HomeMy WebLinkAboutUNPLATTED FORD PARK LIGHTING 1988STATE OF INDIANA
COI'NTY OF BOONE
ss:
PEARCE LIGHTING T4,ANUFACTURING
AND DESIGN COMPAI{Y,A Division Of la.uraineIndustries, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CONSOLTDATED
DTSTRIBUTORS,
EIJECTRICAL
INC.,
Defendant.
AFFTDAVTT OF K TSTAN PRITZ
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF EAGL,E
ss:
Kristan Pritz, being first duly sworn upon her oath, deposes
and states as follows:
1. r am the Director of conmunity Deveropnent for the Town
of Vair, a position r have held since April, i-990. Fron 1984 to
April ' L99o r was a planner and senior pLanner for the Town of
vail . My responsibilities included the coordination and rnanage-
ment of matters pertaining to the lighting for Gerald Ford park
in Vai], Colorado.
2. on behalf of the Town of Vail , I inspected certain
light fixtures supplied for the Gerald Ford, park and d.erivered
on or about septernber 9, 1989. r believe ttrese liqht fixtures to
)
)
)
IN THE BOONE SUPERTOR COURT
CAUSE NO. O6DO1-9005-CP-180
be the ones delivered through the efforts of Joseph Travis of
Agency Sa1es, fnc.
3. Wtren f received and approved the plans and specifica-
tions that were prepared for the Gerald Ford park, light fixtures
from Urban Accessories, fnc. were specified. Later the project
engineer, Maurice Cox of Abeyta Norse Engineering, Inc.
('Abeyta') and Joseph Travis of Agency Sales asked to substitute
light fixtures to be uranufactured by another company. This
substitution was approved on the express condition that the
lights suppried rnatch exactlv the design and guarity of the urban
Accessories lights.
4. Maurice Cox and Joseph Travis stated the light fixtures
to be supplied for the park would natch the urban Accessories
fixtures exactry. r was tord by Joseph Travis and Maurice cox
these light fixtures were to be manufactured by MWc r.,ighting and
so specified on the plans approved for the project (Exhibit A).
rf ,roseph Travis later substituted pearce light fixtures for the
MWC light fixtures, this was done without the knowled.ge or
approval of the Town of Vail .
5. The only new light fixtures for this project in the
Gerald Ford Park were those manufactured. and shipped through the
efforts of Joseph Travis until after Septenber 27, Lggg, when
substitute light fixtures had to be obtained for the defective
and non-conforming liqht fixtures supptied by Agency Sales.
5. On october 6, 1988, I sent written confirnation of the
rejection of the light fixtures delivered on Septenber 7, 1998
to Eric Reger of Randall & Blake, Inc., the contract adrninistra-
tor for the Gerald Ford Park for the Town of Vail . In ny
October 6, l-988 letter, the reasons why the Town of VaiI rejected
those liqht fixtures were listed. Those reasons included:
(a) Lights were already beginning to rust on the base inthe area of the hearts;
(b) An extremely sloppy welding job was done in order toconnect the segments of the light poles;
(c) The hearts, whictr were applied to the base of thelights, were never part of the design for the lightfixtures;
(d) The hearts were weld.ed to the base of the lights in avery poor fashion, resulting in an unsightly appear-ance;
(e) The shape of the hood of the light fixEure was dj_f-ferent from the specified design;
(f) The Pearce lights had no decorative sleeve over thejoints for each segment of the light pole and hood andIacked the specified decorative work in these areas;
(S) The hoods of the liqht fixtures did not swivel . asrequired in the design specifieations, so that theIight could be focused on the road.
7. A true and correct copy of ny October 6, L98g letter to
Eric Reger is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
8. At ttre tirne I wrote ny October 6, 1989 letter
(E)chibit B) I believed the light fixtures lrere supplied by MWC,
through Joseph Travis of Agency Sales, Inc., as specified ln the
contract documents and plans. Any reference by me to UIIWC'
lights in the october E, 1988 letter (Exhibit B) was based on the
specifications in the plans (Mwc #88-44-L2 and Mwc #88-44-10) and
referred to the lights delivered on or about septernber z, l-98g
and inspected by me on Septernber 9, L9gg.
9. On or about September L4, 1989, I met with Franlc
wagoner of Randall & Blake, Maurice cox of Abeyta Engineers, and
Joe Travis of Agency Sales to inspect and discuss the light
fixtures. r understood Joe Travis was the colorado sales agent
and representative for the manufacturer of the light fixtures,
and r cornmunicated to ,foe Travis and others present at this
neeting and on severar subseguent occaEions in septenber 19gg,
all of the reasons listed above in paragraph 5 and in my
october 5' L988 letter to Eric Reger (Exhibit B) why the lights
were unacceptable to the Town of VaiI .
10. A true and ascurate color photocopy of the light
fixtures supplied to the Town of Vail and inspected. by ne in
September 1988 is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
11. The Tolrn of Vail required installation of the light
fixtures by septenber 2'1 , l-999. This d,eadline was based not only
on contractual tirne liuritations and on the unigue construction
requirenents in mountainous areas and weather conditions, but
also on the decision to give Joe Travis an opportunity to correct
the problems with the lights.
L2. No light poles in conformance with the desigm specific-
ations as required by the Town of vail were provided by septernber
27, L988.
13. The Toram of Vail was forced to obtain substitute light
fixtures fron another supplier, Urban Accessories, which were
subseguently installed in Gerald Ford park.
14. A true and accurate color photocopy of the substitute
fixtures manufactured by urban Accessories as installed in Gerald
Ford Park in conformance with the design specifications is
attached hereto as Exhibit D.
Further affiant saith not.
Subscribed
for said county
and sworn
and state,
to, before me, a
ttris -!3!aay of
Notary Public in and
Augiust, 1991-.
Printed Nane:Ma.rtha S - Rac*aMy Connission Expires:
hv,u^I zo,not+County of Residencez Eath-
)
'- '-{'
Project Application
projectName: Ford Amph'itheatre Sky Lights
March 30, 1988
Pro.iect Description:sky lights over seatinq area
Contact Person and Phone Rudi Fisber 949-5624
Owner, Address and Phone:Vail Valley Foundation
Architect. Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot Block Filing Zone
-
Comments:
Design Review Board
Motion by: Gwathmt Y
Seconded by: Lea r.Y
APPROVAL
4-0
Date
DISAPPROVAL
Summary:
Town Planner
Dare. 3/30/f;F
E statt Approval
DRB APPLICATION AMPHITI{EATER.SKYLIGHTS
*****THIS APPLICATION l.lILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNTIL ALL INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED*****
I. PRE.APPLICATION MEETING:
A pre-application T99!'!ns with_a planning staff member is strongly suggested to' determine if any additional information js needed. No applicatioir wiiT be-icceptedunless it is complete (must ittll4e all items requ'ired Uy'ttre zoning aaminiiiriio"i.It ls the applicant's responsibility to make an dppointmint with thE stafi lo find'out about additional submittal requirements. Please note that a C0MpLETE applica-t'ion will streamline the.approval process for your project by decreasing thi'numberof conditions of approval .that the DRB may st'ipulati:. -ALL c-onditions oi ipproval mustbe resol ved before a bu'il di ng permi t 'is iisued.
APPLICATION DATE:March 14, 1988
DATE 0F DRB ;,|EETII{G. March 30, 1988
A. PR0JECT DESCRIPTION; The addition of three lights, betrnreen roof panels.
B. LOCATION
Addres s
OF PROPOSAL:
Gerald. R.Ford Amphitheater
Legal Description Lot Bl ock Filing
Zon i ng
C. NAME OF
Address
APPLICANT:Vail Valle Foundation
telephone4T6-9500
APPLICANTIS REPRESENTATIVEFisheT Architecls -- Rudi Fisher
P.O. Box 541, Vail telephond49-5624
D. NAME OF
I
Address
!'ronta
Si gnature
Address tel ephone
F.DRB FEE: The fee will
VALUATION
be paid at the time a buitding
FEE
permit is requested.
$ o-
$ 1o,oo1 -
$ 50,001 -
$150,001 -
$500,001 -$ Over
$ 10.00
$ 25.00
$ 50.00
$100.00
$200 .00
$300.00
$ Io,ooo$ 5o,ooo$ 150,000
$.500,000
$1,000,ooo
$1,000,000
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THE DRB:
1. In addition to meeting submittal requirements, the applicant must stake the siteto indicate property lines and building corners. Trbbs that will be removedshould also be marked. This work must-be completed before the DRB visits the
si te,
2. The review process for NE!'{ BUILDINGS will normally involve two separate meetingsof the Design Review Board, so plan on at least two meetings for their approvai.
3. People who fail to appear before the
meeting and who have not asked for a
republ i shed.
Design Review Eoard at their scheduled
postponement will be required to be
NAMt UF P;iUJtUl: .AEphitheater Skylights
LEGAL DESCR i PT i r]i'i ;
NAME OF PROJECT:
STREET ADDRESS:
DESCRIPTION OF P
LIST OF MATERIALS
ceralo R. Foro am6lEEdF'
ree s tween roof panels.
The following information is required for submittalBoard before a final approval can be fiven:
A. BUILDING MATERIALS: TYPE oF MATERIAL
by the applicant to the Design Review
COLOR
Framework of steel tubin , to support single-glazed,
saftey glass skylights.Framework painted to natch
Roof
S'i di n9
0ther l,lall Materials
Fasci a
Soffi ts
lli ndows
t'.lindow Trim
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck Rails
Fl ues
Fl as hi ngs
Chimneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
0ther
B.LANoscAprNG: Name "f ;Jriil;:,n structure'
no additional 1and".J$9ff.J
PLANT MATERIALS: gotanicat N;me
PROPOSED TREES
Common Name Quani ty Si ze*
for conifers.
(over)
EXISTING TREES TO
BE REMOVED
*Indicate caliper for deciducious trees.Indicate height