HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 BLOCK 4 LOT 1 UNIT 1 VAIL TRAILS CHALETS LEGALv)
!,zo(J
z
q
i : i.r:=i2 | = i=--= Ei i 1''Y-a=.-l t 2'c2.2i.a.!..!lE 7= r.=rli; € !-- ai:"a 2
c-_, : : a =
., ' u= c
.=+ a i. = a
|-|.!-.-_t -! - - r'=
= :1-!-f I,-a ! a ! aa!.4-l-. t - 1= i
! I :+ !....=il
= c-: ic=:,?r;c--
=; i 5::iiiE'tl
Lp9=...:zaie=1i
Oror
tltF
E-r
H.J)
Fl
FJH
FfH
.J
!4q)
Flra
ts
Ff
H
CA
B
at)
',r
&H
FlH
rt1
H&
u
B
(n
-{.
.l?.E
o!
+
I
I
I
I
I
I
.;
E
Uf;z;<FE
IEIEIHlsr
Ir-tl@t a('l
-I FJ
I
-
a)
;z
o0
T]*l
6
IHI<lFIrlzl
l:l I
Hi
r/rl
frf I-l
'E
.9
a
o
af
frlo
t
r'1
z
EE
E
HN
z
utH
YS-€>x
! r,. v
>zzas<E:-;
-<\,,Y a\ i-z"v-zE
tlr l-fsz
^
t! !/- oa ..FtrZZUAqJ \ ".13ts=
ca cc
I c., r.oE zl!]F\:-
.F-.:H9=t-z--<vO;.<F=>,.a-.f- lL i-Z-=<-y
EE*3l--r i\ :< ^:- F :'l
tto>
--) , q)\Jt>:.{ z*.-yvf.ri+<
=+i:.\rt=a\\,, t-- -\ -rL'rcZ!Fz!.-ffii=i():x*
-FX--ifr1ilF-U>F
rl{
It
-aO.
F
-t(-t
i-i
|.a
*
Oa
FR
EN
F
-trlJaHaiPH
-F
trt
ffJaF
iff
f?r\
=vFar:
--Ele
aF\
-aHFa{a
*FlFL.H
.Iv
rFt
trt
e.rhfaLr.Ftf{
fFHhA.
ts;ilv
o
INSPECTIONTOWN OF
REQUEST
VAILPERMI
DATE
nffl
T NUMBER OF PROJE
| -r l,a'11
LOCATION: F u- 4, i r-t l,v l"/ t €a
JoB NAME'Zt'-'1-1aa;-<>.-L €-ev-trzX t-
CALLER
READY FOR INSPECTION:MON TUES WED THUR FRI AM PM
PROVED O DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
CORRECTIONS:
PROJECT
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
D ROUGH / D.W.V,
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
SHEETROCK NAIL
tr FINAL
ELEGTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
O HEATING
ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT O SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL O FINAL
oorr2z:T I ,l<11 rNSpEcroR Y4>?1 C- (k),Jq
oa
75 soulh honlage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
\,'JnY
August 5, '1983
Rogen Booker
Baldwin & Associates
1000 S. FrontaEe Rd.Vail, C0 8]657
Re: Zimmerman Remodel
Dean Roger:
0n fiugust 3, 1983, the Design Review Board approved the
Zinmerman Deck Revisions as submitted.
Si ncerely,
./1 , 't//,i,vy'l
Jim Sayre
Town Planner
JS/bb
+l
Of
Project Apptication OO
Date
Project Name:
Project Description:
Contact Person and Phone
Owner. Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot
Commenls:
Design Review Board
Date
Motion by: -
Seconded by:
AJ'JA)tI
LA\EwJr:u ,
AEPROVAI ltM- ,,-
DISAPPROVAL
ft"StIzt tr93Su mmary:
/74Law/N
E statt Approvat
i,tyl\, Lil ttl(1-^
o
a)? "tb?,te$ l&.
Q'f?px>
c'wr,(:gal)
t.wR,(r
A,o.v't, o',o'tQug*sx, J.LRF'4.,
a(9nN€ rortriNN. .*'-
t\
\
h1 ,l"o'
M
\ -*>\=== €
-fJ
ciz
F
=t
UJo-
N
o(n
U)
IJ,
UJlJ-
==ulo-
7:/1,/ffi'?f,,(A
A s
\
;3
I
$
I$
Nc\tE
\*
LUF
o
g.
F
Faz
=
z
2
uJ
z
oz
6J
5
c6
zz
tr
J!o
=N
ool!
d_
tuxF
z
Julat
lt
o
q)
o
-c.o(!
.9
(5
F
o
o
o
I,
tlt
=
o
I'c(!
o)
==o
E
o
=f,
!1)
(!
'.g
E
;g;€9Uha
=.eK3*BP8..= (g -FJc;
-0 Sp:Ec-o>
e$:E
:EP:E >= =
-*=o)aE;!
ll*io:EF;*.9 o ciEoS
€qeP
Elseo- (! 0-*sF; e
oi6-or
s €:€
;i* c (J
;F€H
EFEg
- o.ll o
.c;o(/)PE<-.
sf;; E
cd1:
9 6ai
t* F:
B59E9E or -
eEgg
- o (U.:
cu:u
F
oo
ro(n (o(n
c
N cc
cc
|f
u)N
(ororl)
F
uJ
2
)
Y
UJ
z
J
9
F
qJJ
UJ
z6
o-
J
2
tu
=
UJ
uJ
LLz
tr
tuE
uJ
;
u.tt!!tz
-q,
IJJo
F6odul
o-
z
LIJJ
F
uJo
U'[!
UJ
==E
uJ
5
Fo
('z
o
=o
J
()
e
Foq,
J
UJ
z
ct
=lJo-
J
=
UJ:
NOtlVn'tvA
0
(
!
C
:((
I
c
I
(
;q
+
n
o
;E
=Zz!-o ootr ^ 6zq 5 =eE I of,66 EZ!(Jo ir !4.QzXu-<oq iuJ-9U si9 frt-.NO
=Qq*:;@,
=,.,i!
(\I
-lClol
El
'al
P(F
ol
U'I
.J-l
(-)llrllI!l(ulflEI.ul,l
1
.d
-o
.Uc(t'
z
tr
J
t!
UJ
-
oo
o(\l
a
uJE
I
-)
z
Eo
z
tr
TJJ
F
3
UJz
p
2lz9.q
<Oo<
=Fxt!do<z
aFz ,.
9=..:F;ditrOI
rT.-tl
t+-IT];I ljI t<t6t-l3tI
uJl.J
G
@a
uJzY
iF
F
z
tr
5az
o
3
a
Fl
F
Jl<li-l
zl
zl
.. >l
tuo
uJ
UJzo
F
E
IJ,J
J
z
Eoo
to
(Y)
z
tro)
(D
H
l;,;
(')
I
iv.ir'rl()
il
IIJt(t)
t0o-)z,oFGt!Y
ul
d)
oF
tr
(r
uJo
lro
loo: !! coUl \'
or F\
|.\'toHure3
zg9z4
d]o
=zllJO(L lL
"dq
==t=xc)- -'i l,,u6il=
tr
(r
u,
o.
l!o:!!E:E<olo9EB9EAbegd
=>
=|ll:-E b=o Ji-E !a-E 3bE :Ht x>t q-o-!tr
UJ
coo
F-
---
E
=E,lrl
o-zoFc)fEFazo()
nx!
(,z
=u-
Jo
J
IJ
o
=
=
=e.lrJ
==N
ii
zo
I
z.
=d.
u.t
==NI
o
5
lu
=z
a
a
=
rcol
04
IJ:
F
vt
F
(J
a/1.tj
z.
=J
=&.
lu
ctoc
=
>ZL)
z,
=Itt)!zd.
o-
t /',
=d
z
o
uJ
=
tl-
z3I tr
oz
o
UJ
=
lr
z3I =tr
oz
oul
J
l|-
z3oF
=tr
z
ti
UJ(r
J
z3
F
=t
tr
z
.;
UJ
J
a
oz
=oF
ulJ
uJF
E
I.IJz
3
Fo
uJF'r
&
-..r O<Frts()uJ<zt
IIJ Ft,l 2
J(ts<oOF
trs
XF
=za8
9P
33fF)zrr.o
O
*5:lFz()
=tY,z
=g
FO
F
6
lu
F-
t
<o<,L14H-7 2
trtrtr
ARCHITECT'S
o SUPPTEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS
AIA DOCUMENT C7'10 (lnstructions on reverse side)
PROJECT:
Architect
Cclnsu ltan t
Contractor
r le lcl
Other
ARCHITECT'S SUPPLEMENTAL
aA/ Mulfa'<-,*
EE6ilN
Td.u 8tfr. Elf
vvV
nY
Ql(frwsrRUCloN No: dild
owNER: ilniAn. J.AAnnanqN DArE oF TssUANCE: 25 Ha7 A/
Ig, gPhSpg, i nrut*(Contractor)
ARCHITECT: O4 CADil) A% AIUI(,
coNrRAcr rop,:660 . RE/AoH-ARCFIITECT'5 PROJEcT No: 927-?-
The Work shall be carried out in accordance with the following supplemental instructions issued in accord-
ance with the Contract Documents without change in Contract Sum or Contract Time. Prior to proceeding
in accordance with these instructions, indicate your acceptance of these instructions for minor change to
the Work as consistent with the Contract Documents and return a copy to the Architect,
Description:
nAn eapv16 htlo elzcH. Fraoa or.aezs
Pr.z E&Hbrs oF Ettf n/:/c/ r f
AttaChmentS: (Hcta int..t lttriu ol documentt that ruppott dcscrtptioo )
5u7p/ott.r/.r7 Drawings lr 2,3 /a*/ ?,sfia<1 /?83
(name, add
AtA IUMTNT C71O . ARCHTTTCT'S SUPPLTMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS . MARCH 1979 EDTTION . AIA'THT AM€RICAN |NSTIIUTI OF ARCHIT€CTS, 1735 NTW YORK AVT., N.W., WASHINCTON, D.C. 20006
:'
c710 - 7979
EPTED;
@1979.
SUPPL..OE\{IARY DIIAI,I I NG
PROJECT: zlMMr[l-4At.l Ktt$rr{,'vrce* 92?'7. pm1za1fuf11
S,O, tltlgERI
1? ?xo 2v 1at-(tn'ly?
?.4>4O
gL Z.x9 q. LAc:.DALf AO FA"oF 9\ to
Col g,er,vJ talCEA aNo oP urJrEL
4,tfAC. Loty-. boca-zE){F rDqr\o-
LJl,4>st^Jt,f tJt^JF
R#E4, TA 5/q s-l
IE?EL 2- F@2 frAAl
?LFRcE BALD^IIN AND ASSOCIATES/ INc,
1000 s, FRown6p RoAD wEsr Vnrr , co 81657
ARcHrrE?I|.lql (rRryMEq
SUPPL^RE{IARY DRAI{ING
PRCJECT:J
REFER TO:
/svr1??-nt$ gilor?tlr"tsEil 001.4-, ome:16 F'b16j
s,D, Nl.ltsER-a
aY1Wt-)Huc, t25/t
frt tbt ?*1
2;/br\r5 qL,l
trO &sf
ete@
VEeJF
??
RaFH. TC 4ltuf 5-lLCU& 1 . F{eU' FE4nil6 frrqM1
\L
F*lf,r to><t?
ri__
?'ffiLrrc4 Na..l arl
tb(*uLAr1
?xbe t7"o,L,
?ffi'5.T"?il+I"flR ffi*l+"%ll{f '.n g165z McHITE?{Jqt 4rBry[iEg
a
$JPPIBO{IARY DRAI{MG Nt['ffiR :-
PRGJECT:Nri,4BER t tLtZ- onrr:!?-lt1!l
REFER TO:
{I
r$
.:Ii
s{$ r
":-il hF{S il
sF
d
$
lw os7?tL x/tz 70 9//tr 3-z
T
{l
t
Er
$
E\
o
-t\,}
l-
t\
sl
r$
b$
rtr
xs
T-l-q
I
- ----)
vt
$
,J
0t
\l
xr3
-*oS
-x
slt-
F\
k
,l'
lt
\
I
)
)
iffi8'5,Thil+Lfl?.i3'ffi1f"'lolll'co B1o5z AncHITEtftlt 4itsU'}t
a lol fulc
N^tw
a\5' filc en'x
s.A.h.
?,ry flt?, ,,
€tl |.9a.{hd Fqt Cffi ttlxl3s:t.3tatm
mtrHtf,E oilvnsarl(xr rEomrt
Page I of I
Frc/To Roger
OdelL
Booker
K. Johnsotr/I(KBNA
I}atG Uay 24, 1983
fle 2:50 P.ll.
Job f,o.
Job fttl.e Zltmerllan
Copy to Roger Booker,
Baldwin and Assoc.
Iliacosalon
The eteel bean framlng the flret floot level haa a apllce
approxlmately 3r-0 off the exletlng colu-n. Before reuovlng
the colunn and movlng to the new locatLon ae called for oo
the structural drawlnga, the contractor wlll provlde two
elded platee for the web that are L/4' thLck, 3" wlde and 6"
htgh. Theee wlll be flllet welded wlth 3/16- weld
verttcally oo each Blde to each beam. A plate for the top
flange and the botton flange w111 be LlZ- x 4 L/2- wlde x
2t-0 long ceotered over the spllce. One on the top flange
and one on the bottor flange. Thle plate wtll be welded to
the bean flange with 3/16' seld all arouod.
The above ig consldered correct nnlgss reaponae to tbe oontrrrJr
is recelved vlthl.n 7 d,ays frm date above.
:
I
SALttnIN ASSOCTATES ABCtsrTEGTS,
1000 $o-urE FtoNTAcE RoaD, nEsr
vEff.,ifltor.onem 81657
(.303)476-4433
16 lhy 1983
ZIUMERITAN REODEL
ARCBITECTS PNOJECT NO. 8222
ADDE{DIJM UID@BR ONE CT)
INC.
AI.l CongtructLon docuuents ehall bc ileened thoge docuuenta noted and
dated: il16 !{ay 1983 CONST. D0C.n Documente dated prior to 16
liay 1983 aro heroby reactnded.
E}ID OT ADDENDW NI'MBER ON8 CX)
cc: docuoent ! holdere of record
t.
t.'i I! t, i,ll 'l 1 I
,'l I'
,,rr'tt,' r.t tl
iI
l !rtl'i t'
I
:
i,t
,i
't
i
rNsfrtoNTOWN OF
' .';i ,'
i :'i //-.)-|
REQUEST,
VAIL
DATE NAME
CALLER
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:MON TUES WED THUR FRI
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS
tr FOUNDATI
tr FRAMING
/ STEEL
PLUMBING:
D UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
ON / STEEL
r-.l ROOF & SHEER" PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
ELE
tr'I
trF
trC
tr
tr HEATING
ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
a rrru4f tr FINAL
-.lGLAPpRovED
.- CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
lry6l INSPECTIONTOWN OF VAIL
REQUEST'
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
READY FOR
LOCATION:
DmE FL-f. I tnll JoB NAME Z;-1.-1a(v'1*J ?+v-rtsl-
INSPECTION:MON
CALLER
TUES WED THUR FRI AM PM
Ih v- 4, t -rf l ,V t/. 14
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
BUILDING:PL
tr
tr
C
tr
tr
tr
UMBING:
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
o
FOOTINGS / STEEL UNDEBGROUND
ROUGH / D.W.V.
ROUGH / WATER
FOUNDATION / STEEL
FRAMING
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING GAS PIPING
INSULATION
SHEETROCK
POOL / H. TUB
NAIL
q^d{NAL
D
r"1 FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
O HEATING
tr
tr
f-t
ROUGH tr
tr
tr
EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL O FINAL
PPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
omr/2zr:r I ,14=l rNSpEcroR Y,"l>?1 ( l'k)rJca
FIL E COPY
75 louth f?ontrge rcld
Yall, colondo 81657
(303) 47$2138
(309) 47$'213e
offfce of communlty development
October 7, 1991
Mr. J.D. Zimmerman
5335 S. Dentwood Drive
Dalfas, TX 75nO
Re: Lot 1, Block 4, Vall Vlllage Flrst Flllng
413 Got€ Greek Drlve (Vall Tralle W$t)
Dear Mr. Zimmerman:
In reviewing old building permit fles, and atiemptirg to close them out, staff discowred that
the above-rlferenced residence never received a final Ceilificate of Ocalpanry, receiving only
a Temporary certificate of occupanry Fco). since no landscape inspec{ion request w.rs
ever niade, itre Town could not ieteaia a nnd CertiRcate ol Occupancy. Due to the extended
period of time from when the TCO was originally issued, the statf believes it is now
ieasonable to issue a final Certificate of Occupancy lor the residence.
statf would like to let you know that any future proporty improvements will require review of
the existing landscaping, and additional improvemenb may be required as a cordition of
approval.
lf you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call either Mary Delving or Betsy
Rosolack at 479-2138.
Sincerely,
V,,*-g.1 fr,)tJe1
Mary Dewing
Planning Intern
lab
ctz
F
=t
UJo-
lD
oo
1r)
(o
rJ)
('')
a
uJ
UJt!
ts
=Eu,o-
-/')'y t)/
"
/r9qhq7v #)n $ht
{o
s
Na
Jal.N
r21'1
l!!
t!t!o
z
J
llJ
G,o
FIz
=
z
2
l.l>Flc
lo
IF.
la,tsloIE
lo,I'l!lol'-l!
ls
,g:
(rz
es
-.5
ts
ozz
IEu,z3
uJt
Foz
ot
ooo
clr
=o
(D
o
E
ct
o,Eoo
o)
!
@
E
=l
j
Q)
o
o.
CL(E
=.9
E
;E€ f
=.e s? €
EgE;
E 6E:Ec-o>
ifEiE >=:c9cE.l oE ore5;=
E EEi
:€85
€eeP
9; ge
SE; e
oiE-qr:fi:€
9666
:EEH
E6 F5
:-oES
E= c) q'
e$E e
sgl:9 cE.E
.t( F F9
iE !;9E o -e5g:
cc
Gt-
or..t
rO
@
D3
rf
N
oo
osl'
o
oro(\l
OIoO<f
ort)
(Y)
r.ct
rj.)
LEE
UJ
(9z6If
@
-o
uJEoz
c
IJJJ
IJJ
oz
to
=
9z
Iou,:
tu
llJltz
tr
|I.l
o
uJe.
ot
o
@
3g
uJ
z
6u,
Fo
IJJ
z
IJJ
x
F
u,l
at
u,
IJJ
IJJu-
tr
=c
uJ
J
FoF
z
ID
J
uJ
uJ
z
6
E
J
(,z
()
uJ
=
NOrlVn'tVA
Jq
+
q
x
t
$
"t
Y
o
=II
zo
F
a
u,l
J
uJz
uJ
>G
--(Y)iur.q
=tON
zzoo
?E
=.nO1>E9lr<o*HdF8j s,i
z9
F
{(
(r
uJ
o-
F
ooo
o@
e
uJE
J
z
E
z
E
tll
FJ
3qJz
.p
2
zQai6o<
=HxrrX.i<z
trz.
9Z
do3tr
UJf
E
!,utzY9IF
2
F
5
z
t/,
J
=F
IIJ
o
o
=
JI<ltrl
zl
zl
.. >lo
uJ
ul
uJzo
=
UJ
J
z
Eoo
l
I
I
Iolzl!lEIfl
II lclol<t5td
l;:l>og
Y'1,.J
,'..)
'i-- l,)
.:)
IIJtooo-zo
Fo-
nJY
uJ
c0
oF
F
ccIl
^ O4t@ll olo-t
b9ortrg
UuJbkzo
I
I
I
I
z
oPzQ
=z
dP
=fr*;Hg
=
lJt
ILo!ulE()2zE<clf60ne.E9vtEieitE ;tE h=c, dtr: >oI O r.r-E 909 ituE XO-E ;i
o-!E
uJ
(D
oF
---
F
=E,
lrJo-zoF(JfEFazoo
D!!
Iq!4{Iq(
z
lJ-
I
I
JJ
a0
t-o
J
o!o
6G
g
rU
E(u
E
NI
ii
=z
(D
-1a
I
I
I
Iil:l
rl
:l',.l fr:l 5ilqe=42 Fo
qq
.4
t4
1
":
q
!!
.d
-'1
=l
trl
uJ
)
=
(f)(n<fsl.
i
Fo
+rtico
a(
5t4
Jt(a
q
=
llll
.lolr:l
' uJlil
<l>l
t!l:olzl
3lolFI
c
o
q
cc
IIJJutF
!S
N
dlra
\)
=t
lr-
z
o
uJ
5
t!oz
3
o1
F1
q
F\\}(
{<
\
\
, \rl
sx\l
\
=q
tr
lb
o
UJ\tr
J
oz
3olFI
IJJJ
uJF tr
ol
=.1
rl
al>lttlol
zl
=lolH
=
t!-
.]
=.J
ulcl
JI
<lilol
zl
3l
9l
IJJ)luF,
UJz3o
F()
u,lF
T
E
-rO<Fgc)l!<zgIIJ F(rz-o
C)
Jt<oC)F
F?AE,;F-,2.t3
E(,Ozt-
=#-J t-JZI.LO
i5:IF
F3
gE
ltir
=FTo2<oHfr,t aE€]N
i.i i * r=J , ? = i=--= E: =:
i.a - t. !': E 7a z Z:=.d.::
n a z:z 2i a - i -=7..i?=;.
::€:; =:
= = = i2-_;.'aza:.4?A-a-a 'r .t ..: ,
.: ? .2 =-, 7-; EEi
=::::: ---v a z -
=
== ! i i.:
-c ..=
= a=z a ii a Ti
-,=.J.=iti
o\o\
trl
ts(J
z
E
E:HN
F)
|-
a
c''!
l
iz
.2
E
.=
=
(n
I
r')
FI
HHz
H
|ltt:
AE
&
z
E
EE
N
z
A-Fr-
^f-uiH
fi l- :-rY--<>x
\J f,r v
\vl.t3ZzEa<<
<:.t
-<LJ,Ya\-\ \r/ |-ZUP_zi
L! l--'F (4;lsz' =^q-xa\ k: \r
-q..(.7\\vi-:: zZ \-'' x-r.l '\ -1
-
v -..i<F =+lF-Jc<caaC
-, (/) a.OI Zlt l-- i-F-rrl{se\*<-F<Yc;<l=zf- !J- >Z.=<-v
,J-'SEqr||<:-'F\JPFfO- r..: . !ilto>
-J ?] IJ3>11 Z*.-YV,.lt?<
=+if,.\*=-\J I'- -
=ox;szv:ff;<;u*x*,.-Yl+*g+ti'tl;{.-!r,>F
rFr:
-f.
:t
-{-rha
i+
O.
FI
mts
-rFEHr,FHF?F
F{.l-aF
rF.
'?T\
-lv
l-
-:*
-FtHl9
F\dat{
F.
-E
*FFL}
La
.E'v
rF.
trt
e.rFl
.H+a)f-lrPrh.
flJtf
|{6.t;.)\,
/
t)l:scf(ll'1f 0:i OI' t'rt\tt.'\:t_ etr7e:etaq_EUAZAQAqE-1A_V9il>-_&)A __qg^s,-nqil6
IMPfuVEHAJT
The fol lowlng infornrtjon is rcqrrir.cd for submittal by thc upPl ic:rntlourd bcl'ore a final approval c:ur be givcn:to thc Dcsigrr kcvj.cw
A. BL,lLIrIN(; I'I{TERinLS
Roof
Siding
Other l'ial l l.laterial s
Fasc i a
Soffi t s
lf in d or.rs
l{indow Tlin
Doors
Door Trim
l'land or Deck Rails
Fl ues
F 1a sh j rrgs
Ch irnnev s
,Trash [n: l osut'es
dLccr,lrorrs c-s
0Llrer
fe*<o-B. LANDSCAPING
Name of Designer:
phone :
PLANT MATERIALS
TRI ES
'l ),pe o_f trtlrt_c.rial -cq9:
E/( tg/rA,/ a
il,tlr s
Botanica'l Name
(kte n:rtetg Qc,olrttu Sy'a2d-
?olaLos fPePiltl^tt <.auAEl4t6 At/241_
0uanti_[
*9
Si ze)a-rt'le /5'
1"a
/e/o'
Anp#ra<.pflas4,
fAzn#tht6rut Qtxi@L-Fou,6tE"l.H4Wl-
s!-hail6/ooEN57p2
E!6Lru1^Jp t|t
t
_ 6-__-_L
_a_
7.6__
3
rhl
n l)0, l_
iut
40. 5
NdE
R6A woo05//wtole QoSe
ztu_eL__ ___UutE_o_etw AEz4e__
W00P -Jlo ct/4^16E, .. 64f
lULd?_%:<(g:Lry_UFr E*/snA&teN Elsv: qAEE 6dr p-mr"udE1a,
Pj9.-€.1e!;-lU/0e 7p lqEr4 srueao
'woo? - _ _@ez_aq_eerq._Et/9de
ilEf' _______eree_aeet_p"ze_g@u
Comrnon Name
- iloile -
5HRoo9
fruNulIl'ftdA_tua_4Mer_
I
o
lnwn
75 soulh tronlage road
vall, colorado 8i657
(3rr3) 476-7000
June 3, 1983
Roger Booker
Baldwin & Associates
1000 S. Frontage Rd.
Vai] , C0 81657
Re: Zimmerman Remode'l
Dear Roger:
0n ,Iune I, 1983, the Design Review Board approved the
remode'l as pnesented. Pubfic works approval needs to
before a bui'lding permit is issued.
Si ncerely,
.nt
'?e?4*Jfm Sayre
Town P'lanner
JS/bb
Zimmerman
be obtained
Joseph D. Zimmerman
5335 S. Dentwood Drioe
Dallas, Texas 752n
June 3, 1983
!lr. Bi I I Andrews, Town Engineer
Town of Vai'l
Box 100
Vai 1 , Col orado 81658
Dear Mr. Andrews:
It is my intention to construct a retaining wall on thisproperty, a portjon of whi ch may encroach on the town'sstreet right-of-way. I understand and accept full'l iab'i1ity for any damage to the wa'l I that may occur as aresult of the town's performance of thejr road
maintenance, snot.t-plow'i ng or other municipal functionsthat affect the road right-of-way.
Further, I understand that varjous util ity compan'ies mayrequire access to their ut'i lity'l ines and thatmodification or damage to the retaining wal l may resultfrom their actions. I accept fu11 responsibility for thecost of the repairs necessary to the wa'l 'l 'i n thi s event.
I shal l not attempt to seek any damage awards from the
town or the uti I j ti es compani es havi ng servi ces I ocated j nthe right-of-way for any damage to the retaining wa'll that
may result from the performance of their respons'ibilities.
Very truly yours,
d \- 1S,"^-^- -^-'."^'
J. D. Zimmerman
JDZlsbw
Project Application
(r"!--'
owner, Address and Phone: JOE t OlW,'-'nZrq ?,rlne*m4l)
o htq]
Architect, Address and Phone:
,',li):, :; F,h t--l ,{,1C /t' l,/J/(r, ,,'{ ry' f,^ 4/{ 44t13
Legal Descriptiontnt fAtT , atocx 4 , riting l/ t/ '/5t , zon.pelJZ-
Comments:
Design Review Board
o^t" /'Juue / 7E?
DISAPPROVAL
.t t ._ r
-' Cl
Summary:
APPROVAL
E statt Approval
Qnrnrr*,Nc clEgr-ulI
'r/^. 1a4,c > C+.s'c*7
' .'
Subdivi s ion
Lot
Bl ock
Fil in9 t
(Acceptablc) (llot AccePtable)
,.4-7 *on t-ecee' or neeat*g
_/
l. Submittal ltems
(if applicable)
--
(A) Topo Map
(B) Site P'lan
(c) utilitv Plan
(D) Title RePort(ri sruaiuision Agreement
2. Enqineering Requirements
Source of Ut'!lities
Electri c
Gas
Ser.ter
I'la^r-er
Tel epl;crie
3.
:
(A
(B
(c
(D
(r
(F
u.
T.V.
4. Con:;nents :4oreevre>Z:::
Approved:
Di sapproved:
Eil I Arrd:-c:ts
a I,/-, , Ia L,,/
trf I l, I lY 1,0(:A't' loN vlil{ I lr l(i^'f | 0N
be nain trunk
the f^ol lowing
lines or ProPosedut.ili.ties for the
Date
!{ountai.n Bel l
Hes,t€s SlePc €es
Public Service ConPanY
Holy Cross Electric Assoc.
Vail Cable T.V.
Upper Eagle ValleY Water
and Sanitation District
5=L*7
NOTE: These verifications do not relieve the contractor of his
responsibility to obtain a stleet cut pernit from the
Town of Vail, Departnent of Public Works and to obtain
utility locations before digging in any public ri'ght-
of-way or easement in the Toun of Vail' A building pernit
is not a street cut permit. A street cut Pertnit nust be
,*t
This forn is to verify service availablity and location'
This should be used in conjwrction with preparing your
utility plan and scheduling lnstallations.
obtained separatelY.
1'' qo, n"tit: 't'rlLia' 7?e/e4 '
,slat t/a deaP ,c-*x7a,c9611 '
suBD Iv I s I oN-lX\il, -'f 9i|dL9--4/DJ44-.
JOB NAME
BLocK rL-FItINc V.V. llt -
The location of utilities, whether they
lines, nust be approved and verified by
accompanying site plan.
4No€L Da'-
e;- /o-83*zas
,-ld-tr2
STro"f */ee-'f,ot s/-,irf bn
=l
:1.-l
rl
5"*,
ExtqTNq
'oNPlT\oN5o( Ttl?
?RD?C'W
Zft4yl9KMAFlRWOOEL ROJWT
otJtT 1^, VAIL TKAILS AIN-ETA ?Azf o( btn(X4, V.V.lu
A?Rru 1qg1
\----i-'F ---LlSl 0|ln leR lArs
Ttre fol loning infornatjon is rcqrrircd for submjttal by
Doard bcfore a final approval carr bc given:
A. BUlLN'NG I'Tq,TERI.A.LS
Roof
Siding
0ther lfall trlaterials
.w00Q
thc appljc.rnt to thc Dcsign Rcvicw
Color
' D'111;
|'l(()ir ct-.?,Myg&Yt -gL"ti* (.lNtr L,-!ALr-}.l',e,
' tr4ruove4EJr
4lfr4n
LAlJOsna.U6
T)'pe o_f lfut_crial
5TA4O _ UerE o mfizu eugnt)o
ll/092-:-/d aqrlae nak 6ZEfFasc ia
Soffi t s
lVindor.rs
l{indow Tlin
Doors
Door Trin
l{aad or Deck Rails
Flues
Flashj ngs
Ch inn ev s
Trash Encl osures
Grccrhotrs es
Olher
'W|OP _ _ oaa(.&.Ef .2, qnrar Arsrrio
ltler^t - pngr &cy pfge_kprLqu
Conmon Ntme 0uantj ty Sl zeJps'
l,eJs'Qoortm SPIU4-_
HorA aF46 ___
auAE//()6 AtPd_
B. LANDSCAPING
Name of Designer:
Phone :
PLANT MATERIALS
TREES
Bgtanical Name
fl6€o n)De^19
MALUS HaPA
eeluJSEautptzg
2
t_
I
!k"c
x"a
t4h0t:4lp1frrnEqt
PA PfttEloctsstg O u i 4) L-Fou* AW.tFnFnDf
5!nuo6cotav)45s4
ENCLcTUt^f_p nl{
wdar'' aaSe
ful
la- i
tJo, t-
ld,at
4o. f,
aL_uz
extsfltJa
. ilope.
6lHRo99
864 wooostl
, 'GR0tllT)
$0vtRs
EED
stw,//I,.-,-r,r^,&- /u nrc . ae
I
A sQ.''n'l
l, 1
tt',1',;,,5 __k_ ..
?5
4o --
SQUARE FOOTAGE / OO
st TYPE sQuARE F0OTAGE A5 Ktd.D
,b ?E6WD
lrv# Orsrgs$s)
BY CUNT,
TYPE OF
IRRIGATION
TYPE OR METHOD
OF EROSION CONTROL
t-
C. Other Landscape Features (retalning wal'ls, fences, swimm'lng pools, etc.) Pleas es
/
pecl fy.
t 'uha h/ol co/ar /lrtan d(
r'f"o
Joce4h D. Zimmctmsn
5335 S. Dentwood Dilw
Dallas, Texac 7S2xJ
Aprll 18, 1983
l{r. John S. Curry, SecretaryVail Tra'lls Condomlnlun Assoclatlon
12343 E. Arkansas Pl.
Aurora, Colorado 81657
Dear John:
I have recelved your comments regardlng
condomln'lum. I apprecl ate your agreementplans and I have no obJectlon to the two
have requested. lle wl I I change the pl ans
degree cutback on the east end of the deck
the permanent barbeque'lnstallatlon.
Thanks for the tlmely response.
Regards,
the plans for myw'lth the remodel
changes that youto ref I ect a 45
and wlll delete
Z lmmernan
JDZ/sbp
l,
j
i
I
t
I
;
i
VAI L TRAILS CHALET CONDOI'II N I U]'I ASSOC I AT ION
11,1t:.i4;5 [iast Ar ]r an s a:i Place
Ilutr- ur a . Eol r:r'adr:r t:rl()(ll2
APr-il 1Jt 1t7f):5
Pi ercep Baldwin and Associates
1t)OO Siouth Fr-ontaqe Road West
Vai l. Coloradn 81657
Attrr r Hoger HooJler fler tjnit 1.' Zi mmermart
Vait TraiIs tlha.tet
I wish to advi sta yor,r the Vail Tr':r j. Ls Chalet condominium
Ar;sictci ettion Board Of l"lanagers helcl' a lipeci nl Meetiflg on Apri I 1l t
to c:onsi cler', amotlcl other thlngs,, ycll.lr reqrresL for conciiderati on
of the. , iirpr'overnent s t(:) be tnacle {or- the above menti one'd
conclominium.
Ttre Ecrarci ,vielwerl t$e :irnpr-ovements favornbly and feel that f4r-
Zimmermarr's e{{r:r'ts wi}I r-esul t irr a very I. i'rablF unit' 'fhe Board
has requerste+d ? charrgers which I feel ar'cn l-elativelly minor sg not
.jtsparfl:ieti tfre va.lure,'of tlrrl r-r1j.ts nelit to Ltnit #1 to tftt-" East
The:ie changes which we f eell rtECeEisitrt c1r"E!
l..Tocutt.ttreend'ofthedec[':ontheEaEtbackata43
. cJc?qr-e,e anq;1. e {rorn 'ttrel "wing wal l. " (sthcJwn in greerr ) . This' , int r t m(,rtl t:r- Iess retain thr: view {rorn Lhe b{:rdrt:.rm
wi ndowrs ancl +r j. I I help to reL,i.\irr the privacy irr the. berdrooms thdy now have. Thig curt bact,; p*,rtains to both
. Llre ga-rderrr level ancl the f irgt {irst {Iocrr'
3. If a penmaqelrt bar'-h*qr-re ig tcr be des:i.red, it wiII have
to be I ocat-e nn the We::t I /2 at the dercl< area' The
. :i rrterrt o{ .th i 13 i s tcr keepr ' any stnr:ll e' ;,rway "f rom the bedrootn
. wi ircJows o{ t fre nei qhbor i trq r'trri t*i.
Dear Mr"Boolier,
Ont::r,r ar;a:in. trrsidr:l {:r-c}tn thtr' '"1 reqLtegtli
ahove-. v:l t*we*cJ f avor-abIy {:he remodelinq llr
{ clr ch anqrr=i ment-i oned
Zi. mmer-man dellii re5.
fr l. rnase do nclt h.esi t at, e
IFvenrnQsfl
I + yOtl hlllvr.il
tC] (I on t a(:1:
ilrry q L.rfir!${:: j,orl13 reOiertl:inr.J Llti.ti ,
mcr at- (.il(..):;) 7:i5-C)67? rJrtring 't:he
Trul
I,' "' tl ,.,''" Ir/Afrt/lrV
,. ul
l,"t
t, 'l'
Member s r Septenber 17, t98?
osed pleaee {ind your copy' of the {alI billing of the com,nonlimited Eq1mmon agseggment {or yoLlr r_rnlt in Vail, Colorado.
'. 'As menti oned in the last notice our primary push this rurnmer was' electrical . This has been conrpl eterl . that i"'l." havp brought the' 'Flectrical gervice {rom the trans{ormer to the bulrding and.,. lnclurding the electrrcal meter-s lrp to code. There waE no work, -d.Qne f rom the el ectri cal meters r nto the Llnt. ts aE thi s i s. 'con=-i dered to be personal property and any def i ci enci es'apparently do not justrfy the association getting involved. Thisdocs vary from urnit to unit. In addition to this we did install{Jrrorescent .li.$hts in aII furnace roorrs, uther than this there
....,??re no Pro jectg.
This *a]1 ac.tivities will i'nclude. b.reicaliy, that which were notcompleted this sLrmmer. These include finishing the planter in
{ roni. of units ? and 3,; furnaqes in the comrnon furnace rooms wiII' .bF.cle'aned, ad jursted and oileu; metal flashing will be installed'. orr'the edge cJ.f the 6oof; and the trirn will be painted.
One i tem of. -general
September ?-f,', 19ts?, a
"...'alI {irst floor'#.Igo4 . nnt r. s wh i ch are
Those lrnits which are
wi ndows.""'
i nterest r at the Sopeci al lleeti ng onpolicy regarding bay wi ndows was developed.nnitE can have bay windows and the recondnot canti -levered out can have bay windows.alreFdy canti -Ievered out can not have bay
. It has become vefy rnurch apparent to the board ofpro{essronal manageinent is becoming necessary. At...' are considering some form of limited management to... '..bper.ations. Un fortunatty this will have an impact
managers th at
this time h,eassiSt in the
on ez Pen secJ.
I have y6r_rrlasically I anr
r ernt t-anceg aE 500n
brol(e. so wi th thi s i rr mi nd mayas possi bI e.
ohn S Cr-i
Secr et ar
Applicatior, o.f*-, 1e83 --
,-/r/t'
This procedure is required for any project reque.sting a Variance.
The application will not be accepted until all information is submitted.
NAl,tE OF APPLICAI{T l,Ir. & l,trs. J. D. Z
ADDRESS 5335 S. Dentvood Drive, Dallas. Texas 75220 PHONE(z14)ge8-toet
B.NAI,IE OF APPLICANT I S REPRESENTATIVE Baldwin Assoclateq Afqhitects. Inc .
ADDRESS 1000 South Frontage Road, iJest Va11, CoLorado 8l65PIrONFI (303)475-4433
c.AUTHORIZATION O!' PROPERTY OM{EP.
SIGNATURE
ADDRESS 5335 Dentwood Drive, Dallas TX 7 5220 PHONE(2r4) 358-1961
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL
ADDRESS Unit.l, Vail Trails Chalet
l3
APPLICATION FORM IIOR A VARIANCE
I.
A.
D.
I
\t"n) or[i' A'
*"u^,*t
.1f
LEGAI DESCRIPTION lot Part block 4 Fi1in9 lst
E. FEE. $100.00 plus an anount.equal to the then current first-class
rate for each property ovmer to be notified herewrder.
F. A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to
subject Property and their addresses.
Pos t a8e
the
PIIiEl' lALDWll{
T AIEGIATE3, INC.
YAILr GELo.
OATS
4-4-!A Verl.ance - C1lcnt 82?2- Zlurcruag - "
3taPLOYEa-
ttat0Dliolr!
r.. * ++-..*''\
frrr3c.t;:i-.
.' r :,.
n l.tty'
I
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEl'4ORANDUM
Pl anning and Environmenta'l Commission
Commun i ty Devel opment Department
May 5, 1983
SUBJECT: A request for variances in. order
a bay win{ow, add an airlcjck entry. and qqnsg!$__q-setbacT-f6n a part of B'lock 4. Vail Villaqe First Fpart of Brocm, nar't villaG FiisTTi'ling (vai]
Applicants: Mr. and Mrs. J.Dr Zimmerman
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicants request the following variances (see attached site plan):
l. A variance to a'llow an air lock entry to be constructed a distance of five feet
from the front property line rather than the required 20 feet. Thus, a'l 5 foot
setback variance is requested for the air lock construction.
2, A variance to al'l ow an enlargement of an existing balcony on the West elevation
over the proposed air lock entry. The enlargement on the southern end of the
balcony wou'ld be located a distance of four feet from the property'l ine. The
enlargement on the north end of the balcony would be located a distance of
4-1 /2 feet from the property 1ine. For this balcony enlargement, variances of1l feet and ll-l /2 feet are required since balconjes are allowed only to project
five feet into the requ'ired setback.
3. A variance to a'l 'low a five foot setback encroachment for an addition of a bay
window on the north side of the structure. Bay windows are allowed to encroach
three feet into the required setback. The request is for an eight foot encroach-
ment, thus the five foot variance request. The zoning ordinance also only al'l owsthis three foot encroachment provided that the total area of the projection does
not exceed more than one-tenth the area of the wall surface from which it projects
or extends. The requested bay window projection amounts to approximately 29%of the area of the north wall. A variance from this requirement is also requested.
4. A variance to allow the add'ition of a deck and stairway to be located within
four feet of the west property line. This constructjon would require a sixfoot setback variance since decks and stairways may project halfway or ten feetinto the required setback, and these are proposed to project l6 feet into the
setbac k .
The variances are requested to allow the owners of Unit'l at the Vail Trails Chalet to
remodel the existing structure. The structure is currently non-confonning in relationto setback requirements as noted on the sjte plan
Zimmerman 5|B3 -2-
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section .|8.62.060 of the Mulnicjpal Code, the
Communitv Development Department reconrnends aDoroval of reouested variance #l and
Aen]aTn? requ nqEmrs.-
Consideration of Factors
The relationship of the reguested variance to other existing or potential uses and
structures in the vicinity.
Since the requested variances a'l 'l are adjacent to either stream tract or road right-
of-way, there wou'l d be no significant negative impacts upon other uses or structures
wjthin the vicinity.
The d ree to which re]ief from the strict or 'literal i nte reta t i on and enforcement0tased requl at'ion s necessa to ac ieve com IV AN uniformity o
treatment amon e vlctn or to atta s tit e withoutgrqnt of specia ege.
F IN DINGS:
The ?l_anning ald Environmental Commission shall nrake the followino findings before
grantrng a varrance:
- That the granting of the variance wi1 I not constitute a grant of special privilegeF inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
y That the granting of the variance wjll not be detrimental to the pub'l ic health, safety,o or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements'jn the vicinity.
The staff is recomme.nlj1S anproval of the request_for the airlock entry for the zoning code
encouragestheuse of th'i s type of entry, and sjmilar requests have been granted in
the past. The remaining variances would constitute the grant of a special privilege.If the intent of the app'l 'icants is to upgrade the structure, they could certainly
achieve that objective without increasing the degree of nonconform'ity which already
exists.
The effect qf the requested l4tialce on light and air, distributjon of populatjon,
sa fe ty.
No impact,
Sucll ollher factors andcliteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed
Zimmerman uffr -3-
That the variance is vrarranted for one or more of the fo1 lowing reasons:
The strict or I itera'l interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulationc/ would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraord'inary circumstances or condjtions applicable to
the site of the variance that do not apply genera'l 'ly to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict or litera'l interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
1 would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
6 in the same district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS :
The Con'munity Development Department staff recommends approval of the request for
the air lock entry, as it is an objectjve of the zoning code to promote the use of
this type of entry. It wou'ld be difficult for the appi'icant to construct this entry
without encroaching upon a setback.
The staff recormends denial of requested varjances for the bay window construction,
ba'lcony enlargement and deck and stairway add'ition. It is our position that improvements
to the structure can be made wjthjn the setbacks required by the zon'ing ordinance.
The zoning code specifically states that non-conforming structures may be enlargedonly provided that the enlargement ful1y conforms with setbacks. In this case,
the enlargement does not comply with the required setbacks,. and the granting of
the variances would constitute a specia'l privi'lege.
The Town is allowing the applicant to upgrade the portion of the deck which now
encroaches onto Town of Vail proDertv and tota'l lv covers the setback area on the
west side of the structure, decks, eic. The str-ucture is cumently non-conforming
in relation to setback requirenents as noted on the site p1an, as wel 1 as encroaching
upon Town of Vail propertY.
pi@rc@. boldwin crnd crssocio[es, inc.
orchitocture . plonning
4 April 1983
SUB}fITTAL DATA FOR VARIANCE REQUEST TO TIIE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
I'NIT 1, VAIL TRAILS CHA1ET
A PART OF BLOCK 4, VAIL VILI,AGE FIRST FILING
NATURE OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The purpose of this request for a variance Ls to obtain approval to
perform minor exterior brillding alterations and lirnited site lmprove-
ments not currently alLowed by a strict or literal interpretatlon of
existlng ordlnances. The exterl-or building alterations conslst of:
a) addltlon of a bay window on the North elevation
b) addltlon of an airlock entry on the West elevation
c) a mininal enl-argement of an existing balcony on the West
elevation to form a roof over th6 proposed airl-ock entry
as well as lmproving the vlsual proportions of Ehe balcony/
alrlock arrangenent .
d) a relocation and subsequent enclosure of the rna in electrical
servLce for the complex.
The site improvements addressed by thls varLance request are:
a) removal of an exLsting wooden fence and its subsequent replace-
ment by a stone planter and wall.
b) the construction of a portlon of a deck and stalr at the north-
west corner of Ehe buildlng.
REGI.'LATIONS INVOLVED
-Adilitlon of bay window: T.o.v. ordinances 18.30.050 setbacks; 18.58.080
Bay windows
-Balcony enlargement: T.O.V. ordlnances f8.58.060 Balconies, Decks and
Stairways Above Ground
-Electrical Service Enclosure: T.O.V. Ordinances 18.58.020(c) Fences,
lledges, I,lalls and Screenlng; 1B.58.300 Setback from l{atcrcourse
-Deck ar NorEh Elevatlon: T.O.V. Ordinances 18.30.060 Secbacks; 18.58.050
Porches, Steps, and Decks, 18.58.060 Balconies, Decks and Stairways Above
Ground
-Pl-anter and !,1a11: T.O.V. Ordinances 18.58.020 Fences, Iledges, Walls
and Screenlng; I8.64 Nonconforming S-ites, Uses, Structurcs and Slte
Improvements; 18.64.050 sLmcrurcls and Slte Improvcmcnts
-Alrlock: T.o.V. Ordlnance 18.04.130(2e) Floor Arca, clil'A
'1000 south frontoga rood LU@st . voil, colorodo 81657 n3/476-4433
-2-
DISCUSSION AND JUSTIFICATION
FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
Upon adoption of Ehe ordinances relatinl; Co setbacks, sevcral facll-ities
existed that did not correspond to the th!..oretlca1 seEback distances
speci.f ied ln the newly adopted ord inanc es--thereby creating nonconform-
1ng structures.
Setback, as defined by Tovrn Ordinance 18.04'300r means the distance
from a l-ot or slte 1ine, creek, or stream measured horlzontally to a
line or locatlon wlthin Ehe lot or slte which establlshes the pernltted
location of uses, structures, or bui1dings on the slte.
The purpose of a setback is to lnsure a mininum amount of space between
structures on adjacent propertles, to allow for alr circulation, the
introductlon of llght, to provide for a reduction of flte-spread
charact erlstics , to provide for adequaEe view corridors and a multltude
of other considerations. There exists several conditions where the
intent of a seEback requirement is achieved without a literal appllca-
tion of theoretical setback requlrements. These are the cases where
a property has ]-and adjacent to it that i.s not suitable for constiuction.
Where these pre-existing, nonconforming cases exlst and where the
effectlve inteflt of a setback ls achleved wj.thout a literal interPre-
tatlon of the ordinance, lt seems reasonable to al1ow the existing
distance between the property llne and the face of the structure to
become the 'rallowed" setback and to a1low for the legally established
encroachment s ioto the setback. Additionally, in a pre-existing sltua-
tlon where the relationship between locations of the lrnposed (theoretical)
setbacks and the exlsting structures ls knor'rn, the setback should relate
to the face of the strucEure for which the setback was lnEended. In
other words, the addition of an architectural element to the exterlor
of a nonconforming structure shoul-d be allowed provided the new element
does not generate adverse or lllegaL physical- conditions, nor add gross
resldential- floor area, nor add net floor area to the exlstlng develop-
nent. Such an addition should be evaluated with respect to the "allowed"
setback and not the setback established by a strict interpretation of
exlsting ordinances. Each application should be judged in a wholistlc
manner with evaluation criteria based on the speclal clrcumsEances, the
exl-sting condltions for that particular appllcatLon, and the potential
irnpact of the proposed alterations on the existing bul1t and natural
environment .
As it relates to exlsting, nonconforml-ng facilLtles, the definitions
for front, rear and side serbacks (ord, 18.04.330, 18.04.340, 18.04.350)
should be lnterpreted in a realistic and stralghtforward nanner. As an
exampl-e- when evaluating a proposed nodification for the easc side of
an exlstlng facllity, then the properEy line/setback 1lne for Ehe north
and south sldes of the facility should have little or no influence on
the evaluatlon of the modifications proposed for the east side of the
facility. Thls interpretation would be sirnilar to the Uniform Bulldlng
Code (IIBC) method of evaluating dlsEances as 1t relates to proPerty
lines and the fire reslstance ratlng and protection of opcnings ln the
exterlor wa11s of building (refer to LIBC, 1982 edltton' section 504 (b):
"...shall be measured at rlght angles from the property line. The above
provisions shall noc apply to wal1s aE right angles to tlle property llne.")
-3-
As currently interpreted by the Planning Department staff, Llre set-
back for the north or south slde has a signlficant beari'ng on what
al-Eeratlons would be allowed on che east or west side'
The applicantts prijnary interest for the remodel-ing of unic 1 is to
add a Lay wlndow on the North Elevation. Tor,rn ordl-nance 18.58.080
allows bay wlndows to project three feet or less inEo the setback area.
The proposed bay window proj ecEs approximately two feeE f rorn the north
face of the bulldlng and ls wiEhin the North setback. The proposed
bay window does fall within the l^'estern setback. However, by reasonlng
ani Justiftcatlon presented earller ln this document, the bay window
should be allowed.
ordlnance 18.58.080 also requires that the total of bay windows and
similar features must not exceed ten Percent of the wa11 .surface from
whlch they project or extend. This nethoC of restrictingarea should not
be considlrla vafid in evaluating this project (or similar projects).
The effect of adding a bay wl-ndo\r on one Portion of a building should
be judged by the design review board for its design rnerit and not by
"o*" *"thr"tical equation. As an example, lf a building exlsts (or ls
proposed) with a ti11 ..". of 10,000 square feet and has no. other
projections, then orre bay window with an area of up to 11000 square
ieet could be added at any point on the wall as long as lt was less than
three feet deep. This interpretaElon may sound absurd, but is does
meet the stated Lntent of the ordlnances. In the case of a condomlnium
one would assume that the question ls raised as to.how to calculate the
ten percent. Is iE based on onl-y the area of the wal1 conEiguous to
the interior unit, or is it calculated based on the entire wal-l of the
builcling? A real estate lnterpretation advl-ses that the exterior sur-
face of the exterior wall is a conunon e1,ement, owned by al-1 nrenbers of
the condominlum. This then is t,he interPretatl-on we have used Ln evaluat-
ing the bay window area proposed for Unit 1. With thls method the bay
window area accounts for an additlonal four percent of the wal1 area'
Had the method been used whereby onl-y the wall area contiguous to unit
I were used, then the area increase wouLd be approximately eighteen
percent. These figures are based on cantilevered areas at upper levels
Lelng consldered "bay windows and similar features". what constltutes
"wal1 area" and "simi-lar featuresl is not clearly addressed by the
ordinance. Agaln thls polnts out that the ordinances, when l^Tritten'
could not address each specific building or condition and thaE deslgn
(or design changes) should not (and cannot) be evaluated soley by a
writt.en formula or definitlon. A wholistic review is the best evalua-
tion that can be provided ln the areas where there is no "black and
r^rhlte solut ion.
There have been lnstances where landscaping elements have been "donated"
to the Tor,rn by the private secEor...and lnstances where t.he Town required
that the private developer contrlbuLe to proposed "nini-i mprovement
dl-stricts;' for irnprovement s to or on Tovm property' It is obvlous that
if the Tor.rn ls the primary beneficiary to proposed prlvate development
on publ-ic 1-and, then the proposed development is reviewed with a favor-
able attitude. This applicant wishes to replace, at .hls expenser an
unsightly landscape feaEure (a wooden fence) lhat currently exlsts on
Tovnr-properEy, wlth a more durable feature (a mountain stone planter
-4-
and wa11) . This r; j te lmprovement r'' j I 1 ol,vlously benef j-t nof only the
Owner, but iE will bcnef lt the Torvn us r*e11. Thls sitt'- ii:,1't evst.ta
wlll be a minirnal encroactunent onLo Town property and it should provlde
addltlonal vlsual and accoustlcal priv;rcy for the Owners.
To generate a sile plan that ls more visr:ally cohesive and Eo enhance
on-slte clrculation, a design has been generated that physically links
the exlscinB (and Eo-be-refurblshed ) enEry courtyard on the west with
the nelt elevated deck on the north. The llnklng element of the deslgn,
a portlon of the proposed elevated deck measuring approximately elght
feet by elght feet at the northhrest corner of the building, lles wlthln
the seEback area as strlctly interpreted. The design solution pre-
sented appears to be the best solqtlon for the conditi-on, Hopefully,
the variance review wL1l acknowledge this and alLow for iEs construction.
SIJMMARY:
Thls structure vras ln exlstance even before the ordinance. For what-
ever reason, the building was placed unusual-ly cLose to the rlght-of-
way/property line on the LTestern end of the slte. Most of the "gray
areas" being studied 1n thls review are the result of eonfllcts between
the building locacion roadbed/right-of-way l-ocatJ.on, deflnitlons and
the subsequent interpretation by various people of ordinances r,rhl-ch
Ltere written and adopted without fu1l consideration of all existing
and future developmenr.s and the minute, very specific situations
generated for each of those developmenEs,
The proposed urodiflcations w111 enhance the site and the bulldings;
they will- furprove the vlsual- impact of the area tor the Town and
improve the value of the rel-ated real estate. This is all accourpJ-ished
with no negative aspects fron the vlewpolnt of pedestrian or vehlcular
flow--l-ndeed Lt accually provides for safer pedestrian activity by
increasing the avallabLe area for them between the roadbed and the
planter. The Owner has agreed to provide a release of llabllity for
damage to development he may generate on Town property.
The proposed modifications make sense...at least from all vLewpoints
other than strict interpretation of the ordinances--ordinances which,
ln thls case, are not totally applicable.
In the past, the Town has encouraged privately flnanced lmprovements
and developments that are sensible and well deslgned. Approval of this
request for a variance will a11or^r that same healtshy attitude to con-
t inue.
8.A.A. rc.1 r5,1f t:
cot J.ZlaH€rrQArr
cai f,o.V
VA I L TRAI LS trHALET CONDT]T",I IN IUI'| ASSiT]C I AT I ON
l ?34;{ East Arkangag FIace
Aurora. Col orarJo 8(l0l1l
Apri I 1?n 19As
Assoc:i at es
Road We:it
Vail TraiIs Clralet
I w j. cfr to advi ser yoLt the Vail Trtri lrii ChaIe"t Corrdominiutm
Associatic:n Board of: l"lanaqer$ held a Special Pleetirlg on April ll t
to congidelr-, among oL.l-rer- tlri rrc;sn yoLrr reqr.telgt {or con:iider-ation
of tfre improvements to be rnade for the ab(tve mentioned
corrdomi ni urm .
Ther Foar"d viewed the improvements f avorahl. y arrd feel thatt Mr
Zirnrnerman's e"f f ortE will resr-rIt in a very livaLrle Lrnit. 'fhe Etoard
hari requrersted 2 changee which I {:eel are relaIively minor so not
jepardire the val Lre of tlre units next to urni t #l to the East.
Theee changes which we f eerl necesliary are:
1. To curt the end o+ the declt on the East back at a 45
degr-ee angl. e f rom the "wing wall " (:ihown in green). This
will mcrre or legg retain the view {rom the bedroom
wi ncjows and will help to rptain the privacy in the
tredrooms they rrow have. -['hi s cr-tt batck pertai ns to both
the garden level and the first first floor.
If a permanent bar*b-que is to be desiredn it wiII have
to br* locate on the West 1/2 ai the deck area. The
irrtent of thi c5 is to keep any Emo|{e away +rom the bedroom
wi rrdows of the nei ghbor i ng ltni ts.
Orrcer aqain, agide from the ? reqLrrtsts +or changes menti oned
above, vierwed f avor.rtrly the rernodel ing l4r. I:i mmerman de:lires.
If yot-t have any questi c:nEi regarding thit r Pl easel do not hegitate
to contact me at (303) 753*A672 dr-rrirrg the evenings.
F'i erce, Hal dwi rr arrd
l OCrtl.r Sourth Fr r:n t ager
Vail. (loIr:r'ado t|1657
Attn: Roge+r Eool:er
Dear Mr. Bool:€r r
*'- Re; uni L I. Zi mmerrnarr
W
Pl anning and Environmental Commjssion
May 9, 1983
1:00 pm
2:00 pm
't.
2.
Site Visits
Publ ic Hearing
Approval of the minutes of the meeting of April 25'
A request for setback variances and for a variance to section
18.64.050, improvements to nonconforming structures i!,9t9:t-!9
en1 arge an existing balconyi construct-a bay window' ado.an alr
iock Entry, and to constru-ci a stone.planter,._deck and stairryay
i"-ti"ii i",'Vair: riaiil Ctit"t. Applitants: Mr. & Mrs.J.D. Zimmerman
Request for a conditional use permit-in a Medium Density-Mu1ti-
Fiiliiv ron. distrjct to construct a facililv lot the Eagle Countv
EmergLncy Services at the Vail Val'l ey Medical Center'
nppfiii.i, Eagle County Emergency Servjces Hosp'ita1 District
Request for rezoning from Residentjal Primary/Secondary.,(R,P/S)
;;'Hi;h Density mutii-rimitV tHoMil on Lot l, Slock.5, Vail Intermountain
i;;;it.;a the exisiing itti,.ir"" to four gmplovee housing units'
Also requested is u-piifing variance. Appl icants: Char'les 0gi1by
and Tim Garton
?
4.
5. A request to amend chapter 18.54, Design Review, of the Va'i1 Municipal
Code- Applicant: Town of Vail
MEMORANDUM
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FR0M: CommunityDevelopment Department
DATE: May 5, 1983
SUBJECT: A request for variances in order to enlarge an existing balcony, construct
a bay window, add an airlock entry, and construct a deck and-stairway within
setbircks on a part of Block 4, Vail Village First Fi'ling (Vai1 Trails Chalet).
Applicants: Mr. and Mrs. J.D. Zimmerman
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicants request the fo1 lowing variances (see attached site plan):
l. A variance to allow an air lock entry to be constructed a distance of five feet
from the front property line rather than the required 20 feet. Thus, a l5 foot
setback variance is requested for the air lock construction.
2, A variance to al1ow an en1 argenent of an existing balcony on the l,lest elevation
over the proposed air lock entry. The en'l argement on the southern end of the
balcony would be located a distance of four feet from the property line. The
enlargement on the north end of the balcony would be located a distance of
4-l/2 teet from the property 'l ine. For this balcony en'l argement, variances ofll feet and l'l-l /2 feet are required since balconies are allowed only to project
five feet into the required setback.
3. A variance to a1low a five foot setback encroachment for an addition of a bay
window on the north side of the structure. Bay windows are allowed to encroach
three feet into the required setback. The request is for an eight foot encroach-
ment, thus the five foot variance request. The zoning ordinance also on'ly allows
this three foot encroachment provided that the total area of the projection does
not exceed more than one-tenth the area of the wall surface from which it projects
or extends. The requested bay window projection amounts to approximately 29%of the area of the north wall. A variance from this requirement is also requested.
4. A variance to allow the addition of a deck and sta'irway to be located within
four feet of the west property 1ine. This construct'ion would require a sixfoot setback variance since decks and stairways may project halfway or ten feet
into the required setback, and these are proposed to project 16 feet into the
setback.
The varjances are requested to allow the owners of Unit'l at the Vail Trails Chalet to
remodel the existing structure. The structure is currently non-confonning in relationto setback requirements as noted on the site plan
zimmermaO 5/s/g3 -2-
CRITERiA AND FINDINGS
on review of Criteria and Findinqs. Section 18. 62.060 of the Municipa] Code the
ommunity Development artment' reconrnends a rova I o uested variance and
al of reouested var ances f oi I owinq factors :
Consideration of Factors
The relatjonshjp of the requested variance to other existing or potentia'l .uses and
structures in the vicinitv.
Since the requested variances all are adjacent to either stream tract or road right-
of-way, there would be no significant negative impacts upon other uses or structures
within the vic'inity.
The de to which rel ief from the strict or I iteral inte retation and enforcement
oTas ed requl ation '| s necessary to ac eve com tv an ormitv of
reatment amonq srtes ln e vlcln oat ect s title without
grant of special prjv'i lege.
F INDINGS:
The Planning and Environmental Commission sha'l 'l make the following fin
granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of specia'l priv'i1ege
inconsistent wjth the limjtat'ions on other properties classified'in the same district.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or t',,elfare, or materia'l ly injurjous to properties or'improvements in the vic'inity.
The staff is recommending approval of the reguest for the ajrlock entry for the zoning code
encouragestheuse of this type of entry, and simjlar requests have been granted in
the pasi, The remaining variances would constitute the grant of a specia'l priviiege.
If the 'intent of the app) icants is to upgrade the structure, they could certainly
achieve that objective without increasing the degree of nonconformity which already
exists
The effect of the requested variance on'liqht and qir, distributjgn,of popqlatjgrl,
lJties and util ities, and Public
sa fety.
No impact.
Such other factors and criteria as the commissign deems applicable to the proposed
variance.
Zimmermf 5/5/83 -3-
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
The strict or literal .interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulationwqy]d result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inionsistentwith the objectives of this tiile.
There.are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable tothe site of the variance that do not apply generally to other propei.ties in the
same zone.
The strict or 'literal-interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulationwould deprive the appl'icant of privileges enjoyed by the-ownei^s of otner"propertiesin the same district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS :
The Conmunity Development Department staff recorrnends approval of the request for
!|9 uj" lock entry, as it is-an objective of the zoning code to promote the use oftnis type 0f entry. It would be difficult for the applicant to construct this entrywithout encroaching upon a setback.
The staff recornnends denia'l .of requested variances for the bay window construction,balcony en1 argement and deck and dtairway addition. It is oui position it'at-i*p"ovementsto the structure can be made within the ietbacks required-by thi zonlng o"cinunt".
The zoning-code specifically states that non-conforming structures may be enlarged9.nly provided that the enlirgement fully conforms wii6 setbacrs. In this casethe enlargement does not compTy with the-requ.ired setricr<i, anJ-ir,"-f"i;iir;-;;the variances would constitute-a special privilege.-
The Town is allow'ing the..applicant to upgrade the portion of the deck which nowencroaches onto Town of Vai'l .property ani_totatty toveri the setback area on thewest side of the structure, decks, eic. The strirctuie is-CurieniTv"n6ir:ioiltoiiningin relation to setback requirements as noted on the site p1an, as ilell as ericroaciing
upon Tolrn of Vai'l property.
o
piarco. bolduin ond crssocicrtes, inc.
orchitaclure . plonning
4 April 1983
SUBMITTAL DATA FOR VARIANCE REQUEST TO TITE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
IJNIT I, VAIL TRAILS CHALET
A PART 0F BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE FIRST FILING
NATURE OF VARIAI{CE REQUESTED
The purpose of t.his request for a varlance is to obtain approval to
. perform mlnor exterior building alterations and limited sl-te lmprove-
. ments not currently allowed by a strlct or llteral l-nterpretatlon of
existing ordl-nances. The exterj.or building alteratlons conslst of:
a) addltion of a bay window on the North elevation
b) addltion of an airlock entry on the West elevatlon
c) a ninLmal enlargement of an existing balcony on the West
eLevation to form a roof over the proposed airlock entry
as weLl as lmproving the visual proportions of Ehe bal-cony/
aLrlock arrangement .
d) a relocation and subsequent enclosure of the main electrical
service for the complex.
The sLte improvement s addressed by this variance request are:
a) renoval of an existing wooden fence and its subsequent replace-
ment by a stone planter and wall.
b) the construction of a portion of a deck and stair at the north-
rrest corner of the building.
RXCIJLAT]ONS INVOLVED
-Additlon of bay window: T.O.V. Ordinances 18.30.050 Setbacks; 18.58.080
Bay windows
-Balcony enlargemenE: T.0.V. Ordinances 18.58.060 Balconies, Decks and
Stairways Above Ground
-Electrical Service Enclosure: T.0.V. Ordinances 18.53.020(c) Fences,
Hedges, I.Ialls and Screenlng; 18.58.300 SeEback from ilatercourse
-Deck at North Elevatlon: T.0.V. Ordinances 18.30.060 Setbacks; 18,58.050
Porches, SEeps, and Decks, 18.58:060 Balconies, Decks and Stairways Above
Ground
-Planter and WaIl: T.O.V. Ordinances 18.58.020 Fences, Hedges, Walls
and Screening; 18,64 Nonconforming Sites, Uses, SEructures and Slte
Irnprovements; 18.64.050 Structures and Site Improvements
-Airlock: T,O.V. Ordinance 18.04.130(2e) [loor Area, CRFA
1000 south frontog@ rood r.uest . voil. colorodo 81657 n3/476-4433
-2-
DISCUSSION AND JUSTIFICATION
FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
Upon adoption of the ordinances relating to setbacks, several facilities
exlsted that did not corresPond to the theoretl"cal setback dlstances
specified 1n the newLy adopted ord inances--thereby creaElng nonconform-
ing structures.
Setback, as defined by Town Ordinance 18.04.300r means Ehe dlstance
from a Lot or site line, creek, or stream measured horizontally to a
Llne or locatlon wlthln the lot or slte whlch establishes the Pernltted
location of uses, structures, or buildings on the site.
The purpose of a setback is to insure a mlnlmum amount of space between
structures on adjacent properties, to a11ow for aLr circulation' the
Lntroductlon of l-lght, to provide for a reductLon of fire-spread
characterist l-cs, to provide for adequate vLew corridors and a multitude
of other consideratlons. There exists several condLcions where the
intent of a setback requirement is achieved withouE a llteral appllca-
tlon of theoretlcal setback requirements. These are the cases where
a property has l-and adjacent to it that is not sultable for constiuctlon.
Where these pre-existlng, nonconforming cases exl-st and where the
effectlve intent of a setback is achieved wlthout a literal interPre-
tatlon of the ordinance, 1t seens reasonable to al1ow the exlsting
distance between the property llne and the face of the structure to
become the "a11owedt' setback and to allow for thelegally establlshed
eocroachments into the setback. Additionally, in a pre-exisEing situa-
tion where the relationship between locations of the inposed (theoretical)
setbacks and the existing structures ls knolm, the setback should relate
to the face of the structure for which the setback was intended. In
other words, the addl.tlon of an architectural element to the exterior
of a nonconforming structure should be allowed provlded the new elenent
does not generate adverse or lllegal phys j.ca1 conditions, nor add gross
residentlal floor area, nor add net floor area to the existing develop-
ment. Such an addLtion should be evaluated with resPect to the "allowed"
setback and not the setback established by a strlct interpretatlon of
existing ordinances. Each application should be judged in a wholistic
manner wlth eval-uat ion crlterl-a based on the special- clrcumstances, the
exlstlng condltions for chat particular applicatlon, and the potential
impact of the proposed alterations on the exlsting bullt and natural
eovironment.
As lt relates to exlstlng, nonconforming facllltles, the definitlons
for front, rear and sLde setbacks (ord. 18.04.330, 18.04.340, 18.04.350)
should be lnterpreted in a reallstic and stralghtforward nanner. As an
example- when evaluaEing a proposed modif l-cation for the east sl-de of
an exlsting facility, then the property line/setback line for the north
and south sldes of the facillty should have lictle or no influence on
the evaluation of the modiflcations proposed for the east side of the
facllity. Thls interpreEation would be simllar Eo the Uniform Building
Code (WC) method of evaluating dlstances as lE relales to property
lines and the fire resistance ratlng and protectlon of openings ln the
exterlor walls of building (refer to UBC, 1982 ediElon, section 504 (b):
t'...shall be measured ar right angles from the propercy line. The above
provlsions 5ha11 not apply Eo walls at righE angles Eo thc ProPerty linc. ")
-3-
As currently interpreted by the Planning Department staff, tlre set-
back for the north or souEh side has a signlficant bearing ou vrhat
alteraclons would be allowed on the east or $test sl-de.
The applicanE's prlmary interest for the remodeling of Unit I is to
add a bay window on the North Elevatlon. Town ordinance 18'58'080
allows bay windows to project three feet or less into the setback area.
The propoled bay windo$/ projects approximately two feet from the north
face of the buildlng and ls within the NorEh setback. The proposed
bay wlndow does fal-l within the western setback. However, by reasonlng
and Justification presented earlLer ln thls docurnent., the bay wlndow
should be allowed.
ordinance 18.58.080 also requires that the total of bay windows and
sinllar features must not exceed ten percent of the wa11 .surface from
whlch they project or extend. This.nethoc of:restricting area should not
be considlred val1d in eval-uatlng this project (or sirnilar projects).
The effect of adding a bay window on one portlon of a buildlng should
be judged by the deslgn revlew board for its design merit and not by
"o*" r"thr"tical equaiion. As an example, lf a building exlsts (or ls
proposed) with a wal1 area of 10,000 square feet and has no - other
projecttons, then one bay window wlth an area of up to 1'000 square
ieet could be added at any point on the wall as long as it was less than
three feet deep. This interpretation nay sound absurd, but is does
meet the stated lntent of the ordinances. In the case of a condomiolum
one would assume that the question is raised as to.how to calculale the
ten percent. Is lt based on only the area of the wal"1 contiguous to
the interlor'unit, or is it calculated based on the entire wall- of the
bullding? A real estate interpretation advises that the exterior sur-
face of the exterior wall is a common eiement, owned by all members of
the condomlnium. Thls then is the interpretatlon we have used ln evaluat-
ing the bay window area proposed for Unit 1. With this method the bay
wLndow area accounts for an additional four percent of the walL area.
Had the nnethod been used whereby only the wall area contiguous to unit
I were used, then the area increase rrould be approximatel-y eighteen
percent. These figures are based on cantilevered areas at uPper levels
belng considered 'tbay windows and slmllar features". what constitutes
ttwall area" and "similar features" is not clearly addressed by the
ordinance. Again this points out that the ordinances' vrhen nritten'
could no! address each specific bullding or condltion and tlraE deslgn
(or design changes) should not (and cannot) be evaluated soley by a
rr'ritten formula or deflnition. A wholistlc review ls the best evalua-
tion that can be provided in the areas where there 1s no "black and
white" so lut ion.
There have been lnstances where landscaplng elements have been ttdonated"
to the Town by the privaEe sector...and instances where the Town required
that the private developer contribute to proposed "mlni- improvement
districtsi' for improvemenE s to or on To.,m property. It is obvlous that
if the Tor^m is the prinary beneficiary to proposed private development
on public land, then the proposed development is revlewed wiEh a favor-
able attitude. This applicant wishes to replace, at :his expense' an
unslghtly landscape feature (a wooden fence) that currently exlsts on
Tor,m-property, with a more durable feature (a mountaln stone Planter
-4-
and wa11). This slte lmprovement will obvlously beneflt noE only the
Omer, but it will beneflt the Town as lrell. Thls site lmprovement
will be a minimal encroachment onto Tor^rn property and it should provlde
addltlonal vlsual and accoustlcal privacy for the Orrners.
To generate a slte plan that ls more visual.ly cohesive and to enhance
on-slte clrculatlon, a design has been generated that physically f. inks
the exlsting (and to-be-refurblshed ) entry courtyard on the west with
the nevr elevated deck on the Dorth. The J-inking element of Ehe design,
a portlon of the proposed elevated deck measuri.ng approximately elght
feet by eight feet at the northwest corner of the building, lles withln
the setback area as strictly interpreted. The design solution pre-
sented appears to be the best solutlon for the condLtlon. Hopefully,
the variance review w111 acknowledge this and allow for.its construction.
SIJMMARY:
This structure \ras l-n exlstance even before the ordlnance. For lrhat-
ever reason, the building was placed unusual-ly close to the rlght-of-
way/property J.l-ne on che western end of the site. Most of the ttgray
areas" being studled in this review are the result of confllcts between
the building location roadbed/rlght-of-way locatlon, deflnltions and
the subsequent interpretation by various people of ordlnances which
were written and adopted without full consideration of all existing
and future developments and E.he minute, very specific situations
generated for each of those developments.
The proposed modiflcations wil-l- enhance the site and the buildlngs;
they will improve che visual Lmpact of the area for the Toi^rn and
inprove the value of the related real estate. Thls is all acconpl-ished
wl-th no negative aspects from the viewpolnt of pedestrian or vehl-cu1ar
flow--indeed it actually provldes for safer pedestrian activity by
l-ncreaslng the available area for them between the roadbed and the
planter. The Owner has agreed to provide a release of 1labl1ity for
damage to development he may generate on Town property.
The proposed modlflcatl-ons make sense...at least fron all viewpolnts
other than strlct lnterpretation of t.he ord lnances--ordLnances whLchr'
1n this case, are not total-ly appllcab1e.
In the past, the Town has encouraged privately financed improvements
and developments that aresenslble and well designed. Approval of this
request for a varLance w111 allon that same healthy attitude Eo con-
t inue .
piorco. bolduin ond ossociotos, inc.
orchitoc[uro . plonning
4 Aprll 1983
SUBMITTAL DATA FOR VARIA],ICE REQUEST TO THE
PLAI'INING AND EWIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
IINrT I, VArL TMILS CHALET
A PART 0F BLOCK 4, VAIL VTLLAGE FrRST FTLTNG
NATURE OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The purpose of this request for a varlance Ls to obtaln approval to
perform minor exterior briil-iltng alteratlons and linited slte improve-
ments not. currently allowed by a strict or ll-teral Lnterpretation of
existlng ordinances. The exterlor bulldlng alterations consLst of:
a) additlon of a bay window on the North elevat lon
b) addttlon of an airlock entry on the West elevation
c) a nlninal enlargement of an existtng balcony on the I'lest
elevatlon to form a roof over the proposed alrlock entry
as well as lmproving the vlsual proportlons of the balcony/
alrlock arrangement.
d) a relocatlon and subsequent enclosure of the ma in electrical
service for the complex.
The site improvements addressed by thls variance request are:
a) removal of an exlsting wooden fence and its subsequent replace-
ment by a stone planter and walI.
b) the construction of a portlon of a deck and stair at the north-
west corner of the bulldlng.
REGT'LATIONS INVOLVED
-Additlon of bay wLndow: T.O.V, Ordinances 18.30.060 Setbacks; 18.58.080
Bay windows
-Balcony enlargement: T.O.V. Ordlnances f8.58.060 Balconl-es, Decks and
Stairways Above Ground
-ElectrLcal- Service Enclosure: T.O.V. ordLnances 18.58.020(c) Fences,
Hedges, WalLs and Screening; 18.58.300 Setback from Watercourse
-Deck at North Elevat l-on I T.O.V. Ordinances 18.30.060 Setbacks: 18.58.050
Porches, Steps, and Decks, 18.58.060 Balconies, Decks and Stalrways Above
Ground
-Planter and Wal-l-: T.0.V. Ordinances 18.58.020 Fences, Hedges, Wa11s
and Screenlng; 18.64 Nonconforming Sltes, Uses, Structures and Site
Improvements; 18.64.050 Structures and Sl-te Lmproveoents
-Alrlock: T.o.V. ordinance 18.04.130(2e) Floor Area, GRFA
1000 south frontog@ rood uast .voil, <olorodo 81657 n3/4764433
-2-
DISCUSSION AI..ID JUSTIFICATION
FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
Upon adoption of the ordlnances rel-at ing to setbacks, several facllitles
existed that dld not correspond to the theoret ical- setback dLstances
specified in the newly adopted ordlnances--thereby creatlng nonconform-
lng structures.
Setback, as defined by Tovrn Ordlnance 18.04.300, means the dLstance
from a l-ot or site line, creek, or stream measured horlzontally to a
line or locatlon withln the lot or slte whlch establl-shes the perml-tted
location of uses, structures, or bulldings on the site.
The purpose of a setback is to insure a mln imum amount of space betrdeen
structures on adjacent propertles, to al1ow for air cJ.rculatlon, the
introduct l-on of 1lght, to provide for a reduction of flre-spread
characterist ics, to provlde for adequate vlew corridors and a muLtltude
of other consideratLons. There exists several condltions where the
lntent of a setback requirernent ls achieved wlthout a lLteral appllca-
tlon of theoretical setback requirements. These are the cases where
a property has land adjacent to lt that is not sultabl-e for constfilctlon..
Where these pre-existing, nonconforming cases exist and where the
effective intent of a setback ls achieved wlthout a literal interpre-
tation of the ordlnance, 1t seems reasonabLe to allow the existing
distance between the property llne and the face of the structure to
become the "allowed" setback and to allow for the lega1-ly establlshed
encroachrnents into the setback. Additionally, in a pre-existing sltua-
tlon vhere the relationship between I-ocations of the inposed (theoretical)
setbacks and the existing structures ls known, the setback should relate
to the face of the strucEure for whl.ch the setback was lntended. In
other nords, the addltion of an architectural element to the exterior
of a nonconforning structure should be allowed provided the new element
does not generate adverse or il-l-egal physical conditLons, nor add gross
resldential fJ-oor area, nor add net floor area to the exl-st ing develop-
ment. Such an additlon shoul-d be evaluated with resPect to the "aLlowedt'
setback and noE the setback established by a strict l-nterPretat lon of
existing ordinances. Each appl-ication should be judged in a wholLstic
manner with erialuat lon crlteria based on the special circumstances, the
existing condltions for that particular appllcatlon, and the potentlal
lnpact of the proposed al-teratlons on the exlsting bullt and natural
environrnent.
As Lt relates to existLng, nonconformlng facllities, the definitions
for front, rear and slde setbacks (Ord. 18.04.330, 18.04.340, 18.04.350)
should be Lnterpreted ln a realtstlc and stralghtforward manner. As an
examp le- when evaluat lng a proposed nodificatlon for the east side of
an exlstLng facility, then the property ll-ne/setback l-lne for the north
and south sLdes of the facillty should have l-lttle or no lnfluence on
the eval-uatlon of the nodtflcations proposed for the east side of the
facl1ity. Thls interpretatlon would be slmllar to the UnLforn Building
Code (UBC) method of evaluating dlstances as lt relates to property
lines and the fire reslstance ratlng and protection of openings l"n the
exterior wa11s of bullding (refer to [iBC, 1982 editlon, section 504 (b):
'r...shal-l be meaeured at right angles from the property line. The above
provisions shalL not apply to wall-s at, right angles to the proPerty line.").
-3-
As currently interpreted by the Planning Department staff, the set-
back for the north or south sLde has a signlficant bearing on what
aLteratlons would be al-Lowed on the east or west side.
The applicantrs prfunary interest, for the remodeling of Unlt 1 ls to
adtl a bay window on the North ELevatlon. Town ordinance 18.58.080
al-l-ows bay windows to project three feet or less lnto the setback area.
The proposed bay window projects approximately tvo feet from the north
face of the buildlng and is within the North setback. The proposed
bay wlndow does fall within the western setback. Ilowever, by reasoning
and Justiflcatlon presented earlier ln this document, the bay window
should be alLowed.
Ordinance 18.58.080 also requJ-res that the total- of bay wLndous and
similar features must not exceed ten percent of the wal1 surface fron
whlch they project or extend. This.nethod of.restrioting area should not
be consldered valid ln evaluatl-ng this project (or similar projects).
The effect of adding a bay window on one portlon of a bull-dlng shouLd
be judged by the design review board for 1ts desLgn merit and not by
some mathmatical equatlon. As an example, lf a building exists (or is
proposed) nlth a wall area of 101000 square feet and has no - other
projectlons, then one bay window with an area of up to 1,000 square
feet could be added at aoy point on the wall as long as it v"as less than
three feet deep. Thls interpretation may sound absurd, but Ls does
meet the stated intent of the ordinances. In the case of a condomlnLum
one would assume that the questlon is raised as to how to caLcul-ate the
ten percent. Is it based on only the area of the wal-l contLguous to
the interior unit, or is it cal-culated based on the entire wall of the
building? A real estate interpretation advises that the exterior sur-
face of the exterl-or wa11 Ls a corunon element, owned by all- members of
the condominlun. Thls then is the interpretation we have used ln evaluat-
ing the bay window area proposed for Unit 1. Wlt.h this method the bay
window area accounts for an additlonal four percent of the wall area.
Had the method been used whereby onJ-y the wall area cont iguous to Unlt
I were used, then the area increase would be approximately eighteen
percent. These fI-gures are based on cantl-levered areas at upper leve1s
beI-ng consldered "bay wLndows and sLmllar features". What constl-tutes
"wall area" and 'rsimil-ar features'r ls not clearly addressed by the
ordinance. Agaln thls points out that the ordinances, when lrritten'
could not address each speciflc building or condlt lon and that design
(or deslgn changes) should not (and cannot) be evaluated soley by a
h'rltten formula or definition. A whoListlc revLew is the best evalua-
tion that can be provlded Ln the areas where there ls no rrbLack and
whltettsoLutlon.
There have been lnstances where landscaping el"ement s have been "donated"to the Town by the private sector...and instances where the f,own required
that the private deveLoper contrlbute to proposed "mini-Lmprovement
dlstrlcts" for improvements to or on tovnt property. It ls obvlous that
lf t.he Town is the prlmary beneficlary to proposed prlvate development
on pubLlc land, then the proposed development ls reviewed with a favor-
bble attitude. This applicant wlshes to replace, at ;:hls expense' an
unsightly landscape feature (a wooden fence) that currently exlsts on
Tom property, with a more durable feature (a mountain stone Pl-anter
-4-
and wall-). Thls sLte lmprovement !1111 obvlously beneflt not only the
Owner, but it wilL beneflt the Tosrn as well. Thl-s slte lmprovement
wil-l be a mLnLnal- encroachnent onto Tovrn property and it should provlde
additlonal v{sual- and accoustlcal privacy for the Owners.
To generate a site plan that ls more visuall-y cohesive and to enhance
on-sLte circulat ion, a design has been generated that physlcally links
the exl,stlng (and to-be-refurbtshed) entry courtyard on the west wLth
the new elevated deck on the north. The J.lnklng elenent of the design,
a portion of the proposed elevated deck measuring approxfuoately elght
feet by elght feet at the northlrest corner of the buil-ding, l-ies withln
the setback area as strlctly lnterpreted. The design solution pre-
sented appears to be the best solutlon for the condltlon. Ilopefully,
the variance revlew wilL acknowledge this and a1low for its construction.
SIJMMARY:
This structure rras ln exlstance even before the ordlnance. For what-
ever feason, the bulldlng was placed unusually cLose to the rlght-of-
way/property 1lne on the lrestern end of the site. I'{ost of the |tgray
areastt being studied ln this revlew are the result of conflicts between
the bullding locatlon roadbed/rlght-of-way location, deflnitlons and
the subsequent interpretation by varlous people of ordinances which
nere wrltteo and adopted without fulL conslderation of all exlsting
and future developments and the nlnute, very specific situations
generated for each of those developments.
The proposed nodlflcatlons wil-l enhance the sLte and the bulldlngs;
they wLJ-l improve the visual iupact of the area for the Town and
improve the value of the related real estate. Thls ls all acconplished
with no negatLve aspects from the vlewpoint of pedestrian or vehlcular
flow--lndeed Lt actually provides for safer pedestrian actlvlty by
Lncreasing the avail-able area for then between the roadbed and the
planter. The Owner has agreed to provlde a release of llability for
danage to developnent he may generate on Town property.
The proposed nodiflcatLons make senee...at least frorn aLl vLewpoints
other than strict interpretation of the ordinances--ordinances whLch,
ln this case, are not totally appllcable.
In the past, the Town has encouraged privately financed improvements
and developnents that ate sensible and well designed. Approval of this
request for a var l-ance wl-ll al-l-ow that same heal-thy attl-tude to con-
t lnue .
NAMES ATID ADDRESS FOR PROPERTIES
ADJOINING I'NIT 1, VAIL TRAILS CHALET
1) Vail Vtllage 4th FtUng, Iots 1-9
Texae Townhouses
Randy Mtlhoan - Manager
Texas To!firhouse Assoc.
P. O. Box 114
Vail, CO 81658 476-04L4
2) Vorlaufer
Vor l-auf er CondomlnLum Aesoc. Inc.
2302 LTOO Broadway
Denver, CO 802A2
3) Garden of the Gods
!fre. Albert c. Hill (l.targaret H.)
3525 Turtle Creek Blvd. 13 BCD
DaLlas, TX 75219
4) Val1 Vlllage 5th Flllng, Lot P-2, Block /i3
P-2 Aseoclatlon
c/o Gary Whlte
Box 1068
Va1L, C0 8f658
5) Cornlce Bullding
llalter A. & Barbara Huttner
4300 S. Mansfleld Ave.
Englewood, C0 80110
6) TyroJ.ean Condomlnlums
c/o Brandus Cadmus Real Estate
281 Brldge Street
Val1, CO 81657
7) valL Athletic CLub
VatL Athletlc CLub l[anager
352 East Meadorr Drive
Val1, CO 81657
8) Va1l Tralls Chalet
Condomlnium Assoclatlon
c/o John Curry
L2343 E. Arkansas Place
Aurora, CO 80012
I l^ ht ,f .t,.t'";*'"1
-
PROJECT IlEET II'IG
PROJ tCT : z/flp€C+tntt id.top&,
TYPEr CLIENT, CONTRACT0R, CONSULTANT, -T.!J.
PRESENT:pErilJ,'rHn 77Ar/ fr.t,y'/t*te
RZeZi -&alzA2, 6. A.A.
NUMBER: 3/IA-Dl\TE:/6 4ae8j
, oTHER
(o: PrI*iP.,'.lr.k Zhn-^-..
I
Gordon tt. Pierce & Associates, Inc., Architccture/Plann'i ng.P 0 llnx 220,a V,ail. Cnlnr;r.t., nlnqT /?n?\ ^1c 1rE1
Page
r-
G3t
\, ,/rti
:r/
I
'ltiyl.^a"'o^"1
,W*
COMMITMENT
TO INSURE
This commitment was produced and
issted through the office of
LANDTITLE
GUARAiITEE COMPANY
P. O. BOX 357, 108 SO. FRONTAGE ROAD WEST, VAIL, COLORADO 81667
Telephone (303) 476-2251
Representing:
lrrr-e lrusunaruce florvrrar.rv or lflrruruEsorA
Tf M'form 25t2 v 2/s,
AMERICAN ]o rrrr-e AssoclATloN coMMlrcr- 1970 Rov.
Jrn-e lrusunnr.rce fionenNy oF lflrr.rr.resora
a Stock Company of Minneapolir, Minneota
flTLE INSURANCE COMPAI{Y OF MINNESOTA, a Minncsota corporation, hereln cdled the ComPanYl for a valuable
considcration, hcreby commits to issuo its policy or poiicles of titte insdrancc, ar identified ln Schedulc A, in fevor of the
xoposcd Insured nailred in Schcdule A, rs o'wnei or niortgagec of the cstste or intcrest covcrcd hercby in the-land dcrcribcd or
icfeircd to in Schcdulc A, upon payment of thc prcmiums-rid charges thercfor; all subject to the Provirions of Scheduler A and
B cnd to thc Conditions and Stipulrtions hereof.
Thls Comrnitment shall be cffectivc only when the identity of the proposed Insured and th€ amount of thc policy or policies
comnrlttod for hrve been inscrted in Schcdule A hereof by the Company,cither at the time of the irguance of thir Commitment
or by rubscquent cndorcsament.
This Commitmcnt ls preliminrry to the issusncc of such policy or policics of titlc insurancc and all .liabtlity and obliga'
tions hercunder shall ccsse'snd termiirate six months after the effective dati hercof or when the policy or policies committcd for
shall issue, whichever first occurs, provlded that the failure to issue such poliry or policies is not the fault of the Company.
CONDITIONS AND STIPU LATIONS
l. The tcrm "mortgage", whcn used herein, strall include deed of trust, trust dccd, or other scurity instrumcnt.
2. tf the proposcd Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect,lien, encumbrance, rdverse cla-im or other matter
rffecting the estati or interest or mortgagi thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedul€ B hereof,
rnd strril fail to disclosc such knowtedlc-to thc Company ln wiiting, the Company shall be relievcd from liability for any_ loss or
damage resulting from any act of reliaice hereon to'the extent thi Company is prejudiced_by failure of.the proposed lnsured
to so-disclose srich knowlidgc. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledga to thc Company,_or if the Company othsr'
wisc acquires actual knowledge of any suih defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter,, the_Company-at itsoption
may rnrnd Schedule B of t-his Corunitment accordingly, but such amendmcnt shall not rclieve the Company from liability
previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations.
3. Urbility of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed lnsured ?{td such parties in'
cludcd under thi definition of lniured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual lors incuned ln re.
lirncc hercon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hcreof or (b) to_e[minate exce_ptions shown in
Schedule B, or (c) to acquiie or-creste thc eiiatc or inieiest or mortgage lhcreon covered by this Commitmglt. tn nq event chall
such llability cxcied the amount stated in Schedule A for thc policy br policies committed fortnd such liability 13 3ubicct to thc
insuring provisions rnd the Conditions and Stipulations and tie excludons fiom Covcrrge of the form of policy. or pollclcs com'
mittcd-f6r in favor of thc proposed Insured which are hereby lncorporated by reference and made r prrt of this Commitment
except rs cxpressly modlfied herein.
4. Any action or sctions or rights of rction thet the proposcd lnsured may have or may bring agalnst the Company arising
out of the jtatus of the title to the istate or interest or the-staius of the mortgale thereon covered by this Commitment must be
based on and are subject to thc provisions of this Commitmcnt.
STANDARD EXCEPTIONS
In rddition to the rnrtlers contained in the Conditions and Stipulations and Exclusions fiom Coverage abovc rcferred to,
this Commitment is also subjcct to thc following:
l. Rights or claims of parties in posesslon not shown by tho public records.
2. Eascments,.or clalms of easements, not shown by thc public records.
3. Discrepancies, conllicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any lacts which a correct survey and
inspection of tho premises would discloso and which are not shown by the public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or materid theretofore or hereafter furnistred, imposed by law and not
shown by the public records.
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public- records or
attaching subiequent to the effective date hereof but prior to thi date the proposed insured acquires of rccord for
value the estate or interest or mortgagc thereon covered by this Commitment.
Title Insurance Company of Minnesota has caused its corporate name and s€d to.be- hereunto
officers on the date sirown in Schedule A, to bs valid when countersigncd by a validating officer
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
affixed by its duly authodzed
or other authorized signatory,
Jrrre lrusunar.rce fion,rearuv or [/lrrur,rESorA
i\i. lAilCfl l1 Ili'l jihl'
{. i.: r r L ii i-: i- 1..
'-!tl.'i.,
1 i;;,:t I oit lict " VCtltlitllT
t ll').:,i ,r,: i
[,.lit.l':: t' l';r';. it: Lil:r:r:;. : IL r','i.: iii),i 1'' - lui;\i
lj,ir' .[ l'r 'i' rll' , ) J 'i; ior: 0r"; l;i
tr<{}'.4t
o
'{i:a-JF
A 1... t A tr 0 t] f, I
1" Lllt. :; .:i.. ; ;:
'I r\' l. l'i I
:5 li['l .l]0
+r:ii rtil
{i,t:tr":r: ,:j i:r i. {ti'j::t.: t,,:, i).::I tc V 1.; i.lf.ji'i U l.l ,/.
f': {.; " '.i r.) i.i l l i:: iJ :r /'
i: r:r' .i. r't i'{rr'1}i:; i, ig 0r-;1.;;
--'? . 1+z<_
q.^'.t.w
l.l l'r ,.: r" ij ,:: ;
t.r-, rlr-l.j".t' l'o i. icr U
F fiil. i 11 ., iii::f'0til
. -. Trr{.1 I
lj i I l'i iJillil r' irr i
i I .a .(,.. , r..
r ,: .,1i .'| |t |. i \' l.l
"r11. Iii "
| . , .. r\ -..t. ... 'Al-'l:til. .1 4r lyijr{ i,t. ir :tl0 4,n,,
'i;.i Lrt ;,i.iil,:,1, i| t"i i:.1 i1r'ilitli,j,.1 ,:l in5ur.r.,:r.:i I
li'lit, l'tr'Lictl .i.'|i,r1t li,ivi:;inrr. tilfi
in l.r-'r'.:: s.t iri 1'.iic,
,rllr'i r- Jv,:l'''li.l ll,:r'': i;-l
l;:rrd c'1,: t.:cr i !,ed cli' l'.:..{ ttri' f'ri[i Lo it'r t,Iris
i.i' '1.l',:i
i i ..r ;'':: r.; ,
r'.. 1i;1..:it.* cli' ivi l.t'i;:,9,'L :f,iV':rr"r:: r..l i;,:r''':r irr ;t. at t.lii:' i:.(r'{ ,:rr: {:, i'Jr:l
v,:'it.::r! i'r1 !
,'i. r';iii rir';Ali
I l,i t i.,r,ti 1",:.i ': i r"ii:r '..o ir'r ',.1'r i,:'. t.;r.ini'i i1.rri,i:r'r'i, i r,.. r:i,::, g'.c r r 1.,,,.,ii ir: ti i;i i 1!JtJ!, r
L.(.)riiji)i'; lil .ii;lr rli'iriri l'irl[..h]' ti]\rl. I L, U11 Ii.. lllrl ILti Ctlr\Li:: l , rltiU'iliiiJ illl l'0 Iiif:
t(till)',)fi:l t.i lrji'1 fA,l:i filr'.rir:: 0[; r Ali0 rlLi D!.frIliit) Ai,lD Dt-liCfilfl[D Irl ltlfi
L()Ni)0fl .i fi.ir-r;i i-'ut;l..AtrAl.icN [iucr\tiDED N0v[.tri_l[;l i.{] , 196.i Ii.t u.00i( l.7iJ At
l'Ai.;- i.t'.!.:i, (:/i{.lii1Y 0i:: IAijL[, liiAt[ 0f {j0l-t)[(Ai]0,
,l
fii t: () l''l l';t1
{l L:r I l: il l;;.. i . ll i.
{ fi r: ii i.t i r' ': t: '::, ;', t. '=', )
l'fr,l foilc,,,;irii ;;1',--, f fyrl r.a,ll,l it.{11,tnL:r .t,c
Lr,.::
.l . irr,r-li.t.tri t, 'i.c or f l:' t.i,rqr i,tr r:: nun.L o{ tlrrr;:iri l. i.l.:;,r: i{i,.:ri.:}t ion i:c;r* ,i,:: ,::g LJ.L,t nr
lr;.,tr, 1 I1-Ft. i(ivi iir:. Uil(.11li:;i-r;: /
(0rJF, 1 i,:rd U i
Ljtf'ai1't $f'r, crr
i rtl,:'r',:::'.,{. tt:
'1. 11 I
f.i Cir t ! L-:i, cr [. s+ i.lt,:.
fi rl I l'i lli {.l |" ir :.J "
l'i'cf,-rLr ii;li.'i.r'ur;i *r;.t, (,.,. ) c: r.*ii:t, i11,1 {.irr: c:.rtat{:r {jr. i rr.t. rt,l. r: 1.
.{, .t,* {::,:, j1i9.1;;..,;, 1;i
,lr.t ,..i.. l..r't ,, 1,,'crtt,,:i|i i,I t,.r,..1 (:iri I r-1 t't ,r,:.i:l i:r)i. f, ij{.t l:1i-,.1 r l',n-.ut.f.i
o
fil
t,l1j il tJ i., {,i li ;?
li1'.:: i:'a) l ll,'j rrr' ,,r: i. il i,:,r .; Lo ft ':l i;:;tr,l,l r.,r ri I COi') r-.t ii,r ,:r;tt.: .-;it, I ii)l.t: i,li Li,l ,::irrll0uin,1 r,rli I'it:.t!. [.i.;'-i l:;: r.; ]..: iir": ci iqt.If)!;{,r.i (rl.' 1;o t,irc s;t, i,:r1 ":cl. ir;r; ct. t,hi
rll}r.1i:'iln,J;
I . l:i Larr*llr,d l:)lt r-:1.'r.1. ic,ri:, 1 .1-
1 1y' p r.r ,-; l,; Lr l.,r,.ift.l.,:.i19 (rft ti.iil I nv,,..r
'','" I.-{.1i:-i .";j't,l .:, '::. .t, :.1: ti a.:. ;.\ :t- i-, .\. ,.; iil.il; rJi:r i. ,.ll.tr,:. ill^ :.r:1:.1;3;r j. .1 ;;r.ir: ..;".- r
:.lr'i !.,: i ir..i i. l,ir il..i: 'l ii l.lr,: Ir,:.:,:,.rrl,:..i.'!. illil:,:."
i:l-rr.-i (;:':,j(.] i |i i:;:;1.:: :;. c;t. ii !. 1-i ,-: Ui i:! ; i ,-: 11 1.,:, :,i,J,i in::. L t;;i i..,i l;:fi,.:t "
t:,, I i,. r.'.. I nr, Lr ni.,::: I il t.r:;1..,..i i:iiir 1:(. ,: i, i: liiri.!i:. , i t; t) j,;l!.
t'ri r. (. |'i ii ,t
(.: r'1,:,{ti I i,
i [:;: t- i.r i:, l. i ll:'i r., )
iiil;:;l i,)l ;:: [i'1r ]ir.i:],lrri r"]i i\ L;i:-.1 ;'i Ci:t i.-gl.)t:
;i:.;-,i I i;irr'l l.,trr.)iii-1.: 'l i1i. Lir.\rXi lil. i 0i.it ") i i)l:lii .r.[fi] il ,1 li iii liiritr.rr..l.f i.;! ilil IIi.. l.i t,)\ILti
i il 11L1Ci,: 4 t"J A I l,r,l l_;r.:. i ./ir "
tl ii y, i I t. ,1.'i. i {.r f: ii$ .
Ii) ,-{ii(At-.I rirr:,r l.'f.t",')i.ri- lrl..i 0IiI:.
i:rj.l{i iliAii: .)l/. i.i,rf't:,i:i{;i..{; i I:Ii.
!!AlLi'l I lil::.{.t)i:il.i1:: D ..r r;|,..y .i.:, .i9,,19,
i fl f ir I
l:li,: {:i, "
I .i I ..t :.
lirll;r'l (r: tir',r' i: ()l{ Iri i(.itl'.si 0li (:iiNa(t.-lr) tutilj l'lilt(-ll.D ll ,,' lllI At.] f it0lij.i)' (]l|l|l::.iJii'l.]|:'l):;lllli.:'1)/riifii:'iji::.ii!li:i.).[iit)l'i'i.]i;'i|:]|il]|'':ji-Ii1i.i.'lii:il;.ij+llt|:l
i;t , )t|,.)'r,r iri lit(J01,, 1i.il fr I l,A{iii: ,i,ri.r,
li." iii r; jli.li.; l.r0;ri; Jtj rllll Dil i\0f (,0irlit.l lt ir iji)Iil [:.iit,lii: i)'i liIr,,Eiill::ii ULot_it,r: ,lrll ; (r,M illir:i rlt: l: il:tr[] il.(jl.lli, ii: l:lit', fiAl.i1.0 0f..1 flr-lliii.r (:')l_01:i, tit:.1. 1010i,I ,(:;;. i(/iljirli;l iiillf;lliy 11 r:i tj0f,l'l';1 .r.iii;i-r .j.ii IiJittiitJiiiiii l liI ir)r:]i:.i) Al.,(;ljiI Lt:j;it,!:1 , :i ll ilitii 7.'tti, (,'l !1t',,.iF l7ti"
l:r():;: ;riiltii: jiii;'1f-i, i-']vi:iiA;'.:l:i; iiii.") uirNDi l'J ur{1;, !.fi::ii1f'rii{-}fj ;r1r'ij)Ii'i, li:jl':i()ii;i, i;i-i i.Cil r':fir. ii U,l'|i:;-)i:ll i0 Ili:- {-'Jlii}(};l .:.ti.li-j,1 {Jii.i f l,htrf,j:i: rliar;i.r ril..:r;: L!ir; i'. A, Ali {;liil,1 ti;1.:.il Lii t.i\if; lirtJitLi.l l- iii:_i.0li0i:i) ii0(/l: i.ri-ll:: ii 1fj,;/i,i, ri i1i)i;l{ 11,{l f,I i:rAiji: :1..: J"
irti: fii rr ;:;; I'ii:ill l'i:i.i i.l lj ) f.f[] lN ill.Dll.1 iil.0irii ]l.ll.: fll;ttlljLlii-.i fr()i:,i i.l \,rii\jr' lir.lr:1Ji (: i I'r:;;l:'l:. |:i'l )' Ati rii.l0iiii 0N 'l iji:. li{;fl1.)l;lDIt; r,l.r\t"
t/aZ /it/t4c tlr fr /iaq
hfs /-a, /"4 of Z - ua/u,k 4
rea6/dc./ i Aal /o /'6 ?-
/laNriz.d : Au-7 ( /tt 7
fe6(Fft^ B :76Vtz
&q ,lrcd o; r! Pzo 2e' 17
tHe )
. cgy*E4l is
(5/ att ei/r,et
/ina
LANDTITLE
GUARANTEE COMPANY
3665 Cherry Creek North Drive
Denvor, CO 80209
321-1880
13693 East lliff Avenue
Denvot, CO 80232
7514338
flil33 Greenwood Boulevard
Denver, CO 80221
427-5363
31 10 S. Wadsworth Boulevrrd
Sultr t02
Dcnvar, CO 80227
988€550
8il0 Klpllng Strect
Lakowood. CO 80215
232.311l
P. O. Box 2280
Brcckenridgc. CO 8924
453-2255
30(l South Carcado
Colorado Sprlngr, CO 80903
6:l/4821
121 1 Main Avenue
Durrngo, CO 81301
247-5860
P. O,8ox 357
108 So, Frontagc RoEd Wctt
Vril, CO 81657
476.2251
3600 S. Yorcmlta. Sulte 350
DenYer, CO 80237
7794220
650-17th Str..t
Dcnver. CO 80202
629-7329
9725 E. Hrmpden, Sulto 103
Donvrr, CO 80237
7504424
COMMITMENT TO INSURE
This commitment was produced and
issued through the office of
LAND TITLE
GUARANTEE COMPANY
P. O. BOX 357, 108 SO. FRONTAGE ROAD WEST. VAIL, COLORAOO 81657
Telaphone (3031 476-2251
Ttrl. Inrur.nc. Comp.ny of Mlnnnot la a rub.ldla.y ot Mlnn-ot lttla Flnanclrl Corpot.tlon. NASDAO Svmbol - MTIT.
tv
nni o
onPlang and Environmeirtal Commjssi
May 9, 1983
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Dan Corcoran
Diana Donovan
Jim Morgan
Gordon Pierce
Wi'l'l Trout
Jim Viele
ABSENT
Duane Piper
Diana made a correction to page l, in the third paragraph to add: "to a non-conforn'ing building" +.o her statement. Donovan moved and viele seconded to
approve the minutes as corrected. the vb-te was O-O r'n favor.
2.uest for setback variances and for a variance to Section .|8.64.050
rovements to Noncon tructures n orqer en tarqe an exist
COn.Y' COnStrUCt a aoo an constructa stone Dlanterpplicants: l4r1.r_
Jamar showed the site p'lan and=-ExpTaTnEd-ttre var.iances requested.Rogerof Ba'l dwin Associates, representing the Zinnermans stated that the biy
would be best where requested from-a functiona'l and architectural view
He added that the units which were not on the end of the building wouldto place a bay window in any location, Booker also remjnded the-board
totrnhouses were built l2 years before the .|978 ordinances were passed,at the time of constnuction, there were no setbacks requjred.
Booker pointed out that the bay wjndow cou'ld h'ide the electric meters by putting
them in a closet.
Pierce suggested that this review could become a classic for the Town of Vail.
He added that the staff did the review appropriately, denying as per a strictinterpretation of the-zoning code, and still were flexiblb'i n allbwing the applicantto retajn a deck on TOV property. He sajd that if the appljcant were asking fora varjance in terms of addjtional GRFA, 'i t would be easier to turn down, bui theapplicant was asking for minor things which would be a great irnprovemeni. pierce
added that the the jo_int Councjl/PEC meeting, the Councit toot<eo favorabiy on inrprove-ment projects. He felt the impacts of this-project. were m.inor.
Morgan felt that the airlock and the setback requests were no problem andhad nothing against the request. He asked if th'e building were constructed whenthere were no setbacks, and Corcoran answered that he didn't thjnk so. Viele feltthat the project was a substantial improverlent to the town, that it did not hurt
anyone' and that it was designed to protect the neighbors, so he was in favor.
Peter Patten
Peter Jamar
Jim Sayre
Betsy Rosolack
COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
Chuck Anderson
rq ilrerman
Peter
Booker
window
point.
be abl e
that the
and that
m i nutes
Unit l. Vail Trails Cha
5 5/e/83 -2-
Donovan didn't quite agree wjth the others, though she felt that some variance
should be given, but felt that the applicants asked for too much.-Sh-e felt that
a face lift could be achieved without a va.riance. She had no problem granting
the airlock, no problem with the bay window, since it faced a green area, but did
not feel the deck to the back of the bujlding should be added because the building
already crowded the road and there would be a feel ing of more congestion.
Trout felt that the proposal was good, that jt contributed to the community, the
land owner and the neighborhood, and was consistent with the TOV goa1s. Corcoran
said that'he must abstain, but remjnded the board and the applicant that the staff
interpreted the ordinance as it exjsts.
Baldwin asked jf it were possible to clean up the variance procedure for non-
conforming uses, and Corcoran said the staff was considering this.
Mrs. Zimmerman, one of the applicants, sajd that the unit had been in the family
since .1966. She felt the area was a key focal point for the community and that.the improvements would be an advantage to the town as a whole as well as to the
ap.pl icants.
Pierce moved and Morgan seconded to grant the variance on all four items. Pierce
ffiplanT ercb statedthat the granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent wjth the limjtations on other properties class'ifjed in the same district,that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in theVicinity, and the variance was warrented because the strict or I iteral interpretation
and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficuity
or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Section .l8.62.060
of the municipal code. Morqan felt the strict or literal interpretation and enforcementof the specified reguiation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by
the owners of other properties in the same djstrict (and gave the Garden of the
Gods as an example).' The vote was 4 in favor, 1 against iDonovan) and Corcoranabstaining. Donovan fe at more variance was qiven than was necessarv.
3. 4qg!c-sj-l9l-a cdnditional us_q-p9llE-j-!-g Iq4"rUq_lel:jlx--ryql-U-Fami'ty zoned,istlicl to=ggnstruct q facil ity for the Eagls_lggrr-ly_ErctgelSy Services atthe val l Val ley Medical Center. Appl icant: Eagle County Emergency Servicesffi-
Peter Patten showed the sjte plan and fioor pl ans, explaining the uses proposedfor the various spaces. He explained that in a MDMF zone, public facilities are aconditional use. Patten added that 6 more parking spaces would be required, butthat there was an existing deficiency in parking ipaies for the hospital of .l04
spaces. He said the staff recontnrended approvai of the request with the conditionthat srix additional on-site parking spaces be found on the site.
T0v 5/e/83J_
Jay Peterson, representing the hospital , stated that he felt that there was no parking
problem, and po'inted to an area adjacent to the parking lot that was leased to the TOV
Recreation Department which, if not ieased, could provide more parking spaces.
Corcoran referred to a new site plan showing a blocking off of the existing westeriy
lane of the parking lot which would add lB nrore spaces and asked if the entrances jnto
the parking lot to the west would be permanently blocked. Gary Swetish, representing
Briner/Scott Architects, answered that boulders would be placed to block the entrances.
Donovan was concerned about having enough parking spaces to park the hospital ambulances
which were now parked in the area to be covered with the new building. She also wanted
to khow if the classroom would have any other uses. Tim Cochran of the ambulance staff
answered that CMC would also use it for their First Aid classes and health classes and
that there would probably be 25-30 people in each class. Donovan repeated her concern
about parking. Lyn Morgan of the amublance djstrict stated that fewer people used the
parking lot in the evening when the classes would be held, thqn in the dayt'ime.
Patten read a letter from the hospital board giving approval of the new construction.
Donovan asked if the new constructjon had been approved by the State Hospital board'
and Swetjsh answered that the board's approval wasn't needed, since the building was
not attached to the hospital . Viele expressed concern about the amount of parking,
as did Jim Morgan, who felt the meeting room wouid generate more park'ing problems.
Lyn Morgan stated that normally there would only be two persons on duty at any one time.' Jim Morgan felt that asking for only 6 parking spaces was unrealist'ic. Peterson sugges-- ted perhaps the hospital could have some type of control during the peak hours. Piercefelt that it would be difficult to ask the hospital to monitor the parking, and suggested
asking the applicant to come back with more study on parking. Corcoran also felt that
panking was an issue.
, .Fred Green, one of the members of the board of directors of the hospital , suggested
perhaps requiring hospital employees park in the parking structure. Jay felt that, .that solution would mere'ly ciear the'l ot for more skiers to park, and added that 'it
would be expensive to patrol . Donovan stated that the lot was close to full'rthen the
, PEC went over on their site visit. She suggested that perhaps the hospital not enter
into a long term lease with the TOV for the extra parking area near the ice arena.
,Pqtten.said that the staff wanted to review the parking Iot design with the architect,-. fo.r he believed the hospital did not bujld the parking lot as it had been approved,
.and hore iandscaping was needed. Corcoran suggested that the DRB could request, 'l andscaping. Patten explained that the staff hadn't had tinre to review the new site
plan, and that the applicant gave no detajls for the use of the classroom. He felt- that- the staff could work with the applican_t to get extra parking spaces.
Trout moved to a rove the re uest as submitted er the staff merno dated Ma I 983
Bs aces su ect to revIet4.e secon he vote was n favor,
ainst
4; . Request for rezoninq from RU.S to HONf on tot t, g Llt_gjloqntql=!__!_o_convert' A-ptTTaanfs: -TmileslsllEy
anq ltm bart.on
Jay Peterson, representing the applicants, requested to table to May 23.
and Donovan seconded to table untjl May 23. The vote was 6-0 jn favor.
novan felt the lease with the TOV Recreation Dept should be left open
Viele moved
3ll
ft1,'Joceph D, Zimmerman
5335 S. Dmtwood Diloc
Dollat, Texot 75220
Aprl1 18, 1983
$
!
I have recelved your comments regardlng
condomlnlum. I appreclate your agreementplans and I have no obJectlon to the two
have requested. lJe wl I I change the pl ans
degree cutback on the east end of the deckthe permanent barbeque l nsta'll atl on.
l{r. John S. Curry, SecretaryVall Tralls Condornlnlum Assoclatlon
12343 E. Arklnsas Pl.Aurora, Colorado 81657
Dear John:
Thanks for the tlmely rerponse.
JDZ/sbp
the plans for nywlth the remodel
changes that youto reflect a 45
and wl'l 'l del ete
I
Z lmmerman
Regards,
VAIL TRAILE CHALET CONDOT'IINIU]'I AB6OCIATION
1:Ji,4:: Ha::i t f'\r- llan:;"rs PIace
l:\("tr ctr a . Co I tlr ado t3c'(l I 2
APri I l?r 198:l
Pi erce. Baldwin and Associates
1t.)OO South Frolrtac;er Road West
Vai I , CoI oradn et1657
Attn: Roger Bool,:er tle"l [Jnit lr Zimmermart
V.:riI TraiLs Uha.[et
Dear Mr'Fcto l,: ef r r
I wi,:h to advi se you the V.ri L Tr-;r j. 1|; []fral +::r t- D(rrtr:lorni rr i um
Association Ernar-d of Merrr;.rclclrs htif l rJ a li]pe-'ci itl Metlti r'lq t.lrl /11:ri I I I 'to consider" antt]l-lq (5tfrelt,- tlrings, y()r.u' r'|!qt..lns L. {or cc)n:il der';rt j crrt
cJf the i mp:r-r:rvr*lnertl:.r:; 1:. r: trrl tnaclr:l f t::r- the arbove menti ortt:tl
conclomirrium.
Ttre Foiirr-rJ vi ewecl tlrrl :i mpr-ov€?rnents f avoral:l y arnd f eel th.rt: Mr
Zi mnrer-man's er{{opts wiI} t-clgttlt irr a very I i'zatrle urnit' '[hel BoarrJ
has requestg3d ? charrges whiCh I feel ar-n r-elat:ivelly minor s6 not
jt:rpnr.rli r e tIe v;rIure cr.f tfi+: Ltni tst ne;lt tp t,lni t #1 to the East
l'her:ie ch;,tnges wtrich wel f t*el nece:;sary aret
1. To cLit tlre ernrj of the d ec |,.: olr the East bac}l at a 45
61g.qreB arnqle f rorrr ther "win9 wal. 1. " (ghown in clreen). Thi:i
will nlortr tfr- .Les:s r(?tain thf? vrew {rom the b€i}dr|fon
wi rrcjows a d wi. t I hel p to re LAi rl tlle pr i vacy i n the'
be".droorng they rrow have. lhi g c r-tt- bircl,: pertai ns to both
'Llrel g,ai-derr level nnd ther { ir-:it {irst {loor'
:. I{ a permanerrt t:ar-.[:-qt'ttl ig to |re desired, it will hirve
l.o ber l oc"ete orr t}re Wel;t 1/2 o1| ttre cjecll area. I.he
i nl..e+rrt c)f tfri s i ri tcl l,:er:p any srnrrl::G? alw.3y f rc)tn the bedroorn
wirrclow's o{ the rrei ghbor i trg ttrr i t s.
Orrr:.e 4q!ri 1" nrl.L dH { r-otn the I reqt..tcl::its {or trh,lngF,f !t merlti orled
.rtrc:vr=. v:iewr:lcl f ltvor",rtr l. y the relmcrtJerl. irrc; flr. Zimmlrr-m.rrr dei';i reg'
l { y()q ftnytl atrty (:lt,l(iitri:iti,clntl rmq,lrdinq hfrl.ril , frlrlr,rr;e clcr not hmsitrrte
to c:r:n1:act me ert ( f;(.):. ) 7ljs-C)6ZA rietr i ng tlte evert r 11g:ir
Tr r.r I
CUL
,, n|
"tt'n
\
.r'L'
,' .' ',,/' VAIL TFAILS CHALET
/ ..
7 De'ar Memberrt
CONDOM I N IUI-,I ASSOCIAT I ON
Scptcmber 17,198?
';'/' .Enclo.scd plrerr {ind your copy,of the {all billing of the co,n,non
', 'r.lectri cal. Thi s has been compl etetl . t.hat r 6 we have brought the:. electrical rgrvice {rom the, trarrs.{ ermer to the bulldtig arldinclutcl ing the Flectrical nreter"E Lrp to code. Ihere was no n'rrii ..' done... +rorn,.tlr electri.cal me.ters intcl the urnits aE tnrs iscor'r6i dered to be personal property and any def iciencleE. .- ." app"rently do not. justify the association getting involved. This'does vary {-rom urrit tc, r-rnit. Irr addition to'this we did install. + I lrorescent 'l i ghts in all {urnace rooms. Other than this there
. ..r^rPr e no prg jects.
..r
.... :.' lhiI. *a1I. dctivities wilr include, baeically, that which were not' c.ompl etqd this slr.mmer. These include finishing the planter rn
" {ront of ynits ? and 3; furnaceE in tha comnon furnace rooms will
.. b* cl eaned, id julsted and oi led; mctal f lashing wi l l be instal ledon t_he pdge of the roofS and the trim will be painted
'one item. .of general interestr at the sopeciar rleeting onJ's.eptember.':s, tte3, . 'a pol i cy regardi n9 bay wi ndows was devel op"o'tJ I' ".. ;al l, {irst f.l.oor trnits can heve bay wl ndows and the "*.orri I. {)oor r-rnti s ,-rt'ti.rt are not canti -levered out can have bay windows. I.Those urni ts rahi ch are al ready cantl -l evered out can not have bav Iwi. Tdows. "
It has beepmc ver.y' much apparent to the board o{ managers that. pr-o{ e'sgr onar,.,management is becoming nece'Eary. At thii time weEre consrdering. 50rne form'o{ limited nenagernent to aEsiSt in the. .gpFrEtrons. urr'.f ortunatty i.rrr e wi l l have in impact on expen6e6.
Fa:,icjl ly I .am .brot<e. =o,nith this in mind mayrenrr t ances ae soon.as possible,I have ydr_rr
,trul y,
nSC
ftLE
6ttt' Iei5,
piorce,. boldr"lin ond ossociotas, inc.
orchilaclura . plonning
28 l{arch 1983
Mr. John Curry
12343 Eaet Atlrancae Place
Aurora, C0 800f2
REQUEST FOR CONDOMINIUM ASS0CIATION REVIEI'I
OF PROPOSED RIMODELING AT I,'NIT ONE,
VAIL TMILS CHALET; VAIL, COLORADO
1,1r. Joe ZLmnernan haa requested uc to send thece two drawlngs to youfor your revlew by the condomlnlurn aseociation of a proposed remodel
and exterLor alteratlon to hls condomlnluur. Alao enclosed are trroprlnts of an lnprovement survey perforned by Eagle valley Englneerlngdated March 8, 1983.
For your convenlence we have annotated the prtnts with a marker tohighltght the propoeed nodlficatlone. yourll notlce also rhat tlrocoples of the prl.nte are enclosed. pleaee return one copy to ouroffice along wlth the recponae by thc condonlnlurn aaeoclatlon.
Mr. Z immerman wlehee to proceed $rlth thie projecc aa eoon ae all theapproprlate approvale have been obtalned--hopefully a6 soon ae April15, 1983. Could you please schedule a levLen of thie proposaL thatcould glve Mr. Z lmmerman the qulckest reaponae poeeible fron the
condomlnlun assoctatlon? Any efforta you could provlcle toward thle
would be greatly apprec Lated .
Should you or any member of the revl,ew coxmllttee, have need to dts-
cuss thls proJect, lre are aval1able durlng the day at our offlce
phone noEed on our letterhead. After hours, please contact me at my
horne phone (303)949-6450 or Richard Baldwln at hls (303)476-3f87.
Thank you for your tlme and for your aEtentlon to thla requeat for
r ev1ew.
Rog /i"Z-
RB:P
Enc 1o sures
cc: Mr. Joe Z{rr''r'el,man
n3/47644331000 south fiontogo rood wost . voil, colorodo 81657
I
I. This
The
4.
Applica-"ion Da 1983
. APPLICATION FORM I.'OR A VARIANCE
procedure is reguired for any project reguesting a Variance.
application will- not be accepted until aII information is submitLed
AUTHORIZATION OIT PROPERTY OWNIIP-
SIGNATURE
ADDR3SS 5335 PHONE(214) 368:1961
LOCATION OF PROPOSAI
ADDRESS Unlt l, ValL Trails Chalet
NAME OF APPLICAI.IT Mr. & Mrs. J. D. Ztnune
ADDRESS 5335 S. Dentwood Drive. Dal-las. Texas 75220 PHONE(214)368-ta6l _
B. NAI{E Ol' APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATM r414!1qAssoclares Archirecc:-__
ADDRESS 1000 South Frontage Road, ttest Vatl, CoLorado 8165FHANE (:Ol)aZO-aa:g
'
c.
D.
Dentwood'Drlve,
E.
F
LEGAI DESCRIPUON lot part block 4 Filing lst
FEE. $f00.00 plus an amount equal to the thcn current first-c1ass
rate for each property ormet to be notified hereunder.
A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to
subject. Property and thcir addrcsses.
postage
the
application form for a varlancc page 2 o
II. +otrr
.2,
{+l copies of the following information:
.t
I!
I
A statement of the precise nature of the variance requested.the regulation involvedl .rra-tn.-practicar difficulty or unnnecessar,physical- hardship inconsistent. wilh the objecli;;" of this rit.re 'that wouLd resutl rrorn iiiiJi-"i-rit"iir-iii"iirulution and enforce-ment of the specified regulation.
A site plan showing a1r existing and proposed features on thelitil l"g ol adjoining sites ii-necessary, pertinent. to the variancerequested, incruding site borrndarie", r"iuiiua-""Ln""i", -u"iiJi,lg"
locations and heighfs, topog;$ht and physical fearures and simirardata.
such additional material as the zoning ad.ininistrator may pre-scribe or the appJ-icant may submit pertinent to the apprication.
III. Time requirements
The Pranhing and Envi-ronmentar commission meets on the 2nd and. 4th Mondays-of each ^otirt.
- An apprication with the necessary accom-panvins mareriar must.be submirtid rour ,."[" pii;r';;-il; bareof the meeting.
A.
B.
c.
piorco. boldwin ond ossociotos, inc.
orchitactura . plonning
4 Aprll 1983
SUBMITTAL DATA FOR VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE
PLANNING A]'ID ENVIRONilENTAL COMMISSION
lrNrT I, vArL TRAILS SHALET
A PART 0r BLoCK 4, VAIL VTLT,AGE FrRST FTLING
NATURE OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The purpoee of thle requeat for a varLance ls to obtaln approval to
perform mlnor exterlor bdlldlng alteratlone and ltnlted slte improve-
ments not currently all-owed by a strict or literal lnterpretatton ofexlstlng ordlnancee. The exterlor bull-dlng alteratLons consiet of:
a) additton of a bay window on the North elevatlon
b) addltlon of an alrlock entry on the !'Iest elevatLon
c) a- rnlnlnal ellargenent of 6n exletlngbalconl on the West
elevatton to form a roof over the proposed alrlock entry
as weLl aa lmproving the vlsual proportJ.ons of the balcony/alrlock arrangement .
d)
Th. sj!E_1tr$o.r...o,ti.ad dr es s ed by thts varlance
a) rernoval of an exlst ine woodc4_jEe!,c€. and
request are:
Lts subsequent -reolace-
1.
b) the conatructlon of of a deck and stalr at the north-
IIEAE
REGULATIONS INVOLVED
-Addltlon of bay wl.ndow: .T.O.V. Ordlnancee 18.30.060 Setbacks; 18.58.080
Bay wLndows
-Balcony enJ-argenent! T.O.V. Ordinancee 18.58.050 BalconLes, Decks andStalrlraye Above Ground
l;llectrlcal Servlce Enclosure: T.O.V. Ordinancee 18.58.020(c) Fencee,
Iledgee, lfaLla and Screenlng; 18.58.300 Setbatk from l{atercourae
-Deek':at :North .Elevat loii : T. o . v. ord hffiIF.J-fi
Porches, Steps, and Decks, 18.58.060 Balconles, Decks and Stalrvaye Above
Ground
-Planter and l.lall: T.0.V. Ordlnancee 18.58.020 Fences, Itedges, lfalle
and Screenlng; 18.64 Nonconfornlng SLtee, Uses, Structures and Site
Improvemente; 18.64.050 Structures and Slte Improvements-Alrlock: T.O.V. OrdLnance 18.04.130(2e) Floor'Area, GRFA
voil, colorodo 81657
electr ica L
ment by a atone planler and
1000 south frontog@ rood ru@st n3/4764433
-2-
DISCUSSION AND JUSTIFICATION
FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
Upon adoptlon of the ordlnances relatlng to setbacks, several facllltles
exlsted that dld not correspond to the theoretlcal setback dlstances
speclfied ln the newly adopted ordinances--t.hereby creatlng nonconform-
lng structures,
Setback, as deflned by Town Ordinance 18.04.300, means the dlstance
fron a Lot or slte llne, creek, or strean meaeured horlzontally Eo a
1lne or locatlon wlthin the lot or slte which establlshes the pennitted
locatl-on of uses, atrucLures, or bulld{ngs on the site.
The purpoae of a setback ls to lnsure a mlnimum amount of space betneen
atructurea on adjacent propertles, to al1ow for alr clrculatlon, the
lntroductlon of 1lght, to provLde for a reductlon of flre-spread
characteriet l-ca, to provLde for adequate vlew corridors and a multltude
of other consideratl-ons. There exl.sts several condltlons r,rher e the
lntent of a setback requlrenent ls achleved wlthout a LlteraL appllca-
tloo of theoretlcal setback requl.renents. These are the cases where
a property hae land adjacent to lt that Ls not sultable for constiuctlon.
Where chese pre-exLstlng, nonconformlng cases exlst and where the
effectlve intenE of a seEback ls achleved without a literal interpre-tation of the ordlnance, lC seems reasonable to allow the exl-stlng
dlstance betrdeen the property llne and the face of the structure to
become the rraLlowed" setback and to a1low for the legall-y establlshed
encroachments lnto the setback. Addltlonal-ly, Ln a pre-existlng sLtua-
tlon where the reLatlonshlp between locatlons of the imposed (theoretical)
setbacks and the existing structures ls known, the setback should relate
to the face of the structure for whlch the setback nas lntended. In
other words, the addltlon of an archltectural element to the exterlor
of a nonconformlng structure should be allowed provlded the new el-ement
does not generate adverse or 11legal physlcal condltlons, nor add gross
resldentlal floor area, nor add net floor area to the exlstlng develop-
nent. Such an addltLon should be evaluated wlth respect to the 'rallowed"
setback and not the setback establ-lshed by a strlct Lnterpretatlon of
exlstlng ordinances. Each applicatl-on should be Judged ln a whollstlc
manner wlth erlal-uatLon crj.terla based on the speclal clrcumstances, the
exLstlng condltl.ons for that parElcular applicatlon, and the potentLal
iurpact of the proposed alteratlons on the exl-sting buil-t and natural
environment.
As it rel-ates to existing, nonconforning facil-ltles, the deflnltlons
for front, rear and slde seEbacks (ord. 18.04.330, 18.04.340, 18.04.350)
should be interpreted 1n a reallstlc and stralghtforward manner. As an
example- when eval-uat lng a proposed modlflcatlon for the eaet slde of
an exlstlng fac11ity, then the property llne/setback llne for Ehe north
and south sldes of the faclllty should have llttle or no influence on
the evaluatl-on of the modlflcatLons proposed for the east side of the
faclllty. Thls lnterpretation would be slmlLar to the Unl-forn Bulldlng
Code (IEC) rnethod of evaLuatlng distances as lt reLates to property
llnea and the flre reslatance ratlng and protectlon of openlngs ln the
exterior walls of bulldlng (refer to UBC, 1982 edltlon, sectl-on 504 (b):
"...shall be neasured at rlght angles frorn the property llne. The above
provlslons eha1l not apply to walls at rlght angles to the property llne.")
-3-
As currently incerpreced by the Plannlng Department staff, the set-
back for the north or souch slde has a slgnlflcant bearlng on what
alteratLons would be allowed on the east or west slde.
The appllcant I s primary intereet for the rernodellng of Unlt I is to
add a bay wl,ndow on the Norch Elevat.lon. Town ordlnance 18.58.080
allowe bay windows to project three feet or less lnto the setback area.
The proposed bay wlndow projecEs approxlmately two feet frorn the north
face of the bulldlng and ls wlthtn the North setback. The proposed
bay window does fall wlthln the western setback. However, by reasonl-ng
and Justlf lcati-on presented earll-er ln thls document, the bay wLndow
should be al1owed.
Ordlnance 18.58.080 also requires that the total of bay wl-ndows andslmllar features mu6t not exceed ten percent of the wa11 surface from
whlch they project or extend. Thle,nethod.ofirestrlotlng area should not
be consldered valid ln evaluatlng thle project (or slnllar proJ ects).
The effect of addlng a bay wlndolr on one portlon of a butldlng shouLd
be Judged by the deelgn review board for lts deslgn mertt and not by
eome mathmatlcal equatlon. As an exanple, lf a butldtng exlsts (or is
proposed) wlth a walL area of 101000 square feet and has no- other
proJections, then one bay window with an area of up to 1,000 squarefeet could be added at any point on the wall as l-ong as it was less than
three feet deep. Thls lnterpreEatlon may eound absurd, but ts does
meet the stated Lnteot of the ordinances. In the case of a condomLnl,uur
one would aasume that the quesrion is raieed ae to how to calculate theten percent. Is lt based on onl-y the area of the wall contlguous tothe lnterl-or unit, or ls lt calculated based on the entLre wa1l of thebullding? A real e6tate lnterpretatlon advlses that the exterl.or sur-
face of rhe exterior wa l-1 ls a cornnron element, owned by all- members ofthe condomlnlun. Thls then is the lnterpretation we have used ln evaluat.-
lng the bay wtndow area propo8ed for Unlt 1. Wtth thls method the bay
wlndowarea accounts for an additlonal four percent of the wal1 area.
Had the method been used whereby only the lrall area eontlguous to UnltI were used, then the area lncrease would be approximately elghteenpercent. These flgures are based on cantilevered areas at upper leve1s
belng consldered "bay wlndows and elmllar featurestt. t{hat constltute.s
"wa1l area" and "slmilar features" ls not cJ-ear1y addresaed by the
ordinance. Agaln thls polnts out that the ordlnances, when hrritten,
could not address each speclflc bulLding or condltlon and that deslgn(or design changes) should not (and cannot) be evaluated soley by a
wrltten formula or deflnitlon. A whollstic rev{ew ls the best evalua-
tlon that can be provlded ln the areaa vhere there le no 'rblack and
Irhl-terr so 1ut ion.
There have been lnetances 'nhere landscaplng elenente have been ttdonatedtt
to the Town by the prlvate sector...and lnetances where the Eown requlred
thaE the private deveLoper contrlbute to proposed rrminL-improvement
dlstrictsn for lmprovenents to or on town property. It is obvlous thatlf the Town ls the prlmary beneflciary to propoeed prLvate development
on publ-lc land, then the proposed development ls reviewed wlth a favor-
hble attltude. This applicanE wLshes to replace, at, ;:hls expense, an
unslghtl-y J-andecape feature (a wooden fence) Chat currently exlsts on
Town property, with a nore durable feature (a nountaln stone planter
-4-
and wall). Thls slte lmprovernent w111 obvlousLy beneflt not on1,y the
Owner, but lt wlll beneflt the Town as wel,l. Thls slte lmprovementwill be a mlnlmal encroachment onto Tor"rn property and it should provldeadditlonal vlsual and accoustlcal privacy for the Owners.
To generate a slte plan that le nore vlsually coheslve and to enhanceon-alte cLrcul-atl"on, a deslgn hae been generated that physlcally 11nksthe exlstlng (and to-be-refurb tshed) entry courtyard on the west wLththe nen elevated deck on the north. The llnklng elenent of the desl-gn,a portlon of the propoeed elevated deck measurlng approxlmately elghtfeec by eight feet at the northwest corner of the bullding, Lles withlnthe setback area aa strlctly lnterpreEed. The design soJ_utLon pre-
sented appeare to be the best solutlon for the condltlon. Hopefully,
the variance review wlll acknowl-edge this and allow for Lts constructlon.
SUMMARY:
Thls structure was ln exlstance even before the ordlnance. For what-ever reason, the bu1ldJ-ng was placed unusually cLose to the rlght-of-
way/property 1lne on the western end of the slte. Most of the "grayareas" belng studled 1n thls revlew are the result of conflicts betweenthe bulldlng locatlon roadbed/rlght-of-way locatlon, defLnltlons and
t.he subsequent lnterpretatlon by various people of ordlnances vrhl,ch
were $rrlEten and adopted wlthout full conslderation of all exlsting
and future developnent,s and Ehe nlnute, very speclfic sltuafions
generated for each of those developments.
The proposed modlflcations w111 enhance the slte and Ehe bulldings;
they w111 Lmprove the vlsual lmpact of the area for the Torrn and
lmprove the value of the related real- estate. Thls ls all accompli.shedLtlth no negatlve aspects from the vlewpolnt of pedestrian or vehlcularflow--lndeed lt actually provldes for safer pedestrian actlvlty by
lncreaelng the avallable area for them between the roadbed and theplanter. The Owner has agreed to provlde a release of llab1lity for
damage to development he may generate on Torrm property.
The proposed nodiflcations make sense...at least from all- viewpolntsother than strlct lnterpretatlon of the ord inances--ordLnances whl-ch,ln thls case, are not totally appllcable.
In the past, the Towrr has encouraged privately flnanced lmprovements
and developrnents that areeenslble and well deeigned. Approval of thigrequest for a varlance w111 allow that same healthv attitude ro con-
t lnu e .
NA]'IES AND ADDRESS FOR PROPERTIES
ADJOINING INIT I, VAIL TMILS CHALET
1) Vall Vlllage 4rh Flung, Iors l-9
Texas Townhoueee
Randy Mllhoan - Manager
Terae Townhouee Aasoc.
P. 0. Box 114Vall, C0 81658 476-0414
2) Vorlaufer
Vorlaufer Coodomlnlum Aseoc. Inc.
2302 L700 Broadvay
Denver, CO 80202
3) Garden of the Gods
Mre. Albert C. Htll (ltargaret lt.)
3525 Turtle Creek Blvd. 13 BCD
Dallaa, TX 75219
4) Vail Vlllage 5th Ftling, Lor p-2, Block #3
P-2 Aegoclatl.on
c/o Gary l{hlte
Box 1068
Vatl, C0 81658
5) Cornlce Butlding
Walter A. & Earbara lluttDer
4300 S. Mansfleld Ave.
Englewood, C0 80110
6) Tyrolean Condomlnlums
c/o Brandug Cadnue Real Eetete
281 Brldge Street
ValL, CO 81557
Vall Athletlc Club
Vall Athletlc Club Uanager
352 Eaet Meadow Drlve
VaLl, CO 81657
Va11 TralLe Chalet
Condonlnlum Ae soc lat Lon
c/o John Curry
12343 E. Arksnsas Place
Aurora, CO 80012
7)
8)