HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 6 BLOCK 1 LOT 9 PART 2 LEGALFROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
o'-1)f ;
{tw{
MEMORANDUM
Town Council
Community Developmenl Department
April 11, 2000
An appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's March 13,
2000, approval of a request forvariances from Section 12-6D-6, and
,Section '12-14-6, Town of Vail Code, to allow for an addition and deck
expansion, located at 706 W. Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6rh
Filing.
Appellant: Nancy Shapiro Adam of NSA Investmenis
Applicant: Cliff lllig, represented by Beth LevinePlanner: Allison Ochs
BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTTON OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, Cliff lllig, represented by Beth Levine, is requesting variances from Section
12-6D-6(setbacks),andSection 12-14-6 (decksetbacks),Townof Vail Code,toallowfor
an extended entry, trash enclosure and deck expansion, located at 706 W. Forest Road/Lot
9, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing. The addition is proposed for only the secondary unit and
includes two dormer additions at the back (do not require a variance), a dormer addition in
lhe front, a trash enclosure beneath an existing deck. an extended entry, and deck
expansion. The existing duplex was constructed in 19E0. Because the lot has slopes in
excess ot 4O%, the house is built into the front setback, which was allowed at the time of
construction. The primary side of the duplex (owned by NSA lnvestments) received a
variance in June of 1998 to allow for the enclosure of a deck within the front setback. The
variance for the deck enclosure was granted with one condition: That a limit of disturbance
line be established al the rear of the unit and no development was to occur beyond this line
in the future.
The following is a description of each of the present variance requests:
. Dormer: adds mass in the setback, but does not alter the existing footprint of the
building. (12-6D6). Trash Enclosure: decreases side setback from 15' to 6', but is beneath an
existing deck. 127.5 sq. ft. of GRFA is added in setbacks. (12-6DO). Deck: expands existing front deck around to meet the existing side deck and
adds approximalely 122 sq. ft. of deck area into front setback. Does not change
existing front deck setback. (12-14-6). Entry-way: increases foot print of building, and adds mass in the setback. Does
not eXend pasl existing building and is in the location of an existing deck @l sq.
ft. of site coverage and approximately 120 sq. ft. of GRFA is added in the front
setback. (12-6D-6)
il.
"-o toj
The proposed dormer additions at the rear of the unit do not require a variance.
Approximately 350 sq. fl. of GRFA is added with the additions. Reductions of the plans. along
with the applicant's statement of request have been attached for reference. Conisoondenc6
from the adjacent property owner has also been included for reference.
On March 13, 2000, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted to unanimously
approve the variances (4-0; Schofield, Golden, Cahill were absent) based on the following
findings:
1. That the granting of the setback variance does noi constituie a grant of specialprivilege inconsistent with the limitations on other propLrties in the
Primary/Secondary Zone District.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvemenis in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is wananted because there are exceptions or exraordinary
circumstances or conditions appticable to the same site of the variance that do not
IPPIY generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone
Dstrict.
The approval included one condition:
1. That a limit of disturbance be established at the rear of the unit end no development
is lo occur beyond this line in the future.
The appellant, Nancy shapiro Adam of NSA Investments, is the owner of the primary unit.
Her objections to the proposal are attached for reference. She primarily objects io the
variances on the basis ihat ihere is no hardship to wanant variance from the town code.she also believes thet the proposal will have a detrimental effect on her property.
Conespondence has been attached for reference.
The lllig remodel was conceptually reviewed by the Design Review Board at the March 1,
2000, meeting. The Design Review Board directed staff to "staff approve' the remodelpending approval of the variances. The project was staff approved on March 17, 2000. The
appellant then appealed the staff approval of the projec{. The Design Review Board again
reviewed lhe appeal at their April 5, 2000, meeting and upheld thl staff approval oflheproject, stating that lhe projed met the intent of the Design Guidelines and that staff ac{ed
as directed by the Board.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council uphold the
Planning and Environmenlal Commission's approval of the reguested setback variances(Section 12€Do and 12-14-6) to allow for the entry addition, trash enclosure, dormer
addition, and deck expansion subject to the following findings:
1. Thal the granting of the setback variance does not constitute a grant of specialprivilege inconsistent with ihe limitations on other proplrties in the
/
2.
o()r )-*
Primary/Secondary Zone Districl.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare, or materially injurious to properlies or improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is wananled because there are exceptions or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable io lhe same site of the variance that do not
apply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone
District.
Should the To$/n Council choose to uphold these variance requests, staff recommends the
following condition:
1. Thal a limit of disturbance be established at lhe rear of the unit and no development
is to occur beyond this line in the future.
ZONING AND SITE STATISTICS
Lot Size: 58,498 sq. fl.Zoning: Primary/Secondary ResidentialHazards: Slopes in excess of 3O%
!il.
Allowed P/SGRFA: 7,525 sq. ft.Primary 4,430 sq. ft.
Secondary 3,095 sq. ft.
Selbacks:Front: 20'
Wesl Side: 15'Rear: 15'Deck: '15'
Site Coverage:8,775 sq. ft. (15%)
Existinq
6,951 sq. ft.
4,232 sq. ft.
2,719 sq. ft.
1s',
175'
I'
Proposed
7,303 sq. ft.
no change
3,071 sq. ft.
9',
6',
172',
8'
3,866 sq. ft. QYo)
tv.CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Considention of Factors Regarding the Setback Vaiances..
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity.
Staff feels that there will be no detriment to other uses and structures in the
vicinity. All of the proposed additions are minimal and will onty serve to
enhance the sunounding uses and structures. This proposal will also help
to match this unit with the improvements done to the other unit in 1998.
Cunently, the stain of the siding does not match, nor do the deck railings.
The applicant is proposing lo maich all materials and colors of the other unit.
Staff feels that these improvements will be a benefit to the neighborhood.
B.
\-O (oo
In addition, the Design Review Board conceptually reviewed the plan at its
March 1, 2000, meeting and had no negative comments. The DRB directed
staff to "staff approve" the proposal contingent on the planning and
Environmental commission approval of the variance reguests. Following an
appeal ofthe staff approval, the Design Review Board again stated that the
proposal mel the Design Guidelines. The stafi approval was upheld.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and unilormity of trcatment among sites in the vicinity or
to attain the objectives of this tiile without a grent of special privilege.
Due to the extremely steep slopes (in excess ol 4oo/o) in this neighborhood,
stafi feels that there are extreme circumslances which wanant thC requested
variances. Staff feels that it is important to minimize site disturbance to these
extremely steep slopes at the rear of the house, whictr pushes development
to the front and sides of the house. The house was originally allowed in the
front setback due to these steep slopes. There are other residences in this
neighborhood that encroach into setbacks, via either variances or built under
regulations which allowed these encroachments, including lots 10, 12, and13. The primary unit at this location received a variance to enclose an
existing deck in the front setback, stating that lhe extreme slopes on the lot
wananled variance from the regulations. originally, the primary side applied
for a variance which would allow for a dormer addition in lhe front setback.
A motion was made by the Planning and Environmental commission to deny
the variance requests for the primary side. However, the motion failed dui
to a lack of a second. The applicant then requested to be tabled and the
dormer addition in the setback was removed from the proposal. The variance
for the deck enclosure was lhen granted with one condition: That a limit of
disturbance line be established at the rear of the unit and no development
was to occur beyond this line in the future.
The cunent proposal does not encroach any further into the i'ront setback
than the existing building. Based on lhe extreme slopes on the lot, and the
previous variance granted on the primary unit, Stafi does not believe that this
is a grant of special privilege.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with
this proposal, if constructed, on the above-referenced criteria.
The Town council shall make the following findings beforc upholding the pEnning aN
Envircnmental Commission's gnnting of a vaiance:
1. That lhe granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistenl with the limitations on other prcperties classified in the same
/
z-
a
o:.)).*
distrid.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvemenis in lhe
vicinity.
That the variance is wananted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The stricl literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceplions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally
to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
=-\
(: )o\-o
.;
E(It
E
E
fiJIc(s
L-
s
.sl
-
t-
8_IfL
5
-o'fa
.l
3l
-ao5ctoE
ofJc(E
TIl-
_(tr
t
ct)TI
Ir
I
Eg u',. i 5
)-'Or',
-a
;
I
:. r,
*!-!'
*.t,
i ;r'.'
t
- - -- ---"1
ssrtb
9S
f
fr{-
$S
ftai
I$ta
.I"
F
ii:ilf6= iiiiE
;:i;i1 d ii?;!:'.T qE?"F
;
,'..--a'! ..."--- : ti?; i;
'ro -::
a?! 3'
.="! i El3a : a i/i/
a-j. j:
y
:.'
n
r 3F*si ;\rg'a
\.O ('Jo
I
0
>
q
t
gI
t
T\ls
F
)-
1f
TF
f
o
>)a{
tII
.
E-lF :
-! l=ld|f'
I
Ji
Eisi
:i
N
r-it
{9; i
'gl
I
-3- :
iEi i
ll
h"1
7o
)t
t{
)
4
o-
. :*y-{:!&
It\ i
I
.l i
t'
d\!p
- '{: t
lu t-
-l
.f;
{: i'.i, ":
(
.- Approved March 27, 2000
o,')
'LANNING AND ENVIHONMENTAL COMMISSION
March 13,2000
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT:
Galen Aasland John Schofield Dominic Mauriello
Brian. Doyon Diane Golden George Ruther
Tom Weber Doug Cahill Breniwilson
Chas Bemhardt Ailison Ochs
Ann Kjerulf
Judy Rodriguez
Todd Oppenheimer
Public Hearinq 2:00 p.m.
Galen Aasland called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a minor subdivision, to allow for an amendment to a previously platted
building envelope and a revised lot access, located at 1452 Buflelir Creek Bd./Lot +,
Hidge at Vail.
Applicant: Mike youngPlanner: George Ruiher
George Ruther gave an overview o{ the staff memo.
Galen Aasland asked if the applicant or public had any comments. There were no applicant or
public comments.
Tom Weber had no comments.
Brian Doyon had no comments.
Chas Bernhardt had no comments.
Galen Aasland summarized the conditions and asked if the applicant was in agreement with the
conditions.
Brian Doyon made a motion for approval, in accordance with the statt memo.
Chas Bemhardt seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-0.
2. A request for variances from Section 12-6D-6, and Section 12-14-6, Town of Vail Code,
to allow for an extended entry, trash enclosure and deck expansion, located at 706 W.
Forest FloacULot g, Block 1, Vail Village 6h Filing.
Applicant: Cliff lllig, represented by Beth LevinePlanner: Allison Ochs
Allison Ochs gave an overview of the statf memo.
Planning and EnvironmenEl Commission 1
Minutes
March 13.2000
.*- o /. \ lpproveO lvlarch 27, 2000io
Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had any comments.
Beth Levine, representing the applicant passed out and explained photographs she passed
around to the PEC.
Galen Aasland asked for any public commenB. There were no public comments.
Chas Bemhardt said there was no conflict with this application.
Tom Weber stated the application met the criteria.
Brian Doyon asked if the applicant was aware of the no distubance zone and mentioned that this
was no different then the other half of the duplex.
Galen Aasland said he saw no special privilege.
Brian Doyon made a motion for approval, in accordance with fre statf memo.
Chas Bemhardt seconded the motion.
Lynn FriElen said she was here on behalf of Nancy Adam, who was an adjacent property owner.
She said Nancy Adam was not comfortable with the variance, but has not had an opportunity to
meet with the neighbor. She said Nancy thought the front variance was on commonly owned
land and she requested the expansion be on the ownefs footprint. She said Nancy recognized
the variance was being addressed, but the trash enclosure was too large and she would like it
scaled down. Lynn then submitted a lener from the property owner.
Galen Aasland suggested withdrawing the motion, until the letter was read and discussed.
Following the PEC reviewing the letter, Galen asked if Lynn FriElen had anything to add.
Lynn Fritzlen requested making the variance approval contingent on neighbor approval.
Allison Ochs stated that this was not a requirement of the code.
Galen Aasland asked if the applicant or public had any more comments and, based on the new
information, if the Commissioners had any further comments.
Brian Doyon said this was not a grant of special privilege. He said the neighbor dispute was a
party wall agreement, in which case tre PEC could not make judgement on.
Chas Bemhardt agreed that this was out of the jurisdiction of the PEC.
Tom Weber agreed.
Galen Aasland agreed.
Brian Doyon made a motion, in accordance with the staff memo.
Chas Bemhardt seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of +0.
\
Planning and Eruimnmental Commbsion
Mhut6
March '13,2000
/
-. Approved Vlerch 27, 2000o-
3. A request for a variance lrom Sections 12-6H-5 and 12-14-6, Town of Vail Code, to allowfor the addition of gross residential floor area and balconies within required setbacks,
locateci at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Vail Townhouse #2-ClLot 2, Block 5, Vail Viltage 1s
Fiting.
4pplicant: Vicki Pearson, represented by Ron Diehl, ArchitectPlanner: Ann Kjerulf
Ann Kjerulf gave an overview of the staff memo.
Galen Aasland asked if the appticant had any comments.
Vickie Pearson, the applicant, showed photographs of the property in the 50's. She said this will '
be postcard quality, as she plans on doing top of the line redevelopment. She said it could be a
spectacular building and would like to keep the architectural feature in the corner of the building
and would be getting the Condo Association's letter of approval.
Ron Diehl, the builder and designer on the project, stated there was a hardship, as it was in the
20' setback and therefore, had lo change the massing of the building. He mentioned people
crossing the bridge would see this structure and he would like to impress them. He said they
could add additional square footage in the master, but the massing would have to change.
Galen Aasland asked for any public comment. There was no public comment.
Tom Weber said there was a hardship with this site and he was in favor of the tunet, as it *as a
nice feature.
Brian Doyon asked if other properties in the Rowhouses or Texas Townhomes were granted
GRFA in the rear setback.
Ann Kjerulf said, not that she was aware of.
Brian Doyon said he was in agreement with the stafi memo and said he knew there were other
(side setback) variances given to the neighbors
Chas Bernhardt said when the building was first built, there were no restrictions as are in place
, now. He said there were several properties in the neighborhood that had received variances,- and so he agreed with the staff memo. He mentioned that the architectural feature was an asset
to the property.
Galen Aasland said he agreed with Chas and also agreed that the tower would fit.
Ann Kjerulf clarified that it was not in the stream setbaclq just in the rear setback to the property
line.
Galen Aasland said he could support this application.
Tom Weber made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo, with the exception
of the staff denial with the conditions.
Chas Bemhardt seconded the motion.
Galen Aasland asked if there were any similar rear setbacks.
Ann Kjerulf said, no, not in the file.
Planning and Environmental Commlssion
Minute6
March 13,2000
.-O Approved March 27,2000'i- o
Dominic Mauriello advised the PEC that there would not have had to be a previous variance, as
long as.this met the criteria. He mentioned that other properties up and ddwn the street have
enjoyed different levels of encroachment.
Chas Bemhardt said it was not creating any hardship on light and space.
Galen Aasland asked for clarificalion of the stream setbacls. He said that he could not support
the proposed encroachment into the stream setback
The motion failed by avole ot 2-2.
Brian Doyon made a motion for denial regarding fie rear setback
The motion lailed for lack of a second.
Tom Weber suggested the applicant come back to the next meeting when there were more
uommrssroners present.
The applicant requested tabling this item.
Tom Weber made a motion to table this item until the next meeting.
Brian Doyon seconded the motion.
The motion iasseC by a vote of 4{.
4. A request for a work session to discuss a proposed major amencfnent to Special
Development District #4 (Cascade Village), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West (Glen
Lyon Office Building)ilot 54, Btock K, Gten Lyon Subdivision.
fpplicant: Dundee Realty, represented by Segerberg Mayhar ArchitectsPlanner: George Ruther
Greg Finch, of Dundee Flealty, summarized the otd and new pans of the proposal.
Kqrt Segerberg, representing the applicant, showed the site plan and how they tried to reduce
the bulk and mass of the building along the ends of the building. He said by tuming some of the
spaces uP on the 4'n level they cbutd reduce the mass. He saE he increas6d the pltch on the
ends.dnd addeda hipped roof. He said some ol the materials were more loQe in feeling and
that the height of the building had not been increased. He said they pulled tne OunOing Oacf to
meet the 50' stream setback and would have an arborist on site to save the Uees andhitigate
the trees that couldn't be saved. He said the overall ground level of the project had remained the
same.
Chas Bemhardt asked for information on employee generation.
Greg Finch said they were mixing employee housing with high-end housing .
George Buther gave an overview of the staff memo. He said the emptoyee housing square
footage breakdown was on page 3 of the stafi memo.
Galen Aasland asked for any public comment. There was no public comment.
Planning and EnvilonmenEl Commbcbn
Minutes
March 13.2000
-- 4pproved llrarch 27,2O00
Chas Bemhardt said he liked the roofline, but had 2 main concerns. He said, regarding the
employee housing units, that this devetopment would generate new employees and the applicant
would need to house them. He said the 50' stream setback was a minimum requirement and
made a lot of sense in the main areas of Town, but because of the steepness in this plan, the
setback should be a lot more. He said the PEC had been asking for cross sections, showing the
elevation change, but we have not seen that yet.
Greg Finch explained this project was scrunched between the stream and the street.
Chas Bernhardt said that although he was very lenient, he felt this was way too steep for only a
Tom Weber said he too was concemed with the stream. He suggested taking the building down,
instead of up. He suggested taking out the material down to the stream making the outdoor
space usable and it would also solve the grading problem. He thoughl this would have less
creek disturbance. He said he didn't see much reasoning with requiring more EHU's, since otfice
sDace was so needed.
Brian Doyon said the project was visually much better, but he would like to see a grading plan
and cross section for the street conidor. He said it would be a substantial amount of grade and
he didn't feel any trees would be able to be saved. He said he would like more EHU's and the
parklng requirement met; the same as we hold everybody to when a redevelopment project is
done. He said the '99 approval allowed the bulk and mass, since offices were important. He
said the bulk and mass had gone up with not much justification for this narow lot. He said he
would approve a 55' stream setback, with the building stepping down two stories. He thought the
garage had to be all underground or else lose two stories trom the top. He said EHU's don't go
wellwith high-end real estate.
Galen Aasland agreed with his fellow Commissionefs. He said the applicant was told to add a
huge increase in office space as a benefit to the Town, as requesled by Council, in exchange for
lhe mass and bulk in the building. He said this revised application subverts the process, distorts
goals and was totally inappropriate.
Kurt Segerberg said this was the best use of this site and it was the same office space that the.Town wanted. He said he thought this was coming together and so he is prel-ry amazed a? how
the PEC is now reacting to this project;
Greg Finch said we can't make it work then, since the condos make it work.
Dominic Mauriello said it was unfortunate since we just spent the last year on this and now we
are back to square one.
Kurt Segerberg stated that the height of the building was the same height.
Brian Doyon said he would be more amiable to this proposal il there was more office space and
less condos. He said there is nothing that spans the Frontage Road the way this does anywhere
in the Town and what you are asking from us is too dense.
5. A request for an exterior alteration and a conditional use permit for a tractional fee club
and a parking variance, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club, located at
352 East Meadow Drive/A part of Tract B, Vail Village 1o Filing.
Applicant: VML, L.L.C.
Phnning and EnvironmEntal Commission
Minutes
March 13,2000
ti t, Uo,*
rvlarch 27' 2000
Planner: George Fluther
Gggrge Ruther gave an overview ot the stafi memo. He explained the site plan where the
additions were being added.
Galen Aasland said they were not asking ior any change in height. He then asked George to
explain the dormers.
George Ruther explained the floor plans.
Tom Braun said most ol the addition was being done intemally, with a reshufiling of uses.
Galen Aasland asked about the ele,rator.
Ray Story said they would put in a laster elevator with an ovenide.
Brian Doyon asked about the retaining wall and if it would be removed.
Tom Braun said, yes.
Art Abplanalp asked for the roof elevation to be measured.
George Ruther stated that, according to the Code, iuchitectural projection would be determined
by the DHB, or 257" of the alloA,abte height of the building.
Dominic Mauriello stated that the Maniott was just approved, using this formula lor architectural
projection.
Galen Aasland asked if the applicant could mark the additional encroactments on fie plan-
Tom Braun explained the project as a high-end boutique-Epe hotelwithin the parameters of the
new PA Zone District. He said there were essentially 4 areas of expansion anb explained the
setbacks. He explained the pop-out area for the manage/s unit.
Brian Doyon asked about the stream setback conidor.
Galen Aasland aslect about the 20 AU's andl or27 DU's. He then asked for any public
comment.
Ron Robertson, a s-month resident ol the Mountain Haus, owner of the top mountain and east-
facing unit, said he purchased his unit for the view of the Gore Range. Hd said he and 11 other
owners on the east side of the Mountain Haus would have views impacted. He suggested more
time tor the Mountain Haus owners to go over the pros and cons. He said he was i6ncemed
about moving anything on the west side of the building, closer to the Mountain Haus. He thought
it wrong not.to do a sun/shade analpis just because it didnt exceed the ridge line. He said th6
elevator and anything above the dormers would affect his viery.
ArtAbplanalp, representing Mr. Robertson, said this was a tremendous imprwement and he just
had a few issues. He stated that one of the problems with the application was ttrat there was no
architectural model and according to the Code, there was supposed to be one. He said the north
tower, characterized as an entry feature with two levels of GRFA above it, impacted the
sun/shade on East Meadow Drive. He said the impact was not from the ridgd line, but from the
tower. He said the shadows would be cast by the Tower in the moming and in the aftemoon by
the Mountain Haus, rotating throughout the day and ttre impact here was 300' long with the su'n
Planning and Environm€ntal Commigsbn
Minutes
March .|3, 2000
/\)- Approved Marcn2Z,zOOO
never reaching it.
George Fluther said about 600 sq. ft. of sidewalk on the north side of East Meadow Drive would
be heated.
Art Abplanalp asked what the impact was, as it would eliminate the sun that is there now and
encouraged a study done before final recommendation. He suggested a less aggressive answer
by realigning the front and taking away the tower. He stated there were options available that
could eliminate the shadow question 6 months of the year. He asked about the necessity of
expanding into the setback and that the elevator housing was a similar issue. He said h6 would
like to see the plans intemally consistent. He again said that with the elimination of the Tower,
the_ sunishade issue might go away altogether. He said you could still get the GRFA by not
building a new building, or Tower. He said the height was a sensitive issue and nothin! in the
way of height should be changed. He said one of ihe criteria was light, air and open space and
until the sun/shade analysis was done. this criteria could not be satisfied.
George Fluther said no portion of the building exceeds height allowances and is by right.
Everything is in compliance with the height allowances.
Tom Weber asked about the model.
George Ruther said the applicant was hoping to have a model here.
Tom Braun said there was a provision for staff to waive if not pertinent the sun shade analpis.
He said the shade impact from the tower was negligible.
George Ruther read from the Code saying that the sun/shade considerations are not "intended to
restrict building heights." He said shade already exists on the north side ot the building, and that
was why staff had requireC sidewalk heating. He said the landscape berm would be impacted,
not the road, since that was already shaded. He said, regarding the impact on views, that only
views in the 5-6 protected view conidors were protected.
Ron Byne, the developer of the hotel, gave a history of the project and said they had to work
within the box to minimize the impacts. He said thev did not want to have another Mountain
Haus and that this building did not need any more siudies.
Tom Weber said the building had a very nice feel, but asked where guests would pull in to check
tn.
Tom Braun explained the guest check-in, as well as the loading and delivery.
Tom Weber suggested discouraging people lrom pulling in and backing out. He asked George
about the otf-site mitigations, being a requirement of SDD's, as he felt this was burdening the
applicant with ofi-site mitigations.
George Ruther explained the streetscape improvements and that one of the Town's goals was to
seek partnership with the developer.
Tom weber said the code encourages the partnership; it does not require it.
Dominic Mauriello, said the staff recommendation was agreeable to the applicant with mitigation
lor any impacts.
George Ruther summarized the off-site improvements. He said that about 125 lineal feet of
Planning and Environmental Commissbn
Minutes
March'13.2000
iu)5**
March 27,2000
sidewalk was the new improvement and he then explained the wainscot made of rock veneer.
Tom Weber said the tower piece was crucial to the identity of the entry, but he would like to
remove the cupola. He said he was in favor of this project.
Brian Doyon thanked the applicant and George and agreed with Tom on the cupola. He said the
entry was appropriate and mentioned that the Mountain Haus and Austria Haus enjoyed the
privilege of being in the setback. He said, regarding the sun/shade, that fie street would alwala
be in the shade and we didn't need an anallEis. He agreed that views couldn't be protected,
since this was nol an adopted view conidor. He stated if the height changed, it would need to
come backjn front of the PEC.
Chas Bemhardt said the sun/shade analysis would have little eftect. He agreect with Brian on thd
tower being important. He said this otfered relief and was what the PA Zoning was about.
Galen Aasland said this does what we anticipated according to the changes in the PA Zoning
and we really do need to see a model for a building that is a half block long, as it also helps for
the public. He did say that he felt comfortable, since the ridge heights weren't changing. He said
the sidewalk was a fair tradeoff for the developer to pay for. He suggested keeping the elevator
2' lower. He said he was ok with the tower on this building, as it was essential.' -
Brian Doyon made motion for approval, in accordance with the statf memo, with the additional
condition that ii the height increases after DRB, it would have to come back to the pEc .
Chas Bemhardt seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote ol +0,
6. A work session to discuss a conditional use permit to allow for a poposed expansion at
Vail Mountain School, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch RoacUPart of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail
Village l2h Filing.
Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Gwathmey Pratt SchutE ArchitectsPlanner: Brent Wilson
Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo.
Brian Doyon recused himself as his company was working on this. He said the final review
would be on March 27.
!9! e,srathmey stated the present number of the student body was 24p,. He said about another
30:q00 sq. ft. would be added, €ts now the classrooms were 4-oo-500 sq. ft and very small. He
said the need was tor technical classrooms, which would be about 900'sq. tt. The'SO0 sq. tt.
auditorium was well received by the community and it would be ADA accessible and aboui the
size of the Cascade theater.
scott Lindall summarized Phase l, and said that adding the Nortr| addition would replace the
modular classroom. He said other major items would be to remove the berm. He daict the
second phase would be the Master Plan, which would include faculty housing and the auditorium.
N.ed Gwathmey said they were dissuaded from altering the existing bus stop and would keep the
bike path as a pedestrian path.
scott undall summarized how the site would react to the removal of the berm and said there
Planning and Environmefl El Commbsbn
Minut€s
Malch 13,2000
')-
Approved March 27, 2000
would be very little impact on the neighbors.
Brent Wilson said the air conditioning mechanical would be screened, which was the biggest
complaint from the neighbors.
Chas Bemhardt asked about the time frame.
scott Lindall said the temporary classroom was scheduled to be removed by July, 2001.
Tom Weber said his main concern was with access, because the drop-off lane was too close to
where the curb cut is. He suggested studying it and looking at alternate routes looping back, or
removing the interior connection to the housing elements and then adding a separate cuibcut.
Ned Gwathmey said there were administrative ways to control the drop-off.
Tom Weber said this was the only challenge to solve this traffic problem and he asked about a
left- turn lane into the parking lot.
Ned Gwathmey said there was no money for that. He said the number of kids driving to school
would increase, as they were increasing the upper levels.
Brent Wilson said a parking analysis would be provided at final review.
Tom Weber said the bike path was used by kids as a circilation path.
Galen Aasland asked about the entrances to the auditorium and mentioned that the housing
needed its own entrance with landscaping, so the teachers weren't tied to the school. He
suggested a barbecue area and volleyball court. He said he would like as few entrances on the
trontage road as possible. He then asked about mitigation for disturbance to the neighborhood.
He said the parking needed to be broken up and baniers put up across the bike path, as it is
useless.
Ned Gwathmey asked about Phase I EHU requirement, that the new development triggered.
Brent Wilson said he would go over that with him.
Galen Aasland said they would have to be treated like.all other applicants. He then asked for any
public input. There was no public input.
7. A PEC review oi proposed modiiications to the Gore Creek Flood Plain, iocated at the
Gore Creek Whitewater Parlg Gore Creek PromenadeiTracts I & A, Block 58, Vail Village
1o Filing.
Applicant: Vail Valley Tourism and Convention BureauPlanner: Brent Wilson
Brent Wilson gave an overview of the statf memo. He said a flood plain analysis would be
forthcoming.
Todd Oppenheimer said there was a several foot thick slab under the pedestrian bridge and to
remove it was not in the scope of this project. He said it was too early to define what to do
about getting rid of some of the concrete, although some of it could be incorporated into the
whitewater work.
Planning and Environmental Commissbn
Minut6s
March 13.2000
f , 5**
March2T'2ooo
Galen Aasland asked if they were fake rocks.
Gary Lacey said the placement of large boulders were configured in such a way as to create
interesting waves. The pools would be scoured out naturally to keep them deef. He explained
them being anchored into the banks and grouted into place with concrete that was not visible.
He said it would be a different character than what was there now and after construction. it would
show a lot of water. He said it would not impact the 100-year flood profile. He went on to
explain, using a rendering, the beach area with shallow water for kids.
Chas Bemhardt asked what would happen to fie Rubber Duck Race and if it would be too
dangerous for kids.
Gary Lacy said this would improve the safety.
Galen Aasland asked if kids would be sucked under into the pools.
Gary Lacy said a body, tubers, or logs would flush right through.
Brian Doyon asked about the time{rame.
Gary Lacy said it was designed and if permitted, it would be constructed priorto run-off this year;
if not, lhen in the fall. He explained that from crest to the crest was 18 inches.
Todd Oppenheimer said the rendering was only conceptuat at this point. He said the creek
would go from a ripple to a pool and the character of tfre creek would be changed
Joel Heath, Vice President of the WTCB, supported this to bring locals back to Vait Village and
stated that this section was the best piece of water.
Galen Aasland asked for any public comments.
w. Bar, representing Noel, one of the shops on Gore creek Drive, said that the $300,000 spent
was nol providing much profit to the Vail Village. He said it would take 200 years to get a retum
on the investment. He said the Town of Vail has failed local shopkeepers, since they couldn't put
signs in their windows and the sales tax income was alwaya negative. He said $300,000 speni
on rocks was materially injurious to the shopkeepers. He said he would rather have lighting and
heated streets and relax restrictions on special sale events. He said they used to be t-he -
backbone of successful towns and the money should be channeled into useful projects.
Galen Aasland said it was not the purview of the PEC how much the Town spends on this, just
the zoning and whelher the project met the intent of the zoning. He suggested taking the money
issue to the Town Council, as it was out of our purview.
Kaye Ferry, representing the Village Merchants, said W. Bar doesn't represent the merchants in
Vail Village. She said the rocks were not an answer, but added to create a more inviting
environment. She said although lights were important, they don't need to be connected-to this.
She then said the merchants in Vail Village were in favor of this.
Chris Amoroso, from Mountain Quest Sports, said this was ovenrvhelmingly positive by taking a
non-productiv-g timg_of year and getting people s<cited about being here. He said theie parks
were taking off and Denver was building three of them. He said people will want to host 'events
here because of this. He said the sport was taking off with peopie embracing it.
t
Planning and Environmental Commisebn
Minut€6
March 13,2000
10
,.f --.'Approved March 27, 2000
Mike Duffy, an owner of a Kayaking shop in Eagle Vail, stated that $300,000 to pay for rocks was
not that much and there may be rock donations. He said this would cause free publiciV for Vail
and would be a world class arena for rodeos. He said people will watch for hours and it will oet
people back in Town.
Doug Fennie, from Edwards, spoke in support of this. He said if the creek keeps flowing, he
wouldn't have to go to Shoshone.
Byron Hoyle, a former resident oi Vail sincel971, who now resides in Eagle, said he would love
to see this Kayak park go into effect.
Tim Kennedy, from Vail Timberline Tours, stated that Gore Creek was a gem when running and it
would be a fantastic way to see the Village and would draw a crowd.
Diane Johnson stated that she has seen the Golden Park and she thought this sport was cool
and said she would watch. She did say that lt would change the character and she would like to
see more than 3 drops, as Golden had 7 and Boulder had 12.
Mike Duffy, with Alpine Kayals, said when the creek is llowing it will increase the fish habitat and
control erosion.
Tom Boyd said he grew up in the Vail Valley and works with the Vail Daily. He said he could sit
in one rapid for 8-9 hours straight, He said this was a very popular and enjoyable sport. He said
that this Town did not welcome Kayakers and this was a way to change its reputation, as the
location was perfect.
Nikki Beyers, from Slifer Management Village Center Homeowner's Association, said they were
adamantly against this and that this presentation was premature, since the Corps of Engineers
report wasn't in yet. She said the homeowners were concemed with the low beach area on the
north side. She said the creek would be louder and they were concemed about the safety of the
children. She said she was also concemed if this was an allowable use of the Rhett Funds.
Kaye Ferry said if we listened to the property owners, nothing would get done.
Joel Heath, from WTCB, said that construction access would all be done on the river.
Galen Aasland asked if the beach would be removed on the north side.
Gary Lacey said the development would only occur on Town property.
Brian Doyon said there were cars involved with Kayaking.
Tom Weber said he was concemed with the debris flow in the runoff season and questioned who
would maintain this.
Todd Oppenheimer said there would not be a big increase in maintenance.
Tom Weber said we needed to identify a circulation access that was not on the north side. He
asked how it would be policed and if it would be too small. He said the demand was outstanding
and he could see frustration from people wanting to share this all at once. He asked about the
feasibility of expansion up or downstream and thought that needed to be part of the plan now.
He'asked how liability would work for this.
Planning and Envilonmental Commbsbn
Minutes
March 13,2000
L1
f.)RpproveO tUarch 27,2000
Brent Wilson sard liability was assumed to be the same, as long as it was like any other feature
in the creek.
Tom Weber said he was in favor of this.
Brian Doyon said he was not sure if the welcome sign to Vail should say amusement park 2000,
welcome to Vail. He stated that our natural resources keep on getting hammered and to destroy
another creek conidor and turn it into an amusement park; this was not the appropriate place.
Hq gaid he might support it, depending on what the Ets or Army corps of Enlihedrs says. He
said he was sure stairs would be needed for high and low runotfs and said that thas wai only a
200-yard stretch.
Chas Bemhardt said you have shown how much fun it can be. He said this wasn't a retirement
community and said lots of you came back to Vail showing interest.
Galen Aasland thanked the public and said anything we can do to bring more people in Town
was a good thing. He said he had concems with just 3 pools and would like t6 seb something
above.this. He thought 5-7 pools with some kind of transmission. He stated that everyone
oyrlgd the property down by the river; not just the adiacents. He said not to have any grout
visible.
Chris Amorosa said kayakers would help enforce the rules.
8. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for lhe conversion of existing hotel rooms
i1t9 qmpl^oyge housing units, tocated at2211 N. Frontage Hd. (West Vail Lddge)/Lot 1,
Vaildas Schone #3.
Applicant: Reaut CorporationPlanner Brent Wilson
Brent Wilson gave an overview of the statf memo.
Galen Aasland asked if the appticant had anything to add.
Lynn FriElen showed fie proposed site ptan, landscape plan and identified the pedestrian routes.
Chas Bemhardt asked for some coniferous trees mixed in with the deciduous trees for winter
buffering.
Lynn FriElen said we would address those issues at the DRB level. She said a total of 62 new
trees were. being proposed along with 12 conifers. She said they were taking out two conifers
and replacing them, per the Town Code requirement. She showed the roof line, as a*ting more
9:lilttiqn to the building. She also addressed the EHU's and said rhey wanted to incorporete rhe
EHU's into the mixed use housing, so it wouldn,t become ghettoized.'
Bruce Chapman explained the proposed drafl ol fre Condo Decs, showing how 3 uses were
integrated into one association; free market, commercial and EHU's. He iaid the commercial
and free market units would have the most interest in making sure the units were kept up and
would also have the most votes in the association.
Tom Weber asked if these votes were a majority on budgets, etc.
Planning and E nvironrnental Commbsion
Minut6
March 13,2000
t2
- Approved March 27,2000o)o,
Bruce Chapman said there would be a Board of Directors and an annual Homeowner's meeting.
He said the commercial and free market units would have a different perspective on maintaining
the property, rather than the EHU'S and would be more willing to spend the money. He also said
included in the declaration, were the Type lll employee housing covenanls.
Tom Weber asked if there was something in the Decs about excessive noise.
Galen Aasland asked for any public comment. There were no public comments.
Qhas Bemhardt said he liked the approved landscape plan and was in favor of -this. .
Tom Weber said the landscaping plan helped and he said he was in favor ol this, with a
stipulation for the DRB to create residentialcharacter.
Brian Doyon had no comments.
Galen Aasland said that at the last meeting he had requested a pedestrian easement across the
northwest corner be provided, more landscape buffer in the east and to have Tom Moorhead
review the Docs.
Brent Wilson said the only PEC issue was the conditional use for the AU's converting to EHU'S .
Brian Doyon made a motion for approval, in accordance with the statf memo and with Galen's 2
conditions; that the pedestrian path in the northwest comer be formalized and that there be more
screening, in the form of landscaping to the northeast comer of the lot.
Chas Bemhardt seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-0
9. A final review of the proposed changes to the Town of Vail's parking pay-in-lieu policy and
proposed amendments to Chapter 12-10, Town Code.
Applicant Town of Vail, Planner: Brent Wilson
10. Final review of the Town of Vail's revised parking generation analysis and proposed
amendments to Chapter 12-10, Town Code.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Brent Wilson
Chas Bemhardt made a motion to table items #9 and #10.
Tom Weber seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-0.
1 1. A joint work session with the Design Review Board to discuss the proposed development
plan/master plan and a conditional use permit for a park and recreation facility for an
approximately 12 acre unplatted parcel of land zoned General Use and Residential
Cluster, commonly referred to as the lower bench of Donovan Park, located south of the
Phnning and Eruironmental Commission 13
Minut6
March 13.2000
( 5"'*
March 27' 2ooo
South Frontage Road and east and north of Matterhorn Circle.
Applicant: Town of Vaill/ail Recreation DistrictPlanner: Dominic Mauriello
Dominic Mauriello said Alternative C was the prefened altemative. He then gave an overview of
the staff memo
Otis Odell introduced Ethan Moore.
Ethan Moore explained the soccer field dimensions of 150x300 and stated there were two
revisions since the last time it was presented. He said a bunker had been created as a natural
grandstand in lieu of putting a fence around the field. He said an enhanced banier, 5 'tall,
would be needed lo screen the parking .
Brian Doyon asked about the height by the golf course.
Tom Weber asked if this could be converted into a softball field.
Dominic Mauriello said the neighborhood would like to throw a Frisbee and not be dedicated to
just soccer or lacrosse, but the VRD would like it to be for youth soccer.
Ethan Moore explained that the building fooFrint had been reduced and the fields increased. He
explained the bus stop on the site and the impact or use on the existing bus stop and also said
that the grading on the site would be ditferent .
Brian Doyon asked who the bus riders would be.
Ethan Moore said he didn't anticipate the bus ridership woutd be greafly increased. He said
walking from the existing bustop would be an additional 250', or a 1000' hike to get to tr|e
buildings. He said they would recommend not having an intemal bus, as it woutc! introduce a lot
of grading issues.
Tom Weber asked about the grading and ponding effect on the soccer field.
Chas Bemhardt agreed fhat the bus didn't need to be on the site.
Tom Weber agreed that the bus didn't need to be on the site.
Brian Doyon said it was semi-appropriate for a bus to be there, but not that important.
Galen Aasland said more buses tuming on the Frontage Rd. would mean more accidents and so
he was not in favor of this.
Ethan Moore explained the parking on the site.
Scott Smith, of Suzake Associates, said they wanted to maximize the green. He summarized the
layout of the program on the site and said it was driven by solar orientation on the entrpvays to
the buildings. He demonstrated the possibilities ol the programs wlth or without the ABC and
Leaming Tree Schools.
Tom Weber asked about stacking elements on top of the parking.
Planning and Enionmental Commissbn
Minutes
March 13,2000
L4
'- Approved March 27, 2000
)
Scott Smith stated that this parking deck was the least expensive, as well as our of view.
Otis Odell said that surface and water issues would make a parking structure operationally
expensive.
Ethan Moore said there were benefits to having everything on the same level.
Galen Aasland asked for any public comments. There were no public comments.
Tom Weber said he would still like the parking buried, but liked the way the parking screened the
building from the Frontage Road.
Brian Doyon said they were on the track with eliminating some of the programs. He thought
business in a park was not a good mix. He also didnt think that buses should be in the area. He
said he would like trees to deline a gravel surface or naturaiized parking area. He said he liked
the stacking of the elements with some terracing of the activity centers. He said he was in favor
of Scheme 3 .
Chas Bemhardt said he was In lavor of stacking the building, the soccer field and the parking lot
should be built in year 1. He said the Pavilion could be buih the second year. He asked about
the size of the Pavilion.
Otis Odell said the Pavilion would be 12,000 sq. ft. on one level.
Galen Aasland said he liked the parking and the idea of the plaza, though he didn't agree with
the flat earth idea of the plaza. He said he was interested in what would happen with the bike
path and he didn't feel the bus should go through.
12. Information Update
Four, two-year term PEC vacancies - (Galen Aasland, Brian Doyon, Diane Golden and
Tom Weber).
PEC REPRESENTATIVE AT DRB FOF 2OOG
Doug Cahill Jan-Mar'00: fr:3:;,??
Oct-Dec'00
Chas Bemhardt made a motion to table assigning the PEC reps until the next meeting
Brian Doyon seconded lhe motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4-0.
13. Approvalof February 28,2000 minutes.
Chas Bemhardt had changes.
Chas Bemhardt made a motion to approve the amended minutes.
Tom Weber seconded the motion.
Planning and Environmontal Commisbn
Minutes
March 13,2000
The motion passed by a vote of &1 (Doyon recused)
Chas Bemhardt made a rnotion to adjoum.
Tom Weber seconded the motion.
The molion passed by a vote of /t-0.
The meeting adjoumed at 9:45 p.m.
Phnnhg and ErMnnmcntal Gommissbn
Mhute
March 13,2000
16
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
March 13, 2000
A request for variances from Section 12-6D-6, and Section 12-14-6, Town
of Vail Code, to allow for an addition and deck expansion, located at 706
W. Forest Road/Lot 9. Block 1, Vail Mllage 6tn Filing.
Applicant: Cliff lllig, represented by Beth LevinePlanner: Allison Ochs
The applicant, Cliff lllig, represented by Beth Levine, is requesting variances from Section
12-6D6, and section 12-j+6, Town of Vail code, to allowforan extended entry, trash
9ll*_sure and deck expansion, located at 706 W. Forest Road/Lot g, Block t, VaiiVillage
6'n Fiiing. The addition is proposed for only the secondary unit and includes two dormer
additions at the back (do not require a variance), a dormer addition in the front, a trash
enclosure beneath an existing deck, an extended entry, and deck expansion. The existing
duplex was constructed in 1980. Because the lot has slopes in excess of 4oo/o, the housi
is built into the front setback. which was allowed at the time of construction. The primary
side of the duplex received a variance rn June of 1998 to allow for the enclosure of a deci.
within the fronl setback. Originaily, the primary side applied for a variance whicfr would allow
for a dormer addition in the front setback. A motion was made by the planning and
Environmental Commission to deny the variance requests. However, the motion failed due
to a lack of a second. The applicant then requesled to be tabled and the dormer addition in
the setback was removed from the proposal. The variance for the deck enclosure was then
granted with one condition: That a limit of disturbance line be established at the rear of the
unit and no developmeni was to r.rccur beyond this line in the future.
The following is a description of each of the variance requests:
r Dormer: adds mass in the selback, but does not alter the existing footprint of the
building. (12-6D-6)
. Trash Enclosure: decreases side setback from 15' to 6', but is beneath an
existing deck. 127.5 sg. ft. of GRFA is added in selbacks. (12-6D.6): Deck: expands existing front deck around to meet the existing side deck and
adds approximately 122 sq. ft. of deck area into front setback. Does not change
existing front deck setback. (12-14-6)o Entry-way: increases foot print of building, and adds mass in the selback. Does
not extend past existing building and is in the location of an existing deck. 64 sq.
ft. of site coverage and approximately 120 sq. ft. of GRFA is added in the front
setback. (12€D-6)
6t+/,
rwt?f.vlu]'7
f. -i
The proposed dormer additions at the rear of the unit do not requtre a vanance.
APproximately 350 sq. ft. of GRFA is added from the addiiions. Reductions of the olans.along with the applicant's statement of request have been attached for reference.
Correspondence from the adjacent property owner has also been included for reference.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Communiiy Development Department recommends approval of the requesied setback
variances (Section 12€D6 and 12-14€) to allow for the entry addition, trash enclosure,
dormer addition, and deck expansion subject to the following nnOings:
1. That the granting of the setback variance does not constitute a grant of speciaiprivilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in thePrimaryiSecondary Zone District.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or welfare, or maierially injurious to properties or improvementi in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is wananted because lhere are exceptions or extraordinary
circumstances or condiiions applicable to the same site of the variance that do noiapply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone
Districl.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve these variance
requests, staff recommends the folloring condition:
1. That a limii of disturbance be established at the rear of the unit and no development
is to occur beyond this line in the future.
III. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS
Plannino and Environmental Commission:
Adion: The PEC is responsibre for finar approvavdeniar of a variance.
The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for:1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses andstructures in the vicinity.2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement ofa specitied regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectiveJ of this Tiile withoutgranl of special privilege.
3. The effect of the requesled variance on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities. and public safety.4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable io the proposed
variance.
Desion Review Board:
Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but musi review any accompanying
DRB appticalion.
The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for:1. Archilectural compatibility with other structures. the land and surroundings2. Fitting buildings into landscape3. Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography4. Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation5. Adequate provision for snow storage on-site6. Acceptability of building materials and colors7. Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, oveftangs, and other building forms8. Provision of landscape and drainage9. Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory struslures
10. Circuiation and access lo a site including parking, and site distances
1 1. Provision of outdoor lighting
IV. ZONING STATISTICS
Lot Size:
Zoning:
Hazards:
GRFA:
Primary
Secondary
Setbacks:
Front:
West Side:
Rear:
Deck:
Site Coverage:
58.498 so. ft.
Primary/Secondary Residential
Slopes in excess of 3}o/o
Allcwed P/S
7,525 sq. ft.
4,430 sq. ft.
3,095 sq. ft.
20'
lal
lq'
16''
8,775 sq. ft. (15%)
Existinq
6,951 sq. ft.
4,232 sq. ft.
2,719 sq. ft.
41'
17s',
8',
Proposed
7.303 sq. fi.
no change
3,071 sq. ft.
9',
172'
8'
3,866 sq. ft. (7o/")
V,CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
A. Considention of Factors Regarding the Setback Variances-.
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity.
Staff feels that there will be no detriment to other uses and slruc{ures in the
vicinity. All of the proposed additions are minimal and will only serve to
enhance the surrounding uses and structures. This proposal will also help
to match this unit with the improvements done to the other unit in 1998.
Currently, the stain of the siding does not match, nor do the deck railings.
The applicant is proposing to match all materials and colors of the other unit.
Staff feels that these improvements will be a benefit to the neighborhood.
_ln addition, the Design Review Board conceptually reviewed the plan at its
March 1,2000, meeting and had no negative comments. The DRB has
dirested staff to "staff approve" the proposal should the plannrng and
Environmental Commission choose to approve the variance requests.
The degree to which relief frbm the strist and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or
to attain the objectives of this tifle without a grant of special privilege.
Due to the extremely steep slopes in this neighborhoorl, staff feets thatlthere
are extrerne circumstances which warrant lhe requested variances. staff
feels that it is important to minimize site disturbance to these extremely steep
slopes at the rear of the house. which pushes development to the froni of the
house. The house was originally allowed in the front setback due lo these
steep slopes. There are other residences in this neighborhood lhat encroacn
into setbacks, via eiiher variances or built under regulations which allowed
these encroachments, including lots 10, 12, and 13. The other unit at this
location received a variance to endose an existing deck in the front selback.
while staff recognizes that these requests are belond a deck enclosure, iheproposal does not encroach any further into the front setback than the
exisiing building. staff does not believe that this is a grant of special
privilege.
The effest of the reguested variance on light and air, distribution ofpopulation, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with
this proposal, if constructed, on the above-referenced criteria.
The Planning and Environmenhl commission shall make the following findings before
gnnting a variance:
1. That the graniing of the variance will not constnute a grani of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same
district.
2- That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health.
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
o
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical diffiorlty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this tifle.
o,,o
b. There are exceptions or odraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the seme site of the variance that do not apply generally
to olher propertics in lhe same zone.
c. The strict interpr€tation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
.',: )
Beth Levine, Architect
P.O.Box 1825
Avon, CO 81620
(970)96-509 (phone)
(970WG2993 (tax)
Illig Residence Rerndel
706 W. Forest Road
Vail, CO 81657
Lot 9 Block: I
Filing: Vail Viflage 6't
Puctl:2101072110?2
Written Statement
1-31-00
The Duplex at 706 Forest Road was remodeled onthe east side in 1998. Tlp owner of
the west half would like to remodel the west si'Ce. Tbe eas side did an extensive rernodel
and thus left the west half looking ver]'poorly because the east side no longer matches
the west side. CliffIllig's intent ofhis remodel is to rnake both sides look like a common
home again. Cliffs iutention is to match all tbe eas halfs new details with regard to
oil.gt, color and expansive dorurcn. Thus, the west half would like to have a variance
for an exparded entrance and a trash enclosrre as was done on tbe east half The remodel
on the west half will help the entire structure to comply with the T.O-V. rcgulafbns by
making both balves read as one stnrcture again Tbere will be no firrther effect of ligh,
air, distribution of populatiorL transportation, taffic facilities, utilities or public safety on
Forest Road as a result of rhis nddition
o
;o
il:r. a \-"oz\.itrv'l ;t:{ ;
- .,:
.. j;
t.'
;
|l!
:-
\:
\
\.!\;'\
\
'i
.$
'N/
^\.\J\
l\() I
\.$
.\\\
.t
^bt
| {rl
tl ., ll[ ?pl
ctl$!
{
lf
t\
i,t- r. -Ct
-t\
-'.:i .n:-?
cvjgci:lr
U) u ,.,
dt iir\ 1-- r:
t:
iei'-
iiir; t\
c\t-\..
F1
I
l.i:lrr '.c
lfl"il:tt'
') o
lil!t,'
'F.'
1r'
i6
Il
l
{I
t
q
3{Is
tI
1f
E
t:
i;t:
F
ii_
IAta-l:lk'
qt'
d
J
o
*
Tt
I
L
la
l!,
i)t'I
I
I
I
s
?i?
z;:ri
iii::g* iili
it"i'15 it-'=
b $i lr;is I
i -'$l ;ii i: II ri iii si I-:r:-iT-
t-'- ----;-
lilll;' i;'
1..
rr ir;' l'
I
tl/liH
Beth Levine, Architect
P.O. Box 1825
Avon, CO 81620
(970)926-5099 (phone)
(970)926-2993 (tax)
Illi.-e Residence
Remodel
706 W. Forest Road
Vail. CO 81657
Lot: 9 Block: I
Filing: Vail Village 6'h
Parcel:2l01072I1022
Photographs of Existing Duplex
l-3 I -00
The remodel of the west half of the duolex, the
Illig Resiciance, will be built to march rhe remodei
done in 1998 on the east haifofthe duolex.
'lc b Lu(17-
o
l:r'':i-'-_
;-- --
-:-_1=t.---a;---1t{
-{._
i
.-.. ..J.:=*t^.- ts*
'-,i.tT
-L4
-'- dL-'i !tu6
4N ?/^1-)
^'Nf*
oO
4D(!
.1
0Y'
^1-./
altq
6*&
FGE.! E
FEB 1? 2000t{SA lnvestmentsr lno.
East Preserve Court
Village, CO 80121
303-770-0779
Fax 303-770-8918
February 12.2000
By Certified Mail-Rehnn Receipt Requested
Planning and Environmental Connnission-Please Distribute to All Members
Town of Vail
75 Souttr Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: 706 Forest Road, Vail, CO
Lot 9, Block l, Vail Village 6th Filing
706 Forest Road is a property zoned primary-secondary' We are the owners of the
prirnary rurit at this address. br today's rnaif we received notice from the Town of Vail
inut tfri owner of the secondary unit is going before this Commission on Febnrary 28,
2000, seeking a variance inthe Town of Vail Code.
We understand that the Commission does not want to get in the middle of disputes
between adjoining landowners. However, we need to make the Comnission aware of
ttre fact tfai Ae applicant may not have the legal right to probeed with his appiication
for several reasions. We are not nrcrely fire adjoining landowners but may in fact be the
joint landowners to the property affected by the application. Since the applicant bas
-failed
to provide.,s.withhis+loposedplans, we have to rely rryon the description in the
Town's notice that indicatei the affected propelty may be owned jointly with us'
When the property was develope4 the owners of each urit unit received sole title to
the portiorrof the propertyfteirunit enco'rpassed, wi$r the remaining exterior property
beirlg conveyeapintly to both rmit owners. To the extent the applicant is attenpting
to eiend the sec-ondarygnit into the existing land orSside tre rnrit walls, we may in fact
be co-ownen of the property affected by the application and, as sucll do not agree to
or otherwise support such application
Furttrer, the Townhoue Declaration which encurnbers this property requires the
consent of the adjoining owner before any exterior modificatiorrs can be made to the
/o'
propefly. The applicant has failed to comply \vift this requirement. The applicant has
iaif"a to provide us wittr the relevant information, including architectural plans' for us
to review, comment on or approve. Having faiied to comply with this fi[rdamental
requirement that governs any-i,oprou.ment of the properf,v' tlre applicant is premature
m submitting thii matter to the Commission at this time'
We respectfully request that the Connnission deny this application and otherwise table
tris matter untii the applicant has corplied wift Jt of ttre legal requirements to proceed
*lti, *y exterior work on this property as well as the applicant being able to establish
that he has exclusive title to the properfy on which this work is proposed to be done'
Due to prior out-of-town commiunents, we will not be able to attend this hearing to
voice these inatters in person but iequd-st that the issues raised in this letter be heard
and relied upon in denying the application'
Respectfully submitted,
NSA Investrnents, Inc.
M?"-rlt"-
U
By: Nancy S. Adar4 President
Mar- lO-OO 09:15A NSA f nvcstmcnts, Inc-P.02
L/,*f c_
NSA Investmen$, Inc.
.1.9 7 i basr Preselve Coun
0reenwooC Village, CO li0ll,l
jC'l-77Q-077r
F,,L\ i0i-770-8q18
idarch l0- 2(J00
'l'i, Toun of Var]-Planning and Envirournenrai Commrssion
Rc Applicallon tbr Variance trn 706 Forest Rrrad
wc arc the owuers of the Priman l,rut at i06 Forest Road, Vail. Colorad<_r The
Appircant is thc ourrer cf the Secondary Unrt at this address.
We did not rccciue notjcc that this application was ceing presentcd uutil M:yc,h 9,
200C Unibrttmateli. I aln out af ton'n and am rmable to attcnd rhis heanng rn personto present our oblections to the Application Accordrngly. wc have asked our
arclrtiects' Fritzlen, Pierce, Smith. to anenrJ this meetirg ou our behalf and to present
the rssues raised rn rhis letter
we requesr that ihc Application be denied tbr thc reasons set fonh in thrs lemer
Beclground:
705 Forest Road is zoneci prrrnary'-secondary. As part ol'its onginal tlesigur, the
deleloper created gcparatlon of space bctwcen tlre tu,o unrts by spacing the units--thu
Pnmar-a' Unir was construL:red closer lo rlp street md tlre seconian l_lnit was set backfrosr lire slreel and F.fther into the lrackrzrd Thrs separarion of space has affordedpnvflc]'between thc uruts, defined thc rlruri' space and creatcd an aesthqrc dctail to theproperty. All ofrhe Pnmaq-secondar-v propcnies located on west Forest Roadmaintain a separatiun of space betu r:en tLe-enrranccs lo the nvo units.
The aoplicant. Cliff lllig. purchascd the Secondarv Unit rn l9g9 fiom, what rveurrdersland. a close friend in an udisted rra.sactrou. Thc property is sublect toTownhouse Declarations which rcquire tlrc new purchaser ro inquirc ot'tie othcr ownerwhether there are outstanding issues anrJ whici reqrnre the other ()$rer's consenl toan!' e.xlenr)r Changres to the property
nents r lnC.P. 03
I
Prior to the Appficant's acquisrtro;r. his seller ald the olhs'ouner had sperrt substanlral
architecnual lbes in workrng on plans to renrcrlel thrs propertr His Scller dr,;covered
that due tc set back lirnrtations and sqrnre footage lurutatrons. there u'ould be ver1,
lurutcd c{Darslon ptcnialof thc Sccouclart' Unrt and rcld thc unrt ro rcmodcl a singtc
tarnllt properry. ou Bearer Dam. surce tbe Applicant rs u'oAing, *rtlr the sarue
irttonrcy, Bruce Chaprrnn. u'ho representec his Seller in thc pnor remodel plans. we
can onll' assume thal the Applicant knew trr should have known about the desrg:rr
IunuatrDns of this Prcperry-
Conlran to hrs duty under the To*nhouse Declaration. the Appircant [ever inquired
cf the Pnma4' Unit ovmer as to any mattcrs. tlrving chos€n to rgnc.re his tlutl to
lllqurre, the Applicnrnt Is charged with knowleCge ol'the rnforination he u,ould Inre
iecen'ed had hc rnquircd.
\tr'lrsn rhc Ftunary unit orvner learned in Februan thar the Apphcant was piannrng to
cbange the exterior ofthe Secondary Llnit, qr ulicnt rcqueslecl copics of the proptrsed
piaru, aslied to meEt with thc Applicant and sought to resoive outstanciing rssues that
extst-nanlelv, restthttion to our cltent tbr damages suttbrcd as a result of the Sccondar-vijult c)wner's ecriL\ns durrng tire prior ranodets to the property. ln fact a lien ls
rec':rded against the Secondary ljnrt as a resuh of tlrc Secondan' Ljnit Owner's fbrlure
tc reunburse rhe himru-v Unrt (Mrer for danags to thc ltrmary, Unit thar ocsttrred *c
lar: tunc lhe sccr:ndnr) Lnir r'lid c,\tcnor work. Again. with thrs lien rcconled against
lu.i properlv prior to hrs purchastng the S€con'Jary lJnit. rlrc Applicanr had noltcc thal
art isstte evsted that needed to be resolved and has choserr to lttlore thrs matter as well,wc believe it rs rq${tnable io rcquire the partles ro rcsolye the ourstan6ing issues frornprior ren:odei darnages caused ro rhe hrman Linrt owner by the adions of theSecondary I Jrrrt Owner before anv further work is Droposctl by rie Applicar:r
Title
Title to the Pnmarr'-Secondar,.r prrrpen) rs a brt confusrng. Hach or.l:rer is give'sole
trtle tr: the land on whjch their turit is acrually constructed. Horiever, the eltenor lanrlof the property rs Inled.lointlv *ith each ouncr having title ro an rmdrvrded one]ralfurlerest rn this land. Inasrnuch as the Apphcant is seeking a \.anancc to s1p6r6 beyond
Lhe extstrrrg ficur walls of lris unlt, hc is not the sole o!\ner ol'the lan<J aticctca Uy 6sapplrcatron As the joint owner of the land affected b.v this, applicatio'. NSAinvcstrncnrs. Irrc.. reguests the denral of this application.
Mar-IO-OO 09: l5A N:;A l nvestnrents, tnc.
.{pplicant's Failure to Comply With I)uties:
i\s:uant to To\,\n of'vail Code. the Applrcant is required ru givc rirrrclv uorrcc of rbc
applicalion to the adlouung propefi owner The Applrcanr lailed to dtr yr for this
hcarrng-'tlrc ariiornmg o$'ner L1nh, learaed of this heanug last Thursda)'as a resui:..ri'
a phone call wrth Allson Osch at thc Plannjng Dcparrmcnt.
Pursrnnt lc rhe Torqftcuse Declarations. the Applicant is required ro oirtarrr the
conscnt of thr Pnmary Unit Ormcr betbre iu1 extcrior rcrnrxJel wor* ca:r he dgrrc. 'The
,
Applicarn has farled to dc so Based upou last Tluusday'-s phoue call rvrtir lvls Osch.
it appcars that thc plaru subruincd to the 'l'i;u,n of Vail ruc substantiaill' differerrt frorn
tlte plans fbnvarded to our client rn February. The plans submrtted rn Februarl, u,ere
prelirninary, hand draut lndications irnposed upou the onginai btue prints of the
Propeny--confusing et best lf morc dctailcc, acctratc, clcarcr plarrs c.vst, thcu thc
Applrcant had a duti' to provrde us wth a set lbr our revrew pnor to this hearrng.
When otr chent first leirmed of lhe npplicanl's desu'e to remodel the Secondam' l..l:rit,
our client sent a deniled ietter ourlinrng the outsLandrng rs\ues betrr.een the prtrpcdics
auC irsking ltrr thE plans. Eveuruallv, e.ul client received the prelmrrnarv. conlirsing
plans Our clisnt prompd-v requesicd a mcsting tcr drssuss thc issues--oft'ering lo rneer
on Fridal', March 1" 2000 ar 3 30prn Rather rhan grve vt-''u the s()ap opera detarls of
our clicnt'.i good laith attempts to uaeet rvith dre Apphcant, suffice it to sa1' that the
Applicant did nol even ltave dre courtesv to cL'\nlirm or reschedulc the prope'sc{
rnccting Our clisnl has ried to rueel with the Applicurt to discuss these malers. brit
tite Appltcant hes stone-*alled these efforts. chcosing instead trr charge tbnvar.d with
thrs heanng tryring r.o lorce upon the prirnary. Unit Ou,ner a (elnodcl that rs nol
accuptablc for ma:y reasous.
Obiections to Front Set Back Varilnce:
A-pparently, the Applicant seeks a vanance to the ftont ser back to extend his entnu,ar
toward the street. we oblect lc thrs variance fLtr scveral reas'ns
Fust. there is no necessirv to cxpantl rhe tonr enu.v of the secondary LJnrr. The square
tgotags sizc of ttus enrl rs comparable to thc sguare tbotage ,,r" nitll. pn,nan, i.,inrr.
Thrs srec was a known fact whcn thc Appticant prrchased the unit last sprrng l'heztning hmrtations on expimsron into the setback ordrnance werE know:: cr w*r.rld ha'c
F.04
Mar-lO-OO c,9: l,64 NSA tnvestmcnts, f nc..P. 05
been knowu at the tnne oi'acqursitrorr had the Appllcant cirmpleted the <Jue diligrnce
assocrald wrth purchasing thls propcnv.
Second. the desrgn ofthe prooery is to use the set back of rhe Seccndan l]nir ro allord
privttc)'and separatir:n of space betrveen the two properties Allowing the entry trr the
Secondary IJnit to ntove forward rnto the front set back wrll defeat thrs funtiamental
desigr lbahrre
The Applicanl tncorrectly suggests that becausc we recerved B vanAncc for our rr:mrxlsl
rn 1998. then thev should ferrsiv6 trne as well Let's clanfy the faus. our front cnn_r
is in eractll'the same footprnt. the exacr same squre footage it has ahvays been Thi
tlnlv front set back vanancc u'e received was to enclosc an small porch arca on thc
thlrd floor of thrs propcrt.v- at the east enri of the property. Oru comrnon rvall rs in the
mrddle. By enclosnrg thrs porch area on the ei:st end of tlrc propcrl]., the snclosure was
madc at the oppositc eud of rhe building--far away iiour conunon wall and the
sccondary unir. c)tr enclosure did not have any irnpact on the pnvacy, use,
enJoyrnent, light. air or vrews of the Secondary lJnit.
ln contrasl the Apnlicant's requ€st tu cxpand his cntr.v' iuto thc fronr set back *.ill hale
a direct and adverse rrnpact on our propcfly. Il rviil rnvade lhe pnvacy rlnjo-v-ed b-v ttre
rr.l'o units. lt rvrll create conlirsion to peooie who come to the propeq- rince thc cnrr
to the Secondary Urut urll rlor be ctearly defined. We believe many ofiheir guesrs wiil
be nngnng our dc'ttrbclt siuce ou entry witl be the only clearty Cefinert rntry.frorn the
street. The proposal wrll rnake the ennre property look more liie a sirrgle farnily,rather
than maintaiu the rrue Pnmarv-Secondary definition it has
Tresh Enclosure Vtriance:
Mrile we do nor oppose the idea of the .A,pplicant crearing a trash enclosure op rhe
west sidc oithc Scondary'{Jnrt, we do oblecl to thc massive expansion proposcd sincc
rt rs substantially more space tlran needed tbr a simplc trash enclosure A qurck walkup and down the street will confinn that all of tlie trash cnclosures creared ur rhisnei$rborhoo'd are srnall. coufined spaces that contain one or tw-o trash cans antJ mavbea stack of rccvcling bins The massive cnclosure that rs propos.a ii tr,J.,.f,';fi;;ts excessive and ultnccessarv A reasonable. conrparable enclosurc r+'crul,J not tro[ected to. Agaul this rssue is ur exarnple of one of lhe mattcrs that courd havc bcenaddrxsed and resorved in a mccting botween lhe owncs if only rhe Appriuant would
Mar-lO-OO ()9: 1 Invcstmc!.rts, tnc..64 NSA
o
e. o€
hale marje somc effon ti.l meet or conlnunicale
Our Dormer Vrriaace :
\\'e have heard asscrlions tlnr hecause *e sought to expand our lourlh flocr ilormcr
into thc front set back. ther the Applicant should be allowetl to expand 1;1rc the fronl
s€l back Horvcver. a reriew of record will oor:fimr that Mr. Chapman. on bchalf of rhe
Secondary unrt owncrs, attended the heanng and vehemently oblected to ourapplication ln response to tbcir objections, we wrthdrew thii aspect frorn our
appiicatron. ,\ccordurgly, our actrons confirm our e8brts lo work with and utdress rlre
objections of the secondan' Unrt we reguest rhe samc consicreraricrri
(.'onclusion:
As fully drscussed ubove, !\€ are the loint owncrs of the land affcctcri b-v thrs
applicution. As the co-owners of tlus real esrate- we rcqucst the denral of ihis
applrcation.
ht rddition, rvc do nol beheve dre Codc rcquirements of rrecessitl, have been nrel. rvtlh
ttus apphcatron. Furdrer. the grantrng of a varjance w'ould create special treatlnent k)
the Apphcant lhat has nor been aflbrded to thc co-owrcr of thrs properu nor the
sunoundrng neighbon. Any hardship suffered by the Appliurnr as a resulr of denial of
the applicatron is a risk the Apolicant assumed when hc puchased thrs propcr[.--he
loerv or could easilv have thurd out thc linlred exTansron possibilities sirrce botS hisSeller and oruseives had speur substantial timc and archiiecrural fees anall.zing t1epropertv and rts developmcil porential Flalrrrg assumed t6is nsk the epplicanr shouldnot complain,.rf the colrsequsnces.
fftlnanvcb' we request that rhis nratter bc tabled until thc next pEC hearirrg on March3l' 1000' when x'c car be prescnt ur person to srale orrr conccms and answer anlquestiOns.
Respcctfu lly subrrrirred.
./ -+-'- /(... 4_/
o
lnvestments
o
303-77G0779
Fax 303-770-8918
Ove4pr b-elf Ccc<,t I ef-
BY FAX 97 047 9-2452 --andIIAlDDffffEFf
Mdrch 23,2000
To: Allison Ochs, Planner. Town of Vail
i 'lt-t'9
Re: 706 Forest Road, Vail, CO
We are the Owners of the Primary Unit at this property. Enclosed please find a
duplicate copy of the formal request for an appeal before the Town of Vail Town
Council of the-granting of the uuti*"" applied for by the Secondary Unit Owners'
We are zubmitting this letter to formally object to your staff approval of their remodel
plan despite ooti"" of our objections to m.it pt* despite gw.repeated efforts and
requests io 1yrr"t to discuss these matters, and without ever affording us an opportunity
to be heard on these matters.
For more than rwo months now, we have been corresponding with yor.r" as the Town
Planner, and Beth Levine, the architect for the owners of the Secondary Unit at this
property, asking for a meeting to discuss ogr concems about any ederior remodel of
it rS".ottOrry Uoit. W" .""re-surprised to learn yesterday that you staff approved the
proposed remodel withor.rt a fomnl Design Review Board Hearing and without gving
us an opportunity to express ot11. objeciions. The fact that we did not receive the
constnrction drawings from Ms. Levine until three (3) days ago--apparently after you
had staffapproved this project-means we were not afforded an opportunity to rwiew
o, ,orrrrn"r,t to the propos"ed project prior to yotn staffapproval despite our repeated
requests to be heard on this matter.
In li$t of the numerous written and verbal notices you had as to our concems about
*y L*od"t ofthe Secondary Unit and or.rr repeated requests !t * opport'nity to be
heard on these matten, *" dod your staffapproval of this project withor'd any formal
4975 East Preserve Court
Greenupod Village, CO 80121
o
Desigt Review Board Hearingobjectionable and request your withdrawal of approval
and the scheduling of such a hearing with notice so we can be present at the hearing.
When we first spoke, I pointed out to you that outstanding title and restitution issues
remain to be resolved. The Secondary Unit Owners do not have sole title to the
property affected by their variance application With notice of the joint ownership of
this land and notice that the co-owner of the land objects to the proposed project, we
are surprised that you would proceed on the variance ap'plication at a hearing for which
you had notice that we could not be present and then follow that rp by giving this
mafier staffapproval witrout notice to us nor any formal Desigr Review Board hearing
on this matter.
We are particularly concemed to leam that the Planning and Environrnental
Commission did not timely receive either of otu letters fomally opposing this
application and requesting that the matter be denied or at least postponed to a later
hearing date so that we could be present to voice our concenu.
We question whether the Design Review Board was provided copies of our fomral
objection letter dated February 12,2000. Please advise.
Since we fust leamed about their desire to expand the Secondary Unit, we have
consistently and responsively hied to be in contact with you and Ms. Levine. We have
tried to cooperate with the Secondary Unit Owners in their desire to expand their
properly while maintainingthe desigrr, liSt, ar, privacy, and views that the units have
enjoyed for20 yean. We have repeatedly asked for and made ourselves available for
meetings. Our offers of dates and times have routinely NOT been responded to,
leaving us sitting at the property waiting to meet with the other party but no one has
shown nor even been so cotuteous as to call and advise that they would not be there.
It is inpossible to meet with someone who refuses to show up and meet or to respond
to offered meeting times.
I-ast week, we offered at least 5 different meeting times when I arn in Vail next week
formy family's springvacation. Agatrq Ms. Levine has chosen to leave town withors
responding.
On Monday, we received from Ms. kvine the constnrction drawings. We have
reviewed the same an4 in addition to the outstanding legal issues as to title to the
property and restihfion for damages caued to the Primary Unit by the Secondary Unit
during the prior remodels, we raise the following concerns:
1. Front Entry: We object to the expansion of the front enbry into the front set
back for several reasons. First, it is conhary to the design fimction of this Primary-
Secondary Property. One of the biggest criticisms and concems with Primary-
Secondary Properties is the lack of privacy and separation of space. A quick walk up
and down West Forest Road will confirm that the Design Review Board has been
sensitive to this issue by approving projects which maintain a separation of space
between the enhances to *re two units. Every Primary-Secondary Property located ori
West Forest Road has a clear separation of space between the enfiry areas for each unit.
The original development of 706 Forest Road was designed to separate the two r:nits
by building the Prirnary Unit forward towards the street and recessing the Secondary
Unit back towards the hillside. The stepping of the two rnrits is rnaintained consistently
on both the front and the back sides of the property.
The proposal to expand the Secondary Unit's entry into the front setback brings the
enby space into the same plane as the Primary Unit's entry, defeating the separation
of space and privacy so fimdamental to ttre design of this property. The fact that the
door to the Secondary Unit will be a side antry does not overcome this encroachment.
In fact, a side entry will only create more problems-when visitors and delivery people
only see one door from the street, they will mistakenly assurne there is one entry and
ring our bell or leave us packages when the Secondary Unit is the desired location
The Design Review Board's desire to avoid expansive single plane designs was
addressed last spring with the Marriott's proposal. I was at the hearings when the
Marriott was required to break up the monotonous plane and step back part of the
project along the bike path. We do not rmderstand why you would staff approve the
Secondary Unit's encroachment irrto the front set back to achieve a specific design flaw
that the Design Review Board objects to and has required otherparties to avoid.
Clearly, a compromise can be achieved if a real "necessiq/' exists to justifr the
granting of a variance-that would be to build otrt the Secondary Unit's entry just
enough to bring it to the same plane as its garage and leaving the entry door facing the
sheet to clearly differentiate between the two entries. This compromise will enable
some expansion of space while maintaining the finrdamental design feature of this
property.
We heard your rationalization for the granting of ttris aspect of the variance on the basis
ftat it affords like heatnent forthe ganting ofthe variance to enclose our comer deck.
However, critical differences exists in these matters. Orn deck enclosure was on the
east end of ow property-far away from the Secondary Unit. The enclosure had no
adverse inpact on the Secondary Unit an4 to our recollectiorq was not objected to by
the Secondary Unit Owners.
Furttrer, our enclosure of the comer of the east deck was just that--eirclosure of the
existing deck In contrast, the Secondary Unit Owners are seeking to enclose the space
under their deck PLUS an additional 3 feet into the front set back Their request is
more exp:rnsive and invasive into the set back than or.u application.
In applying your concem for conparable treatnent to both variance applications, we
again suggest the following conpromise: allow the antry to the Secondary Unit be
expanded to enclose the space under the deck which would bring it to the same plane
as its garage and leaving the enlry door facing the sheet to clearly differentiate between
the two entries. This conpromise will enable some expansion of space while
rmintaining a linear separation of space which is such a findamental design feature of
this property.
2. Trash Enclosure Variance: The Secondary Unit Owners have applied for
a variance to build a trash enclosure on the west side of their unit. We understand and
appreciate the desirability to have a trash enclosure. Howwer, we again ask that this
matterbe limited to what is reasonably necessary and what is consistent with the trash
enclosures allowed throughout the neighborhood. A quick tour of West Forest Road
will confirm that the trash enclosures that have been constructed are limited in size and
space to store the necessary trash cans and recycling bins. The enclosure requested by
the Secondary Unit owners is massive in corryarison It is far more invasive ttpn is
reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose for which it is requested. eguirl we ar€
willing to work wifrr a conpromise on this matter that would enable the Secondary Unit
Owner to construct a trash enclosure in the connnonly owned land that is reasonable
in size and design.
3. Front Dormer and Chimney Extension: Ms. Levine has conveniently used
the 1980 blueprints to superirpose her rernodel upon In doing so, she has failed to
rtodify firc Prirnary Unit to show the current design of this rnit and the adverse inpact
her design will have on our liSq an, ventilation, views and privacy. There are
operable windows located along the west wall of the Primary Uni! the firnction of
which will be adversely affected by the massive dormer proposed by the Secondary
Unit Ownen ri$t in front of these windows. We reasonably object to this adverse
impact being inposed upon our properly.
When we designed our remodel of the Primary Unit, we did so with sensitivity to the
aesthetics of the property, increasing our window space while maintaining a balance
and proportion in the use of windows and siding. We find the proposed expansive use
of glass on the south wall of this property to be excessive and inconsistent with the
design and look of the property.
The predecessors in title to the Secondary Unit wanted to do a glass and modern
project on this property similar to the expansive use of glass in the current proposal.
However, after spending over a year trying to come up with an acceptable desigq they
accepted that such a look would not be conrpatible wittr the property and decided to sell
the unit to the current owners so they could do their own project on Beaver Dam Road.
The current owneni knew or should have known of such design limitations and should
not be allowed to pursue such an inconsistent approach to the curent design of the
property. Again, we ask that any exterior changes to the Secondary Unit be as
sensitive and consistent with the current design of the property as our remodel
achieved.
In surnmary, we object to the rnassive use of glass and massive height of the front
dormer. Both the height and volurne of glass is disproportionate and inconsistent for
the design ofthis propefty. The adverse impact such work will have on the design of
the property and on the privacy, air, light, ventilation and views of the Prirnary Unit
preclude our approval of this aspect of the proposed remodel.
4. Addition of Deck and Dormer to Southeast Bedroom: As previously
discussed, our design of the expansion to the Primary Unit was approved because of
its sensitivity to the use, privacy, enjoymenf air, light ventilation, and views of the
Secondary Unit. We designed our exparsion of space to be on the opposite end of the
property from the cornmon wall. We did not adversely irnpact any of the views, ligh!
ah ventilatioru or privacy of the Secondary Unit A substantial distance exists between
the conrnon wall and the space added to our unit .
In contrast, the Secondary Unit's proposal adds a deck and donner to the Souttreast
bedroorn The effect of this desrgn will be a direct and adverse iryact on the an,
o
Prirnarylight, privacy and view of the two of the westem bedrooms in the
these reasons, we object to this portion of their proposal.
Unit. For
5. Addition of Deck and Dormer to Southwest Bedroom: For the r€asons
discussed above, we do not object to the addition of space to this bedroorn Like or.u
remodel of the Primary Unit, the addition of space at this end of the Secondary Unit
does not adversely inpact otr light, air, views, ventilation or privacy. Subject to the
conditions discussed for any rernodel of the SecondaryUnit, we do not object to this
portion ofthe proposed project.
6. Replacement of Railings and Matching of siding: Likewise, we approve
of and encourage the proposal to replace the siding and the railings to match the work
done to the Primary Unit.
7. New Door and Window on West WaIl: It appea$ that the proposal includes
changing ort the existing sliding glass door and replacing it with an operable door and
with a window above it along the west wall of the Secondary Unit. Subject to otn
concems for any exterior remodel of the Secondary Uni! we do not object to this
aspect ofthe proposed remodel In confast to the excessive, disproportionate anrount
of glass proposed for the front side of the Secondary Unit, we think tbat the opposite
disproportion exists in the plan for the west side of the unit. We encotnage the
Secondary Unit Owners to consider expanding the glass incorporated on this side of
their gnit to take advarfage of the aftemoon sunligtrt, sunsets, ventilation and bearriful
western views to be anjoyed fromthis unit.
8. Additional Matters: We have tried to be thorough and responsive to the
aspects of the proposed remodel as we can determine from our review of the
constnrction drawings received from l\rls. Irevirrc on March 20, 2000. If there are other
aspects to the proposal that we have not addresse4 we ask that you point out these
matters to us and we reserye Ore right to address them at that time.
9. Conditions Precedent to Any Consenf Finally, please note that the
Towntrouse Declaration tbat enqrnbers this property requires the consent of the other
unit owner prior to any exterior remodel of a unit. Orn willingness to consent to any
exterior changes to the Secondary Unit is conditioned upon resohilion of the
outstanding legal issues fnst. These issues include restittfion to us for the damages
caused by the Secondary Unit Ownen dtning the prior remodels, resohrtion of the title
issues, and adequate insurance/assurances that tre Primary Unit will not srffer
additional damage as a result of any remodel to the Secondary Unit. We must not be
put in a situation in the future that we are currently in-of having to file liens and
Iawsuits as a result of darnage to our unit by the actions of the Secondary Unit Owner.
For the nlnrcrous rcasons set forth above, we ask that you withdraw the staffapproval
you have given to this project. Your failwe to do so may necessitate the filing of a
lawsuit to enjoin this project fromproceeding an expensive and adversarial process we
have been working diligently to avoid.
By copy of this letter being sent by fax to Ms. Levine, we atre glving notice to the
owners of the Secondary Unit of our denial of consent pursuant to the Townhouse
Declarations and ou request for an appeal to the Town Courcil of the granting of the
variance and issuance of staffapproval on this project.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Very truly yours,
NSA Invesfrnents, Inc.
t //. 4,r i)' ivrtau" -,1-fr-nlt, *., iJtztz u&
/t
By: Nancy S.%Oarq President
cc: Beth Levine--BY F AtX. 97 0-926-2993
03/tL/00 FnI l5:37 F I 0?0 0t0 8E{3
JAUBS m{. stovAI,L
JOsI.r D, Gooqil N
KBBYH. WAU.ACE
KntsnilMcKNrilt
Marcb 31,20m
SIIIVAI.L GOODIAil XILI,ACE Goor
TEr.EsoNE: gm)xg474n
FAcsIurIl': (t0) 9{$6t43
EMArU SATt.^w@v^IL.NEf,
STOVALL GOODMAN WALLACE
lftofEffr^r, (lt cAtlul
Aaonc t & Qmsbt ultw
zD BENcnxAnr HrzA ButtDtNo
48 SAST 8B^VTN, cnEEI' BCX'IIVAXD
P.o. DR vEn Jt60
Avan, Cor.oR D0 tI620
Town of VaiI
ATTN: Allison Ochs aod Town Council
Via hcsimile 419-2452
REFERENCE: 706 Forest Road
Dear Allison & Vail Town Courcil:
Plcase be adviscd tbat James Stwall of this ofEcc has beeo raaincd to rePl€scufi Nancy Adams
in her appcal of the veriancc aprovd for the property rebrssed abovc.- It is our uderstarding
ttnt oeicaring on the appcal before the Town Couril is currently schduld for April 11' 200()
at 2:fi) p.D. As we have jrst reemly bccn retained and nced sufficictrt time to rcscarch thir
matter and as we havc also requestcd E conti[uarpc of the beariry before the Desip Review
Board, we reqpectfully requcst a contimarcc of tbe bcaring for 30 &ys.
Plcase advire as to if someorp ftom or office uust be pesent at tbe currennly sch€duled datE
to reque*t the cominuance. I lok foruard to hcadng from you.
Very huly yours,
P.C.
KM:km
G:W)AMS.NTOVCOIJNC.LET
STOVALL COODMAN WALI.ACE,
o-l u-t leee rr;Nlt-
BRUCE D. CIIAPMAN
counSElpRs lAlTORtfEl8 At llv. Pc.
Post Oflicc Box 6500
Vail. CO E1658
Enrcc D- CbcploaD Of coullcl
UfyI!@
Dtvid F'- Rock
lAdnittcd in cotcado
aad G€rdd
April4,2000
via facsimile 479-2452
Allison Ochs, Ptanner II
Departrnent of Community Developnrem
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE; 706 West Forest Road
Our File No. 28361
Dear Ms. Ochs:
Thc purpose of this letter is to rcsPond to the inaccrrracies set forth in
the letter frorn-NSA Investments, Inc.,("NSA') datcd March 23,2O0O. Nanqy
Aitlam is presid.ent of NSA and she lives in Greenwood Wlage, Colorado uthich
is a suburb of Denver. N*.y Adam and NSA have failed to panicipatc in the
Town of Vail's review pro..rr of Cliff Illig's application. To the entent Nanqy
Adam and NSA feel that thry have not provided inPut to the prrocess it is *teir
own fault. Despitc thc allegations of Nanry Adam and NSA that they have nor
bcen able to provide inpui, you and Beth Lcrrine, Cliff's architect, have bcen
constantly available to meet with t}em personally to discuss their concerns.
They havc had ample opportunity to discuss the application with Cliff Illig in
persbn or by telephone.- bcspite continuances to acconunodate Nancy Adam's
ict edut. to allow her to atcnd hearirgs, Nancy Adam has failed to attended
any of thc public rncetings in regard to the application. Not having
panicipatcd and not liking the result, she has now appealed the matter to the
Vail Town Council.
Cliff's architect, Beth Lwinc, first discussed the proiect with Narcy
Adam on February 9, 2000 and inquired how she could provide her with
copies of the drawings for the projcct. On Fcbruary li, 2000, Beth forwarded
to Nancy Adam coples of thc project drawings by FcdEx lliority OvcrniSht
along witJr her lettcr stating tnai Ctiff needed to stan his consuuction early in
the season because of thc limited availability of contrectors and to arroid the
prciect dragging on aII summer. Beth stat€d that Cliff would need to stsrt
D:\wPDoC\n9{L*l5a86l htrrr.l-lOo.dtx
PHOtfE: l97Ol 926.1100 ' FAX: [9 7Ol 926-t r36 ' E' AlL bdc€vrill'r'Goit
6UA4/2AOA 11:34 976-926-1136 ERLrcE D i31PPgA.I PC PAGE A3
o
March-2-25.20m,
consrfrlcrion by March 15, 2O0O and would need the conscnt of Nancy Adam
by that date. Beth invited N"ncy to conuct her if she had any q!e{9*
regarding the proiect. Nan y Adam responded that she would not be availablc
to dcal with thc netter until March-
In an effon to be open and cooperathrc, Beth Lerrine also informed
N*.y Adam of cliff's submittal to the Tin',m of vail sceking apprwal of the
remodel. Thus, Cliff caused Nanry Adam and NSA to be aware that the
'.ppfi. .io" was pending oren bcfore thqy received noticc from thc Town of
V"it. Ttrerr d,ccision not to panicipate in the prccess is thcir rcsponsibility and
not the lbwn of Vail's or CliffIllig's-
As indicated in thc letrer dated February 12, 2000 from NSA to the
Planning and Environmcntal Commission ("PEC"), this rurtter was sdredulcd
to be cinsidered at iA Rbruary 28,20W meeting. In NSAs letter to Bettt
Levine dated Fcbruary 18, 2000, NSA requested that Cliff postpone the
hearing before thc PEC scheduled for February ?8, 2000: cliff agrced to
postpon a the PEC hearing until March 13, 2000. Despitc $e-po_stponement
of thc hcaring, neither Nanry Adam or anyonc else on behalf of NSA mst with
either Beth ir cliff prior ro the March 13, 20@ PEc mccting to providc
input as to any concclns they rnight have with the proposcd design. Beth has
becn available to meet continuously and Cliff Illig was at the duplex in Vail the
week of March 12, 2000 and left several telephone messages for Nancy Adam
in an ettempt to arrange a meeting. NanryAdam did not meet with Cliff uthilc
he was in Vail during the wcek of March 12, 2000. Beth suggcstcd to Nancy
Adam in her fax to NSA on March 3, 2000, that Nancy tr'y to conuact Cliff
Illig directly at his home phone number which was provided in the fax. If
N"t.y Adam or NSA were rcally intercsted in disorssing and resolving any
issues, onc lvould think they would have called Cliff Illig to discuss any
concetns rcgarding the proiect with him-
The first indicetion of any conccrns t|at Nancy Adam or NSA had with
the aoplication came-in the form of a letter addressed to the PEC which was
JirG[L.J". th. ruC hearing on March 13, 20Oo andwas not rcceived by thc
Community Derrclopment staff in tirne to be induded in thc Comrnissioncn'
packct. NSA did noi provide Cliff Illig or Beth Lcrrine with a coPy of the letter
*a *,ey drd not have an oPPonunity to see the letter until the hcaring on
Merch iS, ZO0O. Despite thJiact that thc PEC hearing had bcen delayed from
February 28, 2000 aithe request of Nancy Adam, she did not attend thc PEC
hearing on March 13, 2OOO. Lynn Fritzlen, NSAs ardritecr" did atrcnd the
hearing and discussed NSlts obiections to the application' Since NSAs lctter
*"r r,oi included in thc Comnriisioncrs' packct, the mecting uns adiourned to
DImDOO[.EALRE$!6:I6I lccfi 'LA{n do<
a4/a4/28aa 1l:36 978=t25-I13il ERFJCE D OrAPMAl.l PCov
-3-
. PAGE 64
Marrch 25,2OO0
give the commissioners time to review the letter. The PEc reconvened and
approved the application unanirnously.
Nancy Adam and NSA complain thar the DRB approval-was g"* by
staff and. impiicd that the DRB did not review the application' The DRB did
review the application and directed that the final review and approval would be
by staff.
Nancy Adam and NSA complain that they ^urc:1 not- provid-ed
construction drawings undl after staff DRg approval. On Mardt 17, 2OO0,
Beth forwarded to NSA a set of pre-coruuuction arawings by FedEx kiority
Overnight to NSA. On Fcbruaryit, 2000, Beth had prerriously sent a sct of
drawin[ by FedEx Priority O"ernight to NSA. The drawings scnt on March
fi,2050,'werc pre-construction drawings and the only architectural dtangcs
from those furnishea on February 1I,2000, were the widening of the south
dormers from l0' to I2', eliminaiion of the proposed new dec}s on thc south
side, adding stone on the trash enclosure and adding snow melt on tl.e decks.
These are not significant ardritectural differenccs.
Nancy Adam and NSA insist on atuibuting to Cliff Ittig the disputes she
had with the former owners, Mike and Karen Hcnnan. On serreral OccasiOnS
Nancy Adam has stated that she will not consent to Cliff's proposed rcmodd
until unrelated issues that they claim to have with thc Hermans harrc been
resolved to her SatiSfaction. The issues betwecn thc Hcrmaru and Nancy
Adam, inctuding any claims for restitution, were settled approximaldy a molth
ago and the laivstrit that had been pending between N*ry Adam and the
Hcrmans has been dismisscd.
Nancy Adam and NSA havc alleged rhat there is a title issue which
should havc precluded thc PEC from granting the variance reqrrcsted' The
parry wall agreement rcgarding thc propeny providgs fu e: couunon ercie
associated with each hatf of thc duplex is to be used exdusirrcIy by th. ow:ncr
of that half of the duplo< despitc the fact that it is common ara. When N"ncy
Adam madc her application in regard to her renrodel, she made this cxact
argument to justify lier-construction and rcquest for a variance in the conrmon
aia. Now she att.^pti to argue .,.,crly rhe opposite position to opposc Cliff
Illig's application.
Nanry Adam and NSA heve allegsd that the application should not
harrc becrt approved beceuse NSA has not consented to the remodd Pursulltt
to the p"nyirU declaration. Cliff IIIig feels *lat NSA has been unreasonsble
in its iefusal to prwide that conseit. In any wcnt, thc Tbn'n of Veil's
e\WPDOCIBEAUrES\Z!901 I'nE +3-0o.do(
64/94/2gOA 11:38 976-926-1135
cc: Nancy Adam and NSA Invcstments' lnc
D\WPDOOAIALTT,S\Z!!01 ldr.t +3-o.dG
consistent position has been that it will not intcricct itsdf in disputes
concerning private covcnants Such as Parry wall agreemcnts-
Nan.y Adarn and NSA allegc that the prior owners lGretr
Hemran, desired to rtmodcl the propeny in a manner that is ardritcctrrrdly
similar to Cliff's proposal but rcalized that such architecturd stfe would not
be compatible wiih tfre prop.rry As rhe Hermans' adornqy I can tell you the
reason the Hermans abandoned the remodel was not because they thought it
was not compatibie with the propeny, but because thry decidcd after a year
that they *oulO never be ablc io readl an agrtement with NancyAdam.
N"oqr Adam and NS/r allege that they had proposed at least 5 different
meeting times but Bet} Lcvine ctrose to Ieave toum without responding. Again
this is iot U,t. as you can s€e from thc cndosed for' In the endosed fa:r, Beth
asks Nanry Adam to confirm that l:00 p.rn. is accePtable and tfal she will be
going out of town ftom March 20-24 fot a family vacetion. Bcth met with
NancyAdam on March 27s.
It is my undcrstanding that NSA has recently hired a nor attorney.and
requested that ttre appcal to tlre Vail Town Council schedulcd for April I lt !"
poitponed. This is-merely another ettcmpt to delay this proicct and thc
request for t}c continuance should not be granted.
Nancy A(lam and NSA have repeatedly referred to thcmsehres as the
owner of the "Prirnary Unit" and that Cliff ltlig is the owner of the 'Secondary
Unit". Primary and Secondary do not imply superior and inferior but mcrely
dre relative sgrrare footage allowed for each unit. The basis for the obiectioru
that NSA has made at this late date is not clcar but thc thrust is that if Clitr
Illig is allowed to icmodel his half of the duplor tt
"_pPryd
by the PEC and
D{8, it might look as nice es her half of the duplot which she rcccntly finished
remodcling. N*.y Adam and NSA have hed their opPoftunity for input_into
the applidtion review and approval process, their substarrtid inp'ut has beerr
consiierca, and both the DRB and PEC have approrrcd thc application. Theru
is no basis for orerturning their decisions.
BRtrcE D C|-IAF|'|AN PC PAGE s5
-4-March 25,2OO0
atql Q.at zatatu ).u -rzct-LlJc,lr\LJr{. l,
Rd. Roscn -sz6-29,9,3
rtrx-- atE
P -o2970oMar_IZ-OO O.l: l8p I Junc Ck-.:T115o
BETH LEVII.IB ARCHITECT
P.O. 1825
Avon, CO 81620
(e70) 926-50ee(P) (e70) e26-29p3(F)
TRAI{SMITTAL
3-1740
TO: NSA lnvcstmcnts, Inc
4975F,. Prcserre CT
Greenwood Villaee CO 80 l2l
3O3:170-0779
Fa"r 770-t918
FROM: BETH LE\iINE ARCHITECT
RE: 706 Forert Road
Vail, CO E1657
INCLUSIVE:
orrcsetofMofftructionDrswingqfurtlre}vostunitof?06Fole.st
Road"
slrees: c,lf7'717
NOTE:
Enclosed arc the Pre{onstnrction Drawings for thc west unit of 706
Forcst Road. The "*ttitot*r changts tom the previotry draYlJlgs include:
widening the sordh dormcts frorn lgt" to l2'0", climinetio-n of-the decks on
the so$[dorr*ers, adding stonc on thc tru,sh arclosu,o, and adding snow
mett on the deoks.
ThemodifrcetionofthewcstunithssbeendcsigDEdtgcorrqr|etcand
complimcnt the cast unit's remodcl. Thc intent is to match all the dctails on
the east unil
As you may know, thc intcrior rernodel ls ryryntty undcrway' We
bave now-had UcoppOnirnity to revicrv yo,rdctailed co6mcnts in yo1r
(tt+Lo.al aatoo rl. Jlt Jr(r-1.<o-llJo
trtar- 17-OO O4: l8P l15l Ju
lllst-l.- l,
Ck- R'd. Roscn 97()-e26-i993
rAtE- att
P. 03ftc!o
m€mo to the PEC. Wc are Enxlotrs to discuss thc cxtcrior modification co
that we can minimize thc drnation of the constnrction di31r+tion at thl ri6.
I understand that you hsd thc opptrtunity to talk to.CliffIltig to&y. I
also understand that you would likc to meet on Marcb 2f. I would bc
arnilable in thc afternoo4 prcftrably at l:00p.m. Plcase fot tltc back a
confirmation ofthe rneeting Oivcn ou collstlrtion schedtrlC, please fix a
copy of pur conocnu to Clifrand rnyselfprior to thc ureting.
Please providc mc with copies of Sre details and ryecifications 3o can
rnatch your side fsrl railing dotails and wood t;lpc on thc railingS, Otd siding
rnrterisl and stain color.
I will bc on a bmily vacation ftom March 20'24.
Copy: CliffIllig Bnrce Cbapmrnr aodJimPowcll
Beth Levine, Architect
P.O. Box 1825
Avon, CO. 81620
(970)926-5099 (Phme)
(970)926-29% (Fax)
Hand Delivery
April4, 2000
To: T.O.V.
Allison Och
From: Beth Levine, Architects
Beth Levine
RE: 706 West, Forest Road
Vail. CO 81657
CliffI[ig, Owner
Secondary Unit
The proposed remodel for the west (secondary) udt at 706 Forest Road has been
designed to complement and complete the east unit's remodel which, was done in 1998.
Tlrc extensive east remodel left the overall design of the two halves disproportionate and
extensively inconsistent. Although Cliffwas not involved in the 1998 Renodel, Cliff
feels a responsibility to restore the balance ofthe design for his remodel. The proposed
remodel would match tlre proportions, expansive dorurers, trash enclosure, color and
railing ofthe east halfto once again create a rurified overall design.
The original design intent of the two sides of the 706 Forest Road duplex was to provide
a primary east unit and a secondary west unit with a solid pafty wdll" building setbacks,
and defined view directions. Thus, tbe original design did not have any windows in the
party wall; and the east unit's view directions were rrort[ east, & sout]r; while the west
unit's view directions were nortb, west & south.
The proposed remodel for the secondary unit has been designed with the original duplex
design intent for design, proportion, light, air, privacy and view The 1998 remodel of
the primary unit did not respect the original design intent with the rezuhing proportions
and the addition of the west ftcing windows. At a substantial proposed investment by
Cliff, the proposed remodel for the west unit reunites the design with similar dotmers,
railings, stone, siding and color.
The secondaqr unit has been trying to coordinate the design with the primary unit for
more than two months while also following the TOV design process. Narrcy's arcbitect,
Fritzland, PiErce & Smith were first contacted on Febnrary 2,20N. Nancy left Beth
Levine a nressage at that time indicating that she would be rmable to meet the month of
February. The secondary unit's owner volunteered to postpone the PEC February 28h
meeting until the lvlarch 13e meeting at the request of the prinary unit's owner, Nancy
o
Adam. On March l, the proposed remodel ruas a unanimously given DRB conceptual
review approval with the staffallowed to provide the final approval. On March 13h, the
PEC gave the requested variances unanimous approval. It was at the PEC meeting that
Nancy's representative first provided the secondary unit a list of objection written to the
TOV, and the PEC upheld the unanimous approval. The TOV staffthen provided the
proposed remodel the staffDRB approval. Nancy has since appealed both the PEC and
DRB approvals and has provided more design objections. The secondary unit has
provided the primary unit drawings and oppornrnities for meetings. The resulting 1998
primary remodel, which left the project in such disproportio4 also reveals the lack of
cooperation the primary unit has for the overall project. The unanimous support to the
TOV DRB, PEC, and Community Development staffofthe secondaryunit's design is in
sbarp contrast the extensive list of daail criticisms as offered by the primary unit.
Although the 3-23-00 NSA letter to the PEC u/as not addressed to the secordary unit, th€
design considerations are as follows:l. The separation of space and prinacy arp maintrined at both Eits' entry by the primary
unit's entry dormer which, was expanded in the 1998 remodel. The
enclosure/erPansion of spacc occurred uder an existing deck for tbe secondary un(
thus using the secondary unit's originally designed space.
2. The trash enclosure has been designed to bolance tb€ prinary unit's 1998 design by
creating an opporhmity to carry the conurnn stone around tbe building: in addition to
providrng trash enclosure space.
3. The front dormer and chimney expansion have been added to the secondary unit to
balance the prinary unit's 1998 opansion Tbe original design inlent ofthe duplex
was for a corrylete party wall s€paration without any windows on the parry wall
plane. The 1998 primary egaosion violated the originally intended privacy, air,
light, ventilation and views by adding west ftcing windows. rbe prinary unit's view
windows all frce north, east and sourh The west window in question for tbe primary
unit is a srnall 3'x4' window at tbe top of a stair landing. Whiclr, does not appear to be
a view window and any views fiom this window are blocked by tbe secondary unit's
chimney (as is seen in the primary unit's elevation drawing).4. The southeast bedroom dormer bas been designed consisteut with the original 1980
building designed set back betq/een the npo units.
5. The southwest bedroom dorm was acceptable to tbeowner ofthe prinary unit.6. Placement ofRailing ard siding was acceptable to the owner ofthe prinary unit.7. west wall windows and door were acceptable to \e orpner of the prinary unit.8. Additional lvlatters: Nancy first disagreed with the deck erqransion on the northwest
corner in a meeting between llancy and myselfon 3-28-00. The deck expansion has
been designed to balarrce the architecture.
9. condition Precedent to Any consent: The orrstanding legal issues involve the
prwious owner of the secondary unit.
The intent once again for the renrodel ofthe secondary unit at 706 Forest Road is to
complement and corrplete tbe east rmit's 1998 remodel. Ttre only way to accomplish this
goal is to cornpletely rebuild the exterior of the secondary unit, at great e:sense. Tbe
TOV unanimous DRB and PEC appovals, more '\an support the strengthand
!oo
6
.g
e
fuff usfti*
1i(;t \ l!;i; isrtiilsz i l: ilr..rcer
il E:3 ',\ '1"!, l;l:r<l-,.EiAt :riilliirr
ii,i i11 iiil+
I:J-i __- r:''9li"i'
ffiffi
'ff -il j i#h#i j
'LI=TH--'---- -----j-
'
-|lj\
;r,erHI j-
nifi*ll i-=lj
r#=ll ii';=.-'lj
: ; |j!: -\ l
ii-:-----\- i
l.'- . .' : i\- --____i_
| : 1l7.ucl,'i,,,,!7 ,,F=,
:r, -t[,i,r,iiilirl lG_i:
nr lisi.l i :
frF r fEii-ll ill I,l 1i ;;il
dl e M,J,
fll '{wfi:'ft a \w//v tlrJh -+11)f//1.-tuli @ 4:r/il{=w;TJ 'ru- { \\11 'l[F.' i\r/ JNts+F#" i-'''tN\'tf[q jP ,N## jqJr : '@[e\ ;4:m
\\ (tt ) :i A-ilil.\o , ' i.,._l\
{rb--
l- "--:;| 'tl
o
i,l I
-.t!I{
4
|J
U
<)
F-l
-'i,,.fl
ax\lH
F-{c-)
Frl&
Fft\0eh-
.x gi'; t,)
Vl:';',,1
li:,rf i'
ffi,
,6i,;,
,i
;r'.-.
o}l, I
,ll
I
uuri,- ii
1-frl/
v :,. ilil":i; >l
,a
rS
?
\
\
a\I
I
a
.i
i,)
\il ;-ii
9i
3iu., i
dl
i; iii
: I ria. t -'-tt -t.-:! ail
'l :!.-,
li t
;
I
I
:i'i
ii
v
i
I {-rlI L ' .--l
I
.. l.
I r . !l
' 'l r" ll.l'l "I. 'i,"9I
- J;':'i{11
fr
rfi
{t i;ll
[t-ll1...
ll"
l*i
*) l!. :l
li
:
;
T
l''il, .-)t,lr
Itt.I t.fiil..'rlaltiq .-1...'I irl'_l .L t
,t
lr
!
il.:l
E.
ilt-j.Ir'-1 .
t9
: r--:-Tt{'f.ill:iil-l ,i I l', :H'.- I 1,., i
I I r:iLl I 1 ,r! ,
I lu:!l, I | ,!: i
f*t" 'l :'It__-. t, ,.1__J l--1.-,
11 j
application of the design intent. CliffIllig is a resident of Kansa.g and was able to attend
the lvlarch 13'PEC meeting. However, the owner oftbe primary unit did not atr€nd
ahhoug[ the meeting was postponed fiom February 28h to ]vlarch 136 at her request.
The applicant respectfully ask. the Tovm Cormcil and TOV board mmbers and staffto
uphold the DRB and PEC approvals and allows the secondary units the opportunity to fix
a Forest Road eyesore.
Please forward a copy of '\is letter and the inchrded pictnre to all Town Council
members and applicable boad ard staf members.
Inclusive pictures:
706 Forest Road 1980 design build;g elevations - two sbets
1998 Prinary unit's rcmodel - cobr rendition
1998 Prinary unit's remodel west elevation
Proposed Secondary rmit's rernodel illusuation sketched on top of the 1998
Primary unit's color rendition
copy:
CliffIllie
Bruce Chapman
NSA Investments
JimPowell
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
TUESDAY, April 11,2000
2:00 P.M. AT TOV COUNCTL CHAMBERS
NOTE: Time of items is approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied
upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item.
1.
Dominic Mauriello
Dee Wisor
2.
Russell Forrest
Patrick Hammel
Ron Rasnic
3.
Allison Ochs
Tax Increment Financing (TlF). (1 hr.)
Review of the Vail and Eagle County Solid Waste Management
(40 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Consider the possibte
waste reduction strategies outlined in the plan. What actions
would you like to see implemented? What actions would the
council be willing to support monetarily?
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: For the past few years the Town
of Vail has been working in conjunction with Eagle County on
developing a solid waste plan to help better manage the Counties
waste. Due to the high rate or growth in the area and the high per
person waste generation in the valley, the projected landfill life has
been cut in half. The Town of Vail and Eagle County wants to
extend the life of the landfill by implementing some of the
proposed actions outlined in the Solid Waste Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Continue to help fund education and Green Star Program by
donating to the non-profit group Partnerships for
Environmental Education Programs (PEEP).o Lower demolition fees for contractors that divert at least 25olo
of waste material from the landfill by either reusing or
recycling.. Team with Eagle County, Vail Resorts and Eagle River Water
and Sanitation District to create a composting facility at the
landfill.
A site viste and hearing of an appeal of the Planning and
Environmental Commission decisions to grant variances from
Section 12-6D-6, and Section 12-14-6, Town of VailCode, to
allow for an addition and deck expansion, located at 706 W.
Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6s Filing. Site Visit. (30
mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Uphotd, Uphold with
modifications, or Overturn the Planning and Environmental
Commission's decision.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On March 13, 2000, the ptanning
and Environmental Commission granted variances from Sections
12-6D-6 (setbacks) and 12-14-6 (deck setbacks) to allow for an
addition and deck expansion into required setbacks for the
secondary unit located at 706 W. Forest Rd. based on the following
findings:
1 . That the granting of the setback variance does not
constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations on other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Zone District.2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
4.
Dominic Mauriello
5.
Brent Wilson
6.
Allison Ochs
Brent Wilson
7.
3. That the variance is warranted because there are
exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other properties in the
Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District.
Nancy Shapiro Adam, on behalf of NSA Investments and owner of
the primary unit, filed an appeal of the planning and Environmental
Commission decision, stating that there is no hardship to justify the
variances. A variance was received in June of 1g9g for the primary
unit, also based on the above findings. The regulations at the tim;
of construction of the Primary/Secondary Resi-ence allowed for a
10 ft. front setback due to the steep slopes. please refer to the
staff memorandum for details.
STAFF RECOMMENDATTON: Staff recommends that the Council
uphold the Planning and Environmental Commission,s approval of
the variances.
Discussion Ordinance No. 6, Series 2000 - EHU,s. (30 mins.)
A worksession discussion of \Mite River National Forest
Plan revision issues. (1:15 mins.)
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL:
Provide feedback regarding the issues raised at previous
meetings on this topic. This feedback will be used to draft
comments to be considered by Council for transmittal to the U.S.
Forest Service on behalf of the Town of Vail.
BACKGROUND MTIONALE:
As mentioned previously, the Town's deadline for the submission
of comments on the proposed amendments to the White River
National Forest Plan is Tuesday, May 9h. The Town Council has
conducted three public meetings with input from various public
agencies and private organizations as well as numerous citizens.
The purpose of this meeting is to determine the following:
. Does the Vail Town Council wish to transmit formal comments
on the proposed plan revisions to the U.S. Forest Service?
. Does the Vail Town Council wish to endorse a recommended
plan alternative (Alternative B, C, D, E, etc.) or simply submit
comments on the specific issues identified by the Town aspertinent to Vail?
. Are there any other issues the Town Council would like to
address that have not yet been discussed? Are there any
additional questions that need to be addressed prior to thl
transmittal of comments to the USFS?
lssu.es identified by the Town council and staff earlier this year will
be discussed. Due to concems expressed by citizens and council
members at the April 4th hearing, the issue oi water
quality/quantity has been added for discussion.
Based on the Town Council's direction at this meeting, stafi willformulate a draft position statement for council review later this
month.
DRB Report. (5 mins.)
Information Update. (10 mins.)
d
8. Council Reports. (10 mins.)
L Other. (10 mins.)
10. Adjournment. ( 6:30 p.M.)
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL TTMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUTIC-T.NECUUN WORK SESSION
WfLL BE ON TUESDAY,4l18lOO, BEG|NN|NG AT 2:00 p.M. tN TOV COUNCTL
CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
wlLL BE oN TUESDAY,5/0200, BEG|NN|NG AT 2:00 p.M. tN Tov couNctL
CHAMBERS,
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING
WLL BE ON TUESDAY,4tlBt0D, BEG|NN|NG AT 7:00 p.M. tN TOV COUNCTL
CHAMBERS.
sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification.
Please call479-2332 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information.
F:\AGENDA.NEWTC
STOVALL GOODMAI\ WALLACE
PRoFEssloNAL CoRpoRATloti
Attorneys & Counselors at Law
202 BENCHMARK PLAZA BUILDING
48 EAST BEAVER CRIEK BoULEVARD
P.O. DRAWER 5860
AvoN, Co[.oRADo 81620
TELEPHoNE: (970) 9494200
FAcsrMrLE: (970) %9-6843
EMAIL: SGWLAW@VAIL.NET
JAI\GS WM. SToVALL
JOHN D. GOODMAN
KERRY H. WALT-A,CE
KFJSTIN MCKNIGHT
April 14, 2000
Town of Vail Planning Department
ATTN: Allison Ochs and Vail Town Council
Via Hand Delivery
REFERENCE: 706 Forest Road
Dear Allison & Board:
Please find enclosed an Appeals Form with attachments for appeal of the Design Review Board's
decision to uphold the staff approval of the variance on 706 Forest Road. This appeal has been
filed to preserve the rights of NSA Investments, Inc. though we are continuing discussions of
this matter with the adjacent properfy owners.
Please set the appeal for a hearing at a date which will allow sufficient time for all parties to
thoroughly research and review this matter, preferably no earlier than May 15, 2000.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and please do not hesitate to call with any questions
or concerns.
ODMAN WALLACE, P.C.
JWS:km
Encls.
G:\ADAMS.NAPPEAL.LET
Very truly
STOVALL
APR- r4-OO 1O'23 FROM. ToV-COM-DE9-DEPT 'tD,9'754792452
REqUIRED FORFILING AhI APPEAL OF ASTAF4DESIGNREYIEW BOARD OR
PLAIiINING AI{D ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION
A.ACTION/DECXSIONBEINGA9pEALED, Decision of Design Review Board to
PAGE I/2
IUWtl0Fm[
uphold the staff approval on 706 Forest Road. Code sect i ons
which are applicablez 12-11-t' et seq. ( tZ-l1-1 to r2-rr-r2 )
B.
c-
DATEOFACTTON/Dgg1519tr1. Aprir 5, 2000
NAI\4E OF BOARD OR PERSON REI{DERING THE DECISION/TAKING ACllON:-
Des iqn Review Board
D.NA\,TE OF APPELLANT(S):NSA Tnvestments ' fnc.
N4AILINGADDRESS, 4975 E. Preserve CT, -Greenwood Vi11age, CO 80121
( 303 ) 770-0779
pHySICALADDREgggsy4ll. 7o6A Forest Road pHONe, 476 .:ffi _
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF A.PPELLA}IT'S PROPERTY IN VAIL:Lot 9, Block 1,
Vait Villaoe 6 Filing
E.SIGNATTJRE(S):N9 \^tuft,cxrs
-ii;l 'i1
APR 14 2000 lljji)
,!
i'r l
lrP4ge 1 of2
APR- 14 - OO ltD,23 FROM.IOv-CoM--DEPT.DE1,o
F.Does +ris app€al bvolve a spccific parcel orf land? Ye s If yer, please provide the fo[owing information:
are you an adjacent property ovmet? Yes
Ifno, givc a de*ailod oElaation ofhow you arc an *aggriwcd or adv*sely affected person.'' *Aggrievecl or
advecely affeted pcc5m" maans ay persOn whO will gffs ao adverse effect to an int€re5t Protcded or
futle6gdbythistifle. Tbcalteggdadverseidcrest64ybcahalEdincommmwittoth€rmeobersofthe
commrmiry at ltrgp, hrt shall cxcocd in degrco thc gcncral intcrcst in coronudty good shared by dI persons'
Provids thc sanps aad addrcsscs (both pereon's mailing address aad propcrty's physical address in Vail) ofall
oumas of propaty which rc tbc subject of the appcal and all adjacart pro'P€rty oumers (including proPcdies
.a"rrrca Uy
"
tiglr-of-way, sccam, or othcr intervenbg bud€rs). Also providc addrcsscd and staqed envelopcs for '
cac,h propcrly ownc,r qr the list
g1r s€pantc sheets of p"po, spccif, ttrc prccisc nabre of tle appeat. Please cite spccific code sctions having
rdcvance to tlc action beiug appealed
FEE: 50.00
PAGE 2'ZtD.9?@4?92452
o
G.
H.
Pzge2 of2
Names and Addresses of owners of property whiel are the subject of appeal and all
a{acmt property ownenr:
Property owner: Clifford and Bonnie lllig
Physical address in Vail: 706 Forest Road
Vail, CO 81657
Mailing Address: 11504 Pawnee Circle
Leawood, KS 66211
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Town Council
Community Development Department
May 9, 2000
An appeal of the April 5, 2000, Design Review Board decision to uphold
the staff approval of a residential addition, located at 706 W. Forest Road /
Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6tn Filing.
Appellant: Nancy Shapiro Adam of NSA Investments
Applicant: Cliff lllig, represented by Beth LevinePlanner: Allison Ochs
SUBJECT PROPERTY
The lllig/Adam Residence, located at 706 W. Forest Road / Lot g, Block 1, Vait Viilage 6th
Filing.
STANDING OF APPELLANT
The appellant has standing to file an appeal as she is the owner of the primary side of the
duplex.
BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The tollowing is a description of the proposed residential addition:
. Dormer: at the front of the building. No additional GRFA.r Trash Enclosure: beneath an existing deck. '127.5 sq. ft. ol GRFA is added.. Deck: expands existing front deck around to meet the existing side deck and
adds approximately 122 sq. ft. of deck area into front setback.. Entry-way: does not extend past existing building and is in the location of an
existing deck. 64 sq. ft. of site coverage and approximately 120 sq. ft. of GRFA
is added.. Dormers: at lhe rear of the unit. Approximately 350 sq. ft. of GRFA is added.
The proposal required variances which were granted by the Planning and Environmental
Commission on March 13, 2000, and upheld by Town Council on April 1 1 , 2000.
The lllig remodel was conceptually reviewed by the Design Beview Board at the March 'l
,
2000, meeting. The Design Review Board directed staff to "staff approve" the remodel
pending approval of the variances. The project was staff approved on March 17, 2000. The
appellant then appealed the staff approval ol the project. The Design Review Board again
reviewed the appeal at their April 5, 2000, meeting and upheld the staff approval oithe
project, stating that the project met the intent of the Design Guidelines and that staff acted
tv.
as directed by the Board.
The appellant, Nancy Shapiro Adam of NSA Investments, is the owner ol the primary unit.
She is now appealing the Design Review Board decision to uphold the staff decision to
approve the remodel. Her objections to the proposal are attached for reference.
Correspondence has also been attached for reference.
ACTION REOUESTED OF COUNGIL
Uphold, Uphold with Conditions, or Overtum the Design Review Board's decision to uphold
the staff approval of the residential addition located at 706 W. Forest Rd. / Lot 9, Block 1,
Vail Village 6tn Filing.
The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council uphold the
Design Review Board's decision to uphold the staff approval of the residentiai addition
subject to the following findings:
1. That the standards and condilions imposed by the requirements of Zoning Gode have
been met with this proposal.
2. That the residential adclition meets the intent ol the Design Guidelines.
3. That the addition meets the guidelines as established by section 12-11-5 (Design
Guidelines) ol the Town code and outlined in section lvof this memorandum. -
ZONING AND SITE STATISTICSV.
Lot Size:
Zoning:
Hazards:
GRFA:
Primary
Secondary
Setbacks:
Front:
West Side:
Flear:
Deck:
Site Coverage:
58,498 sq. ft.
Primary/Secondary Residential
Slopes in excess of 30%
Allowed P/S
7,525 sq. tt.
4,430 sq. tt.
3,095 sq. ft.
20'
1s',
15'
15'
8,775 sq. tt. (15%)
Prooosed
7,303 sq. ft.
no change
3,071 sq. ft.
I'
6'
172'
I'
3,866 sq. ft. (7V")
Existino
6,951 sq. ft.
4,232 sq. ft.
2,719 sq. ft.
I'
15'
175'
8'
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
Statf believes that the following design guidelines from Chapter 12-1 1 -5 of the Town Code
are applicable to this proposal:
vt.
12-1 1-1 .D.1 To protect neighboring propeny owners and users by maKng sure that
reasonable provision has been made for such matters as pedestrian and vehicular traffic,
surtace water drainage, sound aN sight bufters, the preseMation of-light and air, and those
aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial
effects on neighboing land uses.
Staff and the Design Review Board found that the proposed additions adequately
provided for the above criteria. While the proposed dormer does impede the view' from the window on the adjacent unit, staff believes because the dormer is
approximately 4 ft. from the window, light and air are not an issue. However, the- applicant is willing to compromise by lowering the dormer.
Building Materials And Design:
12-11-5C.1 Building materials shall be predominantly natural such as wood siding, wood
shakes, and native stone. Brick is acceptable. Where stucco is utilized, gross textures and
surface features that appear to imitate other mateials shall be avoidd. Concrete surtaces
shall be treated with texture and color if used, however, exposed aggregate is more
acceptable than raw concrete. Neither aluminum steel, nor plastic siding, nor simulated stone
or brick shall be permitted. Plywood siding shall not be permifted.
The additions to the duplex will match the materials ot the existing residence,
including wood siding, stained to match the primary side of the residence.
1 2-1 1-5C.3 Erterior wall colors shoutd be compatible with the site aN sunouding buildings.
Natural colors (earth tones found within the Vail area) should be utitized. Primary colors or
other bright colors should be used only as accents and then sparingly such as upon trim or
railings. All exterior wall materials must be continued down to finished grade thereby
eliminating unfinished foundation walls. All exposed metal flashing, trim, flues, and roof top
mechanical equipment shall be anodized, painted or capable of weathering so as to be
nonreflective.
. '-As stated above, all materials and colors will match the existing residence.
Duplex And Primary/Secondary Development:
12-1 1-51.1 . The purpose of this section is to ensure that duplex and primary/secondary
development be designed in a manner that creates an architecturally integrated structure
with unified site development. Dwelling units and garages shall be designed within a single
structure, except as set forth in subsection 12 of this Section, with the use of unified
architedunl and landscape design. A single structure shall have common roofs and building
walls that create enclosed space substantially above grade. IJnified architectural and
landscape design shall include, but not be limited to, the use of compatible buitding
materials, architectural style, scale, roof forms, massing, architectural detaits, site grading
and landscape materials and features.
As proposed, the addition to the secondary unit will match all colors and materials of
the primary side, which was remodeled in 1998. The deck rails will be upgraded to
match the primary side's deck mlls, and the siding will be stained to madr fie
primary side. Both stafl and the Design Review Board found that the prcposed
additions will be an improvement to the entire strucuire by mahhing he
improvements fiat were done to he pltnary side previously. In addition, both staff
qnd the Design Review Boad found that the proposal fully complies wih tho Decign
Guidelines.
oo
I
G'
-I
CL
&
mto
ct)III
Ir
b
-(tr
CL
+
nrK
Attachment to Appeal Form
NSA Investrnents, Inc.
NSA Investments, Inc. ("NSA"), as owner of the Primary Unit of Unit 706 Forest Road
respectfully appeals the decision of the Design Review Board ("DRB") entered on April 5, 2000
regarding the remodel of the secondary unit located thereon and owned by Clifford and Bonnie
Illig.
Initially, it appears in reviewing the record of what occurred in this matter.that the DRB
has not strictly complied with those requirements set forth in section l2-Ll-s.
In part, NSA Investments, Inc. objects to the messive dorrrer in front of the house
because it will negatively impact their great room views which is a significant detriment to their
use, enjoyment and the value of the property. NSA is also concerned about the potential damage
to the primary unit from water run-off and ice damns from this dormer. Further, NSA is
concerned about the creation of significant dark space on the north side of the property and the
shadows such a massive dormer would create.
NSA objects to the extension of the front entry to same plane as the primary unit entry
because it varies the oveniding intent of the design of the property. This ispect thanges ttre
fundamental design of the property.
NSA objects to the extension of the southeast bedroom and addition of a dormer to thisroom. Such work will negatively impact the views, air, light and ventilation enjoyed by two (2)
bedrooms and the family room of the primary unit. The massive impact of thii work woUd bea significant detriment to the use, enjoyment and the value of ttre property. NSA is also
concerned about the potential damage to the primary unit from water run-off and ice damagefrom this dormer.
NSA does not object to a trash enclosure per se, but ttrinks that the one proposed is larger
than necessary, is inconsistent with the trash enclosures existing in the adjoining unit and in Aeneighborhood
NSA objects to the proposal to wrap the front deck to the west side of the secondary unit.
The secondary unit owner's objections to wrapping the front desk as part of the remodel of theprimary unit caused NSA to eliminate this portion of the project. To allow the llligs' to nowdo this work will create an inconsistent design scheme at the property.
NSA respectfully requests that Town Council overturn the DRB's determination to upholdthe staff approval.
4975 East Presenrc Court
Greenwood Village, CO 80121
303-770-0779
Fax 303-77G8918
O,rckvrFrlf Ccwtt€R-
BY FAX 97 047 9-2452 -and }IA}paErtrrnr
March 23,2000
To: Allison Ochs, Planner, Town of Vail
Qy',
Re: 706 Forest Road, Vail, CO
We are the Owners of the Primary Unit at this property. Enclosed please find a
duplicate copy of the formal request for an appeal before the Town of vail Town
Council of the-granting of the variance applied for by the Secondary Unit Owners'
We are submitting this letter to formally object to your staff approval of their remodel
plan despite ,roti.. of our objections to their plan' despite-oul.repeated efforts and
Lquests io rrr""t to discuss these matters, and without ever affording us an opportunity
to be heard on these matters.
For more than fwo months now, we have been corresponding with you" as the Town
Planner, and Beth fuvine, the architect for the owners of the Secondary Unit at this
property, asking for a meeting to discuss our concems about any exterior remodel of
itte^S"rottOatyUnit. W. were-strprised to leam yesterday that you staffapproved the
proposed remodel without a formal Design Review Board Hearing and without gving
us an opportunity to express our objections. The fact that we did not receive the
constnrct'ion drawings frim Ms. Levine until three (3) days ago--apparently after you
had staffapproved tfuis project--means we were not afforded an opporfunity to review
o. ,orn-.rrt to the proposed project prior to you staffapproval despite otu repeated
requests to be heard on this matter.
In light of the numerous written and verbal notices you had as to our concems about
any Lmodel of the Secondary Unit and our repeated reqlr€sts Pt * oppornnrity to be
heard onthese matters, we imd your staffapproval of this project without any formal
Design Review Board Hearing objectionable and request your withdrawal of approval
and the scheduling of such a hearing with notice so we can be present at the hearing.
When we ftrst spoke, I pointed out to you that outstanding title and restitution issues
remain to be resolved. The Secondary Unit Owners do not have sole title to the
propefty affected by their variance application. With notice of the joint ownership of
this land and notice that the co-owner of the land objects to the proposed project, we
are surprised that you would proceed on the variance application at a hearing for which
you had notice that we could not be present and then follow that up by giving this
rnatter staffapproval without notice to us nor any fonnal Desig Review Board hearing
on this matter.
We are particularly concemed to learn that the Planning and Environmental
Commission did not timely receive either of our letters formally opposing this
application and requesting that the matter be denied or at least postponed to a later
hearing date so that we could be present to voice our concen$.
We question whether the Design Review Board was provided copies of our formal
objection letter dated February 12,2000. Please advise.
Since we first leamed about their desire to expand the Secondary unit" we have
consistenfly and responsively tried to be in contact with you and Ms. kvine. We have
tried to cooperate with the Secondary Unit Owners in their desire to expand their
property while maintainingthe design, light, air, privacy, and views that the units have
enjoyed for 20 yean. We have repeatedly asked for and made oursetves available for
meetings. Our offers of dates and times have routinely NOT been responded to,
leaving us sitting at the property waiting to meet with the other party but no one has
shown nor even been so courteous as to call and advise that ttrey would not be there.
It is inpossible to npet with someone who refuses to show up and meet or to respond
to offered meeting times.
last weelg we offered at least 5 different meeting times when I am in Vail next week
formy farnily's springvacation Agauu Ms. kvine has chosen to leave town without
responding.
on Monday, we received from Ms. Levine the constnrction drawings. we have
reviewed the same and in addition to the outstanding legal issues as to title to the
properfy and restihtion for damages caused to the Primary Unit by the Secondary Unit
during the prior remodels, we raise the following concems:
1. Front EnFy: We objectto the expansion of the front entry into *re front set
back for several reasons. First, it is contrary to the design function of this Prirnary-
Secondary Property. One of the biggest criticisms and concems with Primary-
SecondaryProperties is the lack of privacy and separation of space. A quick walk up
and down West Forest Road will confirm that the Design Review Board has been
sensitive to this issue by approving projects which maintain a separation of space
between the entrances to the two units. Every Primary-Secondary Property located on
West Forest Road has a clear separation of space between the enfy areas for each unit.
The original development of 706 Forest Road was designed to separate the two units
by building the Primary Unit forward towards the street and recessing the Secondary
Unit backtowards ttre hillside. The stepping ofthe two udts is maintained consistently
on both the front and the back sides of the property.
The proposal to expand the Secondary Unit's entry into the front setback brings the
entry space into ttre same plane as the Primary Unit's entry, defeating the separation
of space and privacy so fimdamental to the design of this property. The fact that the
doorto the SecondaryUnit will be a side entry does not overcome this encroachment.
In fact, a side entry will only create more problerns--when visitors and delivery people
only see one door from the street, they will mistakenly assrtrne there is one entry and
ring our bell or leave us packages when the Secondary Unit is the desired location.
The Design Review Board's desire to avoid expansive single plane designs was
addressed last spring with the Marriott's proposal. I was at the hearings when the
Marriott was required to break up the monotonous plane and step back part of the
project along the bike path. We do not understand why you would staffapprove the
Secondary Unit's encroaclrnent into ttre front set back to achiwe a specific design flaw
that the Design Review Board objects to and has required other parties to avoid.
Clearly, a conpromise can be achieved if a real "necessit/' exists to justift the
ganting of a variance-that would be to build out the Secondary Unit's entry just
enough to bring it to the same plane as its garage and leaving the entry door facing the
street to clearly differentiate between the two entries. This conpromise will enable
some expansion of space while maintaining the frurdamental design feature of this
property.
We heard your rationalization for the gnnting of this aspect of the variance on the basis
that it atrords like heafrnent for the granting of tre variance to enclose our corner deck
However, critical differences exists in these matters. Ow deck enclosure was on the
east end of our property-far away from the Secondary Unit. The enclosure had no
adverse inpact on the Secondary Unit an4 to our recollectiorl was not objected to by
the Secondary Unit Owners.
Further, otu enclosure of the comer of the east deck was just that--enclosure of the
existing deck In contmsq the Secondary Unit Owners are seeking to enclose the space
under their deck PLUS an additional 3 feet into the front set back. Their request is
more expansive and invasive into the set back than our application
In applying your concem for conparable treatnent to both variance applications, we
again suggest the following conpromise: allow the entry to the secondary Unit be
expanded to enclose the space rmder the deck which would bring it to the same plane
as its garage and leaving trre erfry door facing the steet to clearly differentiate between
the two entries. This conpromise will enable some expansion of space while
maintaining a linear separation of space which is such a firndamental design featgre of
this property.
2. Trash Enclosure Variance: The Secondary Unit Owners have applied for
a variance to build a trash enclosure on the west side of their unit. We understand and
appreciate the desirability to have a trash enclosure. However, we again ask that this
matterbe limited to what is reasonably necessary and what is consistent with the trash
enclosures allowed throughout the neighborhood. A quick tour of West Forest Road
will confirm that the trash enclosures that have been constructed are limited in size and
space to store the necessary trash cans and recycling bins. The enclosure requested by
the Secondary Unit owners is massive in conparison. It is far more invasive than is
reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose for which it is requested. AgaftL we are
willing to work witr a conpromise on this matter that would enrable the Secondary Unit
Owner to construct a trash enclosure in the connnonly owned land ttrat is reasonable
in size and design.
3. Front Dormer and Chimney Extension: Ms. kvine has conveniently used
the 1980 blueprints to superimpose her remodel upon. ln doing so, she has failed to
modifu the Primary Unit to show the current design of this urit and the adverse urpact
her design will have on our lidrt, ao, ventilatiorq views and privacy. There are
operable windows located along the west wall of the Primary Uniq the fimction of
which will be adversely affected by the massive dormer proposed by the Secondary
Unit Owners ri$t in front of these windows. We reasonably object to this adverse
impact being inposed upon our property.
When we designed our remodel of the Primary Unit, we did so with sensitivity to the
aesthetics of the property, increasing our window space while maintaining a balance
and proportion in the use of windows and siding. We fmd the proposed expansive use
of glass on the south wall of this property to be excessive and inconsistent with the
design and look of the property.
The predecessors in title to the secondary unit wanted to do a glass and modem
project on this property similar to the expansive use of glass in the current proposal.
However, after spending over a year fiying to come up with an acceptable design, they
accepted that such a look would not be conpatrble wittrthe property and decided to sell
the unit to the current ownen so they could do their own project on Beaver Dam Road.
The current owners knew or should have known of such design limitations and should
not be allowed to ptusue such an inconsistent approach to the current design of the
property. Again, we ask that any exterior changes to the Secondary Unit be as
sensitive and consistent with the current design of the property as our remodel
achieved.
In summary, we object to the massive use of glass and massive height of the front
dormer. Both the height and volune of glass is disproportionate and inconsistent for
the design ofthis property. The adverse impact such work will have on the design of
the property and on the privacy, air, light, ventilation and views of the Primary Unit
preclude our approval of this aspect of the proposed remodel.
4. Addition of Deck and Dormer to Southeast Bedroom: As previously
discussed, our design of the expansion to the Primary Unit was approved because of
its sensitivity to the use, privacy, enjoyment, air, light, ventilation, and views of the
Secondary Unit. We designed our expansion of space to be on the opposite end of the
propefty from the comrnon wall. We did not adversely impact any of the views, lighg
air, ventilatio4 or privacy of the Secondary Unit A strbstantial distance exists between
the connnon wall and the space added to our unit .
In contrast, the Secondary Unit's proposal adds a deck and dormer to the Soutlreast
bedroom. The effect of this design will be a direct and adverse inpact on the air,
light, privacy and view of the two of the western bedrooms in the Primary Unit. For
these reasons, we object to this portion of their proposal.
5. Addition of Deck and Dormer to Southwest Bedroom: For the reasons
discwsed above, we do not object to the addition of space to this bedroorn Like ouu
remodel of the Prinnry Unit, the addition of space at this end of the Secondary Unit
does not adversely inpact our light, air, views, ventilation or privacy. Subject to the
conditions discussed for any remodel of the Secondary Unit, we do not object to this
portion of the proposed project.
6. Replacement of Railings and Matching of Siding: Likewise, we approve
of and encourage the proposal to replace the siding and the railings to match the work
done to the Primary Unit.
7. New Door and Window on West Wall: It appea$ that the proposal includes
changing out the existing sliding glass door and replacing it with an operable door and
with a window above it along the west wall of the Secondary Unit. Subject to our
concems for any exterior rernodel of the Secondary Unitn we do not object to this
aspect ofthe proposed remodel. In contrast to the excessive, disproportionate amount
of glass proposed for the front side of the Secondary Unit, we think tlrat ttre opposite
disproportion exists in the plan for the west side of the tmit. We encourage the
Secondary Unit Owners to cornider expanding the glass incorporated on this side of
their gnit to take advantage of the aftemoon surlight, sunsets, ventilation and beautiful
westem views to be enjoyed from this unit.
E. Additional Matters: We have tried to be thorough and responsive to the
aspects of the proposed remodel as we can determine from our review of the
construction drawinp received from Ms. Lerrine on March 20, 2000. If there are other
aspects to the proposal that we have not addressed, we ask that you point ott these
matters to us and we reserve the right to address them at that time'
9. Conditions Precedent to Any Consent Finally, please note that the
Townhogse Declaration that enctunbers this property requires the consent of the other
unit owner prior to any exterior renrodel of a unit. Our willingness to consent to any
exterior changes to the Secondary Unit is conditioned upon resolution of the
outstanding legal issues fint. These issues include restitution to us for the damages
caused by the Secondary Unit Owners dwing the prior rernodels, resolution of the title
issues, and adequate instuance/assurances ttrat the Prirtary Unit will not suffer
additional damage as a result of any remodel to the Secondary Unit. We must not be
put in a situation in the future that we are currently in-of having to file liens and
lawsuits as a resuft of darnage to or.r unit by the actions of the Secondary Unit Owner.
For the nunrerous rcasons set forth above, we ask that you withdraw the staffapproval
you have given to this project. Your failwe to do so rnay necessitate the filing of a
lawsuit to enjoin this project from proceeding an expensive and adversarial process we
have been working diligently to avoid.
By copy of this letter being sent by fax to Ms. l,evine, we are gving notice to the
owners of the Secondary Unit of our denial of consent pursuant to the Townhouse
Declarations and our request for an appeal to the Town Council of the granting of the
variance and issuance of staffapproval on this project.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Very tnrly yours,
NSA Investnents. Inc.
, tl ...-,./ - "vf |ut r, -, yrtr{i, *,1 t,, 7 t n tzu.r*
/t
By: Nancy S.{Oarr, President
cc: Beth Irvine-BY F/J.970-926-2993
Beth Levine, Architect
P.O. Box 1825
Avon, CO.81620
(970) 926-509 (Phcne)
(970)926-2993 (Fax\
Hand Delivery
April4, 2000
To: T.O.V.
Allison Och
From: Beth Levine, Architects
Beth Levine
RE: 706 West, Fores Road
Vail. CO 81657
CliffIllig, Owner
SecondaryUnit
The proposed remodel for the west (secondary) unit at 706 Forest Road has been
designed to cornplement and cornplete the easl unit's remodel which, was done in 1998.
The extensive east rernodel left tbe overall design ofthe two halves disproportionate and
extensively inconsistent. Although Cliffwas not involved in the 1998 Remodel, Cliff
feels a responsibility to restore the balance ofthe design for his remodel The proposed
remodel would match the proportions, expansive dormers, trash enclosure, color and
railing ofthe east halfto once again create a unified overall design.
The original design intent ofthe two sides ofthe 706 Forest Road duplex was to p,rovide
a primary east unit and a secondary west unil with a solid pany !\,all, building setbacks,
and defined view directions. Thus, the original design did not have any windows in the
party waft and the east unit's view directions were nortb, east, & south; while the west
unit's view directions were nort[ west & sornh.
The proposed rernodel for tbe secondary unit has been designed with the original duplex
design intent for desigrL proponiorl light, air, privacy and view. Th€ 1998 rernodel of
the primary unit did not respect the original design intent with the resulting proportions
and the addition of the west facing windows. At a substantial proposed investment by
Cliff, the proposed rernodel for the west unit reunites the design with similar dorrners,
railings, stone, siding and color.
The secondary unit has been trying to coordinate the design with the primary unit for
more than two rnontls while also following the TOV design process. Nancy's architect,
Fritzland, Pierce & Smith were first contacted on Febnuary 2,2000. Nancy left Beth
Levine a nressage at that time indicating thaf she would be unable to meet the month of
February. The secondary unit's owner volunteered to postpone the pEC Febnuary 286
meeting until the March 13- me€ting at the request ofthe primary writ's owner, Nancy
Adaln. On March l, the proposed remodel was a uumirpusly given DRB conceptual
review approval with the staffallowed to provide the final approval. On March 136, the
PEC gave tlre requested variances unanimus approval. It was at the PEC meeting that
Nancy's representative fnst povided the secondary unit a list of objection unitten to the
TOV, and tlrc PEC upheld the unanimous approval The TOV staffthen provided the
proposed remodel the staffDRB approval. Nancy has since appealed both the PEC and
DRB approvals and has provided more desigrr objections. The secondary unit has
provided the primary unit drawings and opportunities for meetings. The resuhing 1998
primary remodel, which left the project in such disproportion, also reveals the lack of
cooperation the primary unit has for the overall project. The unanimous support to the
TOV DRB, PEC, and Community Development stafrof the secondary unit's design is in
sharp contrast the extensive list of detail criticisms as offered by the primary unit.
Altho,rgh the 3-23-00 NSA letterto the PEC was not addressed to the secondary unit, the
design considerations are as follows:l. The separation of space and privacy are maintained at both units' entry by the primary
unit's ent4r dormer whicb, was expanded in the 1998 remodel. The
enclosure/expansion ofspace occurred under an existing deck for the secondary unit,
thus using the secondary unit's originally designed space.
2. The trash enclosure has been designed to balance the primary unit's 1998 design by
creating an opportunity to carry the common stone around the building: in addition to
providurg trash enclosure space.
3. The fiont dornrr and chimney expansion have been added to the socondary unit to
balance the primary unit's 1998 expansion. The original design intent ofthe duplex
was for a complete party wall separation without any windows on the party wall
plane. The 1998 primary eryansion violated the originally intended privacy, air,
light, ventilation and views by adding west facing windows. The primary unit's view
windows all face nortb east and south The west window in question for the primary
unit is a small 3'x4' window at the top of a stair landing. Whicb, does not appear to be
a view window and any views from this window are blocked by the secondary unit's
chimney (as is seen in the primary unit's elevation drawing).
4. The southeast bedroom dormer has been designed consistent with the original 1980
building designed set back between the two units.
5. The southwest bedroom dormer was acceptable to the owner of the primary unit.
6. Placement of Railing and Siding was acceptable to the owner of the primary unit.
7. West wall windows and door were acceptable to the owner of the prirnary unit.
8. Additional Matters: Nancy first disagreed with the deck expansion on the northwest
corner in a meeting betweenNancy and myself on 3-28-00. The deck expansion has
been designed to balance tle architecture.
9. Condition Precedent to Ary Consent: The outstanding legal issues involve the
prwious owner ofthe secondary unit.
The intent once again for the remodel of the secondary unit at 706 Forest Road is to
complement and complete the east unit's 1998 remodel. The only way to accomplish this
goal is to completely rebuild the exterior ofthe secondary unit, at geat ogense. The
TOV unanimous DRB and PEC approvals, more tlan support the snength and
application of the design intent. Cliff Illig is a resident ofKansas, and was able to *tend
the March l3b PEC meeting. However, the owner ofthe Ot;-rtt unit did not attenq
althoug[ the meeting was postponed from February 28u to March l3b at her request.
The applicant respectfully asks the Town Council and TOV board members and sta$to
uphold the DRB and PEC approvals and allows the secondary units the opportuity to fix
a Forest Road eyesore.
Please forward a copy of this letter and the included picture to all Town Council
members and applicable board and staffmembers
Inclusive pictures:
706 Forest Road 1980 design building elevations - two sheets
1998 Primary unit's remodel - color rendition
1998 Primary unit's remodel west elevation
Proposed Secondary unit's remodel illusnation sketched on top of the 1998
Primary unit's color rendition.
copy:
Clitrruig
Bruce Chapman
NSA Investrnents
JimPowell
-,T'=FFE il 333F F:i;n=? @ E51PF
=do-:39 F ??iia r.::r;i b- g IHa- b6r6i; <!- -? cL ^;t{-? E g gE'
"er''r id e
-to:r
g
,B+F.
f l;* <'
l',. ,i
3i *,
-l'
=,w;rF
FuS*trFl
FIU
F
F
a
OoF
F
Uc
N'in.iTlit$ftrfi
\i\tGT
l!i--- . I 'r$i
o
i',$rr. fi i?+ F G\F;
E$ iTI
'lh \
iil.
\j
!{r':t
-l
?.,
F<
'd
I
!tzc
I
i"*t
,r 3F
"i trl
i!
I
T
-1
1'! T
.r :t. -r-
',RN
!
l
lu
i:j ;;
- -l
:g:
:l
., li,:i. ...
', J', ..rrl
r-; !I'
','i, .il , -;-: --;iu ,i ; 'l l:-i ',ri- iUDi',; t .1. = I
I
- --- -t
.t
g ' i ffi!i I{ ..rql rit li Il, ri ili li i-==-_-_r_--_._-_._._J
rl Jo
I
i6
f-
E
I
a{fs
FIIr
iC-
f
ItI{
ti
Irf!ts
1..i:
t'I
I
I
IA
El-
-t Ftdh'
?l
Ii
ri
i:i:ii; !i;:
ti
t
z
-a-
6''
li i;
xlrli' 'ii i :
stt-.
ia
;
ill
itr:
e' t'
A-
P -C)2May-OZt-Oo 12: ZgP 1l5l
I.rl
lr:
l:. '
. t:!
L.
Ck- Rd- Roscn s7o-qa6-2ss3Junco
iritl
';
a
t
rt
I
'l i
,Ttt
-rli
I
!r
,
l)t'.:J.
I
I
,
I
t
t
:fE tt
H
aI!
I$
'r,
t,
IE:$*tr;'
I
6
i',
!i'r
IFl
tr
i
I
I
I
:
I
D'
t?i
t-i
lii:ii; ii!
ft: i; iiii i: I
di i=J
-$l*,:l.?.:..1-.--
l?;:'.,!;:
---t
i/
Design Review Action Form
TOWN OFVAIL
ProjectNumber: Prj0C0042
Owneq Address, and Phone: Cliff trlig
11504 Pewnee Circle
Leawood, KS 66211
9l$491-166E
Architect/Contact, Address, and Phone: Beth Levine
PO Bor 1825
Avon, CO 81620
970-92G5299
Project Street Address: 706 W. Forest Rd
Legal Description. Lot 9, Block l, Vail Villagc 6th
Parcel Number: 2l0l072ll022 BuildingName:
Comments: Received vrrience on March 13
Project Name: trlig Residence
Project Description: Remodel end Addtion
Motion by:
Seconded by;
Vote:
Conditions:
Board/Staff Action
Action:
Limit of disturbance be established at rear of lot
prst this point in future
staffapproved with
conditions
No development to occur
Town Planner: Allison Ochs
Date: March 20,2000
Project Name: trlig Residence
Documentl
DRB Fee Paid: $50
P-('3IMaj/-O4-OO l2:29P 1l5l Ck- Rd- Roscn e7o-T-?ee3Juneo
1'>q
=le
-r+
-€t
3>o
ji i'::
ll{
t iilr-
t
'I
a?
:.',
P
t}r
et
l!
$
iI
,!-f
ffi;ii-liiti
?,
,* f iii'
I
IT: :;
'ii !j
;il :!
2lLa'
P.OZ}n 97(J-9126-2993oRosc
!$
lr
lo
ck. Rd-Ju nc!
irlr
lF
ir
itr
May-o4-oo lz:3oP ttfl-
i6
F
a-it< 'r
-=)C-G' I
5i (a\.
Ea-
=FE
:t:
I
-=v
s
I
!
I
.-t
1sq
tr-t
)
I
l.
tplrl I l)-I'i lt -r?r'l IIt t='
I
t,-t 'r[Fit
lnvoice Request
.* olffirtfi uftLr* **
Route to Judy Pope DfllE: 4/85/o el flECEIPT: H7P8
lE$nlnt$t 0w Htt{T Ip IItl$B.lflfttF I f{0.0 $6 tx
sT0uru HIlDm lH.ttrErfiffiffi..*d fr{'nrffi tx
;ISEIflEO.E t fa.79 rG 0t
Date of Request: April4,2000 T?!ffirffi **f
€.40 rrs o{sTotru Emtlm{ Hlrffi
Lynne campbell/Allisol nv'rr' REHfsT
ff* "t?15., .67.t1
Kristin McKnisht !0jil-ffi11 t'*' t"o'll?.o
StovallGoodman Wallc ffiilI TB{}ER$ ti7,n
From:
BillTo:
Address:
P.O. Box 5960
Gig, State andZip: Avon, CO 81620 llfli{ YtlJ FoR Yll'R ptYE{Il
Please describe what we are billing. Include dates, Town equipment, and
personnel involved. Gopies of any back up you have would be helpful in the
collection of this debt.
192 - 8.5x11 and 11x14 copies at $.25l copy $48.00
2 mylar (plans copies) at $7.fi) each 14.00
State tax at[.Soh 2.79
Retail sales lax@ 4"/o 2-48
Total Amount to invoice: $67.27
Account number to be credited: $48.00 00100003141111$14.00 00100003141211$2.79 00100002011000
$2.48 00100003101100
ll
lti
E
oE
oo
g
dd
ui9Frg
3:Hs
=g*!?-ge--
=tr9tIJO"Y
8EH.qt ct
JA-
oFo
F
c).tf
rf|
urrll
aa
TTr[r
rato.{
ru
oa
at
a
(r
EL
rr'l
.-o
PUBIISHED
TH|s TTEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Council of the Town of Vailwill hold a public hearing
in accordance with Section 1 2-1 1-10 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on April 1 1 '2fl)0, at 2:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of:
An appeal of a Planning and Environmental Commission apprwal ol variances from Section
12-6b'-6 and 12-14-6, iown of Vail Code, to allow fg.r an extended deck expansion, located at
706 West Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6"' Filing.
Applicant: Cliff lllig, represented by Beth Levine
Appellant: Nancy Shapiro AdamPlanner: Allison Ochs
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular
office'hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development
Department, 75 South Frontage Road.
Sign fanguage interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call479-2114 voice or
479-2356 TDD for information.
Community Development Department
Published March 31, 2000 in the Vail Trail.
t1
$sli,
=2
l!l!
a
e
trif
J
rl)
$I
Nt
u
0
^3
$r
>s
4
r$14
55
il
r
,il
3
p
I
at)JZst=>s
ffrl
8I
I
oait
I.n-
-\)p
Ec
$
}ti
b
2.c
h:
T
$
sstr
u
I
t
?4
?t
z
F;
I
^rr
-4llt
>td
iE ,-a.q3
f.rsrrrrrrrs
s
NSA lnvestmentsr Inc.
4975 East Preserve Court
Greenwood Village, CO 80121
303-770-0779
Fax: 303-770-8918
May 9. 2000
To: Town CoLrrcil of Torvn of Vail
Re: Appeal of DRB Approval of Illi-e Remodel of 706 Forest Road. Vail. Colorado
Background
In May of 1999. Cliffand Borurie Illig purchased the Secondary Unit fbr S i .8 lvlillion.
At the time the Illigs purchased the Secondary Unit. the properly looked like this:
Note: The windorvs installed on the West Wall of the Primary Unit are clearly visible
In February of 2000, Beth kvine, as the architect for the Illigs, informed us that the
Illigs wanted to remodel to the Secondary Unit. We requested that any proposed
remodel ofthe Secondary Unit be as design sensitive to the views, use and enjoyment
ofthe Primary Unit as the 1998 Remodel was to their unit. The 1998 Remodel of the
Primary Unit did not have ANY impact on the light, air, or views of the Secondary
Unit.
The llligs'Plans
While many aspects of the Illigs' plaru to rernodel the Secondary Unit have no adverse
im pact upon the Primary Unit, three aspects of their plans have a direct and adverse
impact upon the Primary Unit and are the basis for this appeal. These items are:
1. Moving their front entry forward and creating a side entrance;
2. Adding a dormer to and expanding the size of the rooms on the southeast; and
3. Adding a dormer to the front of the Secondary Unit.
While originally part of this appeal, we have agreed to the trash enclosure and
wrapping of the front deck.
Resolution of the Southeast Dormer
Per the Compromise Proposed as of 5i4i00 by the Illigs, a copy of which is attached
hereto, the Illigs have eliminated the expansion of the upper room and creation of a
dormer overthe Southeast portion of the Secondary Unit. Accordingly, this item has
been satisfactorily resolved.
Issues and Proposed Resolution of Entry Expansion
The expansion of the front entry to the same linear plane as the Primary Unit will
adversely change the fi.ndamental design of this property. The original design of this
property was to step the two units. The Primary Unit was built closer to the street
while the Secondary Unit was built set back further to the back. This design feahre
identifies the separate units, creates privacy between the spaces and creates an
aesthetic break in the linear plane from the street, all as more clearly shown on the
following picture:
!t
The Illigs' design to move their front entry fonvard to the same linear plane as the
Primary Unit's entry wili def-eat this f'undarnental design feature'
As a compromise to resolve this item. rve suggest that the tiont entr-v be moved fbrrvard
to enclose the current landing and align rvith the west stone wall. This solution rvili
expand their entry area while maintaining a separation of space and dehnition between
the trvo properties.
Issues and Proposed Resolution of Front Dormer
lVe cannot agree to the donner the Illigs propose for the fi'ont of their unit. As these
pictures sho',v. a substantial amount of light and ventilation are provided to the Great
Room of tire Pr-imary Unit fi'om the rvindorvs located on the r.r'est rvall. The donner the
Illigs propose rvill totally obstruct these windorvs. Their "Compromise Plan" to reduce
tn. aot-Lr by 18" does not resolve the blockage issue--at least 80% of these windorvs
wili still remain biocked by the proposed dotmer.
. .i.t ,. r',i,,i^.,1 1.,.
l)t r , i.. ..-,., i ).,1t:t.:r.
'_lr
ifi-1+ . ..., .1r. ,,,--
-:i+: -i: --
we have asked the Illigs to modrfy this portion of their work to an addition of a front
dormerto tlre Secondary Unit at a height that does not inpact on the liglrt, air, or views
we enjoy from our west windows. Their response was to reduce the height by I 8", the
result of which is to significantly reduce the amount of air and light that will flow
through the windows of the Primary Unit.
Other Methods to Achieve Goals of Front Dormer
We have been told that the purpose of the front dormer is to add light and volume to
*rc lltigs' living roorn Theie arc many ways achieve these goals other than building
a dormer that takes away the light and air from our windows, including:
1. Remove the siding from the decks and putting in open railings;
2. Raise the height of the windows to just below the 9' ceiling to substantially
enhance the tight andviews fromthe windows;
3. Add windows to the norttr and west walls;
4. Add skyhghts to the roof;
5. Build a shorter dormer that adds some volurne to the Secondary Unit without
blocking the windows of the Primary Unit; and
6. Add lights!
changing our windows Does Not Solve Their Design Problem
Rather than consider any of these options, Ms. Levine has suggested that we replace
our existing windows with taller windows. what she does not address is the fact that
even if taller windows are installed, the proposed dormer will still block most of the
window space, dramatically reducing the amount of light and air provided by $ese
windows. Installing a dormer 4 outside our windows does not allow for muctq if any'
ventilation.
Resolution of these problems should be achieved through thoughtful design of the
Secondary Unit, not irom changes being forced upon the Primary Unit.
The Illigs Need to Design According to Existing Conditions
When the Illigs ptrchased the Secondary Unit last year, the Primary Unit was
benefitted bythe light and airprcvided by the west windows. The Illigs should not be
allowed to remodel the Secondary Unit in a way that adversely inpacts the existing
conditions of the property.
$1.8 Million Eyesore
Apparently, ths nliS do not like the lools of the property they just spent $1.8 Million
to purchase. If they did not like the way it looked or the disparity in the size of the
units, they could have pursued any one of a ntrnber of altemative invesfinent
opportunities. Even inthe vail valley, $1.8 Millionprovides you with several options-
-including purchasing the entire duplex and land just down the street!
Misleading Plans Submitted
What may have led the DRB to approve these plans is the fact that when Ms. Levine
superimposed the plans on the 1980 original blueprints for this property, Ms. kvine
did not rrydate the plans to accurately reflect the current conditions of the property. As
a result, she did not show the existence and location of these windows in the plans
submiued for DRB approval.
Please note that even in the "Compromise Proposed as of 5/4/00" submitted for this
hearing Ms. l,evine did not show these windows and the impact of the front dormer
on these windows. While she did rrydate the front elevation, she left the east elevation
unchanged and did not submit a modified west elevation. The fact that ttre drawings
continue to not show the inpact of the proposed dormer on the west windows confirms
that the inpact is substantial and should not be permitted.
No Opportunity to Present These Issues to the DRB
When we appealed the granting of StaffApproval of these plans to the DRB, the DRB
would not allow us to present our concems or even look at these pictures, hence this
appeal.
Proposed Resolutions
We have agreed to most the aspects of the proposed remodel of the Secondary Unit.
The Conpromise Plans of 5/4/00 which eliminate the southeast expansion and dormer
resolve that aspect ofthe Illigs' proposed project.
The front entry expansion is readily resohable if the Illigs will modify their expansion
plars to enclose tlreir landing to the plane of their west stone wall beside their garage-a
corrpromise that will rnaintain ttre architectural imegnty of the property while allowing
the Illigs to expand their space.
The last issue is againresohable ifthe llli5 are willingto worktoward a compromise--
build a donrpr that does not inrpact our windows. The Illigs will still have atleast 12'
ceiling heigfits, they will be able to strbstantially expand their front glass to take in their
views and light and the Primary Unit not be advenely inrpacted.
Action Requested of Council
We requestthat the Courcil overtumthe DRB approval ofthe proposed remodel of the
Secondary Unit or, altematively, that the DRB approval of the proposed remodel be
modified to incorporate the resolutions referred to above so that any exterior remodel
ofthe Secondary Unit does not adversely rmpact upon the air and light of the Primary
Unit and maintains architectural integrity.
All of the llligs' design objectives can be achieved with modifications to their proposed
design which will entrance the Secondary Unit withors adversely impacting the Primary
Unit. We request that the design approval be revised to incorporate these changes.
Respectfrrlly submitted,
NSA Invesfrnents. Inc.
Ylt-*#C** /ru"a,"^r
By: Nancy S. Adam, President
West View of Proposed Dormer
West Windows of Primary Unit are NOT Shown
tl.4&wto ,i Elwniio
HI
f
l.
t,li
1,,
ii
I
I
L-,.,
ErlEnr*fr?qp t2#14*tt
;'J :..:.'O a.3
. r jrCr rr.n ;'2{-'t?{/l:t4€ltnJ
IAH&"+-lgI-''/'*Wbe"W{Ab+-
IDrg?O{PAGE 21/25
8t89 6t6 0t,8 xvd l,r:0T Nott oo/80/g0:nvze: r ! oo/a /g :De 7a.r.
7A2.1So
- -r. -_- uEr ^ r
t-
s
,_'
a
f i i
gCrrl'Ivil NVICOOO'I'Iv/|oJs
cN l#slN3nls3n Nr#vsN <- ereG' €116 oz€
$
.t
i Ge
c,
=F'
=t_-='
tFls,-
P
*J.
<t
3sa
t
,t
l
(
Jq'?
ti*r
.t,
a
'i
L
:l
ll
$j
$
?
1
IFir
t
FJg
ul,H
f;trfFiii
z.'
sii[
i/
\
\\ \t_
\!\
|,: .Lt'ad:! ,:J
:,
I
I
l'? €6Ed ,.
bzo@
lDr!,7U.r7!'f AlrE z-/ 1J-colt -DEv-
Iroil
:;H
I
:
I
III
I
I
+F<.+;
=G-e.
EF
F
z.l boDEFT.FFOI{ , TOVitAY-os_OO tO t S1
:€i
F
!
-
=:
=i-€5,ct
(s
R.
s\s,
'lD *a
2t-'r ot,)x
iQ-Ds
-- -----'+
:
I
I
l
II
a
r
19
R
E
'l
)ris)q
:f.
I
gCrr-l'Ivn Ngco.g ,''IvAOlS
9Z eOBd : CNITSIN3nIS3^NI#VSN <- ergg €re OlA
8'89 6t6 01,6 M 8I:0T NoI 00/80/90
:nvze: !r oo/€ /s :DeArecou
szo E
/o/ r,I t). l/i//,trtr
.]OBSITE AT
Permit
el,f7zh
NOTE: THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON
roV/comm. Dev. ifiSiffi 3*I"fi;,i"#,lfiiio"*""
Clean-up De
approved
amount Idate I ject, No.:
APPLICANT BOI,ES CTISTOM BUILDERS, INC
P O BOX L279, AVON CO 8L620
CONTRACTOR BOLES CT]STOM BUILDERS, INC
P O BOX L279, AVON CO 8L620OI{NER ADAl,t NAI{CY SHAPIRO
4975 E PRESERVE CT, GREENWOOD VILLAGE
TOWN OF VAIL
75 S. FRO}ffTAGE ROAD
VAIL, CO 81,657
970-479-21,38
Invcstigacion>
liill call-- -- >
DEPARTMENT OF COMMTJNITY DEVELOPMENT
#:
TIMES
898 -0r_93
tj-on. . . :
Parcel No..:
.0O Rec!.ation Fee---------->
3 .0o cl!.n-t p D.!ro6il-------->
SLALUS...: ISSI]ED
Applied. . : 07 /1,4/L998Issued...: 08/3I/L998
E>cpires. . : 02/27 /L999
Phone z 3039263202
Phone:. 3039263202
co 80121
ob Address:706 FOREST RD
705 FOREST RD
2L01-072-LL-02L
PR,J98 - 0104
Descript.ion:REMODET., OF SFR ADDTTToN Number of Dwelling uniE,s: 001
Town of Vail AdjusEed valuation: 475,500
Fircplecc InforEation: Reslrict€d:*of oas Appliancc!:#Of Oas 11096:#of wood/Pallet:
FEB SI''IiIMARY
Building-----> 2,244.OO R€Blualant. Plan Revicrr-->
Plan Check---> 1,458.50 DRB Fce--------
.oo Total calculaced Feee---> 4,405.50
2oo.o0 Additsional Feea---------> .oo
.o0 Total PeniiL Fce--------> ,1,405.60
500.00 Pa)r$enle- --- -- -- 4,405.60
.......,...1:::l.llll:::.::.:::....r.......,1:lll:i1"..,...iT::.:::::::::::::::::.,....".""..;::.""
ITCM: O51OO BUILDING DEPARTMEIiIT DCPI: BUILDING DiViSiON:
o7/L4/L998 JRM AcE,ion: NorE pALNs ro cHARr-,rE
o7/L4/L998 JRM AcEion: NorE REvrsED pLANs ro cD
08/05/L998 CHARLIE Act,ion: APPR CHARLIE DAVrS
ITCM: O54OO PLANNING DEPARTT,IENT DEPT: PLANNING DiVJ.S1ON:
o7/L4/Lgg8 JRN. Act.ion: NOTE PT,ANS TO PLANNER
07/L4/L998 CtsAR'TON AcE,ion: APPR appr by cbarton
07/L4/L998 JPjlil Actsion: NOTE REVISED PLANS TO CB
07/L5/1"998 CBARToN Act,ion: APPR cb appr revised plans
rTEM: 05600 FIRE DEPARTMEI\TI DCPE: FIRE DiViSiON:
07/L4/L998 Jwt Action: APPR N/AItem: 05500 PITBLIC WORKS Dept: PI'B WORK Division:
07/L4/L998 JPJ{ AcEion: NOTE PLANS TO LARRY
07/L4/L99e JRvl Act,ion: NOTE NO PLANS TO L,P ONLY2SETS
07/L4/L998 JRI( Act,ion: NOTE ONLY REVISED SET TO LP
O8/L9/L998 LARRY P AcEion: APPR APPROVED SEE COND
o|/Lg/Lggg r,enny p AcE,ion: cANc
08/25/L998 tpanrCil AcEion: APPR APPR-SEE CONDITIONS
See Page 2 of E,his Document, for any condiEions that may apply Lo this permit.
DECI,ARATIONS
I hcrcby rcknorl.dgc thrt I h.vc r6.d Ehis appl,icacion, fiIlcd out in full thc inforrnation lequired, cornpl.etcd an acculaEe pIots
pL.n, and Elat.G Eh.t rI1 thc inforualion provld€d as rsqulrcd la corlecg. I aglcc !o conply !,ilh lhe illfor!|ation and ploL p1an,
to codply wilh all Torn ordinenccs and slate lass, and to build thl,E glructure according co t'he Tovn'6 zoning and subdivigion
codc!, daaign !.vicu epprovGd, UniforE Auilding codc .nd olhar ordin.ncea of t.hc Torn applj,cabte
REQUESTS FOR INSPESIIONS SIIAIJIJ BE MA.DE THE}Try-FOUR HOI'RII IN ADVANCE BY
Scnd CIcan-Up D€polit To: BOIJES CUSTOI' BLDRS
PAGE 2
:ktr******************************************************************************
Permit. #: 898-0193
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
as of o8/3L/98
., r t r rl ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ******** * *** ** * * *** *********** * * *** * * * * ** * ****
StraEus: ISSITED
Applied: 07/L4/L998
Issued: 08 / 3L/L998
PermiE \pe: ADD/ALT SFR BUfLD PERMITApplicant.: BOLES CUSTOM BUILDERS, INC
Job Address: 706 FOREST RDLocation: 706 FOREST RD
Parcel No: 2101-072-LL-02L
*****************:t*:t**:t**************:t******************:t****:t*:*****************
COI{DITIONS
*********************************************************i**********************
1. FIELD INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED TO CHECK FOR CODE COMPLIANCE.2. SMOKE DETECTORS ARE REQUIRED IN AI.,I., BEDROOMS AND EVERY STORY
AS PER SEC.121O OF TIIE 1991 I'BC.3. A SOILS REPORT IS REQUIRED AT TIME OF FOOTING INSPECTION4. THE WALL IN WHICH THE TRASH ENCLOSIJRE IS TO BE PI,ACED INTO C
A}INOT EXCEED THE CURREMT HEIGHT OF 5'. NO WAI.,L CAN BE ADDED
BEHIND TIIE ENCLOSURE. GRADING BEHIND THE EXISTING WALL CANNO
T CHANGE-
5. AL,L PARKING AI{D STAGING SHALL, BE ON SITE- NO PARKING IS ALLO
WED IN FOREST ROAD
TOIII oF vrrrr. €LoRtm Sts Eaarg
gtaE.urt NuDb.r I REC-0142 l,nount r a,355,60 08/31/9e 1l!S2
Pryr.nt X.thod ! CK lfoC.Cion! 2525 InlE: ID
P.rrlc lfo 3 B9A-O193 tlE.: I-BUILD TDDALI gtR AUILD Pa
PEc.l llo r 2101-072 -11-021
8It. lCdr.tt ! t05 FOREAI RD
Loc.Cion3 706 FORAAT RD
fogrl 1...: a. {05.60
ntlr PryEng 4,355.60 loE l lJJl Plta: {,a05.60
Erlrnc!: .00
t irt rrrr. al'ar ta tattrrtata t,r I t
AccourE Codr D..srl,pElon lDoung
EP 001000031111,00 Bt ttrlrtlfc p8rutlr p!89 z,2aa.oo
Dt 0010000t112200 DBnIelt RBrrI$t rtEg
Pp 00100003112300 PLIN cBlcK FEAS
lD D2-Dgp08 CLlllfoP DEPOaITA
150. 00
l,{58.60
500.00
r{E o0ro0003ll2t0o xItJ, cltiL lxspSctlq FEE 3.00
F'ozODJ8
tlIi:
rl.o2OD.oO:Eoa
H'.,
'ID68Fr.H
EH!!rl! cl
fi
t{
cgtIto
B
Eo
ll
F
oo
c;o
oct
o
oo
o
o
C'
q|ql
E
Ia!
o
lr(' r-rEql
11 OoafqE
oo
6E6A
ao
F
x(,E
o
tt
AHtt!lo
o
T
!.1
Ea
Aq
EE
6
:E
TJ:o
}f
(,
EE
EI
*
EI
EE
E9olaD
da
EE
H:
E
EH
Eli{
t
&H(
rl
6
Et{ECad!t!!
CIAiEI E"H IlA
E f;8
t{
&'nDu
t9
F
o
!{c
A
B
Ec
HHao
E
ct:
.e
'aEaT>
EIt{cao.(E4l!|drotc!! oAo.H
-.
75 soulh lrontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(so3) 479-2138 or 479-2L39 otllce ol communlly development
ALL CONTRACTORS CURRENTLYL REGISTERED I^TITH THETOWN OF VAIL
TOWN oF VArL PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MARCH 15, 1988
CONSTRUCTION PARKING & MATERIAL STORAGE
rn sunnary, ordinance No. 6 states that it is unrawful for anyperson to litter, track or deposit any soir, r""L, sand, debrisor material, including trash dumpsrers, portable toilets andworkmen vehicles upon any street', siaewaix, -;ii;y or publicp1?:" or any porri-n rheieof. rhe righr_"i_;;;-;n alt. Town ofVail streets and.I?"gr is approxinateiy 5 ft.-lri pavem"r,t.This ordinance wirr be striltry enforcld by the rown of VairPubric works De.artment. pers6ns found viiraiing this ordinancewil-r. be given a 24 hour wri-tten ""ti""-ti-;;;;;==aid rnarerial.rn the event the person so notified. does "-i-c"ipry wi-th thenotice within rhe 24 hour rime =l""iii"a,--.i"-;;ilic worksDepartnent wirl remove said mateiiat _at iit"--."p.is€ of personnotified- The provisions of thii ordinance sirili not beapplicable to cinstruction, maintenance or repair projects ofany street or alley or any utilities in the ,igtl_"_r"y.
To review ordinance No. 6 in fur-1, please stop by the Town ofJlir auilding Department to obtain a copy. tnanr you for yourcooperation on this matter.
acknowledged
-Posl_t1on/Re1ationship to Fioj ect
p=,,=:1" ht
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
(i.e. contractor, owner)
t
75 south lronlage road
vsil, colorado 81657
(303) 479-2L38 or 479-2L39 olflce ot communlty devclopmelrl
BUILDING PERIiIT iSSUANCE TIIIE FMI,IE
If this permi.t requires a Town of Vail [ire Department Approval ,Engineer''s (Public Works) review and approvat,'a piinnlni'blpa"t entleview or.Health Department review, and'a review by the BuildingDepartment, the estimated time for a totar r"ui"n-i"y tall'as t6ngas three weeks.
All commercial (large or smail) and all murti-family permits wiilhave tq follow the above rnentioned maximum requirenrenis. 'ies.idential
ilg.:T91-.| projects. shoutd take a iesser amouni-of-iir".' Ho"uuer, ifres'loentlat or smaller projects impact the various above mentioned
!,.?lrlT:!t:,.wri!11 regard. to necessary review, these proje.ii ,uyarso take the three week period
Every attempt will be made by this departnent to exped.i te thispet'ml t . as soon as poss ib1 e .
I, th" undersigned, understand the plan check procedure bnd timeframe.
/
Communi ty Oevel orrment Deoartment.
o
DEVEIJOPMBIiITTOT{N OF VATIJ
75 S. FROITTAGE ROAD
VAIIJ, CO 81557
970-479-2L38
APPI,ICAIIT
COI{TRACTOR
OV{NER
SKYI,INB MECIIANICAI.
P.O. BOX L258, GYPSIM, CO 81537
SKYIJ INE MECIIAI.I I CAL
P.O. BOX L258, GYPSIM, CO 81537
AD]Al,l N:INCY SHAPIRO
4975 E PRESERVB qr, GREBNWOOD Vrr.,I'AGE
Phone: 970-524-5809
Phone z 970-524-6809
co 80121
llof o.! tog!:
DBPARIIIEIIT OF COMUT'NIIY
NOIB: THIS PERI{IT MUST BE POSTED ON iIOBSITE AT ALT, TIMBS
MECIIAIIICAL PBRIT{IT PermiE #: M99-0059
ilob Address... z 706 FOREST RDLocaEion......: 705 FOREST RD
Parcel No... .. : 2101-072-lL-02L
ProJects Number: PR,J98-0104
SEaEuE...: ISSI]ED
Applied. . | 06/L4/L999
Issued. . .. 06/29/L999
E:<pirea . .: L2/26/L999
Valuation:3,200. 00
Tof rood/Prllrt t
rr..rrrr..r'rrtt. t.irtrr.rttt..t aBB aulf l|Ry
DescripElon:
MECIIAI{ICAI, VENTING , BA1II FA}IS FIREPI,ACES
trlr.phc.R..grlctod: Y *Of Orr AiDll.nc.. r
l'l.oh.nlar!.-- - >
PIrn Ch.ok- - - >
lnv.rclgrtlon>
wlIl crll---->
Rcaluarrn! Pl|n R.vi.$- ->
DRB F..--------
TOtAr. taEa-----
Tocql c.lculrb.d F.as- -- >
Addlllon.l trrc.--------->
Tot.l P.rtslt 1..-------->
Pa)|Il.nca- -- - -- --
BAI.ANCE DUE. -. -
90.00
30.00
3 .00
.00
.oo
103 .00
103 .00
t5.o0
17e .00
178 .00
.00
t t t t I t aart tt ll ]l tat t t tt !al a t t t t t tt t t t t t rr t J t tt +tt * *t i * t t t t t t tl, !' !'rl
Item: 0510005/L4/L999Item: 0560006/L4/L999
BUIIJDING DEPARI!4BIITiTRM ACtsiON: APPR APPROVEDFIRE DEPARITIIBIITJRfr-- ---[CEion: APPR N/A
EOIIDITION OF APPROVAI,
REQU
JRfft : BUILDING Division:
Dept: FfRE Division:
1.2.
3.
4.
IqANI'FACTURBS INSTRU TI QNS _AND.--crIAFtsR 10 oF ltIE 1997 rMc.
D ACtoRDrNc ro cHAPTEB 8- AlrD-IN_SEE.EO6 OF THE 1997 IJMC, O
FIEIJD REOUTRED TO CHECK FOR CODE COMPltlAr{q .lRE -FEn Suc. 7or oF TIIE 1997 IrMc, oR7 IME.
OR
5.
6.
7.
8.OR
OF
SUPPLY BOILERS SL022 0p TtrB 1997
OF THE 19
BE
*********!r**************************************************!t******!t!t***********
DECI,ANATIONS
I h.r.Dy ackndl.dEa thrt I hrv. r.td thla tppllcrclon, flll.d out ln full cha lnfor llon rrqulrcd, coopllLrd rn rccuarE. ploE
plsr. rnd aCrg. thrc rll tsh. lnfor!.ttqr Daovld.d r. rrqulr.d ir corr.ct. r rgr.. !o corply rleh ch. infonrcion .nd plot pI.'t,
Co co4rly rtgh r11 toftr ordl, nc.l md rh!! hrr, rnd to bulld bhla lEruetsurr rccotdlnE !o gha Torn'! zonlng end rubdlvlrlon
aod.r, d..ltn a.vl.r approv.d, ttnltosE gulldlng cod. rnd o!h.! ordln|nccr of tha rorn rppllcrbl. tharolo.
Rtqul'rt ?OR llLtlgrlo[A eHr,t & !l l|lDt lltlITr-lom I|()UnA lD\rtlfcE By MlPHoNa AA a?9-213a oR AT ottR olFlcE lRoNl 3.00 Al| 5r0o Efl
tl4llllrRl ot ol llr on, co[IRtclon FoR rft]lrtt,! rlfir o rln
o
fin Ol VII!. €lOtrDO grrlrllrrc
raaaa+!ra torraaaotaf raaa,ra!raaaa a ata aatti tnttJ aartr'rrr'r a'r tra taa t t t
8lrg.t0nE lluEb.rr RIC-0535 tnounE !
Prtr!.nc Nrghod I Cl( fotsrcj,on ! 2116
L7a.Oo 06129/99 l0t2L
Inlc! aIU
P.nl! llo:
Parcal lfo t
3lt. lddtr.r:
t€caelon t
Itl. PryDnc
lcoounl Coda
loErl t.x3
178.00 ToLl t'.L Pllr r
X9t-005t 4t.s !-l|lcH Xaclltlllctlr PERIIIT
zrot -o7r-t 1-0rt
706 torugr nD
?O5 RnlAI' RD
lrunca !
178.00
l?s.;o
.00
ltP 00100003111100 r|tcBNftctl. PttltIT FtSa
Et 0010000311t!00 Pl.ltf cHEct( tttS
ct o010000t113000 coltmrct(n.LICI!|aES
tc 00100003112400 Iu.L cl!r. gD8ctlot tEt
Dc.e!Iptlon lrounE
30. 00
20. 00
75,00
l. o0
TowN oF vArCoNsrRUcroN pERMrr lilrclmoN FoRM
INT'ORMATION MUST BE COMPLETE OR THE APPLICATION WILL BE REJECITII
Contad the Eagle County Assessors Qfftce at 970-328-8640 for Parcel #
ParcettJtOl -07 L -/l ' OZl//
oarc: A5r/ ,/ Q7 p"* r* (-"11 'OO17
Job Name:
Plumbing ( )
Lot Block
Electical ( )Mechanical y'\Other( )
Filine Subdivision
ogtnersuarte: AflArut 3 Address:7c6 trcfEST -RA t 1
Architect:Address:Phone#
rdb Addxesst 7c e, Fe /2E3T fpel L
Building ( )
Legat Description:
Description of Job:UEr a14
Work Class: New Od Alteration)fl Additional () Repair ( ) Other ( )
Number of Accommodation Units:
Wood/Pellet
OTIIER: $
TOTAL $
Number of Dwelling Unit: I
Number and Tlpe of Fireplaces: Gas Appliances 2 Gas Logs
BIIILDING: $
VALUATIONS
EI.ECTRICAL: $
PLI,JMBING $
General Contractor:
Town of Vail Registration No.AZL- 3za Z
Electrical Contractor:
Town of Vail Registration No.
Plumbinc Contractor:
Town of Vail Registration No.
Mechanical Contractor:
FOR OFFICE USE
BUILDING:
SIGNATURE:
ZONING:
SIGNATURE:
CLEAN UP DEPOSIT REFUND TO:
MECHAMCAL $!.ZoC.;
,a
CONTRACTOR INFORMAT]ON
Address:
Phone #
,Z(t -(*a
o
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
ALL CONTRACTORS CIJRRENTLY REGISTERED WTTH T}tr TOWN OF VAIL
TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMI.JNIry DEVELOPEMENT
JANUARY I. 1999
CONSTRUCTION PARKING AND MATERIAL STORAGE
CODE S2-10: DEPOSITS ON PUBLIC WAYS PROHIBITED
A. Unlawful deposits: Subject to subsection C thereol it is unlawful for any penon to liter,
track or deposit, or cause to be littered, tracked or deposited, sand, gravel, rocks, mu4 dirt,
snow, ice, or any other debris or material upon any street, sidewalk, alley or public place, or
any portion thereof.
B. Notice; Abatement: The Director of Public Works may notiS and require any person who
violates or c:uses another to violate the provision of subsection A hereof, or who has in the
Director's employment a person who violates or causes another to violate the samg top
remove such sand gravel, rocks, mud, dirt, snow, ice or any other debris or material within
twenty four (24) hours aftettreceipt of said notice by the Director of Public Works. In the
event the person so notified dces not comply with the notice within the period of time herein
specified, the Director of Public Works, or other authorized agent, nay cause any such san{
gravel, rocks, mu4 dir! mow, ice, debris or any otler material to be removed from any street
or alley at the expense ofthe notified.
C. Exceptions: The provisions of subsection A hereof shall not be applicable:
l. Within the immediatb area of any construction, maintenance or repair project of any
street or alley or of any water main, sewer main, electricity line, gas line, telephone line
or any appurtenanc e thereto;
2. Todepositsofsand,dirtormaterialsnecessaryfortheprotectionofthepublicsafety:and
3. To public areas designated for the dumping or depositing of said materials.
D. Summons; Penalty: As an altemative to the notice for rernoval provided in subsection B
above, any
person who violates or causes another to violate the same, may be issued a summons to
appear before the Municipal Court of the Town for said violations, and upon being found
guilty ofa violation hereunder be punished as provided in Section l:l-l ofthis code.
E- Notice; Penalty: It is unlawful for any person to fail or refirse to comply with the notice of
the
Director of Public Worla as provided in subsection B hereof, and any such person shall, in
addition to payment of the expense of removal incurred by the Director of Public Works, as
provided in subsection B hereo{ upon being found guilty of a violation hereunder, be
punishable as provided in Sdction 1-zl-1 ofthis Code. (1997 Code: Ordinance 6 (1979)
Read and acknowledsed
(i-e. contractor or owner)
Position or Relationship
TOWN OF VAIL
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road.
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2 r 38
FAX 970-479-2452
BUILDING PERMIT ISSUAIICE TIME X'RAME
If this permit requires a Torvn of Vatl Fire Deparnnent Approval, Engineer's (Public Works)
review and approval, a Planning Departrnent review of Heatth Deparhnent review, and a review
by the Building DeparEnent, the estimated time for a total review mav take as long as three (3)
weeks.
All commercial (large or small) and all multi-family permits will have to follow the above
mentioned maximum requirements. Residential and small projects should take a lesser amount of
time. However, if residential or smaller projects impact the various above mentioned
deparEnents with regard to necessary review, these proJects may also take the three (3) week
period.
Every attempt will be made by this department to expedite this permit ils soon as possible'
I, the undersigned- understand the Plan Check procedure and time frame. I also understand that if
the permit is not picked up by the expiration date, that I must still pay the Plan Check Fee and
that if I fail to do so it may affect future permits that I apply for.
Agreed to by:r
Date: 0
Work Sheet was nlmed into the Community Development Dept.
{S *tn"uoru"*
a
MEMORANDT'M
ALL CONTRACTORS
TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS
JANUARY I, 1999
WHEN A .PUBLIC WAY PERMT: IS REQI.JIRED
Is this a new residence? YES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
JOBNAME:
PLEASE ANSWERTI{E FOLLOWING QI.JESTIONNAIRE REGARDING TIIE NEED FOR A.PUBLIC WAY PERMIT":
l.
)
Nox-
Is demolition work being performed that requires.the use of the Right-of-Way, easements or
public property? YES_ NO_ x_
J.
4.
5.
6.
Is any utility work needed? YES
Is the driveway being repaved?YES
No<
}{s{=
Is a different access needed to the site other than the existins drivewav? YES N04
8.
Is any drainage work Qi{g done that affects the Right-of-Way, easements, or public prop€rty?YEs_ NO_A \,/
Is a "Revocable Rightof-Way Permit" required? YES- NO A
A. Is the Rightof-Wp/easements or public property to be used for staging, parking or fencing?YEs - No )9n. n t IO to 8A, iq@ing, staging or fenchg plan required by Cornmunity Development?
YES NO A
If you answered YES to any of these questions, a "Public Way Permit" must be obtained.
"Public Way Pennit'' applications may be obtained at the Public Work's office or at Community
Development. Ifyou have any questions please call Leonard Sandoval from Public Works at 479-2198.
otrs: aL /bs
I HAVE READ AND ANSWERED ALL ABOVE QTJESTTONS.
Date:
Comparry Name
nohccustonruflacrqrnc. - l**atn*-FvacspecillOs Prge I
IryAC SCOPN OFWORK
l. Supply and instrll Cmbugtim air and Power wnt boilcts in lhe Mechanical Room
2. Sqply and install Powu vcnting for Cnwl Spacc
3. Srply and irutall vcoting for 1ca Bath Frns, 2ca Dryar Vcob, rnd Kirchcn Cookbp
4. Exbod oxnrting wnd through rcw aost clall at 6c 3"d l.cr'cl
5. Srppty and imtall Fanily Rom Fhplacc: Hcat -N-Glo ST-TRC 3e Sco-Ibru
6. SnpptyandimullMastsr Bc&'oomFinplacc: HactilrtorNovus3fl DV
otu
oro(
Io5
\.o
-
PR 28 '99
ETOLES
.e{r'
a2: ?wn 97@9?62@7e BOLES P. 1
OLf PHoNE REcoRD f rorr,'rcr . ol t 3.+
Guiior,r D COXTERENCE/III EETING
Buu-oens € rax MEMo n*,-l.r I rrnr:, Z'r'(€ n@
"** __+NSAfln Loojroi:
l)(r:1lirfi'fl'l;'
l9{,,)iJn'i.li} I
.;:7 ,,, , t),t 1) ,, 1] ,".r .-
tli i tti' ',;).1 '
By: 8nd Forler
/l
_1_
.L.l
5
I.L-
I
.L
;'t-
..-
,E
'r
T
I
r-.
I
L.
F-"
I
ll
J- -l-
.r - -t-'l'-r
l{
t!ll
t- -t-
t- -r
i--i
rl
II
J. -t-':
t{"t-
lrrli':-1'tr-'r-'J-J-+tOt-
-L) | | ivi-'t-J--t--+-
IF i'-n4zItO;. I rJ('i- 7 -'v* "trtl,J-J-_r,_I-tatttt
,j- j._i._i.
l;;i
l-'l'-t'--t"
t-J'll,;4. A i\t.- f 1rl, 1| -14t,Y YJ,a-lL-t..J-.rl
l-l--i +{-{.-t-.+.i i tl
I - 1"-{- -!''
)-J--t-.+.,
lt ,l I Ii;fi--i-+sl\+rr-
': - 't'-i 'T "
1-i -i +.
1:l :m:.
JF.--t--+--tltt
Ifl.F
9r
I
t-- -
t-
It
a'f-
:
fti-'
{--l
t-''1ri
L_i
L
F
r
I
ffitffi
9ntrd |h. .lFopn||r D.'to.l tl EcfE| Orrlotn Bufid.rt, Inc,
r*t o.?r ti4rr . Avoi. coloi^Do ura n3ec
:Tl Trc2
, (rr0) ,!.{orr
&'9,r,:; '*1N-vY\
.''\iS$,'O
:i)ffii
)
n\
nf-
n)
o
)
{r*J
ifl
*Kl
L--J
o
DEVELOTOWN OF VAII,
75 S. FRONTAGE ROADvArt, co 8L657
970-479-2L38
APPI,ICANT
CONTRAqTOR
OWNER
DEPARTI,IENT OF COMMT]NITr
NOTE: TIIIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON
PI.,IJMBING PERMIT
AT AT..L TIMES
P99-0017
SEaEus...: ISSIIEDApplied..: O4/L9/L999Issued...: 04/20/L999
Bxpires..: lO/L7/L999
PMET.IT
.]OBSITE
Permit
.fob Address: 705 FOREST RD
Location...: 705 FOREST ROAD
Parcel No. . : 2L0t-072-LL-O2L
Project No. : PRrl98-0104
COI..ORADO WEST PIJUMBING & HEATING
P.O. BOX 1, WOLCOTT, CO 81655
COLORADO WEST PLI]I4BING & IIEATING
P.O. BOX 1, WOLCO:rT, CO 81555
Phone: 303-925-4353
Phone: 303 -926-4353
ADJAIiT NAIiICY SIAPIRO
4975 E PRESERVE ET, GRSENWOOD VILI,AGE CO 80121
Description: pluribing for remodel/addition Val-uation:10, 000 .00
tl**tti*t*.r*it:r.r*tt*tttttit'rtttt*'rttttr*t**rt*.r**t*i*r*titr FEE SUIdMARY **l*tttrlt*ttt:ri**attl1*t+ttrt**
Pl,uubiDg- - --->
Plan ch.ck-- - >
Investsigacj.on>
will call--- ->
Re6buarant, PIan Reviea-- >
TOTAI, FBES- - -- -
Total calcul.aLcd F6ss- - - >
Addilional, Sees-- -- --- -- >
Total Per1lit Pee- --- - - -- >
PayscnEs--- -- - -
150 .00
37.50
.00
3 .00
,00
190,50
190.50
.00
190 .50
190 .50
BAIAIICB DT'E- - - -
'.'"'"""';;";;.;;;;;';;;;;";;;;.""""""'"'";;;';;;;;;;;';;;;
;"".""'"O4/L9/L999 I(ATITY AcIion: NOTE ROUTED TO 'JR-o4'/2o'/L999 GIARITTE Action: APPR charlie davis
IEem;'.056q0 rtqg DEPARTMENT Dept: FrRE Division:
04/1-9/1,999 KATITY Actsion: APPR N/A
COI{DITION OF APPROVAL
1. FIELD INSPE TIONS ARE REQUIFAD TO GIECK FOR CODE COMPIIAT.TCE.
t*i*rrrirtiair** *lrtrr*ritirirr**rrt*ritit***lrr'rtiirt*****ttt* *rrttlti*'f
DECI,ARATIONS
I h6r€by ackaovlodgro tha! I hav. rcad thi6 appLicilion, filLed oub in fu1l ;he infornation rcquir.d, conPl.ttcd an aceurat. PloC
ptan, |'td 6!at. thae all thc infon.lion providcd aB !€quiled is corlect. I agr6. bo cornply vitsh chc infortlagion.nd Plot pl'an,
Co colrply yitsh r11 To*n ordinalrc.. and .Ert. kt,s, rnd t'o build this sErucgura according tso the Torn's zoning .nd .ubdirr-irion
cod.., d.rigm r.vics .pprowed, uhifoio Building cod6 and oEh6! ordinancea of tshc Tovn aPPlicebla Ehcrctso.
REQUESTS FoR INspEqtIoNs 9IIALIJ BA !.IADE TI{EIITY-FOUR HOURI' IN AD\IA.tilCts BY ?ELEPBOI{E 9tf 479-213S OR AT FROM g:00 ll.l 5:0O Pl4
POR HTUSEIIF A.I{D OWNER
ton|| ot r7lrr,, cltlonlDo lltat ne
Strtlrac frda!: IEC-0505 l[orDc:
Pr:,[Jrg f.Ehod ! 1t0.5O not tl,on, 5:l2O
1r0.so oalzolet ls:17
tnIE: &C
D.rd,s tor Ptt-0o17 qD.r B-ptE pLrtGfIfO pllrtT
Prac.1 ior 1101-o?2-11-O2l .
SlE3 ldd!... ! 70a tORlAf ED
l,oc.gioBr ?06 Fonatl ROID
lbir Prylloc
Erlenct:
atritlifrl.air!att!tttttt|,t |lrttt!rtttrtttttrrrttttta€rtttttttr't!r!a*ttt
lccolttt Cod.t..€flpclon
!oc.l lr..:
190.50 !oC.l llit PGr:
?P 0010000!111200 p'lrtGllc plgtarr t!!t
PF 00100003112300 Pttf, cElcK ?EBg
wc 00100003112800 rI!& cl&& otgpE(:Itod tlE
190.50
19o.SO
.00
lrunt
150. O0
37.50
3. OO
,- | - )Tasag-Otori-/. . t I --.1' I lro** oF vAtQoNSrRUcrtoN pERMtr eillcanoN FoRM
U rNFoR'rATroN MUsr BE coMpLETE oR rur AppLIcATIoN *ILL BE REJE.TEII
Cotilar' frp Eaor€ Countv Ass€ssors Ottic€ at 97&32&6640 for Parcel *
Parcet# - - f,pig-tlltOlt""-ffi ,.**u69F0\13
Job Address:
Legal Dccripion, r,ot-61- u**-|-r/rltrl* ta suMivision
BD
Atterdionx edditional( ) Repair( ) otler( )
Number of Accommodation UniB:
Wood/Pellet
OTHER: $
TOTAL $
ELECTRICAL:
CONTRACTOR INFORMATION
@r4-@!s$
Job Name:
Building ( )Plunbine0$Electricat ( )Mechanical (X Other ( )
v+tL vt LL*6{vniT fr
Ownen Name:
Wo* Class: New ( )
Number of Dwelling Units:
NumberandTypeofFireplaces: Gas Appliances 5 Gaslogs
VALUANONS
BT,JILDING: $
PLUMBING $ lb,o,D
f
MECHAMCAL$
Tonrn of Vail Regisrration No.
Address:
Phone #
Electrical Contractor:
Town of Vail Registration No.
4slsussgs4sler:
Town of Vail Regisrration No.
Mechanicrt Contrrctor: C
Town of Vail Registration No.
Phone #
Address: goX I dA^rf g/6 g
1lllAv.D.|Yv,rlv-_-t:ogr1 qae- 11353
Phone # r''
BUILDING:
SIGNATURE:
ZONING:
o qJesf ?+r+
A t*-9 rr
o2ato werf lt(Addre-ss:
io?.
Date Received
FOR OFFICE USE
SIGNATURE:
APR 16 1999
TO!{N OF VAII,
75 S. FROIITAGE ROADVAIL, CO 8L657
970-479-2L38
El.ctllcrl -- - >
DBPARIIT{BI{T OF COMMITNITY DEIIBI-,OPMEIIT
NOTE: TIIIS PERIT{IT MUST BE POSTED ON 'JOBSITB AT ALL, TIMES
ELECTRICAL PERMIT Permit, #: 899-0049
ilob Addrese: 706 FoREST RD
LocaEion...: 705 FOREST RD
Parcel No.. : 2L0L-072-11-021
Projecc No. : Pn^t98-0104
APPI,ICANI LBqfRIC I]MI.'IMITED INC
1768 Ar,PrNE DRrVE 1, VArL co 81657
CONTRACTOR LECTRIC I'MLIMITED INC
1758 ALPIIIE DRrVE 1, VArL CO 81557
OI{NBR ADA!,T NAI{CY SHAPIRO
4975 E PRESERVB Cr, GREENI{OOD VTILAGE
DescrlpEion: ELECIRICAL FOR REMODEL
co 80121
ValuaEion:
Tot.l crlcul.t.d P...---> 219. oo
Addifionrl ?c.t-- ---- --- > .00
Tolrl p.!rrr.L 1..--------> 219. O0
PaYmcnC. - - - - - - - -
EAIANCB DUE...- 'OO
arr'rararr\rr,arriirrtfaarraa'rtatata'rrtrrrttrt,.irratttrrtrrattrtr PBE AU$ARy r.tt!rl*tta.....tt*tttta.ttt.ttrt'r'tttttt'rrr*rr.'
216.O0
lnvoatlg.tLon)
td11 c.l1- - - ->
TdtA! FEES---> 219.OO
DRB 1..
.o0
3.OO
,,tttlatt,ttttaratttra,rrra.r,rarrr*tttt,rt,rrra*ttrtitttrtt***rtrrt*tr.rrrttt *r*r.ra*aart*rarrrtti*tat rtitaraaatttae irtatt*a r'r tt* tttr'rtJat
Item: 06000 ELBCTRICAL DEPARI!'BfT -D-eI)E: BUILDING Division:
6172i / ltti -,rFri- -- --- -ectlon i AFpn appnovsD iIRM-i€6fr;' d5 6 6 0-'rf'ns DBPTtiiMEiitA4/22/L999 JRM Action: APPR N/A
tfrr*!rt!rirrr.rrrltrrrrifirrrtrlttartrrrrrrrrrrrrr ltatllrr tta +'ltrJl*ttttJtat* rrirrit*ttal t*tt'rl*ti'*lttarrrrtttttii
COIIDITION OF APPROVAIJ
a rii r taitt atr.rti trl a attt,t tttri ttlt a a l tt rr'ttr'.trt i irtti tr J t 'tt tt.,
DECITAR;ATIONS
t hct.blr ackDort.€. lhrc t hav. r..d tshL. .trrtrlt qrtslon, f,ill.d our ln fulL Eh. lnfortn tslon lcquircd, codltl't'd 'n 'ccur'ts' Plot
pl.n, rnd aBag. ch.c rlr cha lnforo.tlon provldad r. r.quii.d i. corlcct. t .grc. to aoiply rtch lha infororcioD 'nd PIot pl'n'
tso coqrl,y ritsh rrl roryn ordln.nc.. lnd .crt. 1.r.. rnd to build thL. .truccur. .ccotdlnE to th. To6'. ronl'ng rnd 'ubdlvl'tlcrtcod.!, d..lga ravl.r rpprovcd, t nl,f,oE guilding cod. and oth.r ordl,n.nccE of th. To*n .Plt1lc.bl. ch.r.to.
REQI BgTg FOR TNSPESITONA SHALL BB HIDB 1IdEllTy-FOt R HOURS IN AD\IAIICB 8Y TELtsPHONB AT ir?9-2139 OR AT OUt OEFTCE FRO st00 Al{ 5t00 Pli
status...: IssuEDApplied..: 04/22/L999Issued...: 04/22/L999
Ercpires. . : LO/19/t999
Phonet 97O827-598O
Phone : 97O827 -5980
12, 000 . 00
l(nd or vtrlri @tiRlDo gEaEa!t!C
t* tt t a.l tt.t rfa titrtttt.a t I I ttti.t tr., ia t!, t'rt., r I r I t t r ra rrt i t atl r ri., !rl t
thErrrl m[bar: RIC-Otoa lrcunt, t
P.tfo.nt Lchod t CK Xotrtslon. 2160
zLt.oo 0l/2t/99 L5.2a
fnls: tr
ParoIB xo!
Pucal llo !
8lB. lddr.rr !
LosrElon!
fl|la PrylatrE
l9r-0049 lYp.. B-EEC llEclntcll. PBRllll
2101-0?2-11- 021
t06 toREsr PD
706 tonEST RD
' lotsrl t.r. r 219.00
e19.O0 loerl llJL lnc.! 21t,00
B.lrnca: '00
A€counc @da D.rcripEton
EP OOlOOOOtlllaOO ll,lClnlCl& ?EnXIl tllS
IC 00100003L12300 rnL clI,L lf,SPEcsrcr tEE
lnorrnt
216 . OO
3.00
TOWN OF VAIL
75 S. FRONTAGE ROADvArL, co 8L657
970-479 -2138
DEPARII4ENT OF COMMT'NITY
NOTE: THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON
MECHANICAL PERMIT
ilob Address. . . : '706 FOREST RDIJocaEion......: 705 FOREST ROAD
Parcel No. . .. .: 2L01,-072-L1,-O2A
ProjecE Number: PR,J98-01-04
APPLIEAIVT COLORADO WEST PTTJIVIBING & HEATTNG
P.O. BOX 1, WOLCOT:T, CO 81655
CONTRACTOR COLORADO WEST PI.,UII4BING & IIEATING
P.O. BOX 1, WOtCOqr, CO 81_555
OWNER
o
DEVELOPIT{ENT
ADAM NAIiIqY SHAPIRO
4975 E PRESERVE CI. GREENWOOD VILI.,AGE CO 80121
Valuatsion:Description:
ADAM REMODEI, PLTJMB/HEAT
Pilcplacc Infoloacign: Rescrictcdr Y *of ea6 Appliance6: 5 *of Gas Loga:
SEatus...: ISSIJED
Applied..: o4/L9/L999rssued...: 04/23/L999
E:<pires - .: LO/20/1999
.JOBSITE AT ALL TIMES
Permit, #: M99-0030
Phone: 303-926-4353
Phone:303-926-4353
20, 000 . 00
*of tiood/Pr1lets:
FEE SUIOIARY
lt.chanical- -- >
Plan ch.ck- -- >
I nwG B€ igaC i on >
will call---->
Regtuarant Plan Revier-- >
DRB Fc.--------AdditionaL Facs--------->
TotsaI Pcrmit FeG-------->
PaymGnC€-------
400 . o0
100 .00
.00
.00
503 . O0
503 ,00
. o0
503 . OO
503.OO
BTIANCB DUB-.-- .OO
tt+tJ*t*r*trJrraJrart*rrt*irrttrttaiiarrr*!r** rr**.rr*l}r*rt'rt|rtrttlll}r**rti*ri*ittr*tiri*rrt*r*
Dept: BUILDING Division:
,tRlt
JRMDept: FIRE Division:
CONDITION OF APPROVAL
1. FIELD INSPECfIONS ARE REOUIRED TO CHECK FOR CODE COMPLIAI.ICE.2. COMBUSTTON ArR rS REQUTRED pER SEC. 701 OF THE 1997 rIMe, ORsEerIoN 70L 0F TI{E 1997 IMC.3. INSTAII,ATION MUST CONFORM TO MANT'FACTI'RES INSTRUCTIONS AI{DTO CEAPTER 1.0 OF THE 1997 I,I,IC, CHAPTER ].0 OF TI{E 1-997 IMC.4. GAS APPLTANCES SIAI,L BE VEI TED ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 8 AIiID
SIIALL TBRMINATE AS SPECIFIED IN SEC.8O5 OF TTIE 1997 I]MC, OR
CIIAPTER 8 OF THE 1997 IMC.5. ACCESS TO HEATING EOUIPMENT MUST COMPLY WITH CIIAPTER 3 AND
SEC.1O17 OF IIIE 1997 I'MC AND CHAPTER 3 OF THE 1997 IMC.6. BOILERS SHALL BE MOT'NTED ON FLOORS OF NONCOMBUSTIBLE CONST.IINLESS LISTED FOR MOUtillIING ON COI,IBUSTIBIE FLOORING-7. PERMIT,PITANS ATiID CODE A}.IALYSIS MTUST BE POSTED IN MECIIANTCAL
ROOM PRTOR TO AIi[ INSPE TION REOUEST.8. DRAINAGE OF MECTANICAIJ ROOMS CONTAINING HE,ATING OR IIOT-WATER
SUPPLY BOIIJERS SHAII-, BE BOUIPPED WITH A FTTOOR DRArN PER SEC.1022 0F TrrE 1997 IJMC, OR sECfrON 1004.6 0F THE 1997 rMC.
*****************************************************.***************************
IEem:0510004/L9 /1,99904/2L/L999Item: 0560004/te/leee
.OO TOT,AIJ FEES. - - ..
3.O0
BUILDING DEPARTI',IENTKATITY ACTiON: NOTE ROUTED TO.]RM ACLiON: APPR APPROVEDFIRE DEPARTMEI\:TKATITY Act.ion: APPR N,/A
DECI.,ARATIONS
I borrl!' rdiD€il.dgE thrt t h.vr r.rd Chlr {Dlicrcion, f,iU.d oue ln fu1l th. infonrtlcr r.quLrtd. coqtl.t.d rrr.ccu!rt. Flocpl.n. rnd rerc. !h.c .l,t ch. {nfonrtto lrror\rld.d a. lcqqir.d ia corr.cts. I ag:rc. go colrfrly yieh tha i.ttfotlr!.tiar rnd ploe. !rl,rtr.to aoqrly rltsh .11 foln ordinuc.r .nd .crc. l.ra, rnd to lrrlld Ehia acructur. rcsordlng to !h. ToEr'. loning .nd rubdlvlr{en
codrr, darign rGviGr .p!rrqv.d, tthifolr Building Cod. |nd obhr! ordinrnqos of tsb. Toxn rpplicrbl. !h.rrUo.
REQSASIA
'(E.
rrADEGSIOUS gnIl! Bl
'qD!
lllltrr-llolD, louns 7t-213s oR tT OOI OtFlCl lROr| at00 lL 5!oo
slmrunl ot oNIBn on. co||ltAc!(n FoR EIEtr.r llt)
t.r,.trtataa*aattat,'trttr*l}..r'.+r.rtt.-r...-r*t'lr.rr'rrrrw!}atrtra
Itfd o! \rlrri. olrcRrxt IttntdrE
SC.CaEg lftrS.r: REC-O509 lDunt:
9rF.nE L.thod: CR lNot Elori 3 632a
SO?.OO OU23I99 L2 ts7
lniEi !C
P.lrrit l|os
Pafcal l|o:
tli. lddtrr. r
trocaeLon !
$rL Dr!r[.nt,
ToEal 1...:
503.00 lot l lI& P[9. !
X99-0030 ryp. ! E-sECr f,Eclnmcll' pBRllIT
2101-072-11-021
?06 PORI€T ND
706 lontat RorD
Erlancc!
503. 00
503.00
.o0
tccgunc Coda Dclcriptlon
ltP 00100003111300 lfBcfltlfrclIl PrRr{II llla
9t 00100003112300 .PrrAN cHBffi Fllg
trc 00100003112300 llttE crri u|apBcrlcls tEE
ADoUITE
t00.00
100.00
3.O0
Pzs98 - olorl
Contac't the Eagle CounU Assessors Office at 970-32E-8640 for Parcel #Parcetd _QtQtol a lt oat
";,?f'al4?- ,.,,o,,0 6g10\?3
"o*,-., *DAltl Rervro D<L na xaress: J 06 EPesT Q D -
Building ( ) Plumbing Sl Electrical ( ) Mechanical (X Other ( )
LegarDescriptiont ut 1 nro*-f-- uun** rb s*avisronufi/L vl L46UlliT *
owners Name: ADA vt\,a^ aAddress: lU o fttcrT BD
TowN oF vArLloNSTRUcloN pERMrr AplcATroN FoRM
INFORI\{ATION MUST BE COMPLT,TE OR THE APPLICATION WILL BE REJECTEI)
q
Phone#
Description of Job:Re rno DeC pLa lttKtN t--+ 4€+T0Y L -
Architect:
Number and Type of Fireplaces: Gas Appliances
Repair ( )Otler ( )
Number of Accommodation Units:
Gas Logs Wood/Pellet
OTFIER: $
TOTAL $
Work Class: New ( )
Number of Dwelling Units:
BI.JILDING:
PLIJMBING
Alteration $4
I
Additional ( )
J
General Contractor:
VALUATIONS
ELECTRICAL: $$ o,ooD MECHANTCALS )Olo6b
CONTRACTOR INFORMATION
Address:
Town of Vail Regisrarion No.Phone #
f lectrical Contractor:Address:
Phone #Town of Vail Regisration No.
Plumbing Contractor:Gox I u) otoo tT- t / 6 {,9
Town of Vail Registration No.2. tt -9 -oor1 qzla- 11353
Mechanicat contractor, Loloh+DO wesT P+ilm (r
, Coloh;W a/eJT Pfil rur"r,
FOR OFFICE USE
:(9-b5z
Date Received
APR 16 1999
BUILDING:
SIGNATURE:
ZONING:
SIGNATURE:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Position or Relationship
ALL CONTRACTORS CURRENTLY REGISTERED WTTH TTIE TOWN OF VAIL
TOWN OF VAIL PT]BLIC WORKS AND COMMI.]MTY DEVELOPEMENT
JANUARY I, 1999
CONSTRUCTION PARKING AND MATERIAL STORAGE
CODE $2-10: IIEPOSITS ON PUBLIC WAYS PROHIBITEIT
A. Unlawful deposits: Subject to subsection C thereof, it is unlawfirl for any person to litter,
track or deposit, or causi to be littered, tracked or deposite4 sand, gravel, rocks, mud, drrt,
snow, ice, or any other debris or material upon any street, sidewalk, alley or public place, or
any portion thereof.g. Notite: Abatement: The Director of Public Works may notifr and require any person who
violates or causes another to violate the provision of subsection A hereo{ or who has in the
Director's employment a person who violates or causes anoth€r to violate the same, top
remove such sand, gravel, rocks, mud, dirt, snow, ice or any other debris or material within
twenty four (24) hours after receipt of said notice by the Director of Public Works. In the
event the person so notified does not comply with the notice within the period of time herein
specified, the Director of Public Works, or other authorized agent, may cause any such san4
glavel, rocks, mud, dirg snow, ice, debris or any otlrer material to be removed from any street
or alley at the expense of the notified.
C. Excepions: The provisions ofsubsection A hereofshall not be applicable:
t. Wittrin ttre immediate area of any construction, maintenance or repair project of any
street or alley or of any water main, sewer main, electricity line, gas line, telephone line
or any appurtenance thereto;
Z. fo diposits of sand, dirt or materials necessary for the protection ofthe public safety; and
3. To public areas designated for the dumping or depositing of said materials.
D. Summons; Penalty: As an alternative to the notice for removal provided in subsection B
abovg any
person who violates or causes another to violate the same, may be issued a summons to
appear before the Municipal Court ofthe Town for said violations, and upon being found
guilty ofu violation hereunder be punished as provided in Section l4-l ofthis code.
f . I{otice; Penalty: It is unlawful for any person to fail or refuse to comply with the notice of
the
Director of Pubtic Works as provided in subsection B hereo| and any such person shall in
addition to payment of the expense of removal incuned by the Director of Public Works, as
provided insubsection B hereof, upon being found guilty ofa violation hereunder, be
potti.truUt" as provided in Section l-4-l of this Code. (1997 Code: Ordinance 6 (1979)
(i.e. contractor or owner)
t
TOWN OF VAIL
Department of Commrnity Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2138
FAX 970-479-2452
frDeu Pet
BUILIIING PERMIT ISSUAI{CE TIME X'RAME
If this permit requires a Town of Vail Fire Deparhnent Approval, Engineer's (Public Works)
review and approval, a Planning Department review of Health Departrnent review, and a review
by the Building Deparftnent, the estimated time for a total review may take as long as three (3)
weeks.
All commercial (large or small) and all multi-family permits will have to follow the above
mentioned maximum requirements. Residential and small pro.iects should take a lesser amount of
time. However, if residential or smaller projects impact the various above mentioned
departments with regard to necessary revierv, these projects may also take the three (3) week
period.
Every attempt will be made by this deparnnent to expedite this permit as soon as possible.
I. the undersigned, understand the Plan Check procedure and time frame. I also understand that if
the permit is not picked up by the expiration date, that I must still pay the Plan Check Fee and
that if I fail to do so it may alfect future permits that I apply for.
Agreed to by:
Project Name:
Date:
.\) ->.
Work Sheet was turned into the Community Development Dept.
{2 u***o
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
ALL CONTRACTORS
TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS
JANUARY I, 1999
WHEN A ?I,,tsLIC WAYPERMIT: IS REQUIRED
Is this a new residence? YES NOX
Is demolition work being perfonned tlat requires the use of the Right-of-Way, easements or
pubiic property? YES
Is any utility work needed?
No_2S_
YES No x-
Is the driveway being repaved?YES NOK
Is a different access needed to the site other than the existing driveway? YES Nol(-
JOB NAME:
DATE:
PLEASE ANSWER TI{E FOLLOWING QUESTIONNAIRE REGARDING THE NEED FOR A*PUBLIC WAY PERMIT':
l-
.,
J.
4.
5.
6.Is any drainage worlbeing done that affects the Right-of-Wry easemenls, or public property?
YES_ NO,A.
1
8.
Is a'Revocable Rigbt-of-Way Permit" required? YES NO-A
A. Is the Rightof-Way, easernents or public property to be used for stagrng, parkrng or fencing?
YES- NO X
B. H NO to 8A" is agrarking staging or fencing pian required by Community Development?
YES- NO n.
lf you answered YES to any of these questions, a "Public Way Permit" must be obtained.
"Public Way Pennit' applicalions may be obtained at the Pubiic Work's oftice or at Cornmwdty
Dwelopment. If you have arry quesions please call Leonard Sandoval from Public Works at 479-2198.
r HAVE READ AND ANSWERED ALL Tm ABOVE QUESTTONS.
dD a*f 0+t+ t'v< (
''^,", I (r sf q7
Company Name
ot
{
€trt$$$*\r ]-g \-Q$u\:k,a
d:e3streS
6
l:..;<\
l]
s
t
aI
6-\1
bq
(
I
I
I
\
-,g{><s=-A\€
owrSfr
svyfren$ d a/a/
e\E
cE(t
-Ss
G*!
?qs
tsdvdot'r, csa e3
'r[ lufld uno
^li"-rfl(I
TaIA\ NolrvwuoilNl srsr a(Il^oual or fiun'Ifgf
Itoou TvJtNvHclIn
iIHI NI O:ITIVJSNI iIS OSTV TIIA\ JNIINIdNOA UOIVAA'IS UiIHIIIHI$ ITION
.S!INI'I SY9 qNV SUOICIINNOf,
JNiIA'San.lJ'SISnqdIv NOIISngnOO {ONOLLVJO'I cNV IZIS fi\OHS
.WOOU TVJINVI{JIII^I AHL
NI JNIIITdNOA TW dO S9NIIVU rtIA CINV SNOISNiII^UG TYSISIHd [III&\ 'trTVJS
OI NI N/I\VUq JN!II/'IdINbA HIIA\ I^{OOU TVJINVHJiII'{ dO NV'Id UOOX{ ?TVCS OI
.SNOTIV'IN3TVf, SSO] IVtrI
ril^Iurd T9f,INvf,f,flI4l VUO{ 9NIA'IddV NrEl[ qffCU[N NOITYI{UOIM
't
'9
a"
.I
z9rz'6lr-016 xur
Sttz-6tt'016
ls9t8 oPorqo) 'llo^
WA a8oruoq qtnos Sl
uawdo1anaq &1unwutol fo uautuodag
TIVTTO I{tllOT
B
G
B
OLES
USTOM
UIT.DERS
lc
George Ruther
Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
RE: Adam Residence
706 Forest Road
Via Fax 47*2452
Dear George:
July 8, 1999
(tf^r'o\qj
This lefler is to warrant that the front dormer on lhe Adam Residence was remodeled per the attached
Martin Design lnc. letter and sketch SK-2 dated July 8, 1999. Also please see the attached pr€ress
photos.
Thank pu for pur exta erfiorts to hdp use complete this project.
Sincerely
Bollqcustom Builders,
Post Office Box 1279
Avon, Colorado 81620
Phone: (970) 926-3202Fax: (970) 926-2078
Dvr,.$
1360 So. Chrhson St. . Dcnuct CO 80210
(303) 744-7839. FAX (303) 744-9603
Juty 8, 1999
Fritzlen Pierce Smith
1650 E, Vail Valley Drive
Fallridge Suite C-I
VaiL CO 81657
Ann; Mn Dale Smith
Proiect Number: 982-5729
Subject:Adam Residence Front Dormer
Deqr Mr. Smith:
At the request of Brad Foster, a representative for Boles Custom Builders, Martin Design
Inc. has reviewed the revisions to the front dormer on the Adam residence located at 706
Forest Road, Vail, Colorado. Based on the information that was conveyed to us by Mr.
Foster, the top of the dormer was too high and needed to be lowered approximately four
inches, in order to meet the town of Vails height requirements. The microlam ridge beam
and the rafters were ripped per the enclosed sketch SK-2. This modification to the rafters
and ridge beam is acceptable by our ffice and is sfficient for the design loads.
Pleqse contact this ffice if we may be offurther assistance.
Sincerely,
Martin Design, Inc.
Cc: Boles Custom Builders Inc.
0105 Edward.s Villagc Ccntcr . Suite E-204
P.O. Box 2448 , Edwards,CO 816j2
(970) 926-5045 . FAX (970) 9265782
relt T. Burnsi
Project Engineer
NAA]R]TNN
0105 Ert*wdt fl@e hlowd &dt E 2U
P.O Ba 211E Ett*wdl CO E I 632
(970) 9265015 FIXO70) 92&t7E2
@ rsss MARIN DEsrcN, rNc.
The use of thesc documents ond drowings sholl be
restricted to the originol prolect for which they werc
prepored ond ony publicotion of these documents ond
specificotions is expressly limited to such prolect.
Re-use, reproduction or publicotion by ony method, in
whole or in port, of these documents ond drowings is
prohibited. Title of these documents ond drowings
remoins with MARTIN OES|GN, lNC.
MARTIN 0ES|GN, lNC. retoins oll federol,
stote ond common low copyight protections,
l7 U.S.C. section 101 et seo.
OATE: 7/E/99FRorur Roor DoernPA
DRAWN 8Y: BTB
ADAM RESIDEI\CE
LOT 9 BLOCK 1
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
REPAREO FOR:
FRITZLEN PIERCE SMITH
PRoJ. N0. 942-3729
SHEET NUMBER
3x2
IMPROVEMENT LOCATION
DORMER ELEVATION
PARCEL B, A PART OF LOT 9, BLOCK
VAIL VILLAGE, SIXTH FILING,
TOIVII OF VAIT" EAGLE COUNTY,
COLORADO
1,
REMOVED PORTION
OF DORMER ROOF
ELEVATION = 8176.9'
TOP OF MODIFIED 2''12"
12
"MICRO-LAM"
NOT SCALE
BASIS OF ELEVATION:
SEWER INVERT EL. 8123.7'
PREPARED BY PEAK LAND
AS SHOWN ON
SURVEYING INC.
THE TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
DATED 7_31_97
I, Richord E. Borden, do hereby certify thot I om o Registered Lond
Surveyor licensed under the lows of the Stote of Colorodo, ond thot
oll the informotion hereon is true ond occurotely shown to the best
of my knowledge, informotion ond belief.
Dote: July 7, 1999
PAGE
JOB #
10F1
99-0,+8 5
Bo:
S tr Starbuck Surreyora & Fr.nginee15J
1604.401 Savatc.b Road, Sulte ?05, Eagle, CO 61681 . (S?O)8AE-?AD
/
u7 /23/JV r1: 24 tlc70 02 95
Or-rrqItF*970HCt :r.qlb* e70
Cbdgr!blrE
468o Nr{cc0G ld ooz
;..
ffi;ffi-iljf;l
EI,UYATONPE?Mffi
Hrrnun
_ tnltt!**-lbdddrLrl-- lI
--Ir-
r tr --, -f
-r-rt--'t-r:lr* ir*r-Et|rrErI-r.lrl-= -t---Erltrrr-G
-- ilt -- lt ttlt t Ir r-
-
.r Ehf,E_-Lfuf,
EtIEr^rr-r|T!(rrrF...-f- rlrrf E--rtr-rtEti td adl ii.'lnD c r*.h -io'lnhrtQ0ltd*-ltIIFStGar+tto0fabttcinn.o
brlr;*r Jat ilhlr:
-!l(fA^fted't n\:1v7//+
REPTt3l TOWN OF VArL, COLORADU
L2/L6/L999 O8:O8 REOUESTS - INSPECTN WORK SHEETS FOR:12116/1999
PAGE 1
AREA: CD
Act1-vlty: 898-OI93 L2/L6/L9 Type: A-BUILD Stetue: ISSUED Conetr: ASFR
Addreeg z 766 FOREST RD
Locatlon t 7@6 FOREST RD
Parcel : 2L@L-@72-LL-AZLDeaorlptlon: REIIODEL OF SFR ADDITION
Appllcant: BOLES CUSTOII BUfLDERS, INC
Owner: ADAM NANCY SHAPIRO
Contractor: BOLES CUSTOII BUILDERS, INC
Accz @@@7 Uee: V N
Phonez 3@39263262
Phone:
Phone: 3@392632O2
Looks, Holde, and Notlcecr...
ACTIVITY
Notlce: SIot 48
lnepectlon Requeet
Requeator: JAI{IE
Req Tlme: QB:@@
Ite
Informatlon.....
mmenta: WILL
be Inepected...
Phone: 9O4-O589
CALL
ActLon Comments Tlme Exp
BLDG-Flnal.
Inepectlon
Iten l
Item l
ftem l
Item l
Item:
I tern l
Hiatory. . . ..
60533 PLAN-TEI.IP. C/O
O7/L2/99 Inepectorr GEORGE Actlon: APPR
O@5LO drlveway grede flnal
@@@t"@ BLDG -FootLnge/SteelL2/L5/95 fnepector: GRG Action: APPR
L2/3L/98 Inapector: GRG Actlon: APPR
O2/L2/99 Inapectorc 6RG Action: PA
Notee: OK TO POUR SI'IALL ADDITIONAL PORTION
@6/LI/99 Inepector: JRlt ActLon: APPR
OOO2@ BLDG-Foundation/Steel0I/06/99 Inepectorr CD Action: PA
Notee: STAIRWELL AND RETAINING I{ALL ON EAST
@2/L8/99 Inepector: GRG Actlon: PA
@3/@3/99 Inspector: ART Action: APPR
O4/L3/99 Inepector: JRlt Actlon: PA
Notee: ON EAST SIDE 3RD FLOOR
OO32O PLAN-ILC Sl.te Plan
O5/O5/99 Inepector: JRI{ Actlonl NO
@7/@8/99 Inepector: GEORGE Actlon: APPR
OO@3O BLDG-Framlng
APPROVED
AT REAR
AT EAST SIDE BANK
FOOTINGS EAST SIDE. ..
TIITHOUT INSPECTION.
appr piere for eeet end
PARTIAL APPROVAL
SIDE
T-SHAPED I'ALL, EAST SIDE
NE RETAIIIII{G WALL G5-8
APPROVED RETAIN }IALL
APPROVAL FOR
ILC
APP
DEN
NSP
-00t7 Fi44l
fiA4(04/22/99 Inapector: CD Aotlon: DN
Notee: At{ ILC IS REAUIRED PRIOR TO FAI,IING I
PLU}IBING ROUGH INSPECTIOI{ REAUIRED
AN ELECTRICAL PERMIT AND ROUGH INSPECTION
I'TECHANICAL PERMIT RECIUIRED TO BE PICKED UP
INSPECTIONS REOUIRED
JOB SUPERINTENDANT NOTIFIED
@3/05/99 Inepector: JRl,l Actlonr PA PA
Notea: 3RD AND 4TH FLOORS ONLYT V|ILL DO 2ND
@5/28/99 Inspector: CD Actlon: APPRItenr OOAAQ * r Not On Flle * *
Item: A@@5O BLDG-fnsulatlon
AND lST LATER TII'IE
REST OF UNIT
11,4ff-oas( Hnql
AND ROUGH .
-M+It Fraq(
TO BREN
ROVED
;EW
REPTI3!TOI{N OF VAIL, COLORADO PAGE 2
AREA: CDL2/L6/I999 O8:OB REBUESTS - INSPECTN WORK SHEETS FOR:12l16/L999
t!====aaa============3==E===c===-=================================-=a====--=E===
Iten:
Item r
Iten r
Lten l
Item r
@7 /@2/99 Inepectorr JBll
@7 / L2/99 Inapector: JRI{
Item: @O34@ BLDG-FlnaL C/O
Actlon: PA APPR 3 AND 4TH FLOORS
Actlonr PA 2ND LEVEL ONLY
Actlon: PA 3RD & 4TH LEVELS'5/8i X
Actlon: PA PARTIAL APPR 2ND FLOOR
Actlon: APPR NOT READY X 2
Actlon: APPR appr garege
Actlon: APPR PER GARY RETAIN. WALL
Actlonr DN not ready
Actlon: APPR APPROVED
05/Il/gc; Inepector: JRM
Notee: ONLY|tttttttl
@5/24/99 Inepectorr CD
0@060 BLD6-Sheetrock Nall
05/LA/99 Inepector: GRG
@6/@9/99 Inepector: JRI{
06/L6/99 Inepector: JRI{
A6/25/99 Inepectorr JRI{
O@O8O + * l{ot On Flle * *
O@O7O BLDG-I'llEc.
L@/3@/94 Inepectorr CD
QOO9A BLDG-Flnal
O@53O BLDG-Temp. ClO
06/23/99 Inepector: JRI'I Action: Dl{ l{OT READY
Noteer NEED TO FINAL PLUI'|BIN6, ELECTRICAL, I{ECIIANICAL PERIIITS
F INISH HAND/GUARDRAILS, S?f,TR$AI.-ELEYJAOR IOT COI{PLETA I.
LAlrDscAprNG Nor colrpLEiElrLc Noi AppRoTEf:lL- AQ[/K YUALL Coltsr ilATERr ALS REl{O}ED-F8€l,t-rTE;TSet6e pdRt'croilu
EXTERIOR PAINTING NOT DONE.
lq4
II
EEPTrslU7/03/96 p6t37
,lt oor* oF v.rLr coLrl
REOUEST$ FOR INSPECTION !'ERK I f"t z / B/s6
PA6E A
AREAI EB
Aetivity;
Address:
Locat i on:
Faree I :
Descript ion:
Appl icant:
Own er r
Contract or:
E96-OO1G 7/ 3./95 Type: B-ELEtr
706 FT]REST RD
al0t-07e-l l-oe1
INTERIOR REMODEL
RESORT SERVICES
ADAM NANCY SHAtrIRI]
RESORT SERUICES
'€t at us : I SSUED Con Et r l ASFR
Occ: UEe:
Phone: 3O39496O13
Phone:
Fhoner 3O39496O13
Inspect i on Request
Requestor: GARY
Req Tine: O8:O0
Iters requested to
OO19O ELEC-Final
Information.....
- RESORT SERVICES
Comments: EAST SIDE
be Inspeeted.
trhone: 949-6lll3
Ex
Inspeetion History.....
Item: o,OtlA ELEC-Tenp. FowerItemr 6OteA ELEC-Rough
64lne/96 Inspector: EB
A3/Ae/96 Inspeetor: LtrV
Itln: COl30 ELEC-ConduitItenr AAL4O ELEC-Misc.' '^' ''a4/t7lg6 Inspectorl E6Item: 60190 ELEC-Final
Notesr GFI trROTECTION BY WHIRLFOOL.
BOND WHIRLPT]I]L MT]TOR.
3RD AND 4TH LEUEL OK.
;;:2;:-&
ACt i ON I AF'PR AF'PROVED
Aetionr AtrtrR APtrROVED
Aetion: trtrPR APFROVED
75 touth frontaEe rold
vaal, colorado 81657
(3031 479-21.38 ot 479-2139
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SURTECT:
rn summary, ordinance No. 5 states that it is unlawfur_ for anyperson to Litter, track or deposit.""i-r"if,-rJtf, sand, d,ebrisor material , including trash iunpsters, portabre toitets andworkmen vehicres. upon any streetl ;ie;;.il; -;ii;y or pubticprace or any portibn tneieoi. --i|" right-of-hray on arr. Town ofVail streets ind.Igag= is approiinately 5 ft. off pavernent.This ordinance wirl be ;a"i;i,1t'-enforced by the Town of vairPubric rforks Deoartment. --p"irlns rouna vi;raiin; this ordinancewilr be siven a-24 houi r"iii.""io[i".-ti-;:;;;;'=.id naterial.fn the event the person so notified-does not comply with thenotice witlrin *:__r1 trour tirne-=p""iiii, "il"-il|lic
worksDepartment wilr remove said nateii"i-ii-in"'"r.i#"e of personnotified' The orovi=ions-or-trrrl orainance shill not beapplicable to cLnstruction, -rii'i"r,.nge or repair projects ofany street or alley or any utiiiires in the right_a_way.
To review ordinance No. 5 in futr-, prease stop by the Tor,rn of:3:i"::ii3i"3,Tf,ir*:*"::"oiiii" a copv. rira,,i< vou ror v-ur
ofllce of communlty deyelopmcnl
ALL CONTRACTORS CI'RRENTLYL REGISTERED WITH TIIETOWN OF VArL
TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS/COMMUNITY DE1IELOPMENT
I'IARCH 15, 19gg
CONSTRUCTION PARKING & MATERTAL STORAGE
to Projerct-rw (i.e. contractor, ordner)
lnwn n Ilal
75 roulh trontrg€ rord
vell, colorado 81657
l3o3l 479-2138 ot 479-2L39 offlce of communlty dcyclopmcnl
BUILDING PERI{IT ISSUANCE TItltE FRAilE
If this permi.t
".qu1fg:_? Town of Vail Fire Department Approvat,Engi neer ts..(-pyb.r ic lg$ I review an-
-ipp"on.t,'
a piinnr n!-oepa"tnentreview or Heatth Departmint ieview, -";i';-;;;i; ;i-il.;;";"iioin9Department, the estirnated tine tor'a-tot"r "iui"n-il.v"Li!'as rongas three weeks.
All commercial (]arge or smar'r) ana ail multi-famiry permits wilrhave to follow the ibove r"ntion"J raximum reguirements. Residentiarand.smalr projects should tare i-reiie"'amound of time. However, ifresidential or smal'rer.projects inpiii the various above mentioneddepa rtments wi th reoard' to- necessiiy-""ui
"",
-il,.r. i""j".ii' ruvalso take the three-week period.
Every attempt will be $g. lV this department to expedite thispermr:t as soon as possibl e. -
I:_i!. undersigned, understand the plan check procedure and timetrame.
Communi ty Devel ooment Department.
NOTE: THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOBSITE AT ALL TIMES
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-213V479-21j9
FAX 970-479-2452
APPLlCANT
CONTRACTOR
OIINER
Description:
INTERIOR REMODEL
Occupancy: R3
Type Construction: VN
SOUTHWEST BUILDERS LLC
P.O. BOX 1330, VArL, CO
SOUTHWEST BUILDERS LLCP.O. BOX 1330, VArL, CO
816s8
816s 8
Single Farnily Residence
Not in tablel
Phone: 97Q-476-2338
Phone z 970-476-2338
ADAM NANCY SHAPIRO
4975 E PRESERVE CT, GREENWOOD VILL 80121
Job Address:
Location. . . :
Parcel No..:Project No.:
706 FOREST RD
2I0L-072-t1-02I
PRJ96-0003
Status. .
AppIied.
Issued..
Expi-res.
TotaL Catcul,ated Fees--->
Additionat Fees--------->
ISSUED
07/23/Lee6
07/23/Lee6
o7 /2r/Lee6
Valuation:65,500 Add Sq Ft:
Fi reptace Infornation: Restri cted:fof Gas Apptiances:#Of Gas Logs:flOf lood/Pa L l.et:
It*ht**t*rt**ffii*f,i*****ffi*f,ti********t*****i******** FEE SUI'II'IARY *t**t**tt*t*tt***tt****f,*****ff*************t*ttntrnntffi
Bui Lding-----> 570.0O
Ptan Check--->
Investi gation>
U'i l. L Ca l. l.---->
570.50
.m
3.00
Restuarant Plan Reviey-->
DRB Fee--------
Recreation Fee---------->
cl.ean-Up Deposit-------->
.o0
.00
the information requi red,I agree to co[pty r{ith the
1 ,193.5O.m
1 ,193 .50
accurate p Lot
and pLot pl.an,
subdivision
TOTAL FEES-----ffi*rffi**ffitr*ff*i********ffiffi*r****ffiffi***ffi***ir*******i**ff***#ffi*******tffi(******ffrrff*ff**ffiir*ffi******
.00 Total Permit Fee-------->
250.00 Payments-------
Dept: BUILDING Dj-visj-on:
Dept: PLANNING Division:
Dept: FIRE Division:
Dept: PUB WORK Division:
ITem: -O51OO BUILDING DEPARTMENT01/2311996 DAN Action: APPRItEm:'.O54OO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
9!/23/19_9-Q^DAN__ _ Action; AppR N/AItb.m:'.05600 FIRE DEPARTMENT
9.1/23/192Q^D4!!_ __ __As!lonr AppR N/AItb.m:',05500 PUBLIC WORKS07/23/1996 DAII Action: AppR N/A
******ffi**ffitt#rtt**ffitrru**ffi*ffi*******S************************S**ffi**fi***ff*************r,**rtrw*ffH*tQffi
See Page 2 of this Document for any conditions that may apply to this permit.
DECLARATIONS
I hereby acknovtedge that I have read this appl.ication, f il.l.ed out .in {ul.l,pl,an, and state that att the informtion provided as requi red is correct.
cornp teted an
information
zoning andto conp ty uith att Tolrn ordin€nces and state [aHs, and to buitd this stcodes/ design review approved, Unjform Buitding Code and other ordinanc
REOUESTS IOR INSPECTIONS SHALL BE IiIADE TI,'ENTY-FOUR HOURS IN ADVANCE BY
Send Ctean-Up Deposit To: SOUTHIT€ST
{p *t"'"t"o '*"o
FICE FRO 8:
TOWN OFVAIL
Department of Community Development75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
gao-4t&ilW4Mn39OO6
Page 2
CONDITIONS
as of u./23/96 Status---: ISSUED**tFLYvlbw,.v|}t*****************************************************************
Permit Type: ADD/ALT SFR BUILD PERMITApplicant--: SOUTHWEST BUILDERS LLC
97 0-47 6-2338
Job Address: 706 FOREST RDLocation---:
Parcel No--: 27OL-072-1 1-021
Applied--, 0I/23/L996
Issued--- z OL/23/L996
To Expire | 07 /2I/t996
Description:
INTERIOR REMODEL
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * COnditiOns * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
1. FIELD INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED TO CHECK FOR CODE COMPLIANCE.2. SMOKE DETECTORS ARE REQUIRED IN ALL BEDROOMS AND EVERY STORY
AS PER SEC.1210 OF THE 1991 UBC.3. ALL STRUCTUAL CHANGES MAY REQUIRE AN ENGINEER APPROVAL
BEFORE FRAMING WILL BE OKAYED BY BUTLDING DEPARTMENT.
{p *""o'"o "*uo