HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 4417B Columbine Dr Exterior Paint75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
97U479-213V479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
July 23, 1996
Department of Community Development
Mr. Lawrence Levin
Holme Roberts & Owen
1700 Lincoln St., Suite 4100
Denver. CO 80203
RE:4417 Columbine Drive, Lot 5, Block 4, Bighom 3rd Addition
Dear Larry:
This letter is in regard to your proposed color change at 44178 Columbine Drive. As we have
discussed, the proposed paint color and trim are approved. Ifyou have any questions, please feel
free to contact me.
Sincerely,
.l
Utt"fV,,vNwt*fn+
Lauren Waterton
Planning Liaison Officer
tP *n"uo'uo
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970 -479-2 I 3 8/479 -2 I 3 9
FAX 970-479-2452
June 11,1996
Department of C ommuniry Developmentr
Mr. Lawrence Levin
Holme Roberts & Owen
1700 Lincoln St, Suite 4100
Denver, CO 80203
RE: 4417 Columbine Drive/Lot 5. Block 4. Biehorn 3rd Addition
Dear Larry:
This letter is in regard to your proposed exterior color change at 44178 Colurnbine Drive. As we
discussed, I have looked at the proposed paint color and find it to closely match the existing wood
siding color. You are free to proceed with painting the exterior. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me at (970) 479-2128.
Sincerely,
krl"rr* Ma-tz4-u^-
Lauren Waterton
Planning Liaison Officer
{pu*uo'uo
ctz
t
=tllro
oo
(>
rY)sf
C\I
a
uJ
UJttt
=E
uJo-
ff -x> -!r -<
gLscq- ?-) d.\
rJ) |o lt)\l@(Y) r \FrN\\l \,<! (\l
1"1
r\cl(o
LE..- | Fl
ii$ r
5l|l !
=r: tl
-lE €l!t= (Jl
rd 16 .Fl(5l= d
I
I
I
I
IIJJIF
lo
I
ul
o
F
FI2
o
=z
oltl
z
o
=oJ
dt
.6
=z
l!
ulo
i
ot!
<F
6z(,)<
j-(l)c
6 * 6.9)
a E€:E
.EEEEi
EfiEffi
;ss
:Ei$
.9"; E"g €sE;eJ
; E:€€
:$Eg:.! O'- .: -E= O' (' s
e€Eg€
jgiig
o
o(f)
o
O(Y)
E
=ur
zo!
CO
I
uJ
oz
Jc
EF
!!J
UJ
z
@
=Jo-
z
I
uJ
ul
uJILzo
Etu
uJ
oo;g
uJ
e,z
6
uJ
u,
c
u,/
L
;
uJ
o
x
F
ulo
U'
uJ
uJu-F
=
IJJ
J
FoF
z
o
o
J
C)e
F
gJ
uJ
oz
.o
E =IoqJ.
NOtrvnlv^
)6-=;G-Etn$
IE.: adrcluo
=L|!(Uo-zure=
ir-o
tu
H(6iPs=z+
u.t
N
2
6
z
6g
EEoo5bo2r!<o*
9EFO; s,i
zIF
J
<
l!
o
E
u,o
F
oo
o(7)<f(\l
a
IJJE
J
z
Eo
z
tr
e,
uJF
;utz
I
2fz
tr
oo
I
a
trzf
z
=!J-o
ul
5o.ul
d
ciz
tl!z
FI
trI
llJl
aa
llJzY
iF
o.
zo
F
5oz
t9ltJlxl$l-:l;lF
(E
J
a
iaE
olu
UJ
P\
(r
UJ
o-)
z
:-F
ov
<a
JI
sl
2l
vl
.. >lo
ot,. lztzl
?lEleJt<tr!.olo-lo
(f)
I
(Aq)a
oo
111 \
F:o:o,or,?
uJF
o
z- o-
Fo-r!Y
ullo
oF
tr
crul
o-tto
0,oo
I
uJFoz
z
o9
=e. -ooF
=ze= l'-dP-
a(,()z&
t-\ F
=(J-t -:
dlr!
E
E
uJ
tt
?!{E:E<tLf€8E9vE
5EE-Jr
=ul:-E !r=o dtrE =o--c EB9 5lrE XO-t x>t q-
€=
uJ
@oF
---
E
=E,
lrJ
o-z9Fo
:)E
6zoo
trtrn
'i
!I
ot
l-l
l-llolllz I<fl,- |v'qld=ll*lt:l
Il!
let-Feli
oot\
si<f+
lJ',
lJ.J
F
F.tllrJ
&.lrJ
d,
lrlF
=ii
-Ez
o
-
l4lo14
Lr-
dtd
r.q
F-.1
a
5
z
av)
UJ
o
o-
E
tr
UJg,
=
o
at
=o(J
x
cct
-
=tr
I
cOor.o l-l
=.1o
IJJ]E
J
<1>l
ltlol
zl
3
9l
sf(O
o
I(\l
(Y)ct.
IIJ
trF =c
oz
qJ
tt
z3
F ==
tr
^]
olu
CE
J
a
l!oz3I
()
U'
=tr
.4
rfrl\'t
oz
ciut
5
ioz3o
c
04r\
GFIulJ
uJF,
T
O
I,IJ
=E
uJz
=o
F
lu
E?o
G,
E
<Ft()uJ<zg(rz-o()
JE<oC)F
=()FfXF-, z.a
z6
E
J
I
z
dE
=3
-FY,Z
=g
E
E ir
+t Fo2-J<()sn5inn!
I-8
-EE 'LEr TruL5U
STUffiY UITNEI$II8 FIIBII{{IUHI,I
€FF t'/a n', l'l o.
-)- ,
?.c, lBr.,z Z:'-:(iL)
L?.., I , ('.,1c, ,r ,,i ,)t'
El_l
|;]!r'-l
tr
@
a
6\\Y/
o-@
(t
(4\:-/
B
n-4.
hi--V,'
tr
/E
'--i- /- |_!-,,r ELTtA - tlua a-d -St,r.r,<
'-D.,^ L l-
S '^o ^=
--Du
4uo1"^
IT,u or c A'-r-oa At o Hr
A ru nrr{,(/C,ATC)A
St..,-.,-r' S.,i.,renl
(ro, -6r
l\AncrEr,o Srnr"no
--\lrlJ ete. c-toa
7,, o,,n. Pr7 -Du -/u-Jor,
biceArceR
5t r.-." 196
a
o
A L AR!..^ PAr.r€{-
f-uru 7.'-poe a* o.
l/, or' /ur.,
-P-.;s.',,s
Sur".,,.
c^f 'rft .\t- S'l-n'-r-, urt
)-l "*.
A r- n ra r^,r
C\ . n *'n^
(,,, \L fte 't I
,,;
..:
Corpor0tc llcsdquartcrs - Houston,4Cl l,.rhatn Dr., llouston, TX 77A07, 713/868.1551, Si;rit Lic i1:l;l
lllrrquc..tu., .1518 Co.l li [ . Alhuiuareu0, IJM 07108.505/?6t6(r8l
Ar,3lin. 2l16 tlircoct or. Austrn, TX 78756. 51?1.159.1313. Sralo Lrc. ?256
D.'|vcL 2:rr,0 S.uth fo'. gnalewocd, CO 801j0, 303t62.850O
nlq Grnndc vrlloy,2308 Sunrhlno Slrip.Slilc 0, lln,lin!,n, lY /n:''f 1ir": :rri. ' ri" i1 :lrr:
ficcrl.!. t1O. Bor 2390, Va'|, CO 81658.303/476.7300
'llrin Cltlat, XrSl Ponltnd Aw. So, [linneepolis, Mll 55'lr); i:i]rr; t t''t:
Ylctorl.,808 E Nuoco! Sira.r. V,r|cria. TX 77901.512t570-5533, Slnld Lic. t425
{l(ir*rn**,,unn,ffi
$Gm
$[[l|Blir c0il$l|uAtT$ [{TIRilluroflAt
Approved
Denied
Plan
r-i
n
/l
TownofVall Communityi . i, '.
Devcloprne$. ,^,.^ /. nu.:/ FLoo4
. ..1
\t .lil.t!: . '.{ D.r',..;.
c.
PHONE + /72'/??.
./?6 -oSJg
il
TE OF DRAWING
1 SQUARE --. 1_T.
COMPANY
ADDRESS
CONTACT
I v-l
| )--l
' ;'.-i. .'.::ll i;' i!r ,ii :'l.l
! " . .: : ': "-, :.1 irl.': rij
cl .l ;le::,i':: v. ?.n0f0,,;l tl Dlans and
Ci,t,igiluerj 11^ r^,: .i 1.1;i:.,ii rCt , Of an
o{ airy ot 1:iie piJ}r,rbiins 0i liris code
rl llre lJr;siicati0n. 'li.i,' iiSJ;rnce 0f DA
S P E C I A L' I NS T A L t A T I O t\$r I N,STrHl..l Oif l@{rl8 : req u i r i n s th e DRAWING CODES:''. .. it 0i strct! i,t s;;ii ptans, s0ecifications aad other @ ene nvn
@urcriolvavu
F' lotcttnL pLnre
lco icowrnol pnurl
I uc-l ooon coNTACT
FM;l DoUBLE DooB
CONTACT
f6frol 9vsr,r11s4D Doon
I-rril 11'1rP1,1OO
iluJ-nc.,Lb ili,
Fgl snr.e coNrAc-f
[1] rloon unr
[r* lsHur.rr svvrrcl-i
@ nitE of ntsc
[n] sr,ioxe DErEc-r-on
,r-iiE: 7-l?JS
)
' #5a
wttil r.tvrnr rrl:ilntrv srnlltr+ s hrrixs"""" " ""-" -- FIrr-Il
-\l
I I\- al !-Ir-ri ll tf-ll
[_ - Jl._-f L
$tc|Jilii [0ti$|J[[HIs llltnlllll0llIt
O
UR VffiV.ioB, s
CONTACT
PHONE t q76' //?o
!1 6' os 38
,
*+-
'I
L€V E L
1 SQUARE _-- F'f,
bnrr oF DRAWING
SPECIAI- INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS:DRAWING CODES:
@ ene nvR
lTilltltciictuvavu
l@otGtrnl eure
l-c" I corurRol Pnlt el
F;l Doon coNr^cr
Fl,;l DoUBLE DooR
CONTACT
loxo'l gvgnH5aD Doct'l
I n.l rr'trnnneo
lqjii.,i ,, ui,
I r! s,ire coNTircl
[ry-] rloon t"tnr
['*lsuurur swrrcH
[-!1] nnre or RrsE
l_11] sr"rox r Dt:rEcron
tr,:,*mnffi,,
5Gffi
sfc||llil B0rs||rnx$ rxmffitlmt
coMpANy | ,l';ru /,i.o Esrn','u,
JOB SftVEY
Pot fulncxc€
ADDRESS
CONTACT
PHONE + 472',/?9n
./76 -oS3g
1 SQUARE
-
FT.
DATE OF DRAWING
DRAWING CODES:
PBE AMP
lnw IMICfiOWAVE
I op lotcttnl ptRre
lc"lcoltrRol pRruel
FA DooR coNrAcr
loMCl DoUBLE DooR
CONTACT
INFFABEI)
HOLD UP
SAFE CONTACT
Fu lrloon unr
I-stlsHUNT swrrcH
l-na I p41E.oy plga
SPECIAL INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS:
loiiEl OvEnnenD DooR
I SD I SMOKE DETECTOR
m
$Gffi
8tE[ilii E0tE||ulfi$ lillt[xlll0xll
O
SURJOB VEY
CONTA.CT l/*r fy/.a.-xte
PHONE + q76- //?o
q'7 b' o5 38
1 SQUARE -- FT.
DATE OF DRAWING
DRAWING CODES:
@ pRe arr,tP
ftrw'iutcnownve
l-oil otcrrnr plare
f-cJl corurnol pRtre L
nil DooR coNrAcr
F;;I DoUBLE DOOR
CONTACT
16fr61 ovenHeRD DooR
tEtillt;r
t4tq@tril
IN FRA RED
HOLD UP
SAFE CONTACT
FLOOR l'rAT
SHUNT SWITCH
RATE of RISE
SMOKE DETECTOR
SPECIAL I NSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS:
t? 76 I
INSPECTION REQUESTPERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
,l
'1 I
t/l>
,i.7 'l i)t1<- Y-t,TOWN OF VAIL ,'l,DATE
INSPECTION:MON
CALLER S<
ru,Es @READY FOR
LOCATION:
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
O FRAMING tr ROUGH / WATER
n ROOF & SHEER" PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION tr POOL/H.TUB
O SHEETROCK NAIL tr
trtr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:MECHANICAL:
tr
tr
tr
tr
TEMP. POWER tr HEATING
ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
{.! ,r.,1-,+.*_tr
tr FINAL T] FINAL
APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
! 'l ,i i ,f I
NSP
I
1ATE : it i.''' JoBNAME
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
READY FOR INSPECTION:
LOCATION:
ECTION REQUEST
rowN 9t,uo':.
BUILDING:
T] FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUITIBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W,V.
T] ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
n ROOF & SHEER" PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION
tr SHEETROCK
tr POOL/ H. TUB
tr
tr FINAL
o
tr
tr FINAL
ELECTFIGAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT B SUPPLY AIR
tr
tr FINAL
E APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REOUIRED
t
DATE INSPECTOR
ffi
gcT-24-95 O9:34 FRoH. rO coDbined, Gourts rD, arze 63ea PACT 2
DTSTRTCT EOT'RT, COUXTI Or EAGLE, STATE
Caa€ No. 9{CV28g
OF COI,ORADO FIIED IN THE
C(]MBINED CLERlt'S OTTICE
iruDQl,lE[f Of THE CoIIIr!
EAG! E COUNTY. COLoRADo
I,. .[|REIICE LEVII{ AN'T
rlalntiffs,
vE.
CAROII I,EVIII,
sr l[99HA,,DArRrc_rA_illogll THE ror'N oF vArL, coroRADo, TrrEDEpAen|B}|T 0r Cor|rtUlfITI DsrriI,oilrN[ or IBE TotN oF vArL, erldNAilDY STOUDER,
Defendanta. i
Thle natter sas trled to the Court for tso-enal_a-halfclays, and th€ Court nas constaerea arf ot trr"-iesiiiony recelvedas nell as th€ nsnerous exhlbr,te ana tne-arJu.ii;-;r coqnsel .
Plaintlffs fued a conplaint for declaratory JudgrnantI:rl9lls_tg a. duptex.p:rt1 iarr iEleeuent affecrtng rlre dupl€xat {{17 Colunbine Drive, tail, Coiorado, as Lt relites toe:cterlor coror ch_anges,' criiiing tiat t[.-i9iJ"^""c-in thatregard hae been ar. roqat.d ""a, it not, ttot the DefenclBnt. heveunECaEonably wtthhera or derayed tnetl ol"i.il-tJ-iiarntttfe,desLre to cf,anoe the erreiia;';i tiieir rrari or itre Juprex.Plalrrtlfrs a1s5 orlgiltitli-rir"i Jt"iro= egrtnsr the Town of valIshich have eubseoueitry bar;-;;;ivea-ana'ri.-r,o -Ii'g"r thasulrject ot thls 6ourt 6rder.
The retralning ieeuee, lhErefor€r oE€ three: (A)lli$:: the parry warl-aErecneit-iii= been qlrsqared by prtoracte of, the ouner6; (Bl ft tlq paEty naff igit.;i"ni is r"effact, dlo€s the uee-oi- " ""iia-""dar stqin constitute anexterlor change requlring trre conscnt of [he Iroun.ri anal (c) ifusg of tho sotld gEain-riquirei-;orr=.nt cf the otrrii'parry, havebho Anounaa unr€asonaury tir-trfiri-ii, derayed lhelr consenr.
[he Court, having considered qll ofexhlbits, and the argutlcntE o! couneel, nakesrull.nge on ths iseueg:
the teatinonf, thethe folloolnq
300D UIIANTI(I OEf,00a0008G0c8 z9:0r g0/tz/0r
0(;T-24-9S 09.3.1 FRon. EacCoDbilred CotrFts rD, 3o3oe E32e
A. The party wBll Egr€efient has not been abrogated bythe prior acte of the ownera. AlthouEh thare uay lrave bien eonlwaivlrs In the past by the predecsEsors of the DEfendantsAnouna, thog€ actg do not conetitute art estopp€I against thcAneunae aasertl_ng thelr rigrhte pu.Fsuqnt to tnlt paity wattagreerent.
B. 1!he party walt egreehent J.6 ln eftect and doesrequire tJe'conscnl of-the Def6ndants lnouni prior to anyatructural or d€sl.En changes (tncludlng coloichanges of anytype or natur€).
C. Ttre Coutt ctoee ftnd that the Anounae haverurreasonably d€Iaycit thetr consent.
It fs THEREE9RE ORDERED that the ptatntiffs nayproceed to rentath the exterior rood surfaces of their hirr ofthe duplex cith a eolid color ataln that nearly as posslbtenatcheE the ovefal,I appearanse of the wood stain on theD€t€ndant'e half of rhe duplex. The Court nakee thls rulingafter consldering all of the varloug qlternarives present€d tothe Court arid hearlng the testlrony of 6ev6ra1 paint expertr-
fT IS FIIRTHER ORDERED that th6 plaintiffe nay repal.ntthe etucco Dortlon of thelt ext€rlor ralle in a eolor io nltchthat uhich is found on the half of the auplex owned blr theDefcndints Anouna and shall restatn thelr garage door to natchthe other extsrlor rood portlone of tne Aritti.ig,
^ To ptevent a repeet of this lltigation a year fronnorr, th€ Court further orderB that the Def,ondante tnouna nayreetain thelr.portion of the duplex rlth a gepl-.trsnsparent
cedar staln stthout further conient of the plaintiffs-Ievin.
fhe court ordars that both parttgB shgll pay their ourrEttorney f€oa and court costs and that Defendanbs Anoirnarscountercleln for claDaEes is denied.
DolrB AND srcnaD ln chatb€rs thls fftfr aay of october
FAGE 3
19e5.
BY TIIE COURIT:
s000 UgiiNA( OUX 00209s8c089 z9:0r g$/vz/ol
.Il.:.t-"= ce'38 FRolt= "O cenbrned couF..s to, rfaa esze
: QERrfFIc.nu,.OF nalrr}|C
f HEREBY cmTIF? that a true and sorrect copy of the
53lTliig"ffuiil,l"' .&Eoult :F"ji;ft,u1li;, **3;"hT:f=
FACE 4
IATIREIICE I.E\ENAttorney at Iau
9560 Eaet Eorrer place
Oreensood Vlllage, cO gotlt
DATTEL L, I|@DR,OT|
Attorney at Lan999 LSth stte.t, suite 3450Dqnvcr. CO Ao2oZ
r0oE UIIAMIC OUE 002000880G9 99:0r ga/iz/ol
t
DE SIGN REVIEW
sub-grade placements or other means that both
screen the satellite dish antenna and do not appear
unnatural on the site.
Satellite dish antennas on or attached to existing
structures shall be permitted provided the satellite
dish antenna is architecturally integrated into the
structure. Effective use of color shall be required to
ensure compatibility between the satellite dish
antenna and existing structure. The use of a mesh
material shall be strongly encouraged when
attempting to integrate a satellite dish antenna onto
an existing structure.
Landscaping or other site improvements intended to
screen a satellite dish antenna proposed on any
application shall be completed prior to the issuanceof a building permit to install a satellite dish
antenna. A letter of credit equal to one hundred
twenty-five percent of the costs of installing
landscaping or sitc improvements may be submitted to
the Town of Vail if seasonal weather conditions
prohibit the installation of landscaping or site
improvements.
All improvements required by the design review
board for thc purpose of reducing the visibility of
satellite dish antennas shall remain in place so long
as the satellite dish antennas remain in place unlesi
permission to alter or remove said improvements is
obtained from the design review board. All satellite
dish antennas and all improvements required by the
design review board to reduce the visibility of
satellite dish antennas shall be adequately maintained
and repaired and shall not be allowed to become
dilapidated or fall into a state of disrepair.I. Duplcx and p secondary developmcnt.
E purpose of this seEion-is-to-Efr5 I that duplcx
edinaand prim development be desi
manner t tecturall tesrated
unified site development. Dwelling
5.
6.
7.
structure with
4s4j-l
(vail t-2-88)
ZONING
minimize congestion and adverse impact upon the general
traffic circulation pattern in the area.2. Projects shall provide adequate layout design of parking
areas with respect to location and dimension'of vehicular
and pedestrian entrances and exits, building locations,
walkways and recreational trails.
3. Proper vehicle sight distances shall bxist at each
access point to a public street.
H. Satellite dish antennas.
It is the purpose of these guidelines to ensure that the
visibility of a satellitc dish antenna from any public
right-of-way or adjacent properties be reduced to the
highest degrec possible. It shall be thc burden of the
applicant to dcmonstrate how the satellite dish antenna
installations complies with these guidelines. The
guidelines work in concert with regulations outlined in
Section 18.5E.320 of Vail Municipal Code. The following
guidelines shall be used by thc dcsign revicw board in
evaluating applications for satellite dish antennas:
I. All wiring and cable related to a satellite dish
antenna shall be installed underground.
2. The use of mesh satcllite dish antennas is highly
encouraged because of their ability to be more
sensitively integratcd on a site or structure.
3. The use of appropriate colors shall bc requircd to
providc for a more sensitive installation when
integrating a satellitc dish antenna onto a site or
structure. Color selection for a satellitc dish antenna
should be made with respect to spccific
characteristics on a site or structure. Unpainted
surfaces and satellite dish antennas with reflective
surfaces shall not be allowed4. Locations of satellite dish antennas shall be made so
as to ensure that the satellite dish antenna is scrccned
from view from any public right-of-way or adjacent
property to the highest degree possible. In addition
to effective sitc planning, screening a satellitc dish
antenna may be accomplished through thc usc of
landscaping materials, fencing, cxisting structures,
(vail l-21-86)454j
o
ZONING
units and garagcs shall be designed within a single
structure, exccpt as set forth in 18.04.050 I,2 thereof,
with the use of unified architcctural and landscape
design. A singlc structure shall havc common roofs
and building walls that creatc enclosed space substan-
tially above grade. Uninea arctritectui -
design shall include, but not be limited to, the
comDatt uildine matcrials. architectural
style, scale, roof forms, mass
te grading and landsca
etails;<.rldrr,4<<e.1,f.,
The presence of significant site constraints may
permit the physical separation of units and garagei
on a site. The determination of whether or not a lot
has significant site constraints shall be made by the
design review board, Significant site constraints shall
be defined as natural featurcs of a lot such as standsof mature trees, natural drainages, stream courses
and other natural water features, rock outcroppings,
wetlands, other natural features, and existing struc-
tures that may create practical difficulties in the site
planning and development of a lot. Slope may be
considered a physical site constraint that allowi for
the separation of a garage from a unit. It shall be the
applicant's responsibility to rcquest a detcrmination
from the design review board as to whether or not a
site has significant site constraints before final dcsign
work on the projcct is prescnted. This determination
shall be made at a conceptual review of the proposal
based on review of the site, a detailed survey of thelot (to include information as outlined in Section
18.54.040 C,la.) and a preliminary site plan of the
proposed structure(s).
The duplex and primary/secondary development
may be dcsigned to accommodatc the development of
dwelling units and garages in .morc than one
structure if the dcsign review board detcrmines that
significant site constraints cxist on the lot. The use of
unified architectural and landscape design as outlinedin Section 18.54.050 H,l. shall be required for the
(vail t-2-8t)
454j-2
o
development. In addition, the design review board may
requirc that one or more of the following common design
elements such as fences, walls, patios, decks, retaining
walls, walkways, landscape elements, or other architectural
features be incorporated to create unified site development.J. Outdoor lighting.
1. Purpose. This subsection of the design guidelines
establishes standards for minimizing the unintenddd and
undesirable side effects of outdoor lighting while
encouraging the intended and desirable safety and aesthetic
purposes of outdoor lighting. It is the purpose of the design
review guidelines to allow illumination which provides the
minimum amount of lighting which is needed for the
properry on which the light sources are located. In addition,
the purpose of this section is to protect the legitimate
privacy of neighboring residents by controlling the intensity
of the light source.
2. Approval required. All outdoor lighting within the town
limits shall conform to the standards set forth below. For
the purposes of this subsection, residentially zoned
properties shall be defined as rhose in hillside residential,
single family, rwo-family, primary/secondary, residential
cluster, low density multi-family and medium density
multi-family zone district, as well as all special
development districts which have any of the above-
referenced zone districts as the underlying zoning. All other
zone districrs shall be considered, for the purposes of this
section, as being commercial zoned.a. Luminance. Light sources located on all property in the
Town of Vail which are nor fully cutoff shall exhibit a
ratio of source lumens to luminous area not exceeding
125. For example;
source lumens < 125.
luminous area
b. Frequency, For lots in residential zone districts, the
maximum number of light sources per lot shall be
limited ro one light source per one thousand square feet
of lot area. The location of said lights shall be left open
DESIGNREVIEW
454j-2a
(vail ll-16-93)
DISTzuCT COURT, EACLE COLINTY, COLORADO
Civil Action Number 94 CV 288
STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AMONG PLAINTIFFS AND TOWN DEFENDANTS
LAWRENCE LEVIN and CAROL LEVIN.
Plaintiffs,
SAM ANOUNA, PATRICIA ANOUNA, T}IE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWN OF VAIL and
RANDY STOLIDER,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs, Lawrence Levin and Carol Levin (the "Levins"), pro se, and Defendants Town
of Vail, Colorado, The Department of Community Development of the Town of Vail and Randy
Stouder (the "Town Defendants") stipulate that they have agreed upon a settlement whereby all
claims of the Levins against the Town Defendants will be dismissed with prejudice, each party to
pay his, her or its costs and attomey's fees. The Town Defendants asserted no counterclaims
against the Levins. The bases for this settlement are as follows:
l. The claims of the Levins against the Town Defendants relate to a duplex
residential unit in East vail, colorado at 4417 Columbine Drive (the "Duplex"), one side of
which is owned by the Levins and has an address of 44178 Columbine Drive (the "Levins'
Side") and the otler side of which is owned by Sam and Patricia Anouna (the "Anounas") and
has an address of 4417A Columbine Drive (the',Anounas' Side").
2- The Levins had started to restain the Levins' Side with a tauDe color stain in late
August, 1994, but stopped, at the request ofthe Anounas. In late September, 1994, the Levins
advised the Anounas in writing that the Levins no longer planned to continue to use the taupe
color stain, but that they planned to use a cedar color stain which approximated the cedar color of
the Anounas' Side. This work was scheduled to begin on October 10, 1994.
3. On October 6, 1994, the Town of Vail issued a stop work order (the "Stop Work
Order") against the Levins' property.
fl039t8
-a
1- //-
a'trYt ^/l,j
'4'- - 'f*rr Torm Dcferdanrs statc tbar the Stop Work Onler was issued on thc bclief tbat
thc Levins w?rydanniog{s stain thc exterior sidingffi taupe color stain.
5. The Toum Dcfsndaols firrtbcr state that tbcy now undcrstand that the Lwins were
planning, in early Octoba 1994, to apply a ccdar color stain to the exterior sidi"g of the Levins'
Side, rath€r rhqn prcceerling with a taupe color .ttaitl
6. The parties hcrsto acknowlcdgc that ihe Levins have rcccntly ayplied the ceds
mlor slainthat the Lcvins intsrded to usc, in early October 1994, to tbatportion of thcir side of
the Duplc:r adjaccnt to the Anormas' Side.
7- Thc lbwn Defendants state ihat thcy have observed the actual cedar color stain
rcceirtly applicd by the Lcvin to the Levins' Side, tbat
color of thc Arroua8s' Side, md in thc Tom DcfcndantS'-dcsigr rwiew judgment, they approve
o@dar color stsin to the entircty of thc odcrior 5iding on the Levius'
Side.
8; Accordingly, the Towu of Vail agrces to rcurovc the Stop Work ffier, and' so
long as a gcncrally consislcnt cedar rlolor stain" such as tbat recently applied by the Lwins to a
portion of thc Lwins' Sidc, is applied to the entirety of the extcrior siding ou thc Lcvins' Side, the
Town of Vail will issue no fiuthcr stop work ordcrs nor will the Town Ddendants take any
ecforccmelt action qgainst the Lcvins wirh respoct to orgh lsstqining work
9. This Stipuladon of Settlement reprc$rnts a settlcment of all olaims aoong the
Lcvins aud the Town Defendans, applies only to thc facn:al situation in this matler, does not
constitute an admission or belief by the Town Defendants of thc claims of thc Levins, nor does it
coastinrte an admission or belief by the Levins that thc To.rm Dden&nts have dcsign rcview
juri.sdiction ovcr thc wurk the Lcvins propose to do on thc Lwins' Sidc, but that this sctlemeart is
made for the purposc of tcrminating a dispute in litigation among the putics hcret'o-
10. Bascd ou the agrccmcDts and reprEscntations of the patties in this Stipulation and
_scttlemeag which agrccments und reprcscntations shall survive the dismissal of claims herein,
the Levins agree to dismi.ss wi0r prejudicc iheir claims asserted hcrcin against thc Town
Dcfendsnts, cach part/ to bear bis, her or its own costs and attorneys' fees, and the partics hcreto
will filc with the Court a Stipulatioo for Dismissal With Itcjudicc of the claims of the LcviEs
against the Town Defendants, which Stipulation for Ilismissal sball include thc Town
Defeodans' withdrawal of their rcqucst for aiury tiol.
I l. This Stipulation ofScttlcrnent sball bc binding upon the hei$, successors aad
pcrsonal represcotatives ofthe panies hercto, aud shall be govarncd by Colorado law.
L?-- This Stiprrtatien of Settlernent may be cxccute in counterparts, eitha with original
signatqres or by facsimile, which togetber shall constitute a complete stipuladon, binding upon
the rcspectivc parties.
-2-
RESPECTFTJLLY SUBMITTED THIS '7 DAY OF AUGUSI 1995.
Bradley R. Unkeless, Esq.
Unkeless & Bisset
One Denver Highlands, Suite 403
10375 East Haward Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80231
Town of Vail, Colorado Attorney
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Attorneys for The Town of Vail,
Colorado, The Deparbnent of
Community Development of the Town
of Vail and Randy Stouder
Lawrence Levin
Carol Levin
Thomas Moorehead, Esq.
st039l8 -)-
RUG 7'95 g?z%
D@':grd
FRO'I&
RpsFEgrFtItLy suBl{rnED uns J olv oF AuGt sr, r 99s.
Towu of Vail, Colorslo rlnomsy
75 so(frFrcnrageRoad
Vail, Colorado 81d57
Attoacys for fbc'lbvm of Vaif
Cotsrado, Tbc Departmcot ofCoonr{ity t}wclopant of tbc frinmofVail ad Randy Stoudcr
t.h(B.ESS FT.ID BISSET T0 1 15?s7uE2o pFEE.@/W,
tA:gI 56, Z Sl,
,a7
f \Yi\.
Badley R llntclcss, Esq.
UDkcIEss & Bisscr .
Ou. Dcsver lligblad$ Suib 403
10375 East Harvad Areqr
Daver,Colsrado EfiBI
Tbonas I'ioote.bcad, Erq.
CelolLcvi!
lcwnoccl"c9b.
o
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I mailed a true and conect copy of the foregoing STIPULATION OF
SETTLEMENT AMoNc PLAINTIFFS AND TowN DEFENDANTS by u.s. Mait, postage
prepaid, onthis 1 dayofAugust, 1995, addressed to:
Daniel L. Woodrow, Esq.
Karen Silverman, Esq.
Woodrow & Grueskin, P.C.
999 Eighteenth Street, Suite 3450
Denver, Colorado 80202
L a-tu.^',- L l-----
-4-
a
DISTRICT COURT, EAGLE COTJNTY, COLORADO
Civil Action Number 94 CV 288
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
LAWRENCE LEVIN and CAROL LEVIN.
Plaintiffs,
v.
SAM ANOLINA, PATRICIAANOUNA, THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMIJNITY DEVELOPMENT OF TIIE TOWN OF VAIL and
RANDY STOUDER,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs, Lawrence Levin and Carol Levin (the "Levins"), pro se, and Defendants Town
of Vail, Colorado, The Department of Community Development of the Town of Vail and Randy
Stouder (the "Town Defendants") (l) stipulate that they have agreed upon a settlement among
them, as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement Among Plaintiffs and Town Defendants, filed
concurrently with the Court (the "Settlement"), (2) the Town Defendants, the only parties
demanding a trial by jury, waive and withdraw their demand for a jury trial, and (3) the Levins
and the Town Defendants move the Court for entry of the attached Order (a) accepting and
approving the Settlement, (b) dismissing all of the Levins'claims asserted herein against the
ToWn Defendants with prejudice, each settling party to bear his, her or its own costs and
attomeys' fees, and (c) dispensing with the utilization of any jury in the August 31, 1995 trial
relating to the remaining claims pending €rmong the Levins and Defendants Sarn and Patricia
Anouna.
This Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice may be executed in counterparts, either
with original signatures or by facsimile, which together shall constitute a complete stipulation,
binding upon the respective parties.
4t04043
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS DAY OF AUGUST, 1995.
Bradley R. Unkeless, Esq.
Unkeless & Bisset
One Denver Highlands, Suite 403
10375 East Harvard Avenue
Denver, Coloiado 80231
Lawrence Levin
Town of Vail, Colorado Attomey
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Attomeys for The Town of Vail,
Colorado, The Department of
Community Development of the Town
of Vail and Randy Stouder
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certiry that I mailed a true and correct copy of o the foregoing STIPULATION
FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREruDICE by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this '7 day of
August, 1995, addressed to:
Daniel L. Woodrow, Esq.
Karen Silverman, Esq.
Woodrow & Grueskin, P.C.
999 Eighteenth Street, Suite 3450
Denver, Colorado 80202
/ t*^r---t
Carol Levin
f104043 a
L )'r--
)qn'=E'dd *{
,4A*-tlLL
Brdlcry R Urt<clcss' Esq.
Unlcclcss & Bissst
one Dcqver llighlgds, Sttir 403
10375 th*IlsvrdAvcorc
Dtswr, Colqado 80231
Theas Moochcad Esq.
Torva of Vail" Colqado Aftomcy
75 South!'rontage Road
Va4 Colorado 81657
Attomcys for Tho TqlvE of VaiL
Colorado, Thc Dc,patnat of
Co"',"-unity Dovciopcd of tb.Tburl
of Vail anil Raruly Stou,rler
90:9t s6. z lItJ
RESPECTFTJLTY STJBMTTBD TITIS DAYOFAUCIJST, 1995.7
-
Cdol tcria
I.rwttottlavin
'i rt Fr , r lF' . ,..r. I
.'
'iri#ct.Er:Woodra-rr',
Esq. '
' IGrcnsitiirmd'Ese,' Woorhow&Girocskifi,P.C.
999 EightctBtb,Stceg Suita 3450
Dt.rrlrcr, Cr,Iotadr 8tN2
-1-
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479 -2 1 07/ Fax 97 0-47 9-2 I 5 7
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
ffice of the Town Attorney
MEMORANDUM
Aanay Stouder, Community Development
R. Thomas Moorhead y'?VL
AugustT, 1995
ffiTYqil
TO\/"CI0llilt\/i l[V, L)[i'
RE: Levin v. Anouna. et al.
Randy, attached you will find the Stipulation of Settlement among Plaintiffs and Town Defendants
and Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice. These documents were entered into on August 7th
and I believe they will be filled on that same date.
The Court will be entering an Order to Dismiss. I have also had the opportunity to review that
document and find it acceptrable.
The only change that I requested was to Paragraph 8 which was changed pursuant to my request
to reflect "a generally consistent cedar color stain" as opposed to referring to the color that is
presently on the building. I informed Larry Levin that he should talk to you directly concerning his
intention to have you testify in this matter.
lf you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. Thanks
RTM/aw
Attachmentxc: Susan Connelly
6
{,7 *"n""to "u"'
nonl",toJfffi tflril'*
ilT*T,"$t'lf$j'ill$
*.Jffi,'#ffi8H*?,$1ffi**
r lztlts f,:ro f A-
l-s"oL steoil
thtiT 014 eehltttltl unPaetr
70 - qlE L
Duc:
To:
A|'t
Frrsinitc Not
Vcrifcrtioo Ho;
Clicnt NtrsUc
Frss:
c rc ^12?:zl?t
t L L€jll Ma$cr No.:
y ltt
He*,€'r Att_o vfilPa 6F T// {uo fflo* a
€tf4t R6tltefc:Morngct
ft At to ASf fou u rtll saat
414'curAltst-:!:4
BiJct 6il nt ttpaeetfll*llri 0F
frf ,ttt rPY: of vfu!
APF
ry rll i,Purere o t.6dl61c*13
f)
NrnrrEn oF PAcEs Fou,ollu$ THts covEx sHEErr * \ , '
ii5,,Wdmf,Wpl^?+i{,3!'[9fr ,:^trif'ffiffi
co?Y cEI{TEtu (3t3) 856{361
tFYouDofrv[ffi #{Hi';gig1gtr*rjffif '"'
fif.E@?lER: CAttlONt'7?0 (OSENTltvt l-y
oIJE frCSIl'UlE l{lJMBEn! (30r) 865{t!00
Floor ---
Sdrrrrt
coNFrDENrrALrryNITE:rhe,i!om'atcT:,:!.:!;!*i::I;,r#x:,:i"yxfhffiffiCONFIDE;y2IALITYNOTE: Theill.fwtttotiatcotttalnuttns slzuun"<; """ ";*Jttlonblcinqmnfut,A
fo*awoz to,,'an**,liii.ryf:^:l:mT,Hiiil!;#:#r?:opu,o,u,ochc addrcssadlucn-f"iw'-" t* lr, .,,,h.riw *sa ol thQ oddnssee aad tttil4l con'atl| conPcenttct' Ftt.'5w ' '-\i;imile to chc ailrassed
-suchthcndrtarto!/tiswnrni,"ii*,ffiiiir'::,yL,F#::':J:;#::1,f,:;;lfiJnij,"i-*i,*,^n* _i*aii, "t
w fr;ilnltc U not tQ addtcssee' u s Pqtut tcsPottstu'' tv' or'' 'v' "'o -'li
hui^ilo oon nt*sio' or rls
.rdpi." t is st ictty pnnihiudt# ;:;^" en,"i:Y:*#:::i*:!:,:':tr',#i.T,Ii.t:;',i'i,i,,raa,av *a o''*ai'k * "*try i-nit ina lro"' rutins photocoptng' *\:ff::r;;;;' i^'"r-i",ir"ot.'rou t,.t itttn'ndidtet! and rcum
ii^,* in ^y 6. tl the u,ipiat trx **IY!1i"1"^11'l--r-, rr,dttk tet!.coffrc'frr u c"v 3q'
'
* '*{i"'"' ii*ai'orct ronal se*cc' Tlnnkwu'
ttu lacsimile if4^ffiLrrian to ui
OFFICES IN:
E*-rrar nnlorndo Snrlncs Denver Sslt Lake City Landon Morcov
r80rN uE Ngq ouH 00e0 s08$ 0e:lr g6/Lz/60Too 0
RANDYSTOUDER
l. Name and buqincss address
2. BY whom emPloYed
3. How long
4. What duties
5. Educationalexpilience
6. Work exPerieuce
T.ArcyoulhmiliarviththeisrrrcsrsrrroundinstheJestainilgof44l7Colunrbinc
Drive in the fall of f gSqilF;, ii .r*.
"p
* t Depam*eni of Community Development
("DCD") Staffmecting-)
S.Arcyout'amiliarwiththecircumstancesthatleduPtotheissuanceofastupwork
order by the Town ofvii*, o*to 6,lgg42 (Yes) fidenfifi E]fiIIBIT 3ll
9'whatisyoruudcrstandirrgof'thoscollcutr$tarruEs?(Ancighboroeuedand
asked abour the proceEs if ob*ining pcrmits tO restain the ex1efior of a duplex' Ihat person
talkcd to lim cumuth .f Di;, -I'd:t po*n tor ioia lim cumutn *rat his adjac€ilrt duplex
owner u/as resta*une thckjacsnl' urv;s' ""t"i; tid;;Sol " f1": ''o
a taupe color and that
thc.fown of Vail rt".ril#tfi;;;A;ffi. nc-li-*ita chcck;eklman of the building
departrnent to invcstigate, ffi-dh*h *p"roa U.f. *1 a taupe color wus startcd to bc applied-
Since tlus rtprcroot"a o loto'"h*gt' *4 *in"" ""
fi*i*o ni'it* p31a Cnne") or DCD siaff
apprcval had b*o ott"ioJ, ,n" stJp work ortler was issueil by Mr. !-eldnan.)
I0.Isityourrrnderstandingthattlrisncigfub.ortoldJim.c\muththattheparlialtaupc
restaining wnrk t uA U"o-"^t*il-fy iopped by the- adjacent owrclr on Labor Dav? C'Io)
1l'Isityoruunderstorrdingthotthisneighbortol.llimCumuththattheadiacent
owners no longcr planncdl; ;; tle tiupe cotor, bul' t}at iha adjaccnt owners plmmd to aJrply a
ccdar color to their side? (No)
L:-'Wasthestopw,Jrkotdarissuedonthebcliefth*theadjacentoq,nelswelc
plonnin' to stain the ;,t*[, "i,lt; ,*t"rio, tiettuii'ltii sidc of the duplex with a taupe color
stain? (Ycs)
l3'DotheDCDandtheTownofVailnowunderstandthattheLevinswercplonning
in early october lgg4, to apply a cul.r "o1*
r*i. iu tt . .r.t riot sirling of the Ler.,ins' side' ratlrer
than proceeding with a aupe color staln | ( Y €s)
#1106?1
eoo E t80tN u[ANgfi ouu 00e0 99811 EziLl 98i17/80
14, You ra'crc pr€Ecntatthn DCT) staffmeeting on fte mor'ning of 10/10/94' (Yes1
15. You were ar{are thet Mr' Lcvir saroc in to the DCD ofiice and talked to Lauren
wet€f,ton of DcD "b"ut;;;;#tti-i'ali'
tmtu'ili' wattrton' afler disctusingitwith
DCD staff, told Ffr. fevin tfroi irc could poceed *fnt iil *-t"ft'ittg' uuirrg a solid ccdru colot
stun. (Yes)
16. You werc also awart tbut {g fv1r' Lovin lcft' $snr Anou$ camc in pcrson ano
oo-pfnio-oO about suc'h rcstaining work' (Yss)
|T.Thcreafler,youmdMs.Wgtccto:rcnnetotheLwinlesidar'ceandrcinstitrrtedthe
slon work orrlcr. (Ycs) i{r;';;^t/;; Ptu.*i" d;;;ilii''-**a"t*'bft * 1"* inins had
stiuted whcn you got there'- (Yt'; ** ""oto'*iJu*
tr" r'""i* completc a DRB
ilffi;*bt-ri*"v did' (Ttrafs conect)
l8'whyrlidDCDre-irrstitutctheetopworkorrlcrandrequestcompletionofthcDRB
anolication? pco t^'u'-d'Ja *'itr' a disputc btt"H;tchb"" *atu"1"*d ihat DRB should
nake the tlecision ou thadispute based on '-a*'"' totnil'frarr on thc gtoteErcnts of thc
neighbors.)
t9' Thc next day' Mr' Lsviu calle{ ll.wrihdraw
thc DRB application antl you
uorrIiffieal thnt witl*awJby btter datcd 10i 19/94' (Yes)
20. Havc vou now obseri'ed't"t^$ Levins bave *"T+I'1ry'lt$ the cedar color stain
that thev intendedto # t";"ffit"to \9!4';idp"nionortneir
sidc adjaceottottre
Anounas, side? (yes, iotron"'a tl", r€stainiD8 ; t-Jt[lt*-trt codef,cnce in Julv of this year')
2|'wasrtratthefirsttimethatyouSawtbeLevins'ptoposedrestairrirrgcolorncxtto
the color on the Anorura sicle? (Ycs)
22- You understmd lhat the parttalty applicd stain on the Levins' sidc is s solid' and
rxrl, a scmi'fonErerent staiu' (Yes)
23'whatistloDCDarrdD}}DeeigrrRcviewcritcriaforlpprovingtheapplication
of color on thc sidingof an existiry$rldtttsi -ft"lSdn+oC'l'
sals thatthe Tov zoning
adninisEetor" wUo is il, hurd ofd'Cn,.* #il;;iu.ortt apii*'io" on the ciding of an
exisrting buililing, *hi"h;;il is gcae'rally *"*ii*t "t'U
the color of the building)
?4. Have you and othcc msmbcrs:f 'y PID who hsve obscxved the actual ccdar oolor stain
receutlv appliert bv the Lovins to the l"lT:::il; oi:[" auprt*'-matle arv dctcrmbntiotr as to
;fi;&;.,roii,?.iJry'sr*t*}i1i''Fi#i',t1,-n6"ry;;':J:g1'
f;:*;:f;mffi:,-#'#il:.Tiltin"-ippri*'ionorthatceda.wrorstaintotrte
cntisety of lhe cxterior siding onthe Levins' sidY')
00A0 9989 0filI 98/17/90coo 0
t1106?3
t80tN u&Ng0 ouf,
25. Ilas thc Town ofVail rtooved the 10/6/94 slop workorder? (Yes)
26..whatistheposttionoftheTowuofVaitwithrerpcc,ttofifrrrc'restainingonthe
[,cvirs, side? (sn long as a-g€Deraly consr:*r.:*t;i;i.iJ" t".u* thetrcccntly applied by
thc Levins to a portroo oe lui L-evins, side, is appliedTtn" omtav of thc u'Etcriot riding on rhe
Levins eide, ttre Town "#'il ;ll i'o* * n"tntr-ilt;;t;J;; nor will fie Town of Vail
takp any cnforcement rt";;;#;;"i"- *tf rcspott to nrch rcstaining work")
zT.IsthispsitionpertofthEstipulationof$ettlenentbetwceotheLevinsandthe
rown of vail n"rrna-t*,"iiHilrt,il; i;,ilt -hirl
"*roit
on August 7' I ee 5 ? (Ycr)
:
00u 0 0089 It:lI gB/ Ll/60ro0 E
i, r206fi1
t80tN us^Ngq ouf,
'W'{,1 ..,i 1,-\.\a
IIT HARTFORD
January 24, 1995
ATTN: Thomas Moorhead/Town Attornev
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Vail. CO 81657
Denver full Sentice Claim 0ffice
1ne Denver Highlands
10375 E. Haruard Ave , Suite 401
P.0 Box 22815
Denver, C0 80222
Telephone | 303 ) 369- 57 5/
lfT Hartford lnsurance Group
Hartfud Ftre lnsurance Clnnnv and its Affiliates
Haftford Plaza, Hanlud. Connecticut Ml l5
RE: Our lnsured:
Claimant:
Date of Loss:
File No:
Town of Vail
lawrence l.evin
t0-17-94
709 LP 69146
Dear Mr. Moorhead:
We acknowledge receipt of the notice of loss in the captioned matter.
ITT Hartford provides public entity errors and omissions coveftrge under policy
#34CLNQI0567 with effective dates of coverageT-l-94 through 7-l-95.
ITT Hartford will, at this time,, agree to provide a defense for the Town of Vail, tlte
Dept. of Community Development of the Town of Vail, and Randy Stouder in his
official capacity only as it relates to lhe allegations brought forth in the Summons &
Complaint. The definition of an insured under fonn EO00020890, page I of 8, reads
as follows:
trach of the followine is an insured.
l. You;
2. Any commission, board, authority, administrative department or
other similar unit operated by or under your jurisdiction;
3. Your employees and authorized volunteers, other than licensed
medical, nursing, dental or paramedical personnel; but only for
acts, errors or omissions within the scope of their employment or
as authorized by you;
t
FILE coPy
75 South Frontage Road
Vail" Colorado 81657
970-479-2 I 3 8/479-2 I 3 9
FAX 970-479-2452
September 22, 1995
N{r. Lawrence L. Levin
9560 East Powers Place
Greenu'ood Village, CO 801I t
and
Ms. Simone Burton
CiO Woodrow and Greskin
999 - l Sth Street, Suite 3450
Denver, CO 80202
Department of Community D evelopment
RE: Levin vs. Anouna" Case # 94CV288, District Court, Eagle County
Dear Larry and Simone:
I received a letter and supoena from Larry to appear in court at the Eagle County Justice Center otr
Sepienrbei 28, 1995 at 9:00 a m. I also received a letter from Simone requesting my presence at Court
beginning at 9:00 a.m. on both September 28. 1995 and Sepiember 29,1995. I would apprecia{e a more
specific time at rvhich you need me to appear. Due to other professional obligations, I will not be able to
attend court for two full days. Thus, it is imperative that you narrow the time to eiiher A.M. or P.M. on a
specific day. If this is not possible for sonre reason, please contact our Town Attomey, Tom Moorhead
and explain why this cannot be accommodated.
Simone, in regard to the statement in the last paragraph ofyour letter regarding meeting with Mr.
Anouna's ailomeys for pre-trial preparation, I feel that this rvould be inappropriate. My role, as I see it, is
sirnply to represent the facts of this nratler. Any "preparation'or pre-trial rneeting will have no inrpact on
my testimony.
If you have any further questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact me at 479-2138.
Sincerely,F<fda
Randy Stouder
Town Plorner
Tom Moorhead
Brad Unkeless
xc:
{S**"uo
DISTRICT COURT, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
Civil ActionNumber 94 CV 288
SUBPOENA
LAWRENCE LEVIN and CAROL LEVIN.
Plaintiffs,
v.
SAM ANOI.]NA, PATRICIA ANOUNA, THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMLINITY DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ANd
RANDY STOUDER,
Defendants.
TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO:
TO: Randy Stouder
witness for the plaintiffs in the captioned action.
You are hereby ordered to attend and give testimoqy in the District Court of Eagle County, at the
Eagle County Justice Center, Eagle, Colorad o ot1*tn- &.-------- 1995 at Qna Alll , as a
DISTRICT COURT, EAGLE COUNTY
Clerk of the District Court
Eagle County Justice Center
P.O. Box 597
Eagle, Colorado 81631
(970)328-6373
#n1623
RETIJRN OF SERVICE
State of Colorado
Eagle County
I declare under oath that I served this subpoena on Randy Stouder, in Eagle County on
(date), at
-
(time), at the following location: 75 Frontage
Road, Vail, Colorado 81657 by (State Manner of Service)
I am over the age of l8 years and am neither interested in nor a party to this case.
Fee $
Mileage $
Signed under oath before me on
Notary Public
My commission expires:
Date
ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE
I Bradley Unkeless, Attorney for Randy Stouder, hereby accept service ofthe Subpoena
issued to Randy Stouder to attend and give testimony in the Distict Court of Eagle County at the
Eagle County Justice Center, Eagle, Colorado on September 28, 1995 at 9:00 a.m., as a witness
for the plaintiffs in Civil Action Number 94CV288, Eagle County Distict Court.
Dated this _ day of September, 1995.
Bradley Unkeless
Attorneys at Law
Wooonow & Gnusxn
Professional Corporation
999 Eighteenth Street
Suite 3450
0enver, Colorado 80202
(303) 296-1400 Fax 296-1924
Daniel L. Woodrow
Mark D. Gruskin
Michelle B. Teitelba um
Denise LaBier Pilkington
Karen A. Silverman
Septenber 13, 1995
Randy Stouder
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage RoadVail, Colorado 81557
Re: Subpoena
Dear Mr. Stouder:
You have been endorsed as a witness in the case of Larry andCarol Levin, v. Sam and Patricia Anouna, et al. The trial hal beenscheduled on a trairing docket to commence in Eagle county DistrictCourt, on either September 28 or Zg, 1995 beginning at 9:00 a.n.Enclosed is a subpoena for that court appearance, along hrithwitness fee check in the amount of $10. eecluse this case is on atrailing docket, ri/e do not knohr which date the trial will begin.However, the court clerk has informed us that she will notify usinunediately once the exact date of triaL is identified. As soon aswe receive this information, it will be provided to you.
It will not be necessary to fonnally serve you with thissubpoena if you will sign the enclosed waiver and acceptance ofservice. However, if you do not return the waiver to us within tenday: of the date of this letter, we will- assume that you areunwilling to accept service of the subpoena without fornar service,and the subpoena will be served accordingly.
We will be in contact with you prior to the triat to schedulea time and date for you to neet with Dan lrloodrow or Karen,Silverman, the Anounasr attorneys, to prepare you for triat. Iiyou have any questions in the meantine, please do not hesitate toca1l.
Sincerely,
wooDRow & GRUSKIN, P.C.
Sinone
Legal
Burton
Assistant
Enclosure
DI STRICT COURT,EAGLE COUNTY . COLORADO
cAsENO. q4 CV ?88 DIVI.{O.
E SUBPOENA (Personal)
fl SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE (Subpoena duces tecum)
The
TO:
Peoph of the State of Colorado:
Randy Stouder, c/o Town of Vail
You are ordered to attend and sive testimonv in the Dis tricE Court of Eagle
Cornty ,atEagle CounEy Justice Center. Eagle. Colorado (locarion)
on SePt or ryr ryy),bgsanqrgg at q:u
s bam and gacrlcra Anouna
(date and time),
as a witness for in an action between
Larry and Carol Levin , plaintiff(s), and Sam and Patrieie Annrrne, et nl -
, defendant(s),
and also to produce at this time and place (ifapplicable):
Date:Seprember {3, tSSS
Ario(tEv fo. ---DilI!.-aIltI-EilLIAF mil€, addrcss. Glc. m., rc8. no. bclt".
Cbdr./Dcputy
999 18th Street i13450
Denver, Colorado 80202
(303) 296-r400
RETURN OF SERVICE
State of
County
I declare under oath that I served this subpoena or subpoena to prduce on in
County (date),
(time), at the follov/ing location:
E by (State Manner ofService)
I I am wer the age of 18 years and am not interested in nor a party to this case.
Signed under oath before me on
l.Iodry Public.! Private process server
E Sheriff,County
Fee $
.Notary Cfuld i'rludc crpir.tbn drtc ofcornmissbn.Mileage $
now in your custody,or control.
Daniel L. Wood ow ll7 647
l{o. lYt. R!r,. 2-E3, SUBPoENA
Bradford Publishint, 1743 watcc S!., Dcnvcr, CO t0202 - (103) 292-2500 - I l'E9
@
ss Fr.rD BrssET ro L:rrrilErs" ppEE.En/EpB
Jr . e-4d
'
-i\,ir\ ^ .0
;F?
4'
@w
ftY&ot,S,
,&%r+v s{t4V-'rvrttr'ff"pilq:fuu\\lsN-sl ", ,^
,4i ) U.N
.-'-"''g'-'vrrr/ANUUNAS/rowNoFvArLLAn6urr
,,V^ ^R (Prcabteoonaucofthcdr
.,{%\ t\N\ "oarcor,*or*.r*o#Sedescn-}ilioaofftcAnn'udsidr, ther.vildsidc
"{)/t\,Yf t "' *r r'rauErrloD8tesauingpartics)
ffi.#ffiffff.'ffiffis#g5
or
*^IT:{Ud s6ss tbar ir now undcrrgsft 64 Xntrffi ffio" ffi-?1ffi . * *;f ff"ff ffi r* 3,.. r^nJ/^-un, ^i
\ffi
6L-u./
1111"^1 "+ *iu i** *-: ryr",qr .o ro' balancc of'll,stre rn tt" i-t"s- eac t"agains 6c ;'il ;ilfiffi*Iffffiffi".'r.'i *ffilio,
Flffiffiffidffi::fd*&i*-r,".- ttre Lcryinr arrd rto rorvn of;flUffi"mm*ffiru"T*titH
t>\
thcif\nofVai
l\t""-ilil""ffi ffi;,".f.rT*
\*A{'lx--44
nrf ,$(L
800tN u&llGtc ouf,00zo 09gg 0I:01 98/tztLa
Jt.tr_ 24 '95
€@'*d
tLzL4 ffinNo BISSET
Qm%
rotwdts? W
S8:OI S6' Pe T'.
10.
ll.
I.cvim 6ar &! Toqa ofl
prropose ro do- -- -- tdl has d3slEB ruvicwJurildi.rion ofthc no* rhc Irvtsffiffiffi: ffi
ffitrrc:*ffiffitrffi
/" 7
aQ ''r' '
coo@
trorgl
f00r,N uiL$EIC OUf,,ljl?'l oooiFi ?r.^?
---Tr:fnted by Randy Stouder - 1/2L/95 3:39pm
From: Tom Moo-rhead
To: Randf/ Stouder
subject: fwd: Levin v. Anouna
:::NOTE::: ::7 /44/95::2252pm:::CC: Susan Connellv
Larry Le\.rin is going to present us with a sett1ement Agreement. The i-ssue
is wtrettrer we approve the apptication of the cedar cover or noc object to
ttte application- similarly, witl we remove the stop work order or not
enf orce ttre order. Your ttrouglhts p].ease. Tfra.rrks
Fvd-by: -susan-connel L-7 / 2t/ 95--3 : O2pm---
Fr^rd to: Rand). Stouder, Tom Moorfread
Paease taak with me before you nd to Tom. Thanks !
l\\,
r"^{on'
"
E- {l\I \Y
qNf a nrQ
ltI
respo4
(ry.
Page:
TOWNOFVAIT
Ofice of Town Attorney75 South Frontage Road
Vail" Colorado 81657
303 -479-2 1 07 / FAX 3O3 -479-2 I 5 7
July 12, 1995
Bradley Unkeless, Esquire
Unkeless & Bisset
One Denver Highlands, Suite 403
10375 East Harvard Avenue
Denver, CO 80231
Re: Levin v. Town of Vail, et al.
Eagle County District Court
Case No. 94CV 288
Dear Brad:
Enclosed you will find three original Polaroid snapshots taken on July 12, 1995 at approximately 9:30 a.m. by Randy
Stouder in my presence. The photographs truly and accurately depict that it was a beautiful morning. It is not so easy
to distinguish the different "colors" on the side of the Levine/Anouna duplex.
The photograph which depicts the garage door at 44174 is the original condition of the siding without a new stain or
paint applied. The photograph that depicts the garage door to 4417B and the deck above it, depicts the siding with the
application of the semi-solid cedar stain. The final photograph shows the stain or paint that was previously applied and
a portion of the lrvine side of the duplex which has been untreated.
Upon a reasonably close observation, Randy Stouder believes that it may be possible to staff approve the semi-solid
cedar stain as 'blose enough" in appearance to not require the Anouna side of the duplex to be painted with this covering.
The ideal circumstance would be if both sides of the duplex has this covering applied. I believe this could be staff
approved without the necessity of a Design Review Board hearing.
Please contact myself or Randy Stouder if you have any questions or comments.
Very truly yours,
TOWN OFVAIL
'i;Yr,"h
R. Thomas Moorhead \
Town Attorney
RTM/aw
Enclosures
xc: Randy Stouder
75 South Frontage Road
Vail" Colorado 81657
303 -47+2 rO7 / FAX 303 -479-2 I s7
June 5, 1995
ffice of Town Attorney
Bradley Unkeless, Esquire
Unkeless & Bisset
One Denver Highlands, Suite 403
103?5 East Hanard Avenue
Denver, CO 80231
Re: Levin v. Town of Vail, et al.
Eagle County District Court
Case No. 94 CV 288
Dear Brad:
Upon review of the Plaintifrs' Disclosure Certificate, Randy Stouder offers the following:
On page three of the above referenced documen! under the section entitled "undisputed
Facts", Levin states that I was aware of painters at work at 4479 Columbine on October 10,
1994. lhis simply is not true. Levin told me that a crew was working and inquired if they
had DRB approval. I reviewed the permanent file for the property and did not see any DRB
approval. I also visited the property, probably the next day, and did not obsene any painting
work in progress. Since I never witnessed the alleged work, I could not follow-up on the
complaint by Levin.
' Another so called "rxrdisputed fact" may be -,isrepresented by Levin in the certificate. While
I made our Stop Srork Order records available to Levin and Unkeless, I cannot confirm the
statement that the Levin's stop work was the only such order ever issued by the Town in
response to painting without DRB approval. Please check witb Brad regarding this issue.
I assume that we will want to dispute the first statement of undisputed fact as discussed
above. I certainly do as this statement, ifnot disputed, could indicate a discriminatory action
against Levin on my part I always follow-up on complaints on law referred to me by the
public, and enforce the code as evenly and fairly as possible.
v
Brad, after you have an opportunity to revisp this inforuation in rela,tion to the Plaintifif Diacloatrn
Certificata plealc glve me a call ro that we can discuss what action is necerrary. firanklouforyour
assistance in thia aatter
Very tnrly 1onrs,
TOWN OFVAIL6Y6/4
R Thomas Moorhead
Town Attorney
RfDI/arvxc: Ban& Stouder ,r/
Susan Connelly
------v v
* ll t/ ,lv-
t/t
II
MEMORAIIDW
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
\//VTom Moorhead and sFsan Connelly
/4 l-
Randy stoudefT ..-P*)
L
6/2/9s
Plaintiffs' Disclosure Certificate-Levin Suit
on page three of the above referenced document, under t.he section
entitied ',Undisputed Factsr', Levin st,aEes that I was aware of
fiirrt"t" .t tott .t 44L9 Colurnbine on october 10' L994' This
iimpfy is not Lrue. Levin told rne that a crew was working and
inqiriiea if they had DRB approval . I reviewed the permanent file
for the property and did noi see any DRB appro-val ' r also visited
the property, probably the next day, and qid not observe any
pii"fit.j roit in progi""". Since I never witnessed Ehe alleqed
irort, r coutd not tol1ow-up on the complaint by Levin'
Another so called ',undispuEed facL" may be misrepresented by Levin
in the certificate. While I made our Stop Work Order records
available to IJevin and Unkeless, r cannoL confirm the stat'ement
inut tne Levin, " "top work was the only such order ever issued by
the Town in responsl to painting without DRB approval' Please
check with Brad regarding this issue.
I assume that we will want to dispute the first statement' of
undisputed fact as discussed abovJ. r certainly do as this
statemenL, if not ai"prtt"d, could indicate a discriminatory action
iqainst l-,evin on my p-art.. I always follow-up on complaints of 1aw
r6ferred to me b'-tlie public, and enforce the code as evenly and
iuiifv as possible. Please respond to me ASAP on this issue'
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2 t 07 / FAX 303-479-2 I 57
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Office of Town Attorney
MEMORANDUM
Randy Stoud ",
/
Susan Connelly
R. Thomas Moorhead /( I l"
l.r. '
May 30, 1995
Levine v. Anouna, et al.
Attached is a copy of the Plaintitfs' Disclosure Certificate which sets forth the claims, defenses,
etc. of the Plaintiffs in the above-reference matter. On page four you will notice that the Plaintiffs
are seeking $160.00 from the pocket of Randy Stouder.
After you have had an opportunity to review this document, please fonrvard any questions or
comments to me. ,---
-./--t,rhanks! a / fitlr/
RT]Waw
Enclosure
Clrtouder.elc
DISTRICT COURT, EAGLE COI-INTY, COLORADO
Civil ActionNnmber 94 CV 288
PLAINTIFFS' DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE
LAWRENCE LEVIN and CAROL LEVIN.
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SAM ANOUNA, PATRICIA ANOUNA, THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO,
TFIE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUMTY DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWN OF VAIL and
RANDY STOUDER,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs Lawrence Levin and Carol Levin submit the following Disclosure Certificate
pursuant to C.R.C.P. 16.
I STATEMENT OF'CI,AIMS AND DEF'F'.NSES
A. Claims of Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs have filed a Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Other Relief (the
"Complaint") alleging that (l) the duplex party wall agreement affecting the duplex at 4417
Columbine Drive, Vail, Colorado (the 'Party Wall Agreement"), as it relates to exterior color
changes, has leen abrogated and is of no further force and effect" (2) even if the Party Wall
Agreement with respect to color is in effect, Defendants Sam and Paticia Anorma (the
"Anounas") have unreasonably withheld or delayed their consent to the Plaintiffs' desire to
change the exterior color of their half of the duplex to a taupe color, (3) restaining the Plaintiffs'
property with a solid cedar stain, rather than a semi-transparent stairL does not constitute a color
#820t7
change, (4) the Anounas have unreasonably wittrheld their consent to a solid cedar color
restaining, (5) the Anounas have engaged in deceit and have caused damages to the Plaintiffs, (6)
the Anounas have tortiously interfercd with the Plaintiffs' contractual relations with Plaintiffs'
painting contactor, (7) Defendants the Town of Vail, the Deparhent of Community
Development of the Town of Vail and Randy Stouder (ttre "Mrmicipal Defendanl"l 1a;
imlrroperly interpreted and applied the Design Reviewprovisions of the Vail Municipal Code
(the "Code"), (b) improperly issued an October 6, 1994 Stop Work Order againS the Plaintiffs'
property, (c) violated Plaintiffs'procedural and substantive due process rights, (d) violated
Plaintiffs'equal protection rights, (e) committed ultra vires acts and (0 are estopped from
applying the Stop Work Order against Plaintiffs'property, and (8) Defendant Stouder has
tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs' contactual relations with their painting contactor.
Plaintiffs have asserted a civil righr claim in their Eighth Claim for Relief;
however, Plaintiffs desire to withdraw that claim. Plaintiffs will file a motion or stipulation with
the Court to effect such withdrawal in the near firture.
B. nefenses of the Municipal Defendants
The Mrmicipal Defendants have generally denied the allegations in the Complaint
and have asserted certain affirmative defenses.
C. Defenses and Claims of the Anounas.
The Anounas have generally denied the allegations in the Complaint and have
filed an Amended First Counterclaim for Relief alleging a breach of contract relating to the Party
Wall Agreement.
II TINTIISPUTED FACTS
The nature ofthe parties, the ownership ofthe halves ofthe duplex, the existence ofthe
Pafiy Wall Agreement and its contents, the issuance of the Stop Work Order by the Municipal
Defendants, the lifting of the Stop Work Order on October 10,1994 and its subsequent re-
application later that day by the Municipal Defendants are udisputed. Also undisputed by the #"
were restaining the '.-.--.'.6t 4419 Columbine Drive, across the way and up fromthe
subject property, fvith a combination of semi-tansparent and solid-de'iff stain, that said painters
did not have approval 'Municipal Defendants to effect that work" that these facts were
brought to the attention of Defendant Stouder on October 10, 1994 and the Municipal Defendants
did not issue a Stop Work Order relating to this other restaining work. Further, it is undisputed
that the only Stop Work Order issued by the Municipal Defenjgnts for at least the last ff5ars
with respect to exterior staining or painting ** *"(do-* r 6, r994t.o *::: :ffiUf M^Plaintiffs. LLx,\w <. f{ts , ilW " l.',1
ttun'!i, -'sM{.fr,iurr usPUrEn rssur,s ,
I#flr, ^:( &, " _
The Defendants generally dispute Plaintiffs' general allegations and their claims for relief.
Vt^hThe Plaintiffs dispute the Anounas'Amended First Counterclaim for Relief and the Affirmative
I
Defenses asserted by the Defendants. Also, Plaintiffs and the Anounas agree that a declaration of
rights aurong the parties, as set forth in the pleadings, is warranted. Plaintiffs firther incorporate
any disputed issues framed by the pleadings.
- ft203?-J-
IV POINTS OF LAW
Plaintiffs expect to rcly upon those matters of law inherent in the pleadings, specifically
with respect to the general law regarding party wall agre€ments, land use, and municipal action
in the State of Colorado and the Town of Vail. Plaintiffs will supplement this section of the
Disclosure Certificate upon substantial completion of discovery. In addition, plaintiffs intend to
submit a trial brief discussing the points of law relevant to this case.
V ITTMIZATION OF' DAMAGES
Plaintiffs are seeking damages from the Anormas in the amount $451.77 and from
Defendant Stouder individually, $ I 60.00.
\rI STIPULATIONS
The parties have not reached any stipulations at this time. However, Plaintiffs believe
that the parti€s could stipulate to certain facts once discovery is completed.
VII WTTNESSES
Plaintiffs may call the following witnesses at the time of rial:
l. Lawrence and Carol Levin, 9560 E. Powers Place, Greenwood Village, Colorado
80llr (303) 773-3136.
2. Sam and Paticia Anouna, 6300 Grcenbriar Drive, Englewood, Colorado 80111
(303) 694-0129.
3. Phil Bennett and Mark Yara of Prima Painting, Inc.,Zl2l North Frontage i
Road W #l8l Vail, Colorado 81657 (970) 476-6067.
4. Travis Baker, Mountain Woodcare, Inc. 1254 Copperdale Lane, Golden, Colorado
80403 (303) 642-7680.
4-
5. Randy Stouder, Jim Comutt, Mike Mollica and Lauren WatertorL Vail
Community Development Departnent, 75 Frontage Roa{ Vail, Colorado 81657 (970) 479-2138.
6. Bob Doorher of First Impressions Painting, 1994 Buffehr Creek, Avon, Colorado
(970) 476-7r24.
7. The painting contractor who was working on October lO, lgg4 ul4/.tg
Columbine Drive, the present address and phone number is not known, but this information will
be supplemented in accordance with C.R.C.P. Rule l6(b).
8. Plaintiffs may also call any witness endorsed by any other party and any witness
' necessary for document identification or authentication, or for rebuttal or impeachment.
9. Plaintiffs reserve the right to endorse additional witnesses in accordance with the
provisions of C.R.C.P. Rule 16.
The witnesses identified in paragraphs 1,2 and 5 above are parties of this action and will
talk about the facts franed by the pleadings. The witnesses identified in paragraphs 3 and 4
above will talk about their involvement in the staining oJthe Plaintiffs' duplex. Mr. Doorher,
and the paragraph 7 painting contactor will testiff about restaining work they have done in the
neighborhood of the duplex, and on other properties in the Town of Vail.
VIII E)(IIIRITS
Plaintiffs may offer the following exhibits at the time of trial.
l. Title 18, the Zoning Provisions of the Code.
2. The October 26,1983 duplex party wall agreement, and addendum.
3 . The Septemb et 27 , 1994 letter from Lawrence L. Levin to Dr. San Anouna
4. The October 6, lgg4letter from Lawrence L. Levin to Daniel L. Woodrow, Esq.
5. The Septernber 8, 1994 invoice from Prima Painting.
#t2037 -5-
6. TheNovember 4,1994invoicefromPrimaPainting.
7. The June 15,1994 proposal fiom hima Painting.
8. The August l,1994 facsimile transmittal to Sam Anouna from Prima Painting,
with a copy faxed to Carol Levin.
9. The July 25,lgg4proposal fiom Mountain Woodcare, Inc., to 5iln Ans',r,a.
10. The June 28,1994 invoice from Devoe & Reynolds Co.
ll. PhotosofthesubjectpropertyandneighboringpropertiestakenonOctober 10,
1994.
12. October 19,1994letter from Randy Stouder to plaintiffs.
1 3. June . 1994 fax transmittal from Prima Painting to Carol Levan (sic).
14. September 13, 1994 fa:< transmission from Prima Painting to Carol Levan (sic).
15. October 6,1994 Stop Work Order.
16. October 10, 1994 Desigr Review Board Application.
17 . October 17 , 1994 facsimile from Lawrence Levin to Randy Stouder.
I 8. The October 10, 1994 handwritten letter from Lawrence Levin to Lauren
Waterton.
19. Various records from the Municipal Defendants relating to Stop Work Orders,
Design Review Action and Project Applications. Copies of these documents are currently in the
possession of the Municipal Defendants, and Plaintiffs and the Municipal Defendants will
stipulate as to which documents will be used at the time of trial relating to the issues between the
Plaintiffs and the Muricipal Defendants.
20. Any exhibit necessary for impeachment or rebuttal.
-6-
21. Plaintiffs reserye the right to endorse additional exhibits in accordance with the
provisions of C.RC.P. Rule 16. A comprehensive exhibit list will be provided after the
completion of discovery in this case.
IX EXPERTS
Plaintiffs do not intend to call any additional expert witnesses; however, certain of the
painting contractor witnesses identified in paragraph VII above, may be called upon to provide
expert testimony as to the effect of solid and semi-tansparent stains on existing exterior
woodsiding in the Town of Vail.
Plaintiffs reserve the right to call any expert necessary for impeachment or rebuttal, and
to endorse necessary additional experts in accordance with C.R.C.P. Rule 16, because discovery
is not complete.
X DISCOVERYPLAN
Discovery is not complete; however, all discovery is to be completed by July 3 I , 1995.
)il PRETRIAL MOTTONS
Plaintiffs intend to file a motion for attorneys fees in connection with the Court's
Febnrary 6, 1995 order granting Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the Anounas' Second
Counterclaim, pursuant to Rule l2(b) of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedrue. Plaintiffs also
reserve the right to file Motions in limine, and any other pretrial motions Plaintiffs deem
appropriate.
I/Tt SETTI.NMEI{T
ys msaningful settlement discussions have taken place.
r&t031
XIII SETTI.NMT'.NT CONFERENCE
A settlement conference before Judge Haft has been set to take place on July 19, 1995 at
3:00 p.m. in Eagle, Colorado.
XTV TRIAL E.I.F'ICIF'.NCTES
A jury trial of tbree days has been set for August 31, September l, and Siptember 7,
1995. Jury instnrctions are to be presented to the Court ten days prior to the starting date of tial.
Plaintiffs believe that the trial can be completed in the three day schedule.
XV OTTIRRMATTERS
There are no other matt€rs in this case to bring to the Court's attention at this time.
Dated this 25th day of May, 1995.
Respecfily submitted:
Lawrence L. Levin, Pro se
9560 South Powers Place
Greenwood Village, Colorado 801l0
CERTIfl CATE O[' MAII.TNG
I hereby certifr that I mailed a tnre and corect copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Disclosr:re
Certificate by U. S. mail, postage prepaid on this 26th day of May, 1995 to the following
attorneys ofrecord:
Bradley R. Unkeless, Esq.
Unkeless & Bisset
One Denver Higblands, Suite 403
10375 East Harvard Avenue
Denver.CO 80231
-8-
Daniel L. Woodrow, Esq.
rffoodrow& Gruskin, P. C.
999 - l8th Street" Suitc 3450
Denver, CO 80202
Thomas Moorehead, Esq.
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
-9-
t
DISTRICT COURT, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
CaseNo. 94 CV 288
DISCLOSI'RE CERTIFICATE OF DEFENDANTS
LAWRENCE LEVIN urd CAROL LEVIN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SAI\,I A}IOUNA,, PATNCIA AIIOLTNA THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, TIIE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUMTYDE\IELOPMENT OF TIIE TOWN OF VAIL andRANDY
STOI.JDER.
Ddendants.
flON{E NCW the Defendants The Town of Vail, The Department of Corrrrnunit-y
Danelopment of the Town ofVail and Randy Stouder, by and through their attomeys, Unkeless &
Bisset, and pursuant to C.RC.P. Rule 16, submit the following Disclosure Certificate.
L STATTMENT OF CI.AIMS AND DEFENSES
This litigation arises from a dispute betwean the Plaintiffs Levins and Codefendants, furounas
regarding the application of orterior stain to a duplex located at Ml7 Columbine Drive, Vail,
Colorado. The Town ofVail, The Department of Community Development and Randy Stouder are
also being sued for their actions in responding to Codefendants Anounas' Complaint.
The Plaintiffs are alleging the following claims for relief against the Defendants: Declararory
Judgment, Denial of Equal Protection, Denial of Due Process, Estoppel, Ultra Vires, 42 U.S. C.
Section 1983 and 1988 and Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations.
' The Defendants have generally denied the allegations in the Plaintiffs Complaint and asserted
the following affirmative defenses:
l. The Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
2. The Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages as required by law.
I
I
3. Plaintiffs' damages, if any, were proximately caused by their own negligence or risk
assumptioll, which negligence is equal to or greater than any negligence of the Defendants.
4. Plaintift'damages, if any, were caused by the acts or omissions of third persons over
whom these Defendants had no control.
5. Piaintiffs' claims are barred, limited or otherwise gorrcrned by the Cotorado
Governmental Immunity act, Section 24-10-l0l through Section 2+|O-LZO,C.R.S. (l9Sg).
6 Plaintiffs' allegations do not rise to a level of deprivation of rights, privileges or
immunities necessary to state a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 clairn
7. Plaintiffs'claims fail to state any personal involvement of each individual Defendant,
therefore Plaintiffs' claims fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983.
8. At all times the Defendarns were acting h their ofrcial capacity and, therefore are not
person subjects to llability under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
9. Plaintiffs'claims are barred by waiver, laches and estoppel.
10. Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust applicable administrative remedies.
ll. This action is frivolous, groundless and vo<atious, and without any merit or
founduiorl thus entitling defendants to be aunrded their costs, erp€rt witness fees, and attorneys fees
pursuant to c.RS. section 13-17-101, c.R.c.p. Rule ll, and4zu.s.c. sestion l9gg.
Discovery has not been completed in this matter and a final decision has not been made
concerning which affirmative defenses should be dropped.
tr. UNDISPUTEDFACTS
None.
IIL DISPUTED FACTS
Defendants contend the following issues shoutd be decided by the trier of fact:
a
t
l. Whether the 'Party Wall Agreement" in particqlar paragraph 9, was legatly binding
on the kvins and Anounas.
2. Whether there was a breach of the lParty Wall Agreementn.
3. lVhether the provisions of Chapter 18:54 Design Review of the Town of Vail
Municipal Code apply to the subject matter of this litigation.
4. Whaherthe Plaint'rft violated the provisions of Chapter 18:54 Design Review of the
Town of Vail Municipal Code.
5. whaher the Tovm of Vail had the legal right to iszue a Stop work order.
6. Whaher the Plaintifs' procedural and zubstantive due process rights were violated by
the Town of Vail's actions.
7. Whether the Plaintiffs equal protection rights were violated by the Town of Vail's
actions.
8. whether the Doctrine ofEstoppel applies to the Town of vail's actions.
9. Whetherthe Town of Vail engaged in ultra vires actions.
l0' Whether Randy Stouder, a Town of Vail employee, tortiously interfered in the
Plaintiffs' contractual relations with the painting contractor.
ll. Whether the affirmative defenses pled by the Town ofVail apply.
12. The nature and octent, if any, of the plaintiffs' alleged damages.
IV. POINTS OF LAW
C'RS.2+lGlOl ttrough2+10-120,42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, U.S. Federal Constitution.
Colorado case law, statutory law and jury instructions which govern contract and land use. fuiy
novel issues of law will be brought to the Court's attention prior to trial via trial briefs, and/or
appropriate motions.
v. wrflYEssEs
The Defendants endorse the following witnesses at trial:
l. Plaintiffs Levins..
2. Any witnesses endorsed by the plaintiffs.
3. Codefendantsfuiounas.
4. fuiy witnesses endorsed by the Codefendants.
5. Jim Cumu4 Town of Vail Community Dwelopment Planneq 25 S. Frontage Road,
Vail, Colorado E1657; td: 479-2138, who will testify conceming his knowtedge of the facts and
circumstances regarding the zubjea m:rtter of this litigation.
6. kuren WatertorL 75 S. Frontage Rd., Varl, CO 81657, wlro will testify concerning her
knowledge ofthe facts and circumstances regarding the srbject matt€r ofthis litigation..7. Randy Stouder, 75 S. Frontage Rd., Vail, CO 8t657, who will testify concerning his
knowledge of the facts and circumstances regarding the subject matter ofthis litigation.8. Chuck Feldmq Town of Vail Building Deparrnenq 75 S. Frontage Rd., Vail, Co
81657, who will testi$ concerning his knowledge ofthe facts and circumstances regarding the subject
matter of this litigatinn.
9. Thomas Moorehead, Attorney for the Town of Vai[ 75 S. Frontage Rd., Vail, CO
81657, who will testify concerning the Town of Vail's policies and procedures in effect, which the
Town of Vail residents are required to follow to implement design changes to their residential and
commercial properties.
10. Any witnesses necessary for rebuttal.
I l. Defendants reserve the right to endorse additionat witnesses up to and including thirty
(30) days prior to trial upon notification to opposing counsel.
VL EXEIBITS
l. Any exhibits endorsed by the plaintiffs.
2. Any exhibits endorsed by the Codefendants.
3. Any items necessary for laying foundatioq impeachment or rebuttal.4. Any items obtained through discovery including answers to interrogatories,
depositions, responses to request for production ofdocuments and request for admissions.5. Relevant sections of the Town of Vail municipal code, including but not limited to
Chapter 18.54.
6. Design Review Board Application, Town of Vail Colorado submitted by plaintiffs.
7. Codefendant, Sam Anouna's October I l, 1994 correspondence to the Town of Vail.
a
t
8. Iawrence levin's October 10, 1994 corrcspondence to La.ren Watertoq Town of Vail
Planner.
9. Town ofVail Plarming Departmcnt's business records relating to the "red tagging" of
the Plaintiffs' property,
10. Psrty Wall Agreernent for duplor which is the subject matter of this litigation.
I I' Sample of wood with colored stain the Plaintiffproposed to appty to the exterior of
his residence.
12. Other Town of Vail business records from the Office of Community Development
wttich harre been provided tlc Plafurift relating to ttre request for permission to effect design changes
to residential and commercial property.
13. Defendurts reserve the right to amend their Disclozure Certificate and endorse
additional orhibitsr up to and including thirty (30) days prior to trial upon notification to opposing
counsel.
VIL EXPERTS
l. Any ogerts endorsed by the plaintiffs.
2. Any ocpert endorscd by Codefendants.
3. The Defendants specifically reserve the right to amend their Disclosrre Certificate to
endorse expert witnesses on or before thirty(3O) days prioi to the trial date upon notification to
opposing counsel..
VIIL ITEMUATION OF GENERAL AND SPECIAL DAMAGES
N/A
DL STATUTES, ORI}INAIYCES, REGITI"ATIONS OR STANDARDS
Please see Section fV. 'Points of Law".
X. STIPI]U\TIONS
None presently.
XL SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
This matter is scheduled for a court scheduled settlement conference on July 19, 1995.
o I
XIt TRIAL ETTTCIENCIES
This matter is scheduled for trial on August 31, Septernbcr
nrffcient time to litigate this case.
REcE;l,E3t"iAi22ps
I 8nd 2, 1995, and should be
Bradlcy Unkcless, #U874
Attorney forMendants
10375 E. Ilarwrd Avc., #403
Denver, CO 80231
(303) 6n-500r
CERTTFTCATEOFT{ArLING r
It is hereby certified that the foregoing document was mailed ffi&hy d k 1.in the U.S.
lvlail, postr'rge paid uidresscd to: \
I
Lawrence Lerrin, Esq. I
1700 Lincoln St. Suite 4100 '
Denver, CO 80203
Daniel Woodrow, Esq.
999 Eighteenth Streeq Suite 3450
Denver, CO 80202
Thomas Moorehead" Esq.
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Vail, CO E1657
m- oA'n'vlil.\- *rJ
o
Boulder
Colorado Spings
Denvel
EnElewood
Salt Lake city
London
1700 Lincoln
Suite 4100
Denver, CO 80203
103 861-7000
Fax 303 866-0200
Lawrence 1". levin
301 866-0322
Holme Roberts & Owen,."
ATTORNEYS AT'LAW
February L6, L995
Mr. Randy Stouder
Town of VaiI
75 South Frontage Road
Vail , Colorado 8L657
Dear Mr. Stouder:
Thank you for sending the copies of the Design
Review Action fonns.I arn enclosing rny check in the
amount of $40.75 hrhich represents payrnent of the invoice
which you sent to me regarding the copying of those
docurnents, less rny $20.00 check which the Town of Vail
cashed relating to an application to appear before the
Town of Vail Design Review Board on october L9,L994, which
application both I and Larry Eskwith verbally asked to be
withdrawn on October 1L, L994t and which was in factfinally withdrawn by your office on October L7 , L994,prior to the date of the October 19th hearing.
Very truly yours,
HOLl,tE ROBERTS & OWEN rrc
/ .// t
trVr./rlt"4<- l.f*
Lawrence L. Levin
LLL/mq
Enclosures
ccz Bradley R. Unkeless, Esq.
lllc /tq8
o
F
a
c0PyfLt
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2138 / 479-21 39
FAX 303-479-2452
February 1, 1995
De partment of Community Developtnent
Mr. Lany Levin
1700 Lincoln, Suite 4100
Denver, CO 80203
Dear Larry:
I have enclosed copies of the Design Review Action Forms which you requested. In order to
fully understand the activities represented by the Design Review Action Forms, you will need
to return to my otfice and review the permanent liles corresponding to each sheet. This will
help you understand what type of approval was being requested and the actions the Town
took in reviewing and approving each application. I would be glad to introduce you to our
permanent files and help you begin the next step of your research. Please feel lree to call me
and set up an appointment at your convenience.
I have enclosed a bill for $60.75 which covers our copying fees and includes tax (25
cents/copy and 8h tax). lf I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Town Planner
Page2
January 24, 1995
File No: 709 LP 69146
4. Any duly .elected or appointed officials and members of your
governing body.
The persons or organizations described above are insuleds only
while acting within the scope of their duties with respect to a
facility or operation that is not designated in the Schedule of
Included/Excluded Facilities or Operations as "excluded", or
covered pursuant to the terms of that Schedule relating to
additional exposures.
In review of the claim, there are a number of issues that we must discuss as it relates
to the coverages under the policy. As you are aware, the claim makes allegations of
denial of eqrial protection,- depravation of constitutional rights and violation of 42
U.S-C. Section 1983 and tortious interference.
The relief sought primarily includes declaratory relief, but in the tenth claim for relief
also makes a claim for damages. The plaintiff also seeks relief for attorney fees and
costs.
We will be reserving all rights as to apparent lack of duty to indemnify as to the claims
seeking solely declaratory relief as such claims do not constitute claim for 'damages"
as defined in our policy and as required to trigger coverage under our E & O policy.
Please refer to your E & O policy form 8000020890, Section II - Definitions,
damages, which reads as follows:
"Damages' means monetrary judgment, award or settlement but does
not include fines or penalties or damages for which insurance is
prohibited by law applicable to the construction of this policy.
o
Please also refer to the Insuring Agreement on the above form, which is also a
part of this policy. The Insuring Agreement reads as follows:
A. Insuring Agreement
We will pay on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured slrall
becgqe legally obligated ,t9 pay_ as damages because of errors or
omissions injury to which this policy applies.
We will proceed with defense of this matter with the understanding of all rights
reserved per the above stated issues. We also reserve the right to supplement or
amend the rights afforded to us under the policy for any past or future allegations as
may be needed. If you have any questions, please feel free to oontact this writer.
Sincerely,
Page 3
January 24, 1995
File No: 709 LP 69146
Nicole Shing
Claim Representative
cc: Randy Stouder
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Vail, CO 81657
ISU Ins.
910 l5th st., #1000
Denver, CO 80202
mf/9062m
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2 1 07 / FAX 303-479-2 I 5 7
Ofice of Town Aftorney
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:Lawrence Levin and Carol Levin v. Sam Anouna, Patricia Anouna, The
Town of Vail, Colorado, The Department of Community Development of the
Town of Vail and Randy Stouder; Civil Action No. 94-CV-288; Eagle
County District Court
Randy, please review the attached responses to discovery. After your review let's discuss and
execute the same.
Randy Stouder, Community Development
R. rhomas Moorhead KrTrI
January 16, 1995
Ihankslr./-( (D*
RTM/aw
Enclosures
Cisloudgr.rEm
o I
RECEIVEDJANl3l9S
Bradley R. Unkeless
Jennifer E, Bisset
UNKELESS & BISSET
Attuneys at Inw
ONE DENVER HIGHLANDS
SUITE 403
IO3?5 EAST HARVARD AVENUE
DENVER, COI,ORADO 8023I
TEL: 303-671-5001
FAX: 303-671-0983
January 10, 1995
Thomas Moorhead" Esq.
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Levinv. TownofVail
709LP 69146
Dear Tom:
Enclosedplease find the Town of Vail's responses to discovery. Please review with
Randy Stouder and have him sign.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincergly,
/ \l_\{\_
Bradley R. Unkeless
Encl.
o
DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 94 C 288
Defendant, The Town of vail, Colorado, The Deparfinent of Community Development of
the Town of Vail and Randy Stouder Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Request for
Admissions, lnterrogatories and Request for Production of Documents.
LAWRENCE LEVIN AND CAROL LEVIN,
Plaintiffs,
sAM ANOUNAb PATRICIA ANOUNA, THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ANID
RANDY STOUDER, a Colorado municipal corporation,
Defendants.
Comes now the Defendants and in response to discovery states as follows:
r. REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
1. Deny.
2. Deny.
3. Deny.
4. Deny.
5. Deny.
6. Deny.
7. Deny.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Deny.
Deny.
Admit.
Admit.
4.
5.
II. INTERROGATORIES
l. Pursuantto C.RC.P. 33 (d) the answer to this interrogatory may be derived from the
Community Development Departrnent's business records. The burden of deriving or
ascertaining the answer is substantially the same for the Plaintiff as it would be for the
Community Development Deparfinent's staff. Randy Stouder will cooperate firlly with the
Plaintiffs by providing the business records which contain the information. These records
are at the Community Development Deparfinent's office in Vail, Colorado.
2. Please make reference to response to interrogatory #1.
3. Please make reference to response to intenogatory #1.
Please make reference to response to interrogatory #1.
Please make reference to response to intenogatory #1.
Please make reference to response to interrogatory #1.
Please make reference to response to interrogatory #1.
Please make reference to response to interrogatory #1.
Please make reference to response to interrogatory #1.
Please make reference to response to interrogatory #1.
Please make reference to response to interrogatory #1.
Please make reference to response to interrogatory #1.
Please make reference to response to interrogatory #1.
Please make reference to response to interrogatory #1.
6.
I
15. Please make reference to response to interrogatory #1.
16. Please make reference to response to interrogatory #1.
17. The Town of Vail does not issue permits for painting a dwelling unit.
18. The Town of Vail does not issue permits for staining a dwelling unit.
19. The Town of Vail does not issue permits for resffaining a dwelling unit.
20. Design Review Board Application.
2L. Design Review Board Application.
22. 18.54.040 Sec. C, 1, g, 18-54.040 Sec. C,3, a, b.Vr
'stain over23. It is the Town of Vail's position that the application of a semi
a previously applied semi-fiansparent stain can achieve an exact own of Vail
is unable to specifically identi$ a building where this has occurred.
24. 18.54.015,18.54.030.A
25. 18.54.015,18.54.030.A
26. 18.54.015. The contextual definition of exterior alteration is set forttr by specific
references, i.e. exterior building materials and colors set forth in 18.54.040 and 18.54.050.
27. 18.54.015, the contextual definition of exterior materials is set forth by specific
references i.e. exterior building materials and colors set forth in 18.54.040 and 18.54.050.
28. 18.54.030 A
29. The word "color" is not specifically mentioned 18.54.030 but is specified in 18.54.040
C,l,g and 18.54.050 A. and in other sections throughout the chapter relating to desigr review
guidelines. The words exterior alterations are specifically referenced which include color
changes to the exterior of building.
30. MikeMouic";@f
o code provision describes the Town of Vail Building Inspector's
o
31. GaryMunai
duties, power and r
a,)
33.
make reference to response to interrogatory #1.ffi
F.ffit
day
Mr. Cutfif{e aid Lauren Waterton, a Town of Vail planner, visited the site and
confirmed the \or{rplaint. They observed that a portion of the Levins'residence had been
. d--k)r'n lr ca)
Stef \.l
An Urban Plarmer is englgeqiqplann_ing-and developmentfireviewrand long range
or me aoJaceff narrg
priorapproval. / I
|
't.-lMr. Culnf$e
confirmed the &or{rn
painted with a solid body stain.
Jim Curnutte spoke with Chuck Feldmann in the Town of Vail building deparfinent.
Mr. Feldmann placed a red tag (stop work order) on Levins'half of the duplex on October
6,1994.
36. Mike Mollica, Acting Director of Community Development Deparfinenl 1988 to
present, Urban Planning, Masters Degree in Landscape Architecture, American Planning
Association, American Society of Landscape Architects.
Andrew Knudtsen, Senior Planner, 1990 to present, Urban Planner, B.S. Degree
Urban Planning, American Planning Association.
Jim Cumutte, Senior Planne\ 1992 to presen! Urban Planner, B.S. Degree, American
Institution of Certified Planners, American Planning Association.
Randy Stouder, Planner II, 1993 to presen! Urban Planner, B.S. Degree Geolog5r,
American Planning Association.
George Ruther, Planner I, L994 to present, Urban Planner, Masters Degree Urban
Planning, American Planning Association.
l,aurenWaterton, Planner I, 1994 to present Urban Planner, Masters Degree Urban
Planning, American Planning Association.
planning and.Teve.loppent$r the Town of Vail.
wvm^f;rvr'Yv'vr
Y''r'
frt
37. To the best of my knowledge all planners but Jim Curnutte were present.
38. Regarding the Defendants response to paragraph 18, the allegations relate to the
Plaintiffs actions primarily. The Defendants are without suflicient information or belief to
form abelief as to Plaintitrs'actions and on that basis deny the same. The Stop Work Order
was instigated by Mr. Anouna. The Defendants are without sufficient information or belief
to form an opinion concerning whether Mr. Anouna's counsel was involved. The Defendants
are without sulficient information or belief to form an opinion as to whether Mr. Curnutte
was not told that a cedar color rather than a taupe color would be used in the future.
Regarding paragraph 20, based on defense counsel's discussion with Ms. Waterman
on December 28,1994, there are a number of factual misstatements contained in paragraph
20,
Regarding paragraph 22, frtere are some factual allegations contained n paragraph 22
which may not be correct.
Regarding 23,the allegations contained therein may be admitted at the conclusion of
discovery.
Regarding paragraph 24, this paragraph should not be admitted or denied because it
calls for a legal conclusion.
Regarding paragraph 26, the allegations contained therein may be admitted at the
conclusion of discovery.
Regarding paragraph 28, the allegations regarding October ll and 17, 1994 are
factually incorrect,
Regarding paragraph 29,the allegations contained therein are factually incorrect.
39. Pursuant to Rules 8 and 12 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants are
required to set forth in their responsive pleadings all aftrrmative defenses which they may
rely upon in responding to Plaintiffs allegations in this matter. A determination as to the
exact facts which will be relied upon by the Defendants to prove said affrmative defenses
cannot be made until such time as Defendants have had the opportunity to conduct its
discovery and investigation efforts in this litigation. A response to this interrogatory will be
made upon the completion of discovery or in its Trial Data Certificate.
40. Please make reference to the response to Interrogat ory #39.
41. The Plaintiffs have not filed a formal notice of claim pursuant to C.R. S. 24-10-109.
The Plaintiffs' Tenth Claim for Relief is designated as Tortious Interference Stouder. Mr.
Stouder was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the events which are
the subject matter of this litigation. As a result, Mr. Stouder was an agent of the Town of
Vail and his acts could be attributable to the Town of Vail by the Docfrine of Respondent
Superior.
42. Please make reference to the response to lnterrogatory #39.
43. Yes.
44. Yes.
III. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
l. Please find enclosed.
2. Pursuant to C.RC.P. 34, the Defendants have no objection to the Plaintiffinspecting
and copying all documents being requested by the Plaintiffs. Randy Stouder will cooperate
fully with the Plaintiff by providing access to the business records which contain the
information.
These records are at the Community Development DeparEnent in Vail, Colorado.
3. Please make reference to response to Request for Production 2.
4. Please make reference to response to Request for Production 2.
5. The Vail Design Review Board has two (2) meetings per month which average 2 to
5 hours per meeting. These meetings are taped. The tapes are not transcribed. The
Defendants have no objection to the tapes being listened to by the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants will make the tapes available.
6. The piece of siding with the color sample provided to Mr. Stouder can be inspected
at the Community Development Departrnent in Vail, Colorado.
Randy Sfouder
STATE OF COLORADO )
/2 ) SS'
couNrY oF /fu2&r \
Bradley R. Unkeless, #1L874
Attomey for Defendant
10375 E. Harvar4 Ste. 403
Denver, CO 80231
(303) 671-5001
^"u",239auy t Qazd,tgr.ree5, by/u
my hand and oflicial seal.
Respectflully submitted,
& BISSET
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I haeby certify ttrat I mailed a tue copy of the foregoing document in the U.S. Mail,
postage prepaid, this _ day of 1995, addressed to:
Daniel L. Woodrow
Woodrow& Gruskin
999 Eighteenth St., Ste. 3450
Denver, CO 80202
Thomas Moorhead, Esq.
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Rd.
Vail, CO 81657
LarcyL. Levirq Esq.
Holme Roberts & Owen
1700 Lincoku Ste.4100
Denver, CO 80203
f'Holme Robert
ATTORNEYS
o
s&.AT Owen,,.
LAW Bouldet
Colorado Springs
Denvea
Englewod
9ah Lake City
London
1700 lincoln
Suite 4100
Denr€r, CO 80203
303 861-7000
Fax 103 8664200
l-awrcrcc L. Lrvin
303 8664322
september 27, L994
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAIJ
Dr. Sam Anouna
3005 East 16th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80211
Dear sam:
I am writing to express rny total frustration with
Travis Baker of Mountain Wood Care, and for that matterwith the whole process involved with the restaining of theexterior of our duplex in Vail. Before giving you an
update as to tlre recent developments, I thought it best to
sumrnarize the whole process, so as to put the matter into
perspective.
rn the early Spring of this year, Carol advised
you that we had installed new windows and window frames onportions of our duplex, which needed painting, and thatthe entire exterior siding of the duplex neededrestaining, because the exterior cedar wood had undergone
extrene discoloration. carol indicated that she had
discussed the natter with several painters, one of whom
had done the exterior staining of two of the duplexes atthe top of Colunbine Drive in our subdivision, and wastold that because of the age and condition of the wood, an
opaque stain (as opposed to a semi-transparent stain)
would have to be used. Further, since a new exterior
opaque stain would have to be used, Carol stated that wepreferred to select a different color than the existing
cedar color, which color would be more in keeping with the
current exterior colors of residerices in the vail Valley.
She also asked you for your input, and whether you desiredto restain the exterior of your duplex as well .
Throughout the Spring and early summer, Carol wasin touch with you, provided you with color samples, and
even had the painter she selected, Phil Bennett of PrimaPainting, call you and subnit a proposal for your review.It is my understanding that you indicated to Carol that
you were considering the natter; however, no closure was
reached. It is my further understanding that PhiI Bennett
' t't
Dr. Sam Anouna
Septenber 27, L994
Page 2.
faxed you a proposal in early August (he sent Carol a
copy), but you never responded either to Phil or to carol
regarding that ProPosal .
Because the Sunmer was coming to a close and it
was irnperative that we address the exterior condition of
the window frames and sidingr, Carol called and left a
message in rnid-August on your answering nachine advising
you that we had not beard from you, and that we had to
proceed with the work on our duplex. You subseguently
advised us that you did not receive this message.
Because we did not hear from you, we instructed
Phil Bennett to proceed, and he in fact started the work
during the week of august 29 | 1994. We came to VaiI on
Saturiay, septenber 3rd of the Labor Day weekend, and it
was at that tine that we rnet you face-to-face, and you
indicated your displeasure with the fact that we had in
fact proceeded to stain our property. It was-also during
that weekend that you told us for the first tine that you
had been doing independent investigation work, that in
JuIy, you had contacted Travis Baker of Dtountain wood
care, and that Mr. Baker indicated that he had a process
of power washing exterior cedar, rernoving all of the black
discoloration, applying a special wood care oil which
contained a seni-Lrlnsparent stain and guaranteeing his
work for five years. You also indicated that you would
have your duplex po!'ter washed and stained with the same
naterial. we told you that we were skeptical of the
success of such a project on o1d wood; however, we agreed
to stop all restaining work until we had an opportunity to
talk to Mr. Baker and have hin perform a test cleaning to
deterrnine if the power washing initially worked.
Accordingly, on that Iabor Day weekend, we called Mr.
Bennett and told hin to stop all work until he heard froro
US. V
During our conversations over the Labor Day
weekend you raised the issue of the party wall agreenent,
and I advise you that neither party had foLlowed the
agreement. your predecessor in title, Mr. HaIl restained
his exterior to a somewhat different color than our
duplex, without our prior knowledge and approval , and we
repainted our garage door without Mr. HaIl's prior
approval .
when I arrived back in Denver after the Labor Day
weekend, I placed several calls to Mr. Baker leaving
messages, none of which were returned, and finally was
f--I
Dr. Sam Anouna
september 27, L994
Page 3.
able talk to his wife on Friday, September 9th. She
advised rne that she and her husband were going on vacation
in California for ten days, leaving on the 9th or 10th of
Septenber, and that she did not believe that Mr. Baker
would have time to call me before Lhey 1eft.
Subseguent to that phone conversation, I spoke
with you, and you indicated that you had talked to Mr.
Baker before he left, and he told you that when he
returned, he would be able to perform an exterior cleaning
test, and if it proved successfuJ., to stain both of our
duplexes before the weather turned bad, precluding
exterior stain work.
on Monday, Septernber L9 | I called l"Ir. Baker and
finally spoke with hirn. He indicated that he had just
returned frorn his vacation, but that he had picked up a
new staining job in the Vail area which would take a 1ot
of his time. I filIed hirn in on our situation and time
schedule, and he said that he does not schedule any
staining work that would not be completed by october L5th,
but that he was going to Vail during the week of Septernber
19th and would power wash a portion of our exterior sidingthat week. If lrre were satisfied with the power washing
test, he said he would then proceed to stain our property,
and at least have our dupJ-ex finished before October l-sth.
He stated that if he were not able to complete your duplex
by October 15th, because Ralph Hall had stained your
duplex a few years ago, your duplex would keep until nextSpring, when he could complete the staining. I told Mr.
Baker that Carol and I were going back East for the lasthalf of the week of the L9th, but that we would be
prepared to go up to Vail on Monday to inspect the test to
deternine how successful it is.
l{hen we returned on Sunday night the 25th, we
learned that Mr. Baker had called and stated that he wasnot able to get up there to perforrn the power washingtest, but that he thought he might be able to do it thisweek. It is now September 27th, lve do not even have a
sarnple power cleaning to exarnine, and we have run out oftine and patience. It appears that Mr. Baker is all talk
and promise, and we have no confidence in his ability to
complete the project, even if the test were successful , by
October 1sth.
Accordingly, we have instructed Prirna Paining to
proceed to stain our property with an opaque stain, and to
cornplete that staining by October Lsth. We also
-"1
{.-
Dr. Sam Anouna
Septernber 27, I994
Page 4.
instructed Prima Painting not to continue to use the
Iighter stain previously selected by us, but to use a
stain color that approximates the exterior color of your
duplex.
I know that you would have preferred to have a
serni-transparent stain on our duplex,' however, the only
painter of several with whom I'te talked, that indicated it
is possible to do this is Mr. Baker' and his reliability
and veracity is tarnished. For the life of ne, f cannot
understand why you unilaterally met with Ur. Baker inJuly, negotiated with him extensively thereafter, and yet
faifed to advise us of his existence, process and proposal
until septenber 3rd, after we had already proceeded to
begin staining our duplex. We would like to be a good
neighbor in your eyes, but we also would have appreciated
your being a good neighbor as well.
Levin
LLL/mg
Sincerely,
IIIc/tI8
o
1991 UNTFORM BUILD|NG CODE
zot-2oz
Chapter 2
ORGANIZATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Creaflon ot Enforcemenl Agency
sec,201, There is hereby esrabagency which sha[ be under ,n"'j:11,11
this jurisdiction a code enforcemenl
ourtorng olficial. aqmrntslralive and operational control of Ihe
Powers and Duties of Buitding Orficial
Sec. 202. (a) General, The b;**if niJ:,:ff iifif d...,H]#frT,11iHffi i,?j,*'ff T*1;
The buitding official shall ha
11d,roadoRranien,ilil:il:,hfu :iLtiff ,'*:m:11:?T:,l;.,;?f ::3i[',xl'"T.l'Iifl i;H::i;lll'J'*3.';;,,;#::ll'.1!,'i1,,-,,n,,,ili"
"t
jl]lr"rt#ff;ti,il::','":ft'r:.:ll,l""''u"a p,*-.o,,es and wi,h rhe approval
ffi*l+iiT* jl,j,#,.Hilitiiii,fr ll;tmlr;,.,*::;.fl Ht_:;ru;".i#,lj
*;j; t :# :: #Tfi::Hff lxJ "I;:,
u., uy i.
prov,.sions of rhis c"a; ;iliff;.",;oflJ:il:|i illi:::::fi,:.:if.T il:
* .'il [i;i* :# ;i:!hl#ri'r;ffi i:ilxrli};:: ;: :ru::
; ffi ipr- il'Jt* r fqfr trj."*fsT#, r., ll::# rnt" m i
#::iid,!lqi:iti":"#;r:*..,m;i:lii{*.}#burangrin.
;#T,:,ff;:i,:f l ll: illiffi ::ff:rii:t J::l*i*:?".'fh, *"Tf '
., .(d) Stop Orders. Wheneyeran
fr il1,,:,j:,".,"g1if fllfl$iifl p;i1;:T]:r'j'rffi ff t
f r:; j;Hr; njl*xi"l ril f t'fi#
j r,i:,:f ffiT; I t: :i;n*it t:
.. (e) Occupanc.v violations. Wl
f :dl{,ffi{'';,l;itt##J'i j##"J;,..#, jr,},:*:t
,"ffiil:'f :',X,lli,:'ff ,;il;'.T.:Iff fi ff l,x,$:liHtt:"*ru;t
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303 -479-2 I 07 / FAX 303-479-2 r 5 7
Office of Town Attorney
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:Lawrence Levin and Carol Levin v. Sam Anouna, Patricia Ancuna, The
Town of Vail, Colorado, The Department of Community Developrnent ol the
Town of Vail and Randy Stouder; Civil Action No. 94-CV-28?; Eagle
County District Court
Attached you will find Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests ForAdmissions, Interrogatories and Flequest
For Production of Documents. Please review the requests and be prepared to discuss whether
or not the information is readily available.
I will be discussing these Interrogatories with Brad Unkeless who is representing our interest
through ITT Hartford. He has scheduled a tentiative visit here December 28. Are you available?
Thanks! -/'/lrn*
RTM/aw
Randy Stouder, Community Development
R. rhomas Moorhead
fnfDecember2l,1994 t
Ctstouder.rEm
DISTRICT COURT, EAGLE COUNTY, COI,ORADO
Civil Action Number 94 CV 288
PLAINIIFFS' FIRST sET OF REQUESTS
TNTERROGATORTES AND REQUESTA FOR
TO TOWN DEFENDANTS
rOR ADUISSIONS,
PRODUCrION OF DOCUUENTS
LAWRENCE LEVIN and CAROL LEVIN,
Plaintiffs,
SAM ANOUNA, PATRICIA ANOUNA, THE TOWN OF VAIL, COIORADO, THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ANd
RANDY STOUDER,
Defendants.
couEs NoIf the Plaintj.ffs, Lawrence Levin and Carol
Levin, pro se, and pursuant to the provisions of Rules 33, 34
and 36 of the Colorado Ru1es of Civil Procedure, subnit thefollowing First Set of Reguests for Adnission, Interrogatories
and Requests for Production of Documents to Defendants the
Town of Vail ("Vai1"), the Departnent of Community Developnentof the Town of Vail ("DCD") and Randy Stouder ('Stouderz) |(sometimes collectively called the "Tolrn Defendants'), to be
answered separately in writing, within 30 days, at 9550 East
Pohrers Place, Greenwood Vi1lage, Colorado 8oLLL. Requested
documents are to be produced for inspection and/or copying byPlaintiffs at a tirne mutually agreed upon by the parties, butin no event Iater than 30 davs from the date of service of
this request.
DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
l-. "Identify," when used with regard to a person,
means to state the person's full name, last known address and
telephone number, and relationship to you, and, if the person
is not a natural person, to state in addition the person's
organizational nature, (i.e., corporation or partnership), andstate the name of the officer, agent or employee acting onbehalf of the non-natural person.
2. "Identify," when used with regard to a document,
neans, whether or not the docurnent is presently in your
custody or control , to describe the document, to state thedate the docurnent hras prepared, to identify the person whoprepared the docunent, to identify the person to whom the
docunent was addressed, sent or del.ivered, to identify all
signatories to the docurnent, and to identify all personspresently having custody of the original or a copy of the
document.
3. "Your" means collectively or individually, as isappropriate, any or all of the Town Defendants herein,including all persons acting in your interest or on your
behal f.
4. "Documentr " means notes, rnemoranda, telephoneslips/notes/nenos, files and/or recorded data or writing of
any kind.
5. This discovery, pursuant to C.R.C.P. Rule 26(e),is deemed continuing in nature. Please suppJ.ement your
responses as required by the terms of that Rule.
6. If you consider any document or communication to
be privileged, then, with regard to each such document,
provJ.de the following infornation in writing:
a. Identify the author or preparer, the
addressee, aII persons receiving copies, alL othersignatories thereto, and the date of the document or
comnunication;
b. Describe the nature and purpose of the
document or communication;
c. State the location of the original and a1lcopies of the docunent or communication and thecustodian of each; and
d. Explain in detail the legal and factualbasis for the cfain of privilege with respect to the
documents.
7. If docurnents which are requested herein have
been destroyed or Lost, state the inforrnation requested in6(a) and (b) above, and state when, where and by whom it waslost or destroyed and the reason therefor.
8. If any Interrogatory cannot be answered in fullafter exercising due diligence, please indicated that your
answer is incornplete and set forth all infornation known as ofthe date of signing your answers. Specify you reason for your
-2-
inability to answer the rernainder, describe the efforts you
have made to answer fully, siate whatever information or
knowledge you have concerning the unanswered portion, andidentify any sources of j.nformation from which further
information responsj.ve to the Interrogatory may be obtained.
9. If precise responsive infornation is not knownnor reasonably accessible, please supply estimates or
approxirnations, as necessary, and indicate that the responseis an estimate or approximation.
10. In responding to this discovery request, please
set forth the fu1I text of the interrogatory before eachresponse. Plaintiffs will do the sane, if requested by you in
any discovery.
LL. For all documents requested to be provided,
please label each docurnent with a legend that sets forth the
Interrogatory, by number and subpart, to which the docurnent i.s
responsive. If the docunent is responsive to rnore than oneInterrogatory, please Label the document accordingly with a
legend that specifically enumerates each Interrogatory to
which the document is responsive.
I. REQUEST FOR ADI{ISAIONS
l-. Adrnit that in the procedures set forth inSection L8.54.o4o of the Tohrn of Vail Municipal Code (the
"Code") in connection with design approval there are noprovisions specifically relating to exterior color, staining
or restaining of structures.
2. Adnit that a seni-transparent stain over apre-existing, previously applied semi-transparent stain willnot match exactly the color of that previously applied stain.
3. Admit that there is no provision in the Codedefining the term "developrnent. "
4. Adrnit that there is no provision in the Code
defining the term "redevelopment. "
5. Admit that there is no provision in the Code
defining the tenn "exterior alteration."
6. Adrnit that there is no provision in the Code
defining the terrn "exterior materials."
7. Adnit that there is no provision in the Code
defining the terrn "modifj-cation."
-3-
8. Adnit that there is no reference set forth inSection L8.54.o3o of the code speci.fically relating to coJ-or
changes of an existing structure, as requiring prior design
approval.
g. Adrnit that the Levins and their representative
advised Stouder, starting on October 11., L994, that the Levinsdesired to withdraht their October l-0, 1994 Vail Design Review
Board application, and requested that the application, all
correspondence and material.s left with Stouder, and theapplication fee be returned to the Levins.
10. Adrnit that after written demand by the Levins,Stouder acknowledged in writing t,hat the application was
withdrawn prior to the Vail Design Review Board hearing on
October l-9, L994.
11. Adnit that notwithstanding the Vail Design
Review board application withdrawal , Vail cashed the Levins,application fee check, and Stouder did not return to theLevins the materials requested to be returned.
II. INTERROGATORIES
l-. Identify al.l" actions taken by Vail sinceJanuary 1, L99o in connection with a stop work order relatingsolely to exterior color or.stain application.
2. Identify all actions taken by DCD since
January L, L990 in connectj-on with a stop work order relatingsolely to exterior color or stain application.
3. Identify all actions taken by the VaiI Design
Review Board since January 1, L990 in connection with a stopwork order relating solely to exterior color or stain
appl ication.
4. Identify all actions taken by Vail sinceJanuary l-, 1990 in connection with a stop work order relating
so1e1y to applying a solid stain over a semi-transparentstain.
5. Identify all actions taken by DCD sinceJanuary l-, l-990 in connection with a stop work order relatingsolely to applying a solid stain over a seni-transparentstain.
6. Identify aII actions taken by the Vail Design
Review Board since January 1, l-99o in connecti.on with a stopwork order relating solely to applying a solid stain over asemi-transparent stain.
-4-
7. Identify all actions taken by Vail since
January 1, 1990 in connection with a stop work order relating
solely to applying a serni-transparent stain over a
semi-transparent stain.
8. fdentify all actions taken by DCD since
January L, L99O in connection with a stop work order relating
solely to applying a serni-transparent stain over a
serni-transparent stain.
9. Identify all actions taken by the VaiJ. Design
Review Board since January L, L99o in connection with a stop
work order relating solely to applying a semi--transparent
stain over a semi-transparent stain.
10. Identify separately, by enti.ty, all actions
taken by vail, DcD, or the Vail Design Review Board since
January L, 1-990 in connection with Design Review approval , or
disapproval relating so1e1y to exterior color changes in
general.
11. Identify separately, by entity, aII actions
taken by Vail, DcD, or the Vail Design Review Board since
January l-, 1-990 in connection with Design Review approval , or
disapproval relating sole1y to changes from one exterior stain
or color to a new exterior stain or color.
l-2. Identify separately, by entity, all- actions
taken by vai1, DcD, or the VaiI Design Review Board since
January L, L99o in connection with Design Review approval , or
disapproval relating sole1y to restaining or repainting using
a corresponding color, for example cedar color over cedar
col-or.
13. fdentify separately, by entity, all actions
taken by Vail-, DcD, or the VaiI Design Review Board since
January 1, L990 in connection with Design Review approval, or
disapproval relating solely to restaining using a
corresponding color, but using a solid stain over a
semi-transparent stain.
L4. Identj.fy separately, by entity, all actions
taken by Vail, DCD, or the Vail Design Review Board since
January 1, l-990 in connection wi.th Design Revj-ew approval, or
disapproval relating solely to restaining using a
semi-transparent stain over a serni-transparent stain.
15. Identify separately, by entity, all actions
taken by vail, DCD, or the vail Design Review Board since
January 1, l-990 in connection with Design Review approval , or
-5-
disapproval relating solely to staining or paining of both
sj.des of a duplex unit.
16. Identify separately, by entity, a1I actions
taken by Vai1, DCD, or the.VaiI Design Review Board since
January L, 1-990 in connection with Design Review approval , or
disapproval relating soleIy to staining or painting of only
one side of a duplex unit.
17. Identify all building or sinilar pernits issued
by Vail since January 1, 1990 relating solely to painting adwelling unit (listing separateJ.y single family, duplex orrnulti-family dwelling units) .
L8. Identify aII building or similar permits issued
by Vail since January L, 1990 relating solely to staining adwelling unit (listing separately single fanily, duplex ornulti-fanily dwelling units) .
l-9. Identify aII building or sirniLar permits issuedby VaiI since January l-, l-990 relating solely to restaining adwelling unit (Iisting separately single fanily, duplex ormulti-family dwelling units) .
20. Identify all application forms prepared or usedby vail, or any of its departments, relating to prior
approvals for repainting the exterior of a dwelling unit.
2L. Identify all application forms prepared or usedby Vail, or any of its departments, relating to prior
approvals for restaining the exterior of a dwelling unit.
22. If you cannot adnit Request for Adnission No. I,identify the provision in Section 18.54.040 of the Codespecifically relating to exterior color, staining orrestai-ning of structures.
23. If you cannot adnit Request for Adnission No. 2,.identify where in the Town of Vail a seni-transparent stain
has been applied over a pre-existing, previously appliedserni-transparent stain which natched exactLy to the color ofthe previously applied stain.
24. If you cannot admit Request for Adrnission No. 3,identify the provision in the Code specifically where
"development" is defined.
25. If you cannot adnit Request for Admission No. 4,identify the provision in the code specifically where
"redevelopnent" is defined.
-6-
26. If you cannot admit Request for Adnission No. 5,
identify the provision in the Code specifically where
"exterior alteration" is defined.
27. If you cannot admit Request for Adrni.ssion No. 6,
. identify the provision in the Code specifically hrhere
"exterior materials', is defined.
28. If you cannot adrnit Request for Admission No. 7,
identify the provision in the Code specifically where
"modificati-ono is defined.
29. ff you cannot admit Request for Adrnission No. 8,
identify where in Section 18.54.030 there is a reference to
color changes of an existing structure, in connection wlth
reguiring prior design approval .
30. Identify the VaiI Zoning Administrator(s)
between August 1, 1994 and the date these Interrogatories are
answered.
31. Identify the Vail Building Inspector between
August 1, 1994 and the date these Interrogatories are
answered, and identify the Code provisions which describe his
duties, powers and authority.
32. Identify all enforcement actions taken by VaiI,
its departments I boards or employees since January 1, L99O trelating to work when no design review application has been
filed.
33. Identify the person who signed the october 6'
1994 Stop Work order issued against Plaintiffs' property.
34. Identify the provision or provisions of the Code
which give the authority to issue stop work orders, such as
that issued against Plaintiffs' property on October 6, L994.
35. Describe the circunstances which 1ed up to the
issuance of the october 6, 1994 Stop work order, including the
nanes of aII persons who spoke with Jin Curnutt or other Vail
enployees, relatj-ng to either its issuance or to the subject
matter of its issuance.
36. fdentify the director and each planner on thestaff of DcD on october 1, 1994 and state the dates of each of
their employrnent by vail, their job descriptj-on, thej-r duties,
their post-high school education background, certifications
they have obtained and societies to whlch they belong.
-7-
37. Identify all rnernbers of the DCD planning staff
who were present at the DCD staff meeting between 8:OO a.m.
and 9:0O a.m. on October 10, J.994.
38. Explain why the Defendants, which includes Randy
Stouder, are without sufficient information to forn a belief
as to the truth of all of the allegations contained in
paragraphs 18, 2O, 22, 23, 24, 26t 28 and 29 when certain of
those allegations relate to (a) the October 6, L994 Stop work
order issued by vail , (b) conversations with, statements made,
and actions taken by Lauren waterman, an employee of. DCD, (c)
conversations with, statements made, and actions taken byStouder, (d) provisions of the code, and (e) writings of
Stouder.
39. Identify the basis for the Defendants'
affirrnative defense no. 2 stating that Plaintiffs have failed
to nitigate their damages as required by law. Identify whatPlaintiffs shoul-d have done to rnitigate their damages which
occurred after october 6, L994.
40. Ident.ify the basis for the Defendants'affirmative defense no. 3 stating that Plaintiffs darnages, ifany, were proxirnately caused by their own negligence, which
negligence is equal to or greater than any negligence of the
Defendant. Also, identify the negligence of each Defendantthis affirmative defense refers to, and the relative nature of
each party's negligence.
41. Identify the basis for the Defendants'affirnative defense no. 5 statin- that Plaintiffs claims arebarred, linited or otherwise gov.:-red by Section 24-10-L0L
through section 24-Lo-L2O,.C.R.S, (L988). Identify the tortclairns, or claims which could lie in tort that are asserted bythe Levins against Vail?
42. Identify the basis for the Defendants'affirmative defense no. 9 stating that Plaintiffs claims are
barred by waiver, laches and estoppel . Identify individually
each element of waiver, of laches and of estoppel attributableto each of the Plaintiffs.
43. Was Stouder authorized by DCD to send his
october 19, 1994 letter to the Levins? (Copy attached.)
44. was Stouder acting within the scope of hisauthority when he sent his october 19, 1994 letter to theLevins inforrning them of Vail's intent to issue a citation for
violation of Chapter 18.58 of the Code?
-8-
r
III. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTIONS OF DoCUI.IENTS
l-. Produce all docurnent identified in the foregoing
interrogatories .
2. Produce all documents relating to stop work
orders issued by Vail or any of its departments, boards or
employees since january 1,, l-99o relating solely to theapplication of exterior color, stain or restaining on
structures.
3. Produce all documents relating to actions taken
by vai1, or any of its departments, boards or ernployees since
January 1, 1990 in connection with Design Review approval or
disapproval relating so1ely to the application of exterior
color, staining, repainting or restaining on structures.
' 4. Produce all documents relating to actions taken
by Vail, or any of its departments, boards or employees since
January l-, L990 in connection with building or sirnilar perrnits
issued relatj.ng solely to the application of exterior color,staining, repainting or restaining on structures.
5. Produce alL rninutes of the VaiI Design Revie!'t
Board neetings since January l-, 1990.
6. Produce Mr. Levin's October l-0, 1994 letter to
Lauren vlaterman, any DCD document relating to that letter or
to its subject matter, the Levin's October 10, 1994application to the Vail Design Review Board, and all
correspondence and materials delivered to Stouder on
October 10, L994.,ADATED THIS /5- DAY OF DECEMBER, L994.
CAROL LEVIN
PRO SE
-9-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I nailed a true and correct
copy of the foregoing PI"AINTIFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUESIS FOR
ADMISSTONS, INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS TO TOWN DEFENDANTS by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, onthis l"Sth day of December, 1994, addressed to:
Bradley R. Unkeless, Esq.
UnkeLess & Bisset
One Denver Highlands, Suite 403
l-03 7 5 East Harvard Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80231
Daniel L. Woodrow, Esq.
Woodrow & Gruskin, P.C.
999 Eighteenth Street, Suite 3450Denver, Colorado 8O2Oz
Thomas Moorehead, Esg.
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage RoadVai1, Colorado aL657
I I Ip,l bv4
-10-
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2107 / FAX 303-479-2157
Office of Town Attorney
FII.E COPY
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:Lawrence Levin and Carol Levin v. Sam Anouna, Patricia Anouna, The
Town of Vail, Colorado, The Department of Community Development of the
Town of Vail and Randy Stouder; Civil Action No. 94-CV-288; Eagle
County District Court
Attached is a Summons and Complaint that we received in the Town offices on November 4,
1994. This has been tonrvarded to our insurance carrier so that they can provide the Town and
its employees a defense to the claim.
After you have an opportunity to review the allegations in the Complaint, please take the time to
write a memorandum to me which describes your individual involvement in this project. Also
attach and identify any supporting documentation that will assist in the defense of this matter.
After you have had an opportunity to review these matters, we will have a meeting to review the
allegations and claims made in the Complaint. Keep the faith and we will work through this
process. Thanks.
Thanks! -..-"--alnLLIu'
RTM/aw
Randy Stouder, Community Development
Lauren Waterman, Community Development
R. rhomas Moorhead {1Yl
I
November 8. 1994 L
CSsloudBr.nFm
Iy
DISTRICT COURT, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
Civil Action Number 94-Cv-288
LAWRENCE LEVIN and CAROL LEVIN,
Plaintiffs,
SAM ANOUNA, PATRICIA ANOUNA, THE TOWN
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OF
RANDY STOUDER,
Defendants.
/0tu
uft'/
N0v. ?
l!\(.
(-/++,"lItr^
tfiulL(
TTvv'
TOV' [urriivi' UtV' IJEPT'
OF VAIL, COLORADO, THE
THE TOWN OF VAIL and
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO I t /ro rHE DEFENDANTs NAMED ABovE: {""r,/p4 ttll l7f
You are summoned and required to file with the clerk of this
court an answer or other response to the atLached conplaint
within twenty (2o) days after this summons is served on you in
the State of Colorado, or within thirty (3o) days after this
summons is served on you outside the State of Colorado.
If you fail to fiJ-e your answer or other response to the
conplaint in writing within the applicable tine period,
judgrnent by default may be entered against you by the court
for the relief demanded in the complaint, without any further
notice to you.
OTTO PORTERFIELD & POST
out", /vtt 3, tf?7._..---.-..--...
/r/..?4%.-42^__
Wendell B. Porterfield, Jr. #5881Attorneys for Plaintiffs
4080L Highway 6, Suite 204
Eagle VaiI, Colorado 8162o
Telephone: (303) 845-9410
Ot to, porterfield & postF. O. Box 3149r,faiI, 0o1orai.1c g16Eg
RETURN OF AERVICE
State of
County
I declare under oath that I served this sumrnons and a copy of
the conplaint in this case on
tn County roD
@ate) , at _ (tirne) , at the
following location:
by (State Manner of Service)
f am over the age of 18 years and arn neither interested in nor
a party to this case.
Private process server Date
Fee $Mileage $
Signed under oath before me on
ttotary Public
Lllp/bu8
-2-
DTSTRICT COURT, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
civil Action Number U!!d(, courtroorn
VERIFIED COI{PIJATNT FOR DECI,ARATORY AND OTHER REIJIEF
I,AWRENCE LEVIN and cARoL LEVTN,
Plaintiffs,
SAI,I ANOUNA, PATRICIA ANOUNA, THE TOWN
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OF
RANDY STOUDER,
Defendants.
OF VAIL, COLORADO, THE
THE TOWN OF VAIL and
Plaintiffs Lawrence Levin and Carol Levin (the/Levins/) allege against the Defendants for various craims forrelief as follows:
PARTTES AND VE}IUE
l-. The Levins have been residential property ownersin the Town of Vail for approximately eight y".i= and are theowners of a residence at 44I? B Columbine Drive, Vail,Colorado (the /Levins, property").
2. Defendants Sam Anouna and patricia Anouna (the
"Anounasz) are the owners of a residence at 44]-7 A columbineDrive, Vail, Colorado (the 'Anounas, propertyrr), whichproperty is one-half of a duplex, the other iaii ot which isthe Levins, Property. Upon infonnation and belief, theAnounas purchased their property in late L993.
3. The Defendant Town of VaiI is a nunicipalcorporation and a body politic organized under Articie xx ofthe Colorado Constitution as a Horne-Rule City.
4. The Defendant the Department of CommunityDevelopment of the Town of vail (,,-onrnunity Developmenlol isan administrative department or ine Town oi vail enumerated assuch under Section 2.t6.o2o of the Vail Municipal Code (theo0ode"). The Town of VaiI and Cornmunity Oevel6pnent arecorlectively referred to herein as the ;t'tunicipil Defendants.,,
i''
5. Defendant Randy Stouder (,,Stouderrr) is a townplanner within Comnunity Development.
6. Venue is proper in EagJ.e County pursuant toC.R.C.P. 98(a) and (c) as the reat property in question andcertain of the defendants are located in ulqte County, and theacts complained of herein have taken place exclusively inEagle County.
GENERAI, AI,I,EGATTONS
7. The Levins, Property and the Anounas, propertyis affected by a duplex party wall agreement recorded onNovember 9, l-983 in the real property records of Eagle County,in Book 372 at page 821 (the ;,pa;ty wall Agreement,, l.Paragraph 9 of the party WalI Agreenent states that ',No ownersha1l make or suffer any structural or design changes(incruding coror changes) of any type or nalure whatsoever tothe exterior of any irnprovement on- the property withoutobtai-ning the prior written consent of Lhe other olrner, whichqonsent.shall not be unreasonably withheld or deLayed.,,(Enphasis added)
8. The Anounas, predecessors in title were Mr. andMrs. Ralph Hall (the uHalls,') . The Halls were the originalowners of the Anounas, property and purchased that propertythe early to nid-1,980s. The Levins lre the oricrinal ownersthe Levins, Property.
inof
9. Neither the HaIIs nor the Levins had everfollowed the provisions of the party WalI Agreement withrespect to exterior color. For example: (a) the cedar colors
9f the siding of both sides of the duplex at present havedifferent shades because the Halrs stlined thl exterior sidingon the Anounas' Property approximatery three years ago withouf,the Levins'.prior knowledge and written consent, (b) the Hal1spainted their exterior main entrance door a bright red withoutthe.Levins'-prior knowledge or written consent, and (c) theLevins repainted their gaiage door from the prior cedar colorto the color of the adjacent stucco without the Halls, priorknowledge and written consent. Accordingly, the course ofconduct of the parties with respect to coror is such that theParty WaIl Agreenent has been disregarded.
10. The Anounas, knew of the significant differencesin ext,erior colors of the duplex when they purchased theirProperty, and knew or should have known that the party WaLIAgreernent, with respect to exterior color, was abrogaled.
-2-
l-l-. In May, :..994, the Levins advised the Anounasthat because the exterior, wood siding on their property hadundergone an extrene black discoloration, the Levins desiredto restain their exterior siding. The Levins indicated thatthey had discussed the matter with several painters, one ofwhon had recently done the exterior staining of a duplexcomplex in the subdivj-sion where the Levins and Anounas,Property is ]ocated, and was told that because of the age andcondition of the wood, a solid stain (as opposed to aseni-transparent stain) would have to be used. Further, sincea new exterior solid stain wouLd have to be used, the Levinsstated that they preferred to select a different color thanthe existing cedar color, which color would be more in keepingwith the more prevalent lighter pallete exterior colors ofresidences in the Vail Valley. The Levins reguested theAnounas' input, and asked whether the Anounas desired torestain the exterior of their property as weLl.
L2. Throughout the spring and early sumner,Mrs. Levin continually contacted Dr. Anouna, even deliveringcolor samples to hin at his Cherry HiIIs Vj-Ilage residence.She also caused the Levins, selected painting contractor tosubmit a proposal for the Anounas' review to restain theentire duplex. At no tirne during June, July or August. L9g4did the Anounas ever reject (a) the concept of resiaining bothsides of the duplex, or (b) the taupe color stain selected bythe Levins. Further, the Anounas never responded to thepainting contractorrs proposal nor spoke to Mrs. Levin inresponse Lo her nunerous phone calls.
13. Because of the delay, and the fact that thesunmer season was coming to a close, Mrs. Levin calledDr. Anouna and left a message in nid-August indicating thatsince neither the Levins nor their contractor had heaid fromthe Anounas, the Levins had instructed their paintingcontractor to begin the restaining work on the Levins,Property, using their preferred taupe color, the sanple ofwhich had been personally delivered to therestaining work began during the week of6{ugust 29, 1994
14. On Saturday, Septenber 3, 1994 of the Labor Dayweekend, the Anounas and the Levins vrere at their VailProperty, and it was at that time that the Anounas told theLevins that they did not like the taupe col-or which hadstarted to be applied to the Levins' property. It was also onthat weekend that the Anounas told the Levins for the firsttine that in JuIy, L994, Dr. Anouna had contacted anotherpainting contractor, a Mr. Baker, who used a process of powerwashing the exterior siding and applying a wood. oil whichcontained a semi-transparent stain.
UplJft^
-3-
L5. The Levins told the Anounas that because of whatother painting contractors had told thern, they hrere skepticalof the success of such a process which applied asemi-transparent stain on oLd wood; however, the Levins agreedto stop all restaining work until the Levins had anopportunity talk to Mr. Baker, and have Mr. Baker perforrr atest power washing to determine if the power washing process
worked.
1.6. Upon returning to Denver after the Labor Dayweekend, the Levins pursued Mr. Baker and after a ten-dayvacation taken by Mr. Baker and several unfulfilled promises,Mr. Baker performed a power washing test on September 27.Although some of the black discoloration was removed, thepower washing process damaged the wood, and caused portions ofthe siding to curl up at the bottorn. Also, the power washingcould not remove the taupe color.
1,7. On Septenber 27 the Levins advised the Anounasin writing that the Levins, after undergoing an additionalmonth's delay, had instructed their painting contractor toproceed to stain the Levins, Property with a solid stain,using a cedar color stain which corresponded to the color ofthe Anounas' Property, rather than continuing with theirpreferred taupe color. The Anounas thereafter rejected usinga solid cedar color stain on the Levins, property. The Levinssubsequently advised the Anounas, counsel that it was theLevins' position that they were not effecting a color change,so even if the Party Wal1 Agreement were in force wi-th respectto color cbanges, that Agreenent is inapplicable. Further,the Levins stated that the Anounas were unreasonable in theirdelay and in withholding their consent to the solid cedarcolor stain.
L8. The Levins, painting contractor was scheduled tostart the restaining work on the Levins, property onOctober L0, and they came up to Vail on October 9 to meet withthat contractor to deterrninL tne best color match. It was on ,<,{October 9 that the Levins first satr, or even heard of the ;J'{b.iOctober 6, 1-994 stop work order (the tstop Work Order,,) placed -,,*.<t,rff'on the Levins' Property, which bears the name of Jin curnutt .,.J,I".Ln $flof Community Development, and alleges a violation of ll,l,'{ YSection l-8.54.03O of the Code. Upon inforrnation and belief ,V o$'the Stop Work Order was instigated by the Anounas and their Wcounsel , and Mr. Curnutt was not told that a cedar colorrather than the taupe color would be used in the future.
l-9. At 8 a.m. on the morning of the 10th, Mr. Levinwent to the Conmunity Development office, learned that JirnCurnutt was out sick and picked up a copy of Chapter 18.54 of
-4-
I
the Code. He then contacted Lauren Waterman, a planner inComrnunity Developrnent, explained to Ms. Waternan that theLevins had already stopped work using the taupe color, and nowplanned to use the cedar color corresponding to what presentlyexists on the remainder of the property.
20. Ms. waterman discussed the matter with the |.u#PCornmunity Developrnent staff at their staff rneeting which waslf , ffigoing on at the time, and then advised I'lr. tevin it '.1_.,+dJlZ-.
approxinateJ-y 9 a.n. that the Levins could proceed to stain tWaapproxlmately 9 a.n. that the Levins could proceed to stain r))F-l JtAtheir Property with a solid, rather than a seni-transparent f$rycedar stain, which would also cover the taupe color, so that d /^o* 4homogenous exterior color appearance would result. lrqYA^rtMs. Waternan also stated that, by virtue of the Levins using a,ii"r'sn^a:J*,cedar color, the Levins could disregard the Stop Work Order, 1"S lt*;-
and she asked Mr. Levin to conf irm these events in writinq , /# 'r, tfitvrhich was irnrnediately done. A copy of that contemporaneotl= - friirT:;frl'lconfinnation Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit l , t .-*;{\'(%$'n
2l . In reliance on Ms. Watermanrs statement, onbehalf of Conmunity Developnent, that the Levins couldproceed, Mr. Levin ca11ed the contractor and advised thatcontractor that the Stop work Order had been lifted. Thecontractor thereafter proceeded to cover the windows, tape andotherwise prepare the exterior surfaces, order and have mixedthe solid cedar stain, and proceed with the work.
22. At approxirnately L2,3O p.n. on October 10,Ms. Wat,erman and Stouder came to the Levins, . property.
Stouder advised the Levins that Dr. Anouna had talked with himafter Mr. Levin left the Cornmunity Development office, andthat Stouder had reapplied the Stop Work Order. The Levinsadvised Stouder of the earlier fifting of the Stop Work Order,the confirrnation letter, their contract with the paintingcontractor, and their rel_iance on the lifting of the Stop WorkOr$ert however, Stouder stated that Ms. Waterman rdas new,coib{d and inexperi-enced, and that he was counterrnanding herpdor adthorization to proceed. Stouder tffi directed thepaintlBf contractor and his crew to leavezbre Levins,Propelt)*
23. Stouder further advised the Levi.ns that theLevins would have to get perrnission from the Town of VailrsDesign Review Board to apply a solid cedar color stain overthe present semi-transparent cedar stain, and had the Levins,complete an application form.
24. The Design Revj_ew Board is organized pursuant toChaPter L8.54 of the Code and its jurisdiction for designapproval is set forth in Section 19.54.030 of the Code.
-5-
N
25. After Stouder and the others left the LevinProperty, the Levins observed that another crew of painters
was beginning to work on restaini.ng the duplex at44L9 Columbine Drive, across the way and up the hill. Thestaining of 44L9 Colurnbine Drive has a combination ofsemi-transparent and solid cedar stain, not only on both sidesof the duplex, but within portions of each side. The Levinsthen spoke to that painting contractor, who stated that he andhis partner have years of painting experience in Vail, and headvised the Levins (a) that he did not have approval fron the
Town of Vail Design Review Board to effect this work, (b) thathe had done sinilar work on this and other property in vailpreviously, and never had Design Review Board approval, andthat in his experience, and his knowledge of other paintingcontractors in the Vail Valley, if the general exterior coloris retained, the Town of Vail does not consider thatrestaining to be an zexterior alteration, r, even if a solid, - ,ee)
rather than a serni-transparent stain is used. ..'}ilf),' ,.hrd'
26. rrnmediarery after that painting contractor -r'"? lt i":4,conversation, Mr. Levin advised Stouder of the work on nP'." .,.$€4r d+414419 columbine Drive and of the conversation, and Stouder ,C/ fu*stated he would look into the rnatter. ,( )4"
27. The Levins that night reviewed Chapter rc.514 isweLl as other portions of the Code, and concluded that the
Town of Vail- and the Design Review Board have no jurisdiction
under the Code to approve or disapprove of any exteriorstaining of a residence where a corresponding cedar colorused, but a solid rather than a semi-transparent stain isappl ied.
2A. The Levins then called Stouder on October 1lto withdraw their Design Review Board application. Thiswithdrawal was confirrned in writing by Stouder onOctober 17th.
is
W.A
29. On October 17, Mr. Levin and Stouder spoke
ogdriir anu ar
olr--4419
indicated that he would cause the Town of -Vail to initiateregar action asainsr the Levins. NIWHI, {4r^^ T fu;trt vrr,"t
or"*#;;." *- Xf*l' ic(qw''
30. Paragraphs I through 29 above are j-ncorporated
herein by reference as if set forth in ful1.
-6-
3L. This claim for declaratory judgrnentthe provisions of SS 13-51--1oL et seq., C.R.S. andc.R.c.P. 57.
arises under
under
32. An actual controversy has arisen and notr existsbetween the Anounas and the Levins relative to theirrespective rights, status, Iegal relations and duties underthe Party WalI Agreement. In view of alt of the attendedfacts and circunstances, the Levins are entitled to adeclaration of the rights, status, duties and other legalrelations between the Levins and the Anounas.
33. The Levins desire and are entitled to aninunediate declaration of their rights with respect to theParty Wall Agreenent declaring th;t, in the allernative,(a) by virtue of course of conduct of the parties and theprior knowledge of the Anounas, the party WaIl Agreement, asit relates to exterior color changes, has been abrogated andis of no further force and effect, (b) even if the Farty Wall
Agreement with respect to color is in effect, the Anounas haveunreasonably withheld or delayed their consent to the Levins,desire to change the exterior color of their property to ataupe color, (c) restaining the Levins' property with a solidcedar stain, rather than a semi-transparent stain, does notconstitute a color change, or (d) the Anounas haveunreasonable withheld their consent to a solid cedar colorrestaining.
34. The declaration of right.s by this Court wouldterminate the controversy between the Levins and the Anounas.
35. The Levins have no adequate or effective remedyother than the relief sought in this action.
SECOND CIJAIU FOR RETJIEF
DECEIT/DAI,IAGES - ANOUNAS
36. Paragraphs 1_ through 29 above, are incorporatedherein by reference as if set forth in ful1.
37. The Levins incurred expenses for labor andrnaterials in reliance on the Anounas, apparent acquiescence inthe Levins'desire to restain their property to a taupe co1or.
38. The Levins incurred additional labor andrnaterial expenses as a result of the Stop Work Order which wasinstigated by the Anounas, was subsequently lifted byComnunity Developnent, and after behind the scene efforts bythe Anounas vras reapplied by Stouder.
-7-
39. The surreptitious and deceitful actions of the
Anounas have damaged the Levins.
THIRD CIJAIU FOR REIJIEF
DECIJARATORY i'UDGI{ENT - UI'NICIPAI, DEFENDANTS
40. Paragraphs 1 through 29 above, are incorporatedherein by reference as if set forth in ful1.
4I . This clairn for declaratory judgnent arises underthe provisions of S$ l-3-51-LoL et seg., C.R.S. and underc.R.c.P. 57.
42. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists
between the Levins and the Municipal Defendants relative totheir respective rights, status, legal relations and duties asset forth above. In view of all the attendant facts andcircurnstances, the Levins are entitled to a declaration oftheir rights, status and duties and other legal relations ofthe parties to this action.
43. The Levins desire and are entitled to animmediate declaration of their rights with respect to(a) theenactment, interpretation and apptication of the Design'Reviewprovisions of the Code, (b) the issuance of the Stop WorkOrder, (c) the jurisdiction of the Design Review Board,(d) the violations by the Municipal Defendants of Levins,procedural and substantive due process rights, (e) theviolation by the Municipal Defendants of the Levins, equalprotection rights, (f) the Levins' entitlenent to estopp theMunicipal Defendants from the actions heretofore taken by theMunicipal Defendants, and (g) the ultra vires actions of theMunicipal Defendants.
44. A declaration of rights by this Court wouldterminate the controversy between the Levins and the MunicipalDefendants.
45. Because neither the Town of Vail nor the DesignReview board have jurisdiction over restaining from asemi-transparent cedar color to a solid cedar color, theLevins have exhausted their adrninistrative remedies.Therefore, the Levins have no adequate or effective rernedyother than the relief sought in this action.
FOURTH CIJAIU FOR RELIEF
DENIAIT OF EQUAIJ PROTECTION - !,IUNICIPAL, DEFENDANTS
46. Paragraphs 1 through 29 above, are incorporatedherein by reference as if set forth in ful,L.
-8-
47. The Munj-cipal Defendants, actions (a) to issueselectively stop work orders relating to exterj"or color,(b) to enforce selectively the jurisdiction of the DesignReview Board, and (c) to treat the Levins differently thanother the Town of ValI property owners who desire to restainthe exterior of their property, constitutes a violation of theLevlns' rights to equal protection as guaranteed byArticle If, Section 25 of the Colorado Constitution and theFourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
FTFTH CIJAIU FOR RETJTEF
DENTAL OF DUE PROCE88 - I-'UNTCTPAIJ DEFENDANTS
4a. Paragraphs I through 29 above, are incorporatedherein by reference as if set forth in fuII.
49. The Municipal Defendants, actions in(a) unilaterally issuing the Stop Work Order, and afterlifting the Stop Work Order, perrnitting it to be unilaterallyreapplied, and (b) the irrational, vague, arbitrary andcapricious actions of the Municipa). Defendants described abovewith respect to enacting, interpieting and applying the DesignReview provisions of the Code, constitute a viotation of theLevins' rights to proceduraL and substantive due process, asguaranteed by Article II, Section 25 of the ColoradoConstitution and the Fourteenth Amendnent to the United StatesConstitution.
SIXTII CLAIU FOR REI.,IEF
E8TOPPEIJ - TTUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS
50. Paragraphs 1 through 29 above, are incorporatedherein by reference as if set forth in full.
51. The Municipal Defendants should be estopped frornapplying the Stop Work Order, because the Levins reliLd upon,and changed their position to their detriment after the StopWork Order had been lifted on the morning of October 10.
SEVENTH CLAII.I FOR RELIEF
ULTRA VIRES - I-TUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS
52. Paragraphs I through 29 above, are incorporatedherein by reference as if set forth in full.
53. The Municj.pal Defendants by applyingChapter 18.54 to the Levins' restaining of their exterior frorna semi-transparent cedar colored stain to a solid cedarcolored stain, and by instituting, lifting and reapplying theStop Work Order constitute ultra vires acts of the Municipal
-9-
Defendants and actions outsj-de the extent of the powersgranted to thern by law.
EIGHTII CIIAIU FOR REIJIEF{2 U.S.C. 5 1983 and S 1988
54. Paragraphs 1 through 29 above, are incorporatedherein by reference as if set forth in full.
55. The actions of the Municipat Defendants, and theactions of the Anounas and Stouder in concert therewith, asset forth above, constitute actions under color of ordinancewhich have subjected and are subjecting the Levj.ns to thedeprivation of their rights, priviteges or inmunities assecured by the Constitution of the United States, as a resultof which the Levins have been injured and for which injuriesthey are entitled to redress from the Municipal Defendants,the Anounas and Stouder pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S 1983 togetherwith an award of these applicable fees and expenses puriuantto 42 U.S.C. S 1988.
NTNTH CLATM FOR RELIEF
TORTIOUS INTERI.ERENCE - THE ANOUNAA
55. Paragraphs 1 through 29, 37 and 38 above, areincorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
57. The actions of the Anounas, as described above,were taken with full knowledge that the Levins had enteredinto contractual relations with their painting contractor.
58. In spite of such knowledge, the Anounas causedthe Levins to stop the restaining work in Septenber,Lgg4, andlater, unilaterally instigated the Town of Vail to issue theStop Work Order on October 6, i.994.
59. Such actions by the Anounas constitute tortiousinterference with the contract between the Levins and theirpainting contractor, which has resulted in darnages to theLevins.
TENTH CIJAI!{ TOR REIJIEF
TORTTOUA TNTERI'ERENCE . STOUDER
60. Paragraphs I through 29, 37 and 39 above, areincorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
61. The actions of Stouder, as described above, weretaken with full knowledge that the Levins had entered intocontractual relations with their painting contractor.
-10-
62. Stouder knew that the Stop Work Order had beenlifted and he unilaterally reapplied it.
63. Such actions by Stouder constitutes tortiousinterference with the contract between the Levins and theirpainting contractor, which has resulted in darnages to theLevins.
WHEREFORE, the Levins pray for relief as follow:
1. On their First Clairn for Relief for adeclaration of their rights under the Party Wall Agreement asset forth in paragraph 33 above.
2. On their Second Claim for Re1 ief, for danagesagainst the Anounas in an arnount to be determined at trial.
3. On t,heir Third Ctaim for Relief, for adeclaration of their rights as set forth in paragraph 43
above.
4. On their Fourth Clain for Relief, for adeclaration that the Levins have been deprived by theMunicipal Defendants of their equal protection rights.
5. On their fifth Claim for Re1ief, for adeclaration that the Levins have been deprived by theMunicipal Defendants of their procedural and substantive dueprocess rights.
6. On their Sixth Clairn for Relief, for adeclaration that the Municipal Defendants should be estoppedfrom applying the Stop Work Order.
7. On their Seventh Clai.m for Relief , for adeclaration that the acts of the Municipal Defendants,complained of by the Levins, are ultra vires, null and voidand of no further force and effect.
8. On their Eighth Clairn for Relief, for adeclaration that the Defendants have collectively deprived theLevins of their constitutional rights, as a resuft oi whichthe Levins have been injured, and for which injuries theLevins are entitled to relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and
L988.
9. On their Ninth Clairn for Relief, for damagesagainst the Anounas for tortuous interference with contract inan amount to be deternined at trial.
- 11-
10. On their Tenth CLaim for Relief, for damagesagainst Stouder for tortuous interference with contract in an
amount to be determined at trial.
Ll,. Such further relief, either alternatively orcumrnulatively, as the Court may deern proper.
DATED THIS 3LST DAy OF OCTOBER, L994.
Carol Levin
Pro se
Address of Plaintiffs:
9560 E. Powers Place
Greenwood Vil-lage, Colorado BO1L1
Lawrence Levin
-12-
VERIFICATION
STATE OF COIPRADO
CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
Carol Levin, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes
and says that she is the plaintiff herein, that she has read
the foregoi.ng Verified Conplaint for Declaratory and other
Relief, and that the facts set forth therein are true to the
best of her knowledge, inforrnation and belief.
Lawrence Levi-n, being first duly sworn on oath,
deposes and says that he is the plaintiff herein, that he has
read the foregoing Verified Complaint for Declaratory and
Other Relief, and that the facts set forth therein are true to
the best of his knowtedge, information and belief.
//l>4.r114.- f<Ja*,
The foregoing VERIFICATION to the COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND OTHER RELIEF was acknowledged before ne this
3Lst day of october, Igg4, by Carol Levin and Lawrence Levin-
Witness ny hand and official gea
My conmission expires:
Lawrence Levin
N6tary Public
tol t dtu
u ok"/rn tL/4n*Ary4 ra!*rl'f.ed
Trw,n t/ u J,
-nrlt; ,4 "L,i1e. o
_
-b,{-, ft.- 964 /ry
-*ry.,7+ 1rd"tt Zj*ir *
.r1^/ {, .o.- & 4/"r, k6:/ A-/ h ,t1._ tb au/4^",t-& c& a4/4r4.-4 *+/4. rhn*,t
*14{ k n *-':#**-- ,J}*, Alf n ,-d, o4*
r -{*,
u* +J -:?( /*79
(tmrnrr e)
4kfyiJ -
TOWN OFVAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2 1 07 / FAX 303 -479-2 r 57
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Office of TownAttorney
MEMORANDUM
Randy Stouder, Community Development
Lauren Waterman, Community Development ./
R. rhomas Moorhead /10l/a
L.
November 30, 1994
Lawrence Levin and Carol Levin v. Sam Anouna, Patricia Anouna, The
Town of Vail, Colorado, The Department of Community Developmeni of the
Town of Vail and Randy Stouder; Civil Action No. 94-CV-288; Eagle
County District Court
Attached is Answer that has been filed on behalf of the Town and Ftandy in fre above-r'eferenced
matter. After you have had an opportunity to review the Answer, I would be happy to answer any
questions you might have.
rhanksl
,6**
RTM/aw
C{ltord.arrrm
DISTRTS! COURT, EAGLE CO['NTY, COIORADO
Case No: 94 C 2AA
AltswER oF DaFENDANIS TOWN OF VArL, COIORADO,
COUIII'NITY DEVEI'PI,IENT OF TTIE TOT{N OF VAIL.VERITIED COT,TPIATNT FOR DECINRATORY AT.ID OTIIER
THE DEPARTI{ENT
AIID RN{DY STOUDER
RELTEF
OF
TO
I,AI{RENCE I.EVIN AI{D CAROL I.EVIN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SAl.l Al.IOttNA, PAfRfCfA AllOt NA, TIIE TOI{N OF VAIL,
DEPARTITENT OF CO}IUT'NITY DEVEIOPITENT OF TIIE
RAI|DY STOUDER, a Colorado municipal corporation,
Defendants.
COIORADo,
TOI{N OF VAIL
THE
and
COl,tE NOI{, the Defendants, Town of VaiI , Colorado, llheDepartnent of Connunity Development of the Town of Vail andRandy Stouder by and through their attorrreys, Unkeless &Bisset, and in response to the Plaintiffs, Verified Conplaintstate as follows:
PARTIES AITD VEITT'E
1. The Defendants adnits the allegations ofparagraphs I, 2, 3, 4,5 and 6 of the Verified Complaint.
GEIIERAI., AII.EGATIOIIS
2. The Defendants are without sufficient infornationto for:m a belief as to the truth of the allegations containedin paragraphs 7, 8, g, LO, ll, 12, L3, Lg! L5, 16, 17, 18, @r.->20, 2JL_!?.2. 23, 24._ 2!i, 26, 27, - 28 and (?9 of the Verified
coupJ-aint-and on chat basis deny the same. l6ft^r" -*l-,fiue $t
FrRsr cr,Lrt FC'R RETJEF '/t -i'J/v + f
3. The Defendants incorlrorate by reference their
answerB to paragraphs I through 29 all in Anslrer to paragraph
30 of the Verified Conplaint; .'
4. llhe Defendants make no reBponse to the allegationeof fact contained in paragraphs 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 of theVerified Conplaint as the allegations contained therein are notdirected against these Defendants. To the extent ttrat an
anstter is deemed necessary to the above-nentioned paragraphs,these Defendants deny each and every allegation of factcontained therein.
ISEOOITD CIAIII FIOR REIJAF
5. The Defendants incorporate by reference theiranswers to paragraphs I through 29 all in answer to paragraph
36 of the Verified Cornplaint.
6. The Defendants rnake no responee to the allegations offact contained in paragraphs 37, 38, and 39 of the VerifiedConplaint as the allegations contained therein are not directedagainst these Defendants. To the extent tlrat an answer isdeemed necessary to the above-nentioned paragraphs, theseDefendants deny each and every al-iegation of fact containedtherein.
IEIRD Ct.llil FIOR REIJBF
't. The Defendante J-ncozporate by reference theiranssers to paragraphs I through 29 alJ' i-n answer to paragtaph
4o of the Verifled Conplaint.
g. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraphs4L, 42, 43, 44 and 45 of the Verified Couplaint.
FOT'RIE CI,lItI FOR REIiTEF
9. The Defendants incor2orate by reference theiranswers to paragraphs I through 29 all in answer to paragraph
46 of the Verified Cornplaint.
lO. The Defendants deny paragraph 47 of the Verified
Complaint.
ETETE FOR NAI.IEF
II. The Defendants incorporate by reference theiranswers to paragraphs I through 29 aII in anEwer to paragraph
48 of the Verified Conplaint.
L2. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph49 of the r/erified Conplaint.
ST:CIU CTAITI FIOR REIJEP
13. The Defendants incorlgorate by reference theiranswers to paragraphs I through 29 all- in answer to paragraph
50 of the Verified Conplaint.
14. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph
51 of the Verified Conplaint.
SEVEillE CIAITI FOR REIJBT
15. The Defendants incorporate by reference theiransifers to paragraphs I through 29 all in ansser to paragraph
52 of the Verified Conplaint.
16. Defendants deny the atlegations of paragraph 53the Verified Conplaint.
EIGATII CIAIil FIOR REIJEP
L7. The Defendants incorporate by reference theiranswers to paragraphs 1 through 29 aII in answer to paragraph54 of the Verj.fied Conplaint.
18. The Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph55 of the Verified Conplaint.
NT.rfIE CIAI}I FOR REIJEF
19. The Defendants incorporate by reference theiransrders to paragraphs I through 29, 37 and 38 all in answer toparagraph 56 of the Verified Complaint.
20. The Defendants make no response to the atlegationsof fact contained in paragraphs 57, 58, amd 59 of the Vtrifiedcornplaint as the allegations contained therein are not directedagainst these Defendants. To the extent that an answer isdeerned necessary to the above-mentioned paragraphs, theseDefendants deny each and every arlegation of fact containedtherein.
of
2L.
answers toparagraptr 5O
22.61, 62 and 63
TETTtr CIAIII FOR REIJEF
The Defendants incorporate by reference theirparagraphs I through 29, 37 and 38 all in answer toof tlre Verified Complaint.
The Defendants deny the allegationsof the Verified Conplaint.
4.Plaintiffs, damages,if ary, hrere proxinatelyof third persons over whomcaused by the acts or omissionsthese Defendants had no control.
Plaintiffs' clains are barred,or
Act,governed by the Colorado Governmental-10-l0L through 524-10-120, C.R.S. (1988).
of paragraphs
AFFIRTATTVE DEFENSES
1. The Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim uponnhich retief can be granted.
2.Plaintiffs have failed to nitigate their danagesas required by law.
3. Plaintiffrs dannages, if iny, rrere proxinatelycaused by their own negligence or risk assunption, whichnegligence is equal to or greater than any negligence of theDefendant.
ted
Fity
,t-
^?-\0
5.t
2
h
c't\
I
,
a6. Plaintiffs' allegations do not rise to a leve1 ofdeprivation of rights, privileges or irnnunities necessary tostate a 42 U.S.C. 51983 clain.
7. Plaintiffs, claius fail to state any personal
involvement of each individual Defendant, therefore plaintiffs,
clains fail to state a clain upon which relief may be granted
under 42 U.S.C. 51983.
8. At aZl-- tine the Defendantsofficial capacity' and, therefore are notliability under_,{2._U.s. c. 51983.) ")
9. Plaintiffs, clairns are barred
and estoppel.
10. Plaintiffs have failedddministrative reuedies.
were acting in theirperaon subjects to
by waiver, lacbes
to exhaust applicabte
11. Ttrle action ls frivolous, groundless andvexatious, and sithout any merit or foundatl.on, thus entitlingdefendants to be avarded their costs, expert sitness fees, andatrorneys fees pursuant to C.R.S. S13-17-IOI , C.R.C.P. _Rule lI,and 42 U.s.c. 51988.
I{IIEREFORE, having fully anewered the plaintiffs,Verified Complaint Defendants pray that the Complaint against
them be disnissed and that they have Judgrnent for their iosts,including attorney fees and exlrert witneee fees, intereEt andsuch other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
Defendants request a trial to a jury of six on all
lS€iUeS.
Attorney for Defendants
One Denver Highlands, Ste. 403
10375 E. Harrrard Avenue
Denver, CO 80231(303) 671-500I
Respectfully subnitted,
CERTTFICAAB OF IATLI}IG
foregoinq docume\t in , the U.t;ni )LYday of n ALQ4iltL1
I hereby certify that f
Lanrrence l€vin
9550 E. Porrers Place
Greenwood Village, CO 8OltI
Daniel l{oodrow
999 18th Street, Suite 3450
f,renver, Colorado 8OZO2
Thomas l{ooreheadTosr 5f !'aii
75 S. Frontage Rd.
VaiJ., CO 81657
mailed a tnre copys. litail, postage
, L994, addressed to:
of theprepaid,
t
DISTRICT COURT, EAGLE COUNTY, COI,ORADO
Civil Action Number 94 cv 288
PI.AINEIFFS' FIRST sEE OF REQUESTS
INTERROGATORIEA AND REQUESTS FOR
TO TOWN DEFENDANTS
FOR AI)I{IASIONS'
PRODUCTION OF DOCT'UENTS
I,AWRENCE I,EVIN and CAROL LEVIN,
Plaintiffs,
SAM ANOUNA, PATRICIA ANOUNA, THE TOWN OF VAIL, COTORADO, THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVEIOPMENT OF THE TOI{N OF VAIL ANd
RANDY STOUDER,
Defendants.
cOt{Eg NOw the Plaintiffs, Lawrence Levin and Caro1
Levin, pro se, and pursuant to the provisions of Ru1es 33' 34
and 35 of the Colorido Rules of civil Procedure, submit tbe
following First Set of Requests for Admission, Interrogatories
and Requests for Production of Documents to Defendants the
Town of Vail- (/VaiI'), the DePartment of community Development
of the Town of Vail ('DCD") and Randy Stouder ('Stouder') '(sornetirnes collectively called the tTown Defendantst) r to be
answered separately in writing, within 3O days' at 956O East
Powers Place, Greenwood Village, Colorado 8ol-L1. Requested
d.ocuments are to be produced ior inspection andlor copying by
Plaintiffs at a time-rnutually agreed upon by the parties, but
in no event later than 3o days frorn the date of service of
this request.
DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCIIONS
1. "Identify,' when used with regard to a person,
means to state the person's fuII name, Iast known address and
telephone number, and relationship to you, and, if the person
is not a natural person, to state in addition the person's
organizational nalure, (i.e., corporation or partnership), and
state the name of the officer, agent or employee acting on
behalf of the non-natural person.
2. "Identify," when used with regard to a document,
neans, whether or not the document is presently in your
custody or control , to describe the document, to state the
date the document was prepared, to identify the person who
prepared the document, to identify the person to whom the
document was addressed, sent or delivered, to identify all
signatories to the document, and to identify aJ.I Personspresently having custody of the original or a coPy of the
docurnent.
3. tYou,' neans collectively or individually, as is
appropriate, any or all of the To$tn Defendants herein,
including all persons acting in your interest or on your
behalf.
4. /Docunent," means notes, memoranda, telephone
slips/notes/nenos, files and/or recorded data or writing of
any kind.
5. This discovery, pursuant to C.R.C.P- Rule 26(e),
is deemed continuing in nature. Please strpplement your
responses as required by the terms of that Rul-e.
6. rf you consider any docuurent or conrnunication to
be privileged, then, with regard to each such document,
provide the following information in writing:
a. Identify the author or preparer, the
addressee, all persons receiving copies, all other
signatories thereto, and the date of the docurnent or
conununication;
b. Describe ttre nature and purpose of the
docurnent or communication;
c. State the location of the original and all
copies of the document or conmunication and the
custodian of each; and
d. Explain in detail the legal and factual
basis for the clain of privilege with respect to the
docunents.
7. If documents which are requested herein have
been destroyed or lost, state the inforrnation reguested in
6(a) and (b) above, and state when, where and by whorn it was
lost or destroyed and the reason therefor.
8. If any Interrogatory cannot be answered in fu1l
after exercising due diligence, please indicated that your
answer is incornplete and set forth all inforrnation known as of
the date of signing your answers. Specify you reason for your
-2-
inability to answer the remainder, describe the efforts you
have rnade to answer ful1y, state whatever information or
knowledge you have concerning the unans!'tered portion, and
identify any sources of inforrnatj.on from which further
information responsive to the Interrogatory may be obtained.
9. If precise responsive information is not known
nor reasonably accessible, please supply estimates or
approximations, as necessary, and indicate that the response
is an estimate or approximation.
L0. In responding to this discovery request, please
set forth the full text of the interrogatory before each
response. Plaintiffs witl do the same, if requested by you in
any discovery.
l-L. For all documents requested to be provided,
please labet each document with a legend that sets forth the
Interrogatory, by number and subpart, to which the document is
responsive. If the document is responsive to nore than one
Interrogatory, please label the document accordingly with a
legend that specifically enurnerates each Interrogatory to
which the document is resnonsive.
r. nnouesr FoR ADurssroNs
1. Adrnit that in the procedures set forth in
Section 18.54.040 of the Town of VaiI Municipal Code (the
"Code") in connection with design approval there are no
provisions specifically relating to exterior color, staining
or restaining of structures.
2. Admit that a serni-transparent stain over a
pre-existing, previously applied serni-transparent stain will
not rnatch exactly the color of that previously applied stain.
3. Adrnit that there is no provisi.on in the Code
defining the term "development."
4. Adrnit that there is no provision in the code
defining the term "redevelopment. "
5. Admit that there is no provision in the Code
defining the terrn "exterior alteration."
6. Adnit that there is no provision in the Code
defining the ternr "exterior materials. "
7. Admit that there is no provision in the Code
defining the terrn "rnodifj-cation. "
-3-
8. Adnit that there is no reference set forth in
Section l-8.54.030 of the Code specifically relating to color
changes of an existing structure, as requiring prior design
approval.
9. Admit that the Levins and their representative
advised Stouder, starting on october L1, L994t that the Levins
desired to withdraw their october 1-0, L994 Vail Design Review
Board application, and requested that the application, alI
correspondence and materials left with stouder, and the
application fee be returned to the Levins.
10. Adnit that after written demand by the Levins,
Stouder acknowledged in writing that the application was
withdrawn prior to the VaiI Design Review Board hearing on
October 3.9, 1994.
l-I. Adrnit that notwithstanding the Vail Design
Review board application withdrawal, Vail cashed the Levins'
application fee check, and Stouder did not return to the
Levins the rnaterials requested to be returned.
II. TNTERROGATORIES
1. Identify all actions taken by vail since
January L, 1990 in connection with a stop work order relatingsolely to exterior coJ-or or stain application.
2. Identify all actions taken by DcD since
January l-, l-990 in connection with a stop work order relating
solely to exterior color or stain application.
3. Identify all actions taken by the Vail Design
Review Board since January l-, 1990 in connection with a stop
work order relating so1e1y to exterj.or color or stain
appl ication.
4. Identify all actions taken by Vail since
January 1, 1990 1n connectj-on with a stop work order relating
solely to applying a solid stain over a semi-transparent
stain.
5. Identify all actions taken by DcD since
January l, 1990 in connection with a stop work order relating
solely to applying a solid stain over a serni-transparent
stain.
6. Identify all actions taken by the Vail Design
Review Board since January 1, L990 in connectj.on with a stop
work order relating solely to applying a soli-d stain over a
serni-transparent stain.
-4-
7. Identify all actions taken by vail since
January L, L990 in connection with a stop work order relating
solely to applying a semi-transparent stain over a
semi-transparent stain.
8. Identify all actions taken by DcD since
January L, 1990 in connection with a stop li/ork order relating
solely to applying a semi-transparent stain over a
semi-transparent stain.
9. Identify all actions taken by the Vail Design
Review Board since January 1, l-990 in connection with a stop
work order relating solely to applying a semi-transparent
stain over a semi-transparent stain.
10. Identify separatelY, bY entity, aII actions
taken by vai1, DcD, or the Vail Design Review Board since
January l-, l-990 in connection with Design Review approval' or
disapproval relating solely to exterior color changes in
general.
l-1. Identify separatelY, bY entity, all actions
taken by vai1, DcD, oi the Vail Design Review Board since
January l-, L990 in connection with Design Review approval , or
disapproval relating solely to changes from one exterior stain
or color to a new exterior stain or color.
L2. Identify separatelY, bY entity, aII actions
taken by vail , DcD, oi the Vail Design Review Board since
January 1, l-990 in connection with Design Review approval ,.or
disapproval relating solely to restaining or repainting using
a corresponding color, for example cedar color over cedar
color.
13. Identify separatelY, bY entity, all actions
taken by vail, DcD, oi tne vail Design Review Board since
January 1, L990 in connection with Design Review approval, or
disapproval reLating solely to restaining using a
corresponding color, but using a solid stain over a
semi-transparent stain.
L4. Identify separatelY, bY entity, all actions
taken by Vai1, DcD, or the vail Design Review Board since
January 1, 1-990 in connection with Design Review approval , or
disapproval" retating solely to restaining using a
semi-transparent stain over a semi-transparent stain.
L5. Identify separatelY, bY entity, afl actions
taken by Vailf DcD, or the Vail Design Review Board since
January l, 1990 in connection with Design Review approval, or
-5-
t
disapproval relating so1ely to staining or paining of both
sides of a duplex unit.
l-6. Identify separately, by entity, all actions
taken by vail, DcD, oi tne Vaif Design Review Board since
January 1, L99O in connection with Design Review approval, or
disapproval relating soleIy to staining or painti-ng of only
one side of a duplex unit.
L7. Identify aII building or sirnilar perrnits issued
by vail since January l-, 1-990 relating solely to painting a
dwelling unit (Iisting separately single family, duplex or
rnulti-fanily dwelling units) .
L8. Identify all building or similar permits issued
by Vail since January 1, 1990 relating soleIy to staining a
dwelling unit (listing separately si.ngle farnily, duplex or
rnulti-fanily dwelling units) .
l-9. Identify all bu j-lding or sirnilar permits issued
by vait since January 1, 1990 relating solely to restaining a
dwelling unit (li.sting separately single farnily' duplex or
rnulti-family dwelling units) .
20. fdentify all application forns prepared or used
by Vait, or any of its departments, relating to prior
approvals for iepainting the exterior of a dwelling unit.
2L. Identify aII application forms prepared or used
by Vail, or any of its departments, relating to prior
approvals for restaj-ning the exterior of a dwelling unit.
22. If you cannot adnit Request for Adnission No. L,
identify the provision in Section 18.54.040 of the Code
specifically relating to exterior co1or, staining or
restaining of structures.
23. If you cannot adrnit Request for Admission No. 2,
identify where in the Town of Vail a semi-transparent stain
has been applied over a pre-existing, previously applied
semi-transparent staj-n which matched exactly to the color of
the previously applied stain.
24. If you cannot adrnit Request for Adnission No. 3,
identify the provision in the Code specifically where
"developnent" j.s defined.
25. If you cannot adnit Request for Admission No. 4'
identify the provision in the Code specifical)-y where
"redevelopment" is defined.
-6-
26. If you cannot adrnit Request for Adrnission No. 5,
identify the provision in the Code specifically where
"exterior alteration" is defined.
27. If you cannot admit Request for Admission No. 6'
identify the provision in the Code specifically where
"exterior rnaterials" is defined.
2a. If you cannot adrnit Request for Adnission No. 7,
identify the provision in the Code specifically where
"modification" is defined.
29. If you cannot adrnit Request for Admission No. 8'
identify where in Section 18.54.030 there is a reference to
color changes of an existing structure, in connection with
reguiring prior design approval.
30. Identify the Vail Zoning Adrninistrator(s)
betlteen August 1, 1994 and the date these Interrogatories are
answered.
31. Identify the Vail Building Inspector betvteen
August 1, 1994 and the date these Interrogatories are
answered, and identify the Code provisions which describe hj.s
duties, pol,sers and authority.
32. Identify all enforcement actions taken by Vail ,its departments, boards or employees since January 1, 1990,
relating to .work when no design review application has been
filed.
33. Identify the person who signed the october 6,
1994 Stop work order issued against Plaintiffs' property.
34. Identify the provision or provisj-ons of the Code
which give the authority to issue stop work orders, such as
that issued against Plaintiffs' property on October 6, L994.
35. Describe the circumstances which led up to the
issuance of the October 6, 1994 Stop work order, including the
nanes of all persons who spoke with Jin Curnutt or other Vail
employees, relating to either its issuance or to the subject
rnatter of its issuance.
36. Identify the director and each planner on the
staff of DCD on October 1, 1994 and state the dates of each of
their employrnent by Vail, their job description, their duties,
their post-niqn school education background, certificatj-ons
they have obtained and societies to which they belong.
-7-
37, Identify all rnembers of the DCD planning staff
who were present at the DCD staff meeting between 8:00 a.rn.
and 9:0O a.m. on October l-o, L994.
38. Explain why the Defendants, which includes Randy
stouder, are without sufficj.ent information to form a belief
as to the truth of aL1 of the allegations contained in
paragraphs 18, 20,22,23,24,26,28 and 29 when certain of
Lnose allegations relate to (a) the October 6t 1-994 Stop Work
order issued by Vail, (b) conversations with, statements made,
and actions taken by Lauren Waterman, an enployee of DCD, (c)
conversations with, statements made, and actions taken by
Stouder, (d) provisions of the Code, and (e) writj-ngs of
stouder.
39. Identify the basis for the Defendants'
affirmative defense n6. 2 stating that Ptaintiffs have failed
to mitigate their darnages as required by law. Identify whatplaintiifs should have done to mitigate their damages which
occurred after October 6, 1,994.
40. Identify the basis for the Defendants'
affirrnative defense no. 3 stating that Plaintiffs damages, if
any, were proximately caused by their own negliqence' which
negligence is equat Lo or greater than any negligence of the
Defendant. Also, identify the negligence of each Defendant
this affirmative defense iefers to, and the relative nature of
each party's negligence.
4L. Identify the basis for the Defendants'
affirmative defense no. 5 stating that Plaintiffs claims are
barred, lirnited or otherwise governed by Section 24-L0-101-
through section 24-IT-L2O, c.R.S. (1988). Identify the tort
clairni, or clairns which could lie in tort that are asserted by
the Levins against Vail?
42. Identify the basis for the Defendants'
affirmative defense no. 9 stating that Plaintiffs clairns are
barred by waiver, laches and estoppel. Identify individually
each element of waiver, of laches and of estoppel attributable
to each of the Plai-ntiffs.
43. Was Stouder authorized by DCD to send his
october 19, 1994 letter to the Levj-ns? (Copy attached.)
44. Was Stouder acting within the scope of his
authority when he sent his October 19, 1994 letter to the
Levins iiforming thern of Vail,s intent to issue a citation for
violation of Chapter 18.58 of the Code?
-B-
rrr. REQUEST FOR PRODUCTTONS OF DOCU!'IENTS
1. Produce all docunent identified in the foregoing
interrogatories .
2. Produce all docurnents relating to stop work
orders issued by VaiI or any of its departments, boards or
employees since january L, 1990 relating so]ely to the
application of exterior color, stain or restaining on
structures.
3. Produce all docunents relating to actions taken
by vail, or any of its departments, boards or employees since
January l-, l-990 in connection with Design Review approval or
disapproval relating solely to the application of exterior
co1or, staining, repainting or restaining on structures.
4. Produce all documents relating to actions taken
by vait, or any of its departrnents, boards or employees since
J-nuary 1-, l-99-o in conneclion with building or similar permits
issued relating solely to the application of exterior color,
staining, repainting or restaining on structures.
5. Produce aII minutes of the Vail Design Review
Board meetings since January 1, l-990.
6, Produce Mr. Levin's October 10, l-994 letter to
Lauren Waterman, any DCD docunent relating to that letter or
to its subject matter, the Levin's October l-0' L994
application to the VaiL Design Review Board, and all
correspondence and materials delivered to Stouder on
October 10, L994.
t-10DATED THIS /5-_ DAY OF DECEMBER, L994.
CAROL LEVTN
PRO SE
-9-
CERTIFICATE OI' SERVICE
I hereby certify that I nailed a true and correct
copy of the foregoing PLAINTfFFS' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
ADMISSIONS, INTERROGATORTES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF
DoCUMENTS To TOWN DEFENDANTS by U.S. MaiI, postage prepaid, on
this 15th day of Decenber, L994, addressed to:
Bradley R. Unkeless, Esq.
UnkeLess & Bisset
One Denver Highlands, Suite 403
L0375 East Harvard Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80231-
Daniel L. Woodrow, Esq.
Woodrow & Gruskin, P.C.
999 Eighteenth Street, Suite 3450
Denver, Colorado 8O2O2
Thomas Moorehead, Esg.
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage RoadVai1, Colorado 8L657
lJ.Ip/bva
-10-
Holme Robert$ Owen.,..
ATTORNEYS AT.LAW
Boulder
Colorado Springs
Denver
Englewood
Sah Lake City
London
1 700 Lincoln
Suite 4100
Den!€r, CO 80203
303 851-7000
Fax 303 8664200
Itwrenca L. levin
303 866{322
October 6, L994
VIA FACSIUII.,E
Daniel L. Woodrow, Esq.
Woodrow & Gruskin
999 18th Street, Suite 3450
Denver, Colorado 8O2O2
Re: 441-? Colurnbine Drive, Vail, Colorado
Dear Mr. Woodrow:
I am responding to your October 4, L994 letter to
me and our conversation yesterday, which was a followup to
rny Septernber 27. 1994 letter to your client, Dr. Sam
Anouna.
First, the discoloration of the exterior siding
on our property is not due to a lack of maintenance of the
wood, as you allege, but is, as Travis Baker stated to me
yesterday, the result of the discoloration of the old
cedar stain and of the natural oils in the redwood cedar
siding. The area with the greatest discoloration is on
the sunny side of our property and, over time, ME. Baker
says a chernical reaction takes place causing the siding to
blacken. I am also advised that the blackening process
can be retarded by subsequent staining, but that all wood
of this nature blackens over tirne,
Second, your letter advised me for the first tine
that Travis Baker had power washed a test portion of our
property. When I wrote the letter on Septerber 27 'Mr. Baker had twice failed to do the power washing test in
the time frame that he promised. Mr. Baker never ca1led
me after the 27th, which is consistent with my experience
with hin concerningf his reliability. When f called Mr.
Baker yesterday, he also told me that he had prepared a
bid proposal and had given it to Dr. Anouna some time ago,
but Dr. Anouna never sent us a copy. I asked Mr. Baker to
fax rne a copy, and although he said he would, I never
received it. To this date, f have not received a firm bid
from hirn to stain our property.
Third, you refer to a "two-tone" effect; however,
in my letter I rnade it clear that we-woul-d proceed to
Daniel L. Woodrow, Esg.
October 6, t994
Paqe 2
stain our property with the cedar color, and not use the
lighter color stain which we actually prefer and--had
stirted to use. This would create no more of a otwo-tone"
effect than already exists on the duplex, by virtue of the
re-staining effected a few years ago by Dr. Anouna's
predecessoi-in-titte, the nifpn Halls, which was effected
without rny prior knowledge and written consent.
In your letter you refer to the Party Wall
Agreement afiecting our property, and, as I advised you,
-tfre parties (the uitts ana tne revins) had never followed
the irovisions of the Party Wa1I Agreement with respect to
exteiior coIor. The cedar colors on both sides of the
duplex at present have a different shade, and Dr. Anouna
knew of those different shades when he bought the
property. In addition, the Ha1ls painted their exterior
rnain enlrance door a bright red without our prior
knowledge and written consent, and we repainted our garage
door frorn the prior cedar color to the color of the
adjacent stucco, without the Halls' prior knowledge and
written consent. Dr. Anouna's garage door is in the cedar
color. Dr. Anouna saw all of these additional differences
in the exterior color prior to the tirne that he purchased
his unit. Accordingly, the course of conduct of the
parties with respecL Lo color is such that the Party Wall
Agreement has been disregarded.
Even if we assume that the Party WaIl Agreement
applies, with respect to color, in May of this year, my
wife advised Dr. Anouna ttrat we had recently installed
sone new windows, the frames of which needed to be
treated, and we also wanted to change the exterior siding
color of our property during the summer season. She asked
hin if he wanted to change the color on his side to a
newer co1or. Dr. Anouna said he liked his color the way
it was, but that he would consider a chang'e, and my wife
proceeded to contact several painters, continually
ldvising Dr. Anouna of her progress, having the selected
painting contractor send a re-staining proposal to
Dr. Anouna, and even paintinq and delivering to
Dr. Anouna's Cherry Hitts residence, wood sarnples showing
different stai-n colors. At no time during June, July or
August did Dr. Anouna.ever reject the concept of re-
staining both sides of the duplex. Further, he never gave
us the courtesy of a response to all of Carol's efforts to
show him our preferred stain color.
It was only on septenber 3rd, two weeks after ny
wife left a Inessage wj-th Dr. Anouna stating that neither
Daniel L. Woodrow, Esq.
October 6, L994
Page 3
rde nor our painter had heard from hirn, that we had run out
of tirne to complete the staining this season, and that we
would be re-staining our property, that Dr. Anouna
rejected the stain which we had selected and started to
use. This alone constitutes an unreasonable delay in
withholding consent, in violation of the Party Wa11
Agreenent.
Dr. Anouna also advised us on September 3 that he
not only wants us to use the cedar color, but he wants the
stain to be semi-transparent, rather than a solid stain.
We advised hin that we have consuLted with three exterior
painters who work in the VaiI Valley, and we were advised
by aII three that a semi-transparent stain could not be
successfully applied on our discolored wood, and that only
a solid stain couLd be utilized. This is borne out by the
re-staining of the two duplexes on the top of the hill in
our subdivision, also built by our builder at the sarne
time, which were both re-stained in the last two years
using a solid, as opposed to a serni-transparent stain. It
was also on Septernber 3 that Dr. Anouna told us for the
first time about his dealings with Travis Baker.
As I advised both you and Dr. Anouna, we are now
planning not to use our preferred lighter color stain,
which material we already paid for, but to use a cedar
color, but with a solid cedar stain as opposed to a semi-
transparent stain. You indicated that Dr. Anouna was
unwilling to consent to this, and he suggested that we
either tear off and replace, or flip that portion of our
existing siding which will not accornmodate a semi-
transparent stain, so that he can have a serni-transparent
stain on our propertv, but he is willing to pay only up to
S25O for this reconstruction work. We believe that this
is unreasonable and unacceptable.
Accordingly, we plan to utilize the cedar color
solid stain, even though we no longer like that color, and
are being forced to forego the color of our choice. we
are going above and beyond a compromise. We are giving up
everything that we wanted and planned for, to attenpt to
satisfy Dr. Anouna's intransigence.
We also take the position that we are not
effecting a color change, and therefore, the Party wal-l
Agreernent does not apply. However, even if it were to be
construed that the cedar color solid stain is a color
change, Dr. Anouna's failure to consent to our re-staining
our proDerty is unreasonable. We are asking nothing of
,
Dr. Anouna on his property. We onLy desire to re-stain
our property so tnlt we c-n conplete the re-staining and
window iranre treatnent process this year, and not be
further delayed.
SincerelY,/ /lt' dt^n^^iutt"n"" L. Levin
LLL/ccs
Daniel L. Woodrow, Esq.
October 6, L994
Page 4
LLLC/GJ{
tL /'-i
'z4 toz<2t+o-V,.4-
-- ( /*,/u'$ aar-^*tl
ocl 1 0 1s34
t-r )"* L e^"\ * 'J Or"- "^;L lo'u uo.{--*'Q *-t/
c'^^j rn^' rTr',Y^:^:^#*:"r rzo stttutQbv'
lvt^-(' tt,-c2ff,*'' WJ
,-n,\. ^1^*l\tazr-dcc^|otl*'l
wqt wa-k^'^! "*-J "-^''l
*^,--rrt a"r'^-)trv- 1^^ ' Le't' \' {- t-"^
""J Juol a,^A b^{ '-"t"\'v &'b
C
(.'f * L nrso 1'r o ri u' c', +- ) 'tt L^^ L^'l-'zs U'i
* ,Qno\.,v!\^-o\ )+ L HJ z) q^ *'*F \*
J
,rr-) \r^t-t
tr,*U)
il*'* /'"'0"n =l aAYB'"
s,r!^3**k^^/, ol'--+, J^J b *;Y
Y : w tr* ! h;^h, ;u f f* il - -1.
n'
' |[',r, UIJU \^€54Jl\ br' ' f^Ut^'^'--L' z'l ex4
l*!-dr-u \^'o ,'^oW t-0 Ra( t*\' A'ool-z
'
an l*^ -;;q i^*El s' ol^N"*{ o"' e*a'a-q"i;
u'-,U .,'^{-,,c {-o #Y-g *t\F ^iTcl';; * a oo^ W^*{'"^^L- o'-ln'',*n n,-iNn f\M'' :)
l'rr^J aftpt goacQ^'o- {= u^^a*fatta,^'a"'r,'cr, '€, l{at'ua .rr c unf t
Ql...,\-.,\,o )p^+rt" , Bail .
')-o- q,\=, '., , T1V-Cgp1M, DEV, DLPT,/
. , r r )n 0 {^o i-. ^^AngL'1-M V,*T +, n+-U )&rtl, lt. if"'"6
6e'fi
|Jt
) wo-*lol Jtl" f* L'*d I- '*'6*"'t M;
tt^" ,rtotJ D wA V se^-Q'a/rp'*"t/@ ry
,; tt.a\ h^p *-r>/ qa w",l'*,)' o'^A a tu"e- &^^tp"i^euf
( t d tl
'Vlp"p' ") "o
fuo{ * ; ' vs\-o e)'" o^ )' \^'+
"to^u^"A
o-.r,.?.))9* ofu.,"-,r1 /\^"- Lzu)" I t."f o',-'Q f'^-
\,^J -*, &U u--r cD- he- l^*l*'*l--
W.ct\,,r fa\.r^a r,r a o'-.\ ca/R L 1 af k) ^1* f-
&* t^r,h^ ,Lt{*,- *Lefl*t Y* '"'''d''<
Smz ,',oJ,
Lrl*\, ?c..^ G* .1.-..* c-ot-i ,iJr^M
N" k,fl Lo-:,)),^^,,R* ^\.')'0ntu
Bor- zzz-aZ>{,
ttffi;",
EouldcrlDrnvct
30!.642.76t0
125{ Coppardah Lane
Uo'6.n,gg 80403
Velt
30t.cft.7137
8ox 303
Vail,CO 01&E0
-ocT 11 '94
Mdltnta,N
11:24 A.K.MICHELSON r.5tJ
Drie 7lzEl$
Job ttrm€ 4417 g columbins East Vail
Job Numbcr 94141
:
Proposal
(Ssm Anouna)
4417 8 North Columbine Ddve
lcrmr 1/ll Down: Ut on CootPlctlon
Mlrrhlrln Woodcrrr lc plplrcd lo provldc th+ followlng prcportl:
Prcecure clearvskip natulal wood ludaces to removo old slain, decay and diecolotetion'
Achigve lilrr-nsw rppoarrn€.
Aoolv eeturation co€l ol WoodCsta Ol to pogared cuilacer'
Cideh arwor ptotect any cudacof tfred€d by work to b€ pedorrnd'
Siding, deck floors. rlib. fEscia, rolfilo, po+ls and beanrs' i1075'00
To trrit naturul wood wlndowa, window fism€e errd door trert|cc with waadcaa flitflrc
sam€ as aidhg. i'|00.0t
|li?G.d and Ac..PLd:,*,,1/nrt(
ct,3Er||. gqnanxo
:-13.1
ocT 11 ',94 Ll.t 19 ff.K.NICHELsoN P.?/3
Deen Srns,
l4n. LEvtt't's PROPoSAL Is FoR SIcNIFI0ANTLY 0IFFERENT
SURFACES THAT }TILL WEATHER AND BE MATNTAINED IN DIFFERENT WAY$
AND AT DIFFERENT INTREVAL5, LEADINO TO INCRESINGLY DIVEROENT
COLOR AND APPEARANOE.
TNE EVCSONE OF THIS PATCHWORK EUILOINO WILL IMMEDIA
TELy DECREASE My pROPERTY VALUE. A UOSS AS SMALL AS 5U oF VALUE
REsuLTS ru n $25,000 I-OSS AT IODAY'S PRICES' THtS plrcnwonr
MAY ALSO DECREASE PROPERTY VALUE FOR OUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOUR'
tllHOSE HOUSE IS NATURALLY STAINED, AS tilELL AS THE OTHER 5 On 6
HOMES IN OUR LITTLE CORNER ON COLUMBINE.
I STNOII0I.Y rEEL THERE ARE NO GROUNDS FOR SWITCIIING
sOLID BoDy SURFAcE Of{ THE BASIS tlAtNTAtNANoE, THE EFFICACY
STANDARD TRANSPARENT MAINTAINANOE I5 A}IPLY FI{OVLN BY THE
EXCELLENT AppEARANCE OF UNiT A. THE OsSeUnv HOME NExT 000R,
THE RIVER RUH AUItOING, TFIE AVOTU UUtttCIPAL BUILDINGS AND OTHERS'
THe pnOetEM t,tTH UNIT B 00Es NoT STEM INADEoUATE METHoDS FoR
MAINTAINANCE BUT FROM THE LACK OF MAINTAINANCE ALLTOGETHER'
' StttTttcHIN0 rROM THE ORIGINAL TREATMENT 0F THE SURFACES
HARDLY WARRANTS THE RISKS AND CONSEOUENCES OUTLINED'
ISTNOruCTY URGE YOU TO TAKE AN ACTIVE ROLE IN THESE
MAINTAINANCE ISSUES AS THESE UILL BECOME FAR MORE NUMEROUS AND
WILL HAVE GREATER IMPACT ON THE TOilN AS OUR BUILDINGS AGE'
TO
OF
ERELY
ir (t
APPLICATTON - TOWN OF
DATE RECEIVED:
DATE OF DRB MEETING:
****ti***t
fuqqrl u
J "Cotunntt/t-'
VAfIJ, COLORADO
REC'DL';I i 0 r9g4
lo
DESCRIPTION:
l?TYPE OF REVIEW:
_ New consr,rucrion. (g200 .001 r'u:.rro, iffilhaLion ($20.00)Addition ($50.00)
-concepr",ji
ieview t$O)
ADDREsS, lltZ 0 Cozur 0tpe' 0ntue
D.
rf property is described bydescripcion, pldase provideto this appLicat.ion.
a meets and bounds
on a separaLe street
legal
and attach
y l^,
F ZONTNG:
NAME OF
Mailing
APPLTCANT:
Address:
ot' tlLL
21
/ Ll Phone
NAME oF ApplrcANrs REpREsENrArrvE: 47 t" l+}*Mailing Address:
Phone
H NAME OF OWNER(S):
Mailins Ad.dress, t44 € *f iEphone
APPLrcAlroNs wrLrJ Not BE pRocEssED wrrffiour owNER's srcNA?uRE
I. Condominium Approval if applicable.
.1 . DRB FEE: DRB fees, as shown above,\ are E.o be paid at thet.ime of submitLal of the DRB applilation. Later, whenapprying for a-buirding permit,-plbase identify Lhe accurate
't valuaE,ion of Lhe proposat. The iown of vair wiri .ai""l-iir"fee according to the table berow, Eo ensure Lhe correct feeis paid.
FEE SCHEDULE:
, VALUATION
"r.nrr i to,ooi-; ;;:;;;$ 50, 001 - g 150,000
$150, 001 - $ 500, 000
9500,001 - 91,000,000$ Over $1, 000,000
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAT EXPIRES
APPROVAIJ I'NI.'ESS A BUIIJDING PERMIT ISIS STARTSD.
FEE
i ;o:oo
$100.00
$200.00
$400.00
$s00. 00
ONE YF"AR AFTER FINAIJ
ISSUED AliID CONSTRUCTTON
rr. PRE-APPLr"* MEETTNG:
A pre-applicat.ion meeting wich a member of the planning
staff is encouragred to determine if any addicionalapplication informaLion is needed. IL is ctre applicanc,sresponsibility to make an appointment with the staff Eo
deEermine if there are additional submit,taL reguirement.s.
Please note that a COMPLETT applicauion will sEreamline thereview process for your projecL.
III. IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING AI,I, SIIBMISSIONS TO TIIE DRB:
A. h addition to meeting'submiE.Lal requiremeats, cheapplicant must. stake and Lape E.he project. siee toindicate property lines, building lines and buildingcorners. All t,rees Lo be removed must be taped. AI1site Lapings and sEaking must be complet.ed prior t.o the
DRB site visit. The applicant nust ensure thaL sEakingdone during the winter is not buried by snow.
B. The review process for NEw BUILDINGS normally requirestwo separaLe meeLings of Ehe Design Review Board:.a
concepEual review and a final review.
C. Applicants who fail to appear before Che Design ReviehtBoard on their scheduled meeting daLe and who have noLasked in advance Lhat discussion on their item bepostponed, wiII have Eheir items removed from t.he DRBagenda until such time as Lhe item has beenrepublished.
D. The following items may, aL the discretion of thezoni.ng adminisLrator, be approved by t.he Communit.yDevelopment Departmerit. sLaff (i.e. a formal hearinobefore the DRB may noL be reguired):
a. Windows, skylights and similar exterioJ changeswhich do not alter Lhe exist.ing plane of thebuilding; and
b. Building addicions noL visible from any ot.her lotor public space. At the time such a proposal issubmitted, applicanLs must include 1eE.t.ers fromadjacenc property owners and,/or frorn t,he agenL foror manager of any adjacent condominium associationsLating Lhe association approves of the addit.ion.
E. If a properEy is locaLed in a mapped hazard area (i.e.
snow avalanche, rockfall, ftood plain, debris f1ow,wetland, eLc.), a hazard study must. be submitted andthe ohrner must sign an affidavit recognizing the hazardreport. prior ro the issuance of a building permiE.Applicants are encouraged t.o check with a Town plannerprior Eo DRB application to det.ermine t,he relationshipof the property to all mapped hazards
F. For all residenLial construclion:
a. Clearly indicaLe on the floor plans the insideface of Lhe exterior st.rucLural walls of thebuildinq; and
b. Indicate vi'it.h a dashed line on the site plan a'four fooL distance from the exterior face of thebuilding waIIs or supporting columns.
c. If DRB approves the application wiLh conditions ormodifications, a1l conditions of approval musE. beaddressed prior t.o Lhe application for a buildingperml L.
IV.NEI{ CONSTRUCTI
A. Three copies of a recent t,opographic survey, sLamped bya Colorad.o professional Licensed Sunreyor, at a scaleof 1" = 20' or larger, on which bhe followinqinformation is provided:
Lot area, and buildable area when differenL t.hanIot area.
Legal descript.ion and physical address.
'Ivro foot cont.our int,ervals unless the parcelconsists of 6 acres or more, in whicb case, 5,cont.our intervals may be accepted.
Existing trees or groups of trees having trunkswith diameters of 4n or more, as measured from apoint one foot. above grade.
Rock ouEcroppings and other significant, naturalfeatures (1arge boulders, intermittent streams,eLc. ) .
Hazard areas (avalanche, rockfa11, eEc.),centerline of streams or creeks, required creek orscream seLback, and 100-year flood plain, ifapplicable. Slopes of 40t or more stratt neclearly delineaied by cross hatching.
Ties L.o exiscing benchmark, eiLher USGS landmarkor sewer j.nvert.. This informat,ion must. be clearlysLated on the survey so that all measuremenLs arebased on Lhe same sLart.ing point. This isparLicularly imporLanL for determining buildingheight and driveway s1ope. See policy On SurveyInformaLion, for more informat.ion regardingsurveys.
Locat.ions of Ehe following must be shown:
a. Size and t.ype of drainage culverts, swales,etc.
b. Exact. IocaLion of existinq utility servicelines from their source to the structure,includino:
Cable Tv
Telephone
q
6.
a
Sewer
Water
GasElectric
c. A11 util.ity met.er locations, inctuding anypedestals Lo be located on siE.e or in theright-of-way adjacent to the site.
d. Property lines - disLances and bearings andbasis of bearing.
e. IndicaLe all easements identified on thesubdivision plaE.
9. Provide spot elevaEions at the edge of asphalt,along the sLreet frontage of the property atL'w€rilt-iive j_uoL j_ncervais \25,', , and a minimum ofone spot elevaE.ion on either side of Lhe lot.
Site PIan
1. Locations of t.he following must, be shown:
a. existing and finished grades.
b. Proposed surface drainage on and off site.
B.
p proposed driveway, inc:.!!l.ng percenr stopeand spoL elevations at. the property line,garage slab and as necessary along thecenterline of the drive L,o accurately reflectdriveway grade.
d. A 4' concrete drive pan aE the edge ofasphalt, for driveways that, exit. the sLreet inan uphil1 direcEion.
2. A11 existing improvement.s includinq strucEures,landscaped areas, service areas, sEorage areas,walks, driveways, off -sLreet. parking, loadingrareas, reEaining waLls (vrith top and boEEom ofwal1 spot elevaE,ions), and other existing site
improvemenLs.
3. In order to determi.ne proposed building heighLselevaLions of all t.op roof ridges, and eaves whendetennined necessary by the zoning administrat.or,shall be indicated on the siLe plan with existingand proposed contour lines shown underneath.
Landscape plan (lrr = 20, ot larger)3 copies'reguired
1. At a minimum, the fotlowing information must beprovided on the landscape plan:
a. Location of existing t.rees 4', d,iamet.er orlarger,
b. Type, size and locat.ion of all existing andproposed plant mat.erial,
c. Location of a1l trees to be transplanLed,
d. A detailed legend of all proposed plantmaLerial including cornmon and Latin names.
2. 'The locat.ion and type of exisLing and proposedhraLering systems !o be employed in caring- forplanL maLerial following it.s installation.
3. Existing and proposed contour lines. Retainingwalls should be included with Lhe contourinformation with top of waII and boE.Lom of waIIelevations listed.
4. CompleLe the attached landscape materials lisc.
D.
E.
F.
S:Lgn_-of f fTom eagh utiliEv companv verifying thelocaLion of util-iLy service ana avaifaUil:.tv (seeattached utility verificaLion form)
m].n rirl mus tpropert.y ownership
Lhe subjecL
accompany aIl submittals,and idenEify all easementsproperry.
to insureaffecting
Arcbitectural Plans lL/8,' = 1, or larger, L/4" lspreferred scale for review) 3 copies ire reguired.
Floor plans and all elevar-jons of the proposeCdevelopmenL drawn t.o scale and fully dimensioned.The elevation drawings must show bolh existing andfinished grades.
One set of floor plans must be ,'red-1ined', Eo showhow Lhe gross residential floor area (GRFA) wascalculated.
Exterior mat.erials and colors shatl be specifiedon Ehe at.t.ached materi_als Iist. this maCLrialslist must be completed and submitted as a pari ofthe application. Color chips, siding sa*piesetc., sha1l be presented at the Design RLview
ao"]".Eing. Derails incruail buE nor lirniredt.o fascia, trim, railings, chimney cap, meterlocations, etc. must be shown graphicllly anofully dimensioned.
Zong cheqk list (attached) must be compleLed if theprolect. jls located within the Single-Fami1y,erimary/Secondary or Duplex zone districts.
Phot.os of Lhe existing sit.e and where applicable, ofadjacent st.ructures.
The Zoning Administrator and,/or DRB may reguire thesubmission of addiEional p1ans, drawings, -
specif icat.ions , samples and other rnateiials - '( includ.inga model) if deemed necessary to determine wtrether aproject will comply with Design Guidelines.
Photos or sketches which clearly convey the redevel-opmentproposal and t.he location (site plan) of the redevelopmentproposal may be submitted in lieu of the more formalrequirements set forth above, provided all importantspecifications for the proposal including colors andmaterials Lo be used are submiLEed
VI . ADDITTONS - RESIDEMTIAIJ OR COMMERCTAL
A. Original ftoor plans with all specifications shown.
B. Three sets of proposed floor plans L/gn = !, or larger(L/1,, = f, is preferred)
C. Three copies of a siLe plan showing existing andproposed construct.ion. rndicate roof ridge elevaE.ionswit.h exisLing and proposed grades shown underneaLh.
D. Elevations of proposed addiLion.
E. Photos of the exisLing structure.
F. specifications for aIr materials and color samples onmaeerials Iis! (attached).
At lle request of the Zoning administ,raEor you may also berequired to submit:
c. A sLaLement f rom each ut.ility verifying locaLj.on ofservice and availabilit.y. See attached utilitylocation verification form.
H. A sile improvemenE. survey, stamped by registeredColorado professional L,icensed. surveyor.
r. A preliminary t.iEIe reporL, to verify ownership ofproperLy, which lists all easements.
VII. FINAL STTE PLAN
()na.o .a h,rrt l.ar_-__b-;'.}, !,e-ir.rg rr<rs r.reetr J.DpugLr, durl (-UIISLfUCCIOn 1Sunderway, and before the Building Department will sctredule aframinE inspecLion, two copies of an- Improvement. L,ocaLionCert,if icaLe survey (ILC) st,amped by a reqisteredprofessional engineer muse be submitted. The followinoinformation musL be provided on Lhe Il,C:
A. Building locaLion(s) with bies Lo property corners,j..e. disEances and angles.
B. Building dimensions to the nearest. tenth of a foot..
G.
I.
n
H.
arr utlty service tine as-uuirrlshowins type ofmaE.erial used, and size and exact. locat.ion-of-iines.
Basis of bearing Eo tie to sect,ion corner.
All property pins are t,o be either found or seL andstaEed on i-mprovement survey.
AII easements.
Garage slab elevaLions and all roof ridge elevaLionswiLh exist.ing and proposed grades shown under the ridcel ines
VIII. CONCEPTUAIJ DESIGN REVIEW
A. SgbmiE.t.al reguirements: The owner or aut.horized agenE.of any project reguiring design approval as preseribedby this chapt.er may submit plans for concepEual reviewby the Design Review Board to Lhe Department ofCommunity Development,. The concept.ual review isintended Lo give Lhe applicanE, a tasic underst.anding ofthe cornpatibility of their proposal with the Town,sDesign Guidelines. This procedure is recommendedprimarily for applications more complex than singJ.e-family and two-family residences.. However, deveiopersof single-family and tr^'o-family projects shal_l not beexcluded from the opportunity Lo reguest a conceptualdesign review. compreLe apprications must be submiLted10 working days prior Lo a scheduled DRB meeLing.
The following informat.ion shall be subrnitt,ed for aconceptual review:
1. A conceptual site and landscape plan at a minimumscale of one inch equals twenty feet;
2. Conceptual elevations showing exterior materialsand a description of Lhe character of Lhe proposed
s t.ruc ture or strucLures;
3. Sufficient informaLion to show the proposalcomplies wiLh the development standlrdl of thezone disLrict. in which the project, is Lo belocated (i.e. GRFR, siLe coverage calculaLions,number of parking spaces, etc.);
4. Completed nnn applicaLion form.
B. Procedure: Upon receipt of an application forconceptual design review, Ehe Department of Communit.yDevelopmenL sharr review t.he submitted materiars forgeneral compliance with the appropriate requiremenLs ofLhe zoning code. If Ehe proposal is in basiccompliance wiE.h t.he zoning code requirements, theproject shal1 be forwarded Eo che oRe for conceDLuarreview. rf the applicacion is not generally incompliance wich zoning code requiremenLs, Lheapprication and submitt.ar materiars shal.l be returnedLo Lhe applicane wiEh a written explanation as to whythe cotnmunit.y DevelopmenE DeparLment st.af f has foundt.he proi ect not to be in eomnr i-anee 'qi r_h zoning ccCcrequiremenLs. Once a complele applicat.ion has beenreceived, Lhe DRB shall review the submitted conceptualreview applicat.ion and supporting materiar in ordei t.odetermine wheE.her or noL che project genera}ly comprieswit,h the design guidelines. ine-pne does nou voc.e onconceplual reviews. The property owner or hisrepresenLaLive shall be presenL aL the DRB hearinq.
a
I,IST OF It'ATERTALS
NAr\,1E oF prror1cr '/.//7 B <oL,hg/nl l(l U€
LEGAL DESCRIPTTON: LOTfB BLOCK suBDrvrsroN g/( flolp 'Arv( .?
STREET ADDRESS:
The following informaLion is
Review Board before a final
A. BUILDING }IA?ERIAI-TS :
reguired
approval
TYPE OF
for submit.t.al
can be iiven:
MATERIAIJ
Lo the Design
COLOR
Roof
Sidins
OLher WalI Materials
Fascia
Soffits
Windows
Window Trim
Doors
Door Trim
I{and or Deck Rails
Flues
Flashings
Chimneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
. Retaining Walls
ExLerior Light.ing
Ot.her
B. LANDSCAPING: Name of
0rYtt Ptc s-4tu ket ne O rO h lrC/l
Itrltl)t
o t lnltC e-l/ , 8l/ilGtr ra nhcll
o z v ?t c <fit Auol' r<t 4h<ll
atYno/c sfA/.w Btc*t*t m nifA
Designer:
Pfrone !
PLANT *"T",
PROPOSED TREES
AND SHRUBS
Botanical Name Ouantity Size*.o*n? *u*"
*Indicate caliper for deciduous trees.tre Indica t.e
Lrees.**IndicaLe size of proposed shrubs.
5 oallon.
Tvpe
GROLID, COVERS
soD
qFE'N
TYPE
OF IRRTGATION
TYPE OR METHOD OF
EROSTON COMTROL
Sguare Footaqe
c- LANDSCAPE LTGHTTNG: rf exterior lighting is proposed, pleaseshow Lhe number of fixLures and locations on a separateliqhting plan. rdentify each fixture from the lighting planin Lhe space ber-ow and provide t.he height above grade, type oflight. proposed, lumen ouLpuL, luminous area and i cuc srreLt otthe light fixture. (Seccion 18.54.050 J)
D.orHER LANDSCAPE FEATURES (recaining war1s, fences, swimmingpoors, etc-) please specify. rndicaEe heights of reeaininiwalrs' Maximum height of warrs wichin the front setback il3'. Maximum heighc of walls elsewhere on the properE,y is 6,
SUBDIVISION
JOB NAI-iE
LOT BLOCK FILING
ADDRESS
The locat.ion and availabiliLy of uE,ilities, vrhether
!ry$ lines or proposed linel , musE be approved andfollowing utilities for the accompanying iite ptan.
Authorized Siqnature
Lhey be mainverified by the
'DaLe
U.S. west Communications
l. - 800 -922- L987
468-6860 or 949-4530
Public Service Company
949 - s781
cary Hall
HoIy Cross EIect,ric Assoc.
949 - 5892
Ted Husky/Michael Laverty
Heritage Cablevision T.v.. 949-5s30
Steve Hiatt
Upper Eagle Va11ey Wat.er& SaniLat.ion DisLricL *
4'76-7480
Fred Haslee
NOTE:1. fhis form is Lo verify service availabiliEy andlocation. rhis should be used in conjunction withpreparing your uLility plan and schedutingins t.aI Ia Lions .
2. For any new construct,ion proposal , Lhe applicant.. must. provide a conpleted uLility verification forn.
3. If a utility company has concerns wiLh the proposedconslrucLion, the utility represent,aLive should noLdirectly on Lhe ut.iliEy verification form that thereis a problem which needs to be resolved. The issueshould then be spelled out in detail in an attachedIetLer Lo the Town of vai1. However, please keep inmind t.har ir is rhe responsibility ot tne utilitycompany to resolve ident.if ied problems.
4. If Lhe utility verification form has signatures fromeach of the utility companies, and no conment.s aremade direcLly on the form, the Town will presumeLhat. Lhere are no problems and that the developmenEcan proceed,
5. These verificaLions do not. relieve the contracLor ofhis responsibility E.o obtain a sLreet cut permiLfrom Lhe Town of vail, Department. of publil worksand Eo gbtai+ ucilitv locltions before diqqinq inany public righE.-of-way or easenenL in the Town ofrla:I. n bu:1d:ng.;crnil is not a slreel crrL uerrniL.A street cut permit must be obtained separately.
6. InsLallat.ion of service Lines are at Lhe expense andresponsibility of the property owner.
t- Please bring a site plan, floor p1an, and elevations whenobtaining upper Eagre vaLley water & sanit.ation signaLures. Fireflow needs musL be addressed.
offio
s i n s 1 e F ami I y *
" " ;1"Jf; "dr r?"_rrl"#
P r i ma ry / s e c o n d a ry
DATE:
LEGAL DESCRIPTfON: Lot _ BLock -- Subdivision
ADDRESS:
OWNER PHONE
PHONE
BUIIJDABIJE LOT AREA
AIlowed Existinq proposed Tot,al
(30) (33)
+425=
No
ZONE DISTRTCT
PROPOSED USE
ARCHTTECT
LOT STZE
HeighL.
TOtAl GRFA
Primary GRFA
secondary GRFA + 425 =_
seLbacks FronL Z0'Sides 15,Rear 15,
Site Coverage
Landscaping
ReLaining waII Heights 3'/6,
Parking
Garage CrediE
Reqrd Encl
(300) (600) (900) (1200)
Drive: permiLted SLope % proposed Stope t
Complies with T.O.V. Lighting Ordinance yes No
waLer course Setback (30) (s0)
Do Finish Grades Exceed 2:1 (50t) yES NO
Environmental/Hazards: 1) Flood plain
2l Percent Slope (< > 30t)
3) Geologic Hazardsa) Snow Avalancheb) RockfaIIc) Debris FIow
4) Weclands
view Corridor Encroactunent,: yes
uoes tnj.s reqiiesL j.uvuive a 2i0 Adtiition?How much of rhe arrowed 250 Addirion is useiffiEis request?_
Previous condit.ions of approval (check propert,y file) :
10
L0/17 /94 11:24 t1866 0200
IIolme Ro0ts & Owen,.,."
ATTORNEYS.AT.LAW
E4
o
$gvldct
URO DENVER N?O @ ooz
LololrEdF SPnngs
Oenver
t@EwEd
JaIt rrke {)ry
Lvdarl
1700 Linroln
suirs 4100
D€nver, Cn tlnr0]
10i EAr-70nn
tej( 3oJ E66.9t00
rrwnmce 1,, |- rtl
'03
&66-03)2
October L7, 1994
vra Ftcsl}trllE (303) a79-2{52
Randy Stoudetr, Planner
Conrrunity Developnent Department
Town of Vail75 South Frontaqe Roadvail , colorado Bt-6sz
Dear Mr. stouder:
r aar confirrning in writing my two previous
telephone messages to you last r*eelc, as wel1 as thetelilthone call fron ny representative Larry Eslsdith. Esq.latt Tuesday, october llth, advising you, your departrnent,and the Town of vail DesiEn Review Board, that my wife andI are withdrawing the apptication to appear before thefown of Vail Design Review Board in connection with therestaining of our property in VaiI .
As Ur. Eskwith adviEed you, and aE I am onceagain reiteratine, vB direct you to return innediately toHr. EEI*,ith the application forrtr our cheok, aIIcorrespondence and the naterials left with you onOctober 10, 1994. Do not UnilateralLy place us ol-the
I-own of Vail Desiqn Review Board octobei tg. 1994 a.renda-
After reviewing the llown of Vai'l De*ign rle.vi.errchapter, as wetl as other provisions in the Town of VaiIZoning Ordinance TitLe after you left orrr FroFerty rrnoctober 10f L994, and conctucting other investigations, ueare convinced that the lle-si gn Resri ew Roard has nojurisdiction to approve any restaining of our propertywith a solid. as olrFnsed to a seni-transparent stain,utilizing a color which corresponds to the existing eedar
col or of the ltroperty.
Very trul.y yourr Ifr.,^/l*:
Lawrencc L, Lcvin
frx!y'ag
scr Larry nskwith, Esq.
rllc/0J7
FI
o
LT cCIP y
TOWN OFVAIL
75 South Frontage Road
VaiI, Colorado 81657
303-479-2 I 38 / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303-479-2452
October 19, 1994
Departnent of Community Deve lopment
Larry and Carol Levin
9560 East Powers Place
Greenwood Village, CO 80121
SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Levin:
At your requesl, I am hereby withdrawing your Design Review Board (DRB) application to
repaint your half of the duplex al 4417-9 Columbine Drive/Lot 5, a resubdivision of Lot 14,
Bighorn 3rd Addition. You filed the DRB appl!.c-qli-qq at my request, in response to a zoning
violation and a Stop Work Order issued on€6p{ffibr 6, 1994. I must assume that by
withdrawing your application, you have abandoned the design review and approval process.
Thus, I have no recourse but to pursue the zoning violation that currently exists at the
property mentioned above.
By this letter, I am informing you of the Town's intent to issye a citation for violation of the
Design Review section of the Zoning Code, Chapter 18.Er9!'f you do not restore the duplex to
its preexisting condition by November 4, 1994. lt is my understanding that this would involve
removing, replacing, and restaining the siding on the fronl of your unit. The restored area
must match the preexisting condition of the exterior of the duplex (i.e. siding wood type, color
and semi-transparent stain finish). lf you have any queslions, please contact me at (303) 479-
2138.
Sincerely,
-/) a ,/ .4.L44da
' / "'
Randy Stouder
Town Planner
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Tom Moorhead
Randy Stouder
tt/tt/e4
Irevin Srxnmonsorive/r,ot 5, aThird Filing
IIEMOR.AIVDT'!{
relat.ing to paint job at
resubdivision of loL 14,
F[[.[ C0PY
44L7 -B Columbine
Block 4, Bj.ghorn
The following is a sunmary of the events and eircumstances in which
r was involved wiLh regards to the Levin's complaint. lodged againsL
Lhe Town, my department and myself.
On or about October 6, 1994 Ehe Community Development. planner of
Lhe day (POD), .Iim CurnutLe, received a phone call from Sam Anouna.
Mr. Anouna stated that the owner of the adjacent half of his duplex
was painting the unit without receiving Ehe To\^tn's prior approwal .
Jim and anoLher planner, Lauren waterton went to the site and
confirmed Ehe complainE. Mr. IJevi.n had begun painLing t.he front of
his half of Ehe duplex with a solid-body stain. Jim spoke with
Chuck Feldmann in our buildinq departmenE. Chuck placed a red tag(stop work order) on Mr, r-,evin's half of the duplex on october 6,
]-994 (not, SepEember 6 as stated in my certified letter Lo Mr.
Levin) .
ApparenLly, the Levins arrived in town the following weekend and
found the red tag. First thinq Monday morning, Mr. Levin appeared
at our office. Lauren waterton made the init.ial staff contacE with
Mr. I-,evin Lhat morning. Mr. Levin explained what. he wished to do
with the repaint. It. was Lauren's understanding thaE the proposal
was Lo re-sLain the unit the same exact color and tlpe of stain as
the existing finish. Lauren asked him Lo writ.e everyLhing down for
her to review wibh the resL of the planning staff. withouL readingMr. IJevin's statement and with the understanding t.hat the re-stain
would not change the color or appearance of the unit, Lauren
authorized Mr. L,,evin t.o proceed. Lauren immediately went into our
regular Monday morning staff meeEing (already in progress) and did
not get a chance to review Mr. Levin's writt.en st.atement untillater that morning.
That same norning, Monday OcLober 10, I was called out Lo the lobby
to speak with Mr. Anouna (I was POD). Mr. Anouna went over the
situation with ne. He made it clear Ehat iL was Mr. Levin's inLent
to use a tl49e of stain Ehat was substanLially different from the
original stain. rhis was the first conLacL I had wiLh the
situation. After speaking wiEh Mr. Anouna I got toqeLher wiEh
Lauren and reviewed Mr. Levin's written statement. It was clearly
stated that although an aLtempt would be made to match the existingcolor of t.he duplex, that t,he Lype of stain proposed was a solid-
body stain rather than a semi-Eransparent stain. This would be a
departure from the exist.ing semi-transparent finish on both halves
of the duplex.
Upon discovering this fact, we conferred with a member of t.he
senior staff, Andy Knudtsen. We decided to approach Mr. Levin and
ask him to complete a DRB application. Lauren and I went straight
Eo the duplex to discuss the opEions available Eo Mr. and Mrs.
Levin. This occurred within two to three hours of time when Lauren
Lold Mr. I-,evin t,hat the red tag was lifted. Mr. I-,evin stated thaE
he would like to try and get the solid-body sEain approved by uhe
DRB. I had a copy of the one application, which I helped Mr. Levin
complete. I informed Mr. Lewin thaL staff would review his
application at an in-house meet.ing the next morning. He said he
would brinq in a color sample of the proposed solid-body stain to
assisL our review. I informed him that the red tag was sLill in
effect and requesLed Lhat he stop Ehe painters who were masking-off
some doors and windows on the northeast facade.
The following day, Lhe Planning Staff reviewed Mr. Levin's
application, his written statement and looked at the paint. sample.After reviewing the DRB guidelines, Staff determined that the
applicaLion should be sent on for review by Ehe Design Revievt
Board.Staff made this judgement based largely on the
determination that the proposed solid-body stain would not provide
a homogeneous and compatible appearance on the duplex as long asthe adjacent half remained semi-bransparent. Differences in the
texture, luster and reflectivity of Lhe two tlpes of finishes would
produce a totally different appearance from one half of the duplex
to the other. That same day, Mr. Levin was informed of sEaff'sposition and the application was scheduled for the next available
DRB meeLing (October 19, t994) .
On October 18, L994 r received a call from Mr. Levin stating Ehat
he wished to wiLhdraw his one application. r stated that if he
withdrew the application, Lhat I would have no recourse but Eopursue the zoning viotation for which Mr. Levin was red tagged,
i.e. making an exterior alteration to the duplex without prior
approval by the DRB as required in Chapter 1-8.54 of the Zoning
Code.
I then prepared the certified letter dated october L9, 1994 to Mr.
L,evin. In LhaE, letter I gave Mr. Levin till Novembet 4, ]-994 Lo
resEore the duplex to iLs preexisting condition. The consequence
of noncompliance would be a citation for the violation. On
November 7, 1994 I was served with the summons. That same day I
went, to Mr. Levin's residence and observed thaE the house was in
Ehe same condit.ion as Lhe firsE, time r saw it, i.e. Ehe porEion of
the house where repainting had occurred, had not been restored to
iLs preexist.ing condition as requested in my letter.
f : / eweryone / r andy /memos / 1 ewin
MEMORANDUM F$L I OEP Y
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Tom Moorhead
Lauren Waterton
November 11, 1994
Levine lawsuit
My involvement with this application is as follows:
On October 6, 1994, Jim Curnutte and I visited this site al4417-8 Columbine Drive after Jim
received a complaint about the painting of the house wifrtout Design Review Board.(DRB)
approval. Our site visit confirmed that they indeed were painting without DRB approval. A red
tag was issued for the project.
On October 10, 1994, Lawrence Levine came into the office to ask how to remove the red tag.
I spoke with him about the painting and understood that he was not going to continue to paint
his house but rather he was going to stain it as il was before. With this understanding, I
asked him to put in writing the process for restoring his house back to its natural color' After
an understanding that the house was going to be restained and tlre color was not changed
and after discussing it with staff, I told him the red tag was lifted.
After he left, his neighbor Sam Anuna came into the office and talked with Randy and myself
about the issue. He firmly believed that the house was not going to be restained but
repainted to match the color as closely as possibls but would not be the same stain material.
At that point, Randy and I decided to go out to the site and visit with the Levines to clearly
understand exactly what they were doing. We went out at approximately 10:00 a.m. and
discussed all of the issues involved. At that time, they indicated they were using a solid
based stain to paint their side of the duplex. This is not the same stain that currently exists.
We then requested that they complete a DRB application and that they would have to go
before the DRB in order to get approval.
.9
r
,r'
4
a
TOV RIO TAG's
) r -./
2't ,. 7 IATERELEASED:1,/
...2
\i\-,"
q//
'tz-tlZlzt-
i,.