HomeMy WebLinkAboutOTC13-0027 Grouse Glen at Vail Condominiums Appeal Documents Made a Part of 112013 Public Hearing RecordAAJ t par? o� �)eelord I/* d0. 13
<[* 471nd "m E-M Ff 0
Phone: 303-947-4514
E -Mail: wstcharles @icloud.com
November 19, 2013
(Via Email)
Warren Campbell and George Ruther
Town of Vail, Community Development
cc: Matt Mire, Town Attorney (via email)
Design Review Board (via email)
Re: OTC Permit: 13 -0027 ( "OTC Permit ") and DRB Appeal
Dear George and Warren:
In response to your email of yesterday, if the Town desires to proceed with DRB's review of the appeal at tomorrow's hearing, we
will need to file objection to the issues raised by the documents prepared and presented to DRB after the appeal was filed, as such
documents violate the Town's code as to procedure. The Memorandum submitted by planning (along with newly prepared
attachments) contain numerous errors, inflammatory statements and unsubstantiated conclusions and assertions, none of which is
appropriate for submission to DRB, as the appeal is based on the record at the time the appeal was filed. Planning did not provide
a memorandum prior to issuing the OTC permit (nor did it need to) and thus appellants are struggling with the reason for planning
having prepared a memorandum "after" the filing of the appeal. The issue for DRB is not whether planning can issue an OTC
permit for asphalt roofing. Nor is the issue whether or not the appellants "like" the materials proposed to be used under the
permit. The issue is whether the materials proposed to be used under the OTC permit violate the governing documents of Grouse
Glen. That is not a question that planning (or the Town) has or can answer, which is why suit has been filed in the district court.
The appeal of the OTC permit was filed to maintain the existing roofs (with interim repairs as needed) or allow an opportunity for
replacement with materials of a similar quality and design as the existing cedar shake, as DRB may or may not propose, until the
legal question is reviewed.
Further, with the snow on the roofs, roof replacement will not occur this season, nor can DRB see the roofs in question. Thus, any
sense of urgency as to replacement is lost. If the Town insists on proceeding tomorrow, the post appeal documents must be
withdrawn from the submittal to DRB so that DRB may make simple findings of fact based on the appeal, which is what DRB is
required to do under the Code. The package submitted to DRB makes DRB's obligation extremely difficult if not impossible, so
much time will be wasted and further appeal will be required. Additionally, the intended inflammatory content of the post appeal
documents (emails in particular) are harmful and are intended to embarrass or disparage one or more parties, not actions that the
town should be party to or support.
We have drafted a proposed settlement to be reviewed between counsel in the pending litigation, but with the Wrights traveling
through Sunday, it is not feasible to have a resolution reached by tomorrow, as we only received a proposal from Wyatt McCallie
last week and it does not commit to any actions, but rather raises questions and insists on additional time needed for any board
action. We urge the Town to honor the initial request of appellants and extend the hearing for an additional two weeks, to allow
time for settlement between the parties. In the alternative, appellants insist that the DRB package be withdrawn and that only
materials that had been reviewed by the parties at the time the appeal was filed be submitted to DRB.
Please advise further regarding the proposed hearing date and the content of the DRB submittal package today.
Sincerely,
Wendy St. Charles
Cc: William Pierce, AIA; Erik Johnson, Esq. John and Reven Wright (via email)
2. The HOA declaration requires repairs to be as valuable as the materials being replaced (i.e, you
cannot replace a stone facade with plywood or sheet rock). Each expert consulted, including Pierce
Architects, Tom Beck of TNT, Michael Boyd of Masters, and Linda McGowan of BC &E each tell
me that asphalt, although a sound roof, is not an equivalent product to cedar shake (simply a
fact). (See architect's opinion attached.)
There are many products available to maintain the appearance and value of the units similar to or
the equivalent (aesthetically and value -wise) of cedar shake, which is currently on the roofs. If the
HOA seeks to enforce the declaration, then it must honor the terms of the entire declaration and
asphalt is not an appropriate option, based on expert opinion.
3. Owners cannot vote around the terms of the declaration, except by a legal process of amending
the declaration, which has not occurred. (Mr. McCallie's assignment of covered parking spaces for
exclusive use by certain owners supporting a vote for the asphalt roofing and a special assessment
run counter to any sense of enforceable association governance. Further, reserves are "required"
under the declaration, which provision has been ignored.)
4. The McCallie board intentionally scheduled a meeting held in Denver (which is a first) on a date
that neither the Wrights nor I could attend, which is regrettable, as it precluded an open discussion
among owners in Grouse Glen of the many issues facing the association. Thus, the pending
litigation was filed and we are forced to reserve rights with respect to the OTC permit sought
through the town so to not waive further violations of the declaration.
5. Wyatt McCallie began the repair to the Wrights rood in January 2013 and had a portion of the
cedar shake shingles removed (without pulling a permit). The Wrights' roof remains uncovered and
has become a nuisance and eyesore in the community and poses a safety threat 10 months later of
further damage to the Wrights' property without property covering, such that the association should
be required to immediately complete the repair by reinstalling the shake shingles removed and
repairing any other leaks around the flashing or otherwise until the roofs are replaced next year. If
the association fails to complete the repair within 48 hours, the owner should be entitled to
undertake the repair to protect the owners' property. (See BC &E comments attached)
We regret the Town's time taken with this matter, but appreciate the efforts of staff, other officials
and DRB.
Best,
Wendy
Wendy St. Charles
wstcharlesa,icloud. corn
303 - 947 -4514
01
From: Wyatt McCallie <wyatt.mccallie @gmail.com>
Subject: RE: #8 Grouse Glen - Partial shake roof installation
Date: September 30, 2013 3:25:52 PM MDT
To: tom <tnt- s- c @hotmail.com>
Cc: "Reven Wright(8)" <revenswright@me.com >, "Wendy St. Charles"
<wstcharles @icloud.com >, "Carol Krueger, (1 B)" <ckrueger@kruegervail.com >,
"Richard and Annie DeMarco, (4B)" <pennyannie123 @gmail.com>
Grouse Glen must approve any work on any roof. Tom will be trespassing if he
performs unauthorized work. I will look into criminal prosecution of anyone
inducing him to do so. The roofs all belong to Grouse Glen and no owner has any
say on a roof repair.
Tom, please respond that you understand and will not proceed without Grouse
Glen approval. Only the Board can give that.
Wyatt McCalliewyatt .mccallie @gmail.comhome: 303 759 2275mobile: 303 882
3326
From: Linda McGowan <Lnda @building -c- e.com>
Subject: Grouse Glen #8 - BC &E Proposal for Limited Initial
Evaluation
Date: October 29, 2013 1:42:54 PM MDT
To: "'Wendy St. Charles "' <wstcharles @icloud.com>
[]
Regarding your comments below, I can provide the following:
On October 14, 2013, 1 visited the site to briefly observe conditions
around the exterior of Unit #8 located at 1476 Buffehr Creek Road in
Vail, Colorado. I observed some apparent "bubbling" on the surface of
the stucco near the upper 5 to 8 ft of the chimney on the west side of
the unit (refer to attached Photo #5). In my experience, distress such
as this is often indicative of moisture entering into and /or behind the
stucco. Based on our observations, it is possible that water may be
entering into or behind the stucco from the roof -to- chimney flashing
or the chimney cap flashing; however, we were unable to observe
these conditions up close and are not able to determine this more
definitively.
We also observed what appeared to be a self- adhering sheet
waterproofing underlayment on the roof deck for the upper portion of
the roof (refer to attached Photo #2). We understand that the original
wood shakes (and presumably the original roofing underlayment)
were removed, and this self- adhering sheet waterproofing
underlayment was installed, with the thought that wood shakes would
be installed shortly thereafter. We do not know how long the self -
adhering sheet waterproofing underlayment has been exposed;
however, many manufacturer's limit exposure times (typically about
30 to 60 days), after which the exposure could negatively affect the
characteristics and performance of the underlayment. We did not
examine the self- adhering sheet waterproofing underlayment up
close, and do not know the specifics of it current condition. We would
recommend that the underlayment be examined, the effects of
exposure of the underlayment evaluated by the underlayment
manufacturer, repairs made to the underlayment (if any), and the new
wood shakes installed in a proper manner. We would not recommend
a temporary covering over the existing self- adhering sheet
waterproofing underlayment, since a temporary covering could have
its own issues regarding installation in addition to the costs to install
and remove a temporary covering. It would, in my opinion, just make
sense to install the wood shake roofing as described.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.
Linda M. McGowan, P.E., A.I.A.
Building Consultants & Engineers, Inc. (BC &E)
1520 West Canal Court, Suite 240
Littleton, Colorado 80120
Phone: 303 - 350 -1000
Cell: 303 - 880 -9131
Email: linda(a�,building- c -e.com
From: Wendy St. Charles [mailto:wstcharles @icloud.com] Sent: Monday,
October 28, 2013 1:01 PM To: Linda McGowan Subject: Grouse Glen
Linda - The owners of Units 8 and 10 are going to ask the court for
help in pulling a building permit to repair roof leaks and reinstall
shake shingles removed in January. It would be very helpful to
have a preliminary one paragraph comment as to your
observations of apparent leaks around chimney flashing,
particularly as to Unit 8 (bulging stucco on westerly elevation
below chimney) and the appropriate replacement of wood shakes
to protect the exposed membrane on Unit 8 until such time as the
roofs are replaced.
Begin forwarded message:
From: William Pierce <bill @vailarchitects.com>
Subject: roofing at Grouse Glen
Date: November 19, 2013 10:39:12 AM MST
To: "'St. Charles, Wendy R. ( wstcharles @shermanhoward.com) "'
<wstcharles @shermanhoward.com>
Wendy,
Per our conversation, replacement of the existing wood shakes on
Phase II of the Grouse Glen Townhouses with asphalt /fiberglass
shingles would detract aesthetically from the existing conditions in this
highly visible location. Asphalt /fiberglass shingles are a cost effective
replacement that are acceptable to the Town of Vail Design Review
Board but this product will be deemed a lower quality than a number
of other roofing products that are suitable for installation.
Synthetic shake shingles (DaVinci) or concrete tile roofing would
provide visual quality that meets the visual quality of the original
shake shingle roof. These products would be acceptable to the Town
of Vail Design Review Board.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance on this matter.
From: "Wendy St. Charles" <wstcharles @icloud.com>
Subject: Grouse Glen - Phase 2
Date: September 12, 2013 11:08:45 AM MDT
To: wcampbell @vailgov.com
Cc: Reven Wright <revenswright @me.com>
Dear Warren - Thank you for your time in our call last Friday. Further to our call,
and my voicemail of the other, my roof (Unit 10, Phase 2 Grouse Glen, developed as
Buffehr Creek Townhomes) is in need of a roof replacement /repair to avoid further
1__1_- _- �L- --- -- ___i_- 1 L____ L__- -_1-1 1_ -_-1__ ___f__-l_i i A i_ L.___
jA,aJe ?arF 4 �IerA 11, ao l3
Warren Campbell
From: Wendy St. Charles <wstcharles @icloud.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 10:12 AM
To: Warren Campbell
Cc: George Ruther; Erik Johnson; Bill Pierce; Reven Wright; Matt Mire Contact
Subject: Re: Public Hearing Wednesday, November 20 for the Grouse Glen Condominiums
Appeal
Attachments: McCallie Email to TNT threatening charges.pdf, ATT00001.htm; Architect's Comment on
OTC Per Materials.pdf, ATT00002.htm; Email BC &E (McGowan) to W St Charles
10- 28- 13.pdf, ATT00003.htm
Dear Warren, Thank you for yours below. The supplemental items are to address issues raised in
the DBR memo and attachments that were not previously provided to appellants, as explained. As
indicated when the DRB package was received, it is unfortunately necessary to at least comment on
new documents and matters raised for the record, although much of what is in the package does not
appear to be relevant to the appeal. Particularly, with respect to the new correspondence rom Wyatt
McCallie, I note the following association matters (which we intended not to involve the town in,
but now must, for the record):
1. The board governed under Wyatt McCallie (HOA) is refusing to repair or replace the roofs of
Units 8 and 10 without a written waiver and release of homeowners rights. Such a demand
is inappropriate and will not be acquiesced to, which gives rise to the need for the pending
lawsuit. It is regrettable that the homeowners are not able to protect their homes from roof leaks in
the interim, but thus far, we are told a permit for limited repairs will not be issued without the
HOA's sign off and the HOA is using its sign off as leverage to obtain a release. (See the below
excerpts and attached (i) email from Wyatt McCallie threatening trespassing charges against TNT
and criminal charges against owners attempting to repair their roofs and (ii) demand for a release
by Units 8 and 10.)
"Grouse Glen must approve any work on any roof. Tom will be trespassing if he
performs unauthorized work. I will look into criminal prosecution of anyone
inducing him to do so. The roofs all belong to Grouse Glen and no owner has any
From: "Wendy St. Charles" <wrstcharles @gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Grouse Glen Roof Replacement
Date: July 28, 2013 2:24:18 AM MDT
To: deric5429 @aol.com
Cc: pennyannie123 @gmail.com, Fost <rjllfost @aol.com >, Reven Wright
<revenswright @me.com >, Dale Hursh Dale < Dale@ smartsearchmarketing.com >,
jmenk @gmproperty.com, Fuhr /Rivera <pgfuhr @aol.com >, ramenkes @gmail.com,
Joe Bowers <joetygerbowers @gmail.com>
Dear Dean - In talking with experts in the area, the synthetic shake (i.e., DaVinci) is
the standard replacement for shake in Vail and concrete tile is another excellent,
perhaps even better, option. With respect to timing, any damage caused to my unit
from a further winter period will not be a covered claim, as we are on notice that the
roof needs to be replaced, thus waiting another year is not a viable option. I suggest
calling an owners meeting so we can get issues on the table and make progress on
issues at hand. Although gracious of you to act as project manager, it is not
necessary for such a routine repair to have a project manager in my experience, but
if someone wants to hire one, it needs to be a[] licensed, in[s] urn ed professional to
protect homeowners. (typos corrected)
From: TNT Specialty Constructors Inc. [mailto:tnt- s- c@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 12:15 PM
To: deric54290aol.com
Subject: Grouse Glenn - Roof
Hello Mr. Ericson,
Attached please find a roof evaluation report, as well as a proposal to re -roof utilizing
the DaVinci "Valore" shake product, as well as an alternate for concrete tile. I felt these
were the two most viable products due to the class A fire rating and aesthetic
implications. There is a plethora of products available, should you desire pricing on
something else.
I did not include a quote for asphalt shingles, as I wasn't sure you wanted to go down
that road. The roofs are relatively simple in design, however extremely visible from the
street, (curbside appeal would be compromised considerably with the use of asphalt
shingles... just my 2- cents).
The bldg. is a natural for concrete tile, simply due to the simple design. The weight
issue, some people are sensitive to is really [in]significant [sic], when considering the
overall dead & live load capacities built into like structures in the area.
Thanks,
Tom
Thomas A. Beck
TNT Specialty Constructors
970 - 328 -1689 Office
970 - 331 -5081 Cell
www.tntspecialty.com
�cv-c�O b�3 Re.5u4 "[o Orholj Acft'o/1
Grouse Glen Condominiums Appeal
14 -10 -5: BUILDING MATERIALS AND DESIGN:
F. All structures shall have class A roof assemblies or shall have class A roof covering materials, as
defined by the adopted building code. The use of concrete tile, slate, metal, asphalt shingle,
fiberglass shingle, and built up tar and gravel roofing may be permitted. Metal roofing, when
permitted, shall not reflect direct sunlight onto an adjacent property and shall be surfaced with a
low gloss finish or be capable of weathering to a dull finish. Metal roofing, when permitted, shall
be of a heavy gauge and designed to provide visual relief to the roof surface (including, but not
limited to, a standing seam). Asphalt and fiberglass shingles, when permitted, shall weigh no
less than three hundred (300) pounds per roofing square. The use of wood shake, wood
shingles and rolled roofing shall not be permitted. Two - family and multi - family dwellings shall be
required to have uniform roof covering materials, except when the design review board
determines that the materials are compatible, are integral to the architectural style of the
structure and different materials do not share any ridges or planes, but may share a valley.
Does the Design Review Board find the administratively approved GAF Grand
Sequoia Cedar colored asphalt shingle, which weighs in excess of 300 pounds
per roofing square, is in compliance with the prescribed regulations for roof
materials as found in Section 14 -10 -5, Building Materials and Design, Vail Town
Code?
see where
a,a Antici
tIIAT�
YJCA aJmu-i--, aAv-k;0
G,��efie
UA
5'0.'0
st Ft appra,kJ
C'U& a"'U- a/V-