HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL POTATO PATCH BLOCK 1 LOT 4 PART 2 LEGALbox 100
vail, colorado 81657
13031 476-5613
September 23, 1.981
Mr. Paul Johnston
l,Jestern Management Co.
P.0. Box 103
Vail, Colorado 8i657
department of community developnlent
Duplex on Lot 4, Potato
Patch Subdivision, Town
of Vai]
Dear Mr. Johnston:
As you are aware, the incomp'lete dup'l ex structure located on
Lot 4, Potato Patch Subdivision, Town of Vail, Colorado, is in
violation of the ordinances of the Town. The Town Council atits regular meet'ing of September 15, 1981, upheld the action of
the Design Review Board which refused to alter or vary the require-
ments of the ordinances or the earlier dec'isions of the Design
Review Board. You are therefore required to bring the structure
into conformity with the ordinances of the Town. Action must be
taken immediately to protect the property and the ne'ighbors before
the coming of winter.
Request is therefore made that you submit for the approval of the
Town a plan to remedy the violai,ions relaiive to the structure or
obtain a demolition permit from the Town on or before September 29,
1981 . If action is not taken by you on or before September 29,
1981, thi's matter will be referred to the Town Attorney's office
for appropriate action.
Si ncerely,
t ,/)7.L82,-<._ |Dick Ryan,lirector
Department of Community Development
DR:df
I
department of community development
vail, colorado 81657
(3031 47S5613
Ju'ly 23, 19Bl
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Town of Vail Board of Appea'ls Members
Steve Patterson, Bui'lding Official
Revocation of General Contractjng License of CDS Enterprises
Enc'losed is the officia] notice from the Board of
Appeals as to their decis'ion to revoke the General
Contracting Ljcense of CDS Enterprises.
Thank you.
[tl
o
NOTES OF BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION
0n July 20, 1981, the Board of Building Appeals of the
Town of Vail met in a special meeting to determine whether
or not to revoke the General Contractor's license of CDS
Enterprises, Inc.
After a full hearing on the matter, the Board of Bu'ilding
Appeals found as follows:
1. That CDS Enterprises, Inc. engaged in severe, repetitious
and numerous violations of the Ordinances and codes governing
construction within the Town of Vai'l .
2. That CDS Enterprises, Inc. failed to maintain its
construction sites in a clean and safe fashion.
3. That CDS Enterprises, Inc. caused damage to properties
adjoining jts construction sites.
4. That CDS Enterprises, Ind. failed to act within the standards
set out in the building ordinances and Codes of the Town of
Vai'l to preserve the hea'l th, safety and welfare of the
inhabitants of the Town of Vail.
Based on the foregoing findings, the Board decided to revoke
the General Contractor's license of CDS Enterprises, Inc.
box lfl]
vail, colorado 81657
(3031 476-5613
department of community development
September 3, 1981
Mr. Paul Johnston
Western Management Co.
P.0. Box 103
Vail, Co'lorado 81657
Dear Mr. Johnston:
This letter is to confirm that the Town of Vail Design Rev'iew
Board at their special meeting on September 3, 1981 voted to
deny your appl'ication requesting revisions to the residence under
constiuctioh'on Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision.
In the motion for denia1 the Design Review Board stated that the
application was not in ccrnpliance with the Town of Vail's Design
Rbv'iew Gu jdelines -- spec'if ical ly sections 18.54.010, B -- "To
ensure that the 'location and configuration of structures are
visual 1y harmonious with their sites and surrounding structures'
and do not unnecessari ly block scenic views frcm existing buildings
or tend to dominate the townscape or natural landscape"; Sect'ion
18.54.070, R -- "In residential areas, location and configuration
of buildings should maximize the privacy of surrounding dwellings
and should-jntrude into their views to the minimum extent feasible";
Section 18.54.070, M -- "0n hil'lsides, excessive grad'ing shou'ld not
be permitted for building sites' access drives, off-street parking'
pool sites, recreation areas or other improvements."
According to the Town of Vai'l Municipal code an appeal of this
decision to the Town Council may be made by the applicant, adjacent
property owner, or by the Town Manager. The appeal must be filed
'in writing within ten days following the decisjon
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Peter Jamar
Town Planner
PJ:df
/
ri - ./ ,/ I .'t,tt
-
,./f ,fr/O / t/oz-,t/H/KKBNA //'
?DS
lrcc.lprnad
Co.r.rrlurg E.0kr3.
7a56 WaEr r ih Avcnra
O.n\,t. Colo'r& &225
ilg"t.t* rxoEvco ovq
M,cnael H Bar'lll P.lnclPtlt
Oo^a vo.' O Nare
o.v6 E ausr,n oo- : P_rrq
Do.,aLc C w€oe
A J Ryen LctoY E 1o0le'
(r90&19671
.r,h. r., 8r,ohl ataoc|..'la Pt|ncl9ala
Cha,res fJ levrt
w,r'.-I ON;a - J.he! P O.',s
rrtr F Dunb! L Jahcs r'€rY)^
Foberl O Sca(o*
liof,arO B Bro*n,og
Fo|,nda?t
rr923. r970,
August 25, 1981
Phtlllp Scott Taylorr Archltectural Servlcee
77 Uetcalfe Road
P.O. Box 103.
Vall, CO 81657
Re: I{e8tern Manageoent ConPanY
Dear Mr. Taylor:
tJe have revLewed the foundatlon report by Chen & Aesoclates,
and have the followlng recounendatlone for foundatlon
repalrs:
1. The northeaet and southeaat cornera of the butldtng
nhere the footlngs are uny be founded on Peat and uncoo-
pacted f111. lfould reconoend that these areae be exca-
vated donn to natural undlsturbed mtterLalar and new
footings placed at thie elevatlon.
2. Ttre footlngs that hold up the balcony at the southesst
corner uay alao be founded on elnllar naterlals' Ife
trould recoooend that these footlugs be founded on
natural undlsturbed naterlal.
The nethod for repairing the footiogs should be aa follows'
Star! et the oortheaat coroer' excavate doltn to the natursl
undleturbed soll for four feet under the exleting footlng'-:
Foro up thl.s area and cast a eolld cotrcrete wall ae vlde ae
the exlstlog footlng. Theo proceed to excavate an addl-
tlooal four feet, forn up the area under the fobtlnger'and
caet the next aeSoent of sa1l. Contlaue thla operatlon
untll the existlug footlnge sre found to be oo exleting
undieturbed rnaterial. The concrete that ls ueed for thle
repalr ghould be 3OOO lb. concrete and a vibrator should be:
,t"Ld rhll. plaelng the concrete ln the forng. Aleo, tlre ' - - -
elab on grade adJaceat to the ext-etl'ng foundatlon sa1le -Eay- -
loee auptort due to aloughlng off of the earth' lhLs -vold :
Mr. Taylor
Auguat 25, 1981
Page 2
area ehould be preeeure grouted to re-eateblleh eupport for
the elab on grade. At thi8 tLne, we rould eetioate the co8t
of repalre for thia bulldlng to be ln the nelghborhood of
$10,000 to $15,000.
If you have any queBtlons on th18 Datter, pleaee call.
Odell K. J
Aeeoc late
OKI/nd
Slncerel
chen and associates
CONSULTING GEOTECHN ICAL ENGIN EERS
aa SOUIH Zuxl 6rR€ET . o€NvER' CoLOBAoO &zl! ' $l'7''''t105
August 24' 1981
Subiect: InsPection of DuPlex'
Lot 4, Block 1, Potatoe
Patch Subdivision, VaiI'
Colorado
Job No. 22,966
KXB}IA
7465 West 5th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80226
Attn: Mr. John F1att
GenElemen:
As reguested, the writer inspected the above referenced prroject on
August 19, 1981. AE the tirE of our inspection, the duplex hd only
been partially onpteted and nc cork was in pnogress'
Inspection of the duplo< indicates that the structure is founded
on rpr"ub footing foundat-ions. The northeast corner of the brilding
upp"i,r" to be foinded in a drainage area for an approximate distance of
15 feet in a westerly direction and 15 feet in a southerly directi-on.
l,urt-her investigations may indicaEe EhaE a larger portidt of the
residence is founded otteJ this drainage area. A hand auqer hole placed
in the northeast carner of the structure irdicates that cornpressible
peat was found to a depth of 7 feet below the surface'
In addition, our observations indicate that the southeast portion
of the residence is founded on loose fill nateriats frcrn site gnading'
A reEainirg wall located in the southeast corner of the struqture
supports atrproximately 8 to 10 feet of fili. Footings supprting a
Uailony arJplaced qr-tf* fill within the area retained by the wall.
Based on o.rr inspection, it is our cpinion tlat fut.ure foundation
settlements could oc.,cur if rernedial measures are not undertaken to
correct the foundation problems. The existing conditions can be
corrected b1' follo^rirg normal sourd construction practices' The
following items are reccnmended to be performed:
( 1 ) In the northeast ard southeast c\crners of the buildirg wtrere the
footings rlay be founded qt Peat naterials or uncoflIpacted fill it
is reo6nrnended that the footings be extended to bear on natural
undisturbed nraterials.
oFF|cEs:cAsPER.coLoRADosPR|NGs.GLENwooDSPR|NGS.SALTLAKEc|TY
KXBtilA
August 24, 1981
Page 2
(2) Tbe trpat and fill sLrould be dug out to a depth wtrere the oil
bearing pressure is 31000 psf. Footings or pads should be placed
on tiese- onpetent materials ard the foundation walls shpuld
exterd to the footings or pacis.
(3) This will entail ontinuous inspections by a civil engl.neer anc
observations on a part-tine basis by a soil engineer to verify
that ttre foot,ings are placed oi1 trroper bearing nraterials.
(4) In the area of ttre crib retaining structure, it is recsnnended
that this retaining r"rall be analyzed to determine if it can
withstard lateral earth pressures plus surcharge due to the
footings. ft may be necessary to reconstruct this retaining wall
ard place the footings m natural. soils.
All repairs should be nrade to the satisfact.ion of Ehe geotechnical
ard structural engineer. Tte extent of repairs can only be made at the
time of onstruction when excavations are nade by ttre contractor.
After reviewirg this lebter, if you harre any questions, please do
not hesitate to @ntact our office.
Sincerely,
CHEN AIID ASSOCIATES' Il.lC.
oo
JOHNSTON DUPLEX - Lot 4, Potato Patch
Job Started: 9/L9/80
Redragged: 6/zs/sL/a/(St
Inspections:
I0/6/80 footingsl0/14 foundationIt/t underground plurnbing
7l/13 tenp electric3/3/81 framing3/IL final electrical (Hunt)
3/13 plumbing -gas3/L6 I' rough-upper
3/16 tr rt lower3/I7 rough elec (west)
3/24 tt tt (east) disapproved3/26 franing both sides (disapproved)
3/30 rough elec (east) disapproved3/3I franing reinspect- both sides disapproved4/7 franing reinspect- both sides disapproved4/lO framing reinspect- both sides disapproved5/S franing reinspect both sides disapprovedS/12 franing reinspect both sides o.k.5/L4 frarning reinspect both sides o.k.
insul ation5-18 sheetrock rYest unit
5-28 sheetrock east unit
Yrt I L, !'I!rvs! v'v''
Pltfstu\t- -, t*tffc{ Y '
'F iLlfl6iBiS''1
t.ISttfjfrtAL llAlcn e sa'iP
tul€ oF'5rruEI
LOT
t
EILLIl6 ,og?ESs
:t6 oox
x
j
l.
2.
3i
q,
PASE}EIIT
Jsr noon
lro rtoca
5FO n.Gl
tas3tT
Jsr rumr
?-ro n-ccr
)RD FLOOR
?fit"'l'P;^Hdll
DflPe slHi(s ll. RLL $TH .
(s.s'.a oR rtaf /rt
EASI:{, IOI[-ET, "r
,*o ,,r'r,,,0 *o*",
EEDRCa''S, o?7lcts'
sr.,otos) S 6
1.9
,E
t.m
..4
PASE'*rrfiT
Jsr rrccn
aD rLocR
,RD FLCC?
x t.m = //' ao'
€,ao
C
'6. .
7.
g.
3.
Srttli'ltl.G FOIL.S -JACUZI z-
cUrsIDE VIATE? '.--
Ollltt'u't oF c'€J
. -:--FltJ,EA]}s:-
KITG€{S
DI:lt'lAsi:R's
[-ru$RIES -brn r.il;xaJ
lcE t'Ac?llltEs
SAIHAS
tnrn cm&s t
t$\TEt FC\;{TAI|IS
,E = '€,o
,8='
2_x
?x
2x
'2-
.x
x
2,9 t=lm=
.50 ;
2. oa
=, 'oz :
... - ':- ::
-.? - - ::.:
1.0 = 4.-.--
4rp. TUTAL POIHTS'::"::Ed;|w':':"
--lEPeaos
....r
ffi+*-t*fi*-:tr';r*;*LL',1ffi
,*l;lr';fffi
Doaso oF Dlntoms
x.E
x 5.C0rls
FO$s
KITCT-91
DISrt'ttsl€R
i.qu,netes
CUTSIIE HATER
x'.1.F
x 2.9tIm
x'' .50'tt.
t
-'t
: :'.'. -.':'- -: ":::, c ^'r I r t r r n', n l <'l'D l a f
KKB}JA ITTTIB OF TNATSTIITAL
IncoJporatad
Conaulllng Englnaart
PO. Bor 97
Edwards Colorado 81632
303 926 3373
ntr*m^ H.{€el lrlFF€l N6-
Grntlcman,
w. !r. s.ndlng you th. tolloulng ltcma: Xttacneo
E shop drawings *"proo,.rion.r'-
*ta'imry. ?-*pft
- under soparate covsr via
E originals
E samples
D
tr
specilicaliong
E copy ol lelter E change ordor
E as requested E reviewed
fl for r€view and @mmant E lor your rocord
Thclc lra tran.mlliad
5l for app.oval
E for your use
I aft€r ban to us
tr
Job No.
DRAINAGE REPORT
FOR
IOT 4, BLOCK I
VAIL POTAM PATCH
IOI{N OP VArL, COIORADo
AUGUST, 1982
Prepared by:NKBNA, Incorporated
Coneultlng EqgLoeere
4251 rtpltng
ItheatrLdge, Colorado 80033
P.O. Box 97
&tnardsrOolorado 81632
oo
INDE:X
DESCRISfICI'I, qRIIERIA AI{D Iq}IE
IOCAIIICiI IIGP
DRAIIAGE PTAN
SIIE ItrAfrIGiI,BASIN At{D PROFGD DRAIMGD PAETERSiIS
BASIN EETAIL
PEAK ET'N DEMFMITi&IIOOS
DROP INtEf, FIOTil DEIERMIIGIIICII
DIIUI SIZIIiG
EICISTII\G ISII CULVERT STZNiIG CHffi
SHEf
L12
3
4
5
6
7r8
9
10,11,12
I3-16
oo oo
DRAnqGE AI\aI,YSIS
FOR
I-g I 4, BItrK I \AIL PqIATIO PA5GI
SIIE IXCAIIIOI AND DESCRIPIIOIFtTe site is located in Seetion 5, Township 5 South,
@ipal l4eridtan, or rore partictrlarly, rot 4,BIod< l,
Vail Fotato Patclr Srbdivision, Tovn of VaL1, Eagle Countl', @l-orado. It presently
is derieloped lv:ith a 3-story dr4>lex, and drir'reway to be asphalted. 11re drive
exterds alorq tlre ttbrtlerly forrdary ard al-so serves Iot 7.
An 18" culvert is p:resently located on tlre tlortheast ocrner of Iot 4 exterding
urder tlre access drirre to I.ot 7. Ttre crrlrrert carries water vrhldr dralns Soutlt
alorg tlre East pnoperty lire. Ihe lot gereralJ-y slopes 10? to 20S South and is
vegetated with naLive grasses.
CRIIERIA-IIIe rnajor stoim is tlre 100 year storm. The 100 year run-off dre to rairr
En-ffi the 24-hour duration storm was curputed using tlre SCS l,lethod contained.
in "Peal< Flcr,vs for Colorado"' dated 1977 vttdch incl-udes TR-55. !'Ieighted CD{
Nurbers r.ere derirred for each basin, based on a lll[>e C hydrologic soil gror:p, wtridt
is conservatirre for ttre soil-s that rnay have a nrcdera@ infiltration rate. The
r^,eighted CN for tlre site was conputed using niretlaeight for inpenrious surfaces
arrl a Ct'I of eighty-six for regetated area. The 100 lear storm was used for sizinq
ditches ard drainage appurbenances.
A.s per directed by Court Order, Civil Action tlo. 81-CV-328, (Items 5 & 6), "1lhe
Plaintiff shall build tte lardsc4e prepared by Gara Roessler, 2305 Broad,t'ay,
BoulderrColorado, vrtridt r,ras presented to ttre DFts of the Tohtn of Vail on Sept-
enber 311980". Mditiornlly, "th€! Plaintiff shal-l ha'rze tle drainaEe plan re\F
ier^red by a registered Colorado professionaL enqir€er wtto sttall certify that, as
desigred, the plan wiJ-l prerrent substantially, the drainage of water frcrn Iot 4
onto Iots 5 & 5 of first filing, Potato Patdr Subdivision". Garl besslerrs plan
was therefore reviqued ard qnrents red-lired on tlre enclosed plan.
OIE-SITE ETC[dS-Ihe site is located belcn a ridge t]rat slopes tol^talals the lot'
Igffi'il--6Ef-site floh's are to be intercepted by ditch "N' (See Sheet 6) ' on
the tlorth si.de of tte access drive and diverted to the existing 18" cu}erb urder
this drive. ltris ditctr was sized ard tlre cuh/ert checked to pass tlte I00 year storm
past the building areas. 100 year storm flcrrts are sho'm on Sheet 6.
oN-SIIE il.o'ls-Ihe on-site drainage will be acccnpdated by ditdr "8" r (sheet 6) , and
ffi5ffi as shor'n on Garry Roesslerrs plan by grading anay frcrn the buildings -
South, to Potato Patch Drive. Peak flcrvrs r.,ere corpr:ted fi:crn eadt sub-basinr. as$ndrt-g
that roof drainage r"r-ill be split betr,'een sulc-basins, ard ttrese flcr,rs are sflcttn on
Sheet 6.
ADDITIOIRL @l{SIDERAfIO{S-Ditttr "C" (stFet 6) on Potato Patctr Drive, bordering t}e
@ be cleared of all onstnrLion rnaterial ard retuated
to it'l original orriition. Ditch "An (See Sheet 4) is strown ard sized on ttp
plans. Ditch "8" ru'rring South along tlte West Iot lire of Iot 4 stntld be onst-
t rctea to irlsure that flcws are foreed into ttre ditdr on Potato Patctr Dririe, ard is
al-so strcrm and sized on tle plans (Sheet 4).
Sheet flo.r draining doqn the drirrervay tcrdaads tte garages, is dirrcrted to a dncp
inlet arrl pi@ East in 8n P\rc pipe to a dqr welt' The cwuted florv to tre drw
-1-
oo oo
DRLI].IAGE AI\RLYSIS
I_gI 4, BrtrK I lrAIt PCnAfO PAXUI
PA@ 2
inlet is 0.25 CFS. Ihe d:rop inlet will ser:ve to prevent water frqn porrling on
ttre drirre. ttle dry well should harie an adequate capacity to contain normal run-
off; trq,rever, it i; regnrerrled tlat a 4" otlrerflcnr pipe as shcr^ln on Sheet 4 be
installed to carrlt any. exess flcrrs to the ditctt on Potato Patdr Drive
ltre existing ditctr running South along the East Iot lire has a constant ftcr of
water. A najoritl'of tte wat€r a!4Ears to be generated frcrn a f'rench Drain located
at ttre Norttn'aest corner of Iot 7. Ttris s-rnalI stream flcrus South along the East lot
lire and diverges frcrn tlre 1ot lire at the bearing break. Instead of fo[o.rinq the
lot 1ire, it flor^rs peryerdicular to existing contcurs for a distance of aoprorirnately
40r, until it intercepts the ditch on Potato Patdr Drive. Ihe Potato Patch plat does
rpt iryiicate tlrat any drainage easenents occur along ccrmpn lot lires; hcroerrer, Iot 4
does rpt appear to be inpacted by tJlis flcrr ard it is tlrer.efore neqrnended that ttte
existing drairnge patTrn r€nnin unchanged.
The existlng 18" culvert on the tlortlnoest lot orner of Iot 4 appears to be blocked
at, tlre outlet. Tleis outlet strould be cleared of debris.
Iot 6 (noted in ttre Court Orden) is r:naffected by drainage f::cnr Iot 4. Ttpse lots
do not border eadr other ard l.ot 4 does not drain tcrrsards Iot 6.
@g.,USIOllS-If ditctr "N' is constructed one foot deep with 2:1 slopes, ditch "8"
13 ffitea six ilclres deep with 2:1 side. slopes or greater, and eitdt "c" arri
t}le existing cuh/ert clearEd, tlre drainage frcftr l.ot 4 during the I00 year storm
will have a negligable effect on surror:rdirg lots.
IiUIE: Surface lrater v,,as the only type of drainage considered in this report.
^2-
fhI :'F3
2
I
8
,J
UI
f-
{J
$
t
s
€
F
3
1
0
trq
\J
0J
e
=i=5=
=^. i =''i: --:-- : \>: --.=i; =;a= 7 -'i; =:
I_
I
.(]
-t"
^Q
^8ni su'
'el
z.;9i=l<J
<n
aJ)
c
i-
;
o
===
72
\\z
D
i;=
\ -
t.:
3 3 r--r I
N
i'RI '$$'i's.r
I p[
I .".1, u\ :i*.*\ it
il ,,?i
ili${tt uJ'ia-i>pt ?5
{#*
f,', ,'
X-H;
"il
$iftl
R
$
I\\
tla-,x.
-ti\r\
t.\
\\
Yrl
\ ota
,(\so,
dI
@ -.i'S
\rt-
'rl-t\Ai _ps,{ )T(s es
{ o_0c>--r($sYa)r:!F'\ w \- s.I -J- --l-. - 'i x n$
f U 5-n (
\)\,. f
i
r)
E{
${t:t}tsl
&-P ol
korF
UFErs:
H3*-Fos-r -l->_.- >.
-A ,l\T
$fF6F;zF
\
\
Itt1
\J
g'
gts
$.
s
$
i
-Jol
o
o
$
+1
$r
)U'! uJ,>>l
lo,{U
{ 0.1
vr
r
ffi I$i
W Kti)..-i
\ \'-'- .-
\\'-\-\.,
t=\
:,\it.
t":\
NOdt f'
T-/d/
Izl'f+tt
3/*=-/ot -oil
lo, <2>
/"9-' F'= co
\-/ F-l r t-gl 'o
3r- i --/EI r/ -2tsa ,.,
Ez'ee
G[
N
s,;-
w
(t
-to
o
-: et
coOIn@(I)!'
t.'i I
GI
$2
ilo
A
$osr
0-
t Fz
tr,l
lrl
I
I
oor
Fz
tr,
a
);l
6
lr,(,
z
a(!
-o
't1
o!(Dzo
rOlF
7',(
o[b
i_---
li-t-
I
srE
ril$),ig.,.,... . ,
F-
Ut
t!J
Grr.) i*r;
U-
! ./r -\-r--'-:--1."/ 3..9t.9ZoZON
*> ii{';i'}}t K
,^ r{,,
-..',LL OOI
,' .8C 6l
I
'I3 -:i* :: .li3- xr# nil *53 E
..69,CO
-J
UJ
(E
L'J
,F-
iuh,.or;fr -"\\;'' uli',a%i\'x
3-a{"-:]ril*-.*.*4 -ix"'
,6 f" ilEffi'$,ge.:>*h\tui,,.a*i'r\"0"E>*5#
\z
n
dIo
o
o
c'c^\_\ \_ - ,:1S'\: :; l8:=ti-.o*or,,rl\\, ', REfi i E\ \ cv;l I -
\l.I
1N.J
s oto 4C 4o;'E
c a1l l.\
!t
s\
fso33 l
--zaz.
\.-
- 2^ ---\'lia6r-"-
'---
F
J
F)
'o
o
N
F2t,
T
trt
at
UJ
tt
3r\rl
I
l @/"9
/3'r6
+
;(JoJ(D
UJ
q
TNooo
*:'?
i
LrJ>=FUJ-o
=<5 '.rolNl
I
__{_
I
I
,'-
url
o,
-f) |o,
o/o'@l It/, I ,_ I,1,lr'l
l3t
I"tltltlIL, II ol
| <,trl
'-.- =-l ; I
--_ ?l:b
al31]
it 3rg@i I-, I
tl
oe;
/o.4,el/a
v
'9o ,/'
o'/'
ulFK
O.iai< nr8r=8
Fto
?t,sl
"r/ k
,,-t/ +,
n"/ .'
'o-,
+,'
\-- ^.\ -- i._t. i :--.-__\ - oy/c \_-.--\"--.\
fl
)
: :,4
IZ.) <l
JI -.. -
,t r, Z*
I
:
r
:
I
r{J
I
-..
!1''<
$,,E
/.
0
I
4
XLJJ
il
L
\r)
,-r tbz
<:tqlc-t;-i lO
-@(\,
.","rotO
I
-l
ql
:E
Raq.",4
cj P/' .o
;/v I
;",/l /
,g/*-e
tO
a,,re -s-*6s-
:}
F
N'o
oo
rOo
an
' trs{o
\v N@
o9
| .Otooe -
o
o
o
@
,ssl
o':<t
cvX9;
'tgl -
b_r.rliiE"
'r) --ryI oo69i
\so
\cr- -
t{3{lr E*
.rrir; R 3
- ii:.;/ t\on
r!'l}
,,Et,oloool.rE
I
<o
ro * j
Al il.o
Or-
,9r'6or
ot
?ort
,. 9t ,8 to z0 N
h ig: ogsv - t-.;
o ^.i
I-o
F
(D
i
.ri<ct(o-:
cvoP
O<o
?/
Gl oJ-_ !,a."t
%;
ola
' l1o/1
'tl
.tl
.,o2,99 o ao s
o
|r)o
rt)
@
N
,tl
oo-@I o3
Yo
(J iO a -<:R o$gS
,rr "*r; ,u sz,oE"ET*(€ro]z- H,. gz,ocET
ffi
'tt
rtt
lr,(J
IJ
o
GI
,
lE i, .'14.4 aic .losEo=
---9€ 'r
.iitS:
Hn=
oo
o9(\l {r
:\;l'l->
-&.3
CJS
-lltR9
v
:(ol
i
S",
5
ooo5l' l4" E (v
t.)
I
I
I
lo3 -54
<q
()^O;Yr)
Ox
, o, Jn,
;.'{Nil
-=:s
OFnat
:'r\(|0.UD ,,,rfl
/,tt'.E-l
a'\|lt-'oo-_ rt
^ia r;
io '/).)o
z
UJ
; r62.67;-n4")<;J
_wl o-F'_t_ no fF|.t-^gl .;; H
,{ ,, e€ po.-
., I
_ I.s
ro 3!;3
N,6a^x/
/ ^>'r
\r-'.c
.N
F
@
.?;
HTioal
n
i{ou,
ul rl
.(
.sSOncio;
lm
;
l.
")
(,\,
N
$
$:
(
tll'$
-:5
'tr
d-,}t'
{!
$
E5\)
s
;o
s
$f
$-\ v'"\ t
?ir n
"q \ll1'2
il,
)./ $x'$
rr -...)/._,J'
t.f .
-
-ir
.-l
CJ
_rl
\j\\i
\l
l{:--.....\...\, \. \\
?i
\t*
Yrl
9r-
F3
@
o
o
t.\
-- *t
,r.rrt
P$
d
/_t
mi{eJ\O\\J
**' <;'K
l-)F/\s'
,t
s
s.II\
t
I'rss
Cr.
$.l
$
T
"(l-
ol
J
$
N/-
,t
\.
g)\!
.d
il
uta
J
\$*
:&
-' .:- :_,oo
PEAK ITg{ DSIER}{rIinTICT.I@
oo
Job titLe Ctec*ed d
100 year - 24 hour precipitaticn
1)
2)
3)
BAsnr a___jAREA
Sleet Flcp
'-4LL_4@_
"3,2Jp
4) lbighted cN
land Use
Range & Ibrest L84
Inpenriou.s
Sotal Area Ea. =
100 year 24 hour precipitation P =
Areal adjustrrent factor = L.0
DetermirE tfure of conentraLion (Tc)
sotARE MrlES
s-7)
(ClI). x (t of Arrea)
(hannel Flcnr
s__'o_T = Lr/v
a:t-
*
Arear/t of
ltotal Alea
cI{
16.'.
fn^a-- lT \J LAJ-
//oO rcT-
'__Q_rc
l_\.-
use -9.b t"r: r,'eighted e.I
5) Deternire dept}r of nrroff (Table 2-1)
a= I,lb ,n.
6) Determine peak rate of disclrarge
, k n = IMO c5;Vin. (Fi9. S-1 - qpe II storm, Ilor lrlestern Colorado)
Feal< Flcnr = q A Q = ?.?(a gS
oo
PEAK FIf,N DEERMIIWTTCT.I@
J& Title
100 year - 24 hour precipitaLicr
BASrN I2-) N€A , ZO ' . ACFtsS O,@O?t4 seuARE MrrEs
100 year 24 hour precipitatlor P = : 2, l inches ( ftg. S-7)
Aeeal adjushent factor = 1-0
Deterrnire Ufure of onentraliqr (Tc)
Steet Flcn 'Grannel Flcm
r)
2l
3)
oo
I = L,/v
Efuw.
CX.l
s--
t)leO L
+v =2- .)v
vbiSrted CN
Iand Use
4)
=--'o!aL-tu.'= " hr.
Tc .= ; lO ' hr. mtntnw\
(a$ x
For Western Colorado)
Ar.eq/t of
Itotal Area
(t of Area)
s)
6)
ry
9&-
Total =
1 I for rci$rted oI
Determine depth of ruroff (Table 2-1)
Q = l,?2- in.
Determine peak rate of discharge
q = looo Cs,win. (Fig. s-l - T:pe rr storm,
Feal< Flcr,r = q A e = O,+e, 63
(_ ,_ r:i:'i.::t_. ii:;'.:
t7 rt t9 .2t 2t 4l
CN lr**
5:,uz4ae/zro,t{",: ZZ.1b. .._ft2..71:
,% l{=
.o=sti/ o+,o
c/ 1.7
. ogol '/ rco'/
?53AyCAJ :
Q: 1,81:; ,vn
1-- ^
tooo Lbra lin
(-pn* FJourt-: i{q
KKB}TA
Incofporalad
Cooaultlng Enghrcar!
I
a
A_
x-€6alal
!--\r#- l I.l/ | l\-T1
Qil:2d'
,"t
suwctPlfC)-l 4ilLlNh, c**,xa sna I a=
Wt, ttln,raittap Equat!,A' -. .
67,=6Parl A1 I,, l\ ni ^ I
l+4^1+{^ ot lAal\z'NJ/. -- /@-
2U".) d
f-/- :r 4nW
z,:bl**^1
,a.= zd"ffi) u% (.or,tf
Q= th47 t {'
It-l)- .'-7 I(-+r- v l I
KKBIIA
ttcoalE?abrt .
Conad{oe €oghaa.a
l23il
fr.o
By
. subf.cl D lTaA 417 tN,Sttenr 2 ol ?
C
i-.'--ti .r
KKBHA
Incorgoialad
Conalltlrg Enginaa.a S"qd srrxl.. ? d?(,
Q=A
(z) ( , t+b\/-
(-
V2&b QndA/' :au'
v€ V^- '%t.ru>-=> V: 3,gO {p=
,,rf44 b++Mo{ )"1.!u = ,t (24) - 2,4b (F
,t/or'"-'o4&
/) il?€ca*-tz. "l 'i
/Laauwvt( l'hart' U
.l l
:!,,- .-.- . ,
,La-@ ao
t-
'i.''?t.'
..-1
it
^-.I
-
^..,,..._ ... i.rr,.., i .r :
v
-
oa
CHART 5
to.ooo
I
d
oc
oa
.5
':r. ... ,!g(rc iCAOS Jirr. r9s!
HEADIVATER DCPTH FOR
C. l,l. PIPE CULVERTSI.VITH INLET CONTROL
U'
ir't
o
=
=o
F€,
UJ
J
l.J
IAo
F
14,
E
o
8,ooc ExaMpLE
9,9!"1 D. !. InGr.. tt o r.1l5.OOO 0.6! .t.
4,Ooc
g- ht3,OOO o (t..r)
trl
(1'
t;
(2)
6.
(3)
r6.
zo
o8d
)65 F
DG
t4;
II
I'2 I
I
I| ..tlrr-;6 -l- o
=4g
tr,^(,oE
,o2--.n-/6
2,Ooo (a 2.r
frl 2.2
tD itt ?..1
6.t
3,6
I,OOO
FOO
600
500
400
300
' -/'2OO - -z'ot-u/' .+tYr,:. -.--./foo./
a-o \
a8
G
lrJFlt
ct
=
Fo.ulo-
lrlF
Bo
Ll
60
50
40
30 ff scar-e
20
to
(tt
(al
tlt
E NTRANCE
T YPE
Lll.r.d to Gonaorn
to rtor.
Proirct;ie
3.
4.
3.
3.
4.
-2.
- t.5
't.o
.9
.8
.f
.2.
t
Ir_ _.r2.
l-,''o
t
- t.5
- i.o - 1.O
r,'-f
I''I =.5
-.8
.t .7
a =-' ro ,,tt tcarygy!/1\fi*r4 iozi.rn6rt, to ,€ot. (rl, ri.n
- !r. ?t.oi;rtt,^€t;i.d tin. tn:o!rhf o oid o rcor.rr o. r?vr.rr o,i urtrcr.d,
2,
r.o
-.---].5 I
+;
5-25
6
|-JL,
:".
a.-FEro
J
92ts
c(,
{Q 50 60
OISCHARGE'O-CFS
.oo 300 600
OISCHARGE.Q.CFS
F.fr,
- f.,
t-t
:arL
t^,o
l)J'
rcoc !f
4()
#
. . j:1,j; ,: ,
- iogo't'
: rctg
i- Go6
i
F 6eO
rF g.cc
t
l-.3cr-
!- racIlI
l-.aoiLIllIL tO5 rfLL,Ero I
ta
C4
', ezaqqr€
Oe6^)
?l
ec
90
9a
at
";.. eL !t. " * ? "' o
" "/t' )qt
o'+
].*vtril6 ltrlLtt Cg,"fll t-!Oli3 ,g-t
t'. !r tA.irllttt{ rl +4o - Ls.jar tr.l air. a$r o,!-a,Fa. Frrll rr lf.fil,ti 16:".I! a * ala, fi.acla
Fot ocf.Cf Ce.atd .1r? 544fic r
.aa;r':-.:::' ;
/.*f-
./',i'GO.
30
ao
-r:!!
oz
L
E
tlJ
U
t\
\
t\
f\'l
U
i\
\)
\
\\/
f
\
\
\
u)lut
UJ
r.L
=
LLl
I
I
I
I
I
t:Jr
lcl
I
I
I
l-
rc)tIIrr
tvt(,tz
ri5
r-
ro
o
GFI
=o
4
:
:)z
z
zc
i:::.
aF! ---
_<3"?
'!i I
.
^:: t"i;-.i!
=?z=..; i n;-
tF-:a
.,_i:';:;.::-:
: <i,:3::;- ; -. < <a> _r<3:'t
"::C:<=<t..:
$<
\
I
,\
\
$t
l"
$
t\
\,
\T
a
16,t'
Yrl
ct
a
a
t
"{
a{t
NI0t
a
E
ca
o!f.c
()
Ic)z
Jo.
g.
uJ
.D
:l
c-
:a
I
;
Cts
-og.
o
=g
E
6
o
F
f
a
LL.|
uJil-
L
&
LIJ
J
FoF
o:|:ol
J
GF(J
z6
:.Jo-
=I
=
NOrrvnlvA
o]Zv-ooi>z> 9\
^F cr(J
o
c(Uz
../<:\ \€) --r\e)
z
i;o
thoz)-oc)
;'(J;o
i (\l
\
R\
(J
F
tr:
F
o
.J
e
o\\
$.
q
n
\
c
o-
G
z
tr6o
z
tr
c\ul
4
ulz
tlllll,t | | | rl
l= <2 ol=zzIF fi5 F15,"28<nPi9EAdEEiB?3ipalUEgEs=lr.llrllI tit I i | |l-'q [ -gli'.tqtl=' i t U Fl=.8;$plgr;HsS
z.o
F
J)az
LIJf
7E
\"\\
\\\,.(t
fn
F.
IU-r
l
\
IJ'
(,
UJ
UJ
rY^
lool=
G
o
r, l\rl r.tl
\
tJo
\
;
i
o;
G
]
a
Foz
i
:'.}
I
\
{s d\
\(\.
\
o-
,tt-\J \J
.)\x V \
q<93oki\+\l F
(
c)
t.c)
C_
fr
oz
rlF (J
ur'-1o
u,F
-Jz-oz
r^=>t-:<caO>z, -r:)
\o- r!
dtrn
)<..xez-tQ
JYOr'1u-ri6rili>
Nr[![]
(D
o
dt
0)
.:
3
E
E
h
z,Eul
o-zo
Fq)
uFazo(J
L
IIJ
o-
TL
l..lJ
o-
F _l-
a
r
:co-
h
eo(l
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
fltl
GI
?l
=l
---l
oo
a
\
t,
\
\J
=g
LLI
z
(..
zj
u-
E7Llr i
FFoz,
2
l:
u-l
E.
-.r O<Ft<)uJ<zG.
L!Fatzo
O
IU
L:r(J&
J<c)aa!! t.L,
-rO
t
F
C)
z
(J
(Jz
c3
l)
d
t--
?()
E
LU
-Iul
INSPECTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
DATE 6/*>JOB NAME
MONINSPECTION:
CALLER
TUES WED THUR FRI AMREADY FOR
LOCATION:
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
D FOUNDATION i STEE-
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATERtr FRAMING
- ROOF & SHEER
" PLYWooD NAtLtNG tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL tr
D
tr
H
tr FINAL FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
D TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr
D
tr
ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL -tr FINAL
D APPROVED
a:oFt Fl FeT toNs.
\/,brseeenoveo EINSPECTION REQUIRED
INSPECTOR
.'-;-rNsilctoN neouisr
TOWN OF VAIL'a,-f
DATE JOB NAME
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:
CALLER
TUES THUR FRI
.2 ''..AM.PMMONWED. !. i
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
T] FRAMING
rr ROOF & SHEER- PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION tr
tr
tr
POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
tr
tr FINAL
ELECTRIGAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MEGHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr
tr
o
ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr
tr
SUPPLY AIR
B FINAL tr FINAL
-PAPPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED - - BTREINSPECTION REQUIRED
'\qATE
INSPECTOR ,,-f.r.r:.'-
rNsilctoN REeuEsr
'r--L+4
DATE /1
, ! TOWN OF VAIL!'i t.,.fnFt NAMF :,/,.''';t &t:t.. ,i.,,,.t"i
..i ./
CALLER
t)''i''.4 z-
READY FOR
LOCATION:
g APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
lv* (1;:) 'y'1 / MON,".:r /''{./ - /r,:
FRI :PM
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION BEQUIRED
BUILDING:
'ttr FOOTINGS / ST-EEL 'it
't-
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
n ROOF & SHEER- PLYWOOD NAILING
I] INSULATION
-
tr SHEETFOCK NAIL
n
tr FINAL
EIJIL!JINTI;
'ttr FOOTINGS / ST-EEL 'it
't-
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
n ROOF & SHEER- PLYWOOD NAILING
I] INSULATION
-
tr SHEETFOCK NAIL
n
tr FINAL
ELEGTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
tr ROUGH
tr CONDUIT
n
M FrNAt
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr GAS PIPING
tr POOL / H. TUB
tr
tr
tr FINAL
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL
\.
i!
.\
\grt INSPECTOR
ie'-b--.T,
READY FOR
LOCATION:
rN noN,'r TOWN OF
t E-----,d
REQUEST
VAIL
JOB NAME
+ly)
BUILDING:PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr BOUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH/WATER
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
r.1 ROOF & SHEER" PLYWOOD NAILING tr
tr
tr
n
GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION
tr SHEETFOCK
'r{.tt,/-i'1.1.,
POOL / H. TUB
li''r1.(
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRIGAL:
B TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr
tr
n
ROUGH
CONDU
,r'
tr EXHAUST HOODS
IT E SUPPLY AIR
n
tr FINAL
Teipaoveo tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
/ CORRECTIONS:
1"f
7,II FZ
VFT
KKB}IA
Incorp&ncd) ConsirltlngEngln€ar3
rl l-iv,lctrOOra it,/ ,-ti.( '. JOB NAME l;,,, /" ,:o,{,* :f,
CALLER
TUES II,I!,JR FRIWED {:v)PMREADY FOR
LOGATION:
INSPECTION:MON
lru#cnoN
FOOTINGS / STEEL
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
ELEGTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER ' tr HEATING
E EXHAUST HOODS
tr SUPPLY AIR
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REOUIREO
INSPECTORUATE
{,i
ooTE {/
TOWN OF
t
REOUEST
VAIL
JOB NAME
CALLER
ES WED THUR
,,-:l:'(g ---------J1Ji' er-,rREADY FOR
LOGATION:
BUILDING:PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
FOOTINGS / STEEL
FOUNDATION / STEEL
FRAMING tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
ROUGH / WATER
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING GAS PIPING
INSULATION
SHEETROCK
POOL / H. TUB
NAIL
tr FINAL FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANIGAL:
tr HEATING
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr
tr
tr
SUPPLY AIR
FINAL
APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
t
DATE INSPECTOR
rNstcrtoN REouEsr
TOWN OF VAIL )L,ii "Z,(JoB NAME- JuLr nt Dunl"tDATE
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:MON TUES WED THUR
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REOUIRED
COBRECTIONS:
CALLER ('\ ! l<u
BUILDING:
D FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEE-
tr FRAMING
tr INSULATION tr GAS PIPING
(srieernocK NArL O POOL / H. TUB
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP, POWER tr HEATING
ROUGH D EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT D SUPPLY AIR
D FINAL
INSPECT
|\..DATE
trl
ir'
Li'REQUEST
VAIL
DATE
'"#"'oNTOWN OF
JOB NAME
CALLER
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUIBTNG:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
INSULATION O GAS PIPING
SHEETROCK NAIL tr POOL / H. TUB
tr FINAL .tr FINAL
-:ELECTRIGAL:
O TEMP. POWER tr HEATING
tr ROUGH D EXHAUST HOODS
O CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
FINAL tr FINAL
READY FOR NSPECT
LOCATION:
THUR FRI
!lrt
tr DISAPPROVED INSPECTION BEOUIRED l
CORRECTIONS:* tl
ri .t'b
INSPECTOR
|f
tq15te
!t-.r
'f+l*..e
DATE €-/t-- ?L
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:
CALLER
weu@ rnrla
rn#cnoN REeuEsr
TOWN OF VAIL
JOB NAME
MON
BUILDING:
T] FOOTINGS
tr FOUNDATI
F FRAMING
PLUMBING:
/ STEEL tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH/WATER
ON i STEEL
Flz'oB t.! 6aiAz:E E.zt?
brNsurRrron%tr GAS PIPING
tr SHEETROCK
n
NAIL tr POOL / H. TUB
n
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELEGTRICAL:
O TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
O HEATING
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT
n
tr SUPPLY AIR
n
tr FjNAL tr FINAL
'r{ppaoveo tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
CORRECTIONS:
q
I
l
fi- 7 z-fu--INSPECTOlqrre
il rNs CTION
TOWN OF
REOUEST
VAIL
JOB NAME
READY FOR
LOCATION:
AM@PECTION:
BU
trl
trl
H
R,trl
tr
IILD
FOC
FOL
FRA
tNst
i:'
NGS
)ATI
NG
ATIC
EEL -
STEEL
PLUMBING:LDI
oo
OU \Tt(
G
no
oc
/ST
oN/
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tN{
SH
)ING:
OTIN
UNDI
AMIN
;ULA'
EETR
O GAS PIPING
tr POOL / H. TUB
n
tr FINAL tr FINAL
. i:,t'.
EIECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MEGHANICAL:
O HEATING
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT
tr
tr SUPPLY AIR
n
tr FINAL
-
tr FINAL
7
'a.6aoveo tr DISAPPROVED O REINSPECTION REQUIRED
CORRECTIONS:
I
INSPECTOR
I
INSPECTION REQUEST
f'
r.+ 0
,/
oete 5 t JOB NAME
TOWN OF VAIL
CALLER
READY FOR INSPEC
LOCATION:
-:\trUES (WED) THUR'--+-, \.--l FRI
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
PLUMBING:
E UNDEBGROUND
tr ROUGH / D,W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATERFRAMING
tr INSULATION tr GAS PIPING
CI SHEETROCK NAIL tr POOL / H. TUB
tr FINAL tr FINAL
EL
tr
tr
tr
tr
ECTRICAL:
TEMP. POWER O HEATING
ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
O FINAL
PROVED tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
CORRECTIONS:
INSPECTORlrytre
'1t a!
rr.rstctoN REeuEsr
TOWN OF VAIL
JoB NAME i f'ol',, t " ii i- (. ( ,'i r
INSPECTION:
CALLER
TUES vfeo ., THUR FRI AM @)READY FOR
LOCATION:
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
/rnnr.,trNc
tr INSULATION D GAS PIPING
O SHEETROCK NAIL tr POOL / H. TUB
D FINAL tr FINAL
ELEGTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER O HEATING
ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
D FINAL
tr APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
ISAPPROVED EINSPECTION REQUIRED
?.
{PArE INSPECTOR
CTION REQUEST
,:!/r/ft--JoB NAM
READY FOR INS
LOCATION:'#'L
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUITIBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
FRAMING tr ROUGH / WATER
INSULATION
SHEETROCK tr POOL/ H. TUB
tr HEATING
O ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
T] CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL
tr APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
DISAPPROVED BEINSPECTION REOUIRED
I
I
{
INSPECT
ill .
'L,t'''
DATE
READY FOR
LOCATION:
JOB NAME
INSPECTIO
CALLER
TUES FRI
lNs?cnoN REouEsr
THUR
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUIIBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D,W.V.
tr ROUGH /WATEB
E] FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr TNSULATTON
tr POOL / H. TUB
ELECTRICAL:
t] TEMP. POWER tr HEATING
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL
tr APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
INSPECTOR
f
READY FOB
LOCATION:
.n/,,'.;61n#"r,o*
TOWN OF
JOB NAME
REQUEST
VAIL
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
tr FOUNDATION / STE EL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
I rnnr,,rrrvo tr ROUGH / WATEB
tr INSULATION
O SHEETROCK
tr GAS PIPING
NAIL tr POOL / H. TUB
tr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING.
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIB
tr tr
trtr FINAL FINAL
tr APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
-**INSPECTO-B/,-'i '.''
'tAAt=
CTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
CALLER
READY FOR
LOCATION:
BUILDING:PLUMBING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL B UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATEB
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
tr INSULATION
tr SHEETROCK
tr GAS PIPING
NAIL tr POOL / H. TUB
tr
B FINAL FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
O HEATING
\nouan tr EXHAUST HOODS
t\
tr CONDUIT -tr SUPPLY AIR
o tr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
APPROVED tr DISAPPROVED INSPECTION REOUIRED
CORRECTIONS: --a------?*{'*
I
qt ,,- -- A r=tnr= ? -rf 0 '- Pl rNsPEcroR
,*#"roN REeuEsr
TOWN OF VAIL
JOB NAME
READY FOR
LOCATION:
't9frt",l,'o)j, ,,,
-€+'j
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDEBGROUND
tr FOUNDATION / STEE-tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATERd rnnvrruc
tr INSULATION O GAS PIPING
D SHEETROCK NAIL tr POOL / H. TUB
tr o
E FINAL O FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr ROUGH '.E EXHAUST HOODS
O CONDUIT E] SUPPLY AIR
tr tr
D FINAL tr FINAL
tr APPROVED DlSAPPROVED NSPECTION REQUIRED
COBRECTIONS:
< :"/ ---
&.
lP$re
''1..
INSPECTOR
3* .r
l*-*"'rNs CTIONTOWN OF
{z/-ai7i
REQUEST
VAIL
JOB NAME
\
READY ron rrusp-Eerroru , MON TU
LOCATION:e 3(l
AM,PM
BUILDING:PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUNDtr FOOTINGS / STEEL
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL ROUGH/ D.W.V.
tr
tr
tr
D
FRAMING tr ROUGH/WATER
INSULATlON
SHEETROCK
tr GAS PIPING
NAIL tr POOL / H. TUB
o:
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELEGTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANIGAL:
tr HEATING
{nouaH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT
n_
tr SUPPLY AIR
tr
tr FINAL
-
tr FINAL
M^et*{pecnoN REou|REDAPPROVEDDISAPPROVED{!F,APPROVED
GORRECTIONS:
t
q
:t
INSPECTOR
rr.'* $ , in/''t/r/tDA1E 1/ J // t,! JoB NAM
Q'ri,'I' '"
rNJ?ctiorv REQUEST
VAIL
READY FOR
LOCATION:
'i::iflio^,-MON
'7,i) i)
TOWN OF
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
pluuerNG:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
tr INSULATION tr GAS PIPING
D SHEETROCK NAIL tr POOL / H. TUB
N FINAL tr FINAL
MECHANICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER *tr HEATING
f noucH O EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
O FINAL
APPROVED
CORBECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
qr
erre j- Z0-ft ,,,,,rNspEcroR
tr
'Ns?ctoNTOWN OF
REQUEST
VAIL
JOB NAME
READY FOR I PECTION:
LOCATION:
,THUR FRI AMO
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL tr UNDERGROUND
{ noucn / D.w.v.
d noucn / wATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
tr INSULATION { cns PTPTNG
TI SHEETROCK NAIL tr POOL / H. TUB
tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
D HEATING
D ROUGH O EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT N SUPPLY AIR
O FINAL N FINAL
APPROVED
RRECTIONS:
D DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
INSPECTOR
f,t/)
o,'*''. /^ fU
oo',, 3// t/ f / ,o" *o'$
I
READY FOR
LOCATION:
rNsEcnoN REeuEsr
TOWN OF VAIL
MON WED THUR FRI
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr FOUNDATION / STEE-
FRAMING
INSULATION
SHEETROCK
D GAS PIPING
tr POOL / H. TUB
tr FINAL FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER O HEATING
ROUGH O EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL
APPROVED
RRECTIONS:
O DISAPPROVED D REINSPECTION REQUIRED
tylre INSPECTOR ,-:
,f
o*,J' o
DATE
READY FOR
LOCATION:
JOB NAME
)
f-r ,"rG"toN
TOWN OF
REOUEST
VAIL
INSPECTIO
PALLER
TUES'" WED THUR FBI
'lt
\/< I
DISAPPBOVED !d nerr.rseecTtoN REQUT RED
BUILDING:PLUMBING:
O UNDERGROUND
O FOUNDATION / STEEL \
\
x
tr
tr
E
ROUGH / D.W.V.
ROUGH / WATERtr FRAMING
tr INSULATION GAS PIPING
tr SHEETROCK POOL / H. TUB
ELECTRICAL:
E] TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr EXHAUST HOODS
O CONDUIT -tr SUPPLY AIR
O FINAL
O APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
\ t l, t1hrltra\tqSre tNSPEcroR
*-* "
/1
((
n
V,,
-\:Ejj
ilb
JOB
rNstcnoNTOWN OF
REQUEST
VAIL
L'AIE --NAM
READY FOR
LOCATION:
MON
CALLEB
T,IJES L-WED I THUR FRI
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATERyl=nnvrruc
tr INSULATION tr GAS PIPING
O SHEETROCK NAIL
tr
O POOL / H. TUB
D
D FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANIGAL:
D HEATING
tr BOUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
D CONDUIT
tl
D SUPPLY AIR
t-l
tr FINAL EI FINAL
D APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
tQ$re INSPECTOR
--l
p*J*'c
ooa, 3
READY FOR I
LOCATION:
rNstcnoN
TOWN OF
REQUEST
VAIL
JOB NAME
MON
CALLER
BUILDING:PL
o
tr
E
tr
tr
tr
UMBING:
FOOTINGS / STEEL UNDERGROUND
ROUGH / D,W.V.
ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEE-
D FRAMING
o
tr
tr
INSULATION GAS PIPING
SHEETROCK NAIL POOL i H. TUB
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
f,noucn tr EXHAUST HOODS
D CONDUIT O SUPPLY AIR
D
D FINAL
tr APPROVED ISAPPROVED REINSPECTION REOUIRED
CORRECTIONS:
"q..
tq6re !- 2t - f t rNSPEcroR
.ar ar
rNstroN REeuESr
TOWN OF VAIL
i' 't , . '' ).t ,,,oarc it / /-7 JoB NAME/
READY FOR
LOCATION:
--/---:-
,,1 -/-
PPROVED tr DISAPPROVED
i1 tl
INSPECTION:MON TUES WED THUR FRI
fI REINSPECTION REQUIRED
CORRECTIONS:
BUILDING:
O FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATERtr FRAMING
tr INSULATION D GAS PIPING
E SHEETROCK NAIL N POOL / H. TUB
tr FINAL tr FINAL
TEMP. POWER tr HEATING
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL tr FINAL
blre INSPECTOR
D<.'t'*'l' + oo rF/-
- INSPTTION REQUEST
^' l^ \ I z I{OWN/OFVAILoor, |' f1 JoB NAME--Johris hozr t)u0lo Ii,J
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:Lnf q s-6D/J t' -fa
CALLER
TUESA P,.
WED THUR
trL
FRI (t9'
-i t x!
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
.(uNoencnouruo
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATERtr FRAMING
tr INSULATION
tr SHEETROCK
tr GAS PIPING
tr POOL / H. TUB
tr FINAL
tr HEATING
tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL
APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
I.onle
I
rNsPthoN REeuEsr \
TOWN OF VAIL
DATE JOB NAME
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
tr INSULATION N GAS PIPING
tr SHEETROCK NAIL D POOL / H. TUB
o tr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
O ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT O SUPPLY AIR
tr fI
D FINAL tr FINAL
tr APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
tq-.F{Fiq--
i
AD
DATE JOB NAME
,*rfl"roN REeuEsr
TUES WED THUR FRIREADY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:
PLUMB!NG:
FOOTINGS / STEEL tr UNDERGROUND
tr BOUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
UNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
tr INSULATION tr GAS PIPING
tr SHEETROCK NAIL tr POOL / H, TUB
O FINAL
ELEGTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER tr HEATING
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL
tr APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REOUIRED
INSPECTOR
KKBHA o
lhcoaporatad
Con.ulllng Engln.rrr
7456 ilesl F/nn Avsn!e
Oenver ColofaJs 8C226
3C3 232 6050
Foun<|.l. t,r cf ..:i1.1 E:r'eli
L)cialoi D tl,c^c
f,4,oS Kel.r,!i Oj!aE A0strn
A J RlanE Ver..- Korl€r i1906-i96t)
(1923 1970)
Princlprl. ti i. L J |l. .
Nf- F t,.r':.,
DonT Plie F.ie':O S:: :.*
D36aidC wec€' lc^acI gcn1nj
Leror E Tobier Janes F 3ar s
John X B, ghl Ma,l,. S OlajJrd
Cnanes D Key€s
arroclata Prlnclprla
C iames Enckson
La'y R Sward
OavLd D Grl,asp|e
Jenes B Adlrns
July 9, 1982
Hr. Chupa Nelson
Nelson Zeb Constructioo Co.
0887 Nottinghan Road
P.0. Box 685
Avon, C0 81620
\iI it"
Re: Vasquez Duplex
Dear Chupa:
We have reviewed the retaLning wall detail #1, whlch
contalns three walls on toP of a large footlng. The
va11 ls retalniog a maximum of 5 feet of earth, and
area you nay reduce the thlckness of the vall to 8',
omit the wall reinforcemeDt, and exteod the 4" stone
dolrn to the f ootj,ng.
If you have any questions on this matterr please call.
Sincerely,
Odell K. John
Assocl-ate
OKJ/nb
low
1n thls
vetreer
Botred G H€nd€rson
[!rl am R Hamr]lon
Roger H. Smsd€s
o
IrF|Dor.bd
conrlrune errrnerr FIbLD OiISHRVATION REPORT
7,156 $/sd Ftth Av€nu€ffl[[B$** Javler Velaequez
Bucare]l I08
Mexlco D.F., l{exIco
cc: Town of VaiI, AEf,n: Buildlrg DepE.
!'{elsoo/Zeeb ConstrucEion Co.
By, tsrian Kurtz
Dai-e: 2I .IuIy 198,2
Job Tltle i Velasqucz Duplex
Locat.r.on: 602 PotaEo Palch Drive, ValI, Coiorado
Owner: Javler Velaaquez
Contrdctor: l,lelson/Zeeb
IrJeather: Pairly Clou<ly, 75", l:0(, p.rr. ' I
PresenE 8t SiLe! Dlck Nelson/Neleor Zeeb
Brlan Kurtz/ KKBNa
The purpose of Ehas 51Ee vislt nas to observe tlre pJ.aceneut of
ualis and vall relnforcenent for rtle reEalnlng uall eonplex
belorr the house. A11, footinga tor tne rctalning wall conplex
ha<i becn prevlously placed. A11 wnils for lhe complex were
fr:rned and a.ll rebar wag in place. Grade :i0 rehar has evideor.ly
been pl-aced ln ai1 u611s j,n the coEpiex as opposed co Ehe Grade
60 rebar tor which the waLls were oesigned and aB ltas noted on
lhe retaining wall 6Eructurai <irawings. Dlck Nelson nad
verrlled wit,h his supplier ttrac Gradc 4U had in tact been
suppili:d to him for hle waj.L rebar. llj-s footings Idere' horrever 'builc r{lth Grade 60 rebar.
ihe retalnlng wa1l coraplex as bullt by r'ielson/Zeeb differs fron
the scheme as approved by tile lown of Vail on the iandscape
arcillteccrs drawlngs. The coupiex l8 uoc ac h18h ae desrgned by
our offlce, oeaning ttlat the tJal.ls retaln less earth ln chelr
rlSxr-Erum condltlorre, and rhe plan of ttre tJails varj.eB f rom wtrat
na8 reprecboted on tbe iandscaPe dlaitlngs ancj rhe structural
drdwiogs. I understand thac ttre6e chaoge6 wel'e su8gesLed by
Nelson/Zeeb and approved by the Towr^ of Vall'.
Tira! portlon of the rctai-ning wall cornpJ.ex wtrlch has thiree walis
as refiected on scction I of the structural drartlngs is a
concrete cri b wali. lnese wails are Er4/o-I,\ray sPaoa. Tite
nonzonEal span is to the rreEurn walfsr. Ae de6igned' these
face wallg cantrlevered 12r-0 troo ttie footing aod Epanned
horrzoncally beEateeu reEurn wa-lls at I U I -d m:lxinun spaclng. Ag
buiit, tne tlrree uall portion hac a m4xinrum cancllever apan tron
che foorlng of 10'-0 ,rnd a naxinum horlzoncal spao between
recurn walle ot tJr-6, Atcor verlfyrng cheee dioenslona in the
tlei<l. I checkeo the deslgn of the walls for Grade 40 rebar and
found them to be !.dequate.
r
I' 't'./,' 44,6FDIA'aa'
\l'l ,! t Itr ./
,I
tt
Fleld 0beervation Report
Javler Velaequez
JuIy 21, 1982
Page 2
.
The wallb reflected ln Sectioos 2 and 3.of the structural
drawidgs (the Btngle wal.l and tro wall deelgns) are deelgned ao.
ooe*ray canfllever epans frof Ehe footioge. The roaxLnrn aertb l
belng put aBalnst these wal,le hae been reduced 10 a lannetr
slnllar to Ehe Ehree wall condltlon. A check of the reloforclnt
ltr tbeae walle for the lesseoed aoount of earth },hlch they bave
to retaln, found th€n co eleo be adequately relaforeed.
The Torn of vsll haa requegtaa ,n.a oo" orrio{ i,r5.is{en ' :
as-bullt drarlng of Ehe retal8itrg nal.l cooplex and calculatlons
reflectlag the prevlously deecribed changee. Thls plan ehould
be forthcooing rrithln one week.
In th€ portlon of the conpler nhlch contalna three valla 1o
aecllou, the horlzoatal bars in the up-hlll [8t of rebar vac
placed on the wrong elde of the vertlcal bar; 1.e., the vertlcal
bar wae cloaer to ttre fora. Furttrer, thle up-hlIl oat for the
tbree wall portlon of ttre conplex was typlcally 3- clear of the
up-blll face of the form ae opposed to the l-L/2" clearance
ehown oo t,he struccural drawlngs. Dtck Nelson had two ne! beglo
placlng thle pat:' at the proper clearance almoat t@ediately.
For ny r'edeslgn calculatlons I utillzed ao effectlve depth fror
dovn-h1ll face of concre[e wall to ceoter oi horlzontal bar aod
vertlcal bar as placed. The uat, io ltB final Poiiclont
averaged 2" to 2-I/2" clear of tbe up-hlll face.
Bar epacing wae generally very good. I could flad no locatloa
where bars were placed turEher aparE Ehan shown on thG draitlogs.
Dowels troD', Ehe toorlDg8 were alnoat plwnya vepy cleane . lebag... .'",
placed Ln the walla wa$ very clean aod Bhowed i-lttle ecale. TEi-"
top of tne footlng was precty dLrty t lth plecee of plywood forr'
dlrt and snal,l rocks litcering che bottoa of lt. I euggeated lt
be cleaned and Dlck Neleon had cwo aen proceed wlth vacuuolng
the foollng nlth an induetrj.al grade vacuun whlle I waa on the
61. te .
At one l.ocatlon Eo b€ descrlbed ou tbe as-built drawings t I
requeated horlzontaL reloforceaeot be added to the wall. 'Xhlc
wac done before I left rhe slte. The overali stability of'. the
retalnlng wall coapler v1ll, of courae, oot be affected by rebar
atrength or placenent. Glven all of the return wallc and
corners !n the retainlng wall coraplex, Ehe uall epan for eartb
pre8aures le, ln nost ea8e8, prloclpatly horiaontal rsther theD
vertlcal,.
;,'*.
-a- .
C. FREDERIC IqEYER
Attorney at LawP. O. Box 2206Vail, Colorado 81658
303/ 47 6-0817
September 14, 1981
Mr. Rodney Slifer
Mayor
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road VJestVail, CO 81657
Dear Rod:
On Tuesday, September 15, the Town Council will hear an appeal of
PauI Johnston of a three to two decisj-on of the Design Review Board
denying an application for review to a residence under construction
(approximately 808 complete) on Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch
Subdivision.
I represent Xavier Velasquez, who executed a Contract of Purchase
and sale on this duplex in March of this year and I have no other
interest in this property.
The issues are complex but I will try to simplify them and make
some suggestions for their resolution. The undisputed facts are
these:
1. PauI Johnston, a CPA from Kansas City and owner of
a Vail Racquet CIub Condominium, purchased this Lot on August 7,
1980 for $22s,000, with the intent of constructing a duplex for
resale.
2. Seeking a contractor' Megapolitan Mortgage and the
First National Sank of Glenwood Springs (which made the construction
loan of $459,000) recommended Dan Gagtiardo/COs Snterprises and a
Contract was subsequently executed between them.
3. Duane Piper of Wheeler, Pi-per Architects was selectec
as architect but did not supervise the construction.
4. The plans were reviewed by the DRB and approved on
July 30, 1980.
5. Construction started sometime in September, 1980.
Mr. Rodney Slifer
September 14, 1981
Page Two
6. Negligent and sloppy construction procedures by
Gagliardo infuriated Georges Boyer, the owner of the adjacent but
undeveloped Lot 5. As a matter of fact, on October 27, 1980' he
obtained an injunction in the District Court of Eagle County ordering
Gagliardo to refrain from trespassing on his land.
7. During the next eight months as constructj-on continued
he made approximately a dozen unauthorized changes from the approved
plans. Most of these were minor, but a couple of changes \,/ere
substantial, such as the color of the sid.ing; and, one was major.
Specifically, the elevation of the concrete slab foundation was
raised so that one-half of the duplex is presently 4.7 feet above
the approved plan and the other half is 2.5 feet above the approved
plan.
8. On June 25, L98L, the Town of Vail red-tagged the
construction sige for these violations.
9. On JuIy 20' l9BI, the Town of Vail Appeals Board
voted to revoke the license of Gagliardo.
10. Xawier Velasquez was at all tines completely unar^rare
of any unauthorized changes frorn the original approved plans.
11. Paul Johnston states that he was unaware of any
unauthorized changes from the original approved plans, and
specifically never had the slightest idea that Gagliardo had
changed the elevation of the sl-ab without the knowledge or approval
of the DRB.
The validity of the above facts are indisputable but then the
claims, co'dnterclaims, accusations and other evidence become
clouded. Central to these issues is the integrity and' credibi-1ity of
PauI Johnston. One or more neighbors in the heat of the dispute
(an<t I think to make an example of a newcomer to our comrnunity) have
rnade slanderous accusations lgainst him, some of thern in generalities
such as "he is the wOrst liar Itve ever known" and some of them in
particular. such as "he moved the surveyor pins so the structure
would be within the required setback," and perhaps most inportantly,'he knew about the change in height from the beginning." Because
these allegations have been widespread. and presumably implicitly
accepted by people not acquainted with the facts' I want to impress
upon you trrat no evidence has ever been presented in any of the
oifi"i.f hearings to suppor't them. On the contrary, as attorney for
Xavier Velasquez, I have investigated these allegations and have
determined that thev cannot be substantiated-
Mr. Rodney Slifer
September 14, 1981
Page Three
It is also important for you to know that once the problerns were
known, every effort has been made and no expense has been spared
to arrive at a constructive solution to the problems caused by
Mr. Gagliardo. A whole team of experts has been retained to
ensure that everything necessary will be done in the most professional
manner.
1. Phil Taylor, an architectural engineer; has been
retained to supervj-se the planning and supervise the construction
necessary to bring the structure back to the original approved
specifications.
2. Chen and Associates were brought in to clo the soils
testing for the foundation problems.
3. KKBA were hired to make recommendations to correct
the foundation problem.
4. Gary Roessler, formerly of
in to redo the landscape p1an.
5. Intem,ountain Engineering
determined that the pins were accurately
moved.
Gage Davis, has been brought
has redone the survey andplaced and had not been
6. Nelson & Zeeb were hired to clean up the work site
and to complete the construction when and if approved by the Town of
Vail.
Meanwhile, Paul Johnston has endeavored to conununicate vrith the
adjacent property o\4/ners in an attempt to resolve at least some
of the problerns in a friendly manner, but they refuse to even talk
with him.
Nevertheless, I was confident that all of the above measures taken
by the developer rvould result in a favorable decision from the DRB
on September 2, but the meeting was adjourned for lack of a quorrn1l
(two members abstaining because of a conflict of interest) until
9:00 a.m. on Thursday. However, that meeting did not start until
20 minutes later and it I^Ias therefore irnpossible for everyone to
present their analysis of the problems and proposed solutions before
the meeting was adjourned due to the opening of Court.
Mr. Rodney Slifer
September 14, 1981
Page Four
It is somewhat difficult to ascertain with certainty from thetranscript of the DRB minutes exactly why the requested changeswere turned do\"rn since they refer to general sections of theOrdinances rather than particular findings with reference tospecific height limitation or grading problems. It r^/as alsodisappointing that no attempt was made by the DRB to suggest
how the developer cd[td rneet the objections of the Board-or whatkind of solutions might be acceptable, or at teast provide thebasis for further negotiations. I think that the DRB had aresponsibility to make sorne attempt at cornprornise, but perhapsthe adversarial atmosphere preclud.ed that.
However, I did read and then discuss with Peter Jarnar his
Memorandum of September 9, 1981 and he told me that problems Iand 2 are no longer at issue, but problem 3 concerning height anddrainage and problem 4 concerning retaining walls remain to bedecided.
It is self-evident that Gagliardo changed the elevation to theconcrete slab without either the knowledge or approval of the DRBon the one hand, or Paul Johnston and Xavier Velasquez on the otherhand. I suppose that somebody could say that Paul Johnston shouldhave known this, but I want t.o ernphasize that he is a CPA withno previous experience in construction and no reasonable personcould irnpute that kind of knowledge to a nan who sirnply observed.the construction for a few minutes a month when he visited Vait.In the final analysis it was almost nine months after the slab
was poured that it caught the attention of the building inspector.
When you visit the site you will notice that the structure has
been sited well below the grad.e of the driveway to Federmans and
even further below the cul cle sac in front of Luc Meyer. In fact,if you walk up to the garage 1evel of Lucrs house, rnuch lesshis living 1eve1 on the second floor, you v.rill see that, his view isharl-y impacted at all. Then, if you reconnoiter Boyers' land youwill see that their view is almost totally South and one would haveto have a wj-1d. imagination to lend credence to their claim thatthey have been even slightly damaged by the small- change in height.
Perhaps it is equally important to realize that their strongreaction to the problem of height is exceeded only by a veritablyfierce reaction t.o what they claim is a change in drainage frorn thej-rLot 5 to Johnstonrs Lot 4, to the reverse now. They deny the
accuracy of the consulting engJ-neer's report that the contour linesof the original survey indicate that vrater draininq from Lot 4 has
Mr. Rodney Slifer
September 14, 1981
Page Five
always flowed a few feet onto Lot 5. Moreover, they refuse to listento or make any attempt to understand that the landscaping planpresented to the DRB incorporates a complex and expensive method offrench tile drainage construction to absolut.ely ensure that regardlessof which way water rnay have flowed in the past, not a single drop willflow on their land in the future. I came away from the DRB meetingon September 3 with the firm conviction that the heated and unprovenaccusations the Boyers made against the integrity of Paul Johnston
made it difficulL for the DRB to fu1Iy understand that the drainageproblem, if it ever existed, is now moot.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that the West half of the duplex is2.5 feet higher than originally approved and the East half (the lorverhalf) is 4.7 feet hiqher. What are alternative solutions?
I. The structure is on a s1ab, the interior wal1s areonly eight feet high, and the pitch of the roof is the minimum4.52L2. As a resuIt., the structure would have to be demolished, theslab destroyed and the house completely rebuilt to bring it r4rithinthe letter of the law. I don't believe that is a reasonable solution,nor one that would be upheld by a court of equity.
2. Although hi-gher than originally approved, the heightof both sides of the duplex are well within the then existinq and I
Johnston has proposed extensive landscape plans to mitigate the changein height but once again the same people refuse to listen, much less
cooperate in seeking an equitable solution.
3. Some of the neighbors seem to be more interested in
punishing the cont::actor and the developer than arriving at ajust solution. In this connection, Gagliardo has had his license
revokedf which is small punishment for the havoc that he has
wreakedonso lnany oLhers. He rvill simply move his operation somewhere
e1se.* On the other hand, Paul ilohnston has already suffered damages
in excess of $175,000 and his out of pocket costs continue at $700.00per day. Meanwhile, Georges Boyer and Luc Iqeyer refuse to even
discuss, much less attempt a compromise.
4. Assuming that the height problem can be solved, the only
other problem remaining is described in paragraph 4 of Peter Jamar's
Memorandun of September 9. Here again' I got the impression from the
foreshortened meeting of the DRB that the opponents of the appellant
allowed their vindictiveness toward Paul Johnston to obfuscate a very
*In this connection the Tovm of Vail Planning Commission Agenda for
Monday, September !4, ind,icates that Gagliardo is requesting variances
for half a dozen sites in Biqhorn.
Mr. Rodney Slifer
September 14, I98l
Page Six
inaginative, attractive and expensive plan to step back the slopeby three stone walls instead of one tall rail-road tie walL asoriginally approved. Moreover, it is important to keep in mind.that the very problem itsel-f stems from the way that the road wasoriginally cut into the hillside - a problem for which Paul Johnston
has no responsibility.
I hope that you and the other members of the Town Council will giveyour roost thoughtful consideration to the proposed solutionspresented by Paul Johnston an4 dj-stinguishing fact from allegation,
and emotion from reason, come to a constructive decision.
Sincerely,,a/
C. Frederic Meyer
CFM:mec
I4EI\,X]RANDUM
TO: Town Corurcil
FROM: Community Developrnent Department /Peter Janar
DATE: Septenber 9, 1981
RE: Appeal of a Design Review Board Decision Pertaining to a Requestfor Building and Landscape Changes on Lot 4, Potato Patch Subdivision.
At their meeting of September 3, 1981, the Design Review Board heard a
request to nake changes to the Johnston Duplex which is being constfucted
on Lot 4, Potato Patch. The requested changes dealt with several problens
'r'hich have arisen since the original DRB approval of the pxoject on July30, 1980. The problems have been:
1. A deck constructed on the southwest side of the structure was foundto be within the side setback supported by a permanent foundation.
The deck was required to be renovedn and the applicants presented
a revision of the deck area for approval of the Design Review Board;
2. Materials used on the exterior of the structure were substantiallydifferent than those approved by the Design Review Board on July
30, 1980 (the original approval). The applicant proposed to restorethe structure to the originally approved materials and design;
3. The topography of the lot has been altered fron what was originally
approved. Prior to construction, fill was brought onto the lot,resulting in a 4.7 foot increase in floor slab in the prirnary rmit
and 2.5 feet in the secondary unit and thus also a corresponding
increase in the height of the structure. This alteration of the
topography has caused a severe drainage problem between lot 4 and
the adjacent lot. The applicant presented plans to nitigate the
drainage problern and severe slope to the Design Review Board.
4. A retaining wall within the required 20 foot front setback exceeds
the maximun height of 3 feet. The applicant presented plans to the
DRB which addressed stepping this wall down to a maximun height of
3 feet.
The Design Review Board, after hearing the presentation, voted 3-2 to
deny the application requesti.ng the revisions. In the notion for denialthe Design Review Board stated that the application was not in compliance
Lot 4 Potato Patch -2-I s/e/8r
with the Toun of Vailrs Design Review Guidelines--specificaLly section18.54.010 B: 'To ensure that the location and configuration oi structuresare visually harnonious with their sites and surrounding structures, anddo not unnecessarily block scenic views fron eiisting buildings or tendto dominate the townscape or natu?al landscape", Section 1g,54.070 R:rrln residential areas, location and configuration of buildings should naxi-nize the privacy of surrounding dwellings and should intrude into theirviews to the mininlrm extent feasible'r, and Section 18,54.070 M:rron hillsides,excessive grading should not be pernitted for buiding sites, access drives,offostreet parking, pool sites, recreation areas or other inprovements.I
The applicants have appealed
appeal will be heard at your
any questions, wish to visit
have received regarding this
A transcript of the DRB meeting is attached.
the decision of the Design Review Board. The
Septenber 15th neeting. If any of you have
the site, or look at the nany letters weissue, please contact rne.
' vail, colorado 81657
(3031 476-5613
September 30, 1981
Mr. Lawrence J. Kelly
Attorney at Law
P.0. Box 927
Eag1e, Colorado 81631
Dear Mr. Ke'l 1y:
Si ncere'ly,
Department
DR: df
Larry Rider
Pau'l Johnston
rector
of Community Development
rl
department of community development
RE: Duplex on Lot 4, Potato Patch
In regard to your letter dated September 29, 1981 the Town of
Vail Zoning Code does not allow for a re-hearing by Town Council.
I am now tunning this matter over to the Town Attorney.
I|al
LawrenceJ.Kellv
Attorney at Law
September 29, L98I
Dick Ryan,
Department
Box 100VaiI, CO
Review Board.
By way of a memorandum,
Colorado Bill of Rights,
Iaw of the Supreme Courtof the United States.
Re: Duplex on Lot 4, Potato Patch Subdivision
Dear Mr. Ryani
Regardine yours of 9/23/81-, please be advised as follows.
Western Management does not concede that the subject duplexstructure is in violation of ordinances of the Town.
Western Management claims that the Town, its council and
Design Review Board exceeded its jurisdiction in itsdecision on Western Manaqement Companyrs application.
Western does request a new hearing before the Councilto allow the Council to correct procedural and substantiveerror.
Western claims that excessive damages are attempted to beextracted, there was insufficient evidences before the
Council to support its conclusion. and that Council
committed error in law by failing to permit applicant to
address the issues as defined by the findinq of the Desiqn
)a ll)
Directorof Community Development
8L657
Western Management cites, the
ordinances of the Town and caseof Colorado and the Supreme Court
Please take this request for a new hearing as withdrawn ifthe District Court of Eagle County, Colorado does not requirethe request as a condition precedent to entertaining its
separate jurisdiction on the subject matter and. parties.
very truly,
Posr oFFlcE wx 927 r EAGLE, coLoRADo 81531 o TELEPHONE 303/328-2338
a ,l)
Tsor"r.l.s P. T-mrrlv
33oo ENrEx I}UTLDTNG
Eorrsrolt, TExAs zToos
Septerber 18, 1981
Tolm of Vail
c/o l&. Peter J€EEr
Tot'm Planer
P.O. Bor 100
Vail, @ 81657
Dear lft. Jarnr:
For the past lrcelcs, I have besr out of my office. I{hsr I returned, I
learned of the request for rirariances relating to l.ot #4, Block 1, in
Vail's Potato Patch Sr:bdivision. Needless to say, I raculd like to go
crt record as being opposed to the Tolsr of Vail granting ttrese'variances.
As yru nay or rury now loror, I have inrrcsted considerable sums of rrney
in real estate in Vail, Colorado. I rade these investrrEnLs after look-
ing into relatire seo:rity afforded by ttre Vail To^in Zoning Ordinances.
Ihe rrari"ances requested in regard to this c'ne particular lot far o<ceeds
vfrrat I wcrrld ccnsider pnrdent vari.ances and, consequendy, I mrst go c'n
record as being strongly cpposed to tlre granting of said vari€nces.
Very tnrly yours,
Itrcsras P. Tath^an
rpr/pj1
September l5 " '198.|
The Honorable Rodney Sl
& Members of the
Va i 1 Town 0ffi ces
Va i'l , Col orado
Gentl emen:
ifer, MayorVail Town Council
hle, the Vail Village Property 0wners Association, feel
CDS Enterpr*ses fras flagrantly violated the ordinances ofVail in the development of the duplex on lot 4 in Potato
Patch.
We as k that no approval be gi ven to
changes i n the pl ans ori gi na1 ly approved
view Board. They shoul d conform to thoseall developers are required to do.
Very Truly Yours,
the resulting
by the Design Re-originrl plans as
Va
As
Tw
ege
oll ,li
P ro per
Fi rst
ng
0wne rs
rough
ss0c ecretaryrot
./KKBNA
Inco.por6tod
Con.ultln0 €n9toca.r
7456 Wt".l lrnh Aeanu.
Dttru (i'tnad() I]/,llli
343 232 t./ ),{)
I. Lcr 4 i 1li'0 lNDt Vr,O O ,,,.
t', r,ae r1 0,r' , rr
l)r!na Ai
L rrr K Ir rtli!
;=-'-1
\ Ar3ocl.t. Prtnctprt. I\'..--=.--'-
. .r'r f. ir (r.rvr '
rnr!,' I , | \Lrl
tutu-
/ lottn Flatr, p.E.
As socLate
JF/nlb
I ro"no"'. I -.
(19;,3 r rr70i
Septenber 14, l98l
Mr. Phtl Taylor
Phllllp ScotE Taylor Archltectural Services
77 Metcalf Road
P.0. Box 103
Vall, C0. 81657
Dear Phil:
As you and Mr. Johnston requested we have revlewed the gradlng
and dralnage plan for the Johnston Duplex.
An examlnatlon of the origlnal topo supplled to us Lndlcatesthat ln Che natural state surface lrater dld flow fron Lot 4,Block l, PoEato patch acroes part of Lot 5, Block I, potato
Patch. ( See atCached drawlng for dralnage dlrectlonal arrows).
A aite specifLc dralnage study lndicates that the l0 year 24hour peak rate of dlscharge would be approxlmaEely 0.g cublcfeet per second whlle the 100 year 24 hour peak rate of dls-
charge would be approxLnately 1.4 cubtc feet per second.
These calculatlons are based on che U.S. Sotl Conservatlon
ServLce method and are for the enElre Lot 4.
Uslng Mannlngs EquatLon for ftow Ln open channels the Bwalealong the South llne of Lot 4 rhtch is a seml-clrcular 6wale6- deep and 4t wlde and at a nearly 302 slope wLll carryapproxlnately l3 cublc feet per second.
coostructed as shown,
the butldlng on Lot 4 and
If you have any questlons or lf
aervlce, please call.
Slncerely,
I can be of any furEher
The gradlxg plan suppl led to us, tf
protectwadequate I y
not, create a prob len-
i'
\
LI
l.)t
o
.].rl
f9r
N
all
I
{nr
'p'
I
i:I
t
{\I
(\a
'll9J
31,
)l(.i-:
T\
u'l
iil
..:'.-\)\'...
-)'.1
\{
N=-
;a' ,.
el
rNoc
+ i5B
(
ql
F,'
L.
1--
9..
cJ\'(t\
.1r INi
11?
F
q)
o
2
I
I
ial
\\
oi?
, -'-J\J
-J'qz,
c)
F'- '
e
i
c<
tiJ
rtr
I
?rl
t=\.
L,_
L'Jt-
I
-f:-- -T-
l
Iii; I(o
-_,:
I
I
\'
\
I
//
.l:
. v:
:.- t- n.(
Snowdon:
Peter Janar:
Snowdon:
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
Septernber 2, 1981
0kay, this is a special Design Review Board Meeting, Thursday,
September 3, 1981. Could we please have it qujet? Thank you.
This is a continuation of a djscussion from the Design Review
Board Meeting of Wednesday, September 2, on the Johnston
Duplex, Lot 4, Block 1, Potato Patch bui'l ding and 'l andscape
changes. I would like to, at this time, inform everybody
present that we are here on a limited time. Court starts
at sometime I think between 10:00 and L0:15, so because we
are on a limited time schedule, the best way we feel to
handle this is to have the applicant make a bri ef 15 to
20 minute presentation. Those from the publjc who have
something to say then can take 15 to 20 minutes total to
respond to the applicant's presentation so those that are
responding, please keep it brief and then we will allow
some more time for the applicant to respond to any comments
made by the audience at that time and then allow the DRB to
have discussion and make a decision on the matter. So,
first of all, could we have
l4embers present.
0h, excuse me. It's nine o'clock in the morning. Uh,
members present for the meeting are Donovan, McKivan,
Matthews, Boyd and Snowdon.
JAl,lAR:I ought to do a little background here.
LARRY ESKWITH:
JAMAR:
Uh, 1.1r. Snowdon let nre interject for just a second. I
think the program you set forth is a good one and I also
think that there should be time after each presentation
to the Des'ign Review Board to ask questions of the various
opposing sides. And I think also that each side would
probably desire the opportunity to make a brief closing
statement of some kjnd. 0kay? If that's acceptable to the
Board.
0kay, uh the reason we are here today is that this is
a duplex that was originally approved on July 30 of 1980
by the Design Review Board. S'ince that time several
problems have occurred which the applicants will be proposing
to either comply with the Code or request changes. The
first problem that occurred was that there was a deck which
was constructed within the set-back and we will be seeing a
proposal for a revision of this area to the bui'l ding. Second
is that materjals used on the exterior of the building were
not as approved. The appl'icant has been directed by the
Design Review Board on July 1, 1981 to use the orig'ina1
materia'l s whjch were approved July 30, 1980. The third item
is that the topography of the lot has been a'l tered from what
was originally approved. Fill has been brought onto the lot
resulting in a 4.7 foot increase in floor slab elevation in
the primary unit and thus the height in the primary unit, also
a 2.3 foot increase in the secondary unit. This has caused
-2-
Larry Kelly:
a severe drainage problem on the western portion of the lot
and the applicants will be speaking as to how they propose to
mitigate thjs drainage problem. The fourth item is that a
retaining wall in the front set-back exceeds the maximum of
three feet in height and revisions to this retaining wall are
proposed. Larry?
Gentl ernen,
, tny name is Larry Kelly and I am counsel to
Paul Johnston. Given the short time frame here I am going to
basically make a introduction and make a few statements for
the record only. First off we are going to present to you
issues of he'ight, landscaping, drainage, retainage, retaining
wall and the deck revjsjon. G'iving the most thoughtful
cons'ideration to the height issue, we don't think that there
is anything that can practically can be done with that issue
other than try to ameliorate the jmpact and I think that lve
will do that today and demonstrate how we can handle that
situation. With respect to the changes that were made ad
hoc in the field, we have decided that the only way to handle
that situation is to build the building as originally approved
with respect to exterior materials and things of that nature.
That also will be presented - wellr'i t won't be presented it
wil'l just be a statement that things will be built as they
were originally approved, but for the height and the varjances
between the structures that we don't think there is anything
that we can do. With respect to the drainage impact, we have
-3-
Larry Kelly:a heck of a presentation on that for landscaping and a'l so
drainage and I think that it will meet with your approval .
Uh, I think I''l I tell you what we are gonna do then Gary
Ros'ler, who is a landscape architect who was with the Gage
Davis firm - we couldn't hire your own consultant because that
was'a little to close so we did the next best thing. Gary
just left their firm to go on his own so we have hired him to
make this presentation. And Fred Meyer who represents Juave
Valesques who is the intended purchaser for the unit - Fred
Meyer will be representing him in this capacity and he will
make the presentat'ion. What we are gonna do is that we are
gonna start with a planning analysis, we're going to demon-
strate how that the planning around the structure, those
plans do not in and of themselves interfer with views. They
were put in for the purposes of ameliorating the additional
height without themselves being a cause for problems. tl'ith
respect to the rendering we will go clockwise around the
building showing those landscaping plans in dealing with
drainage when we come to the west lot line issue. Uh,
topography and drainage will be dealt with as a subpart of
that. There will be section drawings show'ing a slope analysis
and lastly there will be a landscape plan that will designate
the species and caliper of the trees and the species of grasses
and I think the best thjng to do right now, this is the substance
of the presentation and I'll turn it over to Gary to make this then.
-4-
SNOWDON:
Gary Rosler:
Could you identify yourself please for the tape?
Yes, my name is Gary Rosler. I am the landscape architect
and a few weeks ago I was contacted to take a look at the
property, and uh what I did was I went up on the site and
spent quite a bit of time up there trying to analyze
what I felt the problems were, and they let me know what
they felt that their problens were. I tried to look at
the problem not as one of just the property but of the
entire surrounding vicinity. The two obvious things that
I encountered - one of a lot of elevation change, which
was one of the major problems, and secondly vegetation.
The uh, as far as the landscape plan goes, I tried to
approach this as something that would blend jn with the
existing terrain as much as possible. So what I did, I
started from the very distance and I looked at the
coarseness of the existing terrain and I came down to the
road this direction here, Potato Patch Road and started
analyzing the site from about several blocks away. Every
couple of hundred feet I would stop and analyze. What I
found is that the immediate knoll here, it's kind of wide
and open has got the lighter green texture - it's the medium
courseness - in contrast to the distant mountains behind
which are darker. So, I took that information and I said
well the planting theme should keep in consistancy with the themes
-5-
Snowdon:
Rosl er:
that are there now, with the courseness of the materials
that are there now, and with the same forms basical1y.
So, that was something I used to determine the plant
materials. The grading, the paticular site here was
kind of mounded and contoured gently. So, I wanted to
match that as much as possible.
The mounding, I assume that was agajn talking about ex'i sting
and not the situation that was developed during construction.
Right. I took a look at the overall terrain, and I got the
oniginal contour maps and 'looked at those, and kind of had
a pretty good idea of what was there originally. And, uh,
secondly, I wa1 ked around the bui1 ding and I said - well if
we are going to do a planting p1an,'l et's do jt and try and
minimize additional impact as much as possible as far as
screening views or anything like that, but at the same time
softening existing building. So this is typical diagram
showing how that was done. The, I started in the up portions
of the site and walked around and - that's what these lines
show here on sheet number one. You want to 'l ook at that?
The, basical1y most the p'l anting plots are either in front of
the building or at the side of the build'ing where they are not
screening any additional views at all. So the views would
still be the same, but the building would be screened. Also,
that predicted keeping a lot of materjals close to the building
-6-
Gary Rosler:and not pulling plant materials out from those lines in
any way. The, uh so that's kind of determining where the
site features will go. Taking a look at the grading, there
were some problems that were very hard to handle and some
were very easy to handle. l,lhat I am going to do now is
start with the front and really get into the detail of this,
so we'll take a look up this direction here and I am going
to go clockwise around the building now. Uh, this view here
is basical 1y drawing number two there. What you see now is
some vegetation down here on the existing road cut, about a
1 to 1 slope. That has been revegetated. Then it tapers off
to the origina'l break and that's where we had our problem.
The problem was, the initial slope is about 2 to 1 basically.
When they built the road in here the cut exceeded that
considerably. So it made 'i t very djfficult to contour this
back to the existing terrain. This is much steeper here than
our site up here is. So what the thing here was to do, we had
basically three choices - one would be to screen the building
completely, one would be to accentuate what is there now and
do what we can with the native plant materials, or three, just
do nothing. lrlell, the complete screening was not the way I
wanted to go because that in itself would be an entity - if we
put a hedge around the building that would pop out. And, uh,
I wanted to stay with the f1 owing run of the terrain as much
as possible. So, what we decided to do was to go ahead and
-7-
Gary Rosler:accentuate what is there now with nat'i ve plant materials,
and in doing that I used a lot of smal'l er varieties, plus
a few bigger varieties where we needed more screening.
The smaller varieties would be plants 'l ike rabbit brush,
wi1d rose. The bigger varieties would be stullberry and
things like that. These type of trees are all consistent
with the color and a lot of them are native of the site
right now. The second problem we had was the revegetation
of the slope that was already disturbed. And that was about
Ir" to L, And, to do that I had a seed mix of only native
grasses, except for a few that would be initjal starter
plants. And, the purpose of that is that what was truly
was native there would take longer to germinate. So I
put some sloper in the seed mix initially to get started
w'ith the project that would stabilize the slope. Now, in
addition to that we - al1 slopes that are Ir, to I or more
would be covered with this substance, it's actually an Aspen
product, it's Aspen trees shredded up and put in a little
net like that. It's a very good blanket and I think it is
one of the best that I have ever used. So basically aga'in
you have some native grasses down here, and on the foundation
plantings - the thing to do was to put the shrubs around the
foundation, but instead of stopping we were bringing them down
into the landscape so it didn't look like a foundation planting.
And this kind of combined natural terrain against the bu'i1ding.
-8-
Gary Rosler:
Snowdon:
Garv Rosler:
The uh, cast from existing retaining wa'l 1 through wood
which was about 67 feet in some cases, what we decided to
do to screen that was to bring in front of those some
stone retaining walls, this would make the maximum elevation
gain on the new wall about three feet. In those
pockets we put more native plant materials with the idea that
these would eventually fjll over and the wall would virtually
be subdued into the background.
0n any of those wa] ls, do they exceed any of the town
requi rements?
Yea, I believe that three foot is the maximum height 1eft.
And the problem here again is that the old wall approaches
where the initial road cut was, whjch was back in about
fjfteen feet if I reca1l. Anything beyond that you would
never be able to put a retaining wall in because it is too
steep. So, the rest of of the height was three feet, the
width is two feet. All the p'lant shields would be irrigated
with the drip system; all the shrubs would have one
per bush and the trees two. The other problems with the
grading basical 1y were that I wanted to handle all of these
things with one solution, rather than taking a look at the
grading separate away from the plant'ing, I wanted to combine
them together and the most severe grading was the front here
on the south side of the building. Now the south sjde of the
4-
Gary Rosler: bujldjng was probably one of the most difficult things to
handle. And, uh, the reason for that was presently we
have some construction soil out there, I believe what it
about looks like now is the brown mound on sheet number
four. So when you are out there now and you are standing
up there it looks like a tremendously steep s'lope. What I
did, I took the elevation d'ifference between the property
line and the foundation of the building and came up with
a slope that is actually less that 2 to 1. So - which is
easily revegetatable, I think. You can get a 1ot of quick
growth on that s1ope. But what we wanted to do was there was
some concern about water drainage from the project, and we
wanted to, jf possible, keep the water on our property only.
The, so what I am asking the Board is if we can regrade
this a little bit - and if you will look at the original
contours here - this was the grading plan done by the archj-
tect, and we are ta1 king about the area down here and I'ld
rather basically read the lines, because they're very weak here.
But at present, and actually historically I believe, these are
all the original documents I have been able to get ahold of,
the water starts down here and runs on our property down about
three-fourths of the wayo and at that point it actually crosses
the property line and follows the contour right 'like that.
What we are proposing to do here is to take this contour and
actually excavate deeper than it is done at the present time.
-10-
Snowdon:
Rosler:
Snowdon:
Thjs would actual 1y keep the water on our property only.
That was a concern of one of the neighbors and we would
be very happy to accommodate that. The grading plan
which is sheet njne shows the proposed grad'ing. Here 'is
what we propose to do - actually we are cutt'ing back in
beyond what was original grade in this case to get the
water to flow in th'is direction, all the cross hatch
here shows where we will have slope control with the
Aspen blanket grass. hle, uh, this is a french drain which
isshown on sheet six. The purpose of that is to catch the
new water which is runn'ing through the property before it
qets to the new draw-
You may want to speed things up here if you have other
people wanting to present other material simply because
of time limit.
0h, well that is our solution to the south side of the
house basical 1y. And, sheet three shows what it wjll
look I i ke.
0kay, now the french drajn at the base of the ravine is
exposed?
No, the french drajn is actually about one to two feet
off center from the bottom of the drain. And that would be
aneighteen inch square trench filled with about a foot and
Rosler;
- 11-
Gary Rosler: a half of grave'l . Then we want fiberglas blanket over the top
of that which forces the soil and on top of that the native
grasses. So, that will not show.
Snowdon: 0kaY'
Gary Ros'ler: In front of the building on sheet five - what we decided to
do here, and this is kind of a high infector also, was screen
the front of the building here then have a lot of architectural
detail w'i th Aspen trees. Keeping, again out of sight views of
things like that and bringing some more around the entry here.
This is the owner's entry onto the project. And, uh, this
would be using native grasses, staying with the native contours!
recontouring the whole site in a very flowing manner. So that
wasn't rea11y toomuch of a problem.
Snowdon: Existing djdn't they have some substantjal retaining wa11s
along that driveway that weren't originally shown on the
drawings that were put jn, is that
Gary Ros'ler: l^lell they did show retaining walls .
Snowdon: Yea, basically on
Gary Rosler: There is no architect's drawing to show that that was going to
haPPen.
Snowdon: But didn't they pul1 substantia'l retaining walls back up into
this area?
-t2-
Gary Rosler:
Matthews
Gary Rosler:
Is
to
No, there are none in here. They go about in here.
Now, what we have done is on the grading plan propose
more retaining wa1ls. hle've got a small section here
that will be l.andscaped. 0n sheet seven, this is the
north view and what we want to do here, and there are
some severe cuts there now, is again recontour that to
a natural shape, landscape that with native grasses
again so that the ulhole landscape will be very natural
this going to remain, this fall here? Is that going
be faced with thestone?
That is about a 3' or 4' fall. Then what
happens is actually at this point is that this will be
contoured up around, look at the grade, we will take these
lines and bring them around. At the present time it actually
goes underneath the deck right there. So when the landscaping
is in, what we are going to do is put Aspen trees in here
plus a bigger native shrub or two. So this will be very
much softer. So the impact from this angle here will be
reduced. And we've also put some very intensive landscaping
right infie entry right here. So the whole entry wil1 be
soft. The kind of trees we will use wj1 I be Aspen because
that's rea1ly a1 I that is in the jmmediate area. There are
some Pines and Spruce about a block away, we wanted to stay
as much as possible with the ex'ist'ing terrain.
-13-
Gary Ros'ler: The planting plan is to, we,ve only got about six species
here is all, but that's all that are really elevated and
within site of the adjacent site. It's very natural.
l'le have native grasses here and where we have to go on
the adjacent properties we are going to do that in cooperation
with the owners.
Matthews That's a very nice p1an, thank you.
Gary Ros'ler: Any questions?
MatthEws I have a question in how much of the crib wall that is there
now is going to make, and what the height of it is?
Gary Rosler: What wall?
Matthews In the front, the one you see as you drive up?
Gary Rosler: It is just about three feet.
Matthews You can still break it down and then you are going to leave
it and put a stone wall in front of it?
Gary Rosler: Yes, actually sta'l ls in front of that. So we'll have sort of
like a six or seven foot wall, starting at the top and coming
down three feet for the first
So are you going to stone, stone, wood or stone, stone, stone?Matthews
-14-
Gary Rosler: Stone, stone, wood. It should be pretty subdued.
Craig Snowdon And then again the reta'ining walls that are being added
on the southwestern end of the house, basically sheet
three are again stone?
Gary Rosler; Yes, those walls are stone. A1 I new wallLs will be stone'
Matthews Don't you think it would look better to deve'lope stone,
cause as it is now'i t looks like it's in a cast.
Gary Roslerr l,lell that's why we wanted to go with the tree to cover that.
The three foot one. And the wall that is there now'is
not going to be a structure wall, cause we thought with what was covered
in the two lower walls which would be the most obvious the
top wall will be covered. We have got a very dense pine
to go 'in there. And again we have brought it not only 'in the
walls but down into the terrain, so it doesn't stop there jt
flows into the existinq terrain.
Diana Donovan: Do the trees you plan to put'i n, will they give the irmediate
effect that you show or js that ten or fifteen years down
the I ine.
Gary Rosler t,lell, no less time than that. The trees were as big as I
thought safely could be used. If you transplant Aspens that
are to big it is not sometimes to anyone's advantage rea'| 1y.
So, we've got some, most of them around two and one-half to
three inch caliper, two feet above the ground level . Now we
- 15-
Gary Rosler:
Matthews
Gary Rosler:
Snowdon:
have some three and one-half inch trees in the very
front where the impact is the greatest. What I did is
use a variety of heights so I would get natural .
Is that one three and one-half?
Yea, that's the one right in front of the building.
And next to that I think we have a two and one-half inch
tree. And so most of them are two and one-half to
three inch calipers, with the two smaller ones in the
more irmediate vacinity of the ownerrs entry- Most of
the scrubs, the big ones are aIl five ga1 lons so that
rabbit brush and the roses are one ga11on sizes and the
native grasses will be watered by hand to get established.
Okay, so basical ly through this we have covered the
topography and the landscaping, retain'ing walls with your
statement on the materials that they will be basically be
as orig'ina1'ly proposed. The only other area to look at at
this point is that deck which is on the south side. Is
that correct? And at one point there was a proposal for
modification of that, is that basically what 'is happen'ing
with the deck area.
Yes, there again we have that in the file for consideration
and that has been our intent a1l along to revise the deck
as originally submitted. I don't have a date on that but it
Larry Kelley
-16-
Snowdon
Larry Kel'ly:
D'iana Donovan :
Larry Kel1y:
'is called Wheeler/ Piper Arch'i tects Revision to Duplex
Residence Secondary, 802 Potato Patch, two sheets.
0kay, and with that being incorporated, it brings the deck
w'ithin the town set-back requ'irements, is that correct?
That is Iiterally the only presentation that it does take
it back into the town ordinances and everybody has reviewed
that to my knowledge. 0kay, so at this point, the only
question unresolved is the height, the discrepancy in
the foundation changes in the building itse'lf. Now what
v',e are saying on that issue is that there literally is
nothing that can be done, what we are trying to do is
mitigate the impact of that in every way that we possibly
can. Everything we have power over, we are doing. Everything
that we can give you, we are giving you.
Mr. Chairman? I'le couldn't hear that last statement.
I'm sorry, what I said is with respect to the issues of height
we are saying to the Board that we know of no way to deal with
that other than mitigating the circumstances of its present
existence. And that is what this presentation is for. The
last thing that I said to this Board was that our intent was to
do everything in our power to make this right, everything that
we can give, we want to give and I think we are giving.
-t7 -
Snowdon:
Larry Kelly:
Snowdon:
Jocilyn Boyer:
Snowdon:
Jocilyn Boyer:
0kay, does the applicant have
presentati on?
We have just a few statements
to the record, but I think as
to present to you, and to the
have done, and we will reserve
statements at the end.
anymore in the way of
to make by way of introduction
far as information is concerned
audience here, this is what we
the right to make a few
Iot five and
is going to
five? What is
the presentation
Okay, now do we have any questions or comments from the
floor? Anybody concerned with tre project?
I would like to know
Could you please, whenever you ask the Board or the applicant
could you please identify yourself for the tape so that we
can have as much information on the record as oossible?
My name is Jocilyn Boyer and I am the owner of
lot six. I wou'ld like to know where the water
go, is there a swale between 1ot four and lot
going to take up the water? l^le couldn't hear
when he was ta'lking to the Board djrect'ly.
As presented to the Board, they have developed as shown on the
one drawing there in the white, and you are more than welcome
to come up and take a c'loser look at both the drawings on the
board and the ones in front of the board as to what the desiqner
Larry Kelly:
-18-
Larry Ke] 1y: proposes, and on that south slope, if you want to turn
this upside down he 'is proposing a series of retaining
walls that will step down and bring the grade more
back into normal slope, if I understand, and prior to
reaching the bottom of the swale, which is on their own
property, this being the property line, they wil'l develope
an underground drain system that will carry any excess
water then directly off the property.
Jocilyn Boyer: This is the swale?
Larry Ke11y: The swale basical 1y is developed at this point, this
being the property line which I am sure you are concerned
wi th.
Gary Ros'ler: The water will come down here and perculate through into
these large, probably four inch stones, and go out towards
the
Jocilyn Boyer: How far is thjs from here.
Gary Rosler: Now that is about four feet from the property line' and three
feet from the center of the low spout of the draw there.
Larry Kel 1y: llle had that one site plan which showed a basic line running
down the, I think its page eight or nine. .
Joci lyn Boyer: Because the water drainage is now on this property and you
believe that this is going to be large enough to take all the
-19
Josilyn Boyer:
Gary Rosler:
Josilyn Boyer:
Gary Rosler:
Snowdon
water off of our property and all the drainage from the
house without spilling back on?
l,'lell, a'l I the water from this property will be - will leave
all the property itself. l'low on the contours there, if the
water falls right there, it will not run that direction.
That will be your water on your property. That will run down
your slope that way.
But the water did not run on our property before. The
drainage was this direction and the water from our property
and this property all ran that way, so now we will still have
a drainage ditch on our property.
No, actually, in my interpretation of the architect's
original drawing here is what we have here, these
don't show the contours off the property toomuch. Basically,
we are taking all the water from this property - every drop
that falls on this lot will leave on this lot. This is lot
four - will not run into lot five.
I am just wondering, 'i f you were to take a line and connect
al'l these contour points for dra'inage at this end you would
get a line that would basically tend to go this way. Is that
correct?
R'ight, as I believe the original topo reads, the water would
run off this property onto the adjacent lot and pour down into
Gary Rosler:
-20-
Rosler: the street. We are not proposing changing that completely.
So, no water runs on the adjacent1ot at al'l , but we actually
believe that it never actualiy exit at our property. But
we are wi1'l ing to make that adaption. So water that falls on
the lot now, parts of it may run into the swale, others may
run off their property.
Georges Boyer: My name is George Boyer, I am a resident of Vail. I have been
for four years. I own lots five and six, uh with respect to
this part'icu'l ar prob'l em of drainage, I would like to point
out to the Board that the orig'inal slope from lot five to lot
six as show here on this topo, this is the topo of lot six
and lot five, lets locate the original height of the building
at 86 uh what was it on the original plan, the original
altitude of the floor slab,86.30, so we follow the 86.30
line right onto here. Now this is a copy of the original plan
presented to you July 30, 1980, and you wjll follow 86.30
right on through here. Now this, as far as I am concerned,
and here again with these models, clear'ly indicates that all
drainage, at a'l I times, before the application of up to
17 feet of fill in the first week of 0ctober, 1980, all of the
dra'inage went this way. The allegation made that there was a
high point here is false, it is clearly depicted here by these
topo maps, by these models made by an architect, lots five and
six, historically, geograph'icaI'ly, topographically, the slope
has always gone this way. Now I can bring you photographs if
-2t-
George Boyer:I don't want to take to much of your time. But those
are the facts, and that the entire topography of lot four
was changed unbeknownst to the town, unbeknownst to you
when this fill was brought in up to seventeen feet, I can
show you the photographs, you've already seen them, and this
affected the entire building. Now, while we are on this,
lets face it. l,Je are looking at a request for a change, after
the fact, which, before you or before the appeals board has
been termed an error. It is our contention that is a deliberate
error by the developer, in violatjon of their trust and their
word to you on July 30, 1980 when they told you they would
build a certain e'levation of 86.30, whatever it is. They
came back when they were caught by the town staff and asked
for a change, after the fact. Th'i s change was a deliberate
change in violation of their word to you on July 30, 1980
when they presented a plan to you. This is a very serious
matter in our minds. It'is a reflection on the Town of Vai'l ,
it is a reflection on a'l I of us. It is an insult to the
intellegence of all of us and the Des'ign Review Board to be
told that this was an error. And, these plans, vegetation and
others are very handsome, we have had them before. They do not
alter the fact. This building was built in vjolation of
authorization by you, town codes and regu'l ations.
-22-
Jocilyn Boyer:
Gary Ros'ler:
Snowdon
Gary Rosler:
Larry Kelley
Gary Rosler:
It
to
has also altered the drainage, which is not allowed
be altered, as I understand it by Colorado 1aw.
I am Gary Rosler, the landscape architect. According
to the original grading plans, they do show the topograph'ied
that it originally was, and also it does show definitely
that the water drains off the property. I have those here
if you would like to look at them.
0kay, why don't you take the models off.
Sheet one of the architects drawings, here is the site that
vle are talking about. flere is our property line here, and
uh, as you can see actually the architect had contours
beyond the property 1ine. We have now brought them, not
only back to our property 1ine, but actually made a definite
swal e.
I'loul d
whi ch
you
way
make a definite statement for the record as to
the water flowed original'ly?
I believe, from my interpretation of the topography, when
normally the water will run perpendicu'lar to the contour
lines, if you follow those, it shows that the water runs off
lot four from the bottom third of the lot, onto lot five.
then off into the street. That was the oriqinal .
But now as you have them proposed, they are going to run, notLamy Ke11y:
-23-
Gary Rosler:
.-iosilyn Boyer:
George Boyer:
onto the border property?
No, there will be no water from thjs lot at any point on
the borrder property. It used to run on the border property
but now it's not going to.
We have owned this land for four years and I know every
square inch of it, and the water did not run on lot five
and I would ask the other neighbors who have ljved there and
have seen it. l'le bought a high point of land, it is no
longer a high point of 1and. I cannot say it any more
simply than that. There was no water running on lot five.
The natural drainage went off onto lot four. I have
walked every inch of it day after day, jt js going to be
our home forever.
If it please the Board, my name is George Boyer, if I may
address the Board. I wish to show to you the photographs
taken on 0ctober 5, 1980 which I believe clearly show the
mound of fill brought in just prior to 0ctober, 1980. I
would also like to point out that the retaining wall, which
is approximately n'i ne feet or more is at the south end of
lot four, was actually built even before the footings were
put in. 0bviously to me, for one reason only, to hold the
fill that had been placed there. Now, pictures don't lie.
Now this is not a question: of the Boyers on1y. This is a
question of the Town of Vail, it is a question of many
-24-
George Boyer:
Snowdon :
Patricia Rickman:
citizens of Vail, many 'l andowners in Vail, you have a
file, I am sure full of letters, telegrams and other
statements from citizen taxpayers on this subject. This is
very important item for you to consider. We realize full
well that it is not siimple; But we must implore you to
consider the fact that on July 1, 1980 you indeed turned
down the applicat'ion for a change in the height of this
bui l di ng.
There were several items turned down. There were several
items, that be'ing one of them.
That was one of the items turned down, but that was indeed
turned down.
Due to our limited time, are there any other people from
the f'loor who have comments on the appl'icant's proposal ,
reaction to the proposal or the problem in general .
Patricia Rickman, 'l ot three, Potato Patch. I own the water
from, as the owner of lot three, I think that the Boyers
may even have a double water problem as'l of three and lot
two sit higher and in a Spring thaw, and heavy rain, they
not only have the water on four, five and s'ix, but they have
all of our water coming down also which a gutter, as people
who have'l ived here a'long time know, there is no way a gutter
-25-
will contain the water
So I am empathetic with
because I think this is
even thought of is lot
from Spring run off or heavy rains.
the Boyers in their water problem
something that they may not have
two and three that sit higher.
Donovan
Ri ckman
Joe Staufer
Where are lots two and three in relation to LuC Mbyen!'3
house?
Next door, immediately east.
Uh, my name is Joe Staufer. I have lived in Vail for
nineteen years. I have lived in this area for the last
twelve years. The house doesn't do anything to me personally
one way or the other. But, it 'is my understanding from
what I know about it, and it seems to be that this was a
deliberate, premeditated violation of ordjnances and codes -
to the codes to the first degree. I know we're not talking
about murder now, we are talking about codes and ordinances.
If we believe that our codes and ordinances are valid, and
if we believe that our codes and ordinances are here to
protect our neighborhood property values, then we have to have
the courage to inforce them, and if necessary, have the guts
to defend them.
I am -l.uc,: Meyer. Presently I live at Potato Patch 813,
Potato Patch. Myself, and I am talking also for the Federmans,
were the two only neighbors concerned about this house who
actually do live and do look at lot four at the Johnston
Luc Meyer
-26-
Duplex. llle have been repeatedly involved in this
what I call a sad situation of a house which has been built
as Joe Staufer told. They rightfully stated, in violation
of our town rules,
of our time trying
and you the Board have spent many hours
each one show our views. To me there
has been two things. There has been a violation of the
town regulation. The other thing, there was been a complete
disregard as far as we neighbor of our property, of our
investments. Now, two weeks ago I was with the Rickmans
sitting in their living room and we looked at what the
difference in the hejght, because basically the problem was
two things. One is the height, one is the foundation and
the drainage. The drainage is a problem only which affects
only one person on the Potato Patch and that would be the
Boyers. The height affects all of us, number one all of
the people in $e circle. Also, people like down the road
Mr. Trailer who believes that he is affected by the height.
Everytime we have been to the Board I have gone back to my
neighbors and told them about the he'ight of the house and what
then was their feeling. h|ell the feeling hasn't changed, as
we do feel that the house is to high. Something should be
done about the height of the house. Now I don't think that
anyone has addressed properly what can be done as far as the
height. Everybody has said, well changing the height of the
house would mean bull doz'i ng down the house and starting over
again. Now, I don't, I am not here to say anything about the
we
to
-27 -
Luc Meyer: height of the house, but we have a'l'l opposed the fact that
the house is 4.7 feet to high. I would like to tell the
Board that I personally object to the house and I would like
something to be done as far as the height of the bui'lding is
concerned, and changed.
Snowdon: Thank you sir.
Raymond Cote: Yes. I am Raymond Cote and I own lot two. I even came into
possession of'lot two before the Meyers did, and I have
been in Vail and association with Vail since 1963. I have
lived in Vail since 1971. So much for history. I have
observed the operation on the Design Review Board, and for
the most part I comrnend you for your excellent judgment and
capabilit'ies. 0f course we all have minor objectjons with
everything, but you can't p1 ease everybody all the time.
However, I would like totell you my feelings on this matter
(Tape Stops)
-28-
Tape stopped during Ray Cote,
made to the house, speci-fical1y
argued that Town of Vail codes
the increased height negatively
1ot .
He spoke against the changes
the increased height, He
should be enforced and that
affected his views frorn his
Z7
patty Rickman: Uh' I just want to go on record to say I am also
absolutely anti the height.
Snowdon: Qkay., any other connents?
Larry l(elly. Lets try to change the f'low
of this. I am going to turn this back over to Mr.
Meyer. I am going to turn this over to Mr. Meyer
who represents Juave Valesquez. I want to just
conrnent on a few things just for the record.
First off, we are within the ordjnanced height,
second off I beljeve that the demonstratjon before you
shows, and I am just making the statement, I am not
arguing the point, the water did or.i ginally f1 ow on the
bottom third of four onto five, and now we have a
presentation and plan where no water will escape on four to five.
l,l'i th respect to the retaining wal1s, we are within three
feet height limitation from the set-back. Uh, due to
the limited tjme I would like to incorporate into this
record all of the mjnutes of the prior DRB 6-3-81 , 7-30-90,
7-1-81 , And, with respect to Mr. Cote's comment, I wou'l d
like it to be noted for the record and Ms. Rickmans comment
that while the lower portion of the building is 4.7 feet to
ta11, the upper portion, the one that would I imagine
impact their view most, is a mere, but it is taller, 30
inches taller. It's not 4.7 feet taller. Thank you very
much. I would now like to turn it over to Mr. Mever to
di scuss.
-30-
Juave Val esquez:
Snowdon:
Juave Valesquez:
Fred Meyer:
I don't know if I may be allowed one or two minutes.
made a trip from Mexico just for this meeting. I am
civil engineer.
Certainly, by all means.
Thank you very much. My name is Juave Valesguea. I am
from Mexico City and I am considering purchasing this house
here jn Vail, a p1 ace I'l ove very much. The only thing that
I want you to consider, first thing excuse my very poor
english, is that the view and the side on any development
will be very badly affected as soon as buildings are popping
around. I mean you cannot expect to keep your same view
when you bought your 1ot and when all lots are constructed.
The view will always be obstructed.
My name is Fred Meyer and I am representing Senior Juave
Valesquez. I have been jnvolved for about the past two
weeks trying to determine the facts in the situation, also
to help in the solution. 0bviously you've got a difficult
and comp'l ex problem and I hope that I may be able to
simpfify it a little. There are five parties, in effect,
there is the town, there's the developer Mr. Johnston,
there was the contractor Mr. Skeleardo, there's the buyer
Mr. Valesquez and of course there are all of the neighbors.
Mr. Valesquez, whom very few of you know is a prominent
-31-
citizen of Mexico and a long time, part time citizen
of Vail. He is, if I can describe him, the tota'l 1y
innocent citizen in this who contracted to purchase this
property just in March of this year. In a sense, I am
representing him in more of a quasi-1ega1 capacity
because when he first came to me I said I want you to
understand that I consider myself a good citjzen of
Vail and will not do anything that would materially
and significantly hurt the town. There has been a lot of
adrenalin flow going about this case for a long time.
I have made my own investigation and there is no
question that the contract performed, to put it as nicely
as I can, performed miserably and atrociously. There have
been some accusations made about the developer, that he
either knew or should have known that the contractor was
not proceeding according to plan. I am not here to defend
him, but I do know that he is basically an accountant
from Kansas City who bought a piece of land and contracted
with Mr. Galeardo to build a building, he was on the site
about once a month during the period of construction and has
stated to me unequivocally that he did not have any idea
that the building was situated higher than it was supposed
to be until June of thj s year. Now, when I became involved,
and in representing Mr. Valesquez, I looked iit i't frgm the
standpoint of what can we do to rectify every possible
thing. And in coversations with Mr. Johnston's attorney,
-32-
Mr. Kelly, I said that I wanted everything brought
back to the original specs, and better, with the
possible exception of the height of the ridgeline. I
even, I am an ex-engineer myself, I even inquired into
that to see if there was some possibi't ity of lowering
it. Mr. Jamar will tell you that the slope of that
roof today is about as low as you can have it, I believe
it is 4* and 12, and there would not be any way of lowering
the roof itself. The house itse1f, incidently, is bujlt
on slab and that of course, becomes an impossibility.
Then jmmediately we called in a group of consultants,
many of whom are not here this morning, engjneers, the
landscape man, whom you have already met. I would like
to tell you that no expense has been spared in looking
at alternative remedies. Then, as you can see from the plans
here, we went al1 out try'i ng to m'i tigate the effects of the
height. So, even though we spent quite a considerable amount
of time just a few minutes ago arguing about water flowing
from one piece of land to another, I think that question is
moot because the plans that we have shown you here clearly
demonstrate clearly show that no water is going to flow
from lot four to lot five. That brings us down to what I
believe is the final thing before you, and that is the he'ight.
There is no way that we know that we can reduce the height of
that roof. Incidently, I have also tramped over those lots,
-33-
at one time I thought I might buy patti Rickman's
lot up there, so I am very familiar with it. I couldn't
he1 p notice that even though it's obvious that any structure
of any height is going to'impact someone,s view of something,
the fact is that when you drive off that cul-de-sac there, and
you drive over to the Fedeman's on their driveway, and their
driveway is lower than the cul-de-sac, then this house drops
off there about eight feet. So from the height of the road
itself, it has one of the lowest visual impacts that you could
possibly have, and I daresay that 90 or 95% of a'l I of the homes
in Vail have a structure in front of them which impacts their
view more than that does. I am absolutely understanding, and
I am absolutely sympathetic with the points of view with the
neighbors there, and if there were another alternative virtually
to demol'i shing the house I would certainly have pursued that
to the nth degree. To the best of my knowledge, to the
best of alI of the information that we have received from
the consultants that we have retained, I don't be1 ieve
that there is another solution and I am representing
Mr. Valesquez to see if we can come to an agreement to mitigate
that one factor by perhaps the most expensive landscaping p1 an
of a'lmost any home in Vail. Thank you gentlemen.
I will not take anymore comments from the audience simp'ly
because I feel we will go back and forth, back and forth.
-34-
Snowdon:
Snowdon:
Matthews:
I think basical ly everyone has spoken their piece
and it's time for the Board to come to a decision.
My only cornment is on the landscaping p'lan proposed
even ff not in-theinmediatA existing area, I feel
it would be valjd to disburse some vegetation in the way
of Evergreens. That would be a little more in the, you
know we are such a two season oriented environment up here
that Aspens in the wintertime aren't gonna do any scr:eening
so the plan, as proposed, definite'ly should be supplemented
with a few substantial Evergreen trees, just, you know
maybe on the north side where the neighbors have a view of the
building, I think that there should be some green that vli11
be year round, and will really do some of that good screening
rather than just Aspen trees.
I have the same comment asCraig,that there should a'l so
be some east, uh, in our Code, 18-54-070(q) it states that the
materials used for screening generally should be Evergreens,
and I agree. Uh, for the same reason that screens and winter
adjustment screens. And I also thjnk that all of the retaining
walls should be the same materia'l . otherwise you have
the grass and the retaining walls, and then the different
material on the house.
I have some concerns about the area that needs to be revegetated,
the slope that eventually meets with the lower road' uh, often
MCKibben:
-?q-
Snowdon:
times we see vegetation plants, the seed, is spread and it
-lrrr,lzrFlGis not adequately watered.7' I assume that iod" is actually
I assune that the slope is 'actuallv
on town property, is it?
rhe set-back is. Actually, the steepest part of theRosler:
slope is the town property because it is their retaining
system. That is the steepest part of the slope. It is
I to 1.
SNowdon: As you propose, some effort would be made to stabilize that
and make it a part of the slope.
Rosler: Yes, anything that appears to be unstable at all, even if
it 'is on town property wil'l be stabilized, and watered.
Snowdon: Any other comments of the Board.
Steve Boyd: No, I just wanted to mention this, that there should be additional
screening that cuts in ..... you wonrt be able to see past the
'. I f 41. c* 'l F:,0. "f \.r 1€l '* t* .treeS. The retaining walls should be the sane.
snowdon: Yea, I think that if we could provide. add'i tional , you
know from four to six Evergreens of substantial size,
ftun aboutlrei ght to twe'lve feet rin -hei ght
Rosler:
l,le would be happy to do that
snowdon: . . in the landscape plan how the landscape architect
feels they can be best used, but basically used for
-36-
screen'i ng adjacent property.
Donovan: My feelings are based on and I think that these
all address most of these problems. But, I feel the
function of the Desiqn Review Board is for us to
enforce, specificaltl section 18.41010 of the town
ordjnances. Although it appears that the 1ega1 specifics
are within the'l imits of the town, r feel that the plan
originally approved, without fill allowed the horne to
settle into the topography, now it dominates it and a
new topography has been created in violation of section 18.54.010(d).
Snowdon , Any other comments? I am assuming, two questions brought up
one thing, uh, the p1 anting and screening. The applicant seems
to be more than agreeab'l e to follow on that pattern. Secondly'
the retaininq walls.... There are substantial walls
around the property other than just those front walls that are
timber. Are you proposing that al'l of the walls be changed
on the property, or are you just saying that . because
be out in front because it has stone everything in the vicinity
should be made stone.
Matthews: I would rather see them made of the same material as the
house and bring all of the stone all around, but that
is a matter of taste.
Yea, but do you want to make that part of your proposal?Snowdon:
-37 -
o
Everything out of the same material? Would that material
be stone? I think it would look better in stone. A1 so,
may I be specific for the record. i think my rnain point,
section 18.54.070(r) states that residentia'l areas, 'locat'i ons
and configuratjon shall be to maxim'ize the pnivacy of surrounding
dwellings and should intrude into their views to the mj-nimun extent feasj.ble.
0kay, would anybody like to nake a proposal for the Board to vote on?
I would have to disagree and
which are out in the front in
I think that it would just be
retaining walls to be done in
just my opinion
Matthews:
Snowdon:
Snowdon:
Matthews:
Snowdon:
Larry Eskwith:
say that the high impact areas
stone seems to be addressed.
cxcessive for all of the
stone. But, that's aga'in
Well there is an exceptional amount of retaining walls
and I think with the building was built higher than it was supposed to be
and that's why you need retaining wa11s.
If there are no other questions or comments can we
entertain a notion?
Uh, the only thing I ask, Mr. Chairman, is that as party
making motion, you make certain findings that come from the
appropriate section, and I think what are talking about
are the sections fromfie Design Revjew Ordinances 18.54010
as we1l as the guildline section which is section 18.54.070.
We ask that any motion be prefaced by findings. If you find
that the, for example that structure should
-38-
domininate or not domininate,
think it 'is 'important that the
decisions on findings that are
secti ons .
or something, but I
Board make these
based on the ordinance
Eskwith:
Snowdon:
Snowdon:
Sn owdon :
Matthews :
If the Board would wish, the Board is entitled to
with counsel in chambers to get legal advise. I
te1 |ing you to do that, I am just saying you can
meet
am not
do that.
I thjnk that there are several members who would like,
'if nOthing else to make sure that nhen a statenent is nade, it is
properJy made,
Excuse us for three minutes while we discuss the
matter.
0kay, we are discussing coming up with a motion for
Johnston Dup1e4 Lot 4, Block 1, Potato Patch, building and
landscape changes.
I would like to make motion that the Johnston Dublex,
Lot 4, Block 1, Potato Patch, building and landscape
changes that we approve the changes as submitted with
the addition of six eight to twelve foot Evergreen trees
to be p1 aced on stategic locations for screening to be
approved by staff approval , and that all the retaining
wa'lls be constructed of stone.
-39-
Snowdon: Okay, is there a second?
Snowdon: I wil] second that motion.
snowdon: l,'le have a motion for approval . Johnston Duplex, Lot 4,
Block 1, potato patch, building and 'l andscape changes.
Motion was made by l4athews, seconded by Snowdon
Eskwith: tlm, could someone state why? I would like some
and would appreciate it very much if you could make it.
Matthews: 0kay, the reason be.i ng that generally it is in compliance
with section 1854.010, and section 1954.070.
Snowdon: 0kay, could you attach that to the motion please?
0kay, ws 4e have a motion..
snowdon: We1 l, that is their proposal that all the existing build'ing be brought
up to as originally proposed.
0kay, as stated there is a motion before us. All those in
favor of the motion, therefor approving the changes as proposed.
How many in favor? @e in fauor. Those opposed?
Esltwith: You are opposing your own motion?
Matthews: Yea. Why? I can't do that?
-40-
Eskwi th No.
Matthews Al 1 right, then I vote in favor.
Snowdon Could we recount?
Snowdon Al 1 those in favor of this motion. Those opposed.
Two in favor, three opposed. Snowdon and Matthews in
favor, Boyd, Donovan and McKivan opposed.
ietef Patten Larry, do you want reasons stated for their votes at
this point?
Snowdon
Snowdon
Therefor. the proposal is disapproved.
Um, do you want us to state reasons for disapproving?
Eskwith I would like a motion made disapproving and making some
findings as to why 'it 'is disapproved.
Matthews 0kay, um, . . and I make a motjon that the
Donovan No, I'11 do it, I'll do it
I don't know that is what you said
Esltwith I would like to know what your reasons are, but I would
like them stated.
Donovan I would ljke to state that I disapproved the proposal because
it is in violation of _41_
section 18.54.010(d) and in violation of sectjon 18.54.070.
Jamar What part?
Donovan R. and also M. M and R.
Jamar Under 070?
Donovan 070.
Eskw'i th
Donovan
. Snowdon
Could you read those so we know?
To insure that the location and configuration of the structure
are visua'l 'ly harmoneous with their sites and surrounding sites
and structures, and do not unnecessarily b1 ock scenic :"
views from existing buildings or tend to dominate the townscape or
the natural landscape. Also, to prevent excessive or
unsight'ly grading which wou'l d cause disruption of natural
water forces or scar natural land forms. And then section
18.54.070(m) - On hi'llsides excessive grading sha'll not be
permitted for building sites. And, (r) In residentia'l
areas, the'locationirahd configuration of the buildinq sha'l I maximize
,the privacy of surrounding dwellings and should intrude into
thbir piews the mintmum extent feasible.
0kay, I assume that- motion needs a second to'it.
McKibben Yes, I will second it.
0kay, then I assume we can vote on that. 0kay there has beenSnowdon
-4?-
fr F
a motion for us then to disapprove the Johnston Dup'lex,
Lot 4, Block 1, Potato Patch revision to building and
landscape changes. Motion made by Donovan, seconded by
McKibben. All those in favor of the motion? Opposed to
ti
the Motion? Therefonthe app'lication has been disapproved.
lileeting adjourned.
-43-
I
O1 ORIGINAL MEETING
DRB July 30,
Oj
1980
Snowdon :
Piper:
Snowdon:
Piper:
?
?
Perkins
?
Sn
Piper:
?
Pi npr"
D i nor.
Next itern on the agenda., P. aut .lonnston auptex t
Sn
Piper
Snowdon
Dinar
l. Potato Patch. For .. information, I think 3 out of the 4 nembers did visit
the site.
Ivty nane i.s Duane Piper of Wheeler-Piper Architects, The Boyers are neighbors
... certainly wish to see . What we wish to do is relative to ..we wish to
use the corrunon access that exists on lot 7 that..
The one under construction ?
Yes, right. Let me just orient this, I just did a quick little sketch of
an aerielsgo we could get a more cornprehensive idea of what the urassing is.
What we're doing is..that ,..this is the garage part, alright?......so looking
this way on the site p1an, this is the view angle this way. The Boyersr lots
are right back in here and again this is the hone thatrs under construction
here, 1ot 7.
Is there, does anyone know. , , . .lot?
Therers a lot back here,
And then Luke Meyer is over here.
One, two, three, seven, four, five six
Oh, so therets two nore, therers two 1ots.
Does Luke have I and 2 or iust 1?
One
0h, so therers 2 and 3.
0.K. Our approach to this is to use the same access as lot 7, we want to
come accross on this and then cut back. The reason to do that, is no. l,
we wanted to create sonething on the site that was a lower profile. In order
to do that, we felt we had to come across the site to get as much distance
or drop as we can, and then cut back. The other reason for the location in
that manner is that we have water that is fairly extensive coming through
here. I think we probably could ..... it with foundation vents or anything,
but I would just as soon stay out of it if I could,
Was that easenent there for usage by this lot or does he need pernission to
from anybody to use that.. do you know, Duane ?
It was my understanding frorn the owner when he gave his program to us that
it was a connon access to 3....
So any of those pieces of property could use it, 0,K?
And fron past experience thatts usually the case because
both 5 & 4 have given up an easenent. . . . . , r, . . f or that. Usually in legal
consequences, that's reason enough for then to use it, too.
Piper
Snowdon;
Piper:
DRB -2- ?/soa Oo
O,K. As I mentioned, what werre coming up with on this scheme, is a very low
profile to create sonething that was kind of a take off of a little
bit of the Tyrolean, but we're not really going after the ..,..of the Tyrol ean
style. We are doing a very heavy brow to this, werre using TJIrs, 16rr size.
So that we corne up with a very heavy facsia. Werll actually do our facsia in
a lapped siding, which will be like a plowed 4,....,... facsia, in this case
wetll just do about 4 boards. Now, note also therers a contradiction to what
I have here, this shows a plrunb cut, and we wish to go back to a square cut
on this.
Are you looking at basic--is there stucco, is that just a very.....
O,K., our materials to this, we wish to go to a 1 x 6 beveled redwood
sidi-ng, and what werre going to do, it would be very close to that, we wish
to just get the salmon flash out of it, and then it ....... so that we can
stay fairly natural with it. Then, in addition to that, we're going to picll
up on the stone or driveway. .....material to this, and what Irve tried
to find is just a soft brown-grey, kind of pewter color to pick up wi.th this.
Then, to cone in with that color, Itn going to go to window trirns, and Itll
use a regular brick mold wherever I have wood, and where I have stucco or
sfnthetic plaster I wish to turn back in to the janb, so we donrt have a real
strong trim anywhere where we have that tTeatment. But, I would pick up on
this color. Now, I want to pick up some accent to this thing, so Irm doing
it in two locations. One is within the fireplace stacks I wish to pick up on
the accent just where we have that netal portion of the chinneys which would
show here and also shows here, so all I'n doing is just specific to the fireplace
Itn picki.ng up that blue trin. And the other location is because I have this
heavy soffit to this, Irn also goj.ng to pick on that same color right there
which is a mediurn blue. ,,a 1itt1e funny under these lights, but there is a
little bit of red to that so that it goes away fron the turqoise and kind of
catches a softer flash, but I wish to pick up this color also on the soffits
only on our overhang.
0n the property up there, there was . t"atE*hfi$ lfrfifii"c down the property,
and this basically does parallel the property Iine?
Yesn very close to j.t, uh, I noticed that also, had you put this in?
Yes.
But that is the property line?
The stakes or pins are here. (another voice "the pins are there")
This thi.ng steps down in such a manner that thi.s being a high point werre
coming down right here. Uh, what I have right here even to the ridge of the
roof is about elevation 56, us 8656 , and the cu1 -de-sac right up here is
8655, so even to the very peak of our roof ..
(Snowdon--so you're dropping down the site ..) yes we are, I just wish to keep
a low profile,
Excuse me, is that to the very top of the roof at 8656?
Yes. The ridge.
Nothing will be higher than 8656?
Wel1, the fireplaces
Snowden :
Piper:
Snowden :
?
Piper
?
Piper
?
Piper
rins :s- z/so/eD OO oo
(Mrs. Boyer?) May I ask a question? When the house, living of the house views over thislot rather than forward over the street?
Piper: This lot drops down like this and hills out. ltle have views that are located
in this direction, and this direction and then this fans back, also, because
this continues to wrap around like that, and so there is still a view in that
direction.
Snowdon: Where is this elevation here? }llhat does that elevation look like? So that
she can seewhere the windows nay be placed, things like that.
Piper: Oh, o.k. right there. This is to the south, west of south,
So your area is what yourre calling this here which is way down the lot,
I mean comparatively
Pi.per Ttre elevation right here would be 8639.
And again this is recessed? So that window B,rouping here..
is off of the dlning roorn which occurs back here.
Mrs. Boyer When I look at Luke Meyerrs house, the front of his house is there, and
when I look at the two houses that were built, they face straight down into
the valley so the front of this house faces sort of over this lot.
Yes, Mrs. Boyer, I would say that probably the front of this house would be
about like this, and what your vantage point of this is when you come up
is when you come up on the drive below.
I,lrs. Boyer Where are the terraces and living spaces that people would be outdoors on?
0.K. Their exterior portions is this deck which comes off of the dining roon
and wraps around to a point where it is off of the living roorn.
What about this one ?
This right here has a snall deck ri-ght here which is off the living room,
excuse ne, off of the dining room, and it actually steps dovm in a terrace fashion
to a hot tub which occurs right there, that shows the elevati.on right there
These are trees ?
Piper Yes.
? Your south line .....?
Right here is south, so I was showing this as the south elevation, itts actually
west of south. ..We're just tlying to get a very sinple stepping effect
with this coming down on the site. Over here, for example, thi-s is the entry
side of that where we step down into the entry, and, so this level is actually
below the level of the garage about 45-46 "/
Is this a specu..deal , or is the ol{ner,,
The owner is going to try to take the snal1 side of it, that's his understanding.
When we worked up progran, we were specific to a snall side program, and the
. DRB -4-'oo oo
larger side he was goJ.ng to sell. That was the concept to help his si.de
with the f i.nance .
? So on floor plan , this is your floor plan basically,,,,
Garage up here, this is that deck that you were talking about going from the
dini-ng roon around to the living, right, Duaneo and this is the lower ievel
which has the hot tub added, this would be the level above grade that would
come to a deck and down, right? So their living area is basically over on this
portion. , .,.
Snowdon Their living space you might point out to then, Duane is right there,
Duane: This is the lower 1evel of this large unit, and the back portion of this right
through here, is crawl space within this cut down hill so this takes effect
f'ron that little wing back there,.,.,
Mr. Boyer: You donrt plan in the future to modify the space for,....we have absolutely
fu1 1 intention of building only one family houses on both lots, 5 S 6, under
no circurnstances will a duplex ever be put on either of the lots, whether
we build or not .
Mrs. Boyer: Even if we sold it, we'll sell it with .....conditions
Mr. B. We know about the regulations up there and we knew about them when we bought
itn but we do want,..It will never be anything but single fanily houses,
it wontt be an apartnent, nothing but a single fanily house on either one.
Mrs. Boyer: We want full tine residents to encourage , . . . that ts why, when I Looked at i.t
I was thinki.ng one house as I looked at this part of it.
Snowdon: And Luke Meyers has a single fanily house.
Boyer: We1l, he has an apartment, actually, to be truthful.
Snowdon: I think Duane has done a good job of keeping it very low.
Mrs. B: Very, low, I like the lowness of it.
S So, fron your property which is above, you have the opportunity to easily see
over and not ruin any of...
Boyer: Our view will be due south, anyway.
Duane: Your views are south and west.
Mrs. B: Uh hurn, pretty nuch, but this gives us the oppoltunity to delete windows,
or things if we decide that ne want to..
Snowdon: It look like most of the things facing your property are bedroons and a ki.tchen,
so, , .very low inpact.
Duane: The decks also, Craig, this is the drj-veway, and then Itm going to dojust a heavy massive cap to that, I rrn either going to do it out of a redwodd
or out of steel and it would be painted that light color if it
is steel, or it would be left natural if itrs redwood. The only thing that
is anbiguous there, 1s that we are trying to get some cost estimates on that
right now,. but hrhat it is, it is faced up the standard 9 inches and just a heavy
cap that floats across the top of that ....
DRB -s- llovv oo
Snowdon As far as site work, will you show some planters, etc?
Piper OrK., Itm going to go ahead and do thi.s right here, this shows cribbing, whichis a natter of retainage at this point on the driveway. This, Irm going to
do out of syntheti.c plaster, because it seemed to repeat back to the house
a lot better than sPruce cri.bbing. I night regret that in terns of functioning,but it seerns in sketching to work a lot better, but I can see the possibilitythat it rnight get banged up, I rnay have to put a bunper board in and paint it
in.
Snowdon Like in the corners of the decks and things like that, you show solid walls,is that.,like these things here?
Piper Yes.
Snowd<.rn And thatts what you lvere pointing out here would be the stucco, so there would
be sone 3 dinensional ..and it looks like youtre adding sorne planting, and..
piper The site right now doesnrt have arry vegetation with the exception of a coupleof aspen trees that occur close to the corner here.
? Tt was all disturbed land, anyway, when they did the..
Pi.per Cul - de- sac ?
Mr. Boyer Non when they did the original sewerage and water, etc.
Piper: It was disturbed thru here and here because of the cut, and probably here becauseof the cul-de-sac. It was disturbed here because of the new road, it was
disturbed there and there because of soil investigations, so it has been disturbed-
? What are you going to do as far as landscaping?
Piper What has been called out, .planters....(unintelligible) I'm not real
high in nunbers but Itn tryj.ng to stay larger in size, you know, try to obtain
some foilage through here so..,. have a little bit of ..,.fron what we show.....
? Is that a l2-l/2 foot setback?
Piper No, 15
Piper The building line is right here, 15 feet off of the property line which is
the side setback requirement.
(There is another conversarion in the background)
Snowdon So this is 15 here, and youtd have to have the sane 15 feet on your side,
and so it is 30 feet and thatrs the closest point. This out here looks likeitts probably in the neighborhood of 2O-250 I would inagine.
Mrs. B. So itrs 15 off-of the road to..
Snowdon This being a private road, I donrt know if theret s €lny necessary setback, is
there ?
DIB -6- "to't:oa oo
Piper: What werve done, is werve stayed, wetve treated it as a side road,
and the access easement is 20 feet, 10 off the center line each way,
and werve gone an additional 5 feet.
Snowdon So 15 from the property line.
Mrs. B: Is it your intention to change the land in arry way, no berrning or anythinglike that?
Pip Not really, everything stays pretty much the way it is, the driveway conformswith what they had before, we will have to retain right along here, sinply
because of the condition we have there, and also retain right along here.
Do you know what that night be? In size? 3 feet?
Three feet, and itls gabian. stone.
Snowdon Gabian neans stone, stone baskets like they used around Potato Patch.
Mr. B I've often wondered how far beyond the actual easement this guy went with his
road.
Piper I couldnrt find any pins, I have no guarantee that itrs presently in the middleor not. I think it's very close.
Perkins Are you folks happy with the design? ZH'fBl as uneducated I can tetl, I would
say especiaLly based on this height, altitude, what is it? 8656 Etc. that soundspretty good.
Snowdon The house has kept a low profile, and when we were on the site we noticedthe way it was stepping down, and you would never be able to see if from below
because j.t is sitting so low on the site, and I thlnk the adjacent properties
even behind and your property to the west.. .
Mrs. B Had it been a massive forrn Iike #7, then we would have tossed out our plans
and started over again, quite frankly, because i.f wetd had a nonolith towering
over us..,,
Piper It is large in footprint because we have to spread it out,
Snowdon Doesn't the property kind of drop off here anyway? So youtre kind of sittingup on a knoll up on top.
Mrs, B Ours is up on a knoll and then drops down as we1l. Mr, B. Frorn this pointto this point it's quite a steep drop, especially frorn about here...If you walked the property, /ou know that, it's very steep.
It drops off enough here, and they fan around that way enough that we sti11
have the use of this direction below then.
Mrs. B In all likelihood where that drop off is on the lower part of our propertythererll be nothing there anyway.
Perkins .So thatts 42 I0 and so you,re basically 14 feet up to the ridge lineis that correct ?
Piper We would be the next floor up, John, comes out..now wait a tninute. No, Itn
wrong..
DRB _7_ :-N)
? Letts get this straightened out while theyrre still here.
OK, rmruiblen what Irve missed is my waII height to that, so Irm actually coning
out at 63, so fron the benchnark, what's ny bench nark say? (54 here and 55
there because it continues up) OrK, and Irm up to 63, so I made a nistake on
this and I want you to realize what it is, is that, in relation to what Irve
shown right there, the dul-de-sac would be about this height, isntt that about
vihat you would say?
Mr. B Which muld be how nany feet?
Piper That anounts to 5 feet.
(CHANGE OF TAPE)
Snowcion ..six feet, but stilt 6 feet is thatrs at the highest point
(everyone talking at once)
Snowdon Thatrs at the highest point.
Piper Itrn sorty" I have made a nisquote with calculations'
Mrs. B ..,..We'd be surprised, , . .Iaughter and renarks fron nany at once.
Snowdon But still, it relatively..considering what nost people can Put on a piece
of property, they could go uP to 35 feet.
Mrs. B Thatrs one thing that worries me about Hhatts below us, you know, how high
they can rise up,...I wanted to ask if they are doing any solar on thi-s at all
(no) No?
Piper No. The only solar connected with this is that they do have a greenhouse on
the owner?s unit. He wished to try a passive system with a very simple gteenhouse
approach.
Mrs. B And where is that?
Piper That occurs ri-ght here. And even there we don't have full orientation....
? This is the part that would be 6 feet above?
Snowdon Yes, the very top of the roof.
Perkins I think itts 8 feet isntt it? Didn't r.re say 6-8?
Snowdon Yes, so if this were running leve1 , and the property was dropp,ing down, the
house cones back up again 8 feet, (about your height) yes, if I was to
stand up,
Piper Standing on the cul-de-sac,...,
Mrs. B, May I ask you sonething? ..coning in the power and sewage are all coning off
this easernent? So that will all cone down inside.
Snowdon Are there any other questions or conments ? Are you satisfied with the
,.. adequate enough?
Mr. B Itve got a key to this, because werve been through this two years ago with anarchitect fron Aspen, Are you sure the footprint isntt too big for the lot
because he did it 3 times, and cane up here 3 times and it was still too bigfor the lot?
Mrs. B He never even got as far as DRB.
It isntt, you know, but it did kind of scare ne, we usually designvertical enough, so we dontt even cone close to the naxinrum, and this tiure the
owner wanted sonething very low, and all of a sudden I thought, trwoah, wait
a rninute, this tine Itd better check it and figure this out.
(under talk: site coverage..3199 is allowed, and they have 2794 so they have
3 or 400) from Aspen. I'rn glad they're frorn Aspen. Theyrre all over in Aspen.I don't think you could get that many architects,
Mr. B Thank you.
Snowdon Thank you, Itm glad you showed up. Itts always nice to see somebody who is
concerned, other wise all we hear the conplaints afterwards.
Mrs. B I have to tell you we were shocked when we went up and saw lot 7, like 2 hotels.
Snowdon We were shocked ourselves. It didnrt look that big on the drawings.O.K. Should we have a motion, then? I think we have enough j.nformation forthe final approval .
Nancy I move we give final approval to Paul Johnston new duplex lot 4, Block 1, Potato
Patch as presented.
Perkins It11 second.
Snowdon There has been a notion for final approval Paul Johnston dupl ex lot 4, blockI Potato Patch, Motion by Looms, second by Perkins, all those in favor.
(aye) unanirnous.
Jor-rx M. Br.rsn
ATTORNEY AT LAW
POST OFFICE EOX 2OA3
vaIL, coro8aDo 81067
TELEPHON E (303) 949-559A
".,ulr* ?0 r L98L
fiol leerr M. t(l ine
Town Cl.erk
Town of Vail
P. O. Elr::< 10 0
Uail r C0 81657
Ite I Appesl t,r: Ui.r:i. I 'fr:wrr fior..rrrciL
In Reqard to the l'l;;rtt,er o{'l
'lohrrst$n Dr.rpLex r Fr-ri Ldirrqr
LarrdscaF i. rrq & Mater i a L
Charrqes r l-at, 4, 81k.. 1 t
Pert,ato Fatnh
Dear *ol leen i
The pr-rnpsrge nf t his Let ter is t o f ormal lN reqr-reet thiilt t he
hear irrg which nay he hel.d concerninq the above natter no{:. lre *etr.rntiL at Least your meetirrq of Ar.rgr-rst 4r 1?81. l'lr. Johnstorr is
attempting to satisfy any reasonahle obiections that the
rreighbors to t,he Lot, or the Uail Desiqn Review Board nna5 have
an'l would like to have additional time to pr-trsLre this ntore
sJirect pcl$sibi L its.
Your conperatiorr i.n thi.s m*tten i.g appreci*ted.
!l ct r..r t. s I
1i sh
cc| F eten Janan
l.-ar r s Ft i.,:ler
Par-rL Johrrst,t:n
THE TOIIN COUNCII-
TONN NF VAII-
STATF, OI.' CNL.ORADfi
IN RE$ARD TO THF },IATTER
OFi JOHNSTON DUFLEX,
B['ILD1N6, LANDSCAPING E
MATHRIAL CHANGES, I.OT {T
FLK. 1, F0TATO FATCH
APFEAI. FFI}H A DECISINN
TIf: THE TNHN OF UAT[..
DESIGN REVTEI.I RNARD
NOTICF- IS HEREnY GIUEN ttrat, t,his cJocr'rment, I rlated t,his
8th da: of Jr-rIHr 1981r is intended to serv{r as tsn ApPeal fron
t,he decisiorr of the Vail Desi.qrr Revieu Board rendered.fulY lr
1981r irr corrnection w j.tlr the atrove matter. This doct-rnterrt, is
subnitted pr-rsr-rarrt to ihe provisiorrs of the l'lunicipal Code of
the Tr:wrr of Vailr $ection 18r54.090 (B) r the Provisiorrs of
Ordinarrce No. 37r $eries of 1980r and crthpr applicahle provi-
sions of the l.llrrricipal Code.
THE DECISION of the Desisn Review Boald fron which
this Appeal is tak.en was rerrdered in the form of a l'lotinn
statine that the "proposed charrqes" be disaPproved. No attenpt
wss made to corrsider the chanqes individr-ral. 1: in reachirrE *,hig
decisiorr. The Motion pasgerJ urrarr i nor..rs l s witlr one nenber
abstaining.
IT IS THE AFPELLANT'S POSITION that urithout this DRB
approval r a Certif icate of OccupancS wi 11 rrot, he issr..recl and t,hat
the residerrce is apparentlS rrot ahle to he leeal ly irrhahi'Led.
THE HISTORY of the matter br j.eflx is t,hat aPProval t'c.t
constrr-rct a dr-rplex residerrce on this l,-ot wag qri.rn{',ed hc Desiqrr
Review FoarrJ on rJlrlH 30 r 1980 . At t,hat t,ine p larrE r^lere st-th*
mitt,ed hy Duane Piperr archj.tectr who spoke t,o the DRF in reqard
to the proiect. The develoPer arrd c,wrler of the [-otr ]'lestenrr
llanaqenent ComPan5r a Xansas Corporation tsuthf1ri.?ed to transact'
br-rsirress in Colorador hired CD$ Enterprisesr Inc. ag General
Contractor. Palrl Johrrstonr sole ownen of l'le$terrr l'lanagment
Compangr aPPeered urith a rePresentative of CD$ at the DRB
neetinq of June 3r 1.981r seekinE approval of certain chanqes i.n
nateriels arrd constrlretion. The Desiqn Review Board considered
the proposed chanqes and requested that the ourrer suhnit plarrs
concernirrgl revisions irr hot tr-rb arear exterior materials -
sanple boardr revised topo/gradirrg drainaqe/landgcaPirrq planr
and an irrverrtory of other exterior chanqes. The revised topo/
qreding drainege/LandscaPinq plan Lras to be subnitted to the
oHners of Lots S and 6 for their co fients at or before the next
eppeenence at DRB. The matter L,as then tabled at the
Applicarrt's request after Applicarrt was advised that this would
be the nost efficient procedure.
IT IS THE AFPELLANT'S POSITION that all of the
reqr-rested sub.rissions urere nade to t,he DRB at the neetinq on
Juls l. Additionallsr APPellent had hired a landscape arch-
itectr $ivertson E Associatesr who pnepared arr elaborater
revised landscaping plan. Every effont was nade to Pleese the
ohrners of the adjacent propertSr At sone etaqe of the presen-
tstion to the ownerg of the adjacent propert5r prion to and
oLrtside the DRB neeting of Julc 1r comnunication broke down over
arr incident with uhich the owner of this proiert has no
connection.
AT THE LAST }'iEETING of the DRFr orr Juls 1r
preserrted the itens and materials requested. A color
a topognaphic msp and a Eanp1e board were pant of the
presentatiorr. Comments Lrere received fnon menbers of
audierrcer rhich irrclr-rded oh,ners of adjacent propert5.
of this Froject was received from ar-rdience r'rembers whn
the owner
r ender i ng r
the
Criticisn
had rrot
\-
atterlded the Jr-rrre 3r DRB meetirrg snd $ho had rrot previouslS
preserrted an5 oPirrior.. Refenence lras ttade to activit,S on
rreartrs lots with whieh the owner of this ProJect has no
corrnection. Criticisn bS rreighboFsr sctttp of whor'r have ht-ti lt on
thein property arrd otherg who are owners of unir'lprclved lotsp uag
nonsPecific arrd VElguBr No specific Problemr $,ere referred tor
br-rt sugqesiions f or uEe of other a.rater ials wene Ed€ r A
drainaqe sr.raiLr located co,{pletelS on the propertS of the
Appellarrtr HEs criticized by a enher of the ar.rdierrce hroih for
its location errd the materials usedr br.rt, no inpl.ieatiorr wa$.{tsde
that it wouLd not satisfactorils do the ioh that it HsE irrtended
to do. Other genenalized criticisr'rs were.4ader to which j.t was
diff icult to regpond. Connerrts were made by at"rdience menbens
Hho spok.e without being recoqrrized h:l ihe Chair arrcJ withorli
identifsirrE thenselves. In sone caees r rro oppol'tunitS was qi.ven
Applicant to respond to the comnents. The general tone of the
cor'rments Hes that the properts irrvolved Has l.egs pleaEing
aestheticells following the erection of the residential
structure then it had been previousls. To the exterrt that these
comnents cane from the audience and rrot the DREI Memhersr the
AppeLlarrtr in Eone cEB€sr Let them qct urranswened. No qtrestinn
bs a DFIE Memher waE left withor-rt ts r€gporrli€r
THE AF.F.ELLANT CONTEND$i
1. That the DRB nade a decision, re,iecting the
proposed chanqes r without makinq arry f act uaL f i.rrdi.n€s or set t inq
orJt any bases for their decisionl
7, That this ovenall rejectiorr is egpecialLs
dif f icr-tlt f or the App I icarrt to understanrJ ancj deal with r since
so.ie of the rejected itefis are of a different apparent, level of
significance than othersl
\-
3. That the DREI r a5 have been
cor.rnents of owners 0f ad.jacent Propert,gt
present€d in a timels nanner I
1, That the DRE may have been
comfierrts of ownel"s of adiacerrt PropettSt
beerr motivated by an incident with which
irrf lr"rerrced LrX the
which cof.tnents were not
inf 1r-renced bS t,he
urhich eor'tnent,s nas have
AppeLl.arrt hes no
corrrrection or contf ol i
5. That simple refusal of the requegted aPProvalr
withor-rt funther sr-rqqestions or gtatements of what rteeds t'o be
changedr anor-rnts to a denial of a certif icate of occuparrcsr afrd
that this afiorJnts to a corrf iscation of Propert5 witholtt due
procesEr a Procedure which exceeds i,he ar..rt,honitg of t'he DRFi
6, That he hasi dorre ever$thinq reqr.'reg't,ed by DRB errd
relied at aLl Staqes UPon those "suggestionS" aE at{or.rnting to e
reco nended pat'h toward f irraL aPprovtsI;
7, That the DREI has been irrf lr-renced h$ special
interests considentstions and the neishhorh(]('fJ irr ulhich this
propertS is located and has applied gtarrdards which snrrld not he
us€d irr arrother location erld which standards are rrot k.nown to
the Appellant or a fiatten of public record 6p pqrblic policli
8. That the DRE has at tines acted as a foru'4 for
the resolr-rtion of what it see6 as a disPr-rte hetr^reen neiqhborsr
errd that it has done so inpnopenls and thug exceeded its
authorits. Courts e>list for the resolr-rtiorr of disputeg
involving alleeed dailaqes to reel ProPertll o
THE AFPELLANT RESPECTFULI-Y RE0UESTS that t,he land-
Tctspinq and materials chanees previor-rsL5 epPLied for and
outlined at the neetinq of the ORB orr Jurre 3r be approved hs the
Towrr Courrcil r or that reasonabler alterrretive sr.Jgqestiorrs be
made irr order that this strLretLtre r4a5 qualifs for a Cert,if icete
Of OCCLTp arrc!| .
DATED this 8th day of Julxr 1981.
i.IESTERN i'IAN I.iENT C
Bs *-:
PauL JohnEton r egident
/
I'DRAFT
DEC IS I
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Wednesday, July 1, 1981
Next item on the agenda is P:4{ J_o\nston duplex . build
4eE4al changes, lot 4, blk 1, Potato Patch. Peter, could you give a synopsis?
Werd like to try to keep this as factual and brief as possible, yet giving every
body a fair chance to speak their rnind.
This is a duplex resi.dence which is being constructed on lot 4, block I
Potato Patch. There have been some revisions nade to materials and building,
and the applicants are requesti-ng that the DRB approve those revi.si.ons. Was
brought before the DRB on June 3, and was tabled by the applicant.
The DRB stipulations were that the applicant subnit naterial samples for boththe original approved set of plans and the revisions, subnit detail on the
retaining wal 1 and l.andscaping, and also subnit a plan to correct the drainageproblen between the adjacent lot to the west. I guess we'll let the appl icant
submit those naterials and go thru the proposed changes.
Jin Bqsler who came before you the Last time wi1 I actual ly be subrnitting thedetails. There is one basic fact that I would like to clear up for the board.Itn the 100 percent ouner of Western Managenent Gompany that owns the property
and is doing the developing on lot 4 on Potato Patch. I have a copy of theiten that Luke Meyer handed to the Board, and I r,,ranted to clear up a basic
ownership fact here. It refers to CDS Enterprise as an owner along with nyselfof these lots, CDS Enterprise does not own any of it at all. Neither does
Dan Gagliardo, the owner of cDS Enterprise, it is western Managenent that ownsIot 4, and Itm the sole 100 percent stock holder in that. The second factis this refers to my ownership of lots 10, 11, and lJ, I do not own any ofthose 1ots, have nothing to do with then, and never have, and have no relationshiwith CDS and Dan Gagfiardo, other than the fact that CDS Enterprise is thegeneral contractor with Western Managenent to construct a duplex on lot 4 andwith that, I would like turn it over to Jim Bosler to respond to items that
you previously asked hirn to clear up. Thank you.
l-tfy nane is Jin Bas ler, pro j ect supervisor, cDS Enterprises , 1ot 4, Potato patch.
Addressing the various itens, if it is with the DRB, the first i.tenis landscaping and drainage. I have wi-th me here at this time Chris Sivertson
who will do that presentation.
I?rn Chris Sivertson of Sivertson Associates landscape architects in town, and
we becane involved in the project a couple of weeks ago in regards to the con-flicts that these people were having with adjacent property owners, and what
werve done is address ourselves to the side of the property that adjoins theBoyers' 1ot, trying to nitigate sone of the concerns they had in regards tothe site disturbance along that property line. There were certain conditionsthat they wanted us to meet, namely neeting the existing grade as far intoour Property as possible, handling the drainage problem, draini.ng it on tothe Johnston lot and naking sure that none of our structural elenents werewithin ten feet of the property line.
Excuse ne, before you go on any farther, Itd like to interrup with just onepoint was to return to existing grade as it is now, it was to be returnedto the grade which it was before, which was a downward grade on lot 5, notto rneet our grade, I just want to point that out that yourre not just bringingit up to meet our grade 1evel, you have to return it with a downwaid, r believe
SN0l'rDON
Janar
Johnston
Bas I er
Sivert s on
Mrs. Boyer
DRB -2- 7/r/81 o
\Itrs, B.i that the drai-nage is a Colorado state law that you cannot affect the drainage
of our lot,
.,..question is the botton pr,operty line drawn correctly? Is it one straightline or ,.
Does the Town have a survey, there is a survey done for this.,after the house
was in, right?
Right, and thatts what we based our base map onr
Mrs. BoyerExcuse ne, there was a survey, and the survey pins were intact until last Thurday
or Friday uhen they were bulldozed out, by CDS Enterprises,
? Not to contest that fact, Internountain Engineering survey went out and reset
that line
Mrs. Boyer Not .,..,line
They did in fact .....a11 the original pins.
Sivertson In regards to drainage, we revised the grading plan along that side of the
building and the drainage and grading situati.on is as you can see, the only
tine we got down here and we .....down a little bit, in order to grade this
swell, we had to bend it a little bit, but as you can see we have rnet existing
grade along that property line as far into our side as we possibly could.
Snowden What kind of swale do you think you would be creating?
Sivert. Wetre just going to a ,..1ined drainage swale, you know, plant it with
ground covers and wild flowers and native seed. We donrt..
Sn So it's not a highly visible swale, it's just sonething to have a low point
to have water to drain to?
Si. Yes, essentially to nake sure no water comes onto the Boyers t lot.
3o You .. '.. retaining wal1s.
Si. Right. O.K,, if I can continue with ny presentation..
Sn Whatrs this inlet?
SI Instead..the road cut is right at that cuave right there and it drops about
6-10 feet, and just so any water that does cone down there doesnrt create an
erosion problem, werre going to collect the water in the inlet and drop it
down so it will exit right at the road swale level , so we dontt create any
erosion problens along the road cut that was .when the road was put in.
Therers realLy..an attenpt here is to create a series of retaining walls along
that property line and would facilitate getting the grade down to existinggrade. As the letter points out, the building is 4.7 feet higher and that
created a slope problern on this side of the building. What werre planning
on doing is this is the kind of .....wetre planning on using for it, itrs a
vertical telephone pole retaining wall, essentially placed where noted on the
drawings. And then, in regards to that, the lower ones are 3 feet, and the
upper ones are 4, There is just no way of getting thear any lower without
creating a slope problen above and below theur. We are trying to mitigatethe inpacl of those with a series of shrub plantings and aspen and sone lanfer
DRB -3-7/ro
boulders placed along that side
mitigated, so...
!n_: One question, why are you
Arenrt the existing walls that
so that the inpact facing the Boyersr lot is
switching naterials in your retaining walIs?
are there a staggering type of retaining walls?
2
Qi_v-: It was objected to by the Boyers.
_Sn.-: That type of retaining wal1?
MrS_,_!, The railroad tie, yes,
.Srr: My curiosity was just consistency
Sjv: The color renderi-ng of the side facing the Boyerst lot shows an attempt
to nitigate the.,. ...of those walls....
-Sn-: So that basically this set of drawings underneath j,s what was originally
proposed. . . Western Property line versus the new proposal , 0.K., so werve got
top of waII 24, 27 going down to 24, 32 going down to 27, 33 down to 30,
38 down to 34,44 down to 40, so werve got 4 foot step, 4 foot step, and a
3 foot step for a total of 11 feet in an area where there was originally shown
no retaining wal1, is that correct?
Yes, that is correct.
_Sll And down here on this portion yourve got 32 to 28 sloped down 27 to 24,
so again yourve got 4 and 3 so yourve got 7 foot step where originally thereis no wall indicated and at this outside corner you go from 24 dom to what
looks like a 20 foot contour where they did show a retaining wall at that point.
Si; This other wall at thi.s point is an existing wal1. We're going to take
4 feet off the top of that. Right now it's probably about a 10 foot wal1,and werre going to take 4 feet of the top tj-nbers to reduce the inpact of
that,
?Ilow is that possible?
.$i; Slope it frorn the building edge
itrs leve1.
down to the top of the wall.Right now
?}{hat wi_l1 that give yoru, 2 to I?
Si: Approxinately, Sn: Is there going to be height.......are you going to
take this wall down to a certain height?
Siv: That should be shown on the engineerrs drawing what we propose to......
?Wetre taking the front wall down and leaving the back wal1 which is retaining
the structure as I understand it as existing. The front wall would be taken
down and that rs where the front wall and back wall with the slooe factor created
between those two. Is that correct, Kris?
.Sn: Do you have an establi-shed height that you can feasibly take that down
to, or are you work i,ng with an arbitrary number?
? It would be taking the front wa1l down 3 feet and we possibly nay extend
as high as......
DRB -4- 7/r/[Lo o
? Excuse me, does this top of wall 28.9 at this poi-nt, and that would be taken down
3 feet, is that correct?
S,itt: 5 or 4 whatever we can feasibly..
? The top of that lower wall on the surveys is 2819".
Meyer: Excuse me, could you tell ne why, on this west side you are planning on sone retaining
-wall
where not planned origi.nally. Why is this? What is the reason for this?
? Irn still kind of lost on my directj.ons there.
?The west side of the house. Betr.veen the Boyers' land and your place.
? Thatrs the onl.y way you can get your landscape in there like that and neet the
requirements, isnrt it?
ry[C,_g: Could I answer that? They put 17 feet of fill on the land.
Meyer Thatts exactly what I wanted to cone to. Then you put fill that was not supposed
to be here and that's why the house is nearly 5 feet higher on this point (we tried
to meet the objections) Excuse ne, Itn talking. Right here on the top, is that the
reason why? That we now have a house that is standing in front of ny house 5 feet
taller than it should be?
!n-l I think we realize, or it has been noted that the existing house is sitting
higher than it was approved at. And I tldnk thatts one of the itens werll consider
as a separate item, but I think we would li.ke to concentrate on the itens as we go
through.
Mrs. B_: When you are ready to ask ne, Irll answer what I think about this.
.Sn: Well, why don't we consider the aspects of the west side, and then maybe get
the landscape and the retaining wall situation covered and the drainage and we can
respond to those two factors, because I think they are probably all interrelated.
U1S--_A: As far as the landscaping plan alone, Itm ready to comnent on that when
yourre ready to have me.
$l_l This is not the landscaping as such....
l4rs.-8.: I neant the retaining wall, while that I consider part.,...
Sn: Are you ready to co nnen t on the retaining wal1s?
-Mrs,- B- Yes. We had asked for a more natural, we had asked for rocks. That areais a particularly attractive area, as you are well aware of, full of natural rocks,
fuLL of natural things. That land has been totally stripped down and then filled
and now we go in with vertical telephone poles. I really feel to keep the inpact
of that less for us, Ird li.ke to know where the swale is located, how nany feet fromthe property line, the plans that rirere presented to us showed all the decoration
beyond the swale, nothiag coveri-ng the swale, and I dontt consider it too attractive
to look at a swale.
DRB -5-7 /r/8r
_$fy I The center line of the swale is approximately 5 to 7 feet on our property.
l4:s--l-: Well, I believe the last time we were here, the Design Review Board asked
them to return the swale to 10 feet away fron the property line. We asked to have
the whole paoperty brought back to its natural drainage, but CDS Enterprises stated
that that could not be done because it would wash away their fowrdations so that
if they had 5 feet of fill near their foundations, that would be fine, The swale
has gotten closer and closer to the 1ot line again, and all the decoration is onthe other side of the swale, and wetre going to be looking at a swale, and that
is not, as far as Itn concerned, Irn not at all ready to accept that,
Siv-: Ithink the definition of a swale is not an engineered drainage swale, wetretrying to return it to as native as possible, I donrt think this is an accuraie
rePresentation of the kind of swale wetre proposing to, that's rock set in morter,
and that has no --and that is not the type of swale at all we propose to do. Uh,
essentially, the use of rock would be strictly for erosion purposes until the seed
could establish itself. We donrt intend to have j-t even approach the depth of that
that that picture indicates, hopefully only 6 to 8 inches will suffice to handle
the notmt of water that could conceivably cone down through there. I think that
type of swale with an 18 inch grass cover over it will be negligible, the visual
i rhrrq^f .rf i t
€N: But as far as landscaping, what yourre proposing there is nothing on the western
side of the swale?
Si: We do have several shrub plants and aspen where we deternine where the highest
points of the wa1l would be to try to break that up. As you can see, right hereis where we have the most drop in elevation, Our attenpt would be to screen
on that side at that point, and also at this point where it is the highest.
,,,,rmumbling about plans) there was a spruce there, but not any longer.
SIV: We don't want to do..a straight shot through there, we'd like to rneander as
ihovm on the p1ans. I dontt feel that the swale...in our conversations with the
Town il was determined that structural elenents should be out of the 10 foot
setback, whereas the drainage swale could be in the 10 feet.
? Itrs after the steps have been noved, right, the 15 or 16 foot, you measuring
right now? What we looked this morning?
Sn: Right. Letrs see, Irn sure we have a survey that shows the existing
buildine. .,Itfs 16.4 feet according to the survey. And within that
16.4 feet is a l0 foot utility easenent which I assumes straddles both sidesof the property line. (yes) Yes, 10 feet on each side, o,K., what are you proposingin the way--we basically covered the grading, retaining wal ls, what is your proposalfor the landscaping? Could you talk us through that, Kris?
Sw-: Again, the major intent of the landscaping along that side is to nitigatethe inpact of the retaining walls, and also the points where the building has alarger nass to it, where it's not broken by windows, such at this point, this isalnost invisible fron ,..this is that little inner courtyard area that is kind of
screened by the hot tub deck. wetre essentially just trying to bring this end ofthe building down by using foundation planting and larger aspen and spruce along
there with native rock and native materials..
? What happens here where you show several low bushes in front of the
and the existing deck as it exists right now is about 5 feet off theor something like that?
deck area
ground, I think,
DRB -6- 7/L/81 o
Sil: There is a foundation wa11 thatts there.
Sn: So basically the planting is going as the base of that foundation wa1l. And
thatts basically....,1etrs see what else.....asPen, 1ow brush.
Meyer: Excuse ne, are you showing nost of the landscaping on thi.s side because
of the problen that has been with the neighbor, why dontt you show any on the
other side?
?We told to..,.this.
M:. Oh, I see, We have a look at this? So that would be actually the other side
between you and.....,right?
Mrs, B: Yes. Could you show me on this where the swale would go?
Siv: Swale, rocks
tlrg __Uj Well, there's no shielding of that swale from our property, all the decoration
is beyond the swaLe. The idea is that the swale be further in and that you shield
us fron the impact of this mess.
?tr{ay I ask a question? Is it possible to put a short hedge on the west side of
that? Then they wonrt be able to see the swale at all, will they if there is a
one or two foot hedge there?
Mrs. B: Canrt we put natural things, we donrt need..
?We can put native bushes..
Ugygf: .'I.sthi.s Look in proportion of what it is? That looks nuch nore land between
whatever would be the property line and these houses than you actually have. You
trave land now 16 feet. Can you put this all in 16 foot of land?
(yep) S_1u: Thatrs 16 feet at the closest point, we drop back to 20..
?Visuallyn Kris, woul.d you have those kind of slopes between like you have your
higher retaining wall which shows a 3 foot change in grade here to here. Are you
in actuality rnaking up 5 to 6 feet in vertical drop to the next wall?
Siv: No, refer to the grading plan and how much drop there is between the building
and wall.
_Srr1 So what yourre saying, that's what it would look like if you were sitting in
a helicopter or sonething up above the property, not necessarily what it would look
like straight across....
. ... . involved. . o.k.
Siv: If we refer you to the grade plan, you can see therers approxinately, say
The bottom of the wall is at 40.6 , the top of the wall is 58.7, so therets 2 feet
of drop betueen the botton of that wall and the toP of that wall.
Sn: Yeh, in reality if sornebody were standing here and looking here, they would
basically see 12 feet of wa11
Siv: Not with the plantings in front, no.
DRB -7- 7/1/81 o
MrS.-_B: Kri.s, nay I ask you a question? A moment agoz you said it was not going
to be a rock swale.
Siv: It is a rock swale.
Mrs. B: Oh., it is a rock swale, there is no grass,..
Siv: Itts not set in nortar.
Mrs. B.: ftrs not set in cement, but itts still a drainage ditch wj.th rocks, however
you can call it a swale or whatever you want, but when water is run down it, thatts
what it is, and I would like to request as the Town at the last neeting requestedthat that be kept further back. We have requested that the land be returned toits original drainage.
Siv: In regards to this, this is what you'd be looking at if we return that sideof the property to the original grade,
? With the house as it was originally design, or as it is now?
-qs._B: But you canrt do that because your foundations will wash away.
$jy.! Irm sure that you could do it, . .
.Mrs:_B, No, the builder said that you couldntt do it because the foundations
would wash away. Why could you not put retaining walls and gardens to hold it,
and then bring your slopeback further.
Siv: Thatrs what we did.
Mrs. B: Yes, but you're putting in a great runy and bringing then out further.
9jtt-:- We can apProach the retainage in one of 2 ways. We can terrace it back to
lessen impact as nuch as possible, plant on the terraces in front of them to soften
the inpact, or hre c€rn cone in 5 feet off of the building and do a 12 foot wall.
Mrs. B: A 12 foot wal1. Itts that nuch that you have to corne down.
Siv: At certain points it is, yes.
Meyer: But where are the steps here, there are a lot of detail, is that just a
rough sketch or cuz a lot of the details are rnissing on this. You have steps here,you have a balcony here...
? In ny opinion that renderi.ng is pretty accurate frorn a high perspective.
_!4gJefj. with just a landscape
Snodon: 0.K., just looking at this, Kris on you schedule you have one, i-s this
one Colorado Spruce? 4-6 feet?
?That plan got turned in early, and since you guys saw it this rnorning it l.vas changed
there are two spruces nor{.
?Is this the current one here? yes
DRB -8- 7/L/8L
Snow:. So there is whatn one that ts 4-6r and..' so werre looking at this...
?yes, the 4-6 are the starred ones and I think those will be taken out, so therets
3 8-12r. One there, one there and one over on this side.
Sn:- And you say, thetre all 8 to L2, not 4-6? (no)
aspen 8 to 10 t feet high? (counting)
lj11i Are there any nore concerns fron the board on
now?
then you shown aPProx ' 18
the iterns Irn Presenting right
Snt Then the remainder of the site will renain as originally proposed? I just
wonder over on this side which showed no retaining wa1l, theytre dealing with 8
to 10 feet of retaining, so that's a nodification of the original proposal . There
is a retaining wall shown, well in front of the building, it showed it going fron
here I guess down to there as portion of the retaining wall looking at the ProPgrtIit looks like it extends well beyond that, and as far as change in elevation, this
wall appears to be at nost 2 to 4 feet in height due to the contours shown on the
drawings and the existing situation is well over 6 feet.
Meyer: Meaning this is a change frorn the original plans, right?
Mrs. B: Before we leave thi,s Mr. Snowdon, could I ask you..lh. Boyer is in Europe,
fre traA put off his trip to be at the last DRB meeting when they were not ready for
this, and so he had to go, nor could ny lawyer be here today. I feel that thi.s
swale is too close to our property li-ne, it is too open and visible, and we even
have a swale draining their property into this swale from the house down, that we rre
going to have to look at as wel1, and I would like to ask that that be noved back
further and that it be shielded frorn us. Because i.f they hadn't put in the 17 feet
of fill we wouldntt have to be facing this situation now-
_S-4=_ O.K, They dontt really show any swale with their contours coming frorn their
bui-lding down to the swale below.
?We have to use some type of drainage down from the foundation.
l,trgr-!_..We11 why doesntt it go that way? Why do we have to look at it?
Wettl-there's no shielding here except one shrub,, well that r s not going to shield
this, the aspen dontt go down to the ground. And I would also like to ask that
they use as natural things as possible that belong on that land, because it is
beautiful land 5 and 6, and itts been greatly destroyed down the side of lot 4.
In cluding bulldozing of our rocks in contenpt of court and bulldozing on the land
as late ai last week and taking out all the moss rocks and top soil along the side
of our land. I really think that that's not too much to ask to ask to have this
come back to us again with that corrected.
-Sn- Any other comments fron the board on the landscaping, retaining, and the site-wortt Thank you Kris. Then the other items of concern dealt with the materials
of the building, rnodifications to the building itself, and the nodifications to
the floor height. Is that correct?
Basler. Right, If possible, since drainage and landscaping is directly tied into
floor heights, discuss the floor heights next if that's possible'
Sn:. Certainly, thatts fine.
. . DRB -9- 7/L/8L
Basler: Based on a survey by Int ennountain Engineering, the lower floor as approved
by DRB was at an elevation of 8630.
Snowdon ! nunble ,,noted on these plans
Baslel The lower floor as built was 8634,7 feet, which ts 4.7 feet above approval .m'rrTl known as unit A. Unit B which is the top unit was directly--was the highest
unit by a number of feet was approved at 8642,8 feet, actualLy constructed at 8645.5feet, some 2.5 feet above approval .
S:owaSn: 0,K, and I assume with the increase in slab that everything else accordingly
was raised.
Basler: Yes, sir.
Snowdon: Ridge lines . . elevations, .
Basler: Right.
? Can I ask you what the basis was for these elevations?
Basler:. therets a nanhole in the cul-de-sac which was our first reference point
and there are additional nan holes near..therets a nanhole shown at this point whichis slightly over on lot 5
(change tape)
Basler: Two independent elevations were used in checking those.
lrdatthews: Uh huh, and how did you miss this one--these two by so ru[ry feet--I meanis this colnnon that your cottrpany missed by this rnuch?
Basler: I don't know, sir. Irve been enployed since 4-?-1981 with the corryany.
Itdatthews: I could see if they were off the sane, and the other one was off the
sane, but., ,,
Basler: Is there other connents on the elevations?
? How can you miss it by so nuch? How can it be urissed differentially, if the
whole thing was too high, sonebody had to know.
Baslerr Irm of that opinion, too.
Bovd: Originally there was 12,8 feet between the two floors. Now you have 10.6.
if my mathenetics is correct.
9asler: Yes, correct, Itrs under..... The slope on the lot is about 130 feet
I believe in the vertical ..... going horizontal with a slope of approxinately
44 feet. The 1ot did have a lot of vertical problems.
Snowdon: But I would assume the original plans would take that into account.
BaSlCf_i They did take that into account.
Bovd: There is less now between the two floors than originally.
DRB -10- 7/r/81 o
(unrnb I e)
? How close are the ridges to the,...
Basler:. the ridges appear to be very close to what they originally were in ny
review of the photograph and the plan which Irmnot sure how...
Meyer: You mean the ridge of this?
SUa!sqsr*'- There are 2 ridges involved, one is perpendicular, the nore western, I
guess.
._l{gy-qli So this one is nearly 5 feet higher, and this one nearly 3 feet higher,is that correct ?
@!tbg!ls-l Werre talking about, I want to find out how close the building was built
to these...
Ea-glS:: Apparently they became 1.8 foot closer together without infringing on any
peaks, over, one unit on the other unit.
^Qngqdgn; So this noved up, and this moved up more, so that this differential became
c loser .
B4_s_!er: Thatrs correct. It would have had to, withou an actual measurenent onthe site,
-QnCI$g_Sl But the entire building had to nove up in relation to the cul-de-sac.
Eq$-gI: It raised up to the point, top peak based on the drawings fron approvedto the actual building. I asked Intermountain Engineering to deternine that forus, and their best opinion, it was 2.5 feet taller than original approval .
.!t4!!!g!gi It would be interesting to me to see how close these heights came outfron floor to roof, see if that changed nuch during the construction.
.PaSle^fl I donrt belive that did. I have photographs of that, but not in the
buil ding.
? Well, wouldn't they have to change if the ridge line didn't go up as mrch as
the first fl-oor?
? Somewhere it would have to change. Sonewhere sonething is wrong.
ry$-r_A: sonebody knew what they were doing when they were changing it. It
seens to ne you couldnrt just end up with it all ending up right without somebody
knowing what they were doing.
Snowdon: Whether they knew it or not is not our concern so nuch as the fact that
Tfiey are higher.
? How does the current heights conpare with the ordinance as far as height of
buildings are concerned/
DRB -11- 7/L/8r
Snowdon: The building stil1 within, or does the one unit now exceed?
Janar: Well, when this project originally came through it was under the old height
restriction which just neasured height from finished grade, so that they would be
within the height restriction. We have changed that to read that the height is
rneasured from existing or fi-ni.shed grade, whichever is more severe, so that they
sti1l go under the o1d regulations.
Meyer: Except one thing, when they dig out, if I recall, Mrs. Boyer stop me if
I'rn wrong, when they start putting the fill, lrbs. Boyer contact with real concern
about the fill. Meaning at that time it was already brought up, that they couldnrt
put 13 feet of fill and then say, well we're still keeping the same height of the
house, but werre actually building the house higher, so I donrt the argument can
come qnder the old rule, because the height of the house--the house itself is fine,
but it was put on so nany feet of fill.
Matthews: .....the house was tall no natter where they put it.
Meyer: Thatrs right, But this was tall and was brought up to this board before
even the house was..,.
_Slqudpn_: I dontt think it was brought up to this board, it was brought uP to the
Town staff,
Mrs. Meyer:- To the Town, therets a letter on....
Meyer: O.K. to the town staff, you know, so what Itm concerned is here is a house
that is actually built, right? I mean partially built, I mean the foundation.
Why, I thought that the Town would keep an eye on al 1 this or whoever is in charge,
that this is a thing that cannot be brought up to a board like today as a fair
conplaintmeaning, the house is built. We have a roof which is too high on this
sidl, the roof was too high on this side, what can we do to put the house back
to whatever it should have been on the plan in front of you?
Snowdon: Well, itrs up to the Board to decide. Thatts what we're dealing with
today.
-:^_L5
Mrs. B: Itd like to nake one remark before
p-resented this plan before the Design Review
that the roof was approximately 10 feet above
15 feet. I just want that recorded.
please, and that was when Mr. Duane Piper
Board and you accepted it, it was stated
the road level, and now it is a full
Snowdon: That's what I was trying to find out in relation to the cul-de-sac because
I was present at that meeting and I renernber there was sone discussj-on to the relative
height-to the cul-de-sac. Thank you. O.K., the final rnatter of di-scussion of
this then is the use of the naterials and the change in the building,
B_asler The original submitted data for materials shows that we would use a 1x6
bevel redwood which is this naterial right here with a CWF stain on it which
would be as lrrn told a basic clear stain bringing out the redwood. Soffit materials
were shown to be a PPT Pittsburgh Paint 4062 blue which is this material here.
Brick mold was to be in grey. Thi.s is the exact mixed color on both colors as we
picked up was the sane numbers as we purchased then. This was to be an STO tyPe
Plaster. This is not that nateri-al , however, this is the color of that naterial .I did not have availability of that rnaterial , but this is the color chart. It is
actual ly sl ightly darker than what our final cane out. Apparently the sheet rock
plaster, the white cane through after nixing of the paint and didn't allow to get
the exact co1or, but this is the exact color and color chip for that. The nraterials
DRB -L2- 7lI/8r
used was a 1 x 8 redwood which is cornparing both naterials, if we rnay,
? That I s redwood.
&aS_lgf.: Yes, that is redwood.
Snowdon: Itrs not redwood stain, itrs actually redwood with a stain.
_EgSl_Lr: It's redwood with a stain on it also, I do not have the .,..,but this is
a piece of the nraterial actually used on the job with the redwood., with the darker
redwood stain being used, The soffits would be the sane color basic as the fascia
and the side with the brown being the window trim and the brick molds, This is
the color that to be used on the plaster. Here is the actual color flom the colorchart. Ittis is very near, more near than what I have on this particular sarnpleright here. Ate there questions?
? In regard to that, one of the nenbers requested that because the use of plaster
we would have the need for expansion joints, whereas with the previous naterial
they would not have that particular expansion joint in the sides. I have preparedfor your review a copy of those expansion breaks as would be necessary to neet the
requirenents of the city.
Snowdon i Ttrere were also several changes to the building itself, werenrt therethat we requested you to note? Is that basically the green circles? Green narking
represent ?
Baslar: Because of changes, photographs were nade of the exterior of the exj-stingbuilding, returned to the architect, and those changes are all noted on this setof plans here, I might point out some of the nore obvious changes. This was to
be a stucco stairway which is now sided, this is the other side of the staimays
which now have siding, We've added a window in this location. Ihis was shown as
stucco or plaster. It presently has redwood siding at this point, with the architect
recornnending that that sj.ding be extended down this area in here. You might look
on these distant plans this is the other side of that deck which faces and overlooksVail Valley and it was also shoun as stucco si.ding which now has redwood siding.
There were two windows added at this location which were not shown as such on the
plan.
? Very poorly done, actually, because the trin and this new window up here conesflush to the under side of the soffit where there is a space here. Is that totallydifferent..,.. It is not as that shows actual.ly. Actually this line ....goes up closer here--goes to the under side.
qerj Excuse ne, I have a question at this point. Here is a note that the plan
was approved. Here rs sonething we began--thatrs the way it is, and to me itis absolutely appalling that the builder can come and come to you with only oneset of plans, and can come here and show you pages and pages of change that nobody
has even approved, (wetre aware of this) I know this, but I mean, if it was onelittle, but we go on and on, incredible,
Bovd: What about the over spray on the shakes-shingles, is anything going to be
done about that?
lilatthews: That is a serious problem.
p.egler i f rve addressed it to several people on a
would be in this area. One would be of course to
solution, and probably the alternatives
stain the roof which would probably
DRB -13- 7/r/81 o
be irnpractical . The 2nd would be the weathering effect of, when the stain
would cone off. And of course, the 3rd would be the renoval of those shingles.
? Is this redwood?
? Itrs hard to tell.
? I thj.nk that if you pul1
? Is that redwood? sonehow the texture doesnrt look like redwood.
Meyer: Irrn not a speciali.st, but this redwood on the house right now I dontt
believe is redwood.
Whatts this?
Basler:. Anybody got a knife, werll right now and werll just prove whether it
is redwood.
? As I saj-d before, if itrs redwood, itts a poor grade, because good redwood you
donrt have to.....
Mever: Because the wood didn't look anything like this-had to be just pai.nted.
? I canrt be redwood. Itrs not redwood.
Basle::: It is redwood.
? It is redwood.
? Show us that other sanple. Thatts redwood. Just conpare the color of the two
woods and tell me if that could be the same. That's an untreated.
Basler: That's a redwood sanple. I cut it off of a redwood board. I do have that
board.
Meyer; We1l, I had sonebody looking at the house, and they said it was not redwood,
? Well, there is no doubt, we can establish this easily that the house has redwood
on it.
Mever: frm sorry, Mr. Johnston, I would li.ke to see a specia.....what you have
on the house, 0h, I dontt know where you got this redwood because in Potato
Patch you have nany houses with redwood and I've never seen anythi.ng looking like
this redwood, you have to paint it like this.
Mr. Johnston: I donrt know about this sanple at all, al I I know is that the house
has redwood on it.
MSyeL! I would like this to be checked by the...
Basler: We could have this particular sample checked or any particular sample on
the house to certify that that is the sane time of naterial used and it is redwood.
lle11Cti Let ne ask you one question, why do you use a naterial like this that you
have to go to the trouble of painting when you take a house whi-ch has built just
down below and the person had nothing to do on the wood, and it is a beautiful house.
And you have a house just across and it is supposedly the same naterial and one
doesnrt look like the other?
-14- 7 /L/8r
Snowdon: O,K. I think that does that cover all the itens discussed? We previously
fooked at the hot tub nodification and had general agreenent that what was propsed
at that tirne was I think a suitable solution for the hot tub, which previously
went into the setback. However, looking at the existing site, the fact that the
upper walls dontt natch the lower wal|s, I have concern as a board nenber,
the fact that they are not aligned. Visibly there nay be a solution, but itrs
not.....
? I have a conment on the naterials thenselves, if I were to look at this cornb ination
of rnaterials. The subtle color changes in the actual naterials that were proposed
was darker than this. The subtle color changes between this--the trirn and the siding
minirnized the busyness and the attention that the house gave. Look at the strong
contrast between this color and that color, brown trin, nake s everything so ltuch
louder, so mrch nore visible, so much...and I an highly concerned with the spray
on the roof, is a sign of poor quality construction, I think itts fairly inexcusable,
and I also feel that this quality of uraterial , whether it is redwood, pine, nasonite,
there is very little couparison in the quality of the naterial between this and
that.
It looks like cedar.
? This cones out to be a material that because of itts poor quality needs to be
stained. Stained buildings deteriorate nruch quicker. Likewise stucco buildi.ngs
will probaly deteriortate much quicker than the artificial stucco naterials that
we know about today.
? I'hese things have grade nuutbers, dontt they?
of the naterial? What grade nuuiber is this?
Basler: Irn not certain.
Isn?t that how You judge the qualitY
Johnston: 0.K., there you go, we have to have that fact, because I an told that
we did not change grade nunbers, so now we need to know what was is the original
plan. Wasnrt it in the specifications originally? What the grade of that naterial
was ?
Snowdon: Well, it night not only be a change i,n naterial , but i.t is also a change
in style, going frorn a channel lap to a ship lap, change in the....
Matthews: While hers looking for that, it seens to ne he nissed the foundation
when he built the house. On that side of the house between the Boyers and
thi.s, therers a block foundation and it looks like he missed it and
'PEC -1s- 7/r/8r
Matthews: How come hets not,-I nean donrt you build---Dontt you buj.ld
?-founaation and put the house on the foundation, how di.d you niss it by so nuch?I nean, maybe I...
Basler: No, it was the foundation that was nissed, and the foundation will be
completely rernoved and redone.
? Yourre talking about that one section that was supporting the hot tub? Well,
Irm told thatrs going to be totally replaced. It was a separate foundation for
the hot tub, Thatts going to be redone.
Meyer: The foundation for the hot tub has been rernoved. That was what you usedfor the stairs. What you were referring is the side of the foundation wall,
and the house doesntt sit.. therers no way you can change.
Mr.; B? I believe the only thing we're talking about is the support for the
hot tub, I think,
IdSXST: No, because this has been renoved since.
_lt|:_-g.? No, no, it's still there. I looked at it this norni.ng and itrs there.
And it is off key, off square. Now this is the same..nurnber, isntt it?
Itfrs. B: I would like to ask that they be forced to return to the fascia of materials
as passed by the plans with Mr. Dtrane Piper presenting then in the original acceptance
by the DRB, The i.mpact is nuch less, it is very low key, it will go into the
environnent better, and I also would like to say that I believe that second sanple
of wood is not redwood, itf s cedar.
. J-otn5-!qn: Therers no doubt therers redwood on the house, and we can show that.
What Irm interested in finding is whether therers been a down grading of the
grade that was purchased.
|t&.14gt_: I think there was, I donrt think you have to be a specialist. I think
what we are very concerned is for the outside look of the house, as you say,of all the naterial just nothing like it originally been, you know, the heightof the house, ..
l,hs. B: One of these woods is white and one of these woods is redwood silvercolor, so
Sn: Redwood has flexibility in the graining, but..
lfrs. B: White?
tn: Hardwood, you get into the whitish wood.
Nlrs. B: I would request very strongly that they would be forced to keep withtheir original fascias in every case.
Sn: Are there any other comnents from the floor? Any cornrnents from the board?
Do we have a motion?
Pierce: I would li.ke to state that the Boyers will be ny clients in the future,
and I would not be willing to participate in the voting...nurnble..
Last Page partial |.'rtrtt, DRB
Richard Mtthews: I would like to nake a motion the, Mr. Chai.rrnan, that the Johnstonduplex, Lot 4, Block 1, Potato Patch be xestored to the original colors, raaterials,
elevations, etc. approved by the previous, uh, at the previous Design Review Board
neeting.
Janar l That date was July 30, 1980.
unintel ligible
Snowdon: Is there a second? Would anyone like to restate the motion?
Adam: r make a motion at this time that the changes to the previously approved
Johnston duplex building be disapproved.
Snowdon :And, is there anything more to that?
Adarns: No, I dontt think so in the motion.
Snowdon: So i.t stays as original ly proposed.
Adams: I nove that the changes be disapproved. I would add to that rnotion that
there is obviously a problem here, I think i.t rests in the hands of the builder,
and I think the only way the problem will be solved is if each individual solutionis approached and Presented to the board as a definite proposal . The overspray
on the roof, the change in naterials, the change in colors, the change in elevations,
and I would think it would be wise to get the approval of the several neighborsthat are adversely affected by these changes to the previously approved design.But the motion stands, r think the changes to the previously approved design be
disapproved.
Snowdon: Is there a second?
Donovan: Second.
9noWdon ! O.K., there has been a motion for disapproval of the Johnston duplex building,landscaping, naterial changes, lot 4, block 1, Potato Patch, notion by Adarns, second
byDonovan, all those in favor of the disapproval ? Against the disapproval ? oneabstention? One ab stent ion.
?Was that notion specifically in regard to the structural elements of the buildingitself?
Snqw4on: That was in regards--that was presented as a conplete notion, the conpletenotion was denied. (NorE: The notion passed 5-0 with one abstention.)
fanAU For building, landscaping and materials i
Snowdon_: For landscaping, retaining walls, building naterials, etc.
REQL€ST FOR CHANGES DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Wednesday, Jwre 3, 1981
Snowdon Next iten on the agenda, then,
L_9!__4, 81\ l-Potato Patclr. I
Jamar
is the J9h4g1on Building.and Material .eJtange,
would like Peter, if you would, suumari. ze the
this as brief as possible, but yet sti1l cover
Snowdon
.)J r.n,
Snowdon
Jamar
Matthews
Janar
situation so that we can make
al L the necessary points,
0.K., this is an itern which went through Design Review Board, received final
approval on July 30, 1980 last sunrner, was under construction at the time that
several problems were brought to my attention concerning the construction of
the building, at which tirne I red tagged the job and shut it down. Sorne of
the problens which we need to address today are that the deck on the southwest
side of the structure was sitting in the setback. Now, a deck can exist in
the setback, but it was supported by an actual foundation of the house, whichis not allowable. Another change which has occurred is that the change in
the elevation of the floor slab has been raised by approxirnateLy 4.7 feet, and
Part--related to this change has created a drainage problem with the slope causing
the drainage to run on the neighboring lot. There has also been a front retaj-ning
wall which has been built on the lower side of the structure, which would be
the southeast side of the structure, which was not on the original approved
plans, and there also have been some naterial changes to the approved Plans.
There also was another situation which has been corrected i-s that a retaining
wall has been built along the southwest property li-ne and was renoved under
orders of the Town staff. So I think..
Do we have 4 items, or 5 itens?The retaining wall was too high?
That's ny next iten. Uh, the next iten is that a retaining wall had been built
in the front of the property, or rear, depending how you look at it, werl1 see
details of that i.n a minut.e wtrich was different than was approved at the original
approval . And so, those are the 5 itens which we need to address. What I can
see fron a planning staff standpoint as problens which need to be corrected
by the Design Review Board are: No, 1, an approval of the change in the floor
slab eLevation which was raised 4.7 feet in height, No. 2, we need to see
a revised plan for that front Tetaining wall or need to see it built as originally
subnitted, No, 3, we need to see the drainage problen corrected, and some sPeci-fic details according to that drainage problem, No. 4, we need to either aPProve
any material changes which have been completed up to this point, or order the
applicant to revert back to the original naterials which were subnitted, and
No. 5, we need to approve the changes on the southwest elevation where
that deck has been cut off in the hot tub area.
Do we look at these as all 5 itens together?
I think we need to tale then separately, one by one, and the neeting will go
a lot smoother if we try to stick to the 5 issues, there uray be others that
are brought up, and I think we can address those also, so I think Ir11 turnit over to the project rnanager, and let hin propose any changes that have
been made frorn that .
I just have a question. Did changing the floor elevation, did that nake the
house too tal1?
Well, this house, when it carne through in 1980 was under our old regulations
which neasured height from finished grade, so that, uh, our regulations now
read that height is neasured fron finished or existing grade, whichever is the
tnost severe, in that case would have raised the buildi.ng up, but it sti11 would
Pierce
Janar
P ierce
Jamar
Pierce;
Jamar;
Matthews:
Pierce:
Basler
Bl ache :
DRB 6/3/8L
be under the old regulations which neasured height only fron finished grade
so that if the finished grade was raised at the tiure the floor slab was
raised they are within their height lin-itations and do not need any approval
for that. They are within the height lirnitations by the old definition.
If we approve the new height..
Yourre still taking height from finished grade, so, you know if yourre raising
the slab and youtre raising the roof, yourre also raising finished grade
which they are within their height restrictions of 33 feet.
I personally feel that there is sone reason to doubt that interpretation,this is only ny personal opinion, and that is that when, ln that the Plans were
:::
O"tta as subrnitted .. new submissions that new submission has come today,
Well, I think welre considering this as any other revision that we consider
coming before the Design Review Board, and we look at it at what rules were
in effect at the time it received approval . When buildings cone in requesting
additions, the floor area is calculated, just as we have changes in storage
or anything e1se, they are calculated whatever the definition was at the tirne
of final approval, It's only fair to the applicant and that is the interpretation
of the Town attorrley. If you wish to take it up with hirn, thatts fine, but
Not necessarily, In rny rnind there is sonething that has been going.
Thatrs fine, Wel1, I guess Ir11 turn it over to then as far as the changes
that they are proposing.
lnnmbling)this is the original subnission, and also the survey which was done
on the 14th of May 1981 showing the elevation which was called out fron the
original plans was 8630 for unit A, survey on l,lay 14th shows that it is
at 8634.7. For unit B, the floor slab elevation was 8642, and the survey
done on llay 14th shows that itts at 8645, an increase of 5 feet.
So that the roof lines actually are not at the sane relationship.. '
May I ask you gentlernen to state your name for the tecords, please?
l"ly nane is J irn Basler. Irn the construction supervisor for CDS Enterprises,
contractor on the subj ect property. I have with us, I,lr. John Blashe, attorney
for CDS Enterprises.
Thatts not real1y right. I represent the owner of the 1ot whose narne is
Paul Johnston, and he may be referred to as the developer, but he is not
the builder.
Basler: I stand corrected. I assrlmed this position on about April 12, it
was a few days after the original red tagging by the City. The red tagging
was caused by what was ca11ed build a hot tub over a setback 1ine. To give
you sone history of what is happening at this point, The original plans
subnitted to the city and the Design Review Board as shown here will
show that this hot tub was approved, However, some place along the
review procedure the foundation was overlooked. There was no intention of
buildi.ng in an area nor did we ...... (tape change)
DRB 6/3/8r r-o
Basler: At this point, wetre looking for ideas to nake this a conp&ete structure,
but I do not have the ability to do this myself, so werre going to consult a
professional and l,lr, Boyer, would you say sornething on this subject?
Bover: No conments on that. I would like to go back just a wee bit and Point
out that this rnisplaced and too high retaining wall was built in effect before
construction actually began on the project on the 4th of October 1980 I took
this photograph because I had to go up there and see about sone other problens
and it shows that that retaining wall as it stands now was already there,
And we conplained at the tine that that wall was too high to be within the 15
foot setback, But it was there before the footings were put in' Now, as far
as the wal 1 goes, as far as werre concerned, as wetve written to you, werve
discussed with the CDS Enterprise people, if they put the retaining wall back
where it was to be originatly, in the original application to you people and
your approval, fine. Thatrs all wetre asking. The watl as it stands now
is too close to our property and too high and affects our view besides being
in violation of Town ordinances.
Snowdonr I think the one thing in connent to working with the adjacent property
6wneilI think before we see it again, what we'd like to do, is when you re-
present it, that what you have is, if the adjacent property owners arenrt Present
a written confirnation that theytve seen and approved the drawings before we
can really add whatever we think is necessary or whether we aPprove. Just as
we would a condo association or something like that, and we need their approval
before we can review it, so I think that would be one thing in conjunction with
a landscape plan, I think we would want a letter fron the adjacent land owner
of lot 5 that they have seen the plans and they are in agreenent with what is
being proposed,
Basler: 0r their being here at the neeting,
. Edwards:Can I offer a suggestion to that, or naybe, to make it contingent upon
Tf6-i6ighbors approval is pretty tough, how about just a letter showing the
neighbors t conunents upon it.
Basler: Or could we, if neighborsr conments would be equal to that.
Boye:: We shall be here.
Snowdon: But I think itts just that theyrve seen the plans and that they tend
I6--E-gree with the direction that you have gone and therers a mrtual agreenent
that things have been worked out and that what they're showing you does generally
neet with their approval , then if werve got added notes that we want to see,
you know, reverifty vegetation, nake sure itts the appropriate type, that it
survives, that the grades and the slopes aren rt too great that they canrt be
stablized and growth can occur..thatts where our concern is, and that is is
solving the najority of our concerns which was #1, doing sone screening on the
hot tub area, and I think since the building has raised up, I think the general
consensus for additional screeni-ng to conpensate for a higher building is the
general direction that the Board would like to see it go.
Itlatthews l I'd like the connent that Scott ..that uh, there is a letter be conments
Effinot 'approval .
Snowdon: O,K. 0r reaction to the plan, but if they are here, it would be helpful
Eo -E-able to have them on file at the sarne tirne.
DRB 6/3/8I ,O
Edwards I dontt know how many other changes there are between what yourve
goTTuftt and what was drawn on this paper, but just looking at this one PhotograPh
I find a couple. For instance, this deck railing here is shown to be stucco,
itts buiit in wood, It doesntt show a post under the conrer, there's a Post
under the corner. It has a window here that doesnrt shcw on thj"s dralrirrg. ilow
many variations are there to this? In other words, this is supposed to be stucco,
it's obviously wood, the r,iindow is here, that dontt show on this drawing' there
is a lot of different things going on here ihat are differenu. How nany changes
are there on these drawings?
Jarnar: I tnink thatts one thing we
EiiE-issues is anything additional .five, and then we can....
?..retaining wal1?
need to address after iue get "Lhrough the
But I think letrs stick with these first
Jamar: .,ii thatts acceptable to everyone else' I'n just tryj,ng to get through-tF;,.
Yatthew:. Itn sorry, I just caught that as we were looking ..
Snowdon: OrK. so basically the questions of the retainlng wall have been covered
whj-dft-Foves us into the final iten, at least the final written iten of the area
between the west property line and the building itself. The 15 foot setback.
I assune there will be again contours iooked at and established s<l that the
natural drainage as it was prior to construction is rnaintained, so that we donrt
ha',re diainage gcing onto the adjacent property. I think the..it has to be looked
at as to whether if the building was raised causing increased contours or slope
going onto adjacent property. I think that has tc be nitigated al-ong with just
the revised landscape plan showing how that would be handled,
Basle::: That would be our intent to include that along with....
Snowdon: Excuse me, I didntt nean to cut you off.
Basler: The intent was to look at this both in the aspect of landscaping or
G6'ing vrith prinsry concern being that of drainage, the renoval of the water
back on lot 4, nqaybe not always as ori.gi.nal ,, but a conforning as much as possible
u-se on 4 wi.th drainage. A11 drainage will be on lot 4"
Snowdon: But at least that which cones fron..lot 4....
Basler: ....and method and all that which was natur4lly draining from lot
3-TiTf be taken c.a:re of with our proposed plan. At this point again, a plan
that we nay wind up with. We have no real concept as to what it will be, and
wetre starting that work on that drainage and landscaping plan based on your
approval for us to do that...
Snowdon: I think at this point, without having sornething to look at, we canrt
EiiF@roval as uuch as we c€rn say I'go in this direction". And then, show
us lchat you intend to do and then wetll appro'rre that. You know, I dontt think
today rve can give you any kind of approval because werre not Looking at anything.
DRB 6/sl8r -6-
how we feel about then. 0bviously, it is within youlf perogative to applove
or disapprove.
Snowdon: O.K. I think because wetve gone over the five nail itens., is there
anylti5'g else which needs to be brought uP at this point.'I think 8i11rs....
Scottl have to leave very shortly, and I would just ask that you would do an
ffintory of the other exterior changes theytve nade.
Snowdon: As part of the naterial package,
Scott: Right, as the naterial changes. I dontt know how nany
need to remain, whether they are tenporary construction, posts
be removed, or whatever.
Basler: I will comply with that request.
of these things
that will later
Snowdon: I think that if we do take an inventory, and I thi-nk at the sane tine,
uit even though the major iterns are site work, I think it would be of benefit
to you to keep the adjacent Property owners inforned of those changes at the
same time, just so they are rnade aware and can coglent on those changes also.
Because they are changes fron the original proposal that they viewed and in
a general way approved, and so I think uh, just as a courtesy that they should
be informed of any of those additional changes that nay have occured to the
building itself.
Basler: I have one other conment on sonething that we had discussed with the
adjilcent property owners utrich is concerning a dlain pipe with drains coning
frour the bui.tding contToling erosion next to the building. That will be incor-
porated so it goes into the drainage and reworked if necessary.
Irtrs. B: Yes, r4y. question was that perhaps they could alleviate sone of the
drain{e in this 1ot if they put on drain piPes and guttels and have it go into
a sump and be taken down underneath to the southeast of the 1ot. It would certainly
alleviate some of the drainage, rather than just having a stlaight shed off
of the roof.
Snowdon: I think again, that could be something that they could look at as
part of their proposal, if they think thatrs a valid way of solving it, but
f tnink again it's a problern that has to be solved, and if that's the direction
they wish to choose, then they could proceed that way.
Matthews: The drainage would have to cone away fron the house and drain
ffi-?-swal e or whatever they incorporate, so that will have to be shown.
Snowdon: I think, looking at the itens that werve covered, the only one
1=Eat we can respond to is the deck set-back question, and I think what I would
prefer doing is, now that the problems have been brought out in front of us,
everybody knows what they are, that the applicant nake a formal Presentation
as soon as possible and then take action on that presentation rather than trying
to take action on anything we've discussed today, sinply because we dontt know
what werre reacting to. The deck set-back, I donrt think anybody had problens
with the proposal for the deck changes, I think that was fairly strai-ghtforward
t t
LIST OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON JOHNSTON DUPLEX. LOT 4 POTATO PATCH
Chapter 18.54 Design Review fron l"lunicipal Code
Minutes of DRB meeting of July 30, 1980
Minutes of DRB neeting of June 3, 1981
Minutes of DRB neeting of July 1, 1981
Minutes of DRB neeting Sept. 2, 1981
Minutes of Board of Appeals meeting of July 20, 1981
Appeal of DRB decision to Town Council from Western Management Conpany
Address of Patricial Rickman
Registered lr{ail receipt to Lawrence Kelly si.grred by Annamari-e Reynolds lO/2/8I
Registered lrb1l receipt to Paul Johnston signed by Paul Johnston dated 9/25/81
Letter to Kelly fron Ryan, 9/30/8L
Letter to Ryan from Kelly 9/29/8I
Letter to Johnston fron Ryan, 9/23/8L
Letter to Janar frorn Thonas Tathan, 9/I8/8I
Lette" to Mayor and Council frorn Vail Village Property Owners, 9/L5/8L
Letter to Maygr from C. Frederio Meyer, 9/14/81
Letter to Phj.l Taylor from John Flatt, 9/14/81
Letter to C. Frederi.ck Meyer fron Lawrence J. Kelly, 9/lL/8I
Letter to Town Council fron Georges C. Boyer, 9/10/81
Memo to Tovrn Council fron Community Development Departnent, 9/9/8L
Letter to Mayor fron G. Fernandez De La Parra, 9/8/81
Letter to Mayor fron Victor da 1a larna, 9/8/81
Note fron Ray Cote, no date
Letter to Toun Council fron the Boyers, 9/5/81
Appeal to Town Council from Western Management, 9/3/8L
Letter to Paul Johnston fron Peter Janar, 9/3/8I
Letter to Philip Scott Taylor from Odell Johnson of KKBNA,S/25/8I
Letter to KKBNA from Curtis O. Sealy of Chen and Associates
Letter to Peter Janar from Paul Johnston, 8/25/81
Letter to the DRB frorn the Boyers, 8/L9/8I
Mailgram to Town Cotrncil from Richard Strauss, 8/16/8L
Mailgram to Design Review Board from L.H. Wexner, 8/L8/8L
l,lailgram to Design Review Board from David Lindsay, 8/12/81
Mailgran to Design Review Board from C.T. Traylor, Jr. , 8/I8/8L
Mailgran to City Manager frorn L.H. Mexner, 8/18/8L
Letter to Design Review Board frorn Ruth Federrnan, 8/13/8I
Letter to Town Council frorn Ruth Fedetman, 8/I3/8I
Letter to Larry Rider frorn Lawrence J. Kelly, 8/I2/8I
Letter to Rich Caplan fron Lawrence J. Kelly, 7/30/8I
Letter to Potato Patch ouners fron Georges M. and Jocelyn Boyer and Luc Meyer
with sarnple letter to Corurcil attached
Letter to Peter Jamar fron Georges M. Boyer, 8/27/8I
with Protective Covenant s of Potato Patch
Memorandun to Town Council from Department of Comrnunity Development ' 7/23/8L
Letter to Colleen Kline fron John Blish, 7/20/81
Letter to Design Review Board frorn C.T. Traylor, Jr. , 7/L4/8I
Letter to Paul Johnston fron Peter Jamar, 7/8/8I
Letter to Peter Jamar fron Dan Gagliardo, CDS Enterprises
Letter to Design Q Review Board from Jinmie D, Basler wi.th 51ain sarnples,list of nra-
terials (6/3/8I), 2 drawings of hot tub revisions,Q 2 improvenent surveys
Letter to Design Review Board fron Georges G Jocelyn Boyer, S/29/8L
Letter to Design 6 Review Board from Jin Basler, 5/L8/81
Letter to Craig Snowdon fron Georges and Jocelyn Boyer, 5/8/8I
Letter to Steve Patterson fron Don Teasley of Buchanan, Thonas and Johnson, 4/30/8I
Letter to Dan Gagliardo frorn Don Teasley rt rt 9/24/80
Letter to CDS Enterprises from Georges M, Boyer, 9/I7/80
Letter to Jarnes Rubin from Georges M. Boyer, 9/13/80
(lrbterial subnitt o$nston Dt4rlex, page 2)
2 photographs dated I0/518L
C opy of an injunction fron Georges M Boyer and Jocelyn Boyer vs'-Paul Johnston, l{estern Managenent Co., Inc., Dan Gagliardo and
CDS Enterprises. L0 /27 /80.
project Applications to Design Review Board dated 9/8/8L,9/2/8I ,7/I/gL, S/LL/8I ,
and 7/7/80.
section fron zonin! code regarding the definition of "Height", 18'04.170
Xerox of Potato Patch subdivision nap
List of Materials from DRB subnittal dated 7-25-80, Johnston duplex
List of Materials fron DRB subnittal rmdated
List. of inspections, complaints, when job started and when red tagged'
xerox of newspaPer clipping concerning Dan Gagliardors license
Zone check on lot 4, blk I Potato Patch
Specificatioans and Schedules, Johnston Dupler fron Wheelel Piper Architects
(3
Ila*ren.eJ. Kelly
Attorneyat Law
September 1. 1, 1981
C. Frederick Meyer, Esq.
Attorney at Lar,t
330 E. Lionshead Circle
Vai1, Co 81.657
Re: Lot 4, Potat.o Patch matter.
Dear Fred;
I believe clarity requires that I reduce a few personal
thoughts to writing. I wish, first, to exPress my
appreciation for the opportunity to work with you on this
most difficult matter. Notwithstanding, however, and
regardless of certain mutual and paratlel interests, I be-
lieve that our past sympathetic methods of proceeding wi11,
in the future, grow rapidly and radically divergent.
friendship in the adverse
give the unfettered oPPortunitY
groceeding hereafter.
As you are atvare, an unfavorable outcome at the September 15
vail Town Council hearing will have a mammoth and perhaps
irredeemable impact on my clientrs financial security andl
future. With your much appreciated assistance' I believe
it is accurate to say that we have made every conceivable,
good faith attempt at compromise and solution- However'
ihe entrenched, blood in the water, resistance Messers Luc
Meyer and George Boyer, compJ-ete with apparantly intentional
anl malicious ilander, it appears the die is irrevocably cast.
I fear intentional rumor creation may Prevail at council
level over logic and clear, factual analysis- f must view
this unsubstantiated mud slinging as an actuaL intent to do
my client serious personal injury, solely for the sake of
iijury. I do, in iact, s9e these actions as an act of war'
I{ith no room for compromise left and with no choice left,
immediately following an adverse result SPetember 15, I must
tetl you I intend to file suit against Luc Meyer and George
Boyer for intentional and malicious acts of slander, abuse
of process and harassment. As you know, Mr. Johnston t s loSses
will be substantial and together with claims for punitive
damaqes, the stakes become overpowering. This will be a
bitter, protracted sanquine series of trials and apgeals'
f know that you value certain
camp - Therefore, I wanted to
to separate from my method of
POST OFFICE BOXC27 . EAGLE. COLORADO 81631 . TELEPHONE 303/328'2338
, | -.r
Fred Meyer
September 11, 1981
Page 2
The current momentum strongly suggests that substantialIitigation is a cold reality. ff Paul is against the wall,no other choice will be available. This appears to be theMeyer/Boyer strategy.
The first law of the martial arts is never place your opponent'in such a position that his only method of escape- is stiiiqntat and through you. This is serious tactical error in theirgame olan. They musL now pay for their fol1y.
It is overly and optimistically sophisticated, I think, tobelieve even your J.ong standing friendship with Luc wiII with-stand the strain of the upcoming events. Therefore, it is withdeep regret that I strongly urge you, Fred, to put distance
between your representation of Javier and my representationof PauI .
Best, personal rega;ds,
.l
O
Seorges C. FoyerF.0, Box ll55
Val1, Co. 81658-0t+56
(10?,) 4Z'i-1749
Ih:rrdday, Sept. 10, 1981
The Torvn Couneil
Town of \laLl
75 Sortth ?rontar"e ?oadVai1, Solorado 8L657
Gentl emen r
By neans of thls letter, I, the undereigned o"rrner of
Tirnberf,all-s condoninlum #804, loeaterl at 11516 J. Ilteadorr' }rlve'Vai1, Co. herehy request that you eupport unaninousl',r the
decisi-on O6" the 1./ai1 Design Review tsoarC taken on Sept. 3, 19Btto denv the applicatlon bv i{estern l'tanaqernent €o./FauL iohnston
requestine pernission to keep unauthorized ehanqes to plans and bui.ldlng
made rJurlnq construction and after the Desig.r Revie:v Board's
approval of the orisinal plane for the structtrre currently located
on lot 4, block 1, Fotato Patch subdlvision,
lhese changes were requeeted by the appellants after 1t wae
found by the Town of Yail Staff that the chanqes requested were,in effeet, flagrant viol-ations cf the nlans submitteC to and
approveri hv the D\P on .TuIy 3O, 1980.
'lhe )esiqn 3evle-,v Board has d.enied 'ilestern ilianageme.nt Co,/
Paul Johnston's request because they fdund ,,{estern llgt.,/.i ohnstonto be in vlolatlon Od the Town of vall's Deslgn Sevierv Guidelines,
speelfieall-.r sections 18. 54.oLo,8, 18. 41t.070, P, anri 18. 54.070 l,l.
Flease sirpport your lown Staff, The Design ilevierv Board'
and the eitizens and taxpavers of the ?own of t/a11.
Sincerely,
Georges C. 9oyer
4516 '!.. iieadow lrive, #804vail, co. 8t557
o ro*,iisliilii:ii.[.'b'-lo
Vail, Colorado 81658
September 08, '1981
Mr. Rodney Sl ifer
Mayor
TOt,lN OF VAILP.0. Box .|00
Vail, Colorado 8.|658
Dear Rod:
I am writing to you because a friend of ours, Xavier Velasquez, who has
been coming to Vail almost as long as lve have, is experiencing great
difficulties finishing a house that he contracted to purchase about six
months ago.
It appears that the developer, Paul Johnston, hired a contractor who
turned out to be either negligent or incompetent or both. It is apparentthat Xavier Velasquez is completely b'l ameless for the errors made. Heis a fine gentlemen who likes Vail and its people.
The Design Review Board denied the application for revision last Thursday
and I am told that their decision has been filed with the Town Council.
Xavier and hjs fanily ljke the property very much and would like it to
be their vacation home.
We all hope that the Town Council finds a reasonable and fair solutionto this problem.
Yours sincerely,
Victor da la lama / nto'L.z,,zyl
.1o Z2/',^-' i'--o'-/ -z t /z{ ;-/c
f'e>4. &t-a-' -tt't'o t"4 c 4t*' J
,-'1n' -/t' , :/ ,
4524-tt Meadow Drive i
Vail, Colo. 87658
P. 0. Drawer J
303-9U'9)+815
Sept. 5, 19Bi
To the Town Counci-l, Town of Vail:
We, the undersigned. permanent residents of Vail,
understand that there is before you an appeal from Paul
J"f.""i6"/,;estern Management Co. iequesting that you set aside
the d.ecisions of ttre iesign Review Board as described in
wti. peter Jamar's letter to the appetl-ants of September 3rd'"
The DRB denied, the request of Paul Johnston/Western
Management Co. because they found the appellants.to be in
violition of the Town of Vail's Design Review Guidelines,
speeifically sections 18.54.01o,8, 18,54.070'R, and
t8.54.070, M.
It is indeed evident frorn al-l the testimony that has
been presented. to the DRB that the appellants requested' certain
changLs "after the fact". The appellants deliberately
disregarded the permit issued by the iown in accordance
witn Ineir preseitation to the bnn on Jul-y 30, 1980, and thus
clisregarded the authority of the DRB and the Town Staff'
It is our strong feeling that the cleliberate disregard'-
of the appellants foi the DRB, the Town Staff and j-nnumerable
town codei and regulations is an insuft to the integrity of all
concerned includi-ng the citizen-taxpayers of VaiI who are
required. to abide by the decisions of the DRB and other Town
ag6ncies responsibt-e for upholding our regulations and codes.
Tt is interesting to note that it was only after the
appellants were caughi "red handed" by the Town Staff that
t-hiy entertained anf thought of requesting approval of "changes"
rvhich indeed were already in effect.
This vrhole rnatter is of great importance to 3-]J Vail
citi,zens and land-owners. l,tle urge you to support the decisions
of our Design Review Board in this case and deny the appeal
before you io that our enti_re system of checks and balances
vis-a-vis construction in Vail witl be preserved for the good
of our community.
trrJe fear that any other action would jeopardize the very
exisience of the DRB and negate att the work that has been
clone heretofore to preserve 'bhe integrity of our town'
Respectfully submitted'
{".a0*,- [V \J";{r.^
JocelynYI . Boyer !
Tovm of Vail
Box 100Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Town of Vail Design Review Board Special Meeting
September 3, 1981. Revisions application Lot 4,
Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision.
Members of the Tor^rn Council:
Please be advised that pursuant to Vail Town Zoning
Ordinance 18:54:090 appeal is herewith made from all de-
cisions made at the above special hearing.
Respectfully Submitted this 3rdlay-qf Septeq\er, 1981
este
By Paul Jo
Specifically, appeal is made from but not limited to
the decisions to deny said applicaEion because same rtas
noE in compliance with Town bf Vail's Design Review Guide-
lines Sections 18:54:010,B; 18054:070,R and 18:54:070,M.
Reception n^""-4/. / ,"7f,/
.1
sy jrz.- Z4'- /?a--Za
//
chen and associat'es
CONSULTTNG GEOTECHN ICAL ENGINEEBS
96 SOUIH ZUHI SIREEI ' OEtaVEi. COLORAOO tO223 ' lot,'"'tros
SubjecE:
August 24, 1981
Inspection of DuPlex'
I-ot 4, Block 1, Potatoe
Patdr Subdivision, Vai1,
Colorado
Job No. 22,966
KKBNA
7465 West 5th Avenue
Denver' Colorado 80226
Attn: Mr. John Flatt
Gentlenen:
As requested, the writer inspected tJ:e above referenced project on
August 19, 1981. aJtf. iine of bur inspection' the duplex hd only
-ue6n partially orpleted and no rcrk was in Progress'
Inspectionoftheduplexindicatesbhatthestructureisfounded
"" .p..ih footing ro.rnaution". lrhre northeast -:T:^:|-Pe hrildins
appears to be fouiJ il u drainage area for an approximate distance of
15 feet in a r.,esteri' air""ti"n "ia tS feet in a southerly direction'
rlrrt:i,"i investigaciol" ^oy indicaLe Ehat a larger Sorbion of the
residence is foundJ *r.J tni= drainage area. A hand auger tnle placed
i;-ih";ranuiii "or.,.r of the structure indicates thaE cornpressible
peac was found to a depth of 7 feet belor'r the surfacre'
In addition, our observations indicate that the southeasE portion
of the residence is founded qr loose fill materiafs frcrn site gnading'
a-reiain:.r,g wall locaEed in the southeast carner of the structure
;"pp";i" afipto*i.uieiy e t9 19 feet.of fili' Footirgs supiprting a
U.i6"V arl'placed-o,'tf* fill within the area retained hry the waII'
Basedono:rinspecEion,itisotrrcpinionthatfuturefoundation
settlernents could oce'nr if rernediat measures are not undertaken to
c,orrecE the foundali"n pi"ur" ". The existing conditions can be
corrected by followirg irornal sourd-construction practices' The
io:.fowing iterns are reconnreirded to be performed:
(1)Inthenortheastardsoutheastcarnersoftbebuildirgwherethe
footingsllEybefoundedqlPeaErnaterialsoruncglnPactedfil]itis reconmendJ-ttil U* tootirgs be extended to bear on natural
undisturbed materials.
oFF|cEs:cAsPER.coLoRADosPR|NGs.GLENwooDSPRINGSoSALTLAKECITY
KKBI.IA
August 24, 1981
Page 2
(2') The peat and fill strould be dug ot:t to a depth where the soil
bearirg pressure is 31000 psf. Footings or pads should be placed
on these wnpetent nraterials and the foundation walls should
exterd to the footings or pa<is.
(3) This will entai.l ontinuous inspections b1z a civil engineer aryj
observations on a part-tine basis by a soil engineer to verify
that tle footings are placed oi? trroper bearing naterials.
(4) fn the area of ttp crib retainirg structure, it is recqnnendedthat this retaining wall be analyzed to determine if it can
withstard lateral earth pressurei plus surcharge due to thefootings. ft nay be necessary to reccnstruct this retaining wall
ard place the footings on natural soils.
A11 repa.irs strould be nrade to the satisfaction of the geotechnical
ard structural ergineer. The extent of repairs can only be made at the
time of onstruction ldten excavations are rude by the contractor.
After reviewirg this letter, if you have any questions, please donot hesitate to @ntact our offic-e.
Sincerely,
CHEN AI.ID ASSOCIATES, IltC.
CoS/r
: 1033s ix-'"4 .q.' I
€".Vt 'ry7%rh^*
August 25, 1981
Peter Janar
VAII BUILDING DEPARTTI4ENT
75 S. Frontage Rd. WestVail, CO 81657
Dear Peter:
Enclosed please find a
after construction had
lot.
Mr. Federnan owns lot
a res idence thereon.
copy of a letter
been stopped on
#7 inunediately adjacent to our lot to the east and occupies
letter be added to your file for ourWe would like to request that this
proj ect.
Thank you very nuch.
PRJ: sk
(303) 949-6321
ccl
Lawrence Kelly
Eagle, C0
Phil Taylor
Ft. Collins, C0
Fred MeyerVail, C0
(3Os) s28-2338
(303) 223-08s7
(503) 476-0817
ggg? %.29. lr*,,-/-"a es
g A @"* lzfi
,%rr" €"7, ,/h**ro 64//4
RE: Lot 4, Blk 1, First filing
Potato Patch Subdivision
Vail, Colorado,
that I received fron
our duplex project on
HAROLD B. FEDERMAN
above referenced
P. O. Drawer J
VaiI, Colo. 8L658
476-oLzt
949-487 5
August t9, 7981
To: The Design Review Board, Town of Vail
We, the undersigned owners of Lots 5 & 9, Potato Patch'
Block 1i understana {hat Western Management Co./Pau1 Johnston
intend to come before you once rnore t6 request your authorization
to rrralce certain "n.ttg"!, both aesthetic and architecturaf in
{r.,r-i,r*r" covering iii" str.t"tur€ currently on-Lot #4, Potato
i;i"i; BIo"t f, sfimetines referred to as the Johnston Duplex.
As was the case on June 3' L}BL, and again o! Juty 1'
authorization for these changes is being requested "after
{he fact,'. It is now well established that the appellants'
Western Management Co./PauL Johnston fail-ed to conform with
if"t" pf""s which fraa be'en presented to-you on July 30' 1980'
ana ipproved. by you on tnit Oate. Their failure to conform
io titl"u plans iircluded serious changes in the outside
"pp"i""n"b of trrJ - n,ritaing including-unauthori zed subst itut ion
oi-materials, changes in 6olor, additions or detetions of
winclows, unauttrorilea construciion of retaining walls in violation
of Town'of vail codes and regulations and, most important.of
"ff' " change in the altitudE of the floor slab, on one side
[l7'fuet friEfrer than the plan and. on the other 2,5 feet f.iqlerthan the plin presented ana approved by you on JuIy J0' 1980'
We have wrj-tten to you previously expressing our
oppos-i.tion to these ,'chairgesi. We have also appeared before
yiii ciu"eing your meetings 5r;une 3 and July.-l., 1p81, to
&.emc,r'',,*,ra{e our opposiiion to al} of these "changes"'
'ilhe appellants are requestlng "changes" when, indeed,
these changes are already in effect. This is an j-nsult to
the integrity of the Tov;r of Vail-, its staff.and the Design
Revj-ew B5ard- and the citizen-taxpayers of Vail, particularly
the owners of Lots tr2r3,?r5 and 6.
whife we are not privy to the exact "changes" requested,
vre believe these to be generally as followss
1- Change in the outsid.e appearance and-materials'
2- Chan[es in lanscaping, topography.and drainage'
f- Chanle in hei-ght of Uuilaing ranging from 2'5 feet
ta 4.? feet from original PIan.
It is our contention that, under no circumstances should
the appellants be allowed to change the height of the building.
fire re[uested change, far in excess of the original approval'
serioudly affects Xri aaloining lots. Thg previous claim.by
ifre rppeil-ants tit"i-{fr" 6uifaiig height inCrease -was an innocent
"effor.,, is preposterous. fhe appellants started depositing
ao -2-
Sincerely yours,
;;;;;;;'t*ot,nt" of firt, up -bo seventeen feetr during.the
p""ioa immed.i-ately-f;Uo;in! your approval of the original
ptans on Ju1-y 30' 7980.
This fill was far in excess of what would have been
rru""r"*"y to-uuira in accordance with the originll plans. The
;"a;;;ia;ed attend.ed your meeting of Ju].v J0, 1p80' and
i.rai""tEa no objectioir to the original plans.. Furthermore,
if-in; fiff airi had not been so excessive, there would not
have been any reason for the appellants to build a nj-ne foot
retaining wail of rail-road. ties near the southwestern corner
or iot l+"even before the ptacing of footings, a waIl
which is in violation of Town codes
,It is obvious that what the appellants have called
an "error" was indeed a del-iberate action Started at the very
Uegin11ine of construction. Al-I evidence would indicate that
the ,,error" was intentional . of course, a chartge in the height
oi-tir"-n"ifaing seriously affected the topography a3d drainage
"i Loi 4, partfcularly oL ttte west side and consequently Lot J.
It is our contention that the topography and the drainage
carrnot be restored. as long as the excessive fill, and therefore,
the bui1ding itself remain as they are.
We: object to any proposed thalSes- in the outside appearance
and materiits on tfre"ti:if-aing. It has been clearly-demonstrated
that the ,,cha].Iges,' already in effect include materials of a
dii"iii'-inieri[r to that lresented to the DRB on July lo, 1990.
Any s,tltr changes would lower the value of surrounding.proper-by
anb tend to iivalidate the efficacy of the Design Review Board.
Wetlrgeyoutostandfirmandacai!rejectallofthese
"changes" ilftilft, indeecl , are merely evidence of flagTalt , -C"isrela::cl by the appellants of the pla{s they had origi'nally
pr,rseit"d t6 you. inaeeA it was only aftel-tl",appellants
frer'" ""rght r6d-handed by the Town Staff that they entertained
any thou[ht of requesting approval of "changes"'
Georges M. Boyer
,#;HS,Fn''
GB: T,K
o
o
I
4-Ot25099.28 08/t 6/8l ICS IPV\TZZ CSP GLTCA
o 9147356a4.i MGft IDtlT PEARL RI9ER Ny 145 C8-l 6 0541 p LST
TOll/ N CO UNCI L
75 SOUTq FFONTAGE R[i
VAIL C0 8l 657
BV I1EA NS OF lHIS TELEGR4 T'1 I TI{E UNDERSIGNED OI,,|NA OF LOT 29 POTATO
P4TC!{i BLOCK I HM BY RENUEST THqT YOU SUPPORT UNAJIMOI};LY THE
DECISION 0F THE VAIL DESIGNED' PEVIR\r B0ARD 0f'l JULY I ' l98l ' T0 DEI"JY
THE RENUEST AY WESTNN MqNAGEIiENT COMPAIIY P'lUL JOHI'SON AND CO!;
ENTERPRISES T]A N GAGLIqRDO TO YAKE CH4NGES (qFTER THE FACT) I N THE
qDECIFICqTIONS OF THE SUILDII'IG, IANDSCAPING AJD MATEtrIAHS ON LOR 4,
LOT I, trATATO PqTCq
T1{ESE CqqNGES ttfPE REJUESTED BY THE qpPLICAJTS OFFAP IT ldAs F0UND tsY
I-{E T0',\rN STAFF fiqT THE CHAJGES !,lERE I N EFFECT, FLAGqANT VIOLATIONS
OF fiE PLANS SI.BMITTED TO {JD APPtrOVEI] BY THE DRB ON JIJLY.3O, ISSO
PLEASE SUPPKRT YOI.R TOWN qTqFF, THE !]ESIGN qEVIEI..| BOARD qND THE
dIIZ EIIS TAX PAYERS I]F VqIL, BY DENYI NG fiE APFEAL OF I,JESTEF N
rq iIqG EUEI.IT CO llP A I,ff P q UL J OH NSO N
RICH{qD STRA IJSS
t7 45 EsT
MCMCCMP iIG14
I
I
I
I
o
t
t
o
o
o
o
I
o
a
@|.\
o
TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM, SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL. FREE PHONE NUMBERS
rl
o
I
l>
o
I
T
I
I
I
a
o
o
o
4-0061765230
61 447 54000
o? /l ? /el
lG 1"1 TDI,IT
I CS IP \|!,TZZ CSF G LLrtr
o LUre us 3H t2.7 0e -t 8 0e46A EST
I
I
o
t
o
o
I
T
I
WI{A T
NV 3F'
DESIGN PEVIEUI FCAFI)
Tll,lN 3F VAIL
VAIL CC 91 6'/
I MA.INTA IN A LAFG E RESI DENCE, AND
INVESTI4ENT, III VAIL. I LIKE T3 TPI
RES]PT.
HSllEVEp,I trEEL THE yAf'lAGEr'4EtlT AND VISIC[! 0F TFE G3VERNf"EI'lT CF VAIL
I S LESS lFAII l,,CPLD CL"ASS. EVEN SMALL N!l/N. F')P T!'A,T I4ATTEP.
TIME AND TIIlE AGAIN YOU !'AVE HAD THE sPP3FTUNITY, A.I'ID YTU CEFTAII]LY
HAUE 1"!{9 l"'tANm TE, Tl LPGPA DE 1! rPP1VE... LET AL3l'lE, ENiSPCE TFE
F LILSS YO U HAVE MA DE.
PLEASE DN. T LET fiE I''ATTERS ON POTATS PATCTi GET 3UT 3F PAND... TF'IS
I S AN A.FEA THAT DES:FVES PPOTECTICN. ALL I ASX IS EIIFSFCEi'EI]T, AN!
C0 F UANaE r,Ji Tlt PULES TllA T, I 9ELI EVE, AFE SCFT T! EEGI N r/I TH
L !{ LrE{ND
77 4 P' TA, T] PA TEH
VAIL CI ?I 5a|
385C EST
YGVC3F IGM
I C3I'1SIDM A LARGE PERSCI'IAL
VAIL AS A -i,JCRLD CLASS"
t
I
I
t
I
o
I
F
ut
o
l$St
g rt$u
TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM, SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL - FREE PHONE NUMBERS
DA VI D I.I NDSAYI528 GULF VIEI{ DPIVEqqPqs0Tq, FLA. .3.1577
| -cl0 47.te.soOI SARqSOTA
08/t8/81 TLX
FLA I8 AUG I '{ERALDTR3 SARA GLWq
s8la
I
T
I
a
I
a
I
o
I
t
t
I
I
t
t
I
o>
o
-
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
6F
do
N
^ q $qts
$$g''
DESIG N REVI E!/ BOAqD
TO'/N OF VqIL
TOWN HALLvAlL. coloRqDo 8t 657
- DLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWI ilc STATEITENT I N fiE R ECORi, OF
Y0 LF R EVI 5i{, 0F Cl'{A NG LS T0 fi E 3 UI LDI NG 0 N LOT Fo t.R 'VlIL POTATO PATC!{.
1M TqE $dNER OF LOT.3I, BLOCK ONE, VAIL POTAPO PAPCq.
IT IS I1V UNDPSTq NDI NG THAT TIiE OI{I,IEIS OF LOT FOIF, VAIL
OOT4TO PqTCLt, qPE ASKI NG YOU TO APPPOVE ALRAADY-CONSTAI.CTED
DEVIqTIONS FROlYl AN APPROVET} BUILDING PLqN. I STqONGLY OBJECT
TO 5X POST FqCTO qPFROVAL CF ANY NON-TRIVIAL DESIGN CYANGES.
cUCH APPQOVAL t,OULD NEGqTE !{E ENTIRE C0NCEDT 0F DEqIGN F EVI eL,
AND EIIFOR( TMENT.
VMY TR ULY YOIFS.
Dl VI D I.I NDSAY
tl22 EST
YG r4C 0lY-1F MG M
a TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM, SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL - FREE PHONE NUMBERS
o
o
l>
t
I
-
I
a
o
o
t
t
a
a
a
t
o
o
I
a
oF
ol
4-0 391 52 9sA
7t 3'p..r'1t62
0?/t?/?l
tvtS 14 TII'3 N
ICS IpprlrGZ
I'O UST3 N TX I
tr
FI:lI'ITAGE FD
CSP G LW9
49 0a-la 0256F EST
VAIL DESICN FEVIFTT FSAP
IV!UNI CIPAL FLDG 7 5 S3 UTH
vAIL r0 sl 657
G EI'] TLE MEN :
I N T"Y LETTIP 1F .IULY I 4TH I9FI T' YC L! ] V3I CEI' I'Y S]PENU3US 3tr.IECT] 1I!
TC THE TlANGES PEEUESTED 3N I.3T 4 F3TAT3 PATCIT/PAUL "I1I{NS3I'I. IT IS MY
UNDEPSTANDING TIJAT A RBIUEST IS AEIIIG YADE TO APPFTL YlLtr DECISI,.1^I 3F'
J LILY 1 |IENYI I'JG TH ! P EE LIEST I II TP ESE CI1P.IlG ES .
I AGAIN UICULD LIKE T3 GO OI.I PEC'RD 1F FlFMALLY 3PFOSING TI{ESE CI-IANG!S
SINCE fiEY VI3UTE THE CITY C3D5S AI..ID FAVE PEEI.I PEEUESTEI] AtrTEP TIJEtrLlILDING IS A.LmST CCr'PLET:. Tr-":SE CPANGES llAY ADVIFSELY AFFECT TFE
VALUES 1F OfiEP PPOPSPTI!S II: TF: P'TAT3 PATCT' AI:D CA,IJ SET A.
PFECEDEI.JT F!P OTTF VICI.A,TICi'IS EY CTHEF PAFTIES.
I APPP iCI A TE TIl E STP3 IN PC SI TIC I'I A MP TED FY Y^ I-,F FIP-P ! I I] TI{E FA ST
AND LFGE THAT 3IICE AGA.IN THTSE PEOUEST F'R CI'AI'!GES trE DET]IED.
C T ]PAY L3F .IP
797 PI TA T:I PA TC}1 DF
VAIL IC PI 6]7
I 5OO EST
MG licS rP tc r.4
nsS
$$g'
o
a
I
I
t
o
I
o
o
o
TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM, SEE REVERSE SIOE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL. FREE PHONE NUMBERS
o
a
a
O>
o
I
-
t
o
a
t
I
I
a
4-006287 9.10 0a/lz/?l
6t 44'l5400C I'c M TDMT
I CS Ip rtyTZZ CSp
c3 LUt? US Ctf 127
o
o
o
P L:A SE DO N' T LET TH E MA. TTIR S
I S AN AF EA THA, T DESEFVES PPC
Ci lP LIA l,l CE rrJI Tlt F ULES TFA T,
L U WE{i{ S
17 4 PC TA TJ PP. TOJ
vAr L o al65'7
0 c 5,< EsT
MG Mol IP I't l'1
o
o
1N P3
T: CTI s
I l. ALI
\n"p,t- :
CI TY I'1A NAG EP
T3'/!N 3F VAIL
VAIL I! "I 6'
I IrAII:TAIN A LAPGE RESI DENCE, AND i/FAT I CONSI nEF A LAPGE PEPS3I'jA.L
I I.IVESTMENTI II] VAI L' I LI {E T1 TFI NK 3F \AI L AS A ..I/^FLN CLASS'
FE9FT.
!i1',tEVEP, I FEEL TFE MANAGEIIENT AND VISICt\l lF THE GIVEINrtrr'lT CF \tAIL
I S LESS THAN II'FLD CLASS- EVEN SI'ALL T3I/N- F'XP TFAT MATTEF.
TI-4E AND TIME ACAIII Y3U I]AVE HAD THE I]PFCPTUI.IITY, ANN YOLI CEPTAII]LY
IJAVE T}IE I4PN!]A TE, T3 LPGPA DE T3 I I''.PF3VE... LET ALlI]8, ENFCFCE THE
FULES Y3 U HAVE I'4ADE.
u L{' 1
0e-le ae4af, EST
TAT' PATCF CET 3UT CF PAI'ID... TPIS
N. A.LL I A. SK I S !UF3P CEME|\:T, p.lln
F\fE. APtr c^ET r"t PFtI t' fil TP
o
o
o
@F
dto
TO REPLY BY MAILGBAM, SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL - FREE PHONE NUMBERS
DRB 6/3/8r r o
Basler: We would ask for-.the point that we're asking for with this is to submit
EEI'To you our plans as discusled previously on these two problems,
Snowdon: Any comments from anyone in the way of handling that?
? I think that reiterating what Richard said is that there's a good chance
that a more elaborate landscaping solution could help nitigate the situation.
Basler: That is our thinking at this poi.nt. Basically, I might state concerning
EhE-E-questions and or other questions that you may iurpose or present to us,
it is my intent as project nanager, project supervisor to work with the city
of Vail as well as the adjacent land owners in resolving these questions and
neet as soon as possible that all of these things will be behind us and nake
the necessary corrections once approved, innediately.
Snowdon: That would be our hope also. Any comnents from the Board on the
qEETT6-ns of landscaping? Outside of wd'd like to see you cone up with sonething
and show us sornething that does provide for solving the drainage problems and
the landscaping and screening and site problerns on that west side? Any conunents
frorn the public?
Boyer: Yes, just a few if I nay impose on you, although I donrt think we
caused..wetre not the reason for this..I do want to present to you in connection
with this drainage problern certain photographs taken along the property line.
Where you see the red ribbon, it is the property 1ine. Forget about this retaining
wa11 here on the property line which has been torn down, to give you an idea
of the anount of fill what werre talking about here and the way the slope and
the drainage have been changed thoroughly fron what it was before. Here is
a topo of lots 5 and 6 and they spill over into lot 4 approxinately 15-16 feet
and here you see the original slope that wetre talking about. This is a high
point of the land on the top of lot 5. If youtve been up there, you know what
I?m talking about, And fron here on down, right to the niddle of lot 4, it
used to slope in that direction. By the addition of this fill, the entire sloPe
and drainage have been changed to going from lot 4 into lot 5. I'n pointing
this out. I think werre going to get many of these problens resolved thanks
to the Town staff and DRB and the cooperation of lifr. Basler who is new on thejob. But, I do have to point out visually what werre talking about here in
the way of drai.nage on lot 5. These were taken, this was May 27, dates are
on the back. And we have to poj.nt out also that the intention as of Nov, 21
1980 of this construction job was to have the drainage pipes go directly in
a southwesterly direction onto lot 5. I think i.tts clearly evi.dent what has
gone one, I donrt think we're having any secrets, but we did want to show you
these photographs to enphasize the poi.nt that something here is rotten in the
State of Denmark. Mr. Basler took over on the 14th of April , and more power
to hin, But, sonething r.{ent on here that was not within the bounds of the Town
of Vail regulations, and the Town of Vail ordinances, and as land owners and
pernanent residents, I night say of the Town of Vail , we have been very active
to try to correct. it and we appreciate your attention to it, but I think that
it is irnportant to point this out to you as responsible nembers of the Town
of Vail Desiga Review Board in the event of any future applicati-ons.
Snowdon: I think itrs been a problem that the Town has had in the past, but
TTIfif werre trying to mitigaie just to know the amount of control we have
and the people that..into the field and review things ....linited..
Boyer: We appreciate what the Town of Vail has done, but I think 1t is interesting
to see thi-s, So we will look forward to receiving plans and specifications
for eventual correction of these things, at which point we will let you know
DRB 6/3/8r -6-
how we feel about
or disapprove.
Obviously, it is within your pcrogative to aPProvc
Snowdon: 0,K. I think bccause h/etve Sone over the five rnain itens., is there
anyili::rg else which necds to be brought up at this point..I think Bill's....
Scottl have to leave very shortly, and I would just ask that you would do an
inV6ntory of the other exterior changes theytve rnade.
Snowdon: As part of the rnaterial package.
Scottr Right, as the naterial changes. I donrt know how many of these things
need to remain, whether they are temporary construction, posts that will later
be removed, or whatever.
Basler: I will comply with that requcst.
Snowdon: I think that if we do take an inventory, and I think at the safie tine'
ui1, even though the major itens are site work, I think j.t would be of benefit
to you to keep the adjacent property owners informed of those changes at the
sane tine, just so they are nade aware and can comnent on those changes also.
Because they are changes frorn the original proposal that they viewed and in
a general way approved, and so I think uh, just as a courtesy that they should
be inforned of any of those additional changes that may have occured to the
building itself.
Basler:
aaiacent
from the
porated
I have one other conment on something that we had discussed rvith the
property owners which is concerning a drain pipe with drains coning
building controling erosion next to the building. That will be incor-
so it goes into the drainage and reworked if necessary.
!'lrs. B: Yes, ny question was that perhaps they could alleviate sone of the
drainE-ge in this lot if they put on drain pipes and gutters and have it go i.nto
a sump and be taken down underneath to the southeast of the lot. It would certainly
alleviate sone of the drainage, rather than just having a straight shed off
of the roof.
Snowdon: I think again, that could be somcthing that they could look at as
paf;? their proposal, if they think thatrs a valid rvay of solving it, but
I think again it's a problern that has to be solved, and if that's the direction
they rvish to choose, then they could proceed that way.
Irlatthews: The drainage would have to cone away frorn the house and drain
fnto a srrrat e or whatever they incorporate, so that wj-l1 have to be shown.
Snowdon: I tl-rink, looking at thc items tl'rat wetve coveted, the only one
?Ii -we can respond to j,s the deck set-back question, and I think rr'l'rat I would
prcfer doing is, nor'r tltat the p::oblems ltavc becn brouglrt otlt in froltt of us,
evcrybody knorvs rvhat they are, that thc applicant make a fornal presentation
as soon as possiblc and then takc ;rction on thlt prescntation rather than tlyi.ng
to take action on anything rvetrrc discnssc,,l today, sinrply because we don't krtott
what wetrc 1'eacting to. 'fhc dcck sct-back, I donrt think anybody had problctrts
with the proposal for the dcc.k changcs, .t think that rvas fairly straiShttorward
.4.?
.DRB 6/3/8r ; o
the materialsn we know that we would like to see a sanpl e board of the old
and the new proposed colors. Hopefully werll have a chance to evaluate, or
if the applicant could evaluate if there has been a change in quality, the
question of change to stucco, what in the way of control joints is anticipated,
and then just the general questions, if anything could be done about the stain
overspray onto the roof, As far as finished floor, change of elevation, it
seens to be a fairLy cut and dried item and should be looked at in the way of land-
scapi-ng, site work, etc, I would assurne, unless sornebody else has a better suggestion.
Again, the retaining walls and the landscaping, I think thatts sonething that--
a formal proposal should be rnade on what is intended to be done, that reviewed
and cornnented on by the adjacent property owrers, and then presented to the Design
Review Board.
Matthews:
Snowdon: Along with any additional changes that nay have occurred to the building.
Ttnd*Efien wetll look at everything as a revision, rather than try to isolate one
particular iten at a tirne and give approval to that. Does anybody on the Board
have a problen with that? Does the applicant have a problern with that?
Basler: No sirn I naybe would like to clarify an issue possibly concerned with
wE-EiTt begin with those requests i mediately and work in the regular orderly manner
in the resubrnittal, as well as work with the adjacent property owner as discussed.I would 1i.ke to clarify that construction work currently underway inside of the
tmit be allowed to continue on. We are in the sheet rock stage inside,
Janar: We have no problen with the interior work on the project, I don't think
therets any problem there. We have rnade the stipulation that nothing....
Snowdon: The only thing--the applicant would have to be aware that if there are
changes nade--if everything doesntt receive approval , or if nodifications are nade
and the Review Board does not approve whatrs going on, that the appl icant is held
liable, that hers gone ahead and made those..,
Basler: I understand.
Snowdon: The intent was
Janar: But no..they are
there.
under the stipulation that no outside work, ot
Snowdon: theyrre proceeding at their own risk,
if we donrt agree with everything that is been
Jamar: Should some change have to nade on the
ffiT-had been done on the interior, that would
basically, is what Irn saying,
doneo they have to realize..
exterior, that would alter anything
be their problem.
Basler: We understand that and accept that responsibility. lvly concern was to clarify
Th-e-ffinner in which we nay proceed without getting into a mistmderstanding with
the city or other persons at this point. Would it be my understanding, Peter, as
far as plaster--I nean stucco--that we stucco at our own risk in the area that we
do stucco?
Jarnar:
aone.
I think at this point wetd prefer that no exterior work or site work be
DRB 7/3/81 , I
Mattlews: Not until we see the stucco and texture and colors.
Basler: I understand. We will comply with that request, Do we see you again in
Iilo-Teeks?
Jamar: I would make a suggestion that you just table --we just table this and6i-tTnue it on at the nexi neeting, rather than have to go ih"o.,gh the republishing
Snowdon: Because those concerned are present, and hopefulty they would be present
tnen.
? Itts rnore related even than we have discussed, because we will bring in a Jrdperson from the outside who will attempt to satisfy Mr. Boyer as well as satisfyus, and satisfy what has gone on here today. And that person should subnit drawings
and new site plans and topos to the Town staff as soon as possible.
snowdon: The sooner, the better. The more time they have to to6k at it., Hopefully,6;-Taaa of tabling by the applicant is they could then carry on to the next-neetingrather than go though the normal publication tine. That's why r think, if nobodyhas any problens, we would request that the appliant table.
Basler: I
speaK w].tn
Jemar: You
certaiirly, in behalf bf the contractor, appreiiate your time today tous, working with us,..we will attenpt to be ready at the following neeting.
have to request that it be tabled until the next meeting,
scdttl should have left here 15 ninutes ago, but if r leave, we wonrt have a guorum,ue still have one more item on here, I wasnrt prepared,,..
Snowdon: I asked them about.:_:...:-_tatron on the . anyway,
be...excuse us while we iron
that, and they werentt prepared to give a total presen-I don't thidk: 'So ii there any'chance that that could
out some technicalities....if that could be put off
Jarnar:
until next tine. .
It could be put off until the next neeting.
Snowdo4: OrK. Could you maKe a request.
Basler: Gentlemen, Irm requesting Design Review Board to table our presentatj.onuntil the next regular Design Review Board meeting..June 17.
Snowdon: It will be
Basler: Again, thank
Snowdon: Thank
quorun..,...
the next neeting i.f you get all the information to us on tine.
you for your tine.
you very much. 0,K. If Scott has to leave, due to a lack of
a ____ a---KD* 7* 7/
lfa'y','itO(o"^a,, Pt 6s-7
'4"r*rpt- 'fr.k'a-L?*^- ,% l/^,(
Va'/, ,Wa&
'.f*-
8r ds7
' F/, a/*/
b"-/Lu""^- '
'/ -- \9*""*4- /t/6. A ''-1'7o*'"'" >** vi""'a
..,,.'n),o* , V4r- tn -
7<enp.,,y-"';1, au FQk'p<14- 7OJ444"TI ) Y'- t-^L -
'/a6JZ/ o"t'-,cr; ,-ta*= f* :T oaa;x
Y,:%n#46&'1 W, u-t-1./v\;4'''41
/,r,t4- A+"' z'u
,?'! -j| 6ffi\678''/'-'*aa o*
ffiu,r:n"nW' *,ffu, #/'vuv, 4*- s'9' w* w"-
fffitr-W* W.Y'A"##*^
fo foa ffilr?M E-n-/,it * ?, 84& *t
W, A4r,*&, F/6{7
./
L3.rt' g lra,l fer'-,u'/
ka;!. -, Wa""oC
r/ts/rr
ufut*,t& ,Afr. 4 4V'*^*' tuf
ooo,in-,-, 'nt 8/*6..r.-U' V1'--
Itiuus /SnprrL\r+f . o'' fu'l'e<'u" P+ry* : r-LL<--';frL
""r(- &/*o'k' /")4;a/' 4o*' /e'q--
pr,&*x ; Vt-- le,^>*^* Y MA. tA'64
(+""'--;fu*"; /'Y- ff"o*';, 4 fr- .
eu, /Ft r9u ,0 P,, v-&"- *fft&' ?t ,naoa
,W;''h)'Wp*^, f^rr^+-Vldi, t; "&"A ',&)/nL Pr{ uf Y"^hu
d*',A ,I-*u'-ud Pn"."ro- , *& ry"-"1.off'ed*?,4,at V!^L /tzfrL 4'. *aot- e-{ V-fu-af'4.W"at V(&L *zfu- tcL AtaaL eX Y{ce-ua'2dALy'l
/". atu- P*rt*W l*nQlA\zd- /taez P'k-
--4,a*- .*ir;7;* u1o,oyt"/O.
/(!,- a'#u, /a+ -ft'a" #("/',Vl'o* ^ye----rce[:;'/r/a;A/ei vza-f {a,-- s* h"v
\
*-.-=ry[-'\az.z'\-v,/- " **JlL4.'Lx- t'L''I''.) D'''t''<-1)*-
'.u,M du ilPfudh[ ,;oLulal4aLl- M'8" -"i/**&( VeL-;ot; 7/c otua.-
/nLdo/- pbp-pa^d- ry/"- Ar'/"*' /4>'LoL,*
'Vte^aro.,r*' , Vl'd.- u*at-(oc- -&. )a y4aVraal4e^0<1 /tA , YUQYI-- //'ret-AL {!1 >D PYryP-+f
^4P^.- -€a'*- /r';,/a/"- /4,^ fu"'pil{ Vl'-,- fa-nLe-- 4Uao"-o(un - - '1 \ &- @,u>-tps- oz-ytL "&r;/a&i, flot'u- art
&e 6otua- {" ry f/a^* ^eff/4-q41- €Ly Vt -
' {};do-,- e%u;p/t, /ODdd-
fp&'#**$ :4. Y&L "e4c?'a4- q'iY'I* VZ
g/aL o*n 7., t/1,-;/-i #-"0/'"h;-; -,. ,i "t). t .' t-, C;-Z la-rroc g-(^-'
Fiqr-o-Ah , 4%;S'uualt 2a'nac V-&-'-
5;-[4'PY^{r %.t&Yf,-r^ ,Q*,(-rr. /loa',a- ,r"L h VorrrHi*-
fQ^"ltuL /'.d" ,Mry,fi \e'^/e
'A rn"r, .<"yL?hJsuo,
fr;ffiLJ- i;; Tu ot'- /*" w&'&it
V-\L,,- V/,P-'*- f""--"- >3 ,ld''e:'' a*'* S
ao,t** €er* h 'u;Vat''z L P/*/**/*!'tfu,- *, ry Ni*y 4-if "z? .afflol4ct'"-/:,Y.^*fffifkz.nil- &//\- *qrtzro/ a%'aL #* /ea'?u 4
rL.oau'ud- f P&" afry6ffi'o"tib"*-h4u -etL /oUr-'r"*
%_
LawrenceJ.Kelly
AttorneyatLaw
August L2, 1981
Larry R*der
Town Attorney
Vail , CO 81657
Re: Lot 4, Potato Patch
D.R.B. Appeal to Council
Dear Larryi
Pursuant to our canversation of S|LL/9I, r am withdrawing
Mr.,lohnstonrs Council appeal.
Further pursuant to our agreement, all issues raised byour councit appeal will be preserved and presented to the
D.R.B. the 19th of August.
for your assistance.
Iy,
Th
POST OFFICE BOXE27 r EAGLE. COLORADO 81631 r TELEPHONE 303/328'3228
Project Application
Proiect Name:
Project Description:
Contact Person and
Et/(9/\E L ArV0
Owner, Address and Phone:
Comments:
Design Review Board
APPROVAL
,^r.-l"r-f lrlltt
DISAPPROVAL
Staff Approval
LawrenceJ.Kelly
Attorneyatlaw
July 30, 1981
Rich Caplan,
Town Manager
Town of Vail,
Esq.
Colorado
Re! Paul Johnston, D.R.B./ Council Appeal
Dear l!tr. Caplan;
This letter is submitted as formal notice of Mr.
Johnstonrs request to Postpone his appeal from the
D.R.B.rs to the Town Council on all matters con-
cerning Lot 4, Potato Patch Subdivision.
Should the town desire that we proceed at the August
4th Town Council Meeting, please advise.
The requested postponement is to the next regularly
scheduled Council meeting. It is not the intent
of Mr. Johnston to waive any substantive or proceed-
ural rights and guarantees other than the waiver of
the August 4th hearing date.
Attorney
LJK/ar
POST OFFICE WX927 o EAGLE. COLORADO 81631 . TELEPHONE3O3/328-2338
I I ,' Draiver J
V:al-1 , Col-orarlo 81658
.rttLy 26, L9B7
Dear Potatc Pa'bch owners
TheTownoi/ai}Appea}sBoardv.o.becunanimouslyon./
I,lonl.ay, july ZC, igAI ,--i6-revot"e the license o:i CDS Enterprises'/
Dan Gagliarrio.
Tlrere js no doubt tha.b the heavy citizenz'taxpayer
p"rticipatlon :-n the hearing through Vo-ur lglt:::' telegrams'
ohone calls ena the-pt"sen"-" of many of us ?t .bh9 hearing
iel-peC bhe Appeals Boar-'d to arrive at thrs declston'
lian-v ol us a'L the hearing dicl testif;r bu b we rnus-b say
tlra'L'Lhe ?o,vn stai'f had prepaied ihe people's case very well
anci presen'ie'l i"b in exenplary fashion"
Durirrg Lhe hearinSr we lvere all surprised to learn frorn
the testirnony of the T5ivn Staff -Lhat -t,he infrac'Lions againsi '
builciing cocils and regu.lations on I'o bs :t,10, 11 and 1J were
far in ixcess of l;ira'b we harl sr'rspec'bed or alreadY knel'
If r-orr so f,esire, you may lis'Len to the tapes of the en.bire
hear-i.ng at 'bhe \rail Toivn Hall.
:,te pres'trne CDS En'Lerpris esfi'lan Gagliarclo will appeal the
ciecision of -Lhe Appeals Bbard to-i;he T6w' C.uncit. The appeal
clai.e lras ncL l/eL [iell se'b. Vtre wil]- notify.t'ou as soon al; suc]t
dilLe is se'1, sb bha-L you can -lalle ac.'uion 'Lhereon'
Our l-e'Lter of July 3rd., 79EI , informec] J'ou of the decision
on .iuly 1 (rrnanirnot,s ul.'hi, one al;s'Lenticn) of -bhe ltesign
Re-, iew Boar"bo rieny 'bhe requests f'or changes. frotn approved
Pla:is an,-l specifica:bions in 'bhe cluplex currently "l.i:l ^^ /ioirstruc Licir on Lat. /l+, Rlock 1, b,y l',lesber'n ['iatragemenL uo'l
pa,,rt- iohnsi;on anJ-Coi S"lE.pii"lu/il"n Gagliardo. Yor't rvj.l-l reeall
i;ha''t the re(l1;ests {'c:: cha.nges ca;ile "erftei t}re f'ac'b" ' itrdeed
o11'l rr aF'Lpr -i:tra Tor';n Staif had f ounrl Lhese " chaltges" 'to be
.il.eliran-i; ..-iotations of the plans sriLrmit't,ed .Lo a.n;i appr'oved
b.:, i;he DIiB on july 3C, 1980'
Iler-e agaiir ci biien 1'taxpayec participa.'tion ','ias cruc j.al in
helping t.ire illiil 'bo arrive at the proper dectston'
Ti'ris 'le:isi on uil} 1re appeaf erj to the Town Cotrncif on
Au5.us l 1E i;;: ' l;'"r l{'estern l'llnagJlmeni; Co . ide tnus l; tnalle otrr
.leiires :.r:r:i oi:i niorts !ino';in to 'ine Tor,vn Council by f etters 'tel-e3rans:ir::l personal presence at l,lie henr:r-ng if'poss'ible
a U
...so that the Design
taxpayers and Property
the- eiected members of
-2-
SincerelY Yours'
Luc MeYer
1p1.-g!+9-+815 (9 AM
lol-426-o121 (afte
Revieiv Board, tlre Town S'baff ?"q we' the"J*t""", witi ue fully supported by
the Council '
We are incluiling a sample-message to the Town Council
covering this- appearf lrle are "r"o"iiEi"Jittg a photocopy of
the article whrcn appeared in The i;ii-iffit on 'ruty 24th'
Remember--it is vi'bal tha'b lve-:have a-b least the same
citizen participation in this "pp""r-n"aring
as we hail in the
i:.J-a." i;i r"-*"i, i"i"it "ii. iriil-*tt-.i " *" were suc c essful'
Please feel free to call us regarding any questions
o" "aiiiio""i i"ro"*"tio" you night require'
GB:LK
Enclosures
P'n,
hK
lf61u;lili, iilli*tl:,?, o,,,-zo3-476-j630 (10
-DRAFT-
Town Council
Town of Vail
? 5 South Frontage Road
v6ir, Colorado 8t657
Date
Gentletr.en:
By means of this (letter, telesram) (I' we) the undersigned
( orvner, owners) oi-ioi #--, i'ot"io-i"i;h; Blogk (1'2) herebv
recluest that you ="pp""t't"lni'no"Jiy-;i; decision of the Vail
Design Revieiv noail'6tt j"iu t' 19S1; to deny the request 'by
western iltanagemenl co.,/r*..i ;i,nt."ion and 9o! nlSerprises'/Dan
Gaeriardo to marce c;;;s;;-("ii;;-;;; iu"ti-i.' the ipecifications
;F-+f,;^;;iiiiiigl randscapins and **i"ii"r3 on r'ot #4' Block 1'
Potato Patch
These changes were reqluested by the appellants after it
rvas found by the Town Stafi ttrat thL changes r-equested were'
in effect, flagrant vj-olations of the plans submltted to
"rO-"ppi.veA tI the DRB on July Jo, 1980'
Please supp.ort your Town s'baff , the Design Review Board
"ro tirl"l iii"zi{ttl;p;t;;"-;i v.ir, your cons.bi'buents, bv
;;yiil t;;-;pp;;i:'Si"wuutern iitanaglment co' /PauL Johnston'
Yours verY trulY'
/s/
?;o;
SIKIEA
Mr. Peter Jamar
'rown or v a]-lVail, CoTo 81657
Dear Peter:
.I enclose a copy1'latL/ Potato Patch i-s
JuIy 2f, 1987
of the "Protective Covenants"
requested.
of
GB r IJ{
Enclosure
Georges M. Boyer
drawer J vail colorado 81657 303 949 4815
cable: SKEA vail colorado
a O PRorFcrr\rE covIrNANa Or\'F
vArL,/PorATo PATCH
EAGLT; COUNTY, COLORAI]O
WHEREASrVailAssociates,Inc'raColoradocorPoration'
is the or."t'of the following described land (hereinafter
referred to as Subject Land):
A parcel of land in the SI^Ik of Section 6 ' Torvnship
5 South, Range 80 t^lest of the 5th Principle Meridian'
located in Eigle county, colorado, more particularly
described as follows:
CoMI4ENCING at the. i.test Quarter corner of section 5 '
Tovrnship 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th Principle
Meridian, that point 6eing the true point of beqinning;
thence S Bgo34til"E a distance o.. 2166.77 feet alon-cl
the East-I{est centerline of said Section 5 to the center
of Section 6;
!f,"tr". s 00067'12" E a distance of L7o9'56 feet along
the trtortn-South centerline of said section 6 to a point
on a curve, that point being on the Northerly right-
of-waY of Interstate Hiqhway *70;
thencL alonq said right-of-way on the following three
courses:(I) a distance of f595'65 feet alonq the arc
bf a curve to the left, said curve havinq a
radius of 3990.00 feet, a central angle of
22054'48" and a chord bearing s 72o35'37" r:l
a distance of I5B5' 05 feet;
i
I
(2) S 60008'35" rnt a distance of 2O4 ' 50 feet;
i:i s 59038' 11" r{ a <listance of 311' 52 feet to
.theSoutheastcornerofVailvillage9thFiling;
thence al-onq the Easterly and Northerll' boundary of said
9th Pilinq on^the followinq five courses:
r) ti oooo3'50" E a distance of 190'00 feet;
2\ N 59038'20" E a distance of 22?-"19 feet;
3i N ooo03'50" E a distance of 143'49 feet;
4i N 53025'10" I{ a distance of 1I5'00 feet;
5i N 89056r16r' t{ a distance of 313't]? iutl.to :point on the l{est boundary of ?311 Section 6;
thence attng said I'rest boundary N 00003'50" E a distance
of 141.90 feet;
thence s 89056'10" E a distance of 347 "74 feet;
thence S 59002t22" E a distance of 0'17 feet;
thence N 62034'50" E a distance of 7I'82 feet;
thence N 89058'50" E a distance of 335'55 feet;
thence N 0090I'10" r'f a distance of 21 4 ' 58 feet;
thence N 34"04'10" [07 a distance of 162' 47 feet;
thence N 14057'50" E a distance of 83'96 feet;
oo ao
LEGAL DESCRIPTION' CONTINUED:
thence N 44044'50' E a distance of 89'45 feet;
thence N 6s:i;';6,' ; i Ji"t-t'"e of 206'97 feet;
thence N 84:;;'i6" w a distance of 164'18 feet;
thence N 85-;6'i;" i^l t tii"t^t'"e of 428' 30 feet;
thence N 00:;;';;" w u aittut'"e of 91'73 feet;
thence N 89";;'i6" w i-di"t"ttte of 33?'00 feet to a
point on the-t'Ilesl uounaary ?f said Sqction 5;
thence alone ::i; ilil;;;"a;;-n-ooooE'?0"'F a distance
of 1037" eo feel to the true point of beginning'
ExcEPT those parcels d'escribed in instruments recorded
in Book L26 at Paqe 583' it iooL 126 at Paqe 485' and
in Book 18r at Page 397 or-tilI-t"""tat ot tne clerk and
Recorder of nugf"'County' Colorado'
ITHEREAS, VaiI Associates' Inc' hereinafter sometimes re-
ferred to as o*""i,-il;i;;;-l;-piJ"" ""ttain restrictions on
the use of the tttlt" ' Blocks "ni*iitt-"ho*tt
on the uap of
Vail,/Potaao "tt"ti*i"-t'tn"-uenefif
oi ttt" owner' and its
respective grantees' succes"ott ot-assigns' in order to
estabrish .ta *"iiili"-lt'" "r'tttJi"I-""d "ir"e of real estate
i;"il;-;icinitv oi tn" rown of Vair'
NoI'] ' THEREFORE' in cons-ideration of the premises' VaiI
Associares, rnc.l^?l'-i.::t :::.ii*l*niil":"::ffiili:.;:i
"=ris"=, does hlreby,.ttp??tl-3tl;;-;;'blnefit of all persons;;;ii'" "19..?1l":.'ilt;,!3r"1: *; oi"*," T'3"!:, Brocls and
who ma1' acqurre
Lots in vail/potl;"^;;t;h; that.ii ;;"; ;nd-hold's all or the
tands in vail,/Pt;;;t';;;;i ' ='uillt"l"-tt'" ' f orlowinq restrict:-
ions, covenants,'-;;; "ot'aiiio''='=Iir-Jr-*ni"n -shalr be <leemed
to run with the r;; ;;a-!o i"t"u-i; ;;" ;tnefit of and be
binrling uPon the ot""t' its t""pJ"iit'e grantees' successors ancf
assigns:
1. PLANNING AND ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMT'IITTEE
I'I' Conunittee-' The PJ'anning and Architectural Cot:trol
commi tE65l-I-er6i naf ter i" r"ii"a to 3=' the commi ttee'
shall consist of five #il;;-;ho shall be desiqnated
by the o\^'ner' its -"t""J;;;;""-ot-""=igl:' to review' stu<ly'
and aPProve or reject pi"p"="a lTql"YtT"nts wit'hin the
area describe<l in the oili%i-""iilpot.to Patch ' of which
these restrictit" "ot'""iilt= tt" made a part'
The members of. the committee sha1l serve for one
vear, ;;'til;;-litu tr'"v snarr be reappointed or their
successors shall u. .pil:-"t.a nv the^:wner' r-f no
tt"""="ot is appointed';;";;" ot""t on the anniversary
-2-
oo ot
of a member, s Lerm, he shall-be deemed- to have been
re-appointed by the owner' A nevt member shall be
appointed by the
-"t""t on death or resj'gnation of a
member.
L.2. Rules- The
bylaws-Efrd-adoPtpriate to govern
Committee shaIl make such rules and
such proc€dures as it may deem apPro-
its proceedings.
I
1.3. APprova].of Plans' No building' landscapinSJ'
parking ot .r"rrr-",ffiiveway' fence' warl or other
iffi;;:^:".""ii"ri-[l """"t'u-ciea' "{?"!'91 ::P:il"d'
restored, t."ontit""ttal altered' adderl to or maintained'
on any lot untit-buildinq plans and site plans and
specifications .tt"ti"g-tolbr' location' materials'
llndscapirrg, .r,d''!"tt"ott'"t information relating to such
improvements as the committee may reasonably reguire
shall have been ;;tit-iea to and approved by the
Conmittee in writing'
1.4. Criteria. In approvlltg such plans and specifi-
cations, the committeL shall consider:
l.4.l.Thesuitabilityoftheimprovementsand
materials ot whiJn-it-:-" to be constructed to the site
"p""-*tti"h it is to be located;
L.4.2.Thenatureofadjacentandneighboring
improvements;
1-4.3. The quality of the materials to be
utilized in any'ptJp"tea- improvement; and
I.4-4. The ef fect of anv prop?s:9 iT!t-"::*tn'
on the ourlook ;; ;;t adjacent oi neighboring property'
It shall be the objective "f !!? Committee Lo make
certain that no ;;;;;;"*"nt witl be so simirar or so
dissimilar to oti"it-i" !tr9 yicinity that valuesr
monetary ot ."=tn"Lics will be impaired'
\
\
Il
I
I
\I
I
1.. 5. Ef fect of the1' 5' rove Plansevent the Commrt' --; !r-.:- e.i..,|rr 160l dav
3fl:ii";: ;'j;:;#;;d";"-;;;;-u""" rurtv complied with'
il:":o:::';: JJi ;;:=' "iii i'"1 !:.. ::-':::':.: : I:Y,"lf 3l u.' =
:?"':Bi:: :":;'lI;-";:;i ; -;" :l: :'1-:l:, ::':*::::i:"
; : =';:H= liilii"i"Iu"i'i"i -t" tle -
:?ml:: "-:? " ili'lli :has been c()lrutrerruE\r t,!rv! ,d the related covenants
"ppt"""f shall not -be t:Slit:|^ln *,,, r rr r:.mntied with.
-3-
2 "st ol
2.L. btoct< I' Lot 34, and Block 2' r,ots.I' 9: !'
andgsha}tbeusedformu].ti-familyresidentialo'_'""'""tiona1 uses on}y, as well as an adequate
street Parking area.
The lands in Vail/Potato Patch' shall be used for
followinq PurPoses.
the
8,
purPoses
off
2.2. Block 1, Lots l through 33' and Block 2' Lol.s 2
through i-ir,"ir be used ontf ror private residences'
each to contain not more than tvro separate living units
aswe}lasanadequateoffstreetparkinqarea.
2.3.TractsAandDrhereinaftercalledthesubjectLands'shall be used and' maintained at all times as a vacant
an<l undisturbe<l open area in its natural condition and
no'struct"t"l-u"iiding or inprovement of any kind or
character,vrhethertemporaryorPermanent'naybeerected
or maintained ther"o", "o ttlni""itt-traffic or parkinc
of any fitra ot nature shatl- be permitted upon' across
or ttrroufii-tt" suuject r-,an<ls' No part of the subject
Lands shall be used for camping-9r overniqht stavs by
any person or Dersons' ltor-shi}l there-be oermitted'
within or upon the subje"i-r""J" any informal or orqanizecl
public "t piit"te qath6ring nor any other act by any
person ;; ;;;;;;s,'rvhich in the jud'sment of the owner'
may rleface, alter, destroy- oi a"i',"q" the natural condition
of the vegetation or the 'aesthetic value of the natural
..,'.riton.lit"i-q""rilv or the subiect Lands' Tracts A
an<l D ."i"u"-a3Ji"itLa by the owner to public use'
2-4- Tracts B and C shall be used as an open area for
recrearional purposes.'ii $L-u" improved-by landscaping,
paved or graveJ' paths, deckilretaininq walls1-:in9.:::""t'
walls oi i"t."t, ParaPet walls' fountains' stepsf manor
vehicutar driveways' "t'J recreational facilities' The
owner r;l"i;; the'riqht to provide by private agreement
for uses therein r'rhich *"lt b" inci<lental to the use of
adiacenf ;;;;;;'v and not-incornpatibre \"ith the above
uses' Tracts B and c maY be debicated by the or+ner to
Public use-
NoTI^IITHSTANDING the foregoing, the folloying EXCEPTToNS to
the above ,r""" .ia- iestrictions shall be permitted \"ith respect
to the Subject Lands:
l. rmprovements necessary' -desi::able ot,::lt"tient for the
provisionandrnaintenanceofutilityservicesmaybeconstructe<l
and maintained throucrh ot tttta"i the-Sub-iect Lands: provided
that such iil;t;;;nts sna:-r not cause Perrnanent disruption
or alteration to the surfac" of the Subject Lands; and
-4-
ol oo
2. Hikers, pedestrians, an<l bicycles are expressly
permitted to travel- hereon provihed the surface of
subject lands is not unreasonably clamaged by sairi
activi ties -
Theownerreservestheric'ht'tomakeadditionalrestrict-
ions and lirnitations upon o,u not incompatible with the foregoing
nor less restrictive than any applicabll regulations of any
governmentar aqeili: ;;t "ahitib""l restrictions rnay be includetl
in instruments "i-1""".v1r,". o, rease an<i. by suoplement to these
protective covenants to be filed in the Office of the Clerk and
'Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado'
3. EASEI"IENTS AND RIGHTS_OF-T^IAY
3-I. Easements and rights of way for liqhtins' heating'
electricity, gas, telepho"e, t"t"i-"ia ="ttrage ficitilies' bridal
paths, and ..ty oih"t kina oi p"uii"-"t quasi-lublic utility service
are reserved as =rtot., on the pr-t of Vail/Potato Patch' }lo
fence, wall, rreag;, u.iii"t "it "in"i improvement sharr be erected
or maintainea onl ;";;;;-;; titttitt the areas reserved for
easements and rights-of-way' nor in such close proximity thereto
as to impair the access to or use thereof' An easenent for
pedestrian use srtaii-"xist and ii rrerery ':eserved on' over and
across those porlior" of the pr"l "r vail,/eotato Patch, reservedl
;;;;r; iot "tiriiv service and facilities'
3-2. Easements for drainage purposes are reserved as
shown in the plat of Vail/Potato Patch'
3- 3. Easenents for drainage purposes. reserved in these
covenants ancl on the Vail/potato palch', plat sharr be perpetuar'
3-4- Easements adjacent to a 1ot but outside the bound-
aries thereof *";";;-;;pt"pii"t"iy J-andscaped' subject t9 th9
provisions of thls"-"o"L"u''ts' by'the ownei ?l lh" lot' but in
rhe event rn.n riil";;Pi;; is'aiiturbed by use of the easement'
the cost -.,a "*p!.;;-;f restorinq such fandscaping shall be
="f"fy that of Lhe owner of the lot'
-5-
ol oo
4. SIGNS
No signs, bitlboards, poster boards or advertising
structure of any iirra "t ttl be erected or maintained on any 1ot
or structure for ;;t-p;6;ie whatsoever' except such siqns as
have been approvei ;y-.;; committee as reasonably necessary.for
ttre-iaentifilation o? t.iia.nces and places of business'
5. WATER AND SE'!{AGE
Each structure desiqned for occupancy or use by hulan-
beings shatl connect with th6 water and sLwage facilities of the
Vail Warer and S;;;;"ti;n pistrict. wo private well shall be
used as a source oi-r"l.r for human consirmption or irrigation
ii-i"irZn"[i!"-p"i"rt .ot shall any facility other than
those provided by the Vail viater 'ana sanitltion District be used
for the d.isposalr";":";;;;. "-rl""tt"iii";i garbase disposal faciLities
=tt"ff be pr6vided in ea"h kitchen or food preparrng area'
6. TRASH AND GARBAGE.
6. 1. DisPos-I of Trash and Garbaqe' t:"-!t::l'.,1:lt"
lt'otrr Ped on anY land
rittri"-v"iL,/pot.to-Patch' The burning or - -- !refuseoutofdoorsshatlnotbepermitted.invaiVt;t;a; pi[ctr. uo incinerator or other device
for the burning of refuse indoors shall be constructed'
t l-r,ilt."ii"i-;;;;"; bv anv person excePt ?: "p!'?Y:d-lYiii:'3;ffiitil"]-=n"ch propertv owner it'-tt rloliae suitable
receptacfes for [it" "i'ff?'ction of refuse' such
;;;;;a;"ies shali b. t"t""ted from public view and
protected from disturbance'
6.2. Definition- As used in this Section 6' "trash'
l"in"g=;ffi"i,"--.t"rf include waste, rejected, value-
less or worthlesJ--*"lt"t, materials and debris' useless'
unused, unwanted; ;;-;i;;arded articres from an ordinary
househcfd, waste from the preparation, cookitg'..-td
;;;;;;tion of r"oa,-*"ttel.rlruse' staste from the
handling, "tot"g!,-preparation
or sale of produce' tree
branches, twigs,-gt';t=, shrub clippings' Y::g?1"l"tt"t'
and other g"n"r"I'yuia'""a-garden waste materials; but
shall not incluae ?ooa or food products to be prepared
over outdoor or open fires nor wood or other materials
used for fuel in firePlaces '
7. LIVESTOCK
No animals, livestock,.horses
be kept, raised or bred in Vail'/Potato
;;9;;'cats and other household animals
or poultrY of anY kind shall
Patch, except that
may be kePt onlY as Pets'
-5-
ol oo
8. TRADE NAMES
No work' name, symbol, or combination thereof shall be
used to identify for commerciaL purPoses a house, structure'
business or service in Vail/potato batch, unless the same shall
t ave Ueen first approved in writing by the Committee
9. SECONDARY STRUCTURES.
No secondary detache<l structures shall be permitted
except for garag." .-ttd other out buildings as anprovecl by the
Committee.
}0. TEMPORARY STRUCTURES.
NotemPorarystructurerexcavation'basement'trailer'
or tent shall ue perrnitted' in vail'/Potato Patch'- excePt as may
be necessary durihq construction and authorized by the committee'
and except temporary Protection for athletic facilities'
1I. CONTINUITY OF CONSTRUCTION.
AI1 structures commenced in Vail,/Potato Patch' shall be
prosecutea-aifig."tiy to completion and sha1l be completed within
12 months of commencement' except with vtritten consent of the
Committee.
L2. NUTSANCE.
Nonoxiousoroffensiveactivityshallbecarriedon
nor shall anything be done or permitted which shall constitute
a public nuisance in Vail/Potato Patch'
13. EFFECT AND DURATION OF COVENANTS.
The conditiOns, restrictions, stipulations, aqreements
and. covenants contained herein shall be for the benefit of and
be bindinq uPon each ]ot, block and tract in vail'/Potato Patch'
and each owner of- Otop"tiy therein, his success,ors ' represent-
,ti.r.= and assiqns'- "nh sfrlf t continue in fuli force and ef.fect
until January 1,,'-ZOiA, .t tt:-"f, time they shall be autornat-ically
extended for- five successive terms of ten years each.
J.4. A.I,IENDMENT.
Theconditions,restrictions,stipulations'agreernents'
and coven"rrt. ao.riiinea'herein shall not be waived, abandoned,
terminated, or amended except by written consent of the owners
of 668 of the orivately-ownL,i land included rvithin the
boundariesofVai]"/pot.atoPatchandtheSamemaybethenshor.rn;t-th;-;laL on fii; i" the office of the clerk and Recorder of
EaqleCounty,ColoradoandfilinqsaidamendmentwiththeClerkand
-7-
oo oa
on file in the office of tlle clerk and Recorrler of Easle county,
Colorado and filinq said amendment htith the Clerk and Recorder
of Eagle County, Colorado after obtaining approval of the Eagle
County planning Commisslon if land is wiifrin Eagle County juri-
sdiction and filing said amendment with the Clerk of the Town of
t;ii if land is wiitrin Town of Vail.jurisdiction'
15. ENFORCEMENT.
15.I. Procedure for Enforcement' If any Person shall
ii"i"t" Y of the Provisions
of this i-rr=tt*".t, Vail Associates' Inc' or its
successors or assiqns, or any owner of real property in
Vail/Potato patch,"his agents, or employees' may' but-
rvithout obliqation to do-so' enforce the provisions of
this instrument bY:
15.1.1. entering upon the Property where the
viotation or thr6atlned violation exists and
removing. rem"dyinq ana,abating the violation;
such seif-help strait only be exercised after
tr;;i";-;i.run iift""tt (rs) davs Prior written
notice io the owner or owners of the property
upon wftich the violation exists and provided
tit" otrr"t shall have failed within such time
to take such action as may be necessary to
conform to the covenantsi or
15.1.2. instituting such proceedings at law- or
in equity as may be -appropriate. to enforce the
;;";i;r;;"-or ti'ti= instrurnent' incrudins a demand
iot injo.,ctive relief to prevent or renedy the
threatened or existing violation of these covenants
and for damages.
L5-2- Notice and Service of Prgce9s' .Each owner of
real proP;rtv in ?:tj:":-:n:^T?::iiSi*"1!Ti!"ir"';i-i/;ii as his asenr.to receive anv notice
provided for herein and-to accept ;:ly:::-:t^?t?:?:",::*:l1.:?:t'
;:il::;i"o"it"in*to enforce the provisions of this instrument'
Any notic" t"q.ti;ei ulder this seltion 15 shall be written and
shall specify tni-vioialio" ot threatened violation objected tor
the property suuje"t to the violalion .nd shall demand compliance
vrith thes. "o.r"r,jli" trtrtr" iiil;;" (15) days- after the giving
of such notice- ff after t"u"o''-Uie effort- the person giving the
notice shalt be unable to delivery the same personally to the
person to whom it is directed and- shall be unable to obtain a
return receipt showing delivery of notice to the person to whom
-8-
oo
it is directed, then the required notice shall be deemed suffici-
ently qiven if postea ,rpon' tht -property- described in the notice
and mailed to the last icnown addreis of ttt" Person to whom the
notice is directed- .
15. DEFINITION OF PROPERTY OWNER.
As used in this instrument' the phrases "real Property
owner,, .or ,,owner of real property" shatl mean any natural person,
partnership, corpJ;";i;;,' "il"tiition or other business entity
;;^;;1;;;"-""ttip tni"t, shall olrrn an estate as a co-tenant or other-
wise in fee simpre or for a term-or.not ress than forty-nine (49)
years in any portio.-oi tn. Iands included within the boundaries
of Vail,/Potato Patch. Such phrases strall not include within their
meaningtheholde'_o'o''"r-of.,,y]-ienorsecuredinterestinlands or improv"^""t, trr"r"ott witfrin the subdivision, nor any
i"r=""-"railning -r, """"*"nt or right-of-way for-utility' trans-
portation or other Purpose tfrrougf,' over or across any such lands'
]-7. SEVERABILITY.
Invalidation of any one of the provisions of this in-
strument by judgment or court otdtt or delree shall in no wise
affect any of tn"-"ttt.t piovitions which shall remain in full
force and effect.
alne s
,EXECUTED THIS 25th day of February' L974'
VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. ' A
Colorado CorPoration
R. eartlet€
STATE OF COLORADO )) ss.
COUNTY OF EAGLE )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
25th day or renrult;':l;;';-ilv n"u"tt H' Nott as vice President
and James n. sartlett as secr<ltary of VAIL -qssocIATES' INC.,
a Corporation.
ny hand and official seal'
Notarlr
expares
-g-
,O
MEMORAI.IDUM
T0: Town Council
FROM: Departnent of Comrunity Developnent
DATE: July 23, 1981
REI Appeal of a DRB decision on lot 4, Blk 1, Potato Patch
The duplex which is being constructed on lot 4, btk l, potato patch, also
known as the Johston duplex, received Design Review Board final approval
on July 30, 1980, During April of this year, several problens with the con-struction of the duplex were brought to the attention of the Departnent ofconmmity Developnent staff. After investigation by the staff, it was formdthat a deck supported by a pernanent foundation was within a required setback,naterials used in the construction of the building were different than approvedby the DRB, retaining walls had been constructed which were not a part oithe Design Review Board approval, floor slab elevations had been riised bybetween 2.5 and 4.7 feet in elevation (resulti.ng in a roof elevation ihangeof corresponding heights), and a drainage problem had been created betweenthis lot and the adjacent lot to the southwest (lot 5).
upon the discovery of these various changes, the job was red tagged and theowner was info:med that he nust either nake the necessary changes to thebuilding to nake it confor:n to the originally approved plans or subnit therevisions that had been nade on the site and uuiraing to the Design Review
Board for their review and approval .
The applicants then chose the option of submitting the changes to the Design
Review Board for approval . Materials were submitted by the owner and builderson lot 4 and reviewed by the Design Review Board. At their July 1, lgglmeeting, the Design Review Board voted 5-0 to disapprove the requested changesand stipulated that the duplex should be constructed as designated in theoriginal July 30, 1980 approval given by DRB. The applicant is appealingthis decision,
Enclosed are copies of transcripl5of the
Board (the original approval on- July 30,June 3, 1981 meeting, :rnd the cont inuance
and a copy of the appeal .
three meetings at Design Review
1980, the requested changes at theof that meeting on July 1, 1980)
\
tr
Jorx M. Br.rsn
A1TOENEY AT LAW
POST OFFTC E BOX eOA3
VAIL, COIORADO 81067
TELEPHONE (303) 949-65€e
..lr..rl[t3 26 r 19{:l:1.
flol leen M. l{Line
Town Cl.erk
Town of VaiLF.0. Eox 100Uailr C0 81657
tte I Appeal 't,o Uiir:i. I I'own fior..rrrc:i I
frr F{eqard to the M;r'tter of i
,.lohfrsl,orr Dr.rpIex I [ilr..r:i. ]-rJirrqr
L.;lrrdsc.rp i.nq 8' Mir'[er j.a].
0lrarrqe*, L-trt 4 r Ed.k . l[ ,
t'$1',tsLcl r'nffi
Dear CloIleerr!
The purpose of t,his let,t,er is t,n fnrnallx recluest. that t,he
hear i.ng which may he hel.d concenninq the ahove natt,er rrnt, be set
r..rrrt,i L at, least $our neet j.rrq of fir."rgr-rs! rl , LgBl . t4r . Johnst on isat,tenpting to setisf5 arry reasonatrle objec-tiorrs t,trat t,treneighbors to the lot or t,he Vail Desiqn Review Board mas h6ve
tsrrd h,cJr-rld lik.e to h6ve adrjition4l {.,ine to pr-rrsLre tlrie f.loredirect posisibility.
Yor-rr cc)opnrat:lorr irr {.,}ri.si rq*ttor i.s appneciaterl .
!f fJl..t I* 1
i+h
cci ,/et,er r.lanarl*arr5 Rider
Far-r l. .Johrrgton
\D
HAROLD B. FEDER\f{N
I II.] WILSON STREET
POTTSTOWN. PA 19464
July 15, 1981
Mr. Paul Johnston
P. 0. Box 103
Vail, C0 81657
Subject: ConstructLon on Lot 4 - Potato Patch
Dear Mr. Johnston:
I"le understand that your construction has been stopped bythe Town of Vail because of certain construction nistakes andpractlces by your general contractor, CDS Enterprises.
I,le would have no objections to further construction if
you would replace the present unslghtly sldlng with No. 1clear heart redwood or clear cedar siding.
I will
Mr. and Mrs.
proper house
regulations.
assume that you have nade your peace with
Georges Boyer concernlng drainage problens and
placement Ln accordance arith the Vai.1 zoning
We wish you success and trust that the Design Review
Board and the residents of Potato Patch will come to an
equltable agreement
Very truly yourst ,lttlI i'. t /^,."1 ll it ,' t l' .')-,1'r.ii;rlia B. FeHerrnair
sb
ooo ooo
FIRST MORTGAGE COMPANY
OF TEXAS, INC.
P. O. BOX t4t3 ' HOUSTON, TEXAS 77OOl
c.TRAVIS TRAYLOR. JR.
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARO
OIRECT LINE
525.7160
JuIy 14, 1981
VaiI Design Review Board
Municipal Building
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Attn: Mr. Steve Patterson
Dear Mr. Patterson:
In May of 1978, I sumbitted plans and specificatlons
prepared by Lucian T. Hood, Architect, of Houston' Texas,
for a single family residence to be constructed on Lot 27,
block 1, Potato Patch to the Vail Design Review Board for
approval. The plans and specifications were reviewed and
the Board found certain deficienci-es in these plans, such
as the grade of the driveway and the size of the house as
it retated to the total square footage of the Iot.
In order to comply with all the city codes and regulations,
I employed the firm of Snowden & Hopkins. Architects, who
completely redesigned and redrew the plans and specifica-
tions in order that the house would be in full compliance
with all city codes, requirements and regulations. No
variations were requested. The recommended changes in my
plans and specifications appeared to be reasonable and it
seemed that ttre requirements which had been adopted by the
City of Vail were fair and would benefit all the property
owrlers of the subdivision. UltimatelYr EIS a homeowner in
the Potato Patch Subdivision, I anticipated I would have
the same protection against violations or encroachments by
others. Apparently, this was not true.
CDS Enterprises has under construction 4 units on lots 10
and 11 in the Potato Patch Subdivision. It is hard for me
to believe that these structures, as they are currently
being built, have been approved by your Board. The exte-
rior elevations are not compatible with any of the existing
houses. The exterior materials are cheap and of poor
design and are not j-n keeping with any other existinq
residence.
ooo ooo
Vail Design Review Board
July 14, 1981
Page Two
I have not personally inspected the plans and specifica-
tions, which I assume were approved by the Design Review
Board prior to the beginning of construction. It is my
understanding that any and all changes and variations to
the approved plans and specifications must be reviewed
and approved by the Design Board before the chanqes are
made.
There is a project under construction in Avon' which is
known by the local residents as "Stack*A-Shack" and i-trs
a shame that the Potato Patch Subdivision has a "Construct-
A-Shack" project.
Vail is a small community which has enjoyed a tremendous
growth in the past few years. ft's resources are limited
and in most instances, strained to keep abreast of the
construction activity. This is true both as to municipal
and private building. It therefore seems unfair that some
builders who apparentty have little regard for building
codes and regutations and the rights of other property
owners are allowed to blatently disregard these rules and
cause additional burden on the cityts staff to keep them
in compliance with the existing regulations.
CDS Enterprises is also building a duplex on lot 4, block
1 in Potato Patch and it has come to my attention that
there are several viotations of the city building codes
in this job. I understand that they have also requested
a number of changes (which have already been made) which
are not in keeping with the original plans and specifica-
tions. It is iurther my understanding that the height of
the roof has been increased by over 44 feet and that seve-
ral other substantial changes have been made without prior
approval . Why is it that this company cannot or will not
conform to the building codes as all the other existing
property owners have already done (without objection) ?
Wifl aff builders be granted the same privileges? There
are now 5 completed houses in the subdivision and there
are six more building jobs under construction which I
assume are probably duplexes. Three of these jobs are
being built by CDs Enterprises. will they be allowed to
violate city regulations on all of these jobs? Because
the subdivision is stj-l1 in the very early stages of
building activity, it seems imperative that all property
ov,rners, builders and prospective property owners be aware
that all city regulations, codes restrictions, etc. be
enforced and the integrity of the neighborhood be maintained.
aoo ooo
Vail Design Review Board
July 14, 1981
Page Three
I am a part-tjme resident and a full-time tax payer (by
choice). I picked Vail over a variety of other places
because of many reasons already well-known to the members
of the Board, who apparently have similar reasons for
living in VaiI. As a property o\dner I am entitled to
the quiet enjolment of my home in VaiI without the inter-
ference of those who cannot abide by city laws and ordi-
nances. It is the city's obligation and duty to enforce
all of its current 1aws, ordinances and to see that all
violators are stopped and required to conform to these
existing statutes.
During the past week I have been in residence at my house
aL 797 Potato Patch and watched with complete dismay at
the CDS Enterprisesr total lack of respect for the rights
of the existj-ng property owners and their inability to run
a job without disturbing the whole subdivision. It has
been necessary for us to call the police once and to' on
many occasioni. ask the trucks not to completely block the
street in order that we can use it. On several instances
we were told that it. didn't make any difference to them
wheLher they blocked the streets or not' that was just
tough luck and caused by normal construction progress.
The truck drivers have constantly used our driveway to
turn around j-n and in one instance a large excavation
machine almos! tore up our driveway trying to turn around'
Trucks, cars and othei vehicles have parked in front of
the driveway, in front of my house and in many instances'
completely blocked any exit I have to either come in or
go out of my drive. During the day when the truck drivers
see fit they walk through my garden to wash their hands in
a little recirculating stream I had put in and they seem
to take offense when we ask that they not stomp through
our flowers to find a place to wash their hands- Quite
frankly, I'm fed up wilh the way CDS Enterprises has abused
their i:-ght to build in a subdivision and r think itrs
high time that the owner or owners, whoever they may be,
be held responsible for the violations caused by their
company.
On lot 9, which is adjacent on the west to the current
construction job, on lots 10 and 12, CDS Enterprises has
seriously encroached with their excavating equipment on a
Iot whiclr they do not own. Tn addition to substantially
changing the topography of the land they have knocked
down trees, added a huge amount of fill dirt and substan-
too ooo
Vail Desiqn Review Board
July 14, 1981
Page F our
tially changed the contour of the tot. I would also sup-
pose Lhat this has been done without the owners permission.
I am amazed that one company can cause so many problems in
one subdivision without having to be held responsible for
these acts which they have caused.
CDS Enterprises has already started another project on lot
13. will they be allowed to violate city building codes
and restrictions on that job too? only the residents must
live with the builders mistakes. When the units are sold
and completed the builder pul1s up stakes and leaves his
mistakes for others.
It seems to me that serious consideration should be given
to denying this building company the right to build any
place within the town of Vail. I would hope that aIl con-
itruction companies and property owners would be treated
with the same fairness and interpretation of the existing
city requirements.
I will be unable to attend the hearing the latter part of
Ju1y, due to a previous commitment, but this letter will
serve as my strong objection to any proposed changes Lo
either of the projects now under construction by CDS
Enterprises. It seems only right and fair that they be
made Lo conform to the initial plans and specifications
previously approved by your Board.
Respectf 1IY 't
Traylor, Jr.
crr/I}lL
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Georges M. Boyer
Vail, Colorado
Mr. Richard CaPIan' Town Manager
Vai1, Colorado
Mr. and Mrs. Luc Meyer
Vail, Colorado
Mr. Robert Wilson
Vai1, Colorado
l. Box t8a2 coilsrRucnoil
INVESTf,EIITSitL, coLoRADO 81658
3/'17&0E85
,B9IDIARIES
:RITAGE COI|TRACTORS
q G DEVELOPLEiTT CO.
VESTIEXT D€Srcil NTERIORS LTO.
gosCOUNTRYRIDGE
|N ANTONIO, TX.782t0
a4*21s5
July /, 1P8I
Tor Pster Jamar, Bulldlng ..repartment, Town of Val1
Torn of Vall Deslgn Sevlew Board
Ret Potato Patch, Lot 4
Thle request ls subnltted to revlse the changes requested before the f,reslgn
Revlew Board of June J, 1p8L
1. Sldlng - redwood I x 6 bevel nlth natural C. i'l. F. ftnlsh.
Thls would constltute re-sldlng the structure, to adhere
to the otlglnaI speclflcatlons.
2. Roof over sprs y - remove all shlngles 1n over sprayed areas and reshlngle.
3, Exterlor wlndow trlm, franes and sofflts - (Z) coats flat exterlor latex
t,
A
?.
R
el.
enanel, as orlg;ina11y speclfled.
Garage doors - (Z) coats flat latex exterlor enatcl , as orlglna11y speclfled.
Stucco areas - to be gray ln co1or, a8 orlglnally speclfled.
Deck ralllngs - (2) coats flat latex exterlor enanel , as orlglnally apeclfLed.
Hot tub deck - see attached pLans.
Front retalnlng wall - rebullt as orlglnally speclfled.
Landscape plan - as orlglnally speclfled wlth the exceptlon of the landscapln6
between lots 4 and J. (llease note attached approved landscape plan) In orderto adhere to the lot J owners' request, there has been added a. retentlon baslnfron polnt A to potnt B 1,0' East of the propelty Llne that w1Il collect therun-off fron both lots 4 and J and carry lt to the front of the property. ThlEretentlon basla ls an 8" plpe burled underground wlth an 8,, x 8" draln faceevery 10'. The berm from the foundatlon of the lot 4 stncture to the property]lne wlll be sodded to prevent eroslon and glve aesthetlc value to the overall
landscape plan. Each draln fece wlll have 2 to J natlve bushes on the lest slde
that w1ll mask the vlew of the draln faces from lot J completely.
\O
10. Elevatlon change - Ic respectf,ully request the changc ln tlrc elab
elsnatlon bc appmved on th€ baslc that the over all elcvatlon 1rrlthln the appllcable Tonn of Vall guldellnes, and docg not ln any
way block or lnpa.lr thc vlews frcn other lots ln the arGa.
Thenk yotr for your consldcratlon.
)'J4.A.t*
caefardo (/
Dtfi/ce
r
Original plans submitied to ihe Town of Vail and the Desi65n a-nd
lleview Board, r'ihich r'tere approved , showed the hot tub deck to be
located at the location it was built. It ruas the opinion of our
Archi.tect, I)uane Piper, this was in compliance with ordinance t
r,uhich allorvs enchroachrnent of building set back lines for porchest
declis, and stairvrays (attachnrent #2). Hor,'ever, after a complaint
was logged, Tor'rn Planner, Peter Jamar ruled this was an enchroachment
of the sicle builcling set back line and we vle]'e requested to remove
same to the property line. l'le are requesting the attached revised
hot tub deck be approved. At this date, the hot tub deck has been
cut ba.rjk to the buil<ling set back linesi as requested (attachnent' /i2).
7
subject lot has; a tota.l difference in elevation from the streel: in
front of the house at 81654.O to an elevation at the rear of the 1ot
of B,5IO.O--sonre 44.0 feet di.fference in elevations (1 foot vertical
fal1 per: ] feet horizontal distance). During construction, a mistake
vras rrade by scmeone which resul-ted in the upper unit being constructed
2"5feethigherthanoriginallyapprovedandthelower:unitbeing
constructed 4.? f ee'u higher than originally approved'
qfr*a*\
June J, 1981
Design & Revier+ Board
Vail , Co 81558
SUBJECT: Revisions, Lot 4, Block 1, Potato Patch
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am Jirn Basler, construction supervision for cDS Enterprisesr Inc. t
Contractor on subject projeci. f assumed this position on or about
April 12, 1981. My purpose for being here today is to ask for your
approval on the following:
1. C&rpge of M.atsrial-g
Most of the changes were requested by the purchases and are shown
on attachment #f.
2. Revi.sed Hot Tub Deck
Revised :,s B', i1t Floor Elevations
t1 .l)
l qRrDesign & Review Board June J,Page Two
It is my understandi.ng that at the meetin8 of the Design and Review
Board last fa1l, the elevation of the pealc of the roof wa6 discussed
and after review and discussion by the Architect, Duane Pipert one of
the Design & Review Boarcl Members stated that the peal( brould be
approximately ten feet above the level of the turnaround according
to measurements sholtn on the property plans. Actual surveya by
Intermountain Engineering shows the proposal roof peak would have been
12.5 feet higher than the proposed turnaround, however, actual as
built, the roof peak was $.1 feet higher than the turnaround - some
2.J feet higher than the proposed elevation.
Concern ha6 also been expressed by adjacent 1ot owners Nlmber 5 & 6t
Block 1, because of this change in elevation as to the effect of drainage '
Attachrnent #J shor.rs a soCd.ed swale to be constructed on subject Lot 4,
and will recej-ve drainage from both Lot 4 and Lot 5. This will a1low
original drainage pattern to renain unchanged. This swale r^rill have itrs
drainage route approximately five (5) feet from the property line and r+il1
be graded back to the foundation line of the subject structure'
4. Retgining SJalls
To remove the 6t5t'high retaining wall that projected beyond the
originall.y approved location near Lot !1 and to reconstruct in the
Location originally approved and to comply raith Ordinance (attachnent #J).
Meetings have been held rvith both Town Officials and Owners of adiacent
Lots i ar,d 6, Block 1, to discuss the proposed changes and revisions as
stated above, Every attempt wil-l be made by the undersigned to work
v,rith Town staff and adiacent owners to ccrmplete this project'
Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
CDS EnterPrises, Inc-
vail, co 81558
CC: Steve Pattersot-
Peter Jamar
Georple M. & JocelYn M. Boyer
(4?_O--1-
fi t1
SIKIEA q-
l{lay ?), 1981-:
To: The Members of the Town of Vail Design Review Board
We understand that during your meeting of June Jrd. y,ou
will be presented with a request to aLl-ow CDS Enterprises/
Western Managenent Co. to nake certain changes in the design
and specifications of the duplex currently under construction
on Lot #4, Block 1, Potato Patch. This project is sonetimes
referred to as the "Paul Jonston Duplex."
We have been informed that changes will- be proposed bothin the outside aspect of the building and in the actuaL
efevation of the building as well as the overal-I footprint of
the structure.
We are not privy to the exact detail-s of the changes proposed
in the outside aspect of the buil-ding because the information
given us was limited to specification numbers. We understand,
however, that the changes entail the use of materials inferiorin quality and visual aspect to the materials included in
the original proposaL presented to you early last fal-l-.
This will bear some discussion as to its effect on the qualityof building in Vail i-n general and on Potato Patch specifically.
We do know that the petitioners are going to request your
approval of a change in the elevation of thc f] oor slabs, in effect,of the entire building. fn the case of the southernrnost fl-oorslab, this anticipated change entails a vertical movement of atleast 4.7 feet upward from 8630'to 8634.7', a hefty change
from the original proposal .
As of now we are not aware of any request to change the
elevation of the neak of the 'oot. The minutes of your meeting
was piesented to you will reveal -
that the undersigned asked of the architect, Mr. Piper, how
high the peak of the roof would be above the level of the
Potato Patch Drlve turnargound. fhe answer was given, "It will be
leveL with the surface of the turnaround. " He was corrected bya member of the DRB who pointed out that the peak of the roof wouLdindeed be approximately ten feet above the level of the turnaround
according to measurements shown on the proposed plan. Visual
inspection will reveal that the peak of the roof is- a good deal
hiEher than ten feet above the level of the turnaroundl
drawer J vall colorado 81657 303 949 4815
cable: SKEA vall colorado
We have been concerned with the situation on ]-',ot
the beginning of construction last 0ctober' Thanks to
by the Town of Vail staff, some correcti-ons have been
tire building to make it better conform to Town of Vail
make it a firnpetitioners tha
nditlon of any
the orisina
#4 since
pressure
made to
ordinances
land along
Very simply,
#4
he
v].ew
controls
and regulations. The total cha in topography of the
the property line he total cnan€e l-n Iopograpny er trre
between I-,ots 4 and 5 remaj-n however.
o1 and more) wh
We hereby request that
possible changes granted to
to the fifteen - Dac
tion
o Lot #5:fhfs, we believe, is a violat on of State
of Colorado regulatlons dn water drainage
Furthermore there remains as of this writing a retaining
wafl over nine feet high at the southwes.tern corner of the
structure which is within ten feet of the property line,
a violation of town regulations and certainly not in accordance
with the plans present-d to you originally for approval'
opography between two 1o
you
the
*ha
rthermore, the
retaining walf in that vicinitY
shoul-d conform strictly with the plans originally presented
and later approved by you last faII . Quite naturally such structure
shou}d confoim in every way with Town of Vail codes'
?he attached file will help you to better understand what
both we, as the owners of Lot #1 , as well- as Lot #5, and the
Town of vail staff have had to contend with in connection with
this project. There has been continual disregard for the
original plans as evidenced by the fact that approval of rnajor
"n.ig"" aie now Ueing sought Lfter the fact and continual violations
and llouting of guide 1ines, town ordinances, regulations and
codes all oi wfricfr have be6n only partly corrected after many
complaints on our part and the work of the town staff'
We urge you to consider this case very carefully in
of its nossible effect on the efficacy of our system of
}/vvv+v+v v
and insiection of building projects 1n the Town of Vail'if We susgest that the petitioners be required to come back
/ uetore-vo"-Xt " later dat-e with comptete plans and specificatio
/ showing how the necessary corrections will be made before any
\ approval- is eonsidered.
ResPectfullY submitted,
Georges M. Boyer
Jocelyn M. Boyer
CCr Mr. Steve Patterson
Mr. Peter Jamar
?O.
Patch
Elevations, retaining walls & liet of
PLeasd find copies of subject attached. Under separate cotert
Dwayne Pipert has submitted plans for revised deck.
Yours trulyt
CDS Enterprises
nateriaLe
Architect
Deeign & Review Board
Toyn of Vail
Box IOO
vaiL, co 81558
SII&IECIT Lot 4, Potato
Revieed Floor
JDB; rdc
attachmente
&a-
Jin Basler
Coordinator
sI(EA
May I, 1981
Mr. Craig Snswdon
Chairman
Design Review Board.
Town 0f VailVail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mr. Snowd.onr
You nay already be aware of the difficulties the Town of
.V..ail_has had with the peopJe involved in building a duplex on Lot
l#4, eotato Patch, Block tll namely. CDS Enterprisei.
I
We are enclosing eopies of sorne correspondence we have hadwith the Town of Vail concerning this project, particularlyregarding its effect upon our Lot #5 which is ad.jacent to f,ot #4.
Due. to pressure by the Town of Vail authorities, some changesare apparently being made on the existing structure in whatappears to be an attempt to have it better eonform to Town of Vailordinances and regulations. As we und.erstand it, the structure asit stands now has yet to have been approved as to frani-ng.
fn any event what has been built so far on l,ot #4 hardlyresgmbles the plans presented to the Design Review Board. whensuch presentation was made to you early 1ast fall . There wascertainly no mention of fill at the tirne the plans were presentedto you. The fill-which was indeed placed on Lot fi|, and. spilledover on our Lot ffJ, caused^ the entire topography of Lot #4, and,part of Lot #5, to be altered severely. In-ta6t- the slope whichwent down from west to East at the property rine has been reversed,and now.goes fron Ea* to west thus Lirairgin! the drainage completery.So far the result has been that a1I drainaEe is on our-Lot #3whereas 1t used to be on l,ot #4, L quick rook at topographic-tinesas presented to you will crearly d,emonstrate what we are- talkingabout.
lile will not now go into the amount of destruction we havesuffered on Lot ffJ due to eontinual trespass by cDS Enterprises.This matter is being handled in the courls. -
we understand that cDS Enterprises may request to corne beforeyog in the near future to seek your approvll oi changes in the plansoriginally presented to you and- so apploved.
drawer J vail colorado 81657 303 949 4815
cable: SKEA vail colorado
a'
-2-
Yours very truly,
Georges
Boyer"$-
Because of the seriousness of this matter and, the eontinued
flouting of all Town of vaiL regulations by CDS Enterprises and
the resulting effect on Our Lot #5, we hereby request that we be
notified by telephone or letter of any forthcoming neeting of
the DRB on-the suUject of Lot #4, Potato Patch, Block t.
Obviously it is oui intention to attend this meeting and. participate
in the discussions.
" Should you wish to ascertain more information on thj-s subject'
we will be rnbre than glad to meet with you and, any other members
of the DRB to bring you up to date in greater detail.
GB r IJ(
Bnblosures
CCr Mr. Steve Patterson, TgtI
Mr. Peter Jamar, TOY{
Mr. Peter Patten, TOV
i..
Brrcn.rxasr, Tttovls'rxrr Jorrxsox
ttolrSrtot{J|L CO!tOaalrol
ATTOI.YEYS A:fD COInI!'ELLORS AA lAI'
lSaeo wrsr coLtr\x avrsrtE '3UltE a
t.^rlrooDr coLoR.|DO ooelt
(3OOt 3og't'lo'
DOr r- tlast.rr
April 30, 1981 $81
{+f,'#rqeo$4',{
2
!lr. Steve Patterson
Building DePartnent
Eown of VaiI
VaiI, Colorado 8l-657
Dear l.tr. Pattersons
you and r met briefly in vair_some months ago- You may recaLl
that r represent-g"oig"" ana.gocely"-i"y.r,
-whom_vou know in
.tonnection with buililing.activity takin| P139e.on Lot 4 in
Potato Patch, which adjoins tots'S-ina 6'-which are owned by
tir. and !'lrs- Boy;Il'-ei v"u know' much correspondence' conver-
sation and conceii-t""-tlien ptala"i.g"iai"q the. construction
undertaken bY cDS Enterprisg: on Lot -4' because that construc-
tlon work seems t";;;i'duarly vi"iite'and adverseJ'y af fect
the property linJs i;a trt" rana-li="ie of Lot 5' The actions
of the builder "i""-'jppg?; ti ait"tiiv violate construction
standards .r""tii-I"ll[r]"i'"a uv tr't Town of vair'
while neeting with Mr. Boyer a few days ago.to cover.a variety
of matters, ete began to discus" lttt-"it"tiiuing problem of
construction on f-,ot a, and aue tJ--ttre-iact th;t-d::pi:a1:si1"
actr.on which nas-ueen'taken by Mr. goyel against the owner anq
the contractor,
-aEspite warniigs-wnicit hav6 been <riven to the
conrracro, oy yoi=.Ii'I.ili";ii; "iririii", intru6ions on the
Boyer proPerty ""a-"i"iiiio""-oi ordinances continue to occur'
!tr. Boyer r,"= .iii!a'th;t-i ""itJ-J""rt;l=-:l-lim and his wire
to:r.akeclcar:heexaciiidLule.uftlrerecurringandmostrecentproblems ana to Isi"lt.t--trt"-ti[v iare wnat:Y::.steps it can'
is quickly as-it c"", lo see that the construction on Lot 4 be
done in accoroance with t'r't totii"-itq"it"*ents'and that the
construction activity cease tt5"tti"S"botl l:lysically and
aestheti-ca1ty, the Bovers' aajoi-n-i]ig''pt?P:1:y: particular
natters about wtricf' tie Boyer! ir" 6oncernea are as follo'ws:
1. The )"arge guantities of fill dirt moved onto the
proiect were dumped near tne prlplilt Il": so thats substantial
fi.I*iiir"!'Ipiirla over on to r''oi 5' which was not onlv a
-. 1 t
I'tr. Steve patterson
Page 2April 30, 1981
violation of the property line but also affected the drainageand caused, darnage to the natural condition of the land.
2. Employees from the builder drove heavy equipment overthe Boyersr'property tearing up the natural condition of thelanrd, and this has been repeated several times, the most recentof which occurred, eltgr a court Restraining Order eras enteredprohibiting such iiffisions upon the Boyeri' property.
3. A high retaining wall nade friom railroad ties nowerists 10 icei: east of ehe properry line at the southern endof the structure. The plans approved by the Vail Design ReviewBoard called for the edge of a-letainini waLl to be noie than20 feet from the property line, and we believe Town Ordinancerequires that the wall bq.at, least 15 feet frorn the property
li.ne.
4. Sinilarly, - a lor,{er' retaining wall has been placednearly.the entire length of the property line, and this wall
has been placed directly on the property line. However, thereis a I0 foot utility easement which runs on either side of the
cornmon property line and the retaining wall has been constructeddirectly in that easement, which is not only a violation of the
Town Ordinance and the protective covenants of vail potato patch
as adopted February 25, L974, but will also cause substantialproblems in the future should additional construction by theBoyers on Lot 4 or by any subsequent owners of either propertybe und.ertaken-
- 5. Finally, a part of the foundation of the building asit noht exists is 10 feet from the property 1ine, which is aviolation of the Vail Building Code, lnd lne tatt. retainingwall mentioned earlier does not even appear on the plansapproved by the Desigd Review RoarC.-
!h"l the Aoyers construct their house on Lot 4, they will expectto b: bound by the actions.of the Design Review Soaid and by theregurations and ordinances of the Town of vair. They believe iti: il everyoners interest that the requirements and ordinancesof the town be strictly applied to ai-i construction in that areaso that no landowner is dLprived in any way of the benefits hederives from the property or'from the iown-protections givento that property ind its-owners.
The. Boyers are av/are that you and other town officials axe verymuch concerned about this particular construction activity as
til
-
!lr. Steve Patterson
Page 3April 30, 1981
well as the fair enforcement of the townrs laws, and the
Boyers have asked me to express that they very genuinely
appreciate your highly professional approach to this situation
and the prompt and courteous and responsive manner in which
you have dealt with them. This letter is sent only to formal-ize their deep concern about this matter and to ask that the
town renew its efforts to make certain that the construction
on Lot, 4 of Potato Patch does not in any way advegsely affecttheir adjoining property.
Very truly yours,
BUCEANAN, TEOMAS AND JOHNSON
Proft s s iona f-Corpo ra t i onI' t /--'"Y-7K /%/^
Don R. Teasley
DRT:cjt
ccj R. Caplan, Tovrn ManagerLarry Rider, Town Attorney
Georges Vl. Boyer ,-z'
Buca.tues -rxp Tlro.vas
tto"tl3t:o:f.|l' collPoilTloy
llloErlls
^ND
cou:vslLtons al l.Aw
lgt4eC V'E,ST cOLrAx Avt:iUE . SUITE .t . ,_ ,
L^rlsooD, cou)aaDo aoarr . IG{toocl aca'gzloa
1980 'l r,
" r--.,{ 9iC.3-r
5ddUI.
.
|i,i,(J.
Dor B. ?EArLsr septeurber 24,
trr. Dan Gagliardo fiL C
CDS Enterprises
P.O. Box 1842Vai1, Colorado 81557
Dear Mr. Gagliardo:
1N5
CERTIFIED
RETUBN RECEIPT REOUESTED
I represent Georges Boyer, who has previously contacted you
about the fill dirt which you have allowed to be placed onproperty owned by 1,1r. Boyer in Potato Patch at Vail. No -action has been taken to this date to remove the dirt fromMr. Boyer's property, notwithstanding both his telephone
and letter requests td you to take care of thdt matter.
Both I and Mr. Boyer are frankly at a loss to understand
why the dirt has not been removed as requested. Perhaps
you may view the matter as not serious or significant.
Please be advised that that is not Mr. Boyer's view ofthelpi{uation and that unless the dirt on his property
isffiot]removed, by Friday, October 3, I"1r. Boyer will pursueinJrx6tive relief in the courts, bothto halt your projectuntil the dirt is removed and, most to the point, torequire your removal of the same from his property. Under
no circumstances can the r the dirt involve
roperty.machinery entering on th
self and Mr. Boyer by promptly
from his property.
fd expense for both your-
removing your fill dirt
Very truly you-rs,
AND THOIIAS,
By3
Don R. Teasley
DRr/sj
ccs Georges Boyer nrr:;y
i
CDS EnterrrrisesP. 0. Box 1842VaiI, Colo, 91,65?
Attr Mr. Dan Gagliard.o
GBrIK
CCt Mr. Jinr RubinMr. Duane piper
Dorald 1eas16y, Esq.
SII(lEA
Gentlemen!
' This rvilr serve to confirm ny_telephone conversation withMr''Gagriardo late r"Ji *"lr-"it"5, r expressed my surprise and,:eerious concern auoui-iire-i."i"in"I you had a[owed fil1 dirtl:-!",,p11ced on tne west-"iII"oi the property tine betweenr,ots r+ and 5 on potato patcii-giock f .
:- My latest observation is that this filr is over theproperty line and therefore--n -*y property by at .;reast six feetin plac'es. This situiiion-i"J'u"""-atioweh i6 o"",." in spite-of my personal request to I'ou ""a rvr"r-iip." -irrii
my propertyoe respected in every way.
, f hereby request that this fi,l] ffaced_by you on myproperty be renoved fortirwiirrl-rurtirermore r ilu6t repeatny admonition that no *""iri-""y- o" materiars of yours be.on ny property at any time-ana'for arqr reason.
Iours very truly,( ,4;
t. Boyer l'
September 1/, 19BO
drawer J vail colorado g1657 303 949 481Scable: SKEA vail colorado
Georges
/;7r 5 /'a-te1 r-4
Tl tf. r
2. Hikers, pedestrians, and bicycles are expressly
Pernitted to- travel hereon grovided the surface of
- lubjec! lands is not u:'lr33sonably tlarnaged by said
activities..
The owner reserves the ricrht to make additional restrict-
ions and limitations uPon use not incompatible with the foregoing
nor less restrictive than any applicable regulations of any
gorr.rr,n"ttal agency. eny aclilitionaf restrictions nay be incLuCeC
in instrunents of lo.t'ney.nce or lease and. by suoplenent_ to- these
liotective covenants to be f,iled in the Office of the Clerk and
f€corder of Eagle County, Colorado.
3. EASEMEIITS AND P.IGHTS.OF-T.TAY
3.l.Easementsandrightsofwayforlighting,heatinq,electricity, gas, telephor,", ."i.t and sewerage faciLities, bridal
paths, and "tty oih"r tcina oi public or guasi-public utility service
ire res"rved as shown on the plat of Vail'/Potato Patch' . llo :
ience, wal1 , hedge, barrie.r oi other improvement shalL be erected
or'maintained onl across or within the areas reserved for.
easements and rights-of-way, nor in such close proximity-thereto
i" t" irnpair the access to or use thereof. An easernent for.
pedestri-an use shall exist,and is hereby reserved on, over and
i"ro"r .those portions of the plat of Vail/Potato P4tch, reserved
herein for utility service and facilities'
3.2. Easements for drainage purposes are reserved as
shown in the plat of Vail,/Potato Patch.
3.3. Easenents for drainage purposes reserved in these
covenants-ancl on the Vail,/Potato paich, plat shall be perpetual'
' 3.4. Easements adjacent to a lot but outside the bound.-
aries thereof may be appropiiately landscaged, subject t9 thg
fi-ri"i"ns of thls" coirinairts, by the owner of the lot, but in
ihe event such Lan<iscapinq is dist':rberi by use of the easement,
the cost and expens" o? restorinq such landscaping shal1 be .
solely that of the owner of the lot.
:
-5-
ri<
Yours very truly,
Georges l!, Boyer
September 11, 1980
IE,A
M:r. Jaraes A. Rubin
Town of VaiIVail; Colo. gt6\?
Dear I[r. Rubinr
-.-.-- 1ll"-wiII serye to confirm Mrs. Boyer,s conversationylrn.yol ln your office on September 111h. when she advisedyou that we were extremely_coircenea that the fil1 beirig-rnovedinto r.,ot 14, potato patcn"Bi;;i-i;-r^ris- iajs-i"!-ii," lot rinebetween our tot fiJ and, 16t- *tt,'-
We are ad,amant that our lancl not be trespassed, upon inarlr vay-and ask that you take all necessary "i"p" with CDSenterprises to have tire situation comected and. futureencroachments on our property prevented.
Whife we are not experts in this particular fie1d,it.seems to us that the Firi-rEing placed on rot #[-i;'1ot in accordance with ttrt inroinnition turnished to the townto obtain a building permit. ---
After you have had the opportunity to review the situaiion,we would, appreciate hearing fi-om you.
GBrLI(
CCr Mr. Steve patterson
Mr. D"rane piper
drawer J vait ,.;cl:;::: 31357 -'tl3 g4g 4E1S
c ib!3: S,l !A yail colorado
s-/6
3 -7{
3 -zL
3. 30
y-7
/-,,t
- Wf L'{,Pdkfr &-'l
\yW -hB S(aat51r>a q/rr/ r o
I
)c(r12nr pED wbz 4lA?p
alAt
WZ
ror2L V 1,r,-b,2 ( /.nu"-)
A<"t( J"cf (werr),/,
I : ,' ( " u-+) 4"- oyy",** f
/^-^*, r:or( s L. (k' " T/*,J
ts.o")( e/ec (easr) a),..,
,/r-.*|^ ..'t4- ta 7 (lo7t{.:4)
/f^4 ^ ,ru dt7.. " eli.t,| (
gal
l-l6o ceT-
c^^r,;,,r9 €f{VnZS
'',n,,'#]f}4ttrftN
S->! SA<.1-ro<f''
(asT
3 1'r 't/'
Lof ?taTtL
(-oT Z\t.-
-- M4tvgu,( - aI-.K'"tt'F<
I
E)SC, t uk?<.
S t*f, o+ I'n,6g"""1nd|,'fi'et
ew,*#
e Ui\ir't o-ry &"s;s
J-,./ru-- n 7t -
'"Ilar,)
ao )
sFR, R,
ZONE C}IECK
for
R P/S ZONE DISTRICTS
Legal Description: Ut 4 Block / Filing
^'-'i--tt.0rmer ., io+lN!:-rON Architect
-
Zone District Proposed Use
...-..-..."..:-t1-" Lot Area /'5 'Height Al'lorved 30'
Required
Required
Prbposed
Setbacks: Front-Requi;;d i0l--pioiiosea
' Sides-Required 15' Proposed
Rear -Required l5' Proposed
' .,Allaterccurse-required /l/r'l Proposed
GRFA: Al'lor,red |
=7 +7 tr
GRFA:
t-/
Primarry Aj'f or.red Z-S OUf,
-
Primary
Secondary A'l'lot'led Secondary
Site Coverage: A1loived
Landscaping:
Parking:.
,'' /f )Drive.: Slope Permitted Y )'a SloPe
Environmental/llazards: Avalanch " )(/4 .
Fl ood P'iain
Sl ope
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposcd
Propcsed
Actual
trL
Zon i rlir : Ilpp l'ot,'-- c!,/D'i s.,l 1l pro'-': ti D.:t c :
)r
THE
GEORGES M. BOYER
JOCELYN BOYER
THE DISTRICT COURT FOR
COUNTY OI' EAGLE
STATB OF COLORADO
BOCV33B
and
Plaintiffs,
DISTRK|f @U..17
t4t""gg,t'r.Tufu**
nte eZiDAv ol@e'*--- :,r,g4
-vs-
PAUL JOHNSTON,
WESTERN MANAGEMENT CO., INC.
DAN GAGLIARDO ANd
CDS ENTERPRISES
PRELIi,|IIIARY INJUNCTION
otSTRlcT cottRT
Eagle ColntY' Cotond-e * ^c*cf?J io br ftlit' true and GorrEt
;;-; thr crr3inil ln mY cu$cl!'
w1c - -Axi'" A'l*tl'8n-'7'-"'E---
-.(h"^,("./--'*/t",ie"---8.ClPtt ,::.,_
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants.
E ....-_.....-._.-"-.., .ilruil-d;'r|-
ThiS matter came on for hearing on october 27, 1980,
pursuanttolawandatthedirectionofthecourt.ATemporary
Restraining order had been entered. in this matter on Friday,
Oetober 17, 1980 and was due to expire at 5:00 P'M', October
27, LIBO. The 10-day hearing on preliminary injunction was
set for October 27, ]-980 at 3:00 P.M.
The parties have stipulated, as a basis for this
preliminary injunction, that the fill dirt and other material
which had been upon Ptaintiff's land have now been removed
and as of October 27, 1980 no trespass exists'
the parties have further stipulated to the following
terms of a preliminary injunction, which are hereby r'lade a
decree and order of this court:
I. Defendants shall not in any manner or by any
instrumentality enter upon any of Plaintiff's land known as
Lot 5, Potato Patch Subdivision, Vail, Colorado' rhis specif-
ical.ly includes the piling upon or flowing over upon Plaintiff''s
property of fill dirt being used by Defendants'
2. Defendants shall- make every reasonable effort
to Htrain any employees, agents or subcontractors in the
.l
--. E* Eq'rq.*f:a Y-jglry .<.' 'r 't'*rrr!ery*ii'.r'l!"1"'-''t<:!|tq€t',raarrt'-'t-*t'<t!lt?-rt!*ritrT'+: ti**'t'r:-': '-
)I
same manner as the Defendants themselves are restrained by
paragraph #1 above.
3. Should any of the fill dirt or any other
construction rnaterial or equipment used by the Defendants
or their subcontractorsr agents or employees inadvertantly
or other$rise intrude upon Plaintiffrs property, Defendants
shall forthwith remove the intruding object or material but
shall not do so by use of any vehicles upon Plaintiff's
property or by use of any other tool or device which might
scar or damage PLaintiffrs property.
4. Personal service of this order upon the
Defendants is waived ancl confessed by the Defendants; signa-
ture of their attorney, Ross Davis, on this document shalL
be and serve for all purposes as personal service on the
Def endants.
5. The parties acknowledge the existence of a
utility easement along either side of the property line
between lots 4 and 5 and further acknowledge that utility
l-ines have been ]aid along the Property line in that ease-
ment. The Defendants can enter upon so much of the utility
easement on Plaintiff's property as is necessary to connect
into the utilitY lines.
Iuade an order and decree of court this 27th day
of october I980.
Appr
303-232-2404
Defendants
Bank Building, Suite 307
8r657
Judge
ss DaVIs, Jr
Attorney f
P. O. Box-190
vail National
Vail, Colorado
303-47 6-2414
by Don R. Teasley #q9
L2499 W. Colfax' Su
Lakewood, Colorado 8
-2-
i
W
!i\s-a
Q,
l_t^
\J
:.t
$-$
4tt'l''o
| '.-l t ,' 7-25-80
LIST OT I{ATIIIII
NAlm Of pnOJ[CT paul Johnst_on Duplex
I,IIGAL DI]SCRIPTION 4 I,OT 1 IILOCK Potato Patch TILING
DESCRIPI'ION OF PIIOJIJCT Duplex Residetce. New Construction
i
ALS
The foll.orving informationto the Design Review Board
A. ) BUILDING MATBRIALS:
Roof
Sid in g
Other 1[a11 Materials
Fasci a
Sof f i.t s
$lindorvs
l{tindow Trim
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Decl< Rails
Flues
. Flashings
Chinmeys
Trash Ilnclosures
Greenhouses
Other
Botanical Narne
Populus Tremuloides
Populus Angustifolia
Picea Punsens
Picea Pungens
is required for submittal by the Applicant
before a final approval can be given.
Type of lvlaterial
Med. Cedar Shakes
Color
Natural
. Sto Svn. Plaster 8635lmMtu
1x6 Bevel Redwood C.tr{.F. _
1x6 Bevel RedwooC Clear C.W.F.
Wood PPG #P2634 Lt. Gray
Brickmold PPG #P2634 Lt. Gray
Wood Natural
Brickmold PPG #P2634 Lt. Gray
Sto Syn. ilaster Sto 8635-
Metal Devoe UC54 Dk. Brown
Garaee
T.ord & Burnham Bronze
Rail at Deck l{a11s PPG #P2634 Lt. G-ray
including Trees, Shrubs,
Common Narne
D. ) PLANT MATERIALS
(Vegef ative, Landscaping I,IateriaIsand Ground Cover)
Aspen
Cottonwood
Blue Spruce
Blue Soruce
Rl nek Pi ne
Potentilla
Quantity
t6
4
5
t
,
-l
Size
2rr caliper
2tr caliper
72n taLl
8r tal1
5 gal
l-€e],Potentilla _Var_.
llt
t 1' -p.-
,
.,
- PaEe 2
b
PLant MaterlaLs Continued
Botanical Name Corrnon Name Quancicy Size
WiltonCarpet 3 2p.aL.
c.) oTHER LANDSCAPE FEATURES(Retaining WaLls, Fences, Swinuning Pools, etc.)
(Pl"ease Specify)
Gablon rock retaLnlng at dririewav and ijnlt ttAtt Terrace.
tv
wt',
IMPORTANT NOTICE
REGARDING ALL SUBMISSIONS TO I1IE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD:
l.A11 new buildings will require a site visit by either tbe Design Review Board
and driveways nust bc staked.or the staff. Your building locations
2. The review process for NEW BUILDINGS will nornally involve two separate neetings
. of the Design Review Board, so plan on at least two weeks for their approval .
3, People who fail to appear before the Design Review Board at their scheduled
tneeting and who have not asked for a postponernent will be requited to be re-
published.
4. The following itens no longer have to be presented to the Design Reyiew Board.
They, however, have to be presented to the Zoning Adninistrator for approval:
a. Windows, skyl.ights and similar exterior changes that do not alter the
existing plane of the building.
b. Building additions that are not viewed fron any other lot or public sPace;
have had letters subrnitted from adjoining property owners approving the
addition; and/or approval fron the agent for, or nanager of a condoninium
association.
I. NEW CONS'I'RUCTION
A. lgg"gt"phi. ^"p. r^.1 : J,l'g.lgU_9LUg-(2 copies):
1. Licensed engineerts or surveyorrs stamp.
2, Contour intervals of not more than 2r unless the parcel consists of 6
acres or more, in which case, 5r contour intervals will be accepted.
3, Existing trees or groups of trees having trunks with dj.ameters of 4" or
rnore one foot above grade.
4. Rock outcroppings and other significant natural features (large boulders,
internittent streams, etc. ) .
5. Avalanche areas, 100 year flood plain and slopes 40% or more, if applicable.
6. Ties to existing benchrnark, either USGS landmark or sewer invert.
7, Locations of the following:
Proposed surface drainage on and off site showing size and type of
culverts, swales, etc.
Exact location.s of al 1 utilities to include existing soutces and
proposed service lines fron sources to the structure. Utilities to
include: cable TV
t e l ephone
5et'rer
water
gas
el ectric
Property lines showing distances and bearings and a basis of bearing
Proposed driveways with percent slope and spot elevatj.ons
A11 easements
8. Existing and finished grades
9. A11 existing and proposed improvemcnts includlng structures, landscaped
areas, service at'eas, storage areas, walks, driveways, off-street parking,
loading areas, and other site irnprovements,
10. Elevations of top of roof ridges (with existing grade shown underneath)
to determine height of building.
B.A statcnent from each utility verif location of service and availabilit
To be sirbrni tted with site plan.
Q^r,,ornl 1'o rJr suBu-rrr.irl
C. Prelirninary title report_to accompany gt_1_:g!4E4:, to insure propcrty
D. Landscape Plan (1r' = 20' or !q1ger) - 2copies
a.
l^
c.
A
e.
l. Show thc location of 4" di.ametcr trces, other slrrubs and nativc plallts
that at-e olt the sit c anC thc locatioir ;rnd dcsi.gn of proposed lanrlscape
area with the varictics and approxi.rllte sizcs of platrt natcrial s to bc
pl antcd .
2, Conplctc landscapc natctiills list.
3. Designotc t.rees to bc savcd alttl tltosc to bc lost.
N01'[: As rnlclr of tIc a}ovc irrforrnrtion {rs possib]c shotrl d occttr ort t.ltc sitc pllttt, so tll;rt
tlrg iltcl-r'gl lt j.o1 of' thc v;.r r'.i rrrrr r'.()lll)()ncnts i:; r:lorr r:. 'l'ltc- lrrtttlscitpc plan sltrrtrltl bc :;cpitr-
{ltc. 'l'hc gxist ing topo11:lrplric lrntl vlrgcl. lrtionrr I clurrrrct cr j s1..i cs nlily bc it sc|;tril t(' lllill).
llotvcvcr', t.lr is in[ornltt..ion ntttsl itl)l)r]itr ott iltt' l; i1c pllttt.
,"!1
-
, E. Architcctural I'lanE (l/8t' = lr or larger) 2 cop -r.e s
l. l.fust includc floor plans and all elcvations as thcy will appear on conpletion.
Elcvations nust show both exist.ing and finished gradcs.
2. Exterior surfacing materials and colors shall be specified and subnitted
for review on the materials list available fron the Departnent of Conununity
Devel opment .
F.TheDesignReviewBoardnayrequirethcsubmissionofadditi@
sary to determine whether a Project will comply with design guidelin'es.
II MINOR ALTERATIONS TO THE EXTERIOR OF BUILDINGS
Photos or sketches that clearly indicate what is proposed and the location (site
plan) of proposal may be subnitted in lieu of the nore fornal requirenents given
above, as long as they provide all inportant specifications for the proposal including
colors and naterials to be used.
II1. ADDITIONS - RESiDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL
A. Original floor plans with all specifications shown
B. Floor plan for addition - 2 copies
C. Site plan showing existing and proposed construction - 2 copies
D. Elevations of addition
E. Photos of existing structure
F. Specifications for all materials and color samples on materials list
available at Departnent of Conurunity Developnent.
-rJ:--LIIAL-9.1I!--|!AI
@ithasbeenissued,andwhentheprojectisunderway,thefollowing will be required before any building receives a franing inspection fron the
Building Departnent
A certified irnprovenent survey showing:
A. Buildi.ng locations with ties to property corners, i.e. distances and angle.s.
B. Building dixnensions to nearest tenth of foot.
C. A11 utility servj"ce lines as-builts showing size of lines, type of
naterial used, and exact locations. 2 copies
' D. Drainage as-builts - 2 copies
E. Basis of bearing to tie to section corner.
F. A11 property pins are to be either found oI set and stated on naP'
G. A11 easenent s ,
fr,P,I;*'"JP
D u zL r X -(f-( r tt,.oey. /e<,<
PatzL
I' I l. ll,t(;;l,';.\1, l)l;:,r.liii)'t'lON: l,Ol'
l,i:i;(;l:Ii'l i():; ()l; l,lt(J.lt,i:l'
'l'hc fol lor.rirrli irrfor.rnat jnn i:;
Boarcl ltcl rrrc a f ina I approvu I
A. lll,ll,l)Jr\i(; iqA1jilllAl,S \
Roo {' I
Sid j.ng
othcr l,iall Materials
Fasc i a
Soffits
l{indor,rs
Itliudow l'rirn
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Dccl< Rails
Flues
Flashl.ngs
Chi.rnnel's
Trash l-itr c l osules
Grccnhotr.s es
Other
B. LANDSCAPING
Name of Designer:
Phone :
PLANT I'IATERIALS
rc<lttirr:tl {.or sulrrniLt.:rl by thc irppl ir.;rnl. fo thc Dcsil3r i{t:v.i cr"
crrrr bc 1; ivcn :
'l'ypc of l'lrt_er'ria I (lolor
\
\3
\
V
c:-
TREES
Botanical Name Common Name Quanti ty
?+,t,s&&eLr Aes- AEtah___ Z"_
A"tff".t
Si ze\F--tr-t.i--<h' -
rq
,9b
I
1
aU"fl;tft","-""t **trtnl" ?UV,FP'iutl\- _Sr"il__ 5t
Scco T', htu-IJ(ahn r&rll iW 51.gilPtioFl-aatrFs GrrrTfuTh-l"ffiy-ffi*f
i:
Frb25 6r\oLn&hiL c'\*t$ i t t-
-l-(4tl\t\2 (e4\>a^\ .
\ an\rG;)LAa\ _
SHRUDS
:;:6:J:E9''' :-:lbfti* ' 6ott' I ,.\G\ ("ti6 i \art s;h"'t; % *le-Ir-
GNCUND
'covERs
s0D
SEED
TYPE CF
I RRI GAT I ON
,o.,ilooorner 6rEtt f
(sne. g-tr^ rGsI"+
\n\e/ sQUARE FooTAGE
\
TYPE
- Vrirtu{. (el,orSstt-t SQUARE FOOTAGE
B.9." F-..-..r--..-_-
{;--,;gi .. + sdJ Ar.e'J.
\:rt i Yeh^
\*?ec-1il-t$r.rrt -wt
TYPE OR METHOD
OF EROSION CONTROL
L\dJ ,
---Iuug&."nuax Vecoua'v'ael)?iwnr &\-
_ (trn-rLit C "il,,t*
C. Othcr Landscape Features (reta'i ning wa'l Is, fences, slimrning poo'l s, etc.) Please specify.
. Fe.ttUA *r.^/eU d4 -\o,lt^ .4!A A(+ g)*
'LI51' OF l'n'fl;RIALS
l',1{y1; 91: PIiOJDC'I' PauI Johnston Duplex
LE6.\L UI;SCltI l'1 10N : LOT 4 BLOCK 1 FfLING Potato Patch
DI:SCI{IPl'I0N Ol; PROJICT Duplex Residence, New construction
The foI lorviltg infornation i.s
Board bcfore a fi.nal approval
A. BUII,DIN6 I"T\TIRIALS
Roof
Siding
Other lt/al l lulat erial s
Fascia
Soffits
I{indows
Window Trin
Dcors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck Rails
Flues
F l ashings
Ch inrney s
Trash Encl osures
G::celhous es
Other
PL:N]' }'L\TIRIALS
(Vegetat j.r'c, Land5caping
Eot.urricaI Nl:'tc
Populus Treiiruloides
Poculus Aea'ust if olra
i).: ^^. Tlr- -^n -
Type of I'laterial
l"led. Ce dar Shakes
Plast er
zo5 'ff ',..'lrj,, ox
requi.red for submittal by thc applicant to the Design Revicw
can be given:
Color
Olympic
White
At fAr -i\ltqubt"ppde. ll l til-UEt_ ol.ynpic 7o5#
I.lood Kelly Moore 18J
Brickrnold Ketly l"ioore 181
l{ood Kelly l.ioore 18J
Brickmold Kelly l4oore 181
Plaster lihite
I'{e taI Olympic 7O5
Plaster White
Garage
.4
Rough Cedar Olympic fol
l'latcria 1s inc Iuding
Corn:nou Narne
Aspen
Trees, S)tr-trb.s,
,.!....,.,. ; i.,,\r(,.:'' r! l
-aJ-O
and Grouncl Covt:r)
lii:.:c
2rr caU.oeri
Cot tonrvoo d 2rr ; tr.1:i P;:-r'
M.D.O. Pl Olympic 7O5
D.
l2 | tel I
l,{o}al Olyrpic 705Flues
F lashings
Chinrneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhous es
0ther
.
P!..'Jtf i !"\TEir.IAr,S
(Veiletativc, l,andscaping
Dct.lrnical N:ri'rc
Populus Trern'rloides
_-P e
"_+IU:_-4:r"q9-s_t-j-&U.ti
iticea PunEens
Irlatcria ls including
Conrnou Nane
Aspen
Trees , Sl-r rtrbs ,
_Q_L'ti]j.|l):
and Ground Cover)
lii. z e
2rrcali.oet
2r1 ..aliPr'.r'
Plaster Vhite
n
Cot tonrvood l1
Blue Spruce 12t tall
tr tal .i
5 eaL.
5 gal-
Picea Punqens Blue Spruce
Black Pir.:
i'oient illa Var.Potent i11a
)
Qr. -l-\\?rr -] c.5
(7^ r' fro ,1 ,
-
st
8-
SJ
\'il
-J
$i
$
$+
I
d
I
I
I
I
L
_1-l
I
I
I
-+-t
l+
il
IF
I
I
I
..1
Project Application
Proiect Name:
Project Description:
Contact Person and
al CUA.,EAS
Phone
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot
Design Review Board
Date
APPROVAL
ol0,
Project Appllcatlon o
Project Name:
Project Description:
Contact Person and Phone
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and Phone:
Lesal Descripti on ut 4 , arc.x
Comments:
Design Review Board
APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL
Date:
Town Planner E statt Approval
-I Project Applicalion
l-tr:.ft'e i-{tc,gqioo (:s2--?) tr\c,,-tr- clr+q 3-?3*?
-\
Pro.ject Name:
Project Description:
Contact Person and Phone
Owner, Address and Phone: C.. l-> 3 E- ir.J--r te ,a-F,:*r e ta.
\-L) r* 9€-u-v=.!-- -* P r F € .l--Architect, Address and Phone:
"..i.-ic, -t (-
Legaf Descriptio n, bt 4 , ato.x
Com ments:
Design Review Board t{* 4lslglrlMotion by:
Seconded by:
3\
D Prolect Application //* 77*
Project Name:
Proiect Description:
Owner Address and Phone:
Architect Address and Phone:olrtNf T /E
1 ,ru,^n 7sr*ra V&rct/
,h,o il{,
Lo
Design Review Board
,^," ,rLo/*
DISAPPROVAL
Motion by:
S€conded by:
-1'rt 4l
1r
f,o
0!I3g
o
0
a
r-
]it
_4.
O
-0e
an
=c
C)c-.o
i
C)o
C)
-Cz
./
i
0!
t
0g
tIrt,
B
t
a
E
0
E
ohot
SPECIFICATIONS & SCHEDTJLES
PATJL JOHNSTON DTJPLEK
8O2 Potato Patch DrlveVall, Colorado
-
*i?? sovings & toon ar??orion
2420W.20th Ar.. . Ornrrr,Colondo 80211
T.l.pho :456.f89O
MATERIATS SPECIFICATIONS
Addrrrr Sirr ol $1o _ 15. 996 s. f .
'|a,Paul Johnston Controctor C.D.S. Enterprises
rtt Phoao Addrorr Phorr-
NERAL - All conrtrucrion rholl oquol or rrcrd locol building codot. ron'ng ordimncor oad rrfriclivr cov.nonft. lrloteriolr
rholl br nl. ond bel grodr or quolity rorrd. Erccrion, opplicotion. or inlollotion rholl br in occordoacr with oonuloctunr'r
o,,cc.ronr or b.3r rtonda?d Foctic. ond dono in o rorlmonliL. onn t. All buildingt murr bo conplrtr cnd rrody for occuponcy,
conn.. rro^r rtlh u?ilit i.r eonrplotrd, ond oll rquinrrnl in op.toting condilron or lirm ol f inol inrprcf ion by I{AJESTIC SAVINGS
& LOaN ASSOCIAT ION ond locol outhoita.r.
AREA OF oWELLING: Sq. Fr.. 260011300 lypr of Dwellins DuoIex
EXCAVATIONS: Tyer ol Soil Sandv sllt I Borrmrnt $JCrorl Spccr l] Splir Eorrrnonr
FOUNDATIONS
^NDF oorrngr: l,tor'l &
F oundotion lfo ll r:
Rrrnlorctng: lYo llr
FOOTINGS:
Sirr@ P irr r: l'lot'l & Sirr concreEe- 12rr diameEer
,|lorrioI
Fosndor on vcntr: Numbrr -N-9!,9
ThicLmrr 8rr
Foot ing r
-
Sirr
4x1O
FIREPLACE. I Mool
Foc ing: Dcrcribr lrt
:XTERIOR UALLS:
Forn ! Firo Bricl f| Flue Liniog
Fir.ploc. 2nd
Glazed tile hearths.
F ircplocr
Eocling Furring
Grodo constr.Spocing
cdx
1 x 6 bevel Finirh natural-c..w.F.
Moronry: Foc rag
Fronr:Studr:5irr
Shcorh ing
Siding
Vcnocr: Brick
Typ.
Stom Other
g.s,,., Synthetic plasEer on stvrofoam
FLOOR FRAMIXG: Joirt Mol'l:'DF.L -5i rr 2 x 12 Spocing 16rr o.c. & 24tt o.
3UB FLOOR: lbrcliol.Siro 314"
. F I x I sH t. Tfltc,.h gi f"'S j. I f it ! f :1.'!. .el ;fS,
p
^R
TIilON FRAnlilG: Sir.J-:!-4-LEl.I-&od. & Sg0cins 15lr o-c^
CEILING
P urlr nt
FRAI{!XG: Sirr Refer Eo roof Sgocing
ond Brocrr -Orhrr
nooF FR MI1G: Godr ond Sirr 16tr TJI Spccing 2411 o ' c ' 7ip6 4 'l 11 | 72
Trurror: Drrcribr , !
Shrorh,ng: Drrcribr 1/2 CDX olvwood
ROOFING: Dercribr typr ond rnorrriol
Rooi Vcnrr enl d rnnf TYPr ond p31g V€Dted at eave and rl de
SHEET XETALT Gsrr.t. ond Do-nrpourl:
Flrrhrng: ] Fircclocr il Porcher
Go9.24 Ga. No. of Splorh Eloch
ElRoof S] Uindo:r ond Ooorr fl Grovol SroP
lxTEnlOR FlNl3l{: -l Lorh ond Plortor S Dry-oll
9o - | l, rl
lPoarll,rg !Othrr
N/A
Dr rcr, br
lcinrcor - rl ont
snlash
Eorh
Eoth
Eodromrr
1.R..€*,#l
lOOl3: Intrr,or: f ygo orld f ianh.oak natura
Ertortor: Tlpr ond frnith
D Sctron Doorr $ Stotrn Docrr Co-b.
t. !.oth.rrfritgangTlt..|hollr ves. oak
ves
t, lXDOtl: Type ond ter ro I
. Sgrcrcl glorr lwo sl
Borraunrt I rodorr l.tlrit
(l TCHEII CA!lllETt: ltoro rol Coumorqr nlastic laminatE
Tygr cf Hord-ore Cobiad p1,,;1h natural lacquerllAlnt: |torrriol Hca&oil
rillr wo.od $--. yes
rii oak
-
Uoll F iairh Hotrrrol
Wrorhorrtrrpging neoP.rene
PLUltlNGr @ Sr-e' QSerric Tcn! Lin. Fr. of Filld Tile
@torer lbin Qloll
Supply Plging: Qlroel ECocp.t 15. cf Sill Coclr.
-4woor'ttror-it&Tr RtteEm. blectric -Coro.ir..ir 7FB Gs€roar..
6or Srrvrcr: @Uliliry Coneony QLrquid Gor $OrherPLU||IIXO FlXtUnl$ Olcrrbe: ltch. Sirr, Color See Schedule
lloin Borh: O LoYorot Q Tvb !Sho-..
5e cond Borh; E Lovorot I Tub Q Sho-or Q Uorlr Clcrr
Borrnenr Borh: O Roughrd In. Firrer.. Coarlrrr Q Lcvorcy S Tub I Shoror QWorr Clora
Lovndry Troy: Q S,ngh B Doubb; @ Floor Oroin; O Typ. ol Dirporol
Nvnrbtr ond S'rrt ol Mrdici' Cobi"rrt 4 @ 26 x 1 ? E 11irr.._
No. ond rvor ol Eorh Accrrro,rr oaL nn.eecnr{ e. Elvonrty ffiHI TINGT E Fo'crd Air E Oovir, e Hor W6111
Holr oad Modcl ol Furaocr
Typr cf tu.,
;- 3irr
E rhourt Fonr: Nt,,nb' & L*o rrt!
-!-.?-.,t..
-
. -
AFI Condurr Q Noh.Morollic OOd,.tFrrtwrr: Alloroncr f 3. OOO:Frrrrrcr: Alloroncr t 3.OOq _ FlChinoi El|
IXSULAIIOX: tlollr
Cr' ling
XARDIAIE: Tvce
Rccl
rALL IILt
^NO
FLOoR
llor n Borh: wollr.
Othrr Eorh; Wollr
x itch.n
-- snl a sh
Floc
Oh.t
BAltta!XT llNl3X: Drrcribo ia drfcil Iollr, Criling.rtco'j--3E
TlLt: Dr,rcribo Type -ond Arnoulr
-
lAz€cl / Sholder tk PlaElOrmploo,
SPECIAL EOUIPIEXT: Lrl orrJ drrgibe oll caplioacor ond oher oquigaear . See Schedul e
Rongo 6 O"ra
Dirhworhrr
Pr rpgtrr
6AiAG!: S,s. See Dlan e gricl $ Frooo Q Ohrr
Drrcrrbr rntrr ror frnilh,
r^LTt
^ND
DRIVET:
if ony
It{orrr 'ol
8rr f.r.
Fronr Woll:
5rrv rsi W6ll3;
OTXEN OT'SITE IMPROV El.ENTS:I Incrrlrcr,n, Typr
fl Clorhcr Po|rr ond Wirrr O F.,rc,n9 Dr!.Grrb.
PORCHES ANO TEnRACE: Frorr. Tye? tl S,rc _, Tvec tl S,rc
--
Qthrrl: Tygc 6 S,:c'- Piver-io at each lowei lfevEf-
varLes
Rror. Typr & S,:r
Th;clmrr I Reialcci
T'I5C EL L AXEOUS:
rtr grnrol tt.(rtrcalro^! ond tltnr rvbarnrd orc ogrrod ro br rhr frncl erhrbirr or o borir fot
ocd.
loon ogglicorion bt rho uadrr.
0. nrt turldl Doto
Or
}{o.r{
l{a..}{b0 (ttrrtrotlt .r{ F{oNotro.Jo.tn .C, . .F{ Fl Fl,lJ U '-{ U qt q)ou.,r.odEEtr(tB-rEOqF{tU;O-06.r{6qEq{OF{CCF{'OEO
6 .O O. O $XFrCt{O>XFl'{F,r r-{ at iuh qr . ..{ o tU oQ- \/ X EO l't !, q 'r{a ; € J-r t o, ql d E l.l- c . Ja oo t tu h x p
6.h.iulrooh'-lXE o.c 6 (t) X cQ a o O ql Q'
rl .r{ F{O rJQ, O, 'dE oo r, rd <t-r o tu :. E ! t'r ! q X;tr tr i ortr o E x ol o o o gtn tuc!; ; o ta ij o Oo, cl o u Eo t,g. l. d 6 ; l'r u dl 3 q'l X ''t '-r td- a O old b0> o0 .C ql .Cl ql o F o0 FlXaJ ..{ l-{ 6 | oF{ lJl . ."{ | ql
arx X Al J 4 C ..{ (Ill I& .{l !r -.d r',r, o o EIE €..r E Uu }{t . tl (d >lF 6dri u 5l tr cU ai cql q,l 3 ol '{ 6lq) F{.i qt
'-r I o d d o .'r '-{ >l ol t+r hl(, rr|
F{ F{ Ol(r1 o o N t+{ C) 31 (Jl
oF{ o o o 6 6uat u uoo ur, I !r9 r, u u tJ lJ lJ {J(d5 (ll 6tr qrqr (d dd ql (d ql E {{ {da 6 6; oO 6 6O o o o o oo oo t{ (J ()1, o o o o o o o u c, o o o€G
^OC{ O F{ r{ Fl F{ e{ N r{ Fl C{ Fl ri N F{N (\l
rz tl \r' ./ P \./ v \./ \-/ v v \/ \-/ " v v\r' \r
.1
!ilFc.r{ at,
F.OogG$.(r, Fo.eh! .-{0,00l{.'o.tr-tsEqt 'rr 'r{O'-{^J-trJ.rr.n..otsF{qrOFlq,6qJEqt00OB
=dutrq=!l{..O.,{!!€loh|o>,€9tr(/lFhOF.'lO:.altibb=-b€rnB3'-{o6OoOOF.'{9d E h t 6 N o h h tr.. q oO O 'r. O O O Oo fr
E E 'Fl O O E F{ ''{ .r{ 'r{ ! O1 3 F o ; d rt k l. trd ':1 oot" o o o > o o' o tlr o oO O rJ 'li tH F{ Jd u ! r{ t+{ (U hx x tr -6 .r.r (! G X x xs q (!(J (9 F.l O rcl (J O trl kt ld(n a (J
tdJ
EI
()
U)
Fiz
F{
Eookul+r tr
tr (ttOAoot.c o0O 1..
OA
li(llOr,r{ l,O.'.{()g.
t{(Jz
IrJ
H
td
Xt-l
Fl
F"PE rrrlolnlJ \OVqdOArcO(4chOzu:c(U0o! q)-opr
FI.{.
=N r{<O rrtAcO >
ooF(o€F)oo/.8o!q)oQ,oolrE
r.|oJOo+Joo
h.oo .Q'uplJ6
=o).oB
.plrooq,s,c{\!FrC
(d
o
t{
L. .r{oqtou!q)o€F{oooEAo
0)tr.5q!o
rJ3, .h
o}1q)
'-c(,)l,
rJ(!u0)93,o !.qt
Fq)o..c
(\t 'It\\E
F{O
ihos o\!rJ odlJ.O(tlo.Eo ooH 'i
l-.| 0'l'. Fuo @trE d
' 'r{ !' Eo ruo! o.o ',orJ}trPhtu! O r-l
O t-{ Fl. !p F{
FflrAo"qrQ.l.t .Fl OIJ F{\. oo
Ff O .9'!rJft .F{ . .'-.ter lr B' ou|J oC t+lcrEt$oPo)
t{.F{
O Fr Fl F.l OO 0)qt '-{ Fi F{ ! tJ Fl> a A ) €(,) bt,..t A. 0" 0{ Ftd trh ql '-r .r1
Pr d (\ erl !E O. A
l.oOt)rc ql
1Jr,
F{ q)oos(,'>loolrqts!, .r{
l{,vo(tlvo.oo
6lJl,o {-r uAlJ a a.! ! ,o€5q)A . .FQ'l. lro. or)FO oOO N N O'u \. \.t(rl O Fl r{(J
Fi lr Fi rrootrr-r -C . .q,9rJlJ.<It O O!uo o (,loo! .llooo. 00 00k.o d (rl oF O (,' Or'lJO <h .n ahtr3 (U dqtfrJ o pr AE
rl O r-{p'o
.E ^ErJ6 r' qlo.n o .Fro att. .oc. o . o.6l'. O t{ O .'{.r, o rJoutrB CB(0fr- t, El(,'le
!€E!€€€€€oooooooooooooooooo333333333
\t
(tl
!-l
x
€!oooo33
rEl()
@
(n
x
€
I\o
x
.$\t\t@@@$\. \. \. \. \. \. \-
c.'t (v) crl (vl (n c.) (''l
H
x
F{
X
Fl
x
d
x
Fl
x
Fl
x
Fl
x
co6@@@rtttl\O \O \O \O \O
ooooootttlllN (r) .il ln f.f Fl
r\ 0O O\ O l..l
r{ Fl
@@@ltl\O \O \Oxxx
6O\olt!NNN
.S .S\- \.(n (.)
Fl F{xx
co@ll\O \Oxx
o@tl(nC\l
\o
o
o)l,oz
!
d
ol{qt
3!l{6
F{o
Fol,qlE
oo
>\F
q)
N.r{
v)
l{
o)
E
z
()zrdAt-{(A
&
xtdJAD-C F-Aornl-, \oZ (de{ lr]Opr € '-]ti5ao ozu rd:E$O ;EOT', () C)FtO v)
9rrl F.l &f c.r.r{ o<oo oo.@ > a
OO
J
d-roo
!
t)
$
ts
,t\
Joal
A
st
T*
*$N-4.
6
troo.€,8
utq, .rlFtrO ..1o t+{ -Co
! 6.l .,{.',t r{ trF{ \O ..1
O tllglcuEoc. )oO Fld.l t{r, 6cao(,lp oo}{ .-1 5! FUtlt . O 'r'ltr d0 0uoc 6O.'.1 I <tt<>-,d = trF.t O .'.1o. 0)I J bt, orn d (0t,
O FllJ
= E'c€ o'o(d q, .u).rr lr !€ orol.t{€ o.o Oql 6cl5 ql o o c.l(9 {J\: Et rl.r{OU'O lr O lr rltrlr3o."{ oo6Jl O! >A (tt -O .,{o oo,o o 00(J-o€udoo o!F{}.(,)UlF{ h0 qt -{6= tr O-1!c{-r do\ G o.cFr O, t, ooo|!r$l O o oO TJFo x! o o! F{t,O:o1J: \o||!<F{ | O O
= \.r.t F o0o\..oJa q,o(')AOrt{F{ (,)
>rOF{-{ 6FP<<p.
;;lrl qt .o o€ q)
F \./ \/ \-/ \-/voz
(
!q,
a
IJIo(,
tdJDofd
v)
&oI
ffimXlm,itW
r.1
(Jz|' loH(n
14fr
X
J
=
zo
t-.v)z-ot1
J)
Pr
PAIJL JoHNrro, o,t}'EsrDENcE Oo
802 Potato Patch
Vall, CO 81657
I"IINDSI SCHEDLJLE: PozzL Nordic
TALOGLETTERNIJMBER xH)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
o
P
a
R
S
T
U
V
w
i 1H08
1xrd60
2)$40
PW434
40L6-2r
40t6-t2
4020-13
1)C^I4O
5W28
AXI^I28
1)C^t60
3Xt,I40
4w48
4w28
Casement
Flxed
Casement
Casement
Picture
Awnlng
Trap
Awning
Trap
Trap
Trap
Plcture
Plcture
Awnlng
Casement
' Casement
Casement
Casement
Casement
Trap
Casement
Casement
Trap
2-o\'x 4-5+
3-ot x 3-61
2-4\ x 5-5\
4-8\ x 3-9\
4-4\ x 3-9\
7-4\ x t'9\
7-4\ x varles
3-st x 3-5t
l-8! x var'lles
2-1O x varles
8-OL x varles
8-ot x 5-1t
6-4\ x 6-I\
3-81 x 6-1t
2-4\ x 3-9\
1o-ot x 2-9\
9-4\ x 2a9\
2-4\ x 5-5\
t-o\ x 3-9\
4-8 x varles
8-ot x 4-5t
8-o* x z:9\
4-9 x vartes
PAT'L JOHNSTONQiFX RESIDENCE ao
WINDOW SCHEDI.]LE: CONEINUCd
LETTER CATALOG
NTJMBER
TYPE R.O. [w x H)
AA
BB
cc
EE
DD
1W60
2820-tL
282A-2L
Trap
Flxed
Casement
Trap
Trap
Trap
Awnlng
Awnlng
Flxed
2-10 x varles
3-01 x s-6t
2-o\ x 5-54
S-9\ x varies
2-8\ x varies
5-44 x varies
2-8\ x 2-t\
5-4\ x 2-t\
7-6\ x 5-4\FF
NOTES:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(s)
Type FF window Ls Ll4 poL-plate slngle pane.
See detalls on sheet 8 for glazlng of skyllghts Unlt'rBtr.
All operables, as shown on elevatlons, to lnclude screens.
No exterior brlckmold to wlndows occurrlng ln syn. plasEer
wal1. A1so, janb extenslons.
A11 ext. glass lnsulattng.
J
Oj lo
JOHNSTON DT'PLEK RESIDENCE
PLI'MBING FIXTT'RE SCHEDTJLE:
A lavatory: ELJer 051-3328, Donna, col-or #82,natural w/Delta #522, chrome faucet
set.
B tlater Ctoset: ElJer 081-0315, Silette, color #82,natural .
C Bach Tub: ElJer O72-LL25, Samoa cast lron,color #82, natural w/Delta #1636
chrome bach val-ve set.
D Shower Stall: All Etle encloeures w/Delta #t6lz
chrome baEh valve set.
E Kltchen Slnk: ELkay Lustertone LCCR-3232 stalnlesssteel w/Delta #174 chrome faucet set
and one sEralner basket.
F tJater HeaEer: Rheemglass Imperlal Electrtc Energy
Mleer #769, 80 gallon.
G Sunken Tub: Kohler, The Bath, K-14OO, 7r x 5tf,color, Parchnent w/DelCa mounE set.
H Kltchen Slnk: ElJer 212-1089, Dumount, color:
Aliond w/ueLta'#174 chrorne faucet,
set and one stralner basket.
I Bar Slnk: Braes 12" x 15rr w/brass goose neck
faucet set.
J Dlsposal: tJaste Ktng Untversal #4000.
K l{asher: No-drtp water and waete hook-up.
L Ice l'laker: Provlde C.W. ltne and valve to tce
naker hook-uP. ' '.'F '
"'r : '
M hlater Heacer: Rheemglass ImperlaL ElecCrtc #576,
66 gallon.
Oj
JOHNSTON DT'PLEK RESIDENCE
APPLIA}ICE SCHEDTJLE:
oo
SEove Top B:
Double Wall Oven: Jenn-Alre Model 3600 ESC.
Stove Top A:
Refrlgerator A:
Refrlgerator B:
Dlshwasher:
Compactor:
Jenn-Alre Sertee 33OO #88353,
convertlble. ftso gr111s; three
cooktops.
Jenn-Alre Serles 24OO #88890,
convertlble.
Tappan 95-2494
Tappan 95-2287
Kltchen ALde Superba KDS-19
Kltchen Aide t8r' KCS-IOO-C
aoeo
olro!o
F{
r+{
F.{ lr.r{ 0)3 o1to
trG r-{
.f{xo.toEo.o!r,
0)oEU),
Eo.Jotrtd 'r{KE.)=
o(\l
tr.rr So, r,
F{ .r{
5'-rlJ ."{.Fl O3o
00tE,<.,{ 0)€ .'{
OtHO .r.lUlh
qlxo!m
oq).o!
t{hooO.AFItrtrg.rl .FIF{J O O Ot-.1 F{ qt F{ r{ F{ r{qt(l!qtF{F.lF{()(Jrrqldql- 00 o0 0t)::NN N r.1 @rn tn N
toot!ooqr(!FoPJAF{qt9f{F."{F{()BO.O.A.,{tr.na9ttro.yEoouorooor,o.rr)adrr,-.Ul O F{ '-{ Ft O .'a
F.l FJ
ri.Fl$rl 35.c .. ,c(,)u1 ONtroo0, E.r.l .O q,rJhqro o0urJo-co00 0
O .J .r{>u F.. Od .r{c/) & & flr
frJ
E-.oZ F{ Gl
1..
(0
d
t-{
.Fl
!l
ot,oA
(!.n .A
Ori€o.r{ l}.lO ..{
F{ +,)|AOthe)trdoo0(u(l,l{tro0o0
F..)aU)anA0r7AF.{ r-{ O (daaooo.a.uoOO.r{r{0rA.FrA
o
N
u)
0,
qtz
FoF
Eo
C)
o
E(Uz
r-{ql
o
.F{
(d
Uola
XtJ)Jtdi.,J..)! r- 3;f Urn Ou \O ltlVQ?1 EOg.@ QF{a(.rJozu t{:E(t'O AO+J ()no ()
O< 't (,
JFlA>c!. 2<o opr@ > Fi
DATE 6-/1 )JOB NAME
MON TUESREADY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:
INSPECTION REQUEST
WED THUR FRI
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
E UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH /WATER
O FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
- ROOF & SHEER" PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
ELECTRIGAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ISAPPROVED REINSPECTION REQUIREDtr APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
INSPECTOR