6
J
C)
F(J
UJ
lrl
ozo
=J
J
=.
ul
=
NOlrvn'lv^
F
d
IIF2
lclcl2tF.:=
Eco=
=<u-o2
o-
F:
a=
x<
UJo>
<-
NF
Zt/'.qJ0(\
=€o _
=;G)= rJJ .n
N
zz
ho- g
Y-i-"4 6
oo6da)zl.|-<o*ul :<CUFOj$i
..1-
=
z
tr
)
E.
ci
o
gJ
F
c)
c,oo
tr)
C\I
UJ
jr
z
Eoo
zo
F
c
IJJFJ
3
IIJz
(o
Lzlz9. ,!r.
<oo<
=PxrrXr\<z
<t)Fz,
9=
d63tr
x x ><x
l
F
z
F
ID
Jdl
z
Y
ulo
Jl
SI
2l
zl
uJ
llJ
uJz
(t,
tr
lLl
az
E
E'F
t!zY
=
2o
F
J
z E
Ol
I
(t)
JJ
=F
uJ
o(7)
Ie.
cr)
Id.
.a-\. /1/v,9 't:.IJ
OJOcl
,4v
-Y^t-/1/\)
4.i,. tso
AT'd:
lo
",- j-.FU
Q
HTosrFotI>Jtrs
0-
l€l8{lt-lguJ
2E
EEil
z
.r9zedro
=zlf
dP
J
o-*
z?^=
-u.l il6il=
tstril
E
UJ
o-
l!
E3
E<af€uB9rla
t5tE drE h=R f G-(LulE =*E db9 \utE XO-t x>t q-
oi!E
uJ
t0
ts
=El!o-zIF(Jf
&,
azoo
I
I
-s+)
a
=J
lJ-
I
J
@
FoJ
tt)
<
=d(Jv,
tu
=z.
(Do-)
.l
=lr-r I
a5lv)l
sl
<l'l*l
=l:-|
ul-
4
L
j
L)
-c+,
co
o
Fl
cf,
IJJ
Ja.
sro(ft
I(o
i
.d
6
E
tr
o
#
=z,
(o
N
<1
att.tlut
o
cJ
=
c\l(\l
(v)
I(o
ru
F;i
FU''z,o(J
LU
>4(l
L!z
t!d
ilo
=E,
Ettr
><
I
@
O
I
(f)
z
ujl:
<l>l
tl.l
zl
3lolFI
q
c
r..
r.J
I(I
F
uiJ
uJ
F
CJ
F
Lrl
il
=UJz.
E
tr
I
ctz
ti
ul
J
l!
z3I
I
II
i
ol
=.1(t
utl
1t
>l
t!
o1
z39F
<\!rf)
I
Olv
u
u
l-tr
oz
uJ
J
lr-
z
=I =
tr
o
uJ
5
?1>l
Itoz
3l
9l
ulJul
F
UJz
=o
F
uJLT
E
<FCOr!<zG.UJF(rz
c)
<oC)F
-^' o
HE-zlI8
t
2P
=Ed6
ixoF
<3
gE
o
E ir
=l-o2<cififr=l
75 soulh lrontage load
vail. colorado 81657
(30s) 476-7000 otflce ol communlly developmenl
.BUILDING PERI{IT ISSUANCE TIME FRAME
lf thi.s perm.i.t requi.res a Town of Vail Fire Department Approva'l ,
Eng'ineep''s. (.PgUt ic lJorks) reyiew and approval , a plannin!' Department
review or Health Department reyiew, and a review by the Build.ing
Department, the estirnated time for a total review may take as longas three weeks.
All cornmercial (large or small) and all multi-fami'ly permits wi'll
have te fol'low the above mentioned maximum requirements. Residential
and small projects should take a lesser amount of time. However, ifresidenti,al or sma'l ler projects impact the varjous above mentioned
departments: w'ith regard to necessary review, these projects may
a'l so take the th.ree week period.
Every attempt will be made by this departnent to expedite thispermit as sqon as possible.
I, the undersigned, understand the plan check procedure and time
frame.
\e'-t-^,^o P, */rl
Project Name
3-3/ -8/
Date liork Sheet was turned into the
Comnuni ty Devel opment Department.
Project Applicatlon Ltt
-.
Proiect Name:
Proiect Description:
Conlact Person and Phone
Owner, Address and Phone:S(-r r.vt,4'
Architect, Address and Phone: tLrg{ . L-+:t;"frr 1
Legat Description, tot '1 , Block j , riting Vll il { 'r".. , 2.t.
Comments:
Design Review Board
Dale
Motion by:
Seconded by:
APPBOVAL DISAPPROVAL
Summary:
fist"n Approval
o
PETER LOOMS' FIGURES AS OF 'I1/15/85
o
QRNA
t/Vffifffi,sf /r 6&,3/z{
J?e/ ,lt7g i4r3,587,s 7z
: lrt ar
-- -r____J..--,-, | { .*-. .- .....llR,<,4J- '-;:- m
--/r ( i t 1-' / |
3fls6.ffz
733.2 remaining
3956 div by 2 = 1978 allowed on each side
24n I
/I q ) Y rJu(-r''./
/ 2 ,7 S' r;.:T.
/ f 3 y'-i.Lt,A(lt ah .ics.T n,"L
/r)r/L
j q tt, a!traxl
Joll t'
\
/, 6t-zt< s, Mrt /,*V" /l# f/uM
qtFA AUawftEe
krMtilt,./q qRru*
TotlN 0F VAIL'S FIGURES
GRFA ACTUAL: West unit
East unit
Pgps, ':J^ftf?4?ex. uLltr-fuAl'
kss srb@6
A(iqAL iq*t-
SU/t4/V\ffiCM
AS 0F 'f 1/15/8s
= 1427 (+ 118.9 storage)
= 1795 (+ 106.8 storage)
-Tzz.e
4/l,ls ffz
= 1546.7
= 190.|.8
L\i.!^^ )_-/ il.,(, f
r'\ \ \\\' I L \ \-\(J. \\ \
_
INSPECTION REQUEST
-r .-'.. "?\ 5.1 \
i:.q,\-..,.ttl-1. r'L
THUR FRI RM'-' ptvtREADY FOR
LOCATION:
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
oor. t\ * ,\L=\ ,o,
TOWN OF VAIL
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING tr ROUGH / WATER
r-r ROOF & SHEER- PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION tr
tr
u
POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
ROUGH
-
tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED
))^
tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
l'\ t i , /t',/ Y i i ,
INSPECTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAILPERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
DATE
L/ /.. L/JOB NAME ! l ,;, )t t ,'.-
CALLER
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION: MON TUES WED THUR 'FRl .r
l.' t , ,',,".r tl-- : t i;"
'o*) PM
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
f,noue n / D.w.v.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATI
tr FRAMING
ON / STEEL
*'ROOF & SHEER
/'1 PLYWOOD NAILING
ttr\.INSULATION
-
tr GAS PIPING
tr POOL / H. TUB
tr
tr
SHEETROCK NAIL tr
D
tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
tr ROUGH
tr CONDUIT
t-1
tr FINAL
tr FINAL
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr SUPPLY AIR
A tr FINAL
tr APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
i.1-orsnppnoveo ETBEINSPECTION REQUIRED
INSPECTOR
i ilt't)r
,. \ I \
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
DATE
READY FOR INSPECTION:
LOCATION:
NAME
INSPECTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
CALLER
TUESMON
t-. i \,
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS
tr FOUNDATI
tr FRAMING
/ STEEL
PLUMBING:
E UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
O ROUGH / WATER
ON / STEEL
SHEETROCK NAIL tr
tr
tr FINAL O FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANIGAL:
tr HEATING
tr ROUGH
-
tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIB
tr
trFl tr FINAL
APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE
INSPECTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAILPERMI
DATE
T NUMBER OF PROJECT
JOB NAME
CALLER
READY FOB INSPECTION: MON TUES WED THUR FB AM PM
LOCATION:
BUILDING:
F FOOTTNGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
O ROUGH / D.W.V.tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING tr ROUGH / WATER
.- ROOF & SHEER' PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION EI
o
tr
POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
tr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRIGAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MEGHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr
tr
tr
ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL tr FINAL
_. r--.--.-+--
. -:FAPPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE .INSPECTOR '. ., "
PERMI
DATE
T NUMBER PROJECTOF
INSPECTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
ta
':. JOB NAME a \ \'\
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:
CALLER
MON TUES THUR FRIWED AMiPM
B
tr
tr
i
E
UILDING:
FOOTINGS / STEEL
FOUNDATION / STEEL
FRAMING
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
i ROOF & SHEERt PLYwooD NATLTNG o cAS PIPING
tr INSULATION
-
O POOL / H. TUB
O SHEETROCK NAIL
-
tr
n
tr FINAL
tr
tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
D ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
O CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr F|ML tr FTNAL
ii D,APPROVED
CORBECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
t
INSPECTION REOUEST
TOWN OF VAILPERMI
DATE
T NUMBER OF PROJECT
JOB NAME
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:
CALLER
MON TUES WED THUR AMFRI
B1
tr
D
tr
tr
E
cl
E
ILDING:PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
O ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
FOOTINGS / STEEL
FOUNDATION i STEEL
FRAMING
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
SHEETROCK NAIL o
Ed ;:,i;./"
D FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRIGAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANIGAL:
tr HEATING
O ROUGH O EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
F..APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPBOVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
PERMI
DATE
T NUMBER OF PROJECT
INSPECTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
INSPECTION:MON WED THUR FRI
CALLER
TUES AM ', PMREADY FOR
LOCATION:
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATEBtr FRAMING
r-r ROOF & SHEER" PLYWOOD NAILING O GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION
tr SHEETROCK
tr POOL / H, TUB
NAIL
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP, POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr ROUGH D EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FrN4l D FINAL
-APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
ooJ=- ",'', JoBNAME
READY FOR
LOCATION:
CALLER
INSPECTION: MON TUES WED THUR FRI
-.
--
!F
INSPECTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAILPERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
AM PM
BUILDING: PLUMBING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
D
D
FRAMING
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION O POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL tr
tr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRIGAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MEGHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr
tr
tr
ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL tr FINAL
APPROVED tr DISAPPROVED tr BEINSPECTION REQUIRED
GORRECTIONS:
DATE INSPECTOR
{'..\.r\,\'
r' r. t\ \,.
t
INSPECTION
TOWN OF
REQUEST
VAILPERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
DATE
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:rfi*"-'"',rn
\::. --'
WED PM
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING _ tr ROUGH/WATER
,- ROOF & SHEER
" PLYWooD NAtLtNG
tr INSULATION tr POOL / H. tUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
'\ \, (--FINAL - \-.'':U
ELEGTRIGAL:
tr TEMP, POWER tr HEATING
tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr DISAPPROVED tr BEINSPECTION REQUIRED
frt
DATE
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
DATE ''lii-_ :) r'( JOB NAME
t
INSPECTIONTOWN OF
REQUEST
VAIL
a
CALLER
READY FOR
LOCATION:
MON TUES iWED THUR FRI
;; -,'i.l i.'
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING tr ROUGH / WATER
n ROOF & SHEER" PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
tr FINAL
tr
tr
tr
tr
TEMP. POWEB tr HEATING
tr EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
, Ei ,RppnovEo
CORRECTIONS:
tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
DATE ;urv 26. L9B3
APPLICATION FOR
DUPLEX SUBDIVISION REVIEW
Jr.A.APPL ICANT Carl W. SummersNAME OF
I'tA IL ING ADDRESS 16800 Dallas Parkwav - Suite 230
Dallas. Texas 75248
B. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE Rocky S. Christopher
MAILING ADDRESS P.O. Box 1155
P H 0 N E__(2_!4)_93!:05 6 5_
Vai1, Colorado 81658 PH0NE(303)476-4500
c.NAME OF
Ol.lNER'S
MAILING
PROPERTY OI.IN (print or
S I GNATURE PHON(2_141_p:t=CI0:_
ADDRESS
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL
LOT 9 BLOCK 3 FILING 11th
E. FEE $100.00 PAID
F. MATERIAL TO BE SUBMITTED
l. Two my1 ar copies of the duplex subdivision plat fo't lowing the requirements
of Section 17..|61 30(c) 1,2,3,4,6,7,8;9,.|0,.l1,13 and l4 of the subdivjsion
Regul ations.
?. The plat must conta'in the following statement:
"For zoning purposes, the two lots created by this subdivision are to
be treated as one entity with no more than one two-family residence allowed
on the combined areas of the two lots." The statement must be modified
according to the number of lots created.
3. A copy of the declarations and,/or covenants proposed to assure the naintenance
of any common areas.
APPROVAL PROCESS, REVIEW CRITERIA
These can be found in Chapter 17,24 of the Subdivision Regulations.
FILING AND RECORDING
The Department of Conrnunity Development will be responsible for promptly recording
the plat and accompanying documents with the Ea91e County Clerk and Recorder
upon Town of Vai1 approva'l .
G.
H.
oz
E
=t
uJo-
ooo
lr'<f
$J
oo
FI
r..r{
o)OllJ)
lr)
orot\
.t)qJ
uJu-
==E
uJo-
I
I
I
I
l:
\\u-r
q\t\
NI
I
tl
t\rlJ\.
J \IJN)<
\ trv
I
l,,
,Ft<ro
I
I
I
I
IFt<(
E,
lv,z
t=to
le
att
uJFoz
z
Jld)
.6
o
=
,l <
r
\rl
YI:p\b
t
TJ
\(E
ulz
'o
ulI
F
oz
+:-oc6*E.9
EEE:
EgE:
E EE:Etr-o>
i$:5
EE!pc9dE.l o€ or
!EEF
5t;Eg-; !-g
SErsoiEo
= *e€
EEtE
- o..i: o
-+ c J(! O'- E.c;oo
gEi;
Fff;
e5g,g
- o 6:
ttJul
att
=-
Go
CEoF(J
F
6oto
E
UJz
Bo
lto
ul
E,lF
E
0,g
o
.oo.o(
ir-{il:;tfT$sc\
.g<-E\o
bG
o
D
5q
EFo.C,c\TS
Fc,
€Sltg{
g=SE./(5\>'\s'ts59.<
s-
I
€sslS{' a)
ro
Olro
N
|r)t\
OlN
(Y)
o
N
@
oo
ora
Fl
oc
ci
o
ro(\t
ro
c
cc
o?oo
G.I
oo
ro(\l(\t
1r)o
@sl-sf(v)
E
u,
z
.o
x
IJJ
z
J
E
F()
IuJur
z
=Jo.
2
lu
=
UJut
z
tr
UJc(J
uJt
.o
=uJ
qJ
c,z
6
IJJ
F
oo-
UJ
z
qJ
x
F
lUol
U'ullulJ-
tre
uJo-
J
FoF
"13=ta9tb515aEl ur
z
=
o-
J
,
uJ
=
\Y'
tsi
!
5
9
5
NO|IVnlVA
tdt-slc
-=G=o(i
=(-bcz-oE
F.F
5!
l!>o#JU
fEz(
U
u
(E
!(c
2
tr
)
Ft!
o
e.o
UJ
F
c
st(\l
uJ
z
E
z
tr
e
UJFJ
3u.lz
||tlJrllZ ^ze =-rF
agf E
=gE 58SB:<tooll*llllt6t | | I(f'
?g!43 i rH23=-o.lsE EE
='tEHBo(9orz
zo
F
tt)z
UJ
J
?
e.
c(\Or @(Y)
UJ
u)
x
uJ
tl,
o
3
zI
=F
to oN
rc(fI
artI
d.F
+-+j(c
d
+JP
au
.tJ
+J.ddt
atJ
-JH*bIIP
F-
\a)€)FlifD
ul
E
U'dloazo
F(L
utY
IJJ
c0
oF
F
=E
IJJo.ttlo*li?loaleTlt*lgu,bEzo
m!
z
o9zedro>z
dP
ifian a \ =zizoli-
dd=
tr
fr
bEE
E<c!l€8E9lt;;e5EE'tt-
= lu '-
E FEx >aLE 8bE io.-E FTc'io-i!-
llJ
dtoF
-:-E
ts
=E,
lrJ
o-zIF(Jf
E,
6zo()
Ir
j=l
l=t
-ll('tzF-9i
x(u
=o
rnIo
E5.J,
ui
=z
clo-)I
z
ut
uJ
o
Ja
c
E =tr
n
IIJ
o
o
o
+,(J
=LPt^
o(-'
an!-(l,
E
=U'
=
tr
z
ol!E
J
IL
z3
F
ulJ
IJJF =ctl
dz
oulE
t!oz3I Etr
oul
CE
t!oz3p
F
=tr
o
UJ
=
trl
zl
3loFI
=tr
o
=.)c'
UJ
5
t!o
z13oF
lllJulF
UJz
=o
F
uJ
F
a()
t
-rO<FE(JuJ<zErrlF., Z.o
C)
JE<o(JF
=<)trsqE
ilo
^o
ozo
=
o-
r
-EF
=3AFd=
=E
t-Eir
=i-E t-o2<o(1 at)
'ir LUJOI
6
a
g
t
I
Box 1844
Val1, Colorado 81658
Octobe! L4, L982
Mr. Peter Jamar
Town Planner
75 South Frontage Road
Va1l, CoJ.orado 81657
Dear Peter :
Per our conversatlon yesterday, 1t ls my understanding that The Tom
of Vail can and w"ill revoke our Certificate of Occupancy lf we do not
cmpLy with the plantlng of said number of will-ows.
According to the advlce of our Landecape Architect, it would be a poor
tlme to pl-ant due to the possibllity of winter kill. Based on our
past experlence and Glen El-llsonte reputatlon, I am sure that Glen
w111 cmply trrith thls.
Cordially yours,
SIrMI'IERS CONSTRUCTI 0N
J^d
Cus Gustafson
Vlce-President
GG:dyb
TofFfet-
q.nnD (DtSlq[ilS *cE[UsOll uC@'
Box 2677 Vail, Colorado 81658 476-3258
November 9, 1982
Hr. Peter Jama r
Town of Vail - Bldg. Dept.
75 South Frontage Road West
Vai l, C0 81657
Dear Peter,
This letter is to document our discussion on October 21 , | 982
concern ing the landscape implementation at 3ll0 Booth Creek Drive,
Lot 9, Block 3, Filing ll in Vail Village.
The approved landscape plan requi res the planting of l8 one-gal lon
containerized native Willow. To date, these plants have not been
installed due to their unavailability on the market place and impracti-
cal ity of using propogation techn iques (rooting cuttings) during mid-fal I
However, Summers Construction and my company will plant the required
number of tlillows in the Spring of 1983. Should you be in question as to
my proposal , please call.
Best t'gard"s, .,,,.7 4,.h z
W',..W
Land Designs By Ellison
GE: ss
cc: Summers Construction
lnttn
box lfl!
nll, oolorado 8166'l
l*tl 47s5613
department of community development
August 13, 1982
Gus Gustafson
Box 1844
Vall, Colorado 81657
Dear Gus:
Thls letter is to confirm the fact that the reason we reguired
tfre-a"irings for the duplex on Lot 9, Block 3, Vai'l Village llth
Fiit"i, io"Ue reviieA-ihaicating the storage areas is that.we need
an aciurate set of drawings on iile. shoving what,actuall.y is being
cJniirrcita, both tor ptaining purposes and building code requirements.
If you have any quest'ions, please codtact me.
Peter Jamar
Tom Planner
Pil:df
t.2.
cxsfr ltsr
t
ENGI NEER ING
Subdivision V*,. Vreao?
Lot
Bl ock
Filing
Submittal Items
(A) Topo MaP
(B) Site P'lan
(c) utility Plan
(D) Title RePort
(E) Subdjvi sion Agreement
ffq i neerj ng-Lequ i rements
(A) Culvert Size /9,"
(B) DriveriaY Grade (8S max
(Acceptable)
-4,/
t/
-t/
(Not Acceptable)1.
2.
(if applicable)
f(Etffi,<.e),
----:
3.Source of Utilitie!
E'lectri c
Gas
Sener
l.|ater
Tel ephorie
T.V.
A
B
c
D
E
F
ur
4. Comnents:
Approved:
Di sapproved:
ffi
Bill Atrd:'e:+s
:
I
I
l-J
zoNE cilrcK
for
SFR, .R, R P/S ZONE DISTRICTS
Legal Description: Lot 1 Block -3 Fil ing
0ffier (g2t- 8)HHE/L9 Architcct
Zone District k :'Proposcd Use
Lot Ariea ei'ght Altorred 30j proposed 41t
Setbacks : Front-hequf rel-20 i'--Pro-pbsed
Sides-Required .l5, proposed
Rear -Required .l5, proposed
hraterccu rse-req ui re d Proposed
GRFA:
GRFA:
A'l I or.red
.Primary 41 'lor,red
Secondary A1'lor'red
Primary
Secondary
Si te Covera ge : A'l 'l oived 3,-lll
Landscaping:
Parking:
Required OL.
Slope Actual
Proposed efl Z
Propcsed
Propos ed
Proposed
Proposcd
Requi recJ t.l .rrt)p(;'-: ed (i
Drive: Slope permitted
[nvironmental/llazards:,Ava'lanche
F'l ood P'i a i n
Sl ope
6tuO v
i si. p;lr'i. ''l:ti
5y5,
7rr:ri'l ,@ D.irr.: {zs/S=
,J'"t
' ../, /tr//,t/7,g61s '/ .t ,/ , /f 1-/,/ /
Prolect Applicatlon
4 il
r!:- - i
Project Name:
Proiect Description:
Contacl Person and Phone
Owner, Address and Phone:
Archirect,Addressandphone: l4i(,HA,f-L C'\t$tL 45'\OL f Llf'*7tJ7 I
q
Legal Description: Lot / , Block
Comments:
Design Review Board
Date
f-tNA ,'frr*illf
\__ _-,
DISAPPROVAL
. K lfkzFx
Summary:
E statt Approval
a
department of community dwelopment75 south frontage rd,
vall, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
February 25, 1982
Gus Gustafson
Suruners Construction Company
P.0. Box '1844
Vai'|, Colorado 8]657
Re: Lot 9, B]k 3, V Village l]th
Dear Mr. Gustafson:
Charlie Gersbach has requested that I write a letter to your attention with
regard to constructing a duplex on lot 9, b'lock 3, Va'i1 Village'l1th Filing.First of all, the lot is zoned (R) Res'.idential which allows 2 dwellingunits. The total Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) allowed on the lotis 3956 square feet.
0n May 12, 1980, the Planning and Environmenta'l Connission approved a request
based on the Hydro Triad study dated I?/21/79 to modify the .|00 year floodplain on this'l of according to procedures and requjrements found in Sections.|8.69.033 and .|8.69.040 (E) of the Vai'l I'lunicipal Code. If the specif ications
and reconmendations of that study are fo'l lowed, this approval remains valid,
and the developrnnt proposal would be requ'ired to follow only normal Design
Review Board (DRB) procedures. You shoul'd contact Jim Sayre or Peter Jannr
of ny staff concerning DRB procedures.
If you have any further questions, p1 ease contact me.
Senior Planner
APP: bpr
cc: Stan Bernstein
VA(L 0 rctA6e
{v urL
, ,ryc ill. r/. / csr. 1.(
t/zt
N
\
t
I
III't'
I
\
,.7
t\l\t\\\t\t\
\
\
I
I
Itt
'i'
I
!
..gPo
2-\
.?7b
'(g6fose1)
OUEPLOT
rArG
6n6
ffist tac c Ka6tN c
lNtD {:Loo6 1-'trltN LocATloN
6{
ufA
:'e <
4e,7, t
60l;"
( A'< ! /..
FLc:oa
/,/ )
d3o o
- Kgvtsen
loo VK(,478<
sa < ek€
e?€u
0211,O'
r rcru&3
t,JL< .t"-- 30'
iLPn, --
lNtr,',J'1t147;^ "-1
/-lgu/(c
+/ )..tr'('/z''
d: ttt .i,
3 [!
'''3'. tt't)Atc ut ttt-{6€
- --: --. ,,
L t)T' 4 't
': IJ)| (.,
" (n
tl
.,,
..:
rrl
I tl
F
U
x
IF|ts
sAn
/fl
q
},J
e0
r(
(
r'1
o'
sJ
(.n
/4r
is.
<=.
*hr{}
F -F.lqY-t
4
G\|n
C\ ><\fr
urE
G\.
N
bn
R,t\r.l
o
a
$,*>oS}
SG3u
o
N
N
o
-'l
UTILITY LOCATION VERIFICA'I'ION
suBDrvrsroN %(L V|LLA6€ _
Jou *Mr 9t{H6F5 _
whether they
verified by
be nain trunk lines or proposed
the following utilities for the
Date
l,lountain Bell.
Western SJ.ope Gas
Public Service Company
Holy Cross Electric Assoc.
Vail Cable T.V.
Upper Eagle Valley Water
and Sanitati-on District
is not a street cut pernit, A street
obtained separately.
cut pernit must be
\
This form is to verify service availablity and location.
This should be used in conjunction with preparj-ng your
utility plan and scheduling installations.
/)L$J_u.ocr_3_rrLrNG /l
ADDRESS
The location of utiiities,
lines, nust be approved and
accompanying site plan.
/Tg/-
tltl-t z
z/r/E-./._/t_g_
l/t48>
NOTE: These verifications do not relieve the contractor of his
responsibility to obtain a street cut pernit from the
Town of Vail, Departnent of Public Works and to obtarn
utility iocations before digging in any public right-
of-way or easement in the Town of Vail. A building petnit
!c!
l,
tl -- -Vsrp-V",tA.i-E
i)lis:(,li ll'l i(,r; ()t' l,Io.Jl:i;t'T-t!e _0U_0-nrr\t1!S_A .Ep=;-;.t_g:rel_OO.p€X_- f.Jr++ _fla 6q,- -fT
& groe-.Ap'" --1- Localw lu A .2.fauu1--Rrsroru:$Ar- DsTzr-cl. _ _
'l'hc I'ol lor'ring infonnrit ion is rcrlrrilt:d for sr.rbmittll by thc appl icant to thc Dcsilirr ltcvicwlloard bclrrrc 'a final a;rpr<lval clrrr llc 1;ivcn:
A. BUlLt,li'{(l l'{41'[RtALS
Poof
Siding
Othcr liall Materials
Fascia
Soffits
Windows
Itlindow Trim
Doors
Door Trin
Hand or Deck Rails
Flues
Flashi.ngs
Chimneys
Trash Encl osur.es
Grecnhorrs es
Other
B. LANDSCAPING
Name of Designer:
Phone :
PLANT MATERIALS
Botanical Name
TREES
l_y_p.c; *q.l_l! 1t_ct i a 1 Color
t -t llLt\rTu. 2 ",
- l' ,
',{}.*
ffie
Quantity
1.4/
I
Iw
?)
Common Name size Df rueo
j:y.-eio',,tiwsA ur 4uy*
W,,,r r/ v k*
fr\^W,uYw* Hq-
axhxaa
4l&
l3 €4a-
tl
M Yervtq/orerry'ftV-
4
tl
?-----sr'--
3
l\,qb X'il,rv,
Nir.rs B.l04,r
--
4tuffi
l-hrt-.
ll
lr
nr(
6T. - - 8BB $vo\:( )
SHRUBS
-a
.GROUND
{.NVERS
SEED
TYPE OF
IRRIGATION
?"'rln f l, F''TAGE + ^4
Aittw, (t,'.,t?t<^
squARE FooTAGE n hs0DW,, ,rrJ *34
TYPE
.
Ycro,tv u k<y
''rr,s u kEA ,r b,<x\v
sQUARE FoorAGE VTrl, ,rJvv Bt
?:-tuwr /w4
TYPE OR METHOD
OF EROSION CONTROL
C. 0ther Landscape Features (retaining wal'ls, fences, swimming pools, etc.) Please s peci fy.
t
F
0unars. Fnnn ?3t flol i cLl No. AZ?31337
ntt ttes'ooo.oo
Adclre r.r.
,'. I
FIf i No.
fi(:HFDlll
v0003570
trA
,,t.'' ., :t.
:,"
red In this Bchedula end
,1 thin Pnllcg at the dste
t,uaisd In EA0LF Sountgt
N6. ACC0RDIN6 T0 THF
TAiE OF COI.ORADO.
' ' .' l'.lr
..,1..
;'r'. ,.1 ;i..
. ::l l
':.1' | 1.,,
, ;i' ;'
rhodule B ic at,tsched'
' .'.. , 1 ,'i'.. r.j, .; ,-.- :Fotlcg''Drtat'i, nAR[l{ ?4t 1982 at 8!00 A',fl'
r .;.
Narir rof Jnruned:
cARl- u. slrlttlER8r .fR.
Thc cntatc on Intenest In thr' land deecrihet
;i;;.;- ia
-"ov*rent lrg th I r pol I ct1 I rr
A FFF
Tlt,le to the r$tat"e oF int'ere'r't rovened hg
hrrreof lT vestsd I n I
CARL tf, stlllt{FR8r JR'
Thc llnd rsferned to In {'hlr pollcg l* alt'u
;;it;;;;'' end le d€ecPlbad ar fotlot'rgr
I OT I ltlo;x 3' UArl. vlt LABE-FIFUFNTH FII"ING
hiioioiij-F[ai'ririHoil' Counrv oF EAor'E' grd
:,
, t,l'! , '{ . t " :', l-.r ir. :,.l l r,.'il, : ,' '. ''1.\tl .t'.1..-: .: ;t i
l: ii" {:;,'l '','-:jt lti-;'. j
'. ,; ; , ' ' r i - ii
f .::,., I
..,]'.rr.ij :,]
tnlU lf BchrPeg* t Thls Pol lcg val ld t
?
I
t:
YI
t'it
I
?.
l
I
i
i. t'
n.| 4.
i,
i,
!3:
:
i
l,!1..-,.
6!.
t,
t.,
f'
F.
q'
ht
t,
rli '
11 :lt,'
tr
:.
l;.:
r.
I
II'
I
IlI :.-a,l1Itltltill: iI|'\tlll ,till rlt,
| ".,t.
ti
t{ 0wn'?P Fonm ?,J13 fl,r ll,:, Url0il357n
scHlinut r R
Fot i cA llo " A7-1?:!1337
hg the I'uhl ic rgrords.
qhoPta0q in an*a,
r.urve.g and Inspect i onnot qhoun hg tht publlc
l ehor, or mat*n i a l
bg law and not shown bg
ANO REIIOVE HI$ ORF
OR II.ITER.9ECT THE
RFCORD II,I II{STRUfIENT
FY THF AUTHORITY OF
PATE}IT RECOROED flAY
Th i s pot icr.1 doar not Ingurq tga i n*t, loss on darrra1* hU rsason of thafollcwlng:
t, Rlght,a nn clnlnl. of ;,nntler in pcssession not s.hown hg the puhl lc
nscondtr.
?.
3r
Fns.enent,r, I fiF c I e i rrrs of qFf,.smrntr,, nct r.hown
0lrcrnpanc ir:s, conf I ict.l in bor,rndarg I In'rr,ancronrhmrnis., and ang facts, uhich a rorr(.ctnf the prarnisirt t,lould disclns'r isnd which arqrecordr.,
4. rtng I ic,n, crr night, to r+ 1l*n, for r.ervic*s,theratof or4 on hersaf ten f unn i sharl , i roposedth* puhlic recordr,
9. 198'I TAXES NOT YET OI'E ANO PAYABLE.
6. RIIIHT OF
'IROPIIIFTOR
OF A VFII{ OR I ODF TO FXTRACT
THEREFROf'I li]lout.D THE rlAnF: BE ForJilo T0 PEI|ETRATE
PRFf'II$F$. A$ KF'$FRVFT) IN tIN]TFN $TATFS PATFNT OF
RECORT)ED T1AY I]6, T9fJS TN SOOK 48 AT PAOE 273.
.7, RIGHTS OF }IAY FOR DITCHF$ OR CANAI S CONSTRTICTFD
THE rrNITE0 STATEF, A$ RESSRVE0 llt UNITED STAI'ES
B.
C,
06, ,?0s, tN Ro0K 48 AT PAGE ?73.
ryllTRrCTr0NS, IIHICH D0 N0T CONTAIN A FoRFEITTJRE 0R REVERTER CLAUSE,
BtfT 0fIITTINR RESTRICTI0IIS, rF AifY, BASED 0N RAnE, CoLOR, REL1610l.1 0R
!|T,I0NAL 0RI0IN' As C0NTAINED tN INSTRUfiFNT REOORDFD Ju[Y 26r t97tT}I SOOK ?2I AT PASE T40 AND Af'IE}IOED IN IN$TRUf'IE}IT RECORDEO JUNE 05,
'?77
TN FOOK ?54 AT PAGIi R6S, ,;'
IIFEP 0F TRU6T DATFD f'lAr(cH ns, ,?82, FROf't nARl. t^,. sUllflFRtir JR, T0 THEPUBLII] TRI'STEFJ OI5 EAI'II.q COI'NTY FOR T}tE USE OF FIRST NATTONAI. BANK IN
OAI l.AS T0 $Fl':llRF TtlF $tlfl 0F SfiT:irO{lB;00 RFCOROFI} IIARCH ?3, 1982, tN
BOOK 338 AT PABE $fI.
' .t t
'wt^ l-IEru
HNN3r,oT
r A6[UAI- AR-
a<
box 100
vail, colorado 81657
(3O31 476€Etti z aoc)
department of community development
Dear Design Review Board Applicant:
Enclosed is your Design Review Board Project Application showingthe approval./disapprovaL of your project including comments fromthe Board.
If you received approval from the Desigrr Review Board, you must
make any corrections stipulated by the Board and bring the revisedplans to the Town Planner before applying for a Building Permit.
No site u,ork may be commenced until the revisions are approved bythe Town Planner and two sets of working drawings are submittedto the Building Department.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call the
Town Planner at .476-Z000, ext 236
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
rr.rstg;;*o$, ggguiqr
2"oor, , ,// JoB NAME
CALLEB
READY FOR INSPECTION:MON TUES WED THUR FRI
LoCATIoN: <(ta K^^TL ( " r'--
AM PM
BUILDING:
T] FOOTINGS / STEEL
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
n ROOF & SHEER" PLYWOOD NAILING B GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION tr POOL/ H. TUB
ELECTRIGAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL
tr APPROVEO
CORRECTIONS:
SAPPROVED C] REINSPECTION REQUIRED
J
l',
box 100
vail, colorado 81657
603) 476-5613
department of community development
November 24, L980
Stanley F. Bernstein
Box 793
Vail , CoLorado 81657
. Re: Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village l}th
Dear StanleY:
This is to confirm that the Town of Vail Planning and
Environmental Commission at their May 12, 1980 meeting
approved the modification of tn*e flood plain on Lot 9 as
dliailed in the Hydro Triad report of Decernlcer 21 ' 1979.
If you have any further questions, please call Peter Patten.
Sincerely,
Artru,rt*"
Zoning Administrator
o
Planning
a
Commi
ez^Az, ,
Q,@ vv uv
Minutes of 5-12-80 and Environmental ssion Meeti-ng
Members Present
Ed Drager
Gerry White
Sandy Mi1ls
Dan Corcoran
Staff Present
Jim Rubin
Peter Patten
Larry Eskwith
The Town Council person assigned to attend this meeting was out
of town.
1. ) Approval of Minutes of 4-28-80 Meeting.
Sandy Ml1ls said she had a question about the West Vail Common
recommendations. Peter said the minutes did not have to be changed
but that he would include Sandyrs comments regarding following the
Town's parking regulations in his memo to the County.
Sandy Mil1s made a motion to approve the above minutes. Ed Drager
seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous with the exception of
Gerry White who abstained as he was not at the meeting.
2.) Approval of modification of Flood Plain on Lot 9' Block 3'
Vail VillaEe 11th Filine.
Si;.t pj.erce, architect on the above project, asked to postpone this
item until later in the meeting as he was expecting Stan Bernstein,
the owner
3. ) Qe4qi!1o!a1 Use Permit to a11orv expansion of Bighorn Fire Station
on.
Peter gave the Staff Recommendation and conditions. Bill Pierce made
the presentat'ion. He said they are tryi-ng to keep the proiect residentj"al
in character. ft iscertainly less GRFA than a duplex. The hei-ght is
not lrigher than duplexes. They dld not want it to look like a governrnent
or institutional type building.
Dan Corcoran asked why the glass doors had been used. Bill and
Gordie said merely so that people knorv it is the fire station. Dan
asked if they could be climinated or was there another reason.
Gordie said they do provide light in the bays. Dan said he sti1l
feels it fits in except for the glass doors.
Gerry asked if there had been any comments from the neighbors. Peter
and Bill said they had both talked with the owner of the lYherry/Clausing
Duplex. Bj.1t said they had tried to meet all his concerns regarding
blending and screening with landscaping.
L
TWr!
5-12-80 PEC Minutes
Page Two
The board pointed out that the new plan is
from five to four.
sandy Mi1ls asked about the use of the domitory rooms. Gordie explained
that they are going to have a program utilizing some students and thdre
will be one professional person sipervisor on duty at all times also.
These people wil-1 be using the dormitory accommodations'
Sandyaskedwhowillbethepeoplelivinginthe'apartmentS..Gordie
said the apartmeni" """ tor peopte worting for the Fire District. They
aretryingtocomplywlththeTownvlishestoprovideemployeehousingin any new Town facifitles. '1ney--are-losing good employees because they
canrt afforal to live here and the Town will have the advantage that
theyareprofessionalfirefightersandwouldbeabletoassistinan
.ruig"n"y if needed because of their close proximity'
Sandy asked if 10 parking spaces are enough' Gordie said they feel
it i; because they can limit the students cars if necessary'
Bill Pierce said there is a change in the p1?nq as submitted' Gordie
explained that originally they were thinking of dolng three apartments
but the staff was iot in- favor of that because of the zoning
so they presented plans for one three bedroom and one two bedroom apart-
ments. However, tire Fire BoarO Ooesn't like those plans and asked them
to change tire pians to one-two bedroom and two-one bedroom apartments'
Gordiesaidtheyfeelthatiftheyhaveathreebedroomapartment'it
wil.1 be rented by three firemen wfto work together all day and that is
just not a good situatlon where peopre'rvork together all day and then
have to live together the """t oi the day. They need some privacy'
a reduction of a bedroom
Gerry White asked if there will be a fu11 crew available at all times'
Gordie said no titai-ttev can't afford that. He said there will be two
people there at all times, one professional and one student and that
the apartt"nt p"opie will'be th-ere most of the time to help in an
emergency.
Jim Bubin said the staff is in agreement with the change j'n bedrooms
even though there is one more kitchen, there is one less bedroom and
technically it wi1 1 lessen the density
Jimalsosaidtheydonotfeelthereisaneedformorethanthellparking spaces
Jim said this will have to go to DRB'
sandy lrlills made a motion to approve the conditional Use Permit to
a11ow expansion oi eiehorn FirL^ Station on Lot 15, Bi.ghorn per the
revised plans submitted at the meeting and per the staff recommendations
and conditions of 5-9-80. Larry Eskwith said the Board rvil1 have to
make findings as listed on page 477 of the Zoning ordinance in section
1g.60.060. Sandy Mil1s saiO ifre would amend her motion to include
the fact that the Board found arl positive findings. Ed Drager seconded
the motion. The vote was unanimous '
1ffi
5-12-80 PEC Minutes
Page Three
2.) Approval of modificalion of Tlood Plain on Lot 9, Block 3'
Vail Village 11th Filing.
Bill Pierce said we should go on'
the owner, had not arrived.
even though Stan Bernstein,
. Bill Pierce said they have a report from Hydro Triad a.nd Kent Rose
approving this modif ication.
Jim Rubin said that in order to amend the 100 flood plain' the
owner must prove that it will not affect property or-the-flow
etc. of the stream. I{r. Bernstein is adding fill and raising
the 1evel of the front bank and has obtained the engineering reports
and copies were given to the board. Hydro Triad was the firm that
dial the originall6OSzr flood plain tupott and they have done this current
report also.
Mrs. Suzie Anderson from the audience asked to speak. she explained
that her parents own the house next to this 1ot and since they could
not be present, she is speaking for them' They are very-concerned'
she said stre traa a question about the staff memo. It snid this
house had been approved by DRB. She thought they only received
preliminary approval . Jim, Peter, and cathie all confirmed that
ifre proje.t triii.only received prelimi-nary approval. Mrs. Anderson
said that their attbrney had also told them that in approving this
modificati.on, the Town is liable if a flood does flood her parentrs
home. she also said that Mr. Bernstein is able to increase his
-."_ GRFA by adding this fi11. Bill Pierce said they 'can build_ the same
. square footag6 on the present site but the building would have to
be three stories insteid of two. Mrs. Anderson said she wasn't sure
if she should bring aesthetics into this or to the DRB but aesthetically
they do not like t[e sea wa1l. It is unpleasing and precident setting'
Larry Eskwith said he does not feel the Town is 1iab1e as long as
they are not negligent in approving this. Hydro Triad would be
the people that are 1iab1e.
lr[rs. Anderson said their attorney said the Town would be 1iab1e
and she iust wants the Town to know that they will pursue thig-
point. she asked what the highest point of the house is. Bill
Fi.rce said it will be 268 feet above the fill or 30 feet above
the existing grade.
Mrs. Anderson said she feels it is a very severe thing to mess
with the flood p1ain. Things like this should be left natural.
There is enough land to build a house on without altering the
flood plain and putting up sea walls.
Dan Corcoran sai-d that the report shorvs that currently l\{rs' Anderson's
parents home ls in the flood pfain and that the alteration would improve
ihe tlood plain condition on her parent's property'-
rry
5-12-80 PEC Minutes
Page Four
Gerry White said that the Town had asked for a Professional opinion
and Hydro Triad is the professional who said the alteration is okay.'
Sandy MilLs sald that Stan new urhat the flood plain was when he
bought the Iot. She doesn't feel it should be possible for people
to buy a 1ot and then get it engineered to do whatever they want
with it.
Jim Rubin said when the Hazard regulatlons were adopted three years
ago, there was a provision for amending flood plain etc.
Drager sald if the map is correct, Mrs. Andersonrs parents are better
. off.with the modification. He also said the Hazard Ordinances were
passed to a1low modification with engineering orpertise.
Gerry White said we are not only dealing with hazards here, we are
also dealing with view corridors, aethestics etc.
Jim Rubin mentioned that both neighbors had already built before
the flood plain map was done.
Gerry l'{hite said he was concerned with setting precedents in moving
in fi-l-1 and changing flood plains.
There was a question about the sea wall. Bill Pierce showed theplans. Most of the board agreed it is not a sea wa11.
Ed Drager made a motion to approve the modification of the Flood Plain
-_on 1ot 9, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing per the reports from
{ Hyriro Triad and Kent Rose. Dan Corcoran seconded the motion.
.' Mrs. Anderson askeal to speak again. She said she could bee what
was happening and would like to bring up some other details about
the aethestics of this project. She said it is iust not pleasing.'
She was not going to bring it up here, she thought it was for DRB
but since Gerry brought it up, sbe would like to say that it will
block her parent's view of the ice fatls and the climbers that climb
them each year. This whole plan is just not pleasing to them.
Gerry l[hite said he would like to withdraw a litt1e of what hepreviously said. fn looking at the plans, he sees it differently.
Jin Rubin said this would have to go back to DBB and that would
be a more appropriate place to bring up the aethestics.
Gerry Whj,te called for a vote on the motion. The vote was three
to one with Sandy Mi11s voting against approval . She said she
felt an attempt should be made to put the house on the existing
lot north of the 100 year flood plain.
Cathie asked if Bill Pierce will bring this to DRB on the 21st
and he said no.
5-12-80 PEC Mlnute
" Page Five
o
5. ) Continuation of Public HearinE for the consideration of Vail
r
Core I and II.
The Board discussed the. ordinances. The Board wanted the word "within"
added to the tirne deadlines. They felt the time procedures should be
maximums. That j-s if projects came in well in advance of the deadline
it could be approved when brought in and not have to wait until the
specified time. Dan Corcoran made a motion to approve the Zoning
Changes as revised and presented. Ed Drager seconded the motion.
The vote was unanimous.
The Architectural Guidelines, now call Design Considerations, were
discussed. Jim Rubin explained that the staff has met with a large
group of architects to discuss these. John Perkins arranged the
meeting and there was a good turnout. Jim explained that John wasat a County meeting today and unable to be here. After the meeting
with the architects, Jeff \{inston reviseci and renamed the guidelines
and Jim delivered copies to all those architects who had attended the
meeting and held another meeting last Fri-day. Only four architects
came that time.
Sandy Mi11s said she thinks it is good if they didn't comg back to
obj ect
Dan Corcoran asked if all the things the board had said in their
meetings and al1 the comments from the architects have now been
incorporated in the document. Jim Bubin said they had.
Gerry White said he thinks this whole plan is quite good.
Sandy Mi1ls made a motion to recornmend the Vail Village Urban
Design Considerations dated 5-6-80 and the Vail Li-onshead Urban
Design Considerations dated 4-4-80 to the Council. Ed Drager
seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous.
4. ) Planning and Environmental Commission recommendation of CountyReferral Items:
Va1ley-Phase Vf
The Board supported the Staff recommendation on this.
(See Attached)
SeLby Subdivision
The Board supported the Staff recommendation on this.
(See Attached)
A.
B.
.5-12-80 PEC Minute
Page Six
6. ) Recommendation of two Board .Members to the CounJy_Master
Sandy MlLLs and Ed Drager expressed an interest.but Gerry and
Dan said they definitely could not do it.
The meetLl8 was adJourned at 5:20 P.M.
t
s
(-
il
PUBLIC NOTICE
N0TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT Stanley Bernstein has requested
permission to modify the Flood P'lain on Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Vil'lage llth Filing.
This matter is to be presented to the Planning and Environmental Cormission of
the Torm of Vail on lvlay .l2,]980 at 3:00 in the Town of Vai'l Council Chambers
in accordance with Section 18.59.033 of the Town of Vail l'funicipa1 Code.
TOWN OF VAIL
DEPARTI'IENT OF CO4MIJN ITY DEVELOPI'IH{T
Uo,r' 0 Pr/r;^'
ngvi'--
Jaffies A. Rubin
Zon ing Adnini strator h7 r
To be publjshed jn the Vail Trail on May 9, 1980.
I
E<()
o
r,r |.l.J;o
^o(", o-_J
TL
]
F
z
F
]
oo
o
o
ill/
t)l
ll
9: -
=: i
!e -
Jl "'
:9- :;
-o: a9
2' 'i
:
iI
i
?
iE
-!
9-
t,a
*il
i--\\r ."il9
ir r rr!)/////rl
Tlll/tt,\\[]t
l.r\r.J
I
"Je,o-<
F] J9:-<Jtl->
]'t')t ,t\iLN---
it,r\\\\"\
//l\\\\,)\\. _L,l l\ \\\\'ir
N{l}.",fir11$r'
------"7r,_)
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/JIM RUBIN
DATE: 5-9-80
RE: MODIFICATION 0F FL00D PLAIN ON LOT 9, BLOCK 3, VAIL VILLAGE llth FILING
Stanley Bernstein has requested an amendment to the'100 year floodplain
for Goi"e Creek with the intent of constructing a duplex on the above
described lot.
A f'loodplain ana'lysis as required by Section 18.69.033 was done by Hydro
Triad aird has bee-n favorable reviewbd by former Town Engineer' Kent Rose.
The criteria for reviewing f'loodp'lain changes are found in Section 1B.6i.040 E
wh.ich states that, "the w6rk (modificatjon-of the f'lood plain) wi'l-1_not.adversely
iilect adjacent pioperties or increase the quantity or veloc'ity of f'lood waters."
Both the Hydro Triad Report and the letter from Kent Rose have conc'luded that the
proposed fioodplain revision wi'll have no adverse iqpacts on adjacent properties
lnd wi'll not increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters.
Pl ans for the new Bernstein duplex have been reviewed and approved by the
Desi.gn Review Board. The plans as presented comply with the specific
requirements of the flood plain report.
RECOMMEN DATIOI.I
The Department of Conmunity Development recormends approval of the requested
amendmbnt to the 100 year f1 oodpla'in for Gore Creek as presented.
Project Application
Proiect Name:
Prolect Description:
Owner Address and Phone:
4 z-ro
'/25-7
X2 z-saz7
Architect Address and Phone:
Legal Descriptio n: bt ? , errcX
Zonei
// tt
Zoning Approved:
Design Review Board
Motion by:
Seconded by:
APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL
Zoning Administrator
Date:
Chief Building Otlicial
Date:
tU/* .
Pr<iject Application
o^r. 3-//- 7O. 2,
ProjeEtName: h i..rr 'h,i, Florh+" o
Pioject Description:
Owner Address and Phone:
WArchirect nJJr"r. and Phone:
Legal Descriptio n,, tot Cf
, ew"x
4,G/
Zoning Approved:
Design Review Board /)
47-ro
DISAPPROVAL
Chief Building Off icial
._....1
lnwn
box 100
vail, colorado 81657
{3031 476-5613
February 5, 1980
Di:r,ector
department of public works
Stanley F. Bernstein
StanJ-ey F. Bernstei:r, Inc.
P.O. Box 793Vail, O 81657
Dear Stan:
I have reviqred the $rdro-TYiad, Ltd. report, dated Decerber 27, 1979,
and transnitted to the Tomr of Vail by your cover letter dated Janr:ary 1O,
1980.
The report deals with proposed encroactrnent into the 10O-year floo@1ain
with fill for land-developnent purposes and ocisting and future flood-
pl-ain conditions.
In ry cpinion, the report is conclusive and there will be no adver:se
effects created by the gradilg operation. Please let this serve as
approval to regrade.Lot 9. Vail Villase Filiog No._ffrj4thir thelimits indicated i-n the report,
Very tnrly yours,'ktKL'--
cc: Jirn Rrbin
Stonley F. Bernstein,
o
Inc
Certified Public Accountont
Member:
Americon lnstitute of CPA's
Colorodo Sociefu of CPA's
January 10, 1980
Mr. Jim Rubin
Tovrn of VailP. 0. Box 100Vail, Colorado 8L657
Dear Ji.m:
Enclosed is a report from Hydro-Triad, Ltd. re-lating to Ehe flood plain analysis on Lot 9, VailVillage Filing /f11. Based on the reporE, we areplanning to alter the flood plain and build in Ehealtered flood plain. I assume this is ok. If I
have to obtain formal- approval , please let me know.
We are planning to build a 4,000 square foot. du-plex (2,600 square feet on one side and 1,400 on theother side) plus garages this summer. Bill Piercewill be our architect. Please l-et me know if vouanticipate any problems with the duplex concept froma zoning point of view.
Very truly yours,
Stanley Bernstein
cd
Enclosure
Crossroods Shopping Center / P. O. Box 793 Voil, Colorodo 81657 Bus.: (303) 476-1950 / Home (303) 4763333
".,
1, ,',,
/.. ,,,;7.' '-.\
HYDRO-TRIAD, [TD.
December 21 , 1979
Mr. Stan Bernstein
2606 Davos Trail
Vail, C0 81657
Dear Mr. Bernstein:
At your request, we have performed a floodplain analys'i s for the lotin Vail Villages Filing #ll. The analysis consisted of evaluating the effectsof filling the lot wjthin the 1OO-year fioodplain and determjning the minimum
finished floor elevatjon for the proposed building.
The results of the analysis show that the lot can be filled without sjgni-ficantly affectjng the floodplain. The minjmum finished floor elevation was
determined to be 8302.0. The detajls of the analysis are presented below.
I NTRODUCTION
The lot for which the floodplain analysis was performed is located in
Vail Village Filing No. Il (lot 9). The site is jn the Southwest L of Section 2,
Township 5 South, Range 80 West, approximately 3.5 miles east of Vail, Colorado(see Figure 1). The lot lies on the north side of Gore Creek. The study area
extends from station 455+75 to 457+00 as defined in the Gore Creek Floodplain
Information Study (GCFIS, Reference l).
The purpose of this study is to examjne the effects on the 100-year
recurrence interval floodplain of the proposed regrading of the lot for building.
A mjnimum finished floor elevation and the proposed overlot grading were deter-
mined as requested.
ANALYS I S
Section 49.71 of the GCFIS was orig'ina11y taken through the lot in question
(see Figure 3). The original cross-seci'ion iirformation wai plotted (see Figure 4),
and the proposed grading of the lot was established to determine the cross-sectionafter grading at Section 49.7.l.
Using the proposed after grading cross-section, a backwater analysis was
run based on the future development conditjon 100-year flood d'i scharge of .l807 cfs(GCFIS). The analysis was initjalized two sections below Section 49.7.l and ex-
tended two sections upstream of Section 49.71 to determine any change jn the water
surface (see Figure 5). Results from the computer analysis are enclosed.
12687 WEST CEDAR DRIVE - SUITE 1OO LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80228 PHONE 303-989-1264
Mr. Stan Bernstein
December 20, 1979
Page 2
The existing 'lot is zoned two-family residential. The legal dimens'ions
of the lot were obtained from the Eagle County Assessor (see Figure 2).
Presently, approximately half of the lot will be covered with sha'llow flood-
ing in the event of the 10O-year storm. Upon completion of the proposed grad-
ing (see Figure 3), only a small amount of on site f'looding will occur. The
proposed grad'ing plan involves p1 acing fill within the 1O0-year floodplain
over a distance of approximately 125 feet.100-year f l oodpl ai n folthi s
condition shows no loca surface or ve
roposed grading alterations bas 0n [ne
RESULTS
Table I presents a summary of the backwater analysis
existing and future grading conditjons. Both existing and
condition floodplains are shown on Figure 3. The computer
backwater ana'lysis'is presented in Tab'le 2.
for both the
future grading
printout of the
Mr. Stan Bernstein
December 20, 1979
Page 3
The finish floor elevation of the proposed building shall be two feet
above the 100-year floodplain. This puts the minimum finish floor elevatjon
at 8302.0 ft. based on GCFIS datum.
Because of the 1ow velocity of the flow outside the main channel ,
riprap will not be needed on the regraded portion of the lot. Grass will
be sufficient to prevent erosion.
CONCLUS IONS
0n the basis of the foregoing analysis, we have concluded that the
proposed overlot grad'ing will not have a significant impact upon the flood-
ing hazards upstream or downstream of the property.
If we can be of any further service jn thjs matter, please contact us.
Sincerely,
HYDRO-TRIAD, LTD.
t i l;/ lt
hn /( l(,J/t.,
Jon R. Kidder/ Water Resou rce Engislerrr)il/fu*/6r*
llilliam P. Ruzzo UASenior Engineer
l.lPR: JRK/dh
Encl osure
-t-7
lw
F*'
TABLE I
Vai'l Villaqe Filing No. l'l Lot.9
EXISTING AND FUTURE GRADING CONDITION
BACKWATER RESULTS
Cross Section Water Surface
-ETevaElon-
Velocity (FPS)
Left Main Riqht
1.7 5.9 1.4?.8 8.1 2.12.9 6.5 2.53.6 3.8 0.02.3 4.9 2.3
1.6 5.8 1.42.8 8.2 2.13.0 6.6 3.03.5 3.8 0.02.2 4.7 2.3
49.6]
49.7
49.71
49.8
49.81
49.6'l
49.7
49.7'l
49.8
49.81
8292.3
8295.1
8299.8
8304. 3
831 s.0
Future Grading Condition
8292.3
8295.1
8299.8
8304.3
8315.0
Gradi n Condi ti on
/4..,._?Zv,t'c.
I <,t,
. z,t{
F
H
tJ fOoJ
lrJ
?(,N
o
ln
C\I
(\l
J{,F
s
AI
oJ.
N
oo
o
|rlF
rO
rt
rf)
rt
Fo
(\l
o\
tt)
\o
Fo
OJ
oo
t,{
N
Fl
co
c)
@
(\l
clrll
r{
Fl
ct
c)e
Fl
-lf
r.t
o.o
rr)
o\rt
Fl
oct
c)oo
C\
1.., ,f Y\ r.r-. EH,-"\s
Nr tl N'$ H[.
S t\ N 3}\ss.'J \\\Rr
=oltH 3.
NN-\ nN
S- '.t'\ i e
X {N gH"\s s
N \ ,_!.r\rz&t<. t.J J-{ z
\ l^,
\LJ
IJg<
Ll l!tsl. <l3 ./,
o€
Fao
t{'o(\,
o
o\
ord
!D
?,|
ta:
@
d\Oo(rn or
?atrt F{rQ'.)o€
r{co
r{
Or
or
Fl
c,
Fl
ro
+o
,4,
@
otO.{€lo
Fat
oct|oro
@co
\oo
rr)
or
@(t
0
\od(\l
clo,o€
o@oo,€€
+g\or or(\lN
('ro(\I
Fl
r)o
|r,
o
(\t toOoct
O, \O(g!o, ctq)€
cro dfcro o€o€ro Fo
'aaF(\, o rtt{t (tr Or (
(\t (\l Gt $lo(' o@
ooooc>ooooo
r.f.O.A.C).Fl\OFFFFF-OI*oF. Cl .c'.Cr.O.O(€o\€or@(,\o(€
fr-lfr{i|i{tdt'{
.F{.F|..'-t.F{.r{oocoo
=???=it*tJt*u*(Ji(J*Lri(J*trJttrJIl^J*trj#u*rJ7|an*o*at)*a*
lrJ
to
d.< (/,rl!
Ll !)
v)
o
z
*t'
T
uAlL t/rr tAce
btsrJG; Tr^.lo
2rtttClrJSroNg/\) eA6LE
itLSG No.
R, IS'(e"{,'( Arj/r
ll |nT <1..
-- 17'3J'o4
| .llScaJ'e I - 3o
RE"ti0€N'ItAL
FKo nzr EAGL
f/6urcz
.- t ':'" t7 ta E
rit( .t/il,:t't |.), t
(/t,,, / ' 5G.'/t(1,,,\ 1Y"",,.i' N2l
trA/^lLY
o6T4/deD
t-otoKAOO,
nt STRlcTl
€ COQDTY 455€:SO{<
N Dio 33-osT-=E7s
9(t\
f.t)
'i
.+l
t?\
IL
){4r
l
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I'1,' | .'t"
I
I
I
I
,,'l//,
, i ''lll ,l I t
.r l{f f , i :
ii,rl\lj/i
; I
,"#',1'
ll,tlllli,
ll/# l',!i,
\ill{/liiit
it'i' , , ri ,
'\
\\ i'\ i \ i i\\\r\\ ,1
,I
\:--; ....-: t'iy'-' t.i-.'I 'l ' LI I ,tr t,\'I l-------1 \
l9:)i \' /,l--/
li ltl*,' l,trt;\ tt' \ i ,f t"
\i'/ F\/()\,1' I i
N
I
I
I
I
I
"l 7'-(l..-,,,I i / t-"ti-'{\lt \I l.;* )| \t9./
{,tr-, . ..
\ t. ''--'
r-'.,. ,\r-at'\,..,r
-.,,:.. .' (
tt.- r \,4;:rr \
-/
t1i \./ '7'. ' \I /,.,''' I
I /-'.. ,/ ,' ,:,..-s-- './ ,/ '...- ... ,.:-.-
' I | -'.t a 'l'
t/
/ ;r\-' ;.
I {il',t,t/ ',.< -'-l' ., (r) I.l'Fllil .a'lli- ):-, ,*l
o 'i:l.'( :i-- |
IF.'Y)
:r. /l'\\ '/:\\';i
\\/;'
' tt\'
/'ii
ll
ll
t\I'
I \.!
'1,
()
U)
- - '1,-' '
,(t-
l'
I
\
I
ll
I
)l
I
I
i
j
I
l
;
I
I
,t\
-t'
c,)
t, /.
I
I\
I
I
IItt/t/t/l/,
'// ,",/ i,
I
lt,,
I
I
I
\
\
\\
\\'i.r,.-.; \,\\t ;l \\ I I \ ' I l.\ t \\()t l'\ 11 \ \ ..t t\l\:-*l \,/\ \'i Ji\'
-/\\'.i:\l\
,3c,1 ,;V\
\*_,1 \,i I I{"' \ il ,l
\'. / ,'/ (
| / ,i!!,i/ '|'u;-,kii ii/:// :
,/ ,,1.r"'
,1 /'/i,' ,
/r'
l, "l' . l:lI ', ii
\\
\
\. ',
,
':. \ I'\r\\s
!
tt
F(J
l-
I
I
.l
l'rr It\lr I
I
l
I
rl
iqI
o
oI o
I
T
t
I
I
t
t
t
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
FLOOD PLAI N STUDY
Lot 9, Block 3
Fif ing 1l
BOOTII CREEK AREA
Vail, Co'l orado
PrePared bY
HYDRO-TRIAD, LTD.
Ronal d L. Ha'll eY, P. E.
146y, '1974
+
T
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
t
2059 BRyANT . OENVER, COLORADO 8O2t t r (3O3) 458-628t
Inclosed is our report on t'e Gore Cree
plain;;;-;h. itpu.t ,pbn pl?!ltd con5rp;rti
i;; li,-iiiuir,3 ui'the Vail Villase.llliil "]
l"lay 28, 1 14
i1r. iohn Pearce
30 5th l\venue
liew York iitY' ll .
l'ea' i4r. Pearce:
l0l I I
results of tlre study '-drl b€ sumntari zed th.''
L.SincerelY'
l. The ntaximum flooil stagg is bel the level
of th" *ui'i ttoor of irie Pr-9pose d.structrrrt, '
ll i tt', tlt" pr'r's€11 t iiouse conf i gurati on ' the
maximumfio..dstagleveldoesnotappearto
Dresent a major hazard to I j fe '
,l . Consideratiofl Slit-uld be given to pro-vid'i ng
Somr,' p"oi".iiun to the foundation of tlie
bui l li ilg dnd the s; ou th deck al ea to
mit, rnit. !titi;;;lut g"'in case 0i overbank
fl t,vr.
3. Modifi atjori of the existing-desi.9n to.provide
ful I ptoi..'i;; i;; i malor f'lood event' such
asrnurri;ii;definethefloodplainisnot
conr ider.d .tono*i cal ly j usti fi ed'
The existr,tg house' several lots west of the Buck
propc;;; -;;;i;irv-uti"not into the fIood plain' but'
it .is not r(rrov/n'li"i..iui-ptovisions \'/ere incorporated
into tne desi,n of that house'
If therr. are any questions ' please contact us '
Thank'Vot io. it.t* opi;ortunity to be of service'
K
ol)
flv,.rd
cn
Thr
s*
€
RLH/s I i
Ronald L. Hal
Pre: ident
fotsitn])
4 5235 E
furr^,'"9
HIDRq- T RI AD ' L
C*,t/;,
Encl osures
I
t
t
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O
BUCK PROPERTY
FLOOD PLAIN
(GORE CREEK)
Table of Contents
Page
Letter of Transmittal
Text
Introduction I
Bas i n Des cri Pti on I
General Weather Pattern.... 2
Hydrology.. 2
Flood Plain 3
Concl us i ons and Recommendat'i ons 3
Fi gu res
Figure 1 .... Location l'laP
Figure2.,..GoreCreekFloodPlainThroughF'ilingll
Figure 3 .... Photographs
o
FLOOD PLAI N STUDY
Lot 9, Block 3
Fi l'ing 11
BOOTH CREIK AP,EA
Vail, Co'lorado
Introducti on
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
Att
assessmenthe strea
Booth Creplain impLot 9, Bl
Detai led flood hydrology for the Gore Creek basin
has not been accompllitreO a[- tf is time, and a sophisticated
.rifviis- tor a si ngt u t ot woul d be somewhat out of per-
ip..fiu.. ceitain-generai hydrological. analys.is based
,btt-tjooo ttudies in similar areas and backed up by
iiuiA observation of flood water evidence along Gore
creek i n thi s l^"u.h *u, used to provi de an assessment of
the fl ood pl ai n.
Subsequenttothefloodplaindefjnition'adiscussionof the-p;;diot. effect of a severe fl ood upon the property
and the proposal resi dence is presented'
Basin Descri ption (above Booth Creek)
he request of John Pearce ' vJe have made an
i-ot tfre Gore Creek Flood Pl ai n i n the reach of
m immeai ately upstream of the confl uence wj th
ek. The obilcti ve was to defj ne the fl ood
act upon the constructjon of a residence on
ock 3'of Filing 1l in Vail, Colorado'
e Creek basin is a precipitous basin located
fl ank of the southern Gore Range' The peaks
euiiurn and northern rim of the basin rise t
i.ei-*ith several peaks over .l3,000 feet abo
The el evati on of the creek i n the reach unde
roiimately 8,300, a drop of 4,500 feet withi
m1 'l es. N-umeious smal I moUntai n I akes are f o
es itlor ilov" tl mberl i ne ' These I akes tend
tunoti- raie- from the s prl ng snowmel t and fro
The Gor
on the west
forming the
over 12,500
sea level.
study is appfour to ten
1n the clrquto s'low the
o
ve
r
n
und
m
-2-I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
summer thunderstorms. Gore Creek i s eroded deeply
into the Minturn formation' a multi-member geological
formatjon of principally sandstone and limest0ne'
A s igni fj cant porti on of the eros'i on occurred by
major glaiier actioir Ouring the last ice age' This is
;;;;iv".uident in the "U" ihape of the valley wh'ich has
partiit ty f i I I ed wi th al l uv'ium and boul ders '
General !leather Pattern
The basic storni pattern is from Pacific Coast storms
moving iniand from weit to east. The orographic or uplift
effeci of the mountains push the moisture laden a'i r mass
upward through the 0 to -5 degree Celsjus isotherms'
ihis otten pioduces rain or sieet (summer months) and snow
(wi nter tonths ). Thi s orograph ic effect generates the
iirrnoint inowtit I that mak6s Vai I famous as an excel lent
iniernational cl ass ski resort. The same phenomenon can
produce summer thunderstorms or rai n storms of medium to
high intensitY.
Hydrol oqy
Detai led rainfall depth-duratjon-frequency analysis-
for the Gore CreeI Uasin have not been made. The general
U. S. Weather gurea, itopluvial map for the State of Colo-
rado shows the 6 hour duratjon -'l 00 year recurrence
ini.tuui preci pj tatj on as 2.4 i nches ' The 24 durati on -
100 year recurrenie interval precipitation is 3'4 inches'
The peak runoff rate derived from a unit-hydrograph
for this basin would be over 7,000 c.f's' This, bY
oerinition,wouldbeforoneinchofrainfallexcess.coniid;ri;6 the Tp (Time to.lrvdrograph peak from
centroid of excesi raintutt ) ilf tire basin and the probable
rainfall rates, the peak runoff rate for a maior flood
was defi ned as 4 '000 c. f. s.
An independent, frequencv.tvpe llalv.sis !si,l9, tl9 :!l:1T-^''qaqinq stations on Gore Creek (near the U'S' 6 Highway crossln9,;
;;; 6iu;k-coi. i ndi cates the 4,ooo c ' t. s ' peak fl ow for a
major storm is qulte reasonable.
Flood Pla'in
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
?-
uti I
s torm as
eval uati nof Fi'li ng
Fi gure 2.
Fi 1i ng 11feet el ev
'izing this 4,000 c.f.s. p9a! fl.ow for a mai
ttre it ow rate for fl ood pl aj n defi nti on and
g the various sections in the immediate are-'l I produces the i nudated area as shown on
In'the reach of Gore Creek abuttins !o!^9, ii,e-iiooa p'lain level is just under 8'300
ati on.
0r
a
,
Concl us i ons and Reclrnm-gn!3ti ons
The archi tectural drawi ngs for the Buck resi dence
ind.icate ine main floor level-slightly above elevation
8;300-;; ;b;u; the flood surface ievel. This should
piovi de an adequate safety factor agai nst the maior
haiarO of loss 'of I i fe. ihe question of structural or
prop.itV damage should be considered, but in the per-
ipettlui tfrat-compiete protect'ion from a maior event that
uopro*imates a l0b year recurrence interval is not always
etbnomi cal ly i usti fied.
t,le would recommend some protection for the house and
deck area foundation, which could be done with,the
u.ria.i'i-pr"i"niiv-o,i tne I ot (1ee photographs) oI u
;;ii;;u6 ii" urrri"i. Thi s woul d not have to be compl ete
proi".iion to the 8,300'elevation, but to the 8'298 or
'a,zgg foot elevation. It shou'ld be noted the velocities
oi-1r,. iiream in fiood stage w.il l be on the order of 8
to l0 feet per second whicI can create significant
erosion damige in a short period of time'
q
Yr').y
!.J-
!"!
{!Nrlli:J
'lJ ro
Pl
. .t.
,.I
(')
,,
I
t
)-7Q.'
l w,.:1
i
'-!,,
fvO
ao
,rJI
?i'
il
\l
i
'&q
vl
I
I
\.t-
l<')
(-)a
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
T
I
t
t
I
t
I
I
T
o Figure 3
Vi ew I ookj ng wes tLot 9 to existing
Boul ders in center
p lai n.
from Lot l0 across
house on Lot 5.
are within flood
Vi ew I ooki ng
towards Gore
eas t from cul -de-sac
Creek.
lro
clr2
c
cozt
E
gl
a
z
Yolr|
uz
Jo
zo
ig
o
IIJ
uJ
(,zt
u,loz
sE
atF2
!,1
E
lr,lth
ul
o
F
g,l
E
GooJtt
ul
G
F
J
FoF
t!
ct
Go
Jtt
J
FoF
t
.E:_tr
= lrl
o
l!eto
-=-ne).if- -'t-f
E
z
troI
o
rrl
!E
2v
.c
G
Fott
l!o
E
AulE
zo
F
oo
2o
F
cItlFJ
3!tz
F
2
o
u,l
ul
o
trl
lt
6
UJAo
.AEu,
Yzt(l
at
IJJE
lt
vt
=l
(:'2
:
tto
ct2
NO|lvn'lVA
I
Itb
$
C,-
:-
-!t>(,rr
:*N
!,1 F
=ozo9-o-6t
2
troc-3-oFE.49
=>xo
=26fHAtt
;.i
3
J
2o
F
(,
Jcc
tto
ulF
o
,Svne 5, ]-97h
John Buck HouseVail, Colorado
RE Flood Plain Studv
Diana Tuehill
Zoning Adminstrator - Town of VaiIVail- Muncipal BuildinEVail, Coloi-ado 8a657"
Dear Diana:
Enclosed is the Flood Plain Study by Hydro-Triad, ltd for l_,ot 9Block 31 Filing 11 as request by-yoir oir April L9; LgTl+.
John Pearce
Are hitect
80 Fifth Avenue
New Yqrk
New York 10011
2122551876
I shall be in Vail on Thursdav Junemeet with you that day (or th6 nexbis satj-sfactory and to receive fromrelating to the construction of the
A-^-..-
l-3tb, L97Iv and would like today) to verify that the repor.tyou copies of all documents
duplex.
oo t" sro"if,ior Review
ENVI RONI,Ii:NTAL REV I IiT
T ovl 0F vA l I
airtc KI tsT
Pr oject
Owner
, Type o{ Project
, Lega I Descrip-f ion
nontrivial e1{ect on the environmenl. Ef fects
ces o{ both pr i.nary and second.rry rrature.
The following que:tions shall be used as guidel
negative declaraiion or an environmental impact
w;ite !tunknown in yes/no co lumn ).
l. Could the projeci significantly change
area?
any acJivily vrhich nay an'/
inc luCe envi ronmenta I cc -en-
ines to decide whether J,. r rf<e a
reporl . (lf answer is u;,t.r'r<''wn,
YES I.J O
p resent uses of the projecl
2,
3.
4, Will any na-iural or rnan-made features in the orojec-l
are unique, that is, not found in other parts of the
or Sta -l-e be affected?
5. Wi I I the projec+ involve cons+ruction of
30 percen'l or g reaie r?
6, Will +he project involve consiruction of
geo log ic hazards?
7. l,lill the project involve construction oi
subjeci to ava lanche?
Does thc project significantly conf lici with appl icable general
p lans and the Vail Master Pli'n?
Could the projecl affect ihe use of a recreational area, or area oJ
importan't visual value or pre-emp+ a site uilh poJenl ial recreation-
al or open space value?
/_
1
Z
/
/
/
a rea wh ich
To|,\,n, Couniy,
f acilities on a s loDe of
facilities in an area of
{acilities in an area
8. Could ihe project change existing feal'ures or involve construction ,/iri any f lood plain, natural drainage course, or \,,/atercourse? /
',t 'DoestheProjcctinVo|VeeXienSivcexcavationor{i||7fu --v-
12. Could the project significantly aftgct teari ng areas or-habiiatUOUI(l llle prOJeCl 5rgrllTl(jajlll ly dllecl t_edl, lrrq dl(:ds ,+--"-'oJ7'Z''a,.Pr-ffi *ffi w'2 .Y-4ul A aa*Z--Z;h:Ea4-;&.-' dztzaJ
fl. Are there aily rare or endangered 4lant spccies in the Droject _Jz
Could the projeci change existing features ol any _of the
/strean Jrontagcror grccrbelt ar-cas? ;fu/.
viill the project r e m o v e ' s u b s t a n t i a I amoill +he Droiecl r e m o v e - s u b s l a n i i a l amounts of vegetal ion includ-
ing ground cover?
16. Could the project result in significant clrange in +he hydrology
of the area?
17. Could fhe projecf result in the displaceneni of community
res idents?
18. Could fhe project serve fo encouraEe developmenf of presently un-
developed areas or intensify development of already developed
areas?
,1z
z
10.
tt,
14.
19. ls there appreciablo oppr.)sil ion to the projeci or is
be controversial?
ls lhe project, as part of a larger project, one of a series of
cumulative actions, which alfhough individually small, may as a
whole have signiiicant environmenfal impact?
Does fhe proroci area or the project siie serve as a habitat, {ood
source, nest ing p lace, cross i ng, vr i nter i ng a rea, source of waier,
etc, for riildlife species?
area?
it like ly to
'1,IiIrl
2t.
wi tt d|roject create new or aggrauot.l ,n9 health hazards?
wl ll fhe proJect involve +he application, use or disposal of
Poisnt ia I ly hazardous materials?
22. Could the projecl' generafe significant amounts of dust or odor?
25. Cou ld the pcojec+ generate s i 9n i f icant noi se?
24. l{il I the p,roject discharge significant volumes of solid or liquidyasteg?
IE5 NO
/
-r'
25, Could the lpoiec+ result In damage to soil capability or loss of
agr icu ltura I land'i
26. Could the project significantly affect the potential use, extrac-
tion, or conservet ion o{ a natura I resource?
27. Could project alter local traffic patterns or cause a signiti-
cant increase in traffic volune or +ransit service needs?
28. Add it iona I rema r ks :
-Z
/
,/
I
/
iI
a
I
i
Ii
(
Revtew cn"d}r, comp tcted by
Dare 1- /r-74
Based on theis required.
above
checkf ist Reviewcd rr@-, fae&gi4e--r idrfl e
Tltle
review, i t i s {ound tl a-i ax Env i ronmenta I lrnpact nupo.f*
S igned
Based on the above revjew,
project does n01 ceuse any
NEG,rrT | .'E DECL,lRAT l0N
( and 'l-h€ s tat..-,ient be lo,v,
s ign i f !cent e.viro.,rnenf al
) it is {ound that this
S igned Da te
/,
ii
o
J
June 15, 1974
l.,lr. John Pearcc
80 5th Avenuc
New York, New York 80011
Dear Mr. Pearce:
Th I s I s to I nform you that zon Ing, des I gn
I mpacf have been Epproved for the ProposodBlock 3, Val I Vl*lage llth Fl llng.
and gnvl ronmanta I
duplcx on Lot 9,
The foundatlon deslgn for the house must bc cnglneered In
accordance vlth flood pl!ln study provldod by Hydro-Trlad, Ltd.
I f you havc further quecflons rcgardl ng zon I ng or envl ronmenfa I
lmpact, pleaso,€onfact thlg off lce.
Yours tru ly,
TOWN OF VAlL
'\.{
Dlana S. Toughll I
Zonlng Admlnlstrator
oo
rlAfril t8, Fz+
?.op* 'J*h. ffuk W-i$n&Z
,1 blq*,2 u$tril;=-Va;lVlluAu uth7ilQ*- (l
''
' l e+ve*ru4.-'{e 3n'
tprv-tvvpffie I lho nzla4tcv>*h,'r,n't tthcz 'i'ik'. t-off1Ya(Pr)-T>. l nO fi?lA+l9Y>9nt p'tu t, tY
T- zo ,-igvr#-c'P-L,ve'g- te'cri*i.ol -
t^ v.'1El YpA uDn 4hV wdolern L-*
bau \.Yr^JbJ wartfr ^,^tlll V;,:y. lcmi.'g
*ha 6',roe. **ro.f J-i gr rn J.%X l-,iP:.h.#,-
errJ t-*d \-l.rLA exeaa-. Thn " Q
T+ t.g rrls) ....rco&hon
L+t*# {hzs dlbne, * ueqJ
ae= .?o e.anC* g'F
. fuD |-\k'r'e(@oicbmcs- rv1 a s!-ile.r
pa(a-*!.'orr 4o T-zo hr".,Jl* {**o+r-ala--l-r'orr 4o E-Zo hs,nd/a {€ryt{U.rldf) T-z ? p,n-1 rn,#l*fiieoe+&:ree
i
oo
.l
Pie-n.
.
I
oA ocf.rte,', irr,c, wil, cyl&J,&ds.
March 5, 1974
Mr. John PearceP. 0. Bbx I 3.l6
Va i I , Col orado 81 657
Dear John:
l'ly apologies forthe prel iminary'llth filing.
the delay in getting back to you regardingplans submitted for your residence in the
The Architectural Control Committeeapproval to the p'l ans submi tted f or
S'i ncerely,
Secretary
/ san
has granted preliminary
this residence.
AL CONTROL COMMITTEE
ara A. NewSam
AREA CODE 303 476-5601 BOX 7. VA|L. COLORADO ar657
e5 r.ln
ate Pa
ROJ ECT
r € I :'1tr\u v
id
ioil rir ,', cHlcliL I ; i
S U l'l':'l r\ P Y
; ARCH lTecT
// zl
EGAL DES IPT ICN
IUILD
iequi
iITE
ISEABL E
}ARK I NG
Actual sq. tt. tt72'r-" t
OPEN SPACE: RequiTsl 7oo sQ.
GroundLevel --,
ft., Actua! ///2f'/.qz sq,
{. conimon ,
A I lowab le rnax i murn length , Di agona I
Act ua I length ',D iagona I
Allowable --,1{1i-.fi, Allowable Sq. f t.q,76'/.5(, ActuaI
f t.,
l+r h;
-ANDSCApIt{G: iequi red , 6o 1, /ot)sy'./6 sq. f t., Actuat ?7 I / 4,4t/$sq'it'
AN.D LoADING: No. Required / , No' Actua | 6 ' coVered Re-
1u i re d
---- -*
ION ING APPROVAL
No.; Covered Actua I 3' , -
fi
Da teZon ing Admin istiator
)ES IGN REV lEl,l B0ARD APPROVAT
Chairman, Design Review Board Date
SE ZONE ; FROPOSID USE ( S )
oT sf ZE /7,af7'y'1 ; FR0I'ITAGE
ETBACKS: Required
Actua I
STANCE BETIiEEN BU ILDI
E I GHT:
.R.F.A.
Ol',ll'lERC I
F ron r
Front
II]GS:
Actua I sq. ft:
Jo,
34,
Si
Si
Rec u i red --- , Actua I
"!:Z{-;Average Gra de
(-.
, ,4{ Ratio, Allowable sq. f t. q'"201 4, Actual sq' lt'4'ft/'t0;
AL FLCOR AREA: Percentage allowable l Allowable sq' ft' - ''
ING BULK CONTROL
red 0 f fsets
COVERAGE:
des /./.f t //,Qr . Rea r -14!/1L--,'0"&fuffi,K:2-,
x1i:7--
/,f,'
.l.4-
UTILITIES APPROVAL
Da teTow n Eng ineer
ENV I RONI4ENTAL ll'lPACT APPR0VAL
Mayor Date
Date Submi
Date S ubmi
Date Submi
Extens-i on
by
c0M
Sect i
I"lENTS
for Zon i
for Des i
for Envi
ng Review
gn Revi ew
ronmen ta I
tte d
tte d
fte d
Dea d I ine
Dead line
Da te
Date
I mpact Revi
to
ew Dead l i ne
as pe rn i "l-t-: i
item
of Ordinance
date
(Series of l97l).
a
of
No. 8
Grlr*_---
t Z:- 7.lf
,2. f ty',-fo
e,?oo''u H Zt7'1A
/) .t 2ty,r, 4ds
rt.f x i: r.f = (t/r.2-'-
t 2f 7.2 >-
alo, c-
a4,f
4?. a
/1 .ts-
9rt l-cl.-4
fr.r- x /7 {
iJ, t'K. 7r'?: /R f 7'2 )-
/ t7z.r-o
/LAe-aJ-,4,. f-ry
a-aJ
2.c-X 1)d = ttUr,t-O
t.t'x bi rr2.ro
1/ o t! -to
/7at-7'/t
tr72' 'o
t 7 . o ' o"
/ ?,1rL/,qa
I
DEVELOPI1IiIT ROUTI;IG SLIP
PROJ ECT
OvlNER/D
S UBII I TT
EYiLUTtr11
IAL DATE
f
I
I
ENTITIES
PREL II,] INARY STAFF
RE V I EI,J
t"IASTER P LAN
LANDSCAP I NG
RECREAT IO!.I
AI'IEN IT I ES
./
tzENeR . cHecr
,6rs tcn cHrcr
y'nv tnotlurnrnl
I MPACT REV IEI,I
ENV IRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
ZON ING CHECK
PLANN. C0l'11.4.
Tov,lN couNc I
REV IEW
v,6Es tolt REV tEw
,fiNet zotr itto
REV IEl.l
DATE
RECE IVED ca_lll!!rEq s IGi.IATURE REr'1AR(S
/// /*
/f/ /t
4-t-t{
t dl /t^ t,g/.ha
<hl?+ {*-- Arnrei'qe-
VAR IANCE
//rt
--_7-.
//
/'tf'z't
COND IT IONAL USE
BU I LD ING DE.PT
t't-nN csecx
arEcHlpLac,
y,t{e cr n tcnu
6uettc r,loRKs.
F IRE DEPT.
hhi-
PUB L ICAT ION DAT E
TYPE
HEAR ING DATE
FEES: ''AMO Ui{T DATE DA ID RE MARKS
VAR IANCE
COND. USE
ENV I R. IMPACT
PLAN CHECK
:.
RECREAT ION -z?q. rf,
PERI'l IT, BLDG
PLUI";P ING
MECHAN ICAL
ELECTRICAT
4ctrlarctie)
OTHER cV too
i.:
t-^./-. Z
f KUr.tr)J I Ilt'
DEADL INE
-/to 3-lz-a-''c-/6a
or-te fu /ae//