Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971 Board of Zoning & Appeals•.? 1' . I. II. T ,, .. ~ •: .. ..' ~ ~ ~ :: t ... . .. _ i 4 1'~ TOWN 'OED VAIL . BOARD OF'~~q,NTNG ~N}~.A.PPEAZ~S MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING; ~A~T[JARY 14, -'19'1: , Meeting. Called to Orc~r. - 9:10 ArM: a) Members Present.." Messrs . C~.a~]k, Hoyt j-.Wel~n:, Young, and Strub=l`e (ex-:officio) ~ . b) Presidium: Mr. Clark, Co-chairman c) Introduction of Guests: N9ne•. d) - 'Approval of Minutes. of De_,e;ember 15 ., 19 71`.. Past Business - ~ -y NONE ~y: ~b z ~:, New Business ''`` - a) Proposed Contractux~al Licensing Ordinance. -• The Board met: to disouss and make' recommer~,d~tion°s on the Proposed Contx.actura7~ .,Livensing Ord~nan~e`. - The recommended changes -~aer- e marked . in red ~;on the'- ~ , rough draft copy -- -all of. which iaere approved - ; unanimously by those present . It sa~.s ' furtYi~er recom mended and approved -unaniinous~ly that afte`r,,,the. aforesaid changes and any .°oz~he.r: changes. fih~ Town Attorney should make, that anew copy be drafted' , including saad changes .: Wien thi's is a.ccor~p:lished;~ ' a special meeting twill be-'called to peruse :the revised ordinance:` .: IZI. ~, -- ~. IV. Other Business -. _ . ~. - ~". V, Adjournment ~ .. There heing .no further b:usines~', thee mee;'~ing a~~-ourned , at 11:45 A.M.. TOWN OF VAIL ,• Ed Struble, ..,- - Secretary (Ex-Officio} ;,~ - ~ ! V ~~ , " _ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ . ~ ~ OWN OF VAI_L, _. BOARD OF Z 0 NI NG A ~ APPEALS ,; ~ ~; MINUTES OF REGULAR MEE`PING, JANiJA.RY. ~~~, :1971 . ~ ,. _ ~ - - 5 f .. _ - - ~, ~ :, I. Meeting called to Order _ 9,:3;0.:A.M # _ Yours Knox a) Members ~'res:ent c Messrs . Clar7c, g; and. Struble (ex~o~'f iCo } r = . b) Infroduction of Guests : None - - Y ~: . ~ c) Minutes of ~ anuary 14,, '19 71. mere approved ~ _. unanimously. .. . ':aI . .Past.- Business , , ~ ~ a} ~'irial draft of Contractor~s~ Licensing Ordinance .was, `" ~, - yeas reviewed and.. a:re-commenda-~iori to delete the ' ~ ~ ~ edition" wherever used : -qf ~, - _, - :~ _ ro.va.l fox', this Ordznan'ce was - b) .'Recommendation ~`'or-, aPp l ~ moved by Mr, Young.., and seconded by' Mr: Clark arie - - ~`: approved unanimously. - §. ~ ., - ~: I II. New ~usines5 ~,# ~ - a} The secretary explained that the past cha~rmants term . ~- had expired and. the :Board should elect anew chairman x - and .co-chairman. Mr. Young noininat.ed Mme. G].ark for: . _ chairman, seconde.d~ ~bY Mr. Knox and. approved ;unan.imousiy. ~ ai :F i, . Knox nominated.~Mr.. GYian Welin ,for co-~cha~rrn Mr ` ~ . seconded by Mr. Young ' anel . aPProvecl unanimo<us ly .. . ,: + ' S - ., ~ B - ~.. ~ IV . Other ~$usiness NO N~ - ~: f . - . . `, ,, : ;x V . Adj our7im.ent There being no furtYier business,, the, meeting adjourned at I0:44 A.M. ~` x, ~. . TOWN OF VAIL 1~~` £ _.:~ ~ - _ - - Ed Strubie , - Secretary (Ex-Officio) .. ~ - -.. ~ .~ ~'i~a_; _ .: - ~ i,.'- -x ~ ~ ;'` , . b . _ ,:~. x -. ~-',~. + - ~. ~-~ ._ . W , ~.~~,..-mow; ~ ~+~...: ~ ~..2s~ .~, - -,: TOWN OF VATL BOARD OF ZONING AND APPEALS MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING March 4, 1971 I. Meeting called to Order - 9:30 a.m. at the Town of Vail Office. The following members were present: Messrs. Clark, Hoyt, Knox, and Welin, Struble (ex-officio). The following guests were a~.so present: Mr. Fitzhugh Scott and Mr. and Mrs. Rich. II. Business of Special Meeting. A special meeting was held at the request of Mr. Fitzhugh Scott on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Rich sa that a preliminary hearing could be held on their request for a zoning variance before they left for Milwaukee. This was only a preliminary hearing because there was not enough time to past the proper ten-day notice required by Ordinance; therefore, the Board cannot approve or disapprove the application until their next meeting on March 18. Mr. Scott requested an informal decision because time is very important and it was stated by Ed Struble that we cannot do this as there might be some objection by ad- joining property owners within the ten day period. Mr. Scott gave an extensive history of the events that preceded the request for a zoning variance. The Rich's first noticed a change in the character of Wiltow Circle from residential to condominium in nature. Also, their house has grown too small far there and they feel the best solution lies in building a condominium with units of a larger size than those now existing in Vail (three bedroom, three bath and possibly a 5 bedroom, 5 bath). Instead of adding to their presen`~ house, they want a zoning variance so that they might build a condominium of a size that is in keeping with the present development of the area. Scott determined that the best use of the property would be to build ten condominiums large enough to accommodate 10 - 12 people. Mr. Scott and Mr. and Mrs. Rich then met with the Architectural Control Board. The Board would like them to increase the size of the building so that it is approximately the same size as the surrounding buildings and this would not conform to the l:l Floor Area Ratio as stated in Ordinance 15 (series of 1970). Scott then pointed out the changes that must be made in the plans as submitted in order to meet the Uniform Building Code. The changes brought to his attention in a meeting earlier in the week with Ed Struble were that there must be two additional fire exits (stairs of non-combustible material) added to the ends of the building, and a smokeproof tower would be required. If windows are within 20' of property line they must be fire rated. At the special meeting of the Board of Zoning Appeals, Mr. Scott presented an architectural model of the proposed building, plot plans of the proposed site, and preliminary drawings of the building. In his presentation, he asked .for a variance in the Floor Area Ratio from 1:1 as required by Ordinance No. 15 (Series of 1970) to 1.3:1. He pointed out that when the building was in the plan- ning stages, the Floor Area Ratio requirement was 1.5:1 and the building, as planned, would meet the former requirement. He also requested a variance in the setbacks from the property lanes as Y Page 2 Minutes of Special Meeting March ~, 1971 required by the Zoning Code. Ld Struble then suggested that the building be moved back on the lot so that the variance in setbacks would not be required, as this would possibly present a fire hazard because of the close proximity of surrounding build- ings; however, it would then be necessary to grant permission for the building to encroach on the easement. Mitch Hoyt stated that he thought that the easement had been abandonded since all of the utilities come in from the road. Bob Clark then stated that the Board must consider the compatibility of this building with the adjoining properties in making their decision. Chan Welin also asked that the contractor be very careful during construct~.on of the building so that the -tract land can be pre- served. Mr. Scott stated that the Riches might be willing to deed the tract land involved to the Town sa that there would never be a chance of it being destroyed and it could be preserved far its ecological value. ITT. Adjournment. There was no further business and the meeting ad- journed at,10:~+5 a.m. TOWN OF VAIL 5~~~ ' Ed Struble, Secretary (Ex--Officio} dw ,~~R Rom, _ ~ d The Town of VAIL, Colorado ~. , . ,~ ~ Box 631 • Vail, Colorado • 81657 v~ '~ Telephone 303 475 - 5613 March 26, 1971 T0: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FROM: TERRELL J. MINDER, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: THE ZONING VARIANCE A zoning variance means what the word implies, i, e. it means that the specific requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, whether they relate to use or to dimensional standards, are varied or changed in a particular instance by the Zoning Board. Good and Bad Variances Regardless of what a variance may mean to different people, the important thing is the difference between a good. and a bad vari- ance. Unfortunately, it is difficult to list what criteria • make up a good variance; however, one can easily focus on the elements that constitute a bad variance. Bad variances are generally founded in the thinking that the Zoning Board's func- tion is to help individuals "gel around the law", rather than insisting that the applicant prove his request for a variance is a good one and can be legitimately granted under the Ordinance. In neat, concise terms, bad variances can be defined as those that grant special favors. This can take any number of farms, but in the long run, it will mean that the applicant has been given permission by the granting of the variance, to do something which is not allowed anyone else in the community. There will, of course, be peculiar circumstances and conditions regarding certain sites which cannot be taken into account in the general requirements and standards of the Ordinance. In such cases, the owner, in order to have the same rights as anyone else, must be granted relief through a variance. What happens in too many cases, however, is that the Zoning Board, through the approval of the bad variance, grants a special "privilege" to the appli- cant. The difference is "relief" versus "privilege". Guidelines Some criteria or guidelines toward the propriety of granting a variance should include: 1. The first prerequisite is a good Ordinance, an Ordinance providing clear and sound rationale in terms of what it is to accomplish. i s - 2 - • • • 2. The Board must clearly understand its authority and responsi- bility to the total community. There can be no special favors or privileges granted. 3. Be sure to ask far and receive legal advice in terms of propriety and sound legal backup in fact. 4, Above all else, it should be remembered that it is up tp the applicant to prove his case and to prove that the strict application of the Ordinance will not be fair and equitable treatment for him. The burden of the presentation is that of the applicant and in this particular type of" consideration, the ,Ordinance is presumed to be equitable for all until it is proven otherwise. The applicant who has the best possible case that could be found, and yet does not present the facts, should not have his variance granted. It is not up to the Zoning Board to present the case, nor is it their jab to see how they can help him find a way to do what he wants to do. 5. Tn requiring -that the case be proven, it should be remembered that it must be shown that the provisions of the Ordinance, as they are written, cannot be applied to the particular property in fairness. Each member of the Board should constantly measure the application before him with the question--Has this man shown rn.e that he ca~,n.ot do what our Ordinance requires and sti11 receive protection of his right to utilize his property? Most of the time, the appl~.carit can live with the la.w and still have fair and reasonable treatment. 6. It must be clearly known by the members of the Zoning Board, from the facts before them and from their knowledge of the community, that the granting of this variance will in no way be detrimental to the -total zoning plan and to the comprehensive development of the community. This zrieans that if any variance or exception granted would be detri- mental to any part of the municipality, they are duty-bound to turn it dawn. 7. Finally, it is important to remember that long a member may have known an applicant appealing the proposal may be, he can say full protection of the law, as well as the thinking people of the community. TOWN OF VAIL Terrell J. Minger Town Manager regardless of how or how emotionally no and have the respect of the dw ,~ TOWN 0 ~' VAI L BOARD OF ZONING, APPEALS, AND EXAMINERS MINUTES FOR MEETING OF MARCH 18, 1971 I. Meeting Called to Order A. The meeting was called to order at 9:20 a.m. on March 18, 1971 at Gasthof Gramsharnmer. B. The following members were present: Messrs. Clark, Hoyt, Knox, Young, and Struble (ex--officio). C. The following guests were present: Messrs. Richard H. Bailey, David Sage, M. M, Nottingham, H. Alan Zeigel, Fred Rumford, John Davie, Gaynor Miller and Hugh M. Hyder. D. Minutes of the Special Meeting held March 4, 1971 were approved, Motion was made by Mr. Hoyt and seconded by Mr. Knox. II. Past Business A. None III. New Business A. Case Z-1-71 - Scott/Rich request far variance regarding Floor Area Ratio. The Minutes of the Special Meeting held March ~+, 1971 were read so that all interested parties would be cognizant. of the facts presented at this Special Meeting by Mr. Fitzhugh Scott on behalf of Mr, and Mrs. Rich. After the facts of the case were presented, the Chairman, Mr. Bob Clark then called for discussion from the guests present. The following discussion was heard by the Board: Mr. M. M. Nottingham expressed several reasons why he was apposed to the variance being granted. First, he objected to the proposed height of the building since it would affect some of the views from the Talisman. Secondly, he felt it was the intent of the new zoning ordinance to decrease the size of buildings in proportion to the lot size and this Floor Area Ratio Variance would not re - flect the intent of the change in the zoning ordinance from 1.5:1 to 1:1. Finally, if' the variance were granted it would invite other such applications for variance, which would have to be granted if the Rich variance were granted, and this would be opposed to public sentiment as expressed at several meetia~gs of the- Board of Trustees when they were amending the ordinance. The next objection was presented by Mr, H. Alan Zeigel. He stated his objection on architectural grounds in that he feels the scale of the Town of Vail is an important thing and there must be great concern about compromising this important aspect. Mr. Fred Rumford and Mr. ~Tohn Davie expressed basiaally the same objections to the variance. Page 2 Minutes of Meeting Board of Zoning, Appeals and Hxaminers March 18, 1971 Mr. Larry Robinson, Town Attorney, was then called upon to express his legal opinion. He feels that it is not within the Board of Appeals' power to grant such a variance as it involves a Floor Area Ratio change which is a basic zoning concept that is not subject to review by the Board of Zoning, Appeals and Examiners but rests only with the Board of Trustees through an amendment of the ordinance. Mr. Terrell Minger, Town Manager, then expressed his objections on behalf of the Town. He gave his definition of good and .bad variances which stated in part that a goad valiance is one which alleviates a hardship for the property owners. He feels that there is no evident hardship involved in this particular case, and therefore if the variance were granted, it would be a bad variance which would grant a special privilege rather than provide relief based on hardship. He also suggested the proper disposition would be through the petition for rezoning of the area. The Chairman then called for duscussion Pram the Board. Mr. Clark stated that the granting of this variance would create a higher density than any area in Vail right now. Mr. Young stated that he could not grant a variance of this type in view of the legal council, Young made a motion that the variance Z-1-71 be denied which was seconded by Knox. The Chairman then called far a vote of the Board and the variance was unanimously denied. . B. Case B-1-71 - Mountain Haus request for appeal regarding door closers. The Mountain Haus variance to eliminate door closers was re- viewed and discussed by the Board with Mr. Hugh Hyder and Mr, Gaynor Miller. Many possibilities were covered such as fire doors at the head of the stairs on the 5th and 6th floors, door closers on those doors nearest the exits only, and ladders on the exterior balconies in lieu of door closers. The Board and Mr. Hyder and Mr. Miller were all concerned about the safety factor involved. It was brought to everyone's attention that the Town's present fire equipment was not capable of reaching beyond the third or possibly the fourth floor in the event of fire and this makes fire precautions especially important. The Board agreed to postpone their decision on this case until the next meeting, at which time the Mountain Haus people would submit preliminary designs on a ladder system on the exterior balconies in lieu of door closers which everyone concerned felt would not be the best solution, C, The following applications for Contractor's Licenses were reviewed and approved by the Board: 1. Aspen Construction Company 2. Burnett Plumbing and Heating Rlectrical 3. Glenwood Springs Masonry 4. Hoe ~ Grow, Inc. 5. Paul Keller 6. Palan Masonry, Inc. 7. Weeders Crane Service Page 3 Minutes of Meeta.ngg Board of Zoning, Appeals and Examiners March 18, 1971 A motion was made by George Knox that these licenses be approved pending the receipt of insurance certificates with a clause stating that the Town of Vail will be notified ].~ days prior to cancellation of the insurance. Motion seconded by Bob Young. IV. Other Business A. None V. Adjournment - The meeting adjourned at 10:45. TOWN OF VATS Ed Struble Secretary (Ex-Officio) • C~ r TOWN OF VAIL BOARD OF ~.ONINC, APPEALS AND EXAMINERS MINUTES FOR MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1971 I. Meeting Called to Order A. The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. an April 8, 1971 at the Town of Vail office. B. The following members were present: Messrs. Clark; Hoyt, Knox, Young, and 5truble (ex-officio). C. The following guests were present: Harald Westbye and Bob Lazier D. Minutes of the meeting of March 18, 1971 were approved as corrected. Motion was made by Mr. Hoyt and seconded by Mr. Knox. II. Past Business A. Mountain Haus request for appeal regarding door closers -- Case B-171. Mr. Gaynor Miller called to inform the Board that they were not yet prepared to have case reheard. The Board will hear the case at their next regular meeting. III. New Business A. Harald Westbye (Kiandra Lodge) Case ~-2-71 - Request for setback ." variance. Mr. Westbye requested a setback variance of 5'. It was then suggested by Mr. Struble that he request a variance of 3' since the building is already close to the property line in one place. Mr. Westbye stated that the complex was planned about two and one-half years ago. The lodge was built in 1969- but the remainder of the complex was not co~pleted at that tune due. to lack of money. Since the building was planned before any code was adopted, they feel they should be able to go ahead with the complex as planned. Vail Associates owns the property adjacent to the Kiandra and they did not protest the variance after it was posted for the required 10 day period. Mr, Knox moved the variance of 3' setback be granted. Motion was seconded by Young. The Board then voted unanimously to grant the variance. B. Mr. Bob Lazier presented his preliminary plans to the. Board for their feeling before the final glans are drawn for his new Lions Head project. He wants to substitute twa doors from bedrooms to outside balconies instead of a hallway for exit. His variance case on this matter will be heard at the Special meeting on the 22nd of April. C. The following applications for Contractor's Licenses were approved subject to receipt o.f insurance certificates and payment: 1. James Craig ,~ Page 2 Minutes of Meeting Board of Zoning, Appeals and Examiners April 8, 1971 2. 3. ~. 5. TV. Other Hibberd Construction Hoyt Construction B ~ B Excavating Vail Decorating Business It was decided to hold a special meeting on April 22 at 9:30 at -the Town of Vail office. At this time variances for Mountain Haus, Edelweiss and Bob Lazier will be heard. V. !Adjournment There was no further business and Mr. Clark made a motion to adjourn which was seconded by Mr. Hoyt. The meeting adjourned at 10:x+5 a.m. TOWN OF VATL £d Struble ecretary (Ex-Officio) dw r~ .. TOWN OF VAIL BOARD OF ZONING, APPEALS, AND ~~AMINERS MINUTES FOR MEETING OF APRIL 22, 1971 I. Meeting Called to Order A. The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Robert Clark, at 9:45 in the Town of Vail office. B. The following members were present: Messrs. Clark, Hoyt, Knox, Welin, Struble (ex-officio}. Mr. Rod Slifer was present as a guest to present his variance case. C. The Minutes of the Meeting of April 8 were approved. Motion made by Mr, Knox and seconded by Mr. Hoyt. II. Past Business A. None. III. New Business A. James W. Kough {as representative of Willow Place Venture) Case B-2-71 -- Request far two building variances. Mr. Kough called from Denver and asked that his case be postponed until the next meeting when he can be present to give the facts of his case. The Board members went to the Edelweiss (Willow Place Venture) to inspect the building and observe the areas where the variances are requested; namely, the basement parking area and the boiler room. B. The following applications for Contractor's Licenses were approved subject to receipt of insurance certificates and additional information as requested: 1. Rosa Brothers, Inc. 2. Carl Becerra 3. A to Z Home Repair Service 4. Powers Construction Company 5. Holy Cross Electric 6. Bickel Construction Company 7. Lysle Satterfield (Pat's Construction) 8. James Reinecke, Jr. Construction 9. Loup-Miller Construction Company C. The application from Garl Nelson Construction was disapproved by the Board on the grounds that we have received two letters,. one from Mr. Chinning We1in and one from Mr, William R. Brown, Jr. stating that they presently have liens against their property due to unpaid bills of Closer than Most Construction, of which Mr. Nelson was formerly a partner. Mr. Welin abstained from voting since he has a personal interest in -the matter. Mr. Clark, the Chairman of the Board, then dictated a letter to Mr. Nelson, copy attached. Mr. Nelson will have until May 13 to take care of the matter and meet with the Baird at that time. ' Page 2 Minutes of Meeting of April 22, 1971 :Board of Zoning, Appeals, and Examiners SV. Other Business A. Rodney E. Slifer - Case Z-3-71 -- Request for setback variance of ~+~' in lieu of 10'. Mr, Slifer has requested the variance for his residence on Lot 12, 6th Filing. He wants to add a garage on the west side of the house and add an entryway between the house and garage. Existing roof line will be preserved. A sundeck will also be added on top of the garage- but it will not be seen from the front as it is too far back, Construct ion will be concrete block with gypsum board on wall nearest the house. Ceiling will also be one hour construction. Mr. Slifer has presented us with a letter of approval from Mr. Merrill G. Hastings, J'r., the adjoining property owner. A decision will be made by the Board at the next meeting on May 13 since the variance was not pub- lished for the required ten days. V. Adjournment A. As there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:1.5. SOWN OF VAIL ~~ Ed Struble Secretary {Ex-Officio) dw rs • TOWN OF VAIL BOARD OF ZONING, APPEALS, AND EXAMINERS MINUTES FOR MEETING OF MAY 13, 1971 Meeting Called to Order: A. The meeting was called to order at 9:20 a.m. at the Tivoli Lodge. I. B. The following members were present: Messrs. Clark, Hoyt, Welin, Young and Struhle (ex-officio). C. The following guests were present: Messrs. Dick Judd, Attorney for Carl Nelson Construction; Chuck Ogilby, Apollo Park; Robert Lazier; Steve Boyd, Closer Than Most Construction; Bud Parks, Gondola Ski Shop; Buck Rink, Hyder ~ Bush Construction; John Suchar, Foster Lumber Company; and James Kough, Edelweiss. II. Past Business A. Carl Nelson Construction application for contractor's license: Mr. Welin abstained from voting as he has a personal interest in the matter. The following background information was given by Mr, Judd, attorney far Carl Nelson Construction: The articles of incorporation for Closer Than Most Construction were filed April 1970. Relationship between Mr. Nelson and Mr. Boyd was severed in December 1970 because of disagreements about the management of the company; however, the corporation continued with each Mr. Boyd and Mr. Nelson owning half of the Corporation but with Mr. Boyd handling all management for the corporation. Mr. Judd presented the argument that -the contracts for the Welin and Brown residences were signed by the corporation (Closer Than Most Construction) and not as a partnership (Boyd and Nelson) and therefore the corporation and not the individuals are responsible and Nelson's license should therefore be granted on this basis. Mr. Hoyt stated that the Board cannot accept this argument since the Board is looking at each individuals' qualifi- cations and financial responsibility and it does not make any difference that the person in question has farmed another company under another name. Boyd stated that the corporation has paid all of the outstanding bills and the work is being finished. Mr. Boyd stated that he is assuming responsibility for liens and Boyd will write a letter to the Board stating that Closer Than Most Construction (the Corporation) is responsible for Brown's and Welin's residences and not Carl Nelson as an individual or Carl Nelson Construction Company. A motion was made by Mr. Young to Carl Nelson Construction on satisfactory adjustment of the Board. The motion was seconded mously by the Board. that we grant a 30 day extension a provisional basis pending two complaints received by the by Mr. Hoyt and passed unani- S l Page Two Minutes for Meeting of May 13, 1971 Board of 'honing, Appeals and Examiners III. New Business A. Application for contractor's license by Closer Than Most Construction Company: A motion was made by Mr. Young that Closer Than Most Construction license application be handled in the same manner as Carl Nelson Construction. The motion was seconded by Mr. Welin. B. Case Z-6-71 - Gondola Ski, Shop application for a set back variance: The setback variance in accordance with drawings submitted by Mr. Parks, was granted subject to written approval from Vail Associates for the Stairs which project into the tract land. The Board members looked at the proposed site and it was agreed that the tract land must be preserved as it was before the addition. A rr~otion was made by Chan We1in to grant the variance with the above provisions and seconded by Bob Clark. C. Case B-2-71 - James W. Kough (Edelweiss) - Application for two building variances, one for combustion air vent and one for trash chute vestibule: A motion was made by Mr. Hoyt that a solution ,be worked out between Building Official and Mr. Kough on the venting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Young. Mr, Struble agreed to meet with Mr. Kough's representative at the site and work out the required details for the combustion air vent. A motion was made by Mr. Hoyt that variances regarding trash chute vestibule not be granted and that Mr. Kough be required to construct a vestibule around the trash chute in the basement. The motion was seconded by Mr. Welin. D. Case 8-3-71 - Hibberd Construction Company application for building variance with regard to chasES {Table 17-A of Uniform Building Code}: Motion was made by Mr. Hoyt that we accept Building Official's judgement in this case. The motion was seconded by Mr. Young. The following recommendation was made by Mr. Struble: The contractor should use Albi--Clad on steel members and non-organic material be stuffed into the chases. A motion was made by Mr. Welin that the variance be .granted with the suggestions made by Mr. Struble incorporated. The motion was seconded by Mr. Clark. E. Case B-5-71 - Robert T. Lazier application for building variance with regard to placement of stairs. A suggestion was made by Mr. Struble that stairs be moved to center of building instead of on the end of building to promote better fire safety. Lazier must agree and write a letter to the Board stating that 15' of setback will be provided on parcel C when it is built on, and that parcel 1 will net be used for a building. Motion made by Mr. Hoyt that the variance be granted pending receipt of letters from Mr. Lazier and Vail Associates with respect to parcel 1. r Page 3 Minutes of Meeting of May 13, 1971 Board of Zoning, Appeals, and Examiners F. Case 8-4-71 - Robert T. Lazier - Request for building variance with regard to section 3302 (a) of the Uniform Building Code: A motion was made by Mr. Hoyt that the variance not to provide two exits as required in section 3302 (a) be approved provided that an alternate method of exit be provided by way of ladders from the balconies. The motion was seconded by Mr. Young. G. Case Z-3-71 .- Rodney E. Slifer - Request for setback variance: This case was presented by Mr. Slifer at the. April. 22, 1971 meeting as he was not planning to be in town for the meeting of May 13, 1971, Mr. Struble stated that he could see no danger from the standpoint of fire since there is a great distance from the existing house Cliastings). Mr. Hastings has given his approval to the Board for the variance, A motion was made by Mr. Young that the variance be granted to allow a 5' setback from the property line. The motion was seconded by Mr. Welin. It was suggested that a letter be written to Mr. Slifer stating that he must be sure where his property line is and should not base his opinion on the position of the existing fence. H. Case Z-4--71 - Vail Fire Protection District - Request for setback variance: A variance request was made far a 6.' set- back variance on the west side. A motion was made by Mr, Hoyt that the variance be denied and that the Fire Protection District must meet the 1D' setback requirement, but the Board would grant a variance on the South property line and the. building must be moved on the property in accordance with the above. The variance was denied on the basis of assessibility to the sewer line that runs between the two buildings. The variance as granted would allow the building to be no closer than 6' on the South property line, I. Case Z-5--71 - Vail Fire Protection District - Request for setback variance: A variance request was made for a 3' setback variance on the property line which fronts on the road. A motion was made by Mr. Welin that the variance be granted if the Fire Protection District Board agrees to accept recommendation made for Case Z-4-71. The motion was seconded by Mr. Welin. IV. Qther Business A. The following applications far Contractor's Licenses were approved subject to receipt of insurance certificates and other missing informata.on: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Airway, Inc. Amco Electric Stan Anderson Benedict's Closer Than Most Construction Down East Landscaping Gary Hamilton - see III A. '' Page Four Minutes of Meeting of May 13, 1971 Board of Zoning, Appeals, and Examiners $. 9. 10. 11. 12 . 13. Hyder ~ Bush Construction W. B. Johnson Company Houston Construction Company Robert Lazier (subject to payment for license) Loper Electric W ~ W Excavators V. Adjournment A. As there was no other business, the Board adjourned at 1'2:30 p.m. and met at the Gondola Ski Shop to inspect the -site. TOWN OF VAIL ~~ '' SS __ Ed Sti~uble Secretary {Ex--Officio) dw • • i~=~ _ ~ - ___ _ - .~ • TOWN OF VAIL, BOARD OF ZONING, APPALS, MINUTES FOR MEETTNG OF I. Meeting Ca11ed to Order: AND EXAMINERS MAY 13, 1971 A. The meeting was called to order at 9:20 a.m. at the Tivoli Lodge. B. The following members were present: Messrs. Clark, Hoyt, Welin, Young and Struble (ex-officio}. C. The following guests were present:' Messrs. Dick Judd, Attorney for Carl Nelson Construction; Chuck Ogilby, Apollo Park; Robert Lazier; Steve Boyd, Closer `Than Most Construction; Bud Parks, Gondola Ski Shop; Buck Rink, Hyder ~ Bush Construction; John Suchar, Foster Lumber Company; and James Kough, Edelweiss. ST. Past Business A. Carl Nelson Construction application for contractor's license: Mr. Welin abstained from voting as he has a personal interest in the matter. The following background information was .given by Mr, Judd, attorney far Carl Nelson Construction: The articles of incorporation for Closer Than Most Construction were filed April 1970, Relationship between Mr. Nelson and Mr. Boyd was severed in December 1970 because of disagreements about the management of the company; however, the corporation continued with each Mr. Boyd and Mr. Nelson owning half of the Corporation but with Mr. Boyd handling all management for the corporation. Mr. Judd presented the argument that the contracts for the Welin and. Brown residences were signed by the corporation (Closer Than Most Construction) and not as a partnership {Boyd and Nelson) and therefore the corporation and not the individuals are responsible and Nelson's license should therefore be granted on this basis. Mr. Hoyt stated that the Board cannot accept this argument since the Board is looking at each individuals` quali~i- cations and financial responsibility and it does not make any difference that the person in question has formed another company under another name. Boyd stated that the corporation .has paid all of the outstanding bills and the work is being finished. Mr. Boyd stated that he is assuming responsibility for 1~ens and Boyd wi11 write a letter to the Board stating that C1.aser Than Most Construction {the Corporation} is responsible for Brown's and Welin's residences and not Carl Nelson as an individual or Carl Nelson Construction Company. A motion was made by Mr. Young that we grant a 30 day extension to Carl Nelson Construction on a provisional basis pending satisfactory adjustment of the two complaints received by the Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hoyt and passed unani- mously by the Board. ~ ~ TOWN OF VAIL BOARD OF ZONING, APPEALS, AND EXAMINERS MINUTES OF MEETING OF JUNE 10, 1971 I. Meeting Called to Order: A, The meeting was called to order at 9:25 a.m. in the Office of the Town of Vail. B. The following members were present: Messrs. Welin, Knox, Young and Hoyt and Struble (ex-officio). C. The following guests were present: Messrs, Stuart Brown, Attorney for Closer Than Most Construction; Steve Boyd; and Carl Nelson. D. The Minutes for the Meeting of May 13 were approved with the following correction. In section III, A. Mr. We1in did not second the motion because he abstained from voting. Mr. Hoyt seconded the motion. II. Past Business A. Contractors' licenses for Closer Than Most Construction and Carl Nelson Construction ~ A letter from Mr. Bill Brown was read (copy attached) and Mr. We1in stated that the line on his property had been released and the work substantially completed by Mr. Boyd. A letter of complaint from Mr. Steve Boyd and a letter from his attorney Stuart Brown against Carl Nelson Construction were presented (copies attached). Mr. Brown lodged a complaint on behalf of Mr. Boyd charging that Mr. Nelson entered into an agreement with Mr. Boyd in September of 1970 and that Mr. Nelson has not met the terms of this agreement which stated that Mr. Nelson could compete with Closer Than Most Construction if on December 15 he would tran s fer his share of the corporation to Mr. Boyd and pay 50 per cent of the obligations outstanding against the corporation so that the obligations of Closer Than Mast Construction could be reduced to zero. There is approximately $5,000 due from Mr. Nelson (one debt is to Internal Revenue Service). Mr. Nelson stated that he had never received all of the informa- tion he requested from Mr. Boyd regarding financial obligations. Mr. Boyd stated that he had furnished Mr. Nelson with an ac- counting of the obligations, but that he would immediately furnish any additional information which Mr. Nelson requested. Mr. Nelson stated that he does recognize that he has an obliga- tion to Closer Than Most Construction which he will take care of when he receives the information as requested, Mr. Boyd asked that the matter be settled within two weeks. Mr. Hoyt stated that it is not the responsibility of the Board to settle or mediate the dispute b®tween Mr. Nelson and Mr. Boyd, but to examine the financial responsibility of each individual as provided by Ordinance II {Series of 1971). ' Page 2 Minutes of Meeting of June 10, 1971 Board of Zoning, Appeals, and Examiners A motion was then made by Mr. Hoyt that a two week extension be granted to both Closer Than Most Construction and Car]. Nelson Construction pending approval of the 'T'own Attorney {which was granted upon his return). The- motion was seconded by Mr. Young and the motion passed unanimously by the Board with Mr. Welin abstaining because of a personal interest in the matter. It was then decided to hold a special meeting on June 28, 1971 at 9:00 a.m. in the Town Office at which time the licen- sing of the two contractors will. be decided. III. New Business A. Case Z-7-71 - Mountain Bell - Mountain Bell has requested a setback variance of 3' in lieu of 15'. Mr. Struble was consulted, and since there is no fire danger involved, he suggested the variance be granted. A motion was made by Mr. Hoyt that the variance be granted and seconded by Mr. Knox and passed unanimously by the Board. B. The fallowing contractor's licenses were granted pending receipt of insurance certificates and other information: 1. G. R. Spencer Construction 2. Louis Cook Plumbing and Heating 3. Vail Plumbing Corp. 4. Vail Associates 5. United Lumber and Merchantile 6. Mountain Scope 7. Ben Edgin Painting 8. Glaude J. Martin 9. Heini Larese 10. J 8 L Decorating ll. Cutkomp Brothers, Inc. l2. Batchel Sheetmetal 13. Hi-Land Electric 1~+. Alpine Masonry 15. Ira R. Trout l6. Esser 8 Lueth Electric C. Percy Saddoris, d/b/a/ Valley Plumbing - It has come to the Board's attention that there are possible liens out- standing against this contractor. A motion was made by Mr. Knox that a 30 day provisional license be granted to Valley Plumbing and that the Board request a financial statement from Mr. Saddoris and references from Mr. Jim Cunningham and Chamonix Chalets. The motion was seconded by Mr. Young and passed unanimously by the Board. • Page 3 Minutes of Meeting of June 10, 1971 Board of Zoning, Appeals, and Examiners • 1V. Other Business A. Expiration of terms as Board members of Chan Welin and Mitch Hoyt - A motion was made by Mme. Young that Mr. We1in's resignation be accepted with regrets and that we recommend to the Town Manager and the Board of Trustees that they appoint Mr. Jim Viele to fill the vacancy created by Mr. We1in's resignation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hoyt and approved unanimously by the Board. Mr. Young then made a motion that we suggest the reappointment of Mr. Hoyt. The motion was seconded by Mr, Knox and approved unanimously by the Board. B. A motion was made by Mr. Young that we direct the Building inspector to write a latter to Mr. Gaynor Miller regarding Case B-1-71 to 'the effect that he must be present at the special meeting of June 28 in order to resolve this case. V. Adjournment A. As there was no other business, the meeting adjourned at 11:00. TOWN OF VAZL Ed Struble Building Official (Secretary - Ex-officio) dw • ~_... _J i ~ J~ TOWN 0 ~' VAT L • BOARD OF ZONING, APPEAi,S, AND EXAMINERS MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING OF JUNE 28, 1971 I. Meeting Called to Order: A. The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. in the Town of Vail off ice. B. The following members were present: Messrs. Clark, Knox, Viele, and Young C. The Following guests were present: Messrs. Jim Cunningham, Gaynor Miller, Larry Robinson, Richard Judd, Stuart Brown, Chuck Ogilby, Phil Krichbaum, Steve Boyd and Carl Nelson. II. Past Business A. Contractors' licenses for Carl Nelson Construction and Closer Than Most Construction - The Board First discussed the legal ramifications of Ordinance 2 (Series of 1971) with Larry Robinson and also discussed how broad the financial responsibility clause should be interpreted and also how it should be applied to Closer Than Most'Construction and Carl Nelson Construction. After legal advice from Mr. Robinson, Mr. Clark stated that the Board is not going to delve into the personal problems of the two corporations. Mr. Stuart Brown then restated the facts established at the last meeting. Mr. Brown stated that Mr. Nelson is an individual contractor debtor and there is a dispute between two parties that makes it no longer an internal matter of one corporation. Mr. Judd then asked what is meant by respnnsib.ility? He then stated that the place to make a decision about the financial dispute is in the court room and not before the Board of Examiners. If the Board does not issue these two licenses on financial grounds then there will be a problem in that contractors will not be able to deal with subcontractors- if he can force payment on the grounds of revocation of a license. A motion was then made by Mr. Young that bath licenses be granted and that the parties settle their awn financial matters. The motion was seconded by Mr. Viele and passed unanimously by the Board. ~I Z . Mr. Brown then asked fihat Mr. Robinson prepare a finding to establish the interpretation of the Ordinance. Mr. Robinson stated that he didn't feel this was necessary or. proper since each case before the Board is different and cannot be compared to this case. Mr. Brown then asked that. the record reflect that he feels the two are individual companies now and should not be treated as an internal dispute within a corporation, New Business A. Case B-6-71 - Jim Cunningham - Rec~u.est for setback variance of 10' in lie u of lb'. A ' Page 2 Minutes of Special Meeting of June 28, 1971 Board of Zoning, Appeals anc~ Examiners Mr. Cunningham requested the variance because there is a strip of tract land next to the area where the building will be built and the 10' setback will better utilize the Land. It will be safe from the standpoint of fire because nothing wi11 be built on the tract land. A motion was made by Mr. Young that the variance be granted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Knox and passed unanimously by the Board. B. Case B-8-71 - Jim Cunningham - Request to use non-fireproof shingles in lieu of fireproof ones. The Board decided that Mr. Struble should be consulted be-fore a decision is made on this variance, Tv. Adjournment A. As there was not other business the meeting adjourned at 10:5. TOWN OF VAIL i Ed Struble `~ Secretary (ex-officio) dw LJ a - ~ TOWN 0~' VAIL BOARD OF ZONING, APPEALS, AND EXAMINERS MINUTES FOR MEETING OF JULY 8, ].971 T. Meeting Called to Order: A. The meeting was called to order at 9:15 a.m. in the Town of Vail Office. B. The following members were present: Messrs. Clark, Hoyt, Knox, Veile, and Struble (ex-officio). C. The following guest was present: Mr. Al Zeigel. D. A motion was made by Mr. Veile that the minutes of the Special Meeting of June 28, 1971 be approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Knox and approved unanimously. II. Past Business A. Contractors License for Percy Saddoris d/b/a Valley Plumbing - A letter of complaint from Mr. Jim Cunningham was read. It was suggested by Mr. Clark that we check with the County Clerk of Mesa about the possibility of bankruptcy proceedings against Mr. Saddoris in the Grand Junction area (copy of letter attached}, A motion was made by Mr. Hoyt that a letter be written to Mr. Saddoris by the Berard notifying him that he is operating under a temporary license pending investiga- tion of the bankruptcy. The motion was seconded by Mr. Vei1e and approved unanimously by the Board. III. New Business A. Case B-7-71 - Application for variance by Mr. Al Zeigel on behalf of the Talisman for a non-comforming door at the top of a stairway. The code.: does not allow a door to open aver a stairway and there is no landing as required by -the Code, Mr. Struble has suggested that the door open in rather than over the stairs and this has been changed on the plans as suggested. Mr, Struble recommended approval of the variance as neither the stairway nor the door are required by Code as exits. Two exits have already been provided as required and this would simply be used as a service entry for the restau- rant for deliveries, etc. and the'door is necessary for security purposes. A motion was made by Mr. Knox that variance ~-7-71 be granted.. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hoyt and passed, unanimously by the Board. IV. Other Business A. Case B-8-71 - Jim Cunningham application for building variance far Lions Square II - Mr. Cunningham has asked for a variance which would allow him to use wood shingles rather than fire- retardant wood shingles. Mr. Struble recommended that the variance not be granted and that fire retardant shingles be required since the Code is not stric-~ly met even by the ;:: Page 2 Minutes for Meeting of .Tuly S, 2371 Board of Zoning, Appeals, and Examiners fire retardant shingles. The Board voted to delay a decision until the next meeting when Mr. Cunningham can be present. B. 'The following applications for Contractors Licenses were approved pend~.ng receipt of insurance certificates: 1. McBride Concrete Construction 2. Logan's Construction 3. Vail Contractors 4. Aspen Va11ey Plumbing and Heating,. Xnc. 5. C. A. Stanley Plumbing and Heating 6. Shaver Refrigeration and Appliance Service 7. `Rose Drywall 8. Petersen Associates 9. Paul's Homes, Inc. 10, Kendall Electric Co. 11.. Harvey Construction Company A motion was made by Mr. Knox that these licenses be approved as noted above and seconded by Mr. Hoyt. The motion was passed unanimously by the Board. V. As there was no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:45. TOWN OF VAIL Ed Struble Esc Officio dw ~ ... ~ TOWN OF VAIL BOARD OF ZONING, APPEALS AND EXAMINERS MINUTES POR MEETING OF AUGUST l2, 1971 1. Meeting Called to Order A. The meeting was called to order at 9:20 in the Town of Vail Office. B. The following members were present: Messrs. Clark, Viele, Knox, Young and Struble {ex-officio). C. The following guests were present: Messrs. Gorsuch, Craig and Keller. D. The minutes of the meeting of duly 8, 1971 were approved. IT. Past Business A. Contractors license for Percy Saddoris d/b/a Valley Plumbing - After considering all possibilities, the Board decided they had na other choice than to issue a license and if there are further complaints, Mr. Saddoris will not be issued a -license next year. Mr. Knox made a motion that we-grant a license to Mr. Saddoris which was seconded by Mr. Viele. Mr. Young abstained from voting as he felt Mr. Saddoris should not be granted a license due to certain problems that the Bank of Vail had experienced. ITT. New Business A. Case Z-8-71 - David Gorsuch - Request for setback variance. Mr. Gorsuch requested that he be allowed to erect a twa car garage within 5' {in lieu of ~0') of property line. Mr. Clark stated that Mr. Pulis had verbally objected to the variance when Mr. Clark spoke to him on Sunday, August 8; however, Mr. Pulis did not appear at the meeting nor lodge a formal complaint in writing..Mr~.-t Clark informed the Board that the notice requirement of the Ordinance had been met and that in addition, he had. personally informed Mr. Pulis.of the time and place of the meeting. It was pointed out by both Mr. Clark and Mr. Gorsuch that the lot next to the proposed setback variance is not useable as a building site as it drops off at such an angle that a house could not be built on this lot. Mr. Gorsuch also showed that the garage would be aeseth~tically mare pleasing with the garage located sa that the variance is necessary than if the garage were placed on the tat i~ such a fashion to make the variance unnecessary. Mr..Knox made a motion that we grant the variance if Mr. Gorsuch would- agree to plant trees along th.e property line toward the Pulis house. The motion was seconded by Mr. Young and passed by the Board with . Mr, Clark voting negatively. z Board of Zoning, Appeals and Examiners Minutes of Meeting of August 12, 1971 Page 2 B. Case B-9-71 - Elton Parks, Jr. by Ke11er Construction -- Request for building variance to erect steel spiral stair in place of existing wood stairs. The Board asked for Mr. Struble's opinion and he stated that he felt that the steel spiral stair will b~ much safer than the existing; wood stair even through it does not meet the Uniform Build- ing Code. A motion was made by Mr. Viele to grant the variance and seconded by Mr. Knox anal approved unanimously by the Board. C. Case B-16-71 - Vail Associates - Request for building variance to a11ow use of 36" guardrail in lieu of 42" guardrail in accordance with the Uniform Building Code for the Gold Peak Addition. It was pointed out that the new guardrail is a continuation of existing guardrail which is 36" in height. The appearance of a ~+2" guardrail connected to the existing 36" guardrail would not be pleasing. There is also a problem of space if the 3.6" guardrail is replaced entirely with new material. Mr. Knox made a motion that a variance be granted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Young and passed unanimously by the Board. Mr. Struble stated that he has no objection to this. IV. Other Business A. The following applications for contractors' licenses were approved subject to receipt of insurance certificates: 1. Athey Beaman Company, Inc. 2. Dover Elevator Company 3, Eagle Valley Roofing 4. Powler ~ Son 5. Gulf Automatic Sprinkler Company 6. Howard Electric 7, Steve Jones 8. Ludwig Kurz and Karl Hochtl 9. Quality Plastering 10. C. A. Stanley Plumbing and Heating 11. Isiodoro Quintana 12. R. A. Waffensmith ~ Company 13. Garfield Roofing Company 1~+. Ace Roofing Company, Inc. 15. Terrence P. Cowhey B. It was also discussed what procedure should be followed when contractors have failed to get insurance information into the Town of Vail office, after a reasonable period from the date a temporary license is issued. It was de- cided that the errant contractors should be written letters to be sent by certified mail stating that their licenses would be revoked Within 7 days from the date of the letter if insurance information is not received within that time. a f Board of Zoning, Appeals and Examiners Minutes of Meeting of August 12, 19'71 Page 3 V. Adjournment - As there was no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 a.m. Respectfully submitted, TOWN OF VAIL i Ed Struble Ex-Officio dw • ~~ ~ TOWN OF VAIL BOARD OF ZONING, APPEALS AND E.XAMIN~RS MINUTES FOR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, ].971 1. Meeting Called to Order A. The meeting was called to order at 9:25 a.m, in the Town of Vail Off ice. B. The following members were present: Messrs. Clark, Knox and Viele. C. The following guests were present: Messrs. Fran Bush and Mike Perkins of Roark and Associates. D. A motion was made by Mr. Knox that the minutes of the meeting of August 12, 1971 be approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Viele and approved unanimously by the Board. IT. Past Business A. Contractor's license for Vail Contractors - A certified letter was mailed to Vail Contractors on August 12 request- ing them to appear at the meeting of September 9 to answer questions about a false statement on their application for contractors license. A motion was made by Mr. Knox that their license be revoked as of September 9 by the Building Official. The motion was seconded by Mr. Vie1e and passed unanimously by the Board. III. New Business A. Case B-11L71 -- LaPinata, C. L. Baribeau -Request for building Variance to construct a plywood and shake roof over outside bar in nonconformance with Uniform Building Cade. Mr. Clark gave the following background information to the Board: The structure was completed without obtaining a building permit or permission from the Architectural Control Board. They have since gotten a building permit•subject to this variance being granted. The building code does not allow plywood o~ shake shingles for buildings of this type. Fire Chief Fran Bush feels that it is a fire hazard due to the materials used for construction. It would be very easily ignited from any outside heat source. A suggestion-was made by Mr. Clark to delay decision on this variance until the special meeting on September 17 so that the Board and the Architectural Control Board will have an opportunity to look at the structure. A motion was made to delay the decision by Mr. Viele and seconded by Mr. Knox. The motion passed unanimously. B. Case Z-9-71 - Donald R. Roark ~ Associates for Steve Arnold - • Request for setback variance. Mr. Mike Perkins of Roark and Associates presented the facts to the Board. Their firm had worked under the assumption that a variance had been granted and they proceeded with the working dxawings on that assump- tion. They do not wish to destroy the aspen trees by moving the house further back on the lot. Mr. Clark pointed out that there is no possible way to locate the hawse on the site without • Board of honing, Appeals and Examiners Minutes for Meeting of September 9, 1971 Page 2 needing a variance or reducing the size of the building. It then came to the attention of the Board that the Archi- tectural Control Board has not yet passed the plans for this building and may require roof overhangs which would necessitate a further variance on the setbacks. Therefore, a motion was made by Mr. Clark to delay the decision until the special meeting of the 17th. The motion was seconded by Mr. Knox and passed unanimously by the Board. C. Case 2-10--71 - Robert T. Lazier - Request for setback variance of 6' in lieu of 10' on east and west sides of LionsHead Parcel A building, in order to build 4' balconies. After the Board reviewed the plans, a motion was made by Mr. Knox that the variance be granted and was seconded by Viele. The Motion passed unanimously. IV. Other Business A. The following contractors licenses were ~:pproved subject to receipt of insurance information: 1. A. Cox Construction 2. Amcor, Inc. 3. Porto-Mix Concrete, Inc. 4. Louis Cook Plumbing ~ Heating, Inc. 5. Denver Drywall Company 6. Packard Enterprises 7. Ace Roofing, Inc. 8. Tiago Construction 9. Prestressed Concrete 10. Pitkin County Pool Supply 11. Charles Thompson 12. Harms Steel, Inc. 13. Victor Galling 14. Delta Dry Wall 15. Green ~ Green Construction V. Adjournment - As there was no other business, the meeting ad- journed at 10:85. Respectfully submitted, 'SOWN VAI Ed Struble 't' Building Official dw 8 'w; .:~ TOWN OF VAZL BOARD, OF ZONING, APPEALS-AND EXAMINERS MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING 0~' SEP'TEMBE'R 17, 1971 I. Meeting Called to Order A. The meeting was called to order at 9:35 in the Town of Vail office. B. The following members were present: Messrs. Clark, Knox, Hoyt, and Viele. C. The following guests were present: MESSrS. Mike Perkins of Donald R. Roark 8 Associates representing Sieve Arnold and Mr. Rodney Davis representing Vail Medical Clinic, and Fire Chief Fran Bush. D. The minutes of the last meeting were read and approved. • II. Past Business A. Case B-11Y71 - LaPinata, C. L. Baribeau - Request for building variance to construct a plywood and-shake roof over outside bar in noa~conformance with, Uniform Building Code, Mr. Clark and the Architectural Control Board recom- mended that we uirite a letter to the Sign Review Committee telling them that the LaPinata has four-signs. Fire Chief; Fran Bush feels that the construction is afire hazard. The Architectural Control Board was contacted on this vari- ance and they have no objections to the .appearance of the - structure. ~A motion was made by Mr. T~oyt that LaPinata be required to install 5/8" gypsum board on the underneath por- tion of~the~structure: The motion was seconded by Mr. Viele~ and approved unanimously. B. Case Z-9-71 - Donald R. Roark 8 Associates-for Steve Arnold - request for side setback variance of 3' in lieu o£ 10~. Upon the recommendations of the Architectural Control Board, . a motion was made by Mr. Vele that the 3' setback be allowed so that the owner can add •18" roof overhang. The motion w~.s seconded by~Mr. Knox and approved unani~riously. Mr. Clark stated that we would write the arcYiitect a letter stating that no portion of the building, ix~aluding overhang, may project closer than 3' of the= property line. III. New Business A. Case B--13-71 -:Vail Medical Clini.c.- Request to omzt.fire sprinkler system from building in. nonconformance with Sec. 3802 (a) b of the Uniform Building Code. Mr. Rodney. Davis - ~ explained the reasons for the request as follows: When the building was origiaially designed two years ago, the Uniform Building Code did not require sprin]clers. Bids were. taken on the set of plans without a sprinkler system and still went over the budget. Mr. Davis explained that there are several groups who are trying to have this section of the Uniform Building Code cYiangecl. I : C . B . 0 . , However, does not .feel that the law will be changed. He also stated that Denver does not require a sprinkler system in hospitals. Mr. Davis also stated that it will cost an additional $5,000 . ~,:_ ~ - Page 2 Board of Zoning, Appeals and Examiners Minutes of Special Meeting of September 17, 1971 to $6.,000 to add the sprinklers. Also, the only thing that will burn in the Clinic building is the furniture and bedding as everything else is fire rated. It is his opinion that the sprinklers are unnecessary due to the building being Type I construction. Fire Chief, Fran Bush then stated that the first time he considered this problem he had a tendency to lean toward Mr. Davis' opinion, but thezi he started thinking about the large number of people in the building who will be using oxygen which is very flammable. All material in the building becomes impregnated with the oxygen and it only takes a spark to set afire. Also, there may be only one person on .duty at night .and this one person could riot engage a standpipe system. and put out a fire quick- ly enough to save the lives of persons in burning beds. We as a Board would be in jeopardy if we do not enforce our Code and tha,s could also cause our fire. rating to go up. Mr. Clark thin stated that we cannot base our decision on monetary considerations, Mr. Davis then pointed out that there has not been a death recorded in Denver in an oxygen fire. After considerable discussion from the Board, a motion was made by Mr. Knox that the variance not be granted and the Clinic be required to install sprinklers, The motion was seconded by Mr. Hoyt and approved- unanimously by the Board. IV. Other Business A. Appeal of license revocation of Vail Contractors - Mr. Bill Jordan, a partner in Vail Contractors, stated the position of the firm as follows: They had a jab in Minturn and the firm's subcontractor, Mr. Waide, put a lien on the building. Vail Contractors were the general contractor through an oral agreement. Three or four years ago they had a job for Len Campbell for four large apart- ments and they had to loan him money. Three years later they were doing a job for Bob Young. Jordan paid back the loan on the prior job and this left them short of money to pay Mr. Waide. The lien on the job has been taken care of and their interpretation of the question was that the lien had been applied by them or to them. Item 12 was then changed on the application. A motion was made by Mr. Viele that license be reinstated anal seconded by Mr. Knox. The motion was approved unanimously by the Board. B. The following applications for contractors licenses were approved subject to receipt of necessary insurance information: 1. Mr. Erich Windisch 2. Lane 8 Company 3. Partin ~ Son 4. Master Pools 5. Hillcrest Glass, Inc. 6. Brent Service 7. Garfield Stucco ~ Plaster 8. Concrete Pumping, Inc. Pe.ge 3 Board of Zoning, Appeals and Examiners Minutes of Special Meeting of September 17, 1971 i• V, Adjournment - As there was no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 1.0:50- a.m. Respectfully submitted, £d Struble I~ Ex-Officio dw • .. _ .°. ~ . TowN o~ VAIL BOARD OF ZONING, .APPEALS AND EXAMINERS MINUTES FOR MEETING OF OCTOBER 21, 1971 I. Meeting Called to Order A. The meeting was called to order at 9:25 a.m. in the new Municipal Building. B. The following members were present: Messrs. Clark, Knox, Hoyt, Viele, Young, and Struble {ex-officio). C. The following guests were present: Messrs. Arthur Bishop, Bi11 Bishop, Gordon Pierce representing Mr. and Mrs. Rich; Donald Chaplin of the Mountain Haul; Terrence P. Cowhey; Chuck Ogilby of Apollo Park; Evan Bickell of Frederic Bene- dict and Associates representing the Kiandra Lodge; Terry Dragoo of Rogers, Nagel, Langhart and Mr. Ross Davis repre- senting the Lodge Associates. - D. Minutes of the meeting of September 17 were deferred until the next meeting due to the long agenda. II. Past Business A. Case B-1-71 - The Mountain Haus - Mr. Don Chaplin appeared to represent this case which has been pending since February. Mr. Chaplin feels there are three options open to the Moun- tain Haus: Fire escapes on the outside of the building, which he feels would architecturally disfigure it; partition -~ sections to make the stairways smokeproof enclosures; or door closers. They have tried several types of ctiosers, but none have worked well. Builders Service Bureau has given them much information and they are going to try another type of device. Would like to keep their costs dawn, but want to please the Board. Mr. Clark recommended that we give them the three alternatives to choose among and that they be given a time limit., Mr. Chaplin stated that they would have one closer. installed this week and if it works, he will order them right now. Mr. Struble then stated that he would not sign a permanent certificate of occupancy. It must be a letter which will state all of the facts that didn't meet Code. It will be a provisional occupancy permit.. A motion was made by Mr. Knox that the Mountain Haus choose one of the three alternatives and that the. project be com- pleted by December 1 and completed to the acceptance of the Building Official. III. New Business A, Case Z-11-71 - Request for setback variance of ~' in lieu of 10' - Mr. Arthur Bishop, Mr. Bill Bishop and Mr. Gordon Pierce appeared to represent the interests of the Rich's and Mr. Fitzhugh Scott. Mr. Pierce stated that they need a set- back on two corners because. of the strange shape of the lob. These lots were orginally designed for residences and now commercial buildings are being built and it is a problem to set the larger buildings on the odd shaped lots. He further explained that the building was .originally designed With a scissor stair which would not meet the Uniform Building Page 2 Minutes fob Meeting of October 21,-19'71 Board of Zoning, Appeals and Examiners Code. This necessitated adding two exits on the corners and that is the only thing that made the setback variance necessary. If they do not get the variance, it wi~.l be necessary to completely redesign the proposed building. He feels that the building is very much in scale with the surrounding buildings. The Bishops, who are.the adjo~.ning property owners on the west stated their feelings as follows: This is a violation, but is a practical type of thing and should be considered as an exception. They have no objection. to the building as it is designed as there is adequate space to get fire equipment through and also to prevent fire from jumping from one building to another. The Board fee]~s that the objectors are objecting to the building rather than to the setback because of lass of view: A motion was made by Mr. Young"that the variance be granted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Knox and approved unanimously by t'he board. B. Case B-19-71 -- Terrence P. Cowhey - Request for building variance far an alternative method of exit from a sleeping room. Mr. Cowhey stated that everyone concerned through the planning and building thought that they were meeting the Code. The Architect stated his opinion and had no written notice from the Building Department whether .this was satis~ factory. During this periad, Ed was on vacation. The fabri- cator spoke to Diclc and until the lOth:of this month, lie was under the impression that the problem had been resolved, The wall in question is glass and the ventilation is provided near the ceiling. They-have not tried to evade any of the problems, and the material is already fabricated. The aethetics of the building prohibit windows or doors and the fabrication is such that they cannot be added now. Mr. Hoyt made a motion that an interior door be placed in the master bedroom between the two rooms for exit, The . motion was seconded by Mr, Viele and approved unanimously by the Board. C. Case Z-13-71 - James Slevin - Request for setback variance of 5' on the northeast side in .lieu of. 10' in order to -~ preserve trees and lot contours. A motion was made by Mr. Hoyt that-we grant the setback variance.. The motion. was seconded by Mr. Young and' approved unaziimous]:y by the Board D. Case B-17-71 - Apollo Park request for building variance to allow.less than the required open wall space-for natural ].fight and ventilation - The apartments that contain the wa11 in question were not originally designed that way. 'they talked with Ed about changing. the walls and at -that time found out that they would have to build a window in the wa11. They thought. they had met the requirement but the.r.e was a misunderstanding and the window was built to the wrong. size and the window is about 1.2 square feet too small. A motion was made by Mr. Viele that the variance be granted since there is no safety hazard involved. The motion was seconded by Mr. 'young, and approved unanimously by the Board. Page 3 Minutes for Meeting of October 21, 197.1 Board of Zoning, Appeals and Examiners • • E. Case 8-18-71 - Request for building variance to allow a spiral stairway to serve a Ioft area larger than 12© square feet - Mr. Evan Bickell presented the facts in the case. The stairs are not actually spiral stairs, but only in two places do they actually wind: It also appears that Ed had miscalculated the loft area, as it was not drawn.ta scale properly, A motion was made by Mr. Viele that the variance be granted with the stipulation that. in the places where stair spirals it be boxed in on the corners so that minimum tread width is approximately 6", The motion was seconded by Mr. Knox and approved unanimously by the Board. Benedict's Office will submit a drawing showing what they propose to do. F, Case B-15-71 - Request for building variance to allow a 36" handrail to match existing in lieu of 42" required - A motion was made by Mr. Knox that the variance be granted and was seconded by Mr. Young and approved unanimously by the Board. (Request made by Eugene Frerichs and Monie ~`rerichs}. ~. Case B-14-71 - Charles Rosenquist - Request for building variance to al low handrails to be further apart than 88" - A decision was deferred on this c ase so that Mr. Rosenquist can submit an alternative-method. He will have to comply with the Cade requirement .unless he, does submit this alter- native method. H`. Case Z-12-71 - Lodge Properties, Inc. - Request for Zoni.rig variance to a11ow rio setback on the South property line at one point and 5'~ setback along that side of the building. Mr. Terry Dragao of RNL, Inc. and Mr. Ross Davis appeared to present their case. They presented drawings of the pro- posed building to the Board and explained that they wi11 need this variance if Vail Associates will not agree to an ex- tension of addition into the rear yard setback up to the south property line. A motion was made by Mr. Knox that the variance be granted subject to .permission not being granted for the other by Vail Associates, The motion was seconded by Mr. Hoyt and approved unanimously toy the Board, • I, Case B-16-71 - Lodge Properties, Inc. - Request for building variance to allow five story building with first floor of Type I construction ( 3 hour} and put dour floors of Type TII construction (one hour.}. Code does not clearly define a parking structure with other types of construction above. They would provide three smokeproof enclosures for safety and wi11 put in a wet and dry standpipe systems. They will also agree to provide a two hour separation between units rather than one hour as required b.y Code. Would do a four hour fire wall to divide building into two segments. A motion was made by Mr. Hoyt to grant the variance, The motion was seconded by Mr: Knox -and approved unanimously by the Board. Page 4 Minutes for .Meeting of October 21, 1971 Board of Zoning, Appeals and Examiners IV. Other $usiness A. The following applications far contractors licenses were approved subject ta~receipt of insurance information: 1. L.M.G. Development Co. 2. Snowmass Plumbing and Heating 3. Emerson's Painting and Decorating V. Adjournment - As there was no further business, -the meeting was adjourned at 2:Q5 p.m. Res ctfully submitted, Ed Struble ~ Secretary (ex-officio) dw ~.' TOWfV OF VA I L BOARD OF ZONING; APPEALS ANa EXAMINERS MEETING OF NOVEMBER I5, I97I I. Meeting called to order: R. The meeting was called to order at 9130 in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. B, The following members were present: Messrs. Jim Viele, Mitch Hoyt, Robert Clark and Ed Struble {ex-officio7. C. The following guests were present: Messrs. Peter Cramerus, Bob Lazier, and Ghuck Rosenquist ll: Past Business: A. Case B-14-71 - Chuck Rosenquist -- Mr. Rosenquist pre- sented a solution for the Board's-consideration on a- variance which was heard on.0ctober 21. He proposed hand- rails on the street side of the Creekside building to satisfy the needs of the traffic flow as far as handrails by putting one to Andres, one to the condominium area on the east side of the building.. There i"s also a question of. who is responsible for putting the railing on the iower stairs, but Mr, Rosenquist will meet with Vail Associates to determine this matter, R motion was made by Mr. Viele that Mr. Rosenquist will be required to use four handrails-- one on the west end at the point where the stairs break, two in the center and one oh the east end. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hoyt and approved unanimously by the Board. The Board went to the site to determine what should be done on the lower stairway.. B. Case B-18-71 - Richmond Associates (Kiandra Lodge) - Fredric Benedict & Associates submitted alternative solutions for the circular stairs on the case presented at the October 21 meeting. R motion was made by Mr. Viele that Scheme R _ be approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hoyt and approved unanimously. III. New Business: R. Case Z-14-71 - Mc. P. R. Cramerus - Request for zoning variance to allow no setback on the creek side in lieu of 10' and 5' on the parking lot side in lieu of l0' in order to enlarge the Cornice building with the present width dimensions. The Board first examined the .plans of the property of the proposed variance. It appears that the Town of Vail has a lease on-some of the property on which Mr. Cramerus has an option. The Board must determine who holds the legal right to the property before the variance can be denied or granted. R survey must be made of the property and tha correct property lines determined be-fore any action can be taken. The property surveys in existence were referred to Mr. Larry Robinson, Town Attorney for his opinion. B. Case B-20-71 - Mr. Robert T. Lazier _ Request for building variance to a l l ow non-f-i re retardant wood i ri l i eu of fire retardant in nonconformance with Section 2005 of the Uni- form Building Code; and request -~o use non-conforming stair construction. Mr. E.azier stated that the siding is approxi- mately 60' from the nearest building so this doesn't present a fire hazard. He then presented his case for the non- conforming stair. They will put I/2" plywood fire retardant. F _ .:.. tea-.a ~~ . 1 ., - _ -,.. ... ., .. ,-. .. - ,.- _-ie . a 1 ~ i3 - ,.vK- . W • s 1 v. V. The entire stair is inside a prestressed concrete shell: He also wants to use the same exterior finish where the plans show stucco. R motion was made by Mr. Hoyt that the variances be granted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Viele and ap- proved unanimously by the Board C. Case B-2i-71 - Gold Peak by Vail Associates - R motion was made by Mr. Viele that temporary mechanical window ventila- tion be put in the children's waiting area immediately and that work start on June ! and to be completed by July l to bring the entire building venting up to th.e Cade standards. The motion was seconded by Mr. 4~oyt and approved unanimously by the Board. D. Case B~-23-71 - Mallory Nottingham - A building variance was requested by Mr. Nottingham to use fire retardant treated shingles over .plywood in lieu of 5/8" gyp board in a small area in his. flower shop. R motion was made by Mr, Viele that Mr, Na°~ttingham be required to use fire retardant coating over the shingles. 1"he motion was seconded by Mr. Hoyt and approved unanimously by the Board. Other Business: R. Mr. Struble brought up the gas tank proposed for Manor Vail for Avis Rent-A--Car. A ruling was made that gasoline facilities of any type must go in Heavy Services Zoning. Adjournment: R, As there was noother business, the meeting was adjourned at kl:l5 a.m. Respectfully submitted TOWN OF VAIL Ed Struble ~~. (Ex-officio) dw .. r 1 ~~ LJ TOWN OF VAIL 60ARD OF ZONING, APPEALS AND EXAMINI<RS MEETING O(= DECEMBER 9, 1971 I. Meeting Called to Order: A. The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. in the Municipal 1uilding, B, The following members were present: Messrs. Viele, Hoyt, G~lark, Knox and Struble (ex-officio). C. The following guests were present: Messrs. Skip [3ehrhorst, Jay Elaod, Craig Holzfaster, Larry Robinson, Terry Minger, Larry Clark and Gaynor Miller. li. Old Business: A. Case [3~1-71 - Mountain Haus - Mr. Bob Clark filled Mr. Larry Clark and Mr. Gaynor Miller in on the background of this case which was first heard in March of .1971. Since cori~- pliance nor cooperation was not put forth after the variance was denied, the Board made the foflow'tng decisions as to what should be done to make the bui{ding safer, even though it will still not meet Uniform Building Code standards; i. One hour fire proof enclosure shall be put in around all stair wells and atrium at once. Work shall start by Monday, December 13 with completion by Monday, • December 20, 1971. These walls must be brought up to two-hour construction by January 20 ar use the wire- glass as discussed at this time. 2, Signs must be posted on al! entry doors to.condominium units stating that building does not meet Building Code requirements and may be hazardous. Permanent signs must be posted on all interior rooms stating fihat there are n•ot twa exits as requi-red by the Code and the rooms may therefore be hazardous. ~. All present condominium owners must be notified by mail that these hazards exist. 4, Air handling units in interior bedrooms will be checked by Ed Struble to determine if they are adequate. 5. Door closers must be put 'on the doors opening.~ir~to the stairwells immediately. 6. if the above requirements are not met by December 20, 1971, the building will be declared a hazard and be vacated. Mr, Larry Clark presented the Mountain Haus View as follows. Fie stated that they had an Outside .eng i neering f i rm make recammendatians on making the building safer and trey then were prepared to have Hoyt Construction install the parti- tions as recommended and-door closers, At the ownersf meeting held lash week they discussed this problem and owners do not want sheetrock, but want wire-glass instead. The glass is also more expensive. Glenwood Glass Company is coming December {0 and he will do the job and the glass is now available in benver so the schedule above can be met, ~. Board of Zoning, Appeals and Examiners Meeting of December 9, 1971 Page 2 III. New Bus(~ess: A. Shareholders Recreation Programs, Inc. - Case Z-15-71 - Request- for z set back variance on the east side of buiid'sng. Mr. Flood stated that Vail Associates will grant Sharehalders a letter with a lease type of arrangement on the east side to guarantee 30' clearance between buildings. The 30t strip will be landscaped to form a mall. Mr. .Bob Nott of Vail Associates stated that Vail Associates is in favor~of the granting of the variance. Mr, Craig Holzfaster, an ajacent property owner has no objections to the variance. Mr. Larry Robinson, Town Attorney, suggested that Vail Associates dedicate a fire lane, under the fire lane ordinance, to the Town s.o, that there are no p rob,l ems at a I ater date w i th regard to access. A motion was made by Mr. Knox that the variance be .g ranted subject to Vail Associates and the. Town of Vail working out the fire lane problem and for other emergency vehicles. The motion was seconded by Mr. Viele and approved unanimously by the Board. B, Shareholders Recreation Programs, lnc: - Case B-22-71.- Request for building Code variance asking for the building ' to be considered in total rather than taking each part ~.= of each wall. with regard to the 40:~ wood.~amendment to the Building Code. This will simply be a clarification of this amendment rather than a variance from it. R motion was made by Mr. Knox that the variance be granted,to allow more than 40~ woad on some walls instead of considering each wall in determining the 40~ requirement provided that they use tem- pered glass in the east elevation. Th,e motion was seconded by Mr. Viele and approved unanimously by the board.- Shareholde~rs are also requesting a variance pertaining to type of constructian: They wish to use four hour construction on the first level with both horizontal and vertical separ~a- tions between the two areas and the flower floor will be sprinklered. There wi 1 1' also be' 360 `degree access to the buikding for fire protection: Mr. Flood stated that~~the building is legal according to I.C.B.O.-using this type of construction and type V., one hour above. Mr. 5truble stated that he does.n't see how~a building .this large can be con- - side red type V construction under.any'circumstance.s. The Board is delaying a decision until such time as Ed Struble can talk with John Nosse of I,C.B.O, and have Bali the architect of-David Jay Flood & Associates, A motian was made by Mr. Hoyt that the variance be granted subject to this discussion and seconded by Mr. Viele. IV. Other Business -None V. Adjournment - As there was no other business, the meeting adjourned at ;I 1:..15 a,m, s yw . ;. SUivIfNARY OF 197 E 8U I LD I NG AND ZON I ~! G . VARIANCE APPLICATIONS Building -- Total 21 Applications 4 - Total Disapproval $ - Total Approval 9 - Approval with recommendations Zoninq.- Total 17 Applications 3 -- Total Disapproval 7 - Total Approval 6 - Approval with recommendations • r~ 1971 BUILDING VARIANCES B-1--71 Mountain Haus - Request not to install door closers and use an alternative method ofi making building safer in the event of fire. Disapproved unless they wish to make atrium fireproof enclosure and wi I I sti I I require closers in stairwells. B-2-71 Edelweiss - Request not to instal[ vestibule around trash chute and not to move combustion air vent in order to meet Code. Disapproved. 8=-3-71 Treetops I - Request to allow non-conforming chases. Approved with recommendation that Rlbi-Clad be used on beams within chases. 8-4-71 Robert T. Lazier - Request for use of alternate exit for second required exit. Approved with recommendation that ladder system from balconies be used. 8-5-71 Robert T, Lazier - Request with regard to placement of exit stairs. R suggestion was made that stairs be moved to the center of the building thus eliminating the need for a variance. B-6-71 Lion Square II - Request for setback of IOt in lieu of 15f. Approved as building is next to tract land. B-7--71 Talisman Lodge - Request for non-conforming door at top of stairway. Door should open out rather than over the stairs. Approved with the above change as this is not a required exit. 8-8-71 Lion Square II - Request to use non-fire retardant shingles in lieu of fire retardant. Disapproved. B-9-71 Elton Parks, Jr, - Request to install steel spiral stairs in place of wood stairs. Approved. B-10-71 Vail Associates - Request to use 36" guardrail in lieu of 42" to match existing rail. Approved. B-II-71 LaPinata - Request to construct plywood and shake roof over outside patio. Disapproved. They must install 5/8" gypsum board on the underneath side of patio. 8-12-71 Not heard as Z-II-71 granted and B-12-71 therefore unnecessary. B-~13-71 Vail Medical Clinic - Request not to use sprinkler system in the building. Disapproved. Sprinkler system must be installed. B-14-71 Charles Rosenquist - Request for stair handrails to be further apart than 88". Approved but must install at least four handrails for the stairs at locations specified. B-15-71 Eugene Frerichs - Request to use 36" handrail in lieu of 42" to match existing .rail. Approved. B-16-71 Lodge Properties - Request to allow five story building with first floor ofi Type I construction with four floors of Type III construction above if they will provide three smokeproof enclosures and two hour separation between units as well as a wet and dry standpipe system, Approved. B-17-71 Apollo Park I - Request to allow less than required open wall space for natural light and ventilation. Approved. B--18-7i Kiandra Lodge -- Request to allow spiral stairway to serve loft area larger than 120 square feet. Approved subject to minimum tread width of b". B-19-71 TerrEnce P. Gowhey - Request for alternative method of exit from sleeping room, Approved subject to interior door from bedroom being installed. B-20-71 Robert T. Lazier - Request.to allow non-fire retardant wood in lieu of fire retardant. Approved as wail is 60' from other buildings and over concrete. Request also to install non-conforming stair inside concrete stairwell. 1/2" fiire retardant plywood to be used in lieu of poured concrete. Approved. B-21-71 Gold Peak Restaurant - Request to allow nonconforming ventilation in old part of building until after season closes. Motion approved with work to be completed by July I . B-22-71 Shareholders Recreation Programs - Request for building to be considered in total for figuring the 40~ woad on exterior rather than each wall separately. Approved. Request for use of four hour construction for first level with Type V construction {one hour? above. Approved subject to both horizontal and vertical separations and I,G.B,O. approval. B-23-71 Maliory Nottingham (Blossoms and Bric R Brac) - Request to use fire retardant shingles over plywood in lieu of 5/8" gypsum board for sma[I interior wall, Approved. 1971 ZONING VARIANCES Z-I-71 Scott/Rich - Request for variance in floor area ratio from 1.0:1.0 to 1.5:1.0. Disapproved. Z-2--71 Kiandra Lodge - Request for setback variance of 5' in lieu of l0'. Approved. Z-3-71 Rodney Slifer - Request for setback variance afi 4 I/2' in lieu of 10'. Approved, Z-4-71 Vail Fire Protection District -- Request for setback variance of 6' in lieu of 10'. Disapproved. Z-5-71 Vall Fire Protection District - Request for setback variance of 3' in lieu of 10' an north. Approved subject to building being moved on property to the south. Z-6-71 Gondola Ski Shop - Request for setback va'r'iance far stairs to project into tract land, Approved subject to approval from Vail Associates. Z-7-71 N~ountain Bell - Request of setback variance of 3' in lieu of 15', Approved. Z-8-71 David Gorsuch - Request for setback variance of 5' in lieu of l 0' . Rpp roved . • t Z-9-71 in lieu of Steve Arnold - Request for setback variance of 3 10'. Approved with the added natation that overhangs can be no closer than 3' of property line, Z-10-71 Robert T, Lazier - Request for setback of br in lieu of 10' on east and west sides of Parcel R building. Approved. Z-11-71 Scott/Rich - Request for setback variance of 4' in lieu of 10'. Approved. Z-12-71 Lodge Properties, inc. - Request far no setback on south property line and 5' in lieu of 10' along that side of building. Approved subject to Vail Associates approval. Z-13-71 James Slevin - Request far setback variance of 5' on north- east side in lieu of 10'. Approved. Z-14-71 P, R. Cramerus - Request for zero setback on creek side in lieu of 10' {Cornice building). No decision as property surveys are unclear. Z-15-71 Shareholders Recreation Programs, Inc. - Request far 0 set- back in lieu of 10', Approved subject to guarantee by Vail Associates that a 30' fire lane will be provided between this building and any new construction Z-16-71 Apollo Park II - Request for variance pertaining to distance between buildings and setback of 0~ at tract land in lieu of 10', Variance pertaining to setback between buildings disapproved--must maintain a minimum of 20' between buildings, Request for setback at tract sand approved provided #ract land is not disturbed, • • ~- ~. ~; - ' _ 5 ~. ,_ ~_ ~~ ~M~ :~~~-~i ~~ ~^ ~~ I .~' 71 ~ ~~ ~ -_7 7 _7r. ~ ~-~-7i. ~- 9~~~ i 1 ~~ o -7l ~~I-71 -~z-71. r3 • z/ __. f ~_i5f-71 I ~ ~ ~~- ~~ ~ -~~-7~, ~,'..~ // ,O a - ~D~/- ~9~ ~ ~.~~.-~.c:~ ~ e~- - ~ :fie - 7~ .~ - U ~, t -- /9- ~/ ~~~ ~~ ~. .f :._ .. :®~'" C:ASF # ~'~"''~ -3-~i ~~ ~f•7/ ~ -s-71 /~-G-~'! '~ ~~~-x~ I '€ ~~~_7I ~-/a - 7/ 8-~~- 7I i ~~ ~~~~~~ ~-~~-~~ -~~ - ~C ,~ i 7-~1 ~` /~' 7l ,~~~=~r ~-~~ -~;~ ~ -a~~ ?~ ~ az: -7r 1 ~ _ ~., ~. _; ~~ ~~~~~~ ~, ~- - • ~ rip •71 U~„ 4t `~~"7` -.. 7-z~'~ r 1 ~ ~ ~~~ ~ y~~~71 r. ,d ~ ~~ _~~,c ~. n - "~~ _ . d o -i~ -~I ~~~ ~.~~ . ~~,Q ~o .i- ~i ~~~r~: ~.. ~. ,/" ~' ,:~. . ~ ~~ /' ,.~ ^ . ^ +~'"" - ~.. .~ _